Premium Channels

[ShaneLinder]

Perhaps Sky Angel could actually make money by selling a premium package - something like DISH Family.

If they could get financing for their own satellite and get it up, with their license for 8 transponders, they could add a number of religious channels to their base service, continue to charge $15 or increase that to $20 and offer 20 "family-friendly"premium channels for an additional $20. Wouldn't they be able to actually make money that way and pay for the financing of their own satellite?

 

[Mr Tony]

Sure they can get the satellite up if they had the money to build one. Then there is the issue of the receivers. Since the contract between Dish & SA would be done Dish could say "well, we're turning off all the boxes that don't have Dish Service" and then SA would need to figure out what recievers the customers could use.

 

[ShaneLinder]

I don't know what their financial situation is now. If the company is in a shambles there is perhaps no one that would finance a $150 million satellite. However if they have been handling their cash flow well and all their books are in order, they could possibly get a satellite financed if they had a business plan supported by market research that showed they would be able to pay off. I am not so much talking about a loan, but about selling preferred stock (which does not have voting rights - thus could be sold to non-Christian investors).

I think that switching the receivers is inevitable unless SA goes bankrupt first. DISH and SA are bound to part ways. I am not sure how SA will handle it with their subscribers but it almost seems unavoidable.

 

[GeorgeLV]

Are there even 20 consensus (to the Sky Angel demographic) "family friendly" secular channels around?

Would something like the Discovery channels go over with their typical pro-evolution presentation of science and natural history?

As an aside, I'd hope that show with Kirk Cameron, Way of the Master, has pulled the "Banana: Evolution's Nightmare" episode out of the rotation. It's something of a internet comedy sensation as the native banana is hardly intelligently designed for human consumption. (It's difficult to peel, has large seeds, and isn't tasty.) The grocery store banana they presented is an example of genetic engineering and cloning and is a textbook example of evolution through artificial selection.

 

[ShaneLinder]

I certainly don't want to get into an evolution debate on a satellite forum other than to say that people on both sides of the issue need to learn to treat each other a little better and not talk down to or about each other. There are very intelligent people that believe both ways.

Aside from that comment, there are some poorly done and some misleading programs that have been done by creationists. It would be better for the cause of creationism not to have these misleading videos out there. There are a few that are well done and accurate. There are also discussions and debates between creationists and evolutionists that are good too.

I am very much a creationist and would not be offended by Discovery or Animal Planet. There is an animal program on KTV that makes reference to "millions of years" and other evolutionary concepts.

 

[ShaneLinder]

There is probably a better mix of channels for SA customers than DISH Family. However it is a starting point to generate some ideas.

BIOGRAPHY
BLOOMBERG TELEVISION
C-SPAN
C-SPAN2
HEADLINE NEWS NETWORK
NASA
RFDTV
WEATHER CHANNEL, THE
NICKELODEON/NICK AT NITE (WEST)
NICKELODEON/NICK AT NIGHT (EAST)
NICKELODEON GAMES & SPORTS
NICK TOONS
COLLEGE SPORTS TELEVISION
OUTDOOR CHANNEL, THE
ANIMAL PLANET
DISCOVERY KIDS
DISCOVERY TIMES CHANNEL
DO IT YOURSELF
FINE LIVING
FOOD NETWORK
THE SCIENCE CHANNEL
CD-KID TUNES
GREAT AMERICAN COUNTRY
ANGEL ONE
DAYSTAR
ETERNAL WORD TELEVISION NETWORK
HSN
QVC
SHOPNBC
BYUTV
COLOURS TV

 

[andrews777]

Engineering something, whether it is a banana or "family friendly programming" shows guidance from somewhere rather than a random process. I would hate to see the programming we would get if we randomly chose satellite channels for a package.

Brad

 

[MellowYBird]

I'd be willing to pay more just to have all, totally (commercials included), family-friendly and Christ-centered programming. It's not about what's on, so much as how it's presented. Basically with class or without class. (Which is usually with clothes or without clothes, without profanity or with profanity etc...) A lot of DishFamily channels have "swimsuit" commercials and "private" dysfunctional commercials. I find them both tasteless and unnecessary.

I've always heard that we cannot just pick and choose a channel or channels we want because it would be way too expensive. How expensive is it? If I want, say 5, 2 or even 1 channel, shouldn't it be up to me if I want to pay certain amount for just those few even if I could pay less, probably at least half, for say 30, 40, 50 or even 100 channels?

~MYB~

 

[GeorgeLV]

Some other quailty channels outside of the Dish Family lineup to consider are:

PBS Kids Sprout
TLC
National Geographic
History Channel
Discovery Home
Disney Channel
TV Land
most any sports channel

In any case, I think it's more realistic to lobby for a-la-carte channel choice that let's you choose your own family friendly programming from any commercial provider than what would be involved for SkyAngel to be in position to offer a competitive secular family package.

 

[andrews777]

History channel has had its "History of Sex" and other such shows.

TV Land is getting a little more edgy as time goes on as well....

I still like most of the ones you listed, but I think they could alienate the hard core people while not quite drawing new customers.

Brad

 

[GeorgeLV]

History channel has had its "History of Sex" and other such shows.

TV Land is getting a little more edgy as time goes on as well....

I still like most of the ones you listed, but I think they could alienate the hard core people while not quite drawing new customers.

Brad

And that's is why a-la-carte is the way to go. Every family has different beliefs and values and they probably don't want to pay for things they aren't interested in bringing into their homes.

 

[ShaneLinder]

From what I understand, many cable companies are willing to offer "a la carte" but many of the big media channels like Disney and Fox will not permit them to. A report by the Government Accountability Office concluded that cable a la carte isn't worth the trouble and will actually increase rates for some consumers.

If S/A had their own bird, they could offer two tiers of premium channels too. One with only a few secular channels for and extra $5 and the other with more secular "family-friendly" channels for $20 more.

 

[MellowYBird]

I agree with GeorgLV. Not every family or person enjoys the same type of entertainment or information.

I still don't see why "a la carte" cannot be a choice. It should be up to the consumer if they want to pay more. Not the "media". Could it be that they are just worried more people than they're letting us to believe just might not enjoy some of the immoral programming that they bring into our homes? I don't see what it would hurt to try it. If we have to pay more they'll still get their money.
How much can it be for one channel? Every "package" I've seen would average way less than $1.00 a channel. So charge us double or triple. They would actually make money, wouldn't they? It doesn't seem like it's about the money. It seems they're afraid that they won't be able to stick their "trash" into the homes that don't want to see it. (No offense to those who may enjoy it.) People who want to see it would still be able to watch it in their homes.
Even if I am the only one in the world that might not want to see it, shouldn't I at least have that choice instead of it being forced upon me and my family? I'm sure I am in the minority, but it should be my choice. Charge me more, I'd pay.

~MYB~

 

[andrews777]

The channel provider usually bans a-la-carte pricing. Many people would love it, but groups that own many channels ofter require rebroadcasters (like cable and satellite companies) to carry all or none of their channels. In this case, neither Dish or SkyAngel are likely affecting any single channel for a single viewer. Their contract with the channel owner likely impacts their flexibility.

Brad

 

[lumpkin666]

One reason that the content providers want to package their channels together (instead of a-la-carting the good ones) is because they can stuff and additional 3-4 channels down the throats of the distributors and then claim, for each of the channels, that the channel reaches x gazillion subscribers. The number of subscribers that a channel reaches affects the amount they can charge for advertising (to some degree, anyhow).

 

[Mr Tony]

One reason that the content providers want to package their channels together (instead of a-la-carting the good ones) is because they can stuff and additional 3-4 channels down the throats of the distributors and then claim, for each of the channels, that the channel reaches x gazillion subscribers. The number of subscribers that a channel reaches affects the amount they can charge for advertising (to some degree, anyhow).

exactly. Thats why Dish has had channels pulled when it came time to renew channel agreements. When Lifetime was renewed, they wanted Lifetime Movie Network (or as I call it the wifebeater network...if you've seen the channel you know what I mean) in a lower package so they could say they have X million subs of it instead of 1/2 of that.