Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

DISH just dropped TCM and other Turner channels!


Recommended Posts

So you are saying if someone wants all 200 channels they will be forced to pay $2000 a month? This is a scare tactic used by the cable industry to keep the same duopoly system.

 

If we ever get to a competitive market then some channels will probably offer free viewing so you can see if anything is worth paying for. Canada is trying to move to this system, they saw the light at the end of the tunnel already.

 

Most channels that run infomercials will be dropped, they need 24 hour quality programming like TCM has. We would have much better channels and better programming with competition.

 

There is a lot more competition today there there ever has been as it relates to the type of service providers;  cable, satellite, and streaming while cost have gone up,  not down.  

 

With direct streaming a content provider (what we know now as a channel) will no long require a service provider as the middle man.   This might lead to some reduction in cost but one will have to have a contract with each of these content providers.    Content providers with unique content (e.g. NFL games),  will be able to charge a mint in this type of model.   So I don't see much cost saving for those consumers that want that type of programming.

 

Yea,  a content provider like TCM should be very cheap since leasing their content (old movies) generally isn't expensive but due to the lack of demand (number of consumers under contract),   the cost per consumer will depend on the number of consumers.  So TCM may be more expensive than one would think.      This is econ-101. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't say that at all. People who want everything will continue to subscribe to a bundled package and get the bundled price.

 

It's people who insist on getting only the ones they want who will pay a whole lot more for those at an "each" price point. The savings (if there are any) will be very small.

 

 It's pretty scary if you think someone in this country would pay the same amount for 10 channels as they do for 200. That is not a change to competition. Bundling would have to be completely eliminated to prevent this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Bundling would have to be completely eliminated to prevent this.

 

Not gonna happen. Bundling is here to stay.

 

Do you actually believe that cable and satellite companies are gonna program your specific receiver your specific way - doing that for every individual customer - and not charge for that?

 

And that's not even getting into the prices that the most popular content sources will begin to charge.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a lot more competition today there there ever has been as it relates to the type of service providers;  cable, satellite, and streaming while cost have gone up,  not down.  

 

With direct streaming a content provider (what we know now as a channel) will no long require a service provider as the middle man.   This might lead to some reduction in cost but one will have to have a contract with each of these content providers.    Content providers with unique content (e.g. NFL games),  will be able to charge a mint in this type of model.   So I don't see much cost saving for those consumers that want that type of programming.

 

Yea,  a content provider like TCM should be very cheap since leasing their content (old movies) generally isn't expensive but due to the lack of demand (number of consumers under contract),   the cost per consumer will depend on the number of consumers.  So TCM may be more expensive than one would think.      This is econ-101. 

 

All of the sports leagues are getting to ride the cable piggyback too, so they would have to accept less. Right now i don't watch the Thursday night NFL games and won't until they get them on an accessible network.

 

There are some poor people in this country and they should not be forced to subsidize the sports leagues if they don't watch sports. I can't believe you guys are actually defending how this system operates.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not gonna happen. Bundling is here to stay.

 

Do you actually believe that cable and satellite companies are gonna program your specific receiver your specific way - doing that for every individual customer - and not charge for that?

 

And that's not even getting into the prices that the most popular content sources will begin to charge.

 

Yes they will if they want the revenues. It is amazing what companies can do when forced with competition.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes they will if they want the revenues. It is amazing what companies can do when forced with competition.

Well, yes.......and no. I thought that things were going to be better when there were two cable companies in Westchester. I'm not counting DISH or Direct TV, I was never interested in them. Cablevision had the monopoly for YEARS! How do you think their owner bought the Knicks? Finally, both the politicians and Cablevision allowed FIOS to come in - the joke was on us, the consumer.

 

Things were better ---- for awhile. Then FIOS and Cablevision, obviously as a result of the directives in their kickbacks to the local politicians, began price fixing. You can't negotiate anymore, prices are outrageous, everything is bundled, and customer service - well you know. I repeat again the bon mot of our resident sage:   they're all liars and crooks.

 

Words to live by, actually. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I always thought that Amerika was meant to be related to fascism,

as that's how it is spelled in German. Whatever.

 

Sounds like somethin' THIS guy might have said in a certain 1946 release, Vautrin...

 

RayTeal-1946-TheBestYearsofOurLives.jpg

 

(...though in your case, I know you meant that facetiously) ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

All of the sports leagues are getting to ride the cable piggyback too, so they would have to accept less. Right now i don't watch the Thursday night NFL games and won't until they get them on an accessible network.

 

There are some poor people in this country and they should not be forced to subsidize the sports leagues if they don't watch sports. I can't believe you guys are actually defending how this system operates.

 

I'm not defending how the current system operates.   I'm just pointing out that your view on how it SHOULD operate isn't likely to happen because content providers like sport leagues will NOT be willing to 'accept less'.     (one current example is the Dodgers who have a fixed contract that have NO plans to void just to help Time Warner make deals with satellite and cable companies).     

 

Anyhow,  the fact that you don't have the NFL network (I don't either since I don't view the cost for that content 'worth it'),  is a great example of my points;

 

The cost of ala-cart services is often higher and those willing to pay lose out said content.

 

Again,  that isnt a defense of the system but just calling it as it is.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

With direct streaming a content provider (what we know now as a channel) will no long require a service provider as the middle man. 

 

 

The current system is that content provider uses their own equipment to send signal to cable company satellite and cable company distributes signal to customers.

 

Streaming requires content provider to upload to ISP and then customer downloads through their ISP. 

 

This means that currently the cable company is the only middle-man but under streaming there are two ISPs as middle-men.

 

ISPs often throttle streaming as method of blackmailing content providers into paying for bandwidth. That is one of the cores of current Net Neutrality controversy.

 

Streaming is far less efficient than signal delivery by cable. To transition from cable delivery to streaming as primary distribution method will require great investments in infrastructure to significantly increase bandwidth. Such costs must be passed to consumers.

 

If streaming replaces cable:

1) Content providers will have to pay ISPs for unrestricted bandwidth.

2) That cost must be passed to customers as part of subscription price.

3) Customers will have to pay more for higher speeds from their ISP.

 

It is not in any corporation's best interest to reduce overall cost to customer.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The current system is that content provider uses their own equipment to send signal to cable company satellite and cable company distributes signal to customers.

 

Streaming requires content provider to upload to ISP and then customer downloads through their ISP. 

 

This means that currently the cable company is the only middle-man but under streaming there are two ISPs as middle-men.

 

ISPs often throttle streaming as method of blackmailing content providers into paying for bandwidth. That is one of the cores of current Net Neutrality controversy.

 

Streaming is far less efficient than signal delivery by cable. To transition from cable delivery to streaming as primary distribution method will require great investments in infrastructure to significantly increase bandwidth. Such costs must be passed to consumers.

 

If streaming replaces cable:

1) Content providers will have to pay ISPs for unrestricted bandwidth.

2) That cost must be passed to customers as part of subscription price.

3) Customers will have to pay more for higher speeds from their ISP.

 

It is not in any corporation's best interest to reduce overall cost to customer.

 

I see you're point that the ISP is now the middle man.   I forgot about that,  but I should have known that a middle man (or two) always finds a sweet spot to made some money!

 

Either way,  it appears you agree with my overall point of 'be careful what you wish for' as it relates to the hope that alterative methods  of delivering content will lead to overall lower cost to customers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Either way,  it appears you agree with my overall point of 'be careful what you wish for' as it relates to the hope that alterative methods  of delivering content will lead to overall lower cost to customers.

 

I would not say that I agree with you but I believe our opinions are parallel in many respects.

 

I believe that if even the best possible method of content distribution became standard that the average consumer would see little difference in total costs.
 
I believe that those who do not watch sports would have lower bills because those channels are historically highest in cost.
 
I believe that those who watch great variety of sports would experience monumental rise in costs because their channels would no longer be subsidized.
 
I believe that only those who watch a few channels only would find great savings. Such would be the situation for some in this forum but I feel it would be rare in population at large.
 
We would want TCM, BBCAmerica, PBS, a news channel and two of the major networks. Some other channels are nice but I fear that they would not be worth their cost if unbundled.
Link to post
Share on other sites

If unbundling would cost consumers more then they would have unbundled already for the higher revenues. This has to be legislated and it may be soon. So, the "evidence" is it will save consumers money, and probably improve programming. Nobody is going to pay for infomercials.

 

Unfortunately if things stay the way they are in 4 years we may have to pay for 400 stations to get the 10 we want, lol.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If unbundling would cost consumers more then they would have unbundled already for the higher revenues. 

 

It would increase cost of content providers' operations. Current method allows content providers to bill only cable companies. To bill customers would require large staff to handle billing, complaints and collections. They would have to advertise to attract customers to their bundles. They would have to stage promotions to attract or retain customers. These additional costs would have to be passed to customers.

 

It would induce also risks. They would have to calculate precisely how many people would or would not subscribe to their content at specific price points. An error in such calculations could cost the content provider hundreds of millions of dollars.

 

Cable companies would have to invest significant amounts to upgrade their systems to allow individual customers to pick-and-chose content providers. The most common current method is placing filters in the box where the cable meets the house. These filters are for large sets of channels and require a physical visit by technician to install or remove. It would not be practical to have separate filters for each content provider because the box on the house so large as to accommodate all those needed would be nearly size of a shed. Cable companies would have to buy and place in each home a unit which can be individually addressed such as what satellite services use. These units cost several times what a standard cable box costs.

 

No company can remain in business if their costs escalate and they are not able to recoup those costs from customers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would increase cost of content providers' operations. Current method allows content providers to bill only cable companies. To bill customers would require large staff to handle billing, complaints and collections. They would have to advertise to attract customers to their bundles. They would have to stage promotions to attract or retain customers. These additional costs would have to be passed to customers.

 

It would induce also risks. They would have to calculate precisely how many people would or would not subscribe to their content at specific price points. An error in such calculations could cost the content provider hundreds of millions of dollars.

 

Cable companies would have to invest significant amounts to upgrade their systems to allow individual customers to pick-and-chose content providers. The most common current method is placing filters in the box where the cable meets the house. These filters are for large sets of channels and require a physical visit by technician to install or remove. It would not be practical to have separate filters for each content provider because the box on the house so large as to accommodate all those needed would be nearly size of a shed. Cable companies would have to buy and place in each home a unit which can be individually addressed such as what satellite services use. These units cost several times what a standard cable box costs.

 

No company can remain in business if their costs escalate and they are not able to recoup those costs from customers.

 

Yes the cable companies would have to push some new cost onto consumers, but they would use the same ways they have done it before by leasing the equipment.

 

Look you guys all want the system to stay how it is, and that is fine but you have to account for the loss of subscribers.

 

According to your theory the loss of subscribers means the companies should raise prices to make up the lost revenues too. No matter what happens the company should always raise prices. It will end someday.

 

Look if I was going to design a cable industry to make the fattest profits possible I would make it so all the channels have to be purchased even if they only want a couple. Surprise, that is what we have, lol.

 

Now someone said this is a capitalistic system, but it is not because they have a duopoly on the service. It is more of a take it or leave it service, you either pay the big money or don't get the channels you want period and sit home unhappy. This is like the pager industry was, it is only a matter of time before people shift to the first real competition to come along that is a better service.

 

i think that will happen soon.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Look you guys all want the system to stay how it is, and that is fine but you have to account for the loss of subscribers.

 

 

 

I do not wish the system to stay as it is. 

 

I see the reality that it is not possible to change current system unless prices rise for average consumer. 

 

I would benefit greatly from change because I am not average. It may be that my cable television bill would be reduced by sixty percent if I could abandon most channels. I believe that many in this forum would benefit also in this way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes the cable companies would have to push some new cost onto consumers, but they would use the same ways they have done it before by leasing the equipment.

 

Look you guys all want the system to stay how it is, and that is fine but you have to account for the loss of subscribers.

 

According to your theory the loss of subscribers means the companies should raise prices to make up the lost revenues too. No matter what happens the company should always raise prices. It will end someday.

 

Look if I was going to design a cable industry to make the fattest profits possible I would make it so all the channels have to be purchased even if they only want a couple. Surprise, that is what we have, lol.

 

Now someone said this is a capitalistic system, but it is not because they have a duopoly on the service. It is more of a take it or leave it service, you either pay the big money or don't get the channels you want period and sit home unhappy. This is like the pager industry was, it is only a matter of time before people shift to the first real competition to come along that is a better service.

 

i think that will happen soon.

i think that will happen soon.

 

I hope it happens soon. I would love to see Cablevision and FIOS go bankrupt. Or, at the very least, treat their customers as if they were important and not like so much offal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just signed up with DirecTV to get TCM HD.  I will soon be informing Dish that I am cancelling & why.

 

Well now DISH does have TCM and it is DirecTV that may be dropping TCM and other Turner channels when they have their contact talks and Turner raises their prices. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

We have an update (but no deeper information) for everyone:

 

Great News DISH customers: Your Turner channels are back. And TNT and TBS will stay on the air, too.

I just checked the program guide on our Dish receiver:  it lists TCM but not TCM HD.  That's not good enough.

Link to post
Share on other sites

TCM HD Channel 9523 is back along with 132 on Dish. Thanks CBS for coming to the rescue. 

After a tedious chat with Dish, I restored my $85 package to get TCM HD again.  I cancelled DirecTV.  Their website fudged my application last night, anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...