BBC World News TV Channel

[DishSubLA]

Those who watch news all the time are likely missing out on their own lives. Stay informed on what you can change and work hard to make it better.

-- harshness

And posting such sophomoric dribble is how you choose to spend your, presumably, valuable time? Or are you not missing out on your own life by posting such derogatory aphorisms designed to make the one espousing it feel superior that is really a cry for help with low self-esteem issues.

Please, if you don't want to participate in this discussion in a mature manner with the intent of adding something of substance and relevance that may truly help people, then please take some time from your obviously vacant schedule and go out and play and remember study hard while you still can because when you grow up there won't be time for such silly posts, so that you can "change" the world " and "work hard to make it better."

We appreciate your earnest attempts at mixing with the adults. All adolescents should be applauded for taking part in some activity other then the common vapid exploits of most teenagers, but for now, you'd best spend your time planning for your Junior High School's Sadie Hawkins Dance.

 

[pendragon]

We're long time Dish Network subscribers, but missing channels like BBC World News and marginal HD picture quality convinced us to add Shaw Direct (Canada) last year. For the moment we're sticking with both providers, but if we had to choose one, it wouldn't be Dish. The fees for BBC World News must not be too extravagant, because it costs us a whopping $1 per month to add that channel.

 

[dukiebluedoc]

Long term Dish subscriber here, would really like to have BBC World News and Al Jazeera English added as a la carte offerings.
Caroline

 

[navychop]

I'd pay a couple bucks extra a month for BBC World News.

 

[Tampa8]

We're long time Dish Network subscribers, but missing channels like BBC World News and marginal HD picture quality convinced us to add Shaw Direct (Canada) last year. For the moment we're sticking with both providers, but if we had to choose one, it wouldn't be Dish. The fees for BBC World News must not be too extravagant, because it costs us a whopping $1 per month to add that channel.

You can't compare the cost of something from another country and decide it should cost near the same in the US. GM for instance sells virtually the same cars, minus some safety equipment for literally thousands less in equivalent US dollars in South America. BBC America may well demand certain things in the US that it does not in Canada. They may not allow it to be sold separately, they may demand more money, etc.....Even the agreement between providers can be different. Just because they write to someone that they regret it is not available on Dish or Direct, doesn't mean the reason isn't because BBC is playing hardball.

 

[pendragon]

All I said was it adds a buck a month in Canada, not that everything should cost the same everywhere. Draw your own conclusions or none at all.

I will suggest that Dish Network has a habit of avoiding most forms of a la carte choice for channels. To some extent I understand their business model, but I do still feel cheated paying for hundreds of channels when there are only a few we occasionally watch. Some of the more egregious examples have been Dish's international packages. I don't pay attention anymore, but one typically had to drop $20-40 per month for a meager handful of channels, sometimes just a couple. A number of these are supported by their various governments and freely available (FTA). Of course DN incurs costs carrying these, even in the cases where there are limited or no licensing fees. But it still comes across as arrogance when it is apparent other providers are able to economically supply a la carte channels at reasonable prices to their customers.

I'm not rushing to dump DN, but in our case the value of their service has consistently eroded over the time we've been with them. For those of you that are delighted with Dish's service, you can thank suckers like me who keep paying to keep your channel counts up and prices at levels you can tolerate.

 

[whatchel1]

I would really be nice to have the BBC World Service and E* must have some type of relationship with them as the carry BBC AR as well as BBC America. Who distributes BBC here is it Discovery? Maybe that is where the bottleneck is?

 

[faceface2012]

I'd pay a couple bucks extra a month for BBC World News.

I would pay extra money for bbc news too.

 

[Tampa8]

All I said was it adds a buck a month in Canada, not that everything should cost the same everywhere. Draw your own conclusions or none at all.

I will suggest that Dish Network has a habit of avoiding most forms of a la carte choice for channels. To some extent I understand their business model, but I do still feel cheated paying for hundreds of channels when there are only a few we occasionally watch. Some of the more egregious examples have been Dish's international packages. I don't pay attention anymore, but one typically had to drop $20-40 per month for a meager handful of channels, sometimes just a couple. A number of these are supported by their various governments and freely available (FTA). Of course DN incurs costs carrying these, even in the cases where there are limited or no licensing fees. But it still comes across as arrogance when it is apparent other providers are able to economically supply a la carte channels at reasonable prices to their customers.

I'm not rushing to dump DN, but in our case the value of their service has consistently eroded over the time we've been with them. For those of you that are delighted with Dish's service, you can thank suckers like me who keep paying to keep your channel counts up and prices at levels you can tolerate.

It was "The fees for BBC World News must not be too extravagant, because it costs us a whopping $1 per month to add that channel" that prompted my reply. My point is, and since this thread is about Dishnetwork in the US, that not extravagant - $1 cost may not be true here. Further, you are wrongly assuming Dish makes the rules about A la Carte. Much (not all) of the choices in a package is determined by the content owner, not Dish or Direct. I would argue Dish has done an excellent job of getting some of the more wanted channels into the lower packages, especially looking at what cable in my areas offer in their lower packages. They were one of the first if not the first to put Fox News into at the time their second lowest package, and have some channels such as FX in lower packs than some other providers do or did.

I don't have enough information to know about the international packs. It is possible since they have more than anyone they can charge more. But it also may be their cost to carry them are very high. Ironically, I added Euronews, which Dish does offer A La Carte. The $3 charge is not unreasonable, but I would not want to pay that and higher for each channel I want...

 

[pendragon]

Tampa8 - you're welcome to extrapolate my comments far beyond anything I wrote or implied. I really don't care. The fact remains that Dish's strategy is to have a simplified set of packages, rather than anything resembling a la carte. Their economies of billing and authorizing receivers are presumably quite substantial.

I rather doubt the programming providers completely dictate to Dish how their tiers and packages are set up. That's not only ludicrous but contradicted by glimpses we get into the negotiation processes. More likely the providers offer Dish very low costs per subscriber if their channel(s) are included in a particular tier or package, versus a very high cost per subscriber if they are offered in a lower volume package or a la carte. In the end both Dish and the providers reap the benefits.

For those who watch hundreds of channels, this is an ideal outcome. For the rest of us, and we may be in the majority, this drives our subscription costs to absurd levels for the meager set of channels we desire. It also makes it unlikely that specialty channels, like BBC World News and Al Jazeera, will ever show up as options. It's hardly surprising that in a slow economy and with Internet options heating up, considerable numbers of customers are leaving the cable and satellite companies.

I'm inclined to believe that unless Dish and DirecTV adapt by giving consumers more flexible choices, and require them to pay installation and hardware costs, people will switch in droves to alternatives like the Internet, where they will only have to pay nominal amounts for what they actually watch. With fewer subscribers, DBS subscription costs could skyrocket.

 

[TravelFan1]

GM for instance sells virtually the same cars, minus some safety equipment for literally thousands less in equivalent US dollars in South America.

Not to get too much out of the context, but what's your source? I know for a fact that in Brazil, cars are +- double what they cost here in the US - I have some Brazilian friends and that's something that they always bring to my attention. For instance, the Chevy Malibu there is a 50k+ car.

 

[FitzAusTex]

I want BBC World News and Al Jazeera English, too.

 

[shneor]

It would be great if Dish offered an international news package including CNN International, BBC World Service, Deutsche Welle, Russia Today and Al Jazeera English. I've been watching a lot of Al Jazeera streamed via my Roku box, and occasionally CCTV9 (Dish channel 265) for news. Dan Rather's program on HDNET sometimes has news topics. Otherwise, Link TV has a half hour (at least) of Al Jazzera (lately, lots more), and their own Mosaic mostly translated TV news broadcasts from the Middle East.

 

[lacruz]

If Verizon FIOS can have the BBC World News Channel here in the US, then there's no reason why Dish can't offer the channel. That "PBS/Discovery holding the rights to BBC News in the US" argument doesn't hold water anymore, since Verizon FIOS has the channel here on cable throughout the US.

 

[whatchel1]

If Verizon FIOS can have the BBC World News Channel here in the US, then there's no reason why Dish can't offer the channel. That "PBS/Discovery holding the rights to BBC News in the US" argument doesn't hold water anymore, since Verizon FIOS has the channel here on cable throughout the US.

It doesn't really hold water too well anymore. BBC Am runs it for several hrs during the day too.

 

[Powderhound]

The availability of a 24x7 news channel that is primarily not supported by advertising is so important to me that I am willing to switch providers to get it. The BBC World channel is not perfect, but the quality and independence of its reporting is far superior to any network news in the US.

I will be switching from Dish to whichever carrier supports the channel in my area, as soon as one does...

 

[Tampa8]

 

[bill42]

I get my news from channel surfing because the "reporting" is not the news but bias editorials. Going to different stations smooths out the bias. Can't say I would watch it for a long time as that would interfere with newspapers and magazines for a more in depth analysis. Keeping informed requires multiple sources.

 

[costanzas_wallet]

I've been able to stream Al Jazeera English via my Logitech Revue. The channel has been optimized for Google TV and has great picture quality. It's one of my favorite aspects of GTV at this point.

Of note.. Free Speech TV on 9415 airs Al Jazeera English from 9-10am, and for those of you dare tread into the uber Liberal Media realm, Democracy Now also runs from 8-9.

 

[whatchel1]

Here is a major reason I want BBC World News Channel. I will be losing my 1 hr version of the news on BBC America at night. This is a quote from BBA about what is happening.

"On March 28th, viewers in the U.S. will be able to see our nightly news program BBC World News America in a new place, time, and format. For the last three and a half years, we have aired as an hour-long program each weekday at 7pm on the BBC America and BBC World News channels. From March 28th, a new 30 minute BBC World News America will be made available to public television stations across the country. Because each of these stations determines its own program schedule, air times will vary from city to city; viewers will need to check their local listings or the website of their public (PBS) station. BBC World News America will no longer appear on the BBC America channel, but WILL continue on the BBC World News channel.

This shift is happening for several reasons. First, the BBC is making an effort to establish two strong and distinct channels in the U.S. market. BBC America will have more of an entertainment focus going forward, while BBC World News is a global 24 hour news channel. At the moment, BBC World News is not as widely available as BBC America, and we hope that viewers who value our smart and impartial international coverage will contact their cable or satellite provider to ask that BBC World News be added to their channel lineup. At the same time, we have a valuable, long-standing relationship with public television in America, and we want to make our very best work available to the maximum number of American viewers via that path as well.

Our approach to the news will not change; we will still try every day to bring viewers the best of BBC journalism from all around the world, and to 'connect the dots' from America to the wider world. Whether it's the global economy, the ongoing turmoil in the Middle East, Japan's earthquake crisis, the environment, or the arts, what happens 'out there' matters more and more here in America, and we'll be there to cover it. Matt Frei and Katty Kay will continue to anchor the program from Washington, and our crack production team will continue to open a window to the world each and every weekday. We hope you'll make the effort to continue watching BBC World News America, either on your local public television station or on BBC World New."

That will be half the length of the present newscast. I'm not even sure my local PBS will be carrying it. They only carry BBC News at 11:30 p.m. and not every night.