Search results for query: *

I think what you're missing is the process of elimination. If you aren't sure whether D* stands for Dish or DirecTV - but then you find E* simple to figure out as Dish, then D* must then be for DirecTV. ;)

I think they're beyond the point of eliminating fees - they need every bit of revenue they can muster to stay afloat as long as possible. That's something they should have done when D* was more vulnerable. I'd wager they drop well in excess of 500,000 subs this year and will be prime for a sale...

You're correct, they never ended up actually counting the NFL ST, etc. channels in any official HD channel count. That was something they said immediately following the claim they'd have 100 HD channels by the end of 2007 (in Jan '07 ? ). After the subsequent claims of 250 -1000 channels by...

Compared to the limited HD offerings on most of the currently available HD channels, I'd be thrilled to add in some HD-rich premium channels.

D* opened the floodgates on the vague channel counts early last year when they suggested that NFL ST, MLB EI and other "channels" may be included to reach their number-of-channel claims. That's when Comcast claimed they'd have 800 channels by year's end and their Philly system already had 199...

No question who won this battle and the E* vs. OLN battle. The big ones are a different story.

That's the key issue - and the source of the bulk of the 76% increase. Not familiar with the pre-spat lineup (was LMN offered at all - if so, what tier?) but that would determine how big a spanking Lifetime took. As far as how this will impact other negotiations, don't expect many...

It won't transfer to other providers - unless all providers decide to play hard ball. There's no reason to think they would resist Lifetime if there haven't been issues up to this point. The fact that E* isn't carrying them isn't motivation to drop them - if anything, it's a competitive...

Call me whatever you want - but it won't make what you said any more valid.

I think you are the one "forgetting" the most important thing - none of the things you mention have anything to do with Lifetime, and certainly don't mean they are entitled to a damn thing from E*

The number of people who could receive the BIG 4 networks in HD with minimal expense/effort outnumber those that can't by at least 2 to 1.

E* will still save a ton of money (over pre-yanking costs). Even if 100% of subs call and request Lifetime - and E* pays the new price for Lifetime - they still avoid the added costs of LMN & LRW. The net cost will be less than the previous combined cost of Lifetime & LMN, and much less than the...

The article seems pretty balanced to me.

You'd be surprised how many people: 1) Have no idea it is gone 2) Haven't heard anyting about the protest 3) Will never know about calling to add it You'll also likely be surprised how much money Lifetime will spend for an ad blitz on Oxygen to let people know to call. ;)

There's a reason ESPN will get less ad revenue, but projects a $200 million profit from MNF despite "outbidding" ABC by $500 million dollars a year. Considering ABC showed a $150 million loss for MNF - that's a $850 million a year swing despite fewer viewers. Don't worry, we'll get the bill...

Well the current system is even better - instead of "some", for the most part we get "ALL" movies, all sports, all educational, all kids, all news, etc. etc. What's even better, in 10 years there will be twice as many channels to choose from - probably for something less than twice what we...

Disney would definitely cause less churn only because there are acceptable "replacement" networks available. But I think the answer to your question can be assumed to be "NO" - since every provider is carrying ESPN. If Charlie thought he could offset churn with the lower price he could offer...

1 in 7 are "occasional" viewers of ESPN. They average 2.9 million primetime viewers.

Maybe if they say "extra a la carte" charge enough, their mindless minions will start to believe it. :rolleyes: How about it, Mitch - are you believing it yet?

How much you want to bet most subs would not call E* to get Lifetime for free?

It's just some lame attempt to cost E* money by talking to CSRs on the phone for as long as possible. Apparently he assumes all E* subs are as whipped as he is and we have nothing better to do than to chat up some CSR. :rolleyes:

Lifetime will lose over 13% of their $900 million revenue by losing E* (between carriage fees and advertising) - that's a given if things stay as they are. Any additional subs they can pick up will only increase their revenue. The meesage it sends to other providers is a potential risk, and...

Yet they will respond to any follow-up, after clarifying E*'s "free" offer - that "We have already issued a response to that ridiculous offer"

It ***WILL WORK*** for us (subscribers) however. No one in their right mind outside of the major media conglomerates would oppose the push towards an a la carte model.

Or would you take $1 x "zero" subscribers? They can't take it because it screws their business model - but by offering it, Charlie removes the whole "anti-women" and "don't care about female subs" arguments. It boils it down to what it was before Lifetime started shoveling all the hyperbole -...