FNC large subscriber cost increase
- Thread starter Tampa8
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 102
- Views 9K
I think you are all missing the big picture.
As long as content providers are allowed to own TV channels that they sell to other providers and with hold content (AKA OLN & Comcast) we are all the ones getting screwed.
It is time for the FCC to step in and do its job.
As for Shaggy go do your Home work your spelling needs a lot of help for a 3.5 gpa.
As long as content providers are allowed to own TV channels that they sell to other providers and with hold content (AKA OLN & Comcast) we are all the ones getting screwed.
It is time for the FCC to step in and do its job.
As for Shaggy go do your Home work your spelling needs a lot of help for a 3.5 gpa.
Great Americans? Is that like "Silent Majority"? I'm sure McCarthy had a stupid catch phrase as well. Simplistic catch phrases are a major tool of right wingers, and totalitarian governments, as well.jimboeau said:
thanks, and Im taking today off. You guys know how the day after halloween is.
P.s I forgot to take chaser
P.s I forgot to take chaser
I know that a lot of people have asked if they can get Fox Movie Channel and if that is in the basic package. If it was me I would drop the channel because there is enough news channels as it is but it would piss too many people off and might cost Dish more with lost subscribers than what they (all of us) would have to pay. If Dish has to pay $1 for the channel we have to pay $2. That would be a $1.50 increase in one channel alone. What if a lot of channels requested a big increase all at once? The rates would jump so much that a lot/most people would drop the service. It dont take long for it to all add up.
I'll pay $1.00 more for Fox News, but better give me back $.60 for CNN and another $0.40 for MSNBC
If Fox News will be dropped it will be time for me to drop E*.
Dish should redistribute current news channels payments according to ratings.
If Fox News will be dropped it will be time for me to drop E*.
Dish should redistribute current news channels payments according to ratings.
I could do without any of them. I'm sick of all these news channels jumping on the bandwagon so to speak. I haven't turned on any of the news channels since the Bagdad fiasco. I swear if I would have heard one more person say shock and awe I would have purchased a gun and killed someone.
I was thinking the same thing Minsk1 but I doubt it will work that way. Once them other channels gets an x amount of money it would be hard to get them to drop the rates. They will say that they would be lucky not to raise it anymore than it will be. Another thing is that they agree to an x amount for an x amount of time.
Minsk1 said:I'll pay $1.00 more for Fox News, but better give me back $.60 for CNN and another $0.40 for MSNBC
If Fox News will be dropped it will be time for me to drop E*.
Dish should redistribute current news channels payments according to ratings.
Best idea yet, let us decide, I never watch CNN too negative for me.
While it is getting good ratings for a cable channel, frankly I was glad to read that it has only 1.25M viewers. I was afraid it was far higher than that.
What I get a kick out of is when FNC viewers criticize other news channels as being very "liberal" biased. I wish some of them actually were. I have found CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc. have provided very middle-of-the-road to even moderately conservative coverage of the Iraq War, the entire War on Terror, health care in America, environmental issues, et al. When I watch them I see them constantly pulling their punches in deference to their stockholders and advertisers. The best national news source I know of is National Public Radio (NPR). We can all thank McDonald's for the continued health of NPR, as Joan Kroc (widow of McDonald's founder Ray Kroc) donated $200M to NPR a few years back.
I do hope E* and Fox work things out. It is in E*'s best interest to offer popular channels. Perhaps E* can offer an optional "News from the Fringes" package of FNC paired with Al Jazeera.
What I get a kick out of is when FNC viewers criticize other news channels as being very "liberal" biased. I wish some of them actually were. I have found CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc. have provided very middle-of-the-road to even moderately conservative coverage of the Iraq War, the entire War on Terror, health care in America, environmental issues, et al. When I watch them I see them constantly pulling their punches in deference to their stockholders and advertisers. The best national news source I know of is National Public Radio (NPR). We can all thank McDonald's for the continued health of NPR, as Joan Kroc (widow of McDonald's founder Ray Kroc) donated $200M to NPR a few years back.
I do hope E* and Fox work things out. It is in E*'s best interest to offer popular channels. Perhaps E* can offer an optional "News from the Fringes" package of FNC paired with Al Jazeera.
Why don't they just offer FNC as an option? If you, as a subscriber, want the channel you pay an additional 50 cents a month!
Congress could do so much good if they banned the the practice of "bundling" channels and forced the Sat companies to offer more channels seperately.
I would guess that they average person does not watch more than 20 or 30 of the 180 channels offered. Yet we pay for ALL of them in order to get the ones we want
Congress could do so much good if they banned the the practice of "bundling" channels and forced the Sat companies to offer more channels seperately.
I would guess that they average person does not watch more than 20 or 30 of the 180 channels offered. Yet we pay for ALL of them in order to get the ones we want
Tom Bombadil said:
1.25 million viewers is a lot bigger than it sounds. That's average viewers during all primetime hours. NBC gets about 8 million - UPN & WB generally get about 3.5 million.
As far as the bias, it's fairly consistent that liberals view the more liberal news sources as middle-of-the-road. And conservatives view the more conservative news sources (or source) as middle-of-the-road. Everyone likes to view themselves and their opinions as mainstream.
purvis said:Why don't they just offer FNC as an option? If you, as a subscriber, want the channel you pay an additional 50 cents a month!
Congress could do so much good if they banned the the practice of "bundling" channels and forced the Sat companies to offer more channels seperately.
I would guess that they average person does not watch more than 20 or 30 of the 180 channels offered. Yet we pay for ALL of them in order to get the ones we want
A la carte sounds great, but the individual channel prices would skyrocket. ESPNs costs are currently $25.90 per sub and are expected to rise to $47.46 by 2009 (annually). That's $3.96 per sub, per month - in expenses - that's with 85 million subscribers. Estimates are that only about 20% of subs are regular viewers of ESPN. With expenses expected to climb to over $4 Billion by 2009, that would have to be recovered from only about 17 million subscribers or $19.61 per month from each sub - and that only covers expenses.
It's getting way out of control, and there's nothing in sight to indicate that it's not only going to get worse. So something needs to be done, but a hard shift to an a la carte system would likely crash the whole system. Then again, maybe that's not necessarily a bad thing.
Tom Bombadil said:
oh yeah NPR is such a great source of truthful news and info
The point of all of this is simple, If Comcast can do this with the OLN channel, Rubert doing this with FNC , then guess what? It gets only worse if Comcast or Rubert buy more channels and before you know it comcast owns Scifi,Usa, Tnt etc and price them so high that only Comcast have them and sooner or later all we have left is Comcast for our tv. Folks this sucks.
