Income from Shopping Channels

GaryPen

GaryPen

Thread Starter
Rich or poor, it's good to have money.
Supporting Founder
With all this worry about the Viacom negotiations, and whether it will cost us subscribers more money, I got to thinking... Why can D offer similar programming for the same or less than E, with all of the Viacom channels intact? Actually, TCPw/locals has much more than AT120w/locals for $2 more.(It's basically AT180 w/o the Encore Pack)

Getting to the point, D seems to only have a fraction of E's 13 shopping channels. Not only is it a huge waste of bandwidth, but I'm sure those channels pay E to to be there. (Why alse are they there?) With all that extra income, shouldn't our rates be lower than D's for comparable programming?

I wonder just how much income is derived from these channels? Any ideas? I also wonder how much less compression we'd see on the other channels without them?
 
Juan

Juan

Supporting Founder
Supporting Founder
Sep 14, 2003
28,573
6,919
Moscow Russia
GaryPen said:
With all this worry about the Viacom negotiations, and whether it will cost us subscribers more money, I got to thinking... Why can D offer similar programming for the same or less than E, with all of the Viacom channels intact? Actually, TCPw/locals has much more than AT120w/locals for $2 more.(It's basically AT180 w/o the Encore Pack)

Getting to the point, D seems to only have a fraction of E's 13 shopping channels. Not only is it a huge waste of bandwidth, but I'm sure those channels pay E to to be there. (Why alse are they there?) With all that extra income, shouldn't our rates be lower than D's for comparable programming?

I wonder just how much income is derived from these channels? Any ideas? I also wonder how much less compression we'd see on the other channels without them?
I f your that concerned why dont you subscribe to d* !!!
:D :D by the way E* makes money while D* loses money
 
Neutron

Neutron

Founding Supporter
Supporting Founder
Nov 7, 2003
18,730
1,122
Texas
If E* is making so much more money profit wise then why the fighting with Viacom? And, why the rate increase last month?
 
GaryPen

GaryPen

Thread Starter
Rich or poor, it's good to have money.
Supporting Founder
juan said:
I f your that concerned why dont you subscribe to d* !!!
:D :D by the way E* makes money while D* loses money

The first part of your answer had me going for a second. I'm glad you're only kidding, and just demonstrating how stupid that knee-jerk homer nonsense sounds.

The second part is very interesting. I didn't know that. I was under the impression that E was the one losing money until recently, while D was profitable for a while now. If what you say is correct, then it answers my question about price comparisons.

I still wonder how much income is derived from the shopping channels?

Neutron said:
If E* is making so much more money profit wise then why the fighting with Viacom? And, why the rate increase last month?

That is a VERY good question, and one of the reasons I started this thread.
 
M

MacKenzieIII

SatelliteGuys Guru
Dec 1, 2003
131
0
Ridgecrest, CA
an intresting thread, and while I agree I would like to see E* rate at simmilar levels to cable and D*.

All things being equal I like the idea of a company that is making money. Because they have more of an insentive to keep things going and do a good job. Where a company that is loosing money can always close up shop, or be an ass to their customers and they and go anywhere but up.

It is a simplification but I think E*s profitablity is actually a plus for them in my book.
 

Similar threads

Scott Greczkowski
Replies
31
Views
4K
JohnH
J
flody1
Replies
12
Views
1K
Yespage
Y
D
Replies
4
Views
1K
boba
A
Replies
2
Views
1K
kb7oeb
K

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Latest posts

Top