Why are FX and Animal Planet not in Top 120?

[racerx-99]

The answer is probably "because they are", but I was just curious. These are the only 2 "mainstream" channels that seem to normally be included in the basic "cable" lineups, but Dish has classified into an upper tier.

Is there a reason for this? It just seems odd. I don't care that much about Animal Planet (it'd be nice for my 3 yo son), but it would be nice to have FX, they have some good stuff. However, I'm not paying $14 per month extra to have 1 station.

 

[Skyhi]

$$$. When all else fails, $$$ is usually the correct answer.

 

[brgmgb]

My mother-in-law pays a few dollars extra a month to get a few channels ala carte.

My parents have Direct TV and we have Dish. We think they both spread the "good" channels through the different plans so you will buy a more expensive plan. We have the Silver plan (or whatever it is now called) and we still only watch about 10 channels.

There are days I say we should get rid of the Dish, but then I look at what little is on over-the-air antenna tv...

 

[garys]

Contracts agreed upon by Dish and the network usually determine which package the channels are placed in.

 

[racerx-99]

Contracts agreed upon by Dish and the network usually determine which package the channels are placed in.

Yeah, this is why I brought it up. Usually the cable "extended" line ups and the Sat lineups seem to roughly parallel each other, unless there's some sort of ego fight between some of the parties. These 2 seem to be an exception, and I was curious if anyone knew why.

I understand that FX (and a couple others?) is not included in the HD only lineups (the ever elusive "Dish America" plans, i.e. TurboHD) because the network refuses to provide the HD channel without the SD one (why, I have no clue), but that's a different issue.

 

[racerx-99]

My mother-in-law pays a few dollars extra a month to get a few channels ala carte.

I'd pay a few dollars extra to get FX ala carte, is this possible? I believe I asked Dish directly about this, and they said "No".

 

[Stargazer]

One of two reasons. Either the two channels cost enough themselves to increase the cost of the basic package up higher than they want or they want to make more money off of you by having you upgrade to the next package up or both.

 

[Brodieb]

I honestly do not know how anyone could go with the top 120 over the 200 package. Almost every channel I watch (G4, BBC America, Bravo, etc.) are not in the base pack. Top 200 is well worth the extra in my home.

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

If they put all the good channels in the lower package then no one would subscribe to the higher end packages.

 

[racerx-99]

I honestly do not know how anyone could go with the top 120 over the 200 package. Almost every channel I watch (G4, BBC America, Bravo, etc.) are not in the base pack. Top 200 is well worth the extra in my home.

Well, none of those are in my main desired lineup. Top 120 was nearly perfect for me. But everyone certainly has their own tastes, and that's great!

Bottom line for me was that it *couldn't* cost more than we were currently paying for cable (which admittedly was pretty basic analog only service), even if it delivered far more. After our latest cable fee increase, the Top 120 with HD and a bundled DVR (DVR is a requirement for me) was slightly cheaper, and far better.

 

[DodgerKing]

That is one of the issues that Direct addresses in some of their commercials about criticizing "The same TV for less" claim.

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

Yup and DIRECTV dropped the claim later since Dish said that their package contained more of the higher rated channels in their base package then DIRECTV does.

Just a dumb pissing contest if you ask me.

 

[Stargazer]

If Dish had a lot of those channels that were in the more expensive packages in their most basic package then there would be no much of a need for the more expensive ones and the basic package would be even more expensive. They had to draw the line somewhere on what channels were and were not included. Once in a while they will change a channel moving it to a more or less expensive package than what it was in before.

 

[RandallA]

If Dish had a lot of those channels that were in the more expensive packages in their most basic package then there would be no much of a need for the more expensive ones and the basic package would be even more expensive. They had to draw the line somewhere on what channels were and were not included. Once in a while they will change a channel moving it to a more or less expensive package than what it was in before.

Exactly! The perfect package for me is the Top 200 if it had Natl' Geographic in it. Because of that channel, I have to subscribe to the Top 250 or Dish Latino Max.

 

[racerx-99]

If Dish had a lot of those channels that were in the more expensive packages in their most basic package then there would be no much of a need for the more expensive ones and the basic package would be even more expensive. They had to draw the line somewhere on what channels were and were not included. Once in a while they will change a channel moving it to a more or less expensive package than what it was in before.

Or they could let us sign up for channels ala carte . Sigh . . .

 

[yaz96]

Or they could let us sign up for channels ala carte . Sigh . . .

Get real......

 

[SpaethCo]

Or they could let us sign up for channels ala carte . Sigh . . .

The biggest opponent to that is the media companies that run the channels, not the middle-men like the cable and satellite companies that turn around and sell you access to the content.

 

[illusionescape]

I think there are quite a few channels that you could make an arguement for why they are not in the Top 120 package instead of the Top 200 package based on other basic cable packages.... i.e, BET, WGN, Turner Classic Movies, MSNBC.

 

[racerx-99]

I think there are quite a few channels that you could make an arguement for why they are not in the Top 120 package instead of the Top 200 package based on other basic cable packages.... i.e, BET, WGN, Turner Classic Movies, MSNBC.

I suppose that's true. And I do realize that a lot of the programming bundling is driven from the content providers. I wasn't ranting, more curious. I suppose those 2 stood out to me because I paid more attention to them (I don't quite fit into the BET demographic ).

I certainly knew it coming in, and signed up anyway, so I'm in no position to complain about it.

 

[Stargazer]

This goes back to where they had to draw the line somewhere. They cannot have all the channels in the basic package without increasing it's price and making it a viable option as having one.

One company will own an x amount of stations. In order to get the few good stations out of all of those stations they own, they have to take them all. That means we have to pay for the junk ones. If the satellite company can get a good enough deal on the stations then they will put it in the basic package.