1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Time to Re-organize the Channel Line-Up?

Discussion in 'DIRECTV General Discussion' started by Steve, Aug 31, 2007.

Should D* re-Organize the Channel Line-Up?

  1. No. The line-up is fine the way it is.

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. Yes. It's time for D* to re-organize the line-up.

    99 vote(s)
    23.9%
  3. Other. Explained below.

    316 vote(s)
    76.1%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Steve

    Steve Well-Known Member

    23,041
    148
    Aug 22, 2006
    Lower...
    Also, if there are a % of new channels added that don't have existing SD counterparts, it might even be easier for folks to find them if they were part of a logical number group, rather than just sprinkled into currently available # locations. Remember, D* is talking about adding another 50 channels in 2008, on top of the 100 for this year. They may not all be "twins". /steve
     
  2. mx6bfast

    mx6bfast Hall Of Fame

    1,237
    0
    Nov 8, 2006
    Delray...
    This is the biggest thing I miss from my E86's. If this would be added to the HR20 I would completely forget about DLB.
     
  3. Thaedron

    Thaedron Hall Of Fame

    1,886
    0
    Jun 29, 2007
    Voted yes, but I think the changes can be fairly minor and still accomplish a lot of benefit.
     
  4. cekowalski

    cekowalski Legend

    128
    0
    Aug 19, 2007
    I worked on a billing system for a company that owned several networks, years ago. The billing system was to charge cable MSO's and DirecTV for network access.

    So I can confirm the CNN on 202 thing is highly likely to be related to pricing. The organization I worked for had billing rules similar to below:

    1) If channel A is offered on the first 13 channels, channel B is free, otherwise channel B is $0.32 per sub.

    2) If channel C is offered and both channel A and B are also offered in the basic package, channel C is $0.50 per sub; otherwise, channel C is $0.75 per sub.

    3) Channel D is $2 per sub. If channel D is only offered as an "a la carte" premium service, channel A is $0.35 per sub. If channel D is included in a non-premium package, channel A is free.

    The rules were quite complex, and varied greatly from one system to the next. As such, I'd say a reorg is going to be tough to pull off, but not impossible. Most of the rules didn't specify a channel # -- just a range -- but this was the billing system, not the contract, that I was working on.

    :up: BTW, I love the idea of being able to choose to remap my channel numbers -- wouldn't that be cool! I bet the lawyers won't go for it, though...
     
  5. jaywdetroit

    jaywdetroit Hall Of Fame

    1,308
    0
    Sep 21, 2006
    For that matter - why do they need numbers? What if the remote had letter equivs on it? Type CNN - get cnn.

    etc. etc.

    You could even have the major networks have their own button. CNN, ESPN, ESPN, ESPN, and of course.
     
  6. jaywdetroit

    jaywdetroit Hall Of Fame

    1,308
    0
    Sep 21, 2006
    I hope they put a feature on the HR20 to allow you to choose which channel it defaults too - (The hd or the sd)
     
  7. spoonman

    spoonman Icon

    869
    0
    Feb 21, 2007
    This would work for us that like to text alot, but there are people out there that still don't even get that :grin:
     
  8. Sirshagg

    Sirshagg Hall Of Fame

    4,922
    0
    Dec 29, 2006
    I would be happy if they would just allow us to resort the channels in the guide. No number changes would be necessary. This way everyone could reorder the channels however they want to see them and nobody would have to learn new numbering.
     
  9. Steve

    Steve Well-Known Member

    23,041
    148
    Aug 22, 2006
    Lower...
    Check out this week's new WISH LIST requests. We've got one up there that is very similar to your idea. :) /steve
     
  10. Sirshagg

    Sirshagg Hall Of Fame

    4,922
    0
    Dec 29, 2006
    Been there, done that :)
    Thanks for adding it.
     
  11. Steve

    Steve Well-Known Member

    23,041
    148
    Aug 22, 2006
    Lower...
    Hopefully this could still work, with channel position within "logical groups" being the determining factor, as opposed to "absolute" channel positioning. Could still be a win/win. /steve
     
  12. Gary Toma

    Gary Toma UNIX DBSTalk Club

    2,291
    128
    Mar 22, 2006
    A reorganization is long, long overdue. We will never see agreement on whose plan is the best plan.
    ANYTHING will be an improvement over the current organization - which is "no organization" at all.

    But based on the Eric Shanks announcement, I think we have been told that the shotgun illogical spattering of channels will continue.

    One fading hope: in addition to all the illogical organization, you create perhaps a new four digit hierarchy, i.e. 2000 to 2900 is HD Channels, organized within that range by news, movie, etc. etc. There is enough smarts within the most current receivers to handle this kind of mapping.

    So you have the best of both worlds: for the old folks, 212 is still the NFL Network. While in the new scheme, NFL Network is assigned a number within the block of 2100 to 2199, which is all the sports networks.

    It could work.
     
  13. Steve

    Steve Well-Known Member

    23,041
    148
    Aug 22, 2006
    Lower...
    Actually, Mr. Shanks may have left the door open a crack. :)

    He didn't absolutely say channels wouldn't be renumbered. He said that HD channels with SD counterparts would share the same number. Subtle difference that I'm hopeful doesn't make the two concepts mutually exclusive!

    Your idea is an interesting one, if D* can limit SEARCH results and GUIDE display/filtering to one set of channels or the other.

    /steve
     
  14. Steve

    Steve Well-Known Member

    23,041
    148
    Aug 22, 2006
    Lower...
    Thanks to the 359 folks who voted. Not including the 7 "other" votes, 3 out of 4 are in favor of a logical reorganization of the Channel Lineup! Let's hope D* is listening! :)
     
  15. mx6bfast

    mx6bfast Hall Of Fame

    1,237
    0
    Nov 8, 2006
    Delray...
    I voted other, does my vote not count? :D Did my vote have a hanging chad. :lol:
     
  16. Steve

    Steve Well-Known Member

    23,041
    148
    Aug 22, 2006
    Lower...
    Point taken. :lol: I need to go through the OTHER's to see which bucket they belong in, pro or con. That being said, with 364 votes in, those 7 votes will not significantly change the ratio. :) /steve
     
  17. mx6bfast

    mx6bfast Hall Of Fame

    1,237
    0
    Nov 8, 2006
    Delray...
    Just giving ya a hard time
     
  18. ljnskywalker

    ljnskywalker AllStar

    55
    0
    Feb 22, 2007
    I don't know if this was brought up or not, but do the stations that are on D* give kick backs to be put into a better number, for example...like closer to the front or am I just way off base. Like CNN they are in the front, but all the other news stations like MSNBC, Fox News are in the mid 300's
     
  19. Steve

    Steve Well-Known Member

    23,041
    148
    Aug 22, 2006
    Lower...
    Ya. Back in post #64, cekowalski indicated there may be some position-based pricing going on. /steve
     
  20. lwilli201

    lwilli201 Hall Of Fame

    3,189
    28
    Dec 22, 2006
    Missouri
    Religious and shopping channels would pitch a royal fit if they were stuck in dedicated groupings. They want to be sprinkled among other programming so they will have some visibility.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page