Welcome to DBSTalk
- Start new topics and reply to others
- Subscribe to topics and forums to get email updates
- Get your own profile page and make new friends
- Send personal messages to other members.
Would you sub to AT200?
Posted 13 July 2001 - 07:23 PM
2 receivers in basic account
Sky Angel (coming from 110 or 119)
VH1 and MTV diginets
Playhouse Disney (2002 launch)
Music Choice (in addition to Muzak)
The Health Network
All News Channel
AMC American Pop
BET on Jazz
TMC/TMCX/Encore East feeds (they already give us west - I doubt east would cost anything)
Posted 13 July 2001 - 08:59 PM
Too many junk channels(Newsworld,Trio,All News) that nobody wants. Package would need more quality channels. Plus not many people would be interested in Sky Angel.
Posted 14 July 2001 - 02:45 PM
This may be the only way we will finally get all these channels that we have been expecting for the past few years.
Posted 18 July 2001 - 09:52 AM
Your list for AT200 contains a lot of c**p (ie PandaAmerica and Jewish Television Network) that is as big of waste of bandwidth as LIL. My list contained what I thought would actually be useful content.
Posted 19 July 2001 - 08:17 AM
PS, I was not insulting the Jewish population. But SERIOUSLY, only about 5% of the population is Jewish. Let's say 20% of them will watch that channel. No a big enough number of interested subs, about the same as the smaller LILs I bet. Unfortunately, DISH carries the mid-size (smaller of what they have) LILs so they probably carry this too if they were paid enough for it... But I think it's just a waste of bandwitdh. As for PandaAmerica, that appeals to what? 2 People? And their are other good examples of nonsense on your list that will just reduce picture quality for the rest of us.
Posted 19 July 2001 - 04:16 PM
I understand that some of those channels are crap, but I'm taking into consideration that Dish will add shopping channels to add revenue to add some of the more worthwhile channels. I just thought I'd add them to the list so that people would know what they are if they were added. Also, Jewish TV Network might not have a HUGE group to appeal to, but I've been to their website. I was kinda interested in some of the programs, and I'm not even Jewish. I believe that every channel should be given the opportunity.
Posted 19 July 2001 - 04:50 PM
I would rather see the Dish Latino channels, instead of Sky Angel channels, added to the AT150 to make an "AT200 Package"
Posted 21 July 2001 - 11:50 AM
The more channels the better. Yes, I would give a little extra if they had more good basic services.
Posted 22 July 2001 - 09:07 AM
SA on 110/119 would just waste bandwidth on programming that no one wants to see.
Dish Latino would be a much more marketable combo to more Americans than SA (and I get no benefit from DL as I don't even understand spanish)
BubbleGummyBrain, Stop being a cheap bum and buy that additional dish and switch instead of whining to everyone about wanting SA on 110/119. Instead of spending all the time you spend on these forums, you could get a part time job and afford that 61.5 setup.
Repeat after me "You Want Fries with That???"
Posted 22 July 2001 - 06:30 PM
Hope we do get the rest of the VH-1/MTV channels soon! I will pay 10 extra a month for those alone!
Posted 23 July 2001 - 08:07 AM
If the rest of those "niche" music video channels are anything like the recently added VH1-Classic and GAC channels, I would tend to agree. They would make a worthwhile addition. I don't know if I would really pay 10 bucks more just for those, but it would be tempting. I haven't watched the "standard" MTV and VH1 channels much at all anymore because, IMHO, they aren't nearly as interesting as they used to be. VH1-Classic is probaly the closest to what made MTV popular years ago.
Posted 25 July 2001 - 03:48 AM
I know I got old when I stopped watching MTV and started watching VH1 and now VH1 Classics.
Boy do I miss spandex
Posted 03 August 2001 - 02:23 PM
BubbleGummyBear's AT200 package would be an excellent value, especially with the multisport pak and not having to pay the extra $5 for an extra reciever. My bill is already $50/month. AT150+Supers+extra reciever. However I would not want SA*. I hope that SA* gets their own bird and then sells their transponders @ 61.5 to E*. This will ensure the most HDTV channels by any TV provider, once more is avaliable. SA* would never be on 119 or 110 because of the 6 adult channels and FSTV. I am surprised that SA* doesnt complain about the 3 Dish On Demand PPV movie channels on 61.5.
Posted 03 August 2001 - 06:53 PM
Even when Sky Angel gets their own satellite, that doesn't mean E* will gain transponders at 61.5 for Dish Network usage - in fact Echostar will probably lose some or all eventually.
When E*3 is taken out of service (I.E. the end of its lifetime as a satellite) then Sky Angel will start providing service on DVS-1 at 61.5 degrees to the eastern US. They could choose to use all 8 transponder licenses they own, or not - they may also choose to lease some licenses to Echostar (or someone else) for money.
I don't think they would ever sell (on a permanent basis) any of the transponders at 61.5 to Echostar, or anyone else, unless it was an extremely large sum of money, and even then I believe they would think twice about it. I can see some long term leasing of transponders they don't need, until which point they have enough channels to need them.
I think they may lease 4 of the transponders to a 3rd party at the point DVS-1 starts service to the eastern US. If the service hasn't significantly grown in channel count from where it is today, it would fit comfortably in 4 transponders, and this would allow a source of income, from leasing 4 back.
Posted 06 August 2001 - 05:52 PM
Yes, E* will eventually lose the SA xps, but they will probably be awarded the 12 R/L tps next year...
Posted 07 August 2001 - 10:59 AM
The biggest hurdle that SA faces is generating enough revenue to stay in business. I don't expext them to be around in their present form five years from now. They will either have to get more "secular" or go out of business.
Posted 07 August 2001 - 03:32 PM
I agree somewhat, rlw. However, I think there are many things that can be done without really going "secular".
I still get the impression from a lot of what has been said, that SA* had much higher initial expectations of subscriber count growth. I also don't think that they wanted to be in the position of still offering the lifetime sub at this point in the game. The problem is, there appears to be only a certain subset of people that know about this service and want to get it, and the lifetime sub is (almost) the only way to extract more money from this subscriber base.
I think that there will come a point where the monthly fee will increase, perhaps to $10 or $12 - and the prepay (non lifetime, long term) discounts will be much less. There was talk at one point of GMT (Gospel Music Television) becoming a premium channel (that lifetime subscribers would still get, but monthly customers would need to pay extra to receive) but I can't see it, as GMT currently runs commercials.
Something else to consider is that payment processing costs could be reduced if they collected the monthly fee only on (for example) a quarterly basis. XM Satellite Radio is planning to do this, they will take payments on a 3 month, 6 month, or annual basis. I do not know SA*'s payment processing costs. They could possibly be quite low already - it's just a suggestion to streamline things.
How about a Christian PPV service? There are a small but increasing number of quality films being produced by TBN and other groups - certainly, enough for one channel. Hopefully, these could be sold for $2.99 all day.
Also, I think a Kids Movie premium channel would be a good idea. For, let's say, $5 or $7 extra a month, have a channel that shows all the latest Christian kids videos - like Veggie Tales, etc. If the video producers would come on board, this would be an excellent service for families with kids that like to watch these videos nonstop. Even if this one channel alone was $10 to $15 a month, it would still be a significant savings compared to constant video purchases.
Another thing that I could see happening, is they could create an infomercial channel, and that would probably generate a fair amount of revenue. Even if it were not a strict advertising channel, if it was a place that they sold airtime to interested (appropriate) parties, it would probably be a great way to cover some costs.
I really don't know quite what the answer is, as they don't reveal much about the financial aspect of their business.
Something else to consider is that they could either create or encourage their independent sales representatives to create partnerships with Christian book stores.
Posted 08 August 2001 - 07:51 AM
Sky Angel only has to "Break Even" to stay around as their business model is different than D* or E*.
But any unexpected expense on a "break even" only business could be painful so thay would have to add some type of cash reserve to the "Break Even".
Posted 08 August 2001 - 03:13 PM
I see your point and realize that all they need or want to do is break even, and hopefully with enough to cover the cost of some international broadcasting.
I do believe however that with a limited number of subscribers, some of whom are lifetime and therefore don't generate ongoing revenue, some extra funds are definitely needed for things like buying and launching satellites and some cash reserves "just in case".
I don't necessarily think that my ideas need to be implemented. They are just suggestions that may help contain or even lower the costs that Sky Angel incurs or that they charge monthly customers.