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

FXX Moving to Channel 259

Discussion in 'DIRECTV Programming' started by scott0702, Nov 1, 2013.

  1. RunnerFL

    RunnerFL Well-Known Member

    17,054
    312
    Jan 4, 2006
    But that's not "organized" at all, it's very slapdash.
     
  2. inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    23,207
    1,173
    Nov 13, 2006
    If say keeping Video On Demand and sports locals and premiums and Spanish and such all sorted as they have is pretty organized. What would you do to organize?
     
  3. RunnerFL

    RunnerFL Well-Known Member

    17,054
    312
    Jan 4, 2006
    I personally wouldn't care. You could give them any number you want but once it's there leave it there. You could give them their favorite number or even number them in order of acquisition. As I've been saying all along it doesn't matter where a channel is located at all, people just enjoy complaining when a channel isn't put where they want it. My part in this debate is to show how "organized" to one person is "disorganized" to others and how these channel moves are a PITA.

    When a new channel is added stick it at the end and stop inconveniencing customers by making them change favorites, re-create series links, etc.
     
    1 person likes this.
  4. James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    46,193
    1,074
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    Writing some patch for the receivers that would make these adjustments for the customer would be helpful (and of course implementing the adjustments with every channel move).

    It is not as simple as "never move a channel". Drastic programming changes such as FXX and (to a lesser extent) FS2 are good examples of how channels can become out of place when a programmer decides to use "their slot" on cable and satellite systems for a new channel. Perhaps it would not be as much of a problem if the channels were never organized to begin with (randomly placed channels would still be random). But the push to have and maintain some semblance of organization is supported by DirecTV and the programmers. If you can find a cable/satellite provider with no organization perhaps you would be happier with their system?
     
  5. RunnerFL

    RunnerFL Well-Known Member

    17,054
    312
    Jan 4, 2006
    A patch like that would be awesome but supposedly it's already in place. We're told we shouldn't have to do anything when a channel moves.

    As for your second statement.... You're clearly missing my point.
     
  6. jdspencer

    jdspencer Hall Of Fame

    6,646
    14
    Nov 7, 2003
    I don't have a horse in this race other than the news channels should be grouped together.
    Yeah I know CNN requires it to be in the low 200's but does that also mean that MSNBC and FNC couldn't reside nearby?
    Or are those also contracted to be where they are?
     
  7. James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    46,193
    1,074
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    That's why I wrote the parenthetical. :)

    I believe you've missed my point. Providers and content providers want channels organized into ranges. Look at how often DirecTV has shifted channels to create and maintain ranges. I'm not going to defend every channel move that DirecTV has done but it is obvious that they like some semblance of organization. Other cable/satellite providers may do a better or worse job of organizing channel ranges but it seems most providers make an effort to have some organization. Which makes my challenge to find a provider who does not organize channels a moot point. You might as well accept the fact that organization is important to the providers and moves will continue.

    Since you don't care where the channels are then DirecTV can move the channels for people who do care. :D
     
    1 person likes this.
  8. James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    46,193
    1,074
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    ESPNs would have to move to have all the news channels together. I believe that would be a hard sell to ESPN.
     
  9. RunnerFL

    RunnerFL Well-Known Member

    17,054
    312
    Jan 4, 2006
    Nope, got it loud and clear. Your way or the highway...
     
  10. James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    46,193
    1,074
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    Not my way. Just the way of the providers. :)
     
  11. Stuart Sweet

    Stuart Sweet The Shadow Knows!

    37,060
    287
    Jun 18, 2006
    I hope this thread will move back to discussion of fxx, we seem to have gotten off topic.
     
  12. mrdobolina

    mrdobolina AllStar

    396
    15
    Aug 28, 2006
    A Mile High
    Exactly this. If you don't care, why complain?

    I'm on the side of "glad for the move, glad for DirecTV's efforts to keep similar channels together." Of course, all of their "organization" is not perfect, but I like that fact that when I want to see what Pro or College sports are on, I can open the guide, key in 206 and browse the majority of the channels that show that type of programming. Likewise, I can browse down the guide and see Spike, Bravo, USA, TNT, TBS type programming together. FOX's FX(M, X) channels are nearby. Then on up to the History/H2/Nat Geo/Discovery/TLC/Science Channel/etc. channels. I don't typically watch kids stuff, but I know that when I want to record some stuff for my 3 year old, I can go to the 300's and browse around.

    I like the FXX move to 259. Just recently I was browsing through the guide in that range, saw something I liked on FXX and watched it. I never came across FXX when it was in the 600's because I almost NEVER browse the guide up that high for that type of programming. That's a win for FXX and for me.
     

Share This Page