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

NewsMix Channel 352 - No More

Discussion in 'DIRECTV Programming' started by SomeRandomIdiot, Nov 27, 2012.

  1. Dec 1, 2012 #121 of 214
    ben 11

    ben 11 Cool Member

    21
    0
    Nov 29, 2012
    I always believed there was a third option.

    Let DTV know what they are doing that may not be in the best interest of their company because of the unintended consequences of their decision-making - and that their decisions could therefore be influenced.

    Do this by providing them with information that shows how customers feel about their service and respond in kind - THEN take action.

    Evidently they have built a wall around themselves where they are so unresponsive that all they think they have to do is have a form letter prepared and not explain their decision making to customers.

    Just sayin'.
     
  2. Dec 1, 2012 #122 of 214
    LDighera

    LDighera Cool Member

    38
    1
    Oct 16, 2007
    The DirecTV customer service representative to whom I spoke indicated that the restriction against PBS HD reception imposed on Santa Barbara, CA subscribers was a result of "local government" action, not a DirecTV decision.

    Unfortunately, she was unable to provide information regarding specifically which local government entity was responsible. To be fair, she was located in Tennessee.

    Preliminary research indicates that the Federal Communications Commission maintains a Table of Allotments that appear to govern which channels are available to specific communities. There is some interesting (law suits), and a bit of useful information on the Wikipedia page for DirecTV. Pretty arcane stuff... :icon_dumm

    However, there may be hope:

    (2) Notwithstanding paragraph (c)(1) of this section, an application
    may be filed for a channel or community not listed in the DTV Table of
    Allotments if it is consistent with the rules and policies established
    in the Third Report and Order in WT Docket 99-168 (FCC 01-25), adopted
    January 18, 2001. Where such a request is approved, the Media Bureau
    will change the DTV Table of Allotments to reflect that approval.​
    Perhaps one of the knowledgeable DBSTalk heavy hitters, like Stuart Sweet, may have a clue as to the best course to enabling Santa Barbara, CA DirecTV subscribers to receive PBS programming in high definition. :D
    .
     
  3. Dec 1, 2012 #123 of 214
    Hoosier205

    Hoosier205 Active Member

    6,659
    14
    Sep 3, 2007
    They already knew how popular or unpopular the news mix was BEFORE discontinuing it. An incredibly small percentage of disgruntled customers expressing their disapproval over losing the remaps of channels they still receive will not impact a a business decision. This was a not a decision based upon any financial expense to them...because there isn't any with a basic mix channel. They have very limited capacity at the moment and will until the next satellite is launched. Obviously, they felt that the capacity being used for the news mix could be better utilized. That is their decision to make, not ours. They have every possible means available to them to properly gauge how worthwhile the news mix was to their business. It is clear that it wasn't worth keeping at this time. A business...made a business decision. The only decisions we have available to us as customers are how much of their product/service we subscribe to or if we subscribe at all. That's it. Might it be brought back? Maybe. Might it be brought back in a way that works more efficiently within their capacity constraints? Maybe. Might it be moved or restructured in some way? Maybe. That is for them to know and for us to wait and see about. Until then, we still have across to each of the channels from the mix and we have numerous other avenues for obtaining similar information if need be.

    Given how limited their capacity is until the next satellite launches, what would you have had them eliminate instead of the news mix? Please keep in mind that it cannot be anything they are currently obligated to carry due to existing agreements/contracts.
     
  4. Dec 1, 2012 #124 of 214
    ben 11

    ben 11 Cool Member

    21
    0
    Nov 29, 2012


    How would the customer know about current contractual obligation details? For all we know, their obligations have built into them boilerplate escape clauses just like the one they have in dealing with the public already posted in this thread. And on top of that, the escape clauses could be mutual between companies if their attorneys were worth their salt.

    If it really is an either/or decision about what to "trade out", there are so many seemingly incredibly small-market channels that since the news was important enough in the first place that they would have gone to the trouble to create a "mix" format for BOTH sports and news, I would have to conclude that sports has simply become more important than news in their corporate philosophy/profit motive - regardless of what the qualitative reasons are given by those who want any particular channel.

    That wouldn't be revelatory in this day and age with the "news" divisions of cable AND network news being increasingly run based only on the bottom line (as opposed to the hands off model from top management of yesteryear) essentially pressuring into existence "infotainment" forms of news as represented by most channels - especially on cable/satellite.

    So how is a consumer to know what the almighty business is doing? Then consumers WOULD know and be able to make informed choices rather than DTV making qualitative choices FOR us instead. (You may be able to tell that I'm not thrilled with overly heavy focus-grouped decision making).

    Even the business decision that determined what "capacity" was for the satellite space was their responsibility so it could be argued at the fundamental level that they under estimated what their capacity needed to be in the first place.

    It's endless speculation on the consumers part because of a lack of transparency as far as I'm concerned.

    And "disgruntled" I do not feel. I'm just trying to understand the lack of responsiveness that I and others seem to see more and more of. It simply may be our natural response to a perception of indifference on the part of DTV.

    In all business as in life, many times perception is everything.
     
  5. Dec 1, 2012 #125 of 214
    Barcthespark

    Barcthespark Godfather

    426
    11
    Dec 16, 2007
    Since you always tell others they should prove their opinions, do you have proof for the assumptions you provided in this post?
     
  6. Dec 1, 2012 #126 of 214
    joed32

    joed32 Hall Of Fame

    2,763
    29
    Jul 27, 2006
    Why don't you start one?
     
  7. Dec 1, 2012 #127 of 214
    Hoosier205

    Hoosier205 Active Member

    6,659
    14
    Sep 3, 2007
    Seriously? They cannot carry a channel without an agreement. What would you have had them drop rather than the mix remaps?
     
  8. Dec 1, 2012 #128 of 214
    Hoosier205

    Hoosier205 Active Member

    6,659
    14
    Sep 3, 2007
    1. Find the numerous posts from Satelliteracer were he says they do their own research on such things AND they know what people are actually watching via their service.

    2. Math, with a decent educated guess considering how many it would take to be significant when there are more than 20 million customers.

    3. Read Sixto's thread regarding the limited capacity that he tracks. It has been well documented. It has also been mentioned by Satelliteracer before and during the quarterly conference calls conducted by DirecTV.

    4. It wasn't about money since it doesn't cost them any. That only leaves capacity in play.

    5. Back to #2

    6. Back to #3
     
  9. Dec 1, 2012 #129 of 214
    James Long

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

    46,189
    1,074
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    That would only make sense if the local government owns that channel and has decided to refuse DirecTV carriage of the HD. Which would be odd. Non-commercial stations such as PBS affiliates are by definition "must carry" (not consent to carry) so they should not have a say in blocking their signal.

    Knowing it was "local government" action would have been something she would have had to get from a source. She needs a better source.

    That TV allotment table applies to digital over the air TV ... not what is carried via satellite. One would use that table to find an open channel to start a new broadcast station in a community. If there are no allotments available one would petition the FCC to add an allotment to the table for the community ... then competitively bid for the new allotment against everyone who saw the new allotment and wanted the new channel. (FYI: Low power stations follow different rules.)

    And now back to the topic of this thread ....
     
  10. Dec 1, 2012 #130 of 214
    KyL416

    KyL416 Hall Of Fame

    4,540
    655
    Nov 10, 2005
    Tobyhanna, PA
    According to the transponder maps, the only PBS station Santa Barbara gets is channel 389 remapped to channel 65.

    The local governement has nothing to do with it since the market doesn't even HAVE a local PBS station, and with all the budget cuts I doubt PBS has any plans to launch any new ones in the near future. Most cable systems in the area import the LA PBS stations, but since DirecTV has LA's PBS stations on spot beams, it's probably not possible to do.
     
  11. Dec 1, 2012 #131 of 214
    ben 11

    ben 11 Cool Member

    21
    0
    Nov 29, 2012
    So you and Satelliteracer know that they have a monitoring system that gives exact feedback of how many subscribers are watching each channel so DTV can actually tally the numbers of viewers for each channel to gauge popularity?
     
  12. Dec 1, 2012 #132 of 214
    Laxguy

    Laxguy Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense.

    15,399
    585
    Dec 2, 2010
    Winters,...
    Anyone with direct knowledge of such cannot say here.

    But isn't it eminently logical that all carriers have that capability?

    - from the road
     
  13. Dec 1, 2012 #133 of 214
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    23,205
    1,173
    Nov 13, 2006
    Almost everyone who has a proper install, yes. They get the feedback through the phone connection and the Internet connection unless you completely opt out. I have a feeling they even know what buttons you hit on your remote and about how often, and which ones don't get used.
     
  14. Dec 1, 2012 #134 of 214
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    Of course they do. How do you think the what's hot apps work.
     
  15. Dec 1, 2012 #135 of 214
    ben 11

    ben 11 Cool Member

    21
    0
    Nov 29, 2012
    Then based on the knowledge and expertise of this distinguished group, one can safely assume that:

    1) DTV has the technical ability and means to monitor their entire 20 million viewers individually

    AND

    2) Technically, DTV can monitor viewership totals for each and every channel?

    (And that's deducible because they can monitor hot apps?)
     
  16. Dec 1, 2012 #136 of 214
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    Individually, probably not. They do get diagnostic reports from machines as people have been called for low signal levels but the data gathering is supposed to be anonymous and aggregate.

    But let's get back to the topic. The mix channel. They have an SD bandwidth issue. They know the mix channel is lightly viewed. They have few other options to remove as they are under contract to carry other channels including the shopping ones that actually pay them for carriage.

    They took down the channel that they could and has the least impact. Plus one that takes more bandwidth than others.

    It was not a rash decision.
     
  17. Dec 1, 2012 #137 of 214
    ben 11

    ben 11 Cool Member

    21
    0
    Nov 29, 2012

    So DTV can conclude that the Newsmix channel is more lightly viewed based on "diagnostic reports from machines as people have been called for low signal levels [and in] aggregate"?

    I don't understand the technical terms and how that kind of data gathering would provide accurate or anywhere near complete information.

    Would you mind explaining to a novice like myself?

    I do understand the desire to make more room. Reprioritizing in order to monetize information is their bottom line...but it would only seem so if based on adequate information.
     
  18. Dec 1, 2012 #138 of 214
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    You are mixing two things. The example of the low signal was that the units send data back. They send aggregate viewing data back via phone calls and Internet connections. The viewing data is not collated per unit at directv. It is just dumped together.

    It is a TiVo example but as far back as Janet Jackson at the Super Bowl, TiVo has done this. They had information on how much the video was rewound when her boob fell out.
     
  19. Dec 1, 2012 #139 of 214
    Laxguy

    Laxguy Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense.

    15,399
    585
    Dec 2, 2010
    Winters,...
    You could let it go. Anyone who knows in depth what/how/when DIRECTV® collects its info cannot and will not post that here. Several knowledgable folk have given good replies, but you do seem intent on pinning people down for the sake of argument. Just sayin'.

    The channel is dead, Jim, dead.
     
  20. Dec 1, 2012 #140 of 214
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    23,205
    1,173
    Nov 13, 2006
    If they know that 99% of boxes never tune to that channel for more than 30 seconds, then yeah, they know that channel doesn't real mean anything to the vast majority of their users. That's plenty of complete information for them to make those kinds of conclusions.
     

Share This Page