My cable company took off the food network channel.
Any one else lose it?

Tom

>>>Bitch mode off.

Tom Biasi wrote:
> My cable company took off the food network channel.
> Any one else lose it?
>
> Tom

Unless they replaced it with BET, what's the problem?

-sw

On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 16:01:46 -0500, "Tom Biasi"
> wrote:

>My cable company took off the food network channel.

Which cable company are you with?

>Any one else lose it?

Took it off completely or is it part of a premium package now?

>Tom
>
>>>>Bitch mode off.
>


--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 16:01:46 -0500, Tom Biasi wrote:

> My cable company took off the food network channel.
> Any one else lose it?

<http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/04/business/media/04cable.html?partner=rss&emc=rss>
"More prominently, the Food Network and HGTV disappeared from Cablevisionÿs
lineups in New York and New Jersey on Friday after talks broke down with
the owner of the channels, Scripps Networks.

The Food Network costs distributors 8 cents a viewer on average now;
Scripps wants a roughly 300 percent raise, according to people briefed on
the negotiations. That might seem drastic, but 30 other channels, some with
lower ratings, already earn that much. ´We were really, really
undervalued,¡ said Brooke Johnson, the president of the Food Network.

For ardent fans of ´Iron Chef America,¡ the Food Network is undoubtedly
worth 25 cents a month. But that logic, applied to dozens of channels, can
become pretty expensive for viewers."

Looks to me like things are going to get worse before they get better.
Locally, Fox has been dropped (for the time being) by Mediacom. Don't know
what these folks are thinking, but if I've got to hook up the antenna to
watch football, I don't need Mediacom.

--
heyjoe is currently listening to Jungle Jim on the
Antioch Broadcasting Network
<http://lin2.ash.fast-serv.com:9022/listen.pls>

Tom Biasi wrote:
> My cable company took off the food network channel.
> Any one else lose it?
>
> Tom
>
>>>> Bitch mode off.

Cablevision? Are they at least still negotiating, I wonder.
I'd be mad if I turned on my tv and Food Network and HGTV
disappeared.

nancy

On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 16:20:07 -0500, "Nancy Young"
> wrote:

>I'd be mad if I turned on my tv and Food Network and HGTV
>disappeared.

Me too, and I wouldn't care one whit if they took all of those dumb
sports and shopping channels off. What I don't understand is why they
don't just say "pick xx channels from this list" as your premium
package in this day and age of digital. Extra channels can be an
extra monthly charge or viewed on demand. How hard is that? On
demand is perfect when you only watch one show per channel or only
follow one sports team.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 16:20:07 -0500, "Nancy Young"
> > wrote:
>
>>I'd be mad if I turned on my tv and Food Network and HGTV
>>disappeared.
>
> Me too, and I wouldn't care one whit if they took all of those dumb
> sports and shopping channels off. What I don't understand is why they
> don't just say "pick xx channels from this list" as your premium
> package in this day and age of digital. Extra channels can be an
> extra monthly charge or viewed on demand. How hard is that? On
> demand is perfect when you only watch one show per channel or only
> follow one sports team.
>
> --
> I love cooking with wine.
> Sometimes I even put it in the food.


sounds like around here.....a number of channels were dropped, TruTv (crime
tv), Style, etc. are gone.....we are to praise them for ADDING 10 more
football only channels, 4 golf channels and possibly a competitive
cheerleading channel....oooh, boy....not.
-ginny
I HATE SPORTS.

"Tom Biasi" > wrote in message
...
> My cable company took off the food network channel.
> Any one else lose it?
>
> Tom
>
>>>>Bitch mode off.
>
>
So, call and cancel your cable subscription. Tell them why. If enough
people did this (instead of just bitching on a newsgroup) don't you think
that they would get the message?

Virginia Tadrzynski wrote:
> "sf" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 16:20:07 -0500, "Nancy Young"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> I'd be mad if I turned on my tv and Food Network and HGTV
>>> disappeared.
>> Me too, and I wouldn't care one whit if they took all of those dumb
>> sports and shopping channels off. What I don't understand is why they
>> don't just say "pick xx channels from this list" as your premium
>> package in this day and age of digital. Extra channels can be an
>> extra monthly charge or viewed on demand. How hard is that? On
>> demand is perfect when you only watch one show per channel or only
>> follow one sports team.
>>
>> --
>> I love cooking with wine.
>> Sometimes I even put it in the food.
>
>
> sounds like around here.....a number of channels were dropped, TruTv (crime
> tv), Style, etc. are gone.....we are to praise them for ADDING 10 more
> football only channels, 4 golf channels and possibly a competitive
> cheerleading channel....oooh, boy....not.
> -ginny
> I HATE SPORTS.
>
>
The cable and satellite companies, given their druthers, will never,
EVER, allow ala carte choice of channels. To much advertising revenue
would be lost to all those sports, shopping, and generally crappy channels.

On Jan 4, 5:04*pm, "Bob" > wrote:
> "Tom Biasi" > wrote in message
>
> ...> My cable company took off the food network channel.
> > Any one else lose it?
>
> > Tom
>
> >>>>Bitch mode off.
>
> So, call and cancel your cable subscription. *Tell them why. *If enough
> people did this (instead of just bitching on a newsgroup) don't you think
> that they would get the message?

I canceled cable 4 years ago. I'm interested in watching sportswise:
'boxing' and that's about it. Also nature channels/wildlife channels
I wouldn't mind and a GOOD movie channel. But cable wasn't doing
that. So too del ooo.

Tom Biasi wrote:
> My cable company took off the food network channel.
> Any one else lose it?
>
> Tom
>
>>>> Bitch mode off.
>
>


It feels as though we all lost it about 5 years ago
when it became less about food and more about gimics,
cleavage and personality.

FWIW, Comcast still carries it.

gloria p

On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 17:04:56 -0500, "Bob" > wrote:

>
>"Tom Biasi" > wrote in message
...
>> My cable company took off the food network channel.
>> Any one else lose it?
>>
>> Tom
>>
>>>>>Bitch mode off.
>>
>>
>So, call and cancel your cable subscription. Tell them why. If enough
>people did this (instead of just bitching on a newsgroup) don't you think
>that they would get the message?
>
According to the radio it's going to take 39,000. That's their break
even number for cancellations.

Lou

sf wrote:

> Me too, and I wouldn't care one whit if they took all of those dumb
> sports and shopping channels off. What I don't understand is why they
> don't just say "pick xx channels from this list" as your premium
> package in this day and age of digital. Extra channels can be an
> extra monthly charge or viewed on demand. How hard is that? On
> demand is perfect when you only watch one show per channel or only
> follow one sports team.

My satellite company is always jerking around with bundles. I am
considering dropping all the bundles and paying only for the channels
that I actually watch. In order to get BBC news and the History
channels I have to get the package that includes Fox News and a bunch of
other stations that I never watch. I like the Comedy channel and get
east and west, but it comes with a bunch of childrens cartoon channels.
Food Network comes bundled with a bunch of shows geared toward the
female demographic. Most of the bundles only have one or two channels
that I ever watch.


There is a broadcasting network that is trying to get the government to
force the satellite and cable companies to pay them for their signal.
IMO, that is just plain nuts. We have to subscribe to the basic networks
before we can get any other programing. Considering that the real
product in network TV is not the programming but the audience that they
attract in order to justify their advertising fees, the networks should
be paying the satellite and cable companies to carry their signal.

George Shirley wrote:

> The cable and satellite companies, given their druthers, will never,
> EVER, allow ala carte choice of channels. To much advertising revenue
> would be lost to all those sports, shopping, and generally crappy channels.


I can subscribe to individual channels on my satellite. I have to
subscribe to the basic networks, but the specialty channels can be
bought individually or I can get them in bundles. They keep shifting the
bundles around. You subscribe to one bundle to get a particular channel
and then find that it has been moved to a different one. If there are
two good channels in a bundle with 8 others, they will add something and
then split the bundle into two, putting one of the good channels in one
bundle and the other in the second bundle. That was what they did when
they started carrying Fox. The old bundle had 11 news stations. They
split them into two bundles of six.

On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 21:32:19 -0500, Dave Smith >
wrote:

>sf wrote:
>
>> Me too, and I wouldn't care one whit if they took all of those dumb
>> sports and shopping channels off. What I don't understand is why they
>> don't just say "pick xx channels from this list" as your premium
>> package in this day and age of digital. Extra channels can be an
>> extra monthly charge or viewed on demand. How hard is that? On
>> demand is perfect when you only watch one show per channel or only
>> follow one sports team.
>
>My satellite company is always jerking around with bundles. I am
>considering dropping all the bundles and paying only for the channels
>that I actually watch. In order to get BBC news and the History
>channels I have to get the package that includes Fox News and a bunch of
>other stations that I never watch. I like the Comedy channel and get
>east and west, but it comes with a bunch of childrens cartoon channels.
> Food Network comes bundled with a bunch of shows geared toward the
>female demographic. Most of the bundles only have one or two channels
>that I ever watch.
>
>
>There is a broadcasting network that is trying to get the government to
>force the satellite and cable companies to pay them for their signal.
>IMO, that is just plain nuts. We have to subscribe to the basic networks
>before we can get any other programing. Considering that the real
>product in network TV is not the programming but the audience that they
>attract in order to justify their advertising fees, the networks should
>be paying the satellite and cable companies to carry their signal.

That's crazyness, the local networks have had their signal highjacked for so
many years without compensation. Meanwhile the fat cat cable and sattelite
companies are getting rich off the programming. We've already had one TV
station (CKX-TV) closed down because of this, leaving over 60,000 viewers
without local news, meaning the only local news available to them is from a
network station over 1400 miles away.

ffu wrote:

>> There is a broadcasting network that is trying to get the government to
>> force the satellite and cable companies to pay them for their signal.
>> IMO, that is just plain nuts. We have to subscribe to the basic networks
>> before we can get any other programing. Considering that the real
>> product in network TV is not the programming but the audience that they
>> attract in order to justify their advertising fees, the networks should
>> be paying the satellite and cable companies to carry their signal.
>
> That's crazyness, the local networks have had their signal highjacked for so
> many years without compensation. Meanwhile the fat cat cable and sattelite
> companies are getting rich off the programming. We've already had one TV
> station (CKX-TV) closed down because of this, leaving over 60,000 viewers
> without local news, meaning the only local news available to them is from a
> network station over 1400 miles away.

Those networks are sending their signals into the air so that anyone can
pick them up for free. Their costs are paid by advertising sales, and
the more people watching their shows the more money they can charge for
advertising spots. A bigger audience means more revenue. IMO, the cable
and satellite companies are doing the networks a favour by carrying
their signals.

The cable and satellite companies have to carry the network signals and
users have to pay for the basic package. AFAIAC, if the networks insist
on being paid to carry their signals, then the cable companies should
have the option of not carrying it. Given the high percentage of people
who subscribe to cable or satellite, not having their signals carried
would mean a huge drop in viewers, and a huge drop in advertising revenues.

There is a local station that is crying the blues over the possibility
of their parent company closing them down. While I do watch their news,
since it is the only station that carries local news, I never watch the
rest of their programming because it sucks. There is nothing of interest.

On Jan 4, 3:01*pm, "Tom Biasi" > wrote:
> My cable company took off the food network channel.
> Any one else lose it?

You actually watch that crapola?

Dave Smith wrote:

> I can subscribe to individual channels on my satellite. I have to
> subscribe to the basic networks, but the specialty channels can be
> bought individually or I can get them in bundles. They keep shifting
> the bundles around. You subscribe to one bundle to get a particular
> channel and then find that it has been moved to a different one. If
> there are two good channels in a bundle with 8 others, they will add
> something and then split the bundle into two, putting one of the good
> channels in one bundle and the other in the second bundle. That was
> what they did when they started carrying Fox. The old bundle had 11
> news stations. They split them into two bundles of six.

The cable/sattellite companies awre masters of the bundle. Our cable
company, Metgrocast, is upgrading the entire system to fiberoptics. In a
few weeks we get new rates and new bundles. I have HD, but if I want the
History Channela nd National Geographic in HD, they are part of a $5 bundle
over the already $$$ HD package. If I want HD Net, that comes in another $5
bundle with stiff I don't want.

Just as bad is XM radio. I just got a new car with XM and a three month
free trial. I can get music only for $10 or I can get talk and news for $10
or both for $13 or so., even more for $17. How much can a person listen to?
I still have time to decide, but I'm probably going for the mostly music.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> Dave Smith wrote:
>
>> I can subscribe to individual channels on my satellite. I have to
>> subscribe to the basic networks, but the specialty channels can be
>> bought individually or I can get them in bundles. They keep shifting
>> the bundles around. You subscribe to one bundle to get a particular
>> channel and then find that it has been moved to a different one. If
>> there are two good channels in a bundle with 8 others, they will add
>> something and then split the bundle into two, putting one of the good
>> channels in one bundle and the other in the second bundle. That was
>> what they did when they started carrying Fox. The old bundle had 11
>> news stations. They split them into two bundles of six.
>
> The cable/sattellite companies awre masters of the bundle. Our cable
> company, Metgrocast, is upgrading the entire system to fiberoptics. In a
> few weeks we get new rates and new bundles. I have HD, but if I want the
> History Channela nd National Geographic in HD, they are part of a $5 bundle
> over the already $$$ HD package. If I want HD Net, that comes in another $5
> bundle with stiff I don't want.
>
> Just as bad is XM radio. I just got a new car with XM and a three month
> free trial. I can get music only for $10 or I can get talk and news for $10
> or both for $13 or so., even more for $17. How much can a person listen to?
> I still have time to decide, but I'm probably going for the mostly music.
>
>
>
Go for the music! I can't drive without my XM radio. We've had it since 2004

--
Janet Wilder
Way-the-heck-south Texas
Spelling doesn't count. Cooking does.

On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 21:57:53 -0500, Dave Smith >
wrote:

>ffu wrote:
>
>>> There is a broadcasting network that is trying to get the government to
>>> force the satellite and cable companies to pay them for their signal.
>>> IMO, that is just plain nuts. We have to subscribe to the basic networks
>>> before we can get any other programing. Considering that the real
>>> product in network TV is not the programming but the audience that they
>>> attract in order to justify their advertising fees, the networks should
>>> be paying the satellite and cable companies to carry their signal.
>>
>> That's crazyness, the local networks have had their signal highjacked for so
>> many years without compensation. Meanwhile the fat cat cable and sattelite
>> companies are getting rich off the programming. We've already had one TV
>> station (CKX-TV) closed down because of this, leaving over 60,000 viewers
>> without local news, meaning the only local news available to them is from a
>> network station over 1400 miles away.
>
>Those networks are sending their signals into the air so that anyone can
>pick them up for free. Their costs are paid by advertising sales, and
>the more people watching their shows the more money they can charge for
>advertising spots. A bigger audience means more revenue. IMO, the cable
>and satellite companies are doing the networks a favour by carrying
>their signals.

The signals are digitalized, a pair of rabbit ears won't pickup the signal,
it's more complicated than that.. The cable companys are self serving, they do
nothing for anyone else.

>The cable and satellite companies have to carry the network signals and
>users have to pay for the basic package. AFAIAC, if the networks insist
>on being paid to carry their signals, then the cable companies should
>have the option of not carrying it. Given the high percentage of people
>who subscribe to cable or satellite, not having their signals carried
>would mean a huge drop in viewers, and a huge drop in advertising revenues.

Yes they have to carry some in the basic, if they didn't their revenue would
drop substantually because of the lost advertising revenue. You see it's a two
way street, and the cable companys are taking advantage.



>There is a local station that is crying the blues over the possibility
>of their parent company closing them down. While I do watch their news,
>since it is the only station that carries local news, I never watch the
>rest of their programming because it sucks. There is nothing of interest.

More local programming lost, you'll get a news feed from the parent thousands
of miles away. What do they care if a hundred locals loose their jobs, what do
they know about the local soccer game or the the fire at the hardware store,
nothing!

On Jan 4, 4:01*pm, "Tom Biasi" > wrote:
> My cable company took off the food network channel.
> Any one else lose it?


No great loss, in my book. I looked at it MAYbe once a month.

On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 13:40:26 -0800, sf wrote:

> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 16:20:07 -0500, "Nancy Young"
> > wrote:
>
>>I'd be mad if I turned on my tv and Food Network and HGTV
>>disappeared.
>
> Me too, and I wouldn't care one whit if they took all of those dumb
> sports and shopping channels off. What I don't understand is why they
> don't just say "pick xx channels from this list" as your premium
> package in this day and age of digital. Extra channels can be an
> extra monthly charge or viewed on demand. How hard is that? On
> demand is perfect when you only watch one show per channel or only
> follow one sports team.

to a certain extent, you can blame the god-bothering networks and other
niche broadcasters for that:

(MAY 2, 2005)
A la carte is a backdoor attempt to influence content by forcing cable
operators to let consumers pick the channels that they want to buy. If
parents could choose their channels instead of having to select one of the
packages offered by the cable companies, the argument goes, then they could
get the kid-friendly Disney Channel, for example, without also signing up
for the more risqué MTV.

But such disparate parties as Disney, religious broadcasters Pat Robertson
and Jerry Falwell, and groups including the Leadership Conference on Civil
Rights helped the cable industry deep-six that proposal. Without cable's
broad programming packages, they argued, networks like Black Entertainment
Television and the Christian Broadcasting Network would have never
survived. One idea that is favored by Senator Stevens and Kevin J. Martin,
the new chairman of the FCC, would require cable operators to offer a
package of family-friendly channels.

<http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_18/c3931059_mz013.htm>

a .pdf, but a short one:

<http://www.faithandfamilytv.com/FFTV.AP.31106.pdf>

your pal,
blake

On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 11:09:11 -0500, blake murphy >
wrote:

>On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 13:40:26 -0800, sf wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 16:20:07 -0500, "Nancy Young"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>I'd be mad if I turned on my tv and Food Network and HGTV
>>>disappeared.
>>
>> Me too, and I wouldn't care one whit if they took all of those dumb
>> sports and shopping channels off. What I don't understand is why they
>> don't just say "pick xx channels from this list" as your premium
>> package in this day and age of digital. Extra channels can be an
>> extra monthly charge or viewed on demand. How hard is that? On
>> demand is perfect when you only watch one show per channel or only
>> follow one sports team.
>
>to a certain extent, you can blame the god-bothering networks and other
>niche broadcasters for that:
>
>(MAY 2, 2005)
>A la carte is a backdoor attempt to influence content by forcing cable
>operators to let consumers pick the channels that they want to buy. If
>parents could choose their channels instead of having to select one of the
>packages offered by the cable companies, the argument goes, then they could
>get the kid-friendly Disney Channel, for example, without also signing up
>for the more risqué MTV.
>
>But such disparate parties as Disney, religious broadcasters Pat Robertson
>and Jerry Falwell, and groups including the Leadership Conference on Civil
>Rights helped the cable industry deep-six that proposal. Without cable's
>broad programming packages, they argued, networks like Black Entertainment
>Television and the Christian Broadcasting Network would have never
>survived. One idea that is favored by Senator Stevens and Kevin J. Martin,
>the new chairman of the FCC, would require cable operators to offer a
>package of family-friendly channels.


Seems our provider is more instep with the times then, we have to take the
basics but can pick and chose any other seperate channels other than theme
groups for $1.99 each.

On Jan 4, 3:01*pm, "Tom Biasi" > wrote:
> My cable company took off the food network channel.
> Any one else lose it?
>
> Tom
>
>
>
> >>>Bitch mode off.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Simple solution - get a dish - either DirecTV or Dish network - much
better, anyway, and the Food network and HGTV are in the base packages
(along with History, all the TLC channels, etc.).

N.

Nancy2 wrote:
> On Jan 4, 3:01 pm, "Tom Biasi" > wrote:
>> My cable company took off the food network channel.
>> Any one else lose it?
>>
>> Tom
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> Bitch mode off.- Hide quoted text -
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Simple solution - get a dish - either DirecTV or Dish network - much
> better, anyway, and the Food network and HGTV are in the base packages
> (along with History, all the TLC channels, etc.).
>

They are satellite systems and they are playing the same games as the
cable companies. They bundle channels in a way that you get one or two
good channels and a bunch of crap. They have a habit of splitting the
good channels up so that you have to get 2 or 3 other bundles in order
to get those same good channels and fill the bundles with crap channels
you never watch.

Kalmia wrote:
> No great loss, in my book. I looked at it MAYbe once a month.

We can not find the time. We only watch television about 2 hrs per
night, yesterday we only watched for 30 minutes. We record shows on the
DVR and watch it when we can. If I were not here, he would never turn
the television on at all.


Becca

In article > ,
Dave Smith > wrote:

> Nancy2 wrote:

> > Simple solution - get a dish - either DirecTV or Dish network - much
> > better, anyway, and the Food network and HGTV are in the base packages
> > (along with History, all the TLC channels, etc.).
> >
>
> They are satellite systems and they are playing the same games as the
> cable companies. They bundle channels in a way that you get one or two
> good channels and a bunch of crap. They have a habit of splitting the
> good channels up so that you have to get 2 or 3 other bundles in order
> to get those same good channels and fill the bundles with crap channels
> you never watch.

Despite the big difference in technology, I see the business models for
cable and dish as being similar. It does appear, though, that the
business models for dish in Canada are different than the US. I don't
see many single channels offered, or a lot of separate bundles.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

Dan Abel wrote:
>
>> They are satellite systems and they are playing the same games as the
>> cable companies. They bundle channels in a way that you get one or two
>> good channels and a bunch of crap. They have a habit of splitting the
>> good channels up so that you have to get 2 or 3 other bundles in order
>> to get those same good channels and fill the bundles with crap channels
>> you never watch.
>
> Despite the big difference in technology, I see the business models for
> cable and dish as being similar. It does appear, though, that the
> business models for dish in Canada are different than the US. I don't
> see many single channels offered, or a lot of separate bundles.

I have some appreciation for the argument that the both the cable and
satellite signal providers profit from carrying the network signals.
However, they are providing the technology that provides signals to
people who might otherwise not get them. Living in the Niagara peninsula
I am closer to a number of American broadcasters than Canadian sources,
and living on the back side of the escarpment, signals from Toronto and
Hamilton are partially blocked. I would have extremely limited viewing
without satellite, and no cable on this road.

One particular Canadian broadcaster is lobbying for the government to
charge the satellite a fee to carry their signal. Those guys are selling
advertising to pay for their programming and supposedly providing an
audience for the ads. That is how TV broadcasting worked for years. They
air programs to attract an audience. That does them no good if I can't
get their signal. Some of the same programs carried by the Canadian
companies are also on the American stations. I can see them better on
American channels, so the Canadian advertisers don't get their ads to me.

Since broadcasting is federally regulated, the signal providers must
have the Canadian stations in their basic package. The way I see it is
that the networks benefit from having their signals carried by signal
providers. They should be thanking the cable and satellite companies for
providing their signal to a wider audience.


I just looked at my providers packages. There is no getting away from
the basic package, which includes time shift on the Canadian networks
and all the American networks, but a smaller selection of them. Instead
of PBS out of Buffalo I get the Boston version.

There are various packages available which over various numbers of
bundles and movies. You can order individual bundles for $4.99 per month
or individual stations for as low as 99 cents per month.


All this discussion is making me think about changing my package. There
is very little worth watching on the Food Network. The history channel
has more movies and crime stories than history. The military channel
runs about a dozen programs per month and simply rotates the days and
times they are shown.

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
m...
> Nancy2 wrote:
>> On Jan 4, 3:01 pm, "Tom Biasi" > wrote:
>>> My cable company took off the food network channel.
>>> Any one else lose it?
>>>
>>> Tom
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> Bitch mode off.- Hide quoted text -
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> Simple solution - get a dish - either DirecTV or Dish network - much
>> better, anyway, and the Food network and HGTV are in the base packages
>> (along with History, all the TLC channels, etc.).
>>
>
> They are satellite systems and they are playing the same games as the
> cable companies. They bundle channels in a way that you get one or two
> good channels and a bunch of crap. They have a habit of splitting the good
> channels up so that you have to get 2 or 3 other bundles in order to get
> those same good channels and fill the bundles with crap channels you never
> watch.

I have Dish. I don't have bundles. I can choose tiers, 1,2, and 3. I have
tier 2 with about 200 channels. The majority of the good channels are on
tier 2. There are some on tier 3 I wouldn't mind having but I can live
without. Then you can add the premium movie channels to which ever tier you
want.

Ms P

Dan Abel wrote:
> In article > ,
> Dave Smith > wrote:
>
>> Nancy2 wrote:
>
>>> Simple solution - get a dish - either DirecTV or Dish network - much
>>> better, anyway, and the Food network and HGTV are in the base packages
>>> (along with History, all the TLC channels, etc.).
>>>
>> They are satellite systems and they are playing the same games as the
>> cable companies. They bundle channels in a way that you get one or two
>> good channels and a bunch of crap. They have a habit of splitting the
>> good channels up so that you have to get 2 or 3 other bundles in order
>> to get those same good channels and fill the bundles with crap channels
>> you never watch.
>
> Despite the big difference in technology, I see the business models for
> cable and dish as being similar. It does appear, though, that the
> business models for dish in Canada are different than the US. I don't
> see many single channels offered, or a lot of separate bundles.
>
We have both DirecTV and Dish Network. The DirecTV is solely so DH can
get MLB Extra Innings so he can watch the Yankees play baseball. We turn
it off when it's not baseball season. We have the basic package on
DirecTV and i have to say it's crap. Dish has a much better basic
package and they charge less. YMMV

--
Janet Wilder
Way-the-heck-south Texas
Spelling doesn't count. Cooking does.

On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 14:51:27 -0500, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>Living in the Niagara peninsula
>I am closer to a number of American broadcasters than Canadian sources,
>and living on the back side of the escarpment, signals from Toronto and
>Hamilton are partially blocked. I would have extremely limited viewing
>without satellite, and no cable on this road.

That's the main reason I was so glad to finally have cable. I live in
a "hilly" city and television signals are either blocked or bounce off
the hills. When they bounce, it creates "ghosts" on the screen.
Cable took care of that problem.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On Jan 5, 11:04*am, Dave Smith > wrote:
> Nancy2 wrote:
> > On Jan 4, 3:01 pm, "Tom Biasi" > wrote:
> >> My cable company took off the food network channel.
> >> Any one else lose it?
>
> >> Tom
>
> >>>>> Bitch mode off.- Hide quoted text -
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Simple solution - get a dish - either DirecTV or Dish network - much
> > better, anyway, and the Food network and HGTV are in the base packages
> > (along with History, all the TLC channels, etc.).
>
> They are satellite systems and they are playing the same games as the
> cable companies. *They bundle channels in a way that you get one or two
> good channels and a bunch of crap. They have a habit of splitting the
> good channels up so that you have to get 2 or 3 other bundles in order
> to get those same good channels and fill the bundles with crap channels
> you never watch.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

That's odd, because my base DTV package has all the channels I like.
History, Nat Geo, Animal Planet, Food, HGTV, CNN and HLN, AMC, TCM,
FX, TNT, USA, CMT, Comedy, Bravo, A & E, Weather, Speed, ESPN and
ESPN2 plus the Big 10 Network and NFL network, the assortment of
Discovery channels, TLC, Travel, etc. etc. etc. OTOH, all I ask is to
be entertained or educated for a while ....

N.

On Jan 5, 2:30*pm, Janet Wilder > wrote:
> Dan Abel wrote:
> > In article > ,
> > *Dave Smith > wrote:
>
> >> Nancy2 wrote:
>
> >>> Simple solution - get a dish - either DirecTV or Dish network - much
> >>> better, anyway, and the Food network and HGTV are in the base packages
> >>> (along with History, all the TLC channels, etc.).
>
> >> They are satellite systems and they are playing the same games as the
> >> cable companies. *They bundle channels in a way that you get one or two
> >> good channels and a bunch of crap. They have a habit of splitting the
> >> good channels up so that you have to get 2 or 3 other bundles in order
> >> to get those same good channels and fill the bundles with crap channels
> >> you never watch.
>
> > Despite the big difference in technology, I see the business models for
> > cable and dish as being similar. *It does appear, though, that the
> > business models for dish in Canada are different than the US. *I don't
> > see many single channels offered, or a lot of separate bundles.
>
> We have both DirecTV and Dish Network. The DirecTV is solely so DH can
> get MLB Extra Innings so he can watch the Yankees play baseball. We turn
> it off when it's not baseball season. We have the basic package on
> DirecTV and i have to say it's crap. Dish has a much better basic
> package and they charge less. YMMV
>
> --
> Janet Wilder
> Way-the-heck-south Texas
> Spelling doesn't count. *Cooking does.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Well, for me, DTV is perfect. I see no reason to pay more than for
the base group, because there's just nothing there I want to see. I
love being able to watch Friday Night Lights early in the year,
without commercials - only on DTV. I love Speed, which offers Hot
Pass (Nascar Cup), only on DTV. Last night's Orange Bowl game, in
case you didn't notice, had special DTV over-view cameras which showed
up close and spectacular shots of plays. I imagine that those shots
were available to anyone watching Fox for the game, but still, DTV has
the best technology, in my view, and the best base package (I compare
it to my son's Dish Network). For me, that is. It's a good thing we
all aren't the same....

N.