Why can't we choose the foxtel channels we want.

[warren]

The biggest drawback with Foxtel IMO is that they choose the channels for
you.

Instead of giving you these channels if you choose this package and these
other channels if you take this package why don't they simply say - right
this is the cost per channel, if you take this number of channels you pay
this amount.

Why do I have to have 5 odd sport channels on the basic package when I don't
watch any however if I want to get the biography channel I have to pay an
extra $20 a month.

[Craig Sutton]

"warren" <warren@code.com> wrote in message
news:4275d856$0$8124$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au ...
> The biggest drawback with Foxtel IMO is that they choose the channels for
> you.
>
> Instead of giving you these channels if you choose this package and these
> other channels if you take this package why don't they simply say - right
> this is the cost per channel, if you take this number of channels you pay
> this amount.
>
> Why do I have to have 5 odd sport channels on the basic package when I
don't
> watch any however if I want to get the biography channel I have to pay an
> extra $20 a month.
>
Because Foxtel have to pay minimum amounts to the Channel providers. Even if
they don't have that many subscribers to that channel.

[sclozza]

> Why do I have to have 5 odd sport channels on the basic package when I don't
> watch any however if I want to get the biography channel I have to pay an
> extra $20 a month.

Only an extra 12.95/month.

[RB]

warren wrote:
> The biggest drawback with Foxtel IMO is that they choose the channels for
> you.
>
> Instead of giving you these channels if you choose this package and these
> other channels if you take this package why don't they simply say - right
> this is the cost per channel, if you take this number of channels you pay
> this amount.
>
> Why do I have to have 5 odd sport channels on the basic package when I don't
> watch any however if I want to get the biography channel I have to pay an
> extra $20 a month.
>
>
>


Because then they'd get people only wanting three channels and FOXTEL
making no money!

[Firefly]

"warren" <warren@code.com> wrote in message
news:4275d856$0$8124$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au ...
> The biggest drawback with Foxtel IMO is that they choose the channels for
> you.
>
> Instead of giving you these channels if you choose this package and these
> other channels if you take this package why don't they simply say - right
> this is the cost per channel, if you take this number of channels you pay
> this amount.
>
> Why do I have to have 5 odd sport channels on the basic package when I
> don't
> watch any however if I want to get the biography channel I have to pay an
> extra $20 a month.
>

Go to EYO of Google and have a look though old threads. We've been over this
umpteen times in the past.

You're willing to fork out $495 for the iQ but bitching over and extra $20
for extra channels?

Un-Fucking-believable

[vavud]

Where did you get this cost of $20.00 extra for one channel?

"warren" <warren@code.com> wrote in message
news:4275d856$0$8124$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au ...
> The biggest drawback with Foxtel IMO is that they choose the channels for
> you.
>
> Instead of giving you these channels if you choose this package and these
> other channels if you take this package why don't they simply say - right
> this is the cost per channel, if you take this number of channels you pay
> this amount.
>
> Why do I have to have 5 odd sport channels on the basic package when I
> don't
> watch any however if I want to get the biography channel I have to pay an
> extra $20 a month.
>
>
>

[Firefly]

Warren isn't too good on facts.

"vavud" <francoisculo@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4276c9ee$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> Where did you get this cost of $20.00 extra for one channel?
>
> "warren" <warren@code.com> wrote in message
> news:4275d856$0$8124$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au ...
>> The biggest drawback with Foxtel IMO is that they choose the channels for
>> you.
>>
>> Instead of giving you these channels if you choose this package and these
>> other channels if you take this package why don't they simply say -
>> right
>> this is the cost per channel, if you take this number of channels you pay
>> this amount.
>>
>> Why do I have to have 5 odd sport channels on the basic package when I
>> don't
>> watch any however if I want to get the biography channel I have to pay an
>> extra $20 a month.
>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Brissie]

On Mon, 2 May 2005 17:35:57 +1000, "warren" <warren@code.com> wrote:

>The biggest drawback with Foxtel IMO is that they choose the channels for
>you.
>
>Instead of giving you these channels if you choose this package and these
>other channels if you take this package why don't they simply say - right
>this is the cost per channel, if you take this number of channels you pay
>this amount.
>
>Why do I have to have 5 odd sport channels on the basic package when I don't
>watch any however if I want to get the biography channel I have to pay an
>extra $20 a month.
>

Because Fox Sports insist that they are in the basic package. Over on
Optus, when they had C7 and ESPN. The sport channels weren't in the
basic package. But as soon as they added Fox Sports to their lineup,
Fox Sports was in the basic.

[den20]

well many subscribers would like to be able to pick and choose the exact channels they want but its not gonna happen. it basically comes down to money. if you were able to pick exactly the channels you wanted, most of us would only choose a few channels and then foxtels debt would increase much more than it already has.


The biggest drawback with Foxtel IMO is that they choose the channels for
you.

Instead of giving you these channels if you choose this package and these
other channels if you take this package why don't they simply say - right
this is the cost per channel, if you take this number of channels you pay
this amount.

Why do I have to have 5 odd sport channels on the basic package when I don't
watch any however if I want to get the biography channel I have to pay an
extra $20 a month.

[Hybrid7]

Look at it this way, if you were able to choose your own foxtel packages, there would be a lot of channels that are more popular than others(i.e sports, movies etc) thus creating revenue for these selected channels.

What would happen then is the other channels, those tailored more to minority groups or "specialty" channels, would not raise as much revenue and therefore would be axed.

Then subscribers would be left with a handfull of say, 20 channels, and would not have the amount of programs and channels to choose from.

might cut the amount of repeats though...

[bassett]

What you say is correct, but at the end of the day, you can still only
watch one channel and may-be record another, at one time. So It does not
matter if you have 200 channels.
The consept of only paying for what you want to watch is not a new one,
But the "spin doctors" will not allow it to happen, By the same token , you
will never be allowed to buy a subscription card and use your own receiver.
bassett


"Hybrid7" <Hybrid7.1oggsw@no-mx.forums.eyo.com.au> wrote in message
news:Hybrid7.1oggsw@no-mx.forums.eyo.com.au...
>
> Look at it this way, if you were able to choose your own foxtel
> packages, there would be a lot of channels that are more popular than
> others(i.e sports, movies etc) thus creating revenue for these selected
> channels.
>
> What would happen then is the other channels, those tailored more to
> minority groups or "specialty" channels, would not raise as much
> revenue and therefore would be axed.
>
> Then subscribers would be left with a handfull of say, 20 channels, and
> would not have the amount of programs and channels to choose from.
>
> might cut the amount of repeats though...
>
>
> --
> Hybrid7

[Hybrid7]

Thats true, but having 200 channels as opposed to 15 channels gives greater diverstiy doesnt it? Even though a majority may be repeats, there is still that choice there...

As for subscription cards, i dont think that would happen.
I mean, as tempramental as set top boxes are, would you really want to fork out a heap of cash for one and then have it fail on you just after warranty and then have to pay for another?
Plus the fact that it would be a lot easier to pirate cards then and foxtel would loose even more money and charge subscribers even more!!



What you say is correct, but at the end of the day, you can still only
watch one channel and may-be record another, at one time. So It does not
matter if you have 200 channels.
The consept of only paying for what you want to watch is not a new one,
But the "spin doctors" will not allow it to happen, By the same token , you
will never be allowed to buy a subscription card and use your own receiver.
bassett


"Hybrid7" <Hybrid7.1oggsw@no-mx.forums.eyo.com.au> wrote in message
news:Hybrid7.1oggsw@no-mx.forums.eyo.com.au...
>
> Look at it this way, if you were able to choose your own foxtel
> packages, there would be a lot of channels that are more popular than
> others(i.e sports, movies etc) thus creating revenue for these selected
> channels.
>
> What would happen then is the other channels, those tailored more to
> minority groups or "specialty" channels, would not raise as much
> revenue and therefore would be axed.
>
> Then subscribers would be left with a handfull of say, 20 channels, and
> would not have the amount of programs and channels to choose from.
>
> might cut the amount of repeats though...
>
>
> --
> Hybrid7

[BWA]

Hybrid7 <Hybrid7.1oi4ib@no-mx.forums.eyo.com.au> wrote in
news:Hybrid7.1oi4ib@no-mx.forums.eyo.com.au:

> I mean, as tempramental as set top boxes are,

Like anything else that depends on the brand\quality of the box. Some are
very reliable. And some are just crap.

[an]

"BWA" <no@no.no> wrote in message
news:42795829$0$29387$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
> Hybrid7 <Hybrid7.1oi4ib@no-mx.forums.eyo.com.au> wrote in
> news:Hybrid7.1oi4ib@no-mx.forums.eyo.com.au:
>
>> I mean, as tempramental as set top boxes are,
>
> Like anything else that depends on the brand\quality of the box. Some are
> very reliable. And some are just crap.

Thats true, some of the nokias have been out there since paytv started in
oz.

[bassett]

Some of us owned Nokia receivers 12 months before the pay services
started.
Av-comm where the first people to import nokia, and in those days the
receivers where all new, unlike later on when only refurbished units where
available.
bassett

"an" <an@aol.com> wrote in message
news:SdGge.611$E7.215@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
Thats true, some of the nokias have been out there since paytv started in
> oz

> "BWA" <no@no.no> wrote in message
> news:42795829$0$29387$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...

>> Hybrid7 <Hybrid7.1oi4ib@no-mx.forums.eyo.com.au> wrote in
>> news:Hybrid7.1oi4ib@no-mx.forums.eyo.com.au:
>>
>>> I mean, as tempramental as set top boxes are,
>>
>> Like anything else that depends on the brand\quality of the box. Some are
>> very reliable. And some are just crap.
>
> .
>

[Martin Taylor]

bassett said....

> Av-comm where the first people to import nokia, and in those days the
> receivers where all new, unlike later on when only refurbished units
> where available.

Am with Austar. Recently added a 2nd decoder to our subs. It's different
to the original which we've had since 1999. It's slower too, taking ages
to navigate between channels, navigating the program guide, etc.

The technician says that Austar is not issuing new decoders. One reason
is that while they perform better the failure rate is high.

It'll be interesting to see how Austar's version of the IQ will perform,
whenever it'll be released. And how reliable it will be.