Dick Van Dyke Show On Tv Land Next Week

[clj2]

I would die before I dropped pay-TV. I watch too many cable shows. Guess I have a problem.

As for TV Land's schedule, I like the addition of Dick Van Dyke (even though, if I want to watch it, I'll likely watch it on Me-TV), but the rest of the schedule is weird. Lots of airings for Sanford and Son, Dick Van Dyke, and Bonanza. That's the schedule I was talking about. Too bad Leave It to Beaver didn't return to weekends to go along with Andy Griffith, that was nice while it lasted. MWC will be gone by or early in November.

[Regulus]

Originally Posted by LUNCH

I'm no expert Regulus but I think you're right.I think Pay-tv is going to continue losing many,many customers and there is only one thing that could 'maybe' prevent it.--They MUST offer or be forced to offer the option to only pay for the channels you want to view,and that's probably not going to happen.

I wouldn't be too sure. According to an article by Reuters, Many Pay-TV Providers are considering forcing Programmers to offer their channels A-La-Carte. They might be realising if they don't do something soon to reduce costs, they might see their entire business go under. Or possibly they might look at that group that's filed a lawsuit in Federal Court claming that Pay-TV's practice of making subscribers pay for a medley of channels just to get the few they actually want violates Anti-Trust Laws and said "These people actually have a chance of winning, in which case we would HAVE to offer our channels A-La-Carte". It's an uphill battle for sure, but the bigger they are, the harder they fall!

[LUNCH]

Originally Posted by clj2

I would die before I dropped pay-TV. I watch too many cable shows. Guess I have a problem.

You just got Me-tv right.Hasn't that cut down some or perhaps even alot of your pay-tv viewing.

[ajgenard]

If the public is ever offered channels ala carte then they will just invent more service fees to impose or simply charge a large sum for 1 channel to the point it would be cheaper to buy a package. I have absolutely no faith in big business in this day and age. They have enough money to hire to best minds and legal team to get away with anything they wish.

I hear just about the same story from every person who hasn't been fed up with the system yet - they think they've become too attached to PayTV to even care about the cost. Nor do they want the hassle of a free/cheaper alternative (or even know such a thing as "free TV" still exists), especially for the technologically impaired. I don't think most people realize they are paying someone the absurd amount of $2000 a year for TV service.

What irks me the most is DVR. Exactly what does it cost your service provider for YOU to record something in your own home? If you would have sold someone a VCR 20 years ago and told them they would also have to pay the cableco a monthly fee they would tell you to go pound salt. Now that the service providers have put the squeeze on electronics manufacturers preventing them from producing fee-less DVRs they have created their own monopoly.

So TVLand may indeed slightly modify their schedule giving some people the impression they are going back to the good old days. But its all smoke and mirrors. As soon as society progresses beyond its current keeping-up-with-the-jones' mentality it will realize how foolish it was to be swindled by TV providers so long.

[clj2]

Originally Posted by LUNCH

You just got Me-tv right.Hasn't that cut down some or perhaps even alot of your pay-tv viewing.

I have been watching a lot of Me-TV, live and on DVR. The stuff I watch most on regular pay TV are news shows, Food Network, History Channel, Discovery Channel, Hallmark, and a few original series on cable nets. I haven't watched TV Land on a regular basis in ages.

I guess Me-TV could be considered "pay TV" for some since I bet a ton of its viewers watch it through cable.

[ajgenard]

Originally Posted by clj2

I guess Me-TV could be considered "pay TV" for some since I bet a ton of its viewers watch it through cable.

Now that you mention it, I'd be willing to bet most of its viewers watch via pay TV. I'd also wager that most people don't even know such channels are probably free over the air to them. Service providers do their best to hide the fact that some channels are indeed free over the air.

[clj2]

Originally Posted by ajgenard

Now that you mention it, I'd be willing to bet most of its viewers watch via pay TV. I'd also wager that most people don't even know such channels are probably free over the air to them. Service providers do their best to hide the fact that some channels are indeed free over the air.

True. From the comments I'm reading on their Facebook page, most viewers are watching it on cable...and I mean, why not, if you subscribe. In my area, it's probably much better known as channel 118 than channel 7.2. People probably think it's a cable channel, you're right. It sure isn't a channel you'd expect to be free.

In markets like Chicago, though, Me-TV is on a LP station, but gets cable coverage over most of the Chicago area where viewers otherwise wouldn't get the station OTA, or at least not well. In the town I live in, we're a pretty good distance from the Me-TV affiliate's tower, so in some parts of town you can't get their signal well, cable is the only reliable way you can get it.

[LUNCH]

I used to think even RTV was a cable station.So I agree that alot of viewers who get Antenna and/or Me-tv via cable must think they are just 2 great cable stations and not free stations.