Why so many Church / Religious channels?

[TobeysDad]

What's with all the church channels? I can't tell you how much it irritates me... that I'm technically paying for these channels. Is it a local mandatory thing to carry these or AT&T's choice? I'm wondering why they don't offer a religious package or something it just irks me to no end. 

[texasguy37 ACE - Champion]

You can hide any channels that you do not wish to see in the Guide:  Menu --> Options --> Channel Options --> Hide Channels

[TobeysDad]

Yes I did that a couple years ago...I was just asking is it a choice by AT&T or some type of mandatory thing that's all. 

[texasguy37 ACE - Champion]

LOL.  Some customers ask the same question about all the sports channels that appear in the channel lineup.  I guess there is something there to suit everyone's tastes.

[Rockingkitty]

Some of the Religius Channels are a pack deal TBN,  the church Channel, JCTV are all part of the Trinty Broadcast Network  along with Smile for a Child.. The rest  are independent channels..

[shoe]

They will not hurt you Trust me

[skeeterintexas]

What's with all the church sports channels? I can't tell 

you how much it irritates me... that I'm technically paying for these channels. Is it a local mandatory thing to carry these or AT&T's choice? 

I'm wondering why they don't offer a religious sports package or something it just irks me to no end.

---

There...fixed. 

[kryptonite]

The problem with the sports pack analogy is that there IS a sports pack... it's just an optional package with "niche" sports. Most people fail to realize that popular sports channels like FSN and ESPN don't qualify for this package.

But the bottom line is that no one knows when a certain TV cahnnel will be added. You can go to uversechan.. LOL!

[bnichols_1]

Question for anyone who knows: Do the religious channels pay to be carried like the shopping channels do? It seems logical to me since they are in effect "selling" something--in this case a particular religious philosophy as well as often seeking cash contributions.

[texasguy37 ACE - Champion]

No.  If it is a local broadcast channel, it is either carried under the "must carry rules" or a deal was negotiated with the provider to pay a carriage fee to include the channel in the lineup.  If it is a cable only channel (TBN, EWTN, BYUtv, etc.), a carriage fee is paid to include the channel in the lineup.  Some are free for the provider to carry without a carriage fee.

The shopping channels pay the providers based on the sales made on that channel.  The religious channels do not pay the providers based on donations received!

[texasguy37 ACE - Champion]

I decided to take a look at the channel lineup to see what channels would be considered as "religious channels".  As far as cable channels, I only see ten:

560/1560 - Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN)

562 - Eternal World Television Network (EWTN)

563 - DayStar

564 - Inspiration Channel

565 - The Church Channel

566 - FamilyNet

567 - BYUtv

570 - Jesus Christ TV

575 - The Word Network

578 - World Harvest Television

Some of these channels (Inspiration Channel, FamilyNet, BYUtv) also carry programming that would not be considered "religious".  Ten channels does not seem like a lot.  There are a heck of lot more sports channels in the U-verse lineup.

Of course depending on your market, you may have some local broadcast channels that carry religious programming.

[Chuckles_2]

Ten is a lot more than I had on cable.

Plus, it's interesting that they are uniformly Christian channels.

[dian1950]

About 9 too many

[texasguy37 ACE - Champion]

---

dian1950 wrote:

About 9 too many

---

You can use the Hide feature for any channels you do not wish to see in the Guide.

[texasguy37 ACE - Champion]

---

Chuckles_2 wrote:

Ten is a lot more than I had on cable.

Plus, it's interesting that they are uniformly Christian channels.

---

I'm sure that you can say that about any category of channels when you compare cable to U-verse.

By the way, what non-Christian religious channels are available that you would like to see U-verse carry?

[Limpy]

---

bnichols_1 wrote:

Question for anyone who knows: Do the religious channels pay to be carried like the shopping channels do? It seems logical to me since they are in effect "selling" something--in this case a particular religious philosophy as well as often seeking cash contributions.

---

OK i'll take the bait!

Your logic isn't logical... You don't need to pay a penny to learn about any religious philosophy (except maybe scientology) but you will have to pay for that gold chain if you really want it. c'mon be honest. You only asked that question so you could set up your jab at religion. LOL Look at the bright side, at least you also have  a bunch of MTV channels. I'm sure you have your dvr set to record their show Skins along with other quality programing.

[MojoMan_1]

---

TobeysDad wrote:

What's with all the church channels? I can't tell you how much it irritates me... that I'm technically paying for these channels. Is it a local mandatory thing to carry these or AT&T's choice? I'm wondering why they don't offer a religious package or something it just irks me to no end. 

---

Your anti-Christian attitude bothers me probably at least as much as the church channels bother you.

That being said, what we need is the ability to buy cable TV channels ala-carte and not only as part of a package deal. However the cable vendors like U-verse do not like this idea because it would reduce their revenues significantly, as people would only buy the channels that they wanted and they would refuse to pay for the literally hundreds of channels that they have no interest in.

Think about the effect that the ability to purchase music by the song rather than by the album (filled with songs people are not interested in - just like so many of the channels on cable TV) has had on the music business. It would not be as hard on cable TV because the business model allows for continuous monthly billing, where music is a one time purchase. But it is still a scenario that the cable TV providers oppose and a service that they refuse to provide. There will have to be legislation passed before we are ever provided this sort of option. Maybe someday.

[SomeJoe7777 ACE - Geek]

---

MojoMan_1 wrote:

That being said, what we need is the ability to buy cable TV channels ala-carte and not only as part of a package deal. However the cable vendors like U-verse do not like this idea because it would reduce their revenues significantly, as people would only buy the channels that they wanted and they would refuse to pay for the literally hundreds of channels that they have no interest in.

---

The a-la-carte idea sounds nice in theory, but in practice it doesn't work and nobody wins.

Distributors like U-Verse and cable as well as the networks/channels themselves will not let their revenue go down.  They have to have that revenue to operate like they currently do.  Thus, if you went to an a-la-carte system, what would happen is that each channel's individual price would simply skyrocket to make up for the difference.

You can compute what any given channel would cost by just dividing it's current cost to the provider by the percentage of people who actually watch the channel.

Example: The ESPN package (ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPN Classic, + all HD equivalents) costs a provider about $4.00 per month per subscriber.  But only about 25% of subscribers regularly watch ESPN, and those are the ones who would be expected to subscribe to it individually in an a-la-carte system.  $4.00 / 0.25 = $16.00 per month is what that channel would cost you in an a-la-carte system.

For ESPN and other larger channels/networks, they would survive under such a system.  But channels with very low viewership have a severe problem.  Hallmark channel, for example, costs a provider around 8 cents per month per subscriber, and on the best days/times/shows is watched by 0.6 % of subscribers.  0.08 / 0.006 = $13.33 per month.  At over $13 a month, there are Hallmark watchers who simply wouldn't buy it under an a-la-carte system, and the channel would go under and cease to exist.

The end result is that you would no longer have 300+ different channels of content out there, it would reduce down to the top 20-40 players because they're the only ones who could make enough money to operate.  The bottom line is that you, the subscriber, would have many fewer choices of programming, your bill wouldn't really go down at all (and in fact would go up if you purchased more than just a handful of channels), and the pool of channels you could choose from would be severely reduced.

[skeeterintexas]

SJ, I'm giving you a Kudo not because of the content of your post but because your math skills are impressive. :-)

[bnichols_1]

---

Limpy wrote:

---

LOL Look at the bright side, at least you also have  a bunch of MTV channels. I'm sure you have your dvr set to record their show Skins along with other quality programing.

---

Any useful point you were making was ruined by the silly and uneccesary personal attack at the end. BTW--I wouldn't even have a clue what the channel numbers of the MTV nets are.

[kryptonite]

Example: The ESPN package (ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPN Classic, + all HD equivalents) costs a provider about $4.00 per month per subscriber. But only about 25% of subscribers regularly watch ESPN, and those are the ones who would be expected to subscribe to it individually in an a-la-carte system. $4.00 / 0.25 = $16.00 per month is what that channel would cost you in an a-la-carte system.




I've actually heard (forget where), that the $4 for ESPN is *just* ESPN, aka channel 602. All others are additional money.

That does make a bit of sense, considering ESPN3 and ESPN Networks negotiated seperately. In addition, ESPN Classic, ESPNU and ESPN News are on seperate tiers from ESPN and ESPN2. Just because someone gets ESPN doesn't necessarily mean they get ESPN Classic.

[oufanindallas]

And considering ESPN is owned by ABC/Disney, those channels would go up as well since they are usually included in there grouping of channels.  I personnaly don't want to see an ala-carte system because I wouldn't have nearly as many channels and I would probably miss some really good tv shows.  Andy my 2 yo would be mighty upset if he didn't have his Disney in the mornings and Nick Jr in the evenings.

[MojoMan_1]

In any case, this is the answer to the question in the OP.

We have so many church channels (and every other kind of channel) because of the narrow range of options provided to cable TV consumers by the cable companies. This is done on purpose to intentionally restrict their customer's product purchasing options as part of a strategy that is designed to maximize revenues for the cable companies.

[Limpy]

---

bnichols_1 wrote:

Any useful point you were making was ruined by the silly and uneccesary personal attack at the end. BTW--I wouldn't even have a clue what the channel numbers of the MTV nets are.

---

You're right. That part of my post wasn't necessary. I was just annoyed by your unnecessary poke at religion. I was wrong to post that. After all two wrongs don't make a right.

[bnichols_1]

@Limpyy

I never saw my question a "poke at religion". I asked if religious channels paid to be carried since many do solicit contributions on a regular basis. If the answer was "yes" then I would be all in favor of them because that lowers costs for all subscribers the same way that fees paid by shopping channels do. If it turned out that religious channels were "free" for U-Verse and other cable providers then they are totally not an issue since those who are not interested can hide them or ignore them. If, on the other hand, ATT has to pay to carry religious channels, well that would be OK too since there is an obvious audience and U-Verse has to provide programming to meet a lot of interests.

Asking a question is not necessarily a criticism.

[Limpy]

---

bnichols_1 wrote:

It seems logical to me since they are in effect "selling" something--in this case a particular religious philosophy as well as often seeking cash contributions.

---

In a thread started by a guy who is irritated because religious channels are carried by Uverse you asked your question and then wrote what I quoted above. That totally sounds like a shot at religion. It doesn't matter anyway. I block all those channels and about 100 more so they're not a problem for me.

[ShaunMN]

I would like to thank everyone for taking the time to post your comments and opinions related to this topic. This topic has been thoroughly discussed and will now be closed.