dslreports logo
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2013-04-23 12:27:15: As noted last week, there is a renewed pressure on broadcasters to either finally offer a la carte channels, or at least channel bundles that are a little more consumer friendly and economical. ..

page: 1 · 2 · 3 · next


tshirt
Premium
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:5

6 recommendations

I'm ready to go...

...espn free.
Let the sports junkies buy their own crack.

itguy05

join:2005-06-17
Carlisle, PA

2 recommendations

Buh-Bye

Fine by me. Buh-Bye ESPN. Never Watched you, won't miss you.


Brian_M

join:2004-06-19
Manchester, GA
Reviews:
·Charter

1 recommendation

reply to tshirt

Re: I'm ready to go...

I am ESPN/sports free.... took ditching cable/satellite altogether though.

*shrug* I'm pretty sure that broadcasters have lost my household forever for ANY video service. I'm more than happy to wait till something worth watching hits dvd/netflix/amazon/etc...

joebear29

join:2003-07-20
Alabaster, AL
reply to tshirt
That's fine as long as they can buy only the sports channels. Making them pay for everyone else's crap and then pay extra for sports is unfair.


Corehhi

join:2002-01-28
Bluffton, SC

I wish this was true

ESPN, I don't need that and in fact I don't need many channels. I would like maybe 10 channels.


IowaCowboy
Iowa native
Premium
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Verizon Broadban..
·Comcast
reply to tshirt

Re: I'm ready to go...

I agree, if I could pick channel bundles I would take local channels, news/weather channels, and music. Of course with mom in the house I would have to add Food Network and HGTV to the mix.

Al-a-carte would be a logistical nightmare if we got to choose individual channels as cable companies would have to program each converter for the channels a customer wants. Not to mention the increased cost of labor for taking orders and provisioning accounts so a-la-carte would actually drive costs up. What I would like is for channels to be bundled by genre (such as news or music) and allow customers to choose genre based bundles instead of the current model of having to buy crappy shopping/infomercial channels to get the good channels.
--
I've experienced ImOn (when they were McLeod USA), Mediacom, Comcast, and Time Warner and I currently have DirecTV. They are much better than broadcast TV.

I have not and will not cut the cord.

tpkatl

join:2009-11-16
Dacula, GA

What is more likely to happen

Cable carriers will separate out the ESPN cost and charge extra.

But cable costs will NOT go down. Non-ESPN watchers will pay the same.

Why would you think that Comcast, Verizon, etc., would voluntarily reduce any revenue?


NotHereNow

@verizon.net

So, what he's saying is...

ESPN raises the price of the typical cable bill by about $20...

brutus

join:2003-12-16
Tampa, FL

Not a problem.

I would happily dump ESPN. We don't watch sports and the only time we even watched ESPN was for the show Playmakers before the NFL complained and got them to cancel it. We don't even add it to the list of channels we receive on TiVo.

unoriginal
Premium
join:2000-07-12
San Diego, CA

Fine with me

Can I also drop ESPN2, ESPN Classic, ESPN News, NFL Network, and since I'm in Southern California, the TWC Lakers Channel and Dodgers channel that's coming next year too?

elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA

And his point is ... ?

I see nothing wrong with ESPN charging $20/month for ala-carte service. Sports fans already pay substantial amounts for "NFL Sunday Ticket" and various other packages.

Let the marketplace decide.

ptbarnett

join:2002-09-30
Lewisville, TX

Make it a premium offering, like HBO.

If I could drop it from our subscription, I'd do it in a heartbeat. I'd settle for a $10 reduction in our bill.

But, if you try to screw us by bundling a bunch of non-sports channels with it, we'll still drop it.... and you'll lose viewers from those other channels.

Try to explain that to your advertisers.

ptbarnett

join:2002-09-30
Lewisville, TX
reply to IowaCowboy

Re: I'm ready to go...

said by IowaCowboy:

Al-a-carte would be a logistical nightmare if we got to choose individual channels as cable companies would have to program each converter for the channels a customer wants. Not to mention the increased cost of labor for taking orders and provisioning accounts so a-la-carte would actually drive costs up.

Digital set top boxes don't care how channels are bundled. They are enabled and disabled individually.

If subscription and unsubscription is integrated into the set-top box firmware, there's need for CSRs except to handle problems.

A bonus would be an AJAX web interface that would allow you to click and unclick your subscriptions, and automatically update your monthly bill total (including all the taxes and franchise fees).


en103

join:2011-05-02
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
reply to IowaCowboy
I agree - Cable/Satellite/Uverse/FiOS should be able to make a 'create your bundle' package:

$20 for 'service' plus cheapest channel

then channels 'a-la-carte' pricing and bundled pricing - note many single channels will cost more per channel (duh) and bundles in general MAY cost a bit less w/o sports, but in general more overall, and a lot of junk channels will disappear.

The Antihero

join:2002-04-09
Enola, PA
reply to itguy05

Re: Buh-Bye

Same here. I never understood the appeal of watching other people play games, and I never understood why I should have to subsidize the people who do watch sports. I like watching movies, but I don't expect other people to subsidize my movie channels.


PW97

@qwest.net

Bring it on, this thing called A-La-Carte

Dear Mr. Malone,
they are already paying that and a whole lot more.

On it's merit's A-La-Carte is a real threat to media companies. It would force them to actually compete for the subscriber.

This would be a huge change for their business landscape, instead of double or triple dipping fees from content providers, advertisers and subscribers alike - they would be force to make decisions based on the actual needs of those viewing.

Bring it on, this thing called A-La-Carte.


CAST 665

@comcastbusiness.net

Don't need ESPN to get the NHL

Don't need ESPN to get the NHL

zippoboy7

join:2006-06-18
USA
reply to ptbarnett

Re: Make it a premium offering, like HBO.

I say just make all the Disney\ABC channels there own package (»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_as ··· on_Group) that would include all the crap ESPN channels. The only channel that they have any involvement in that I watch is History which they don't own outright and it is negotiated separate from the rest of their crap anyway. That whole package alone should lower most peoples bills by $25-30.


n2jtx

join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY
reply to The Antihero

Re: Buh-Bye

said by The Antihero:

Same here. I never understood the appeal of watching other people play games, and I never understood why I should have to subsidize the people who do watch sports. I like watching movies, but I don't expect other people to subsidize my movie channels.

Me too. They can take all the sports channel, move them to an infinitely priced tier and I would not care in the least. The junkies can pay for their entertainment just like I pay for mine.
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears.


CAST 665

@comcastbusiness.net

need both sports only and sports free packs as a start

need both sports only and sports free packs as a start.

And the sports free choice has all of the main non sports channels (other then the hbo like channels)


inteller
Sociopaths always win.

join:2003-12-08
Tulsa, OK

ESPN is already headed down this road

With WatchESPN they are putting more and more content behind that paywall. ESPN3 was GREAT UNTIL they startedmaking people subscribe to cable and put all the content on WatchESPN.
--
"WHEN THE LAUGH TRACK STARTS THEN THE FUN STARTS!"


Camaro
Question everything
Premium
join:2008-04-05
Westfield, MA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Verizon Wireless..
·Comcast
reply to IowaCowboy

Re: I'm ready to go...

said by IowaCowboy:

Al-a-carte would be a logistical nightmare if we got to choose individual channels as cable companies would have to program each converter for the channels a customer wants.

If this happened by some freak chance I want a complete breakdown of every penny I spend to said channel then we can make informed decisions. For the logistics, the amount of money I get charged they should be bending over backward and forward's for me.


buzz_4_20

join:2003-09-20
Limestone, ME

Does This Mean

I could save $20 by dropping that channel?


NPGMBR5

join:2001-03-28
Arlington, VA
reply to tshirt

Re: I'm ready to go...

And while they're at it, why don't they get rid of those useless music channels too. I wonder how much more we'd save if we didn't have to pay the RIAA tax.

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

1 recommendation

reply to IowaCowboy
I'm pretty sure in this day and age we as consumers could hit a website, place an order and have it show up on our boxes in about 3 minutes without a single person doing a thing on their end. If not, they need better programmers and a smarter system.

axus

join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to NotHereNow

Re: So, what he's saying is...

That's how I see it, too. I learned about how much the content providers are gouging the Cable companies on this website, so I have some sympathy for the high prices they charge.

The worry is that a bunch of people dumping ESPN does not make it any cheaper for the cable co. to provide it to the 40% of people who do want it.

Let's say CableTown is spending 100million dollars for ESPN, for 10 million subscribers, and charging those 10 million $10 each. Now, they offer a la carte, and charge $20 for ESPN. Only 4 million subscribers sign up. If they are still paying 100million dollars for ESPN, they're losing $20 million dollars and have to raise the price to $25.

I think it's fine, 6 million people are saving $10/month, so what if 4 million are paying an extra $15/month. But I can see how they are hesitant to do it, CableTown doesn't make more money and the billing becomes more complicated.

westdc

join:2009-01-25
Amissville, VA
kudos:1

Let it go

It's another channel I can do without!

sparks

join:2001-07-08
Little Rock, AR

get rid of bundling

well I remember years ago the head of comcast saying if people had to pay for sports they couldn't afford them...with a big laugh

its crazy that a mom has to pay a sports fee for nick at night for her kids.

Let them figure out another way to pay those jocks 50 million a year, do they have to bleed everyone


djrobx
Premium
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·VOIPO
reply to tshirt

Re: I'm ready to go...

said by tshirt:

...espn free.
Let the sports junkies buy their own crack.

Right. If $20 is too much, people won't buy it, and they'll be forced to lower the price. Let the free market decide its fate.
--
AT&T U-Hearse - RIP Unlimited Internet 1995-2011
Rethink Billable.


djrobx
Premium
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:2
reply to NPGMBR5
I want the music channels, but I'm happy to buy them as a low cost add-on.