 | | And 10% of Americans think Congress is doing a good job But they keep electing most of the same people to Congress.
10% and 14% are pretty close together. | |
|
 | | | Re: And 10% of Americans think Congress is doing a good job You can't compare the numbers in that way. Yeah, the numbers are pretty close, but their context is no where NEAR the same. | |
|
Reviews:
 ·Optimum Online
 ·Callcentric
 ·Verizon FiOS
1 recommendation | Why do people still accept this "channel" concept? Everything should be on-demand. The whole idea that I have to watch what is shown when it is shown or have to program DVR to record it is a foreign concept to me.
Plus if I pay for something I expect it to have no ads whatsoever. Personally I don't watch anything with ads even if it's free. I receive all major networks OTA and rarely tune in anymore, main reason being a quality of programs and second reason being constant commercial interruptions. | |
|
|  Steve MehsGun Control Is Using A Steady HandPremium
join:2005-07-16 | Re: Why do people still accept this "channel" concept? said by JoeSchmoe007:Everything should be on-demand. The whole idea that I have to watch what is shown when it is shown or have to program DVR to record it is a foreign concept to me.
Plus if I pay for something I expect it to have no ads whatsoever. Personally I don't watch anything with ads even if it's free. I receive all major networks OTA and rarely tune in anymore, main reason being a quality of programs and second reason being constant commercial interruptions.
Without linear channels, there’s no channel surfing, without channel surfing I would be missing out 10-15 of the current shows I watch. I would have never discovered FXs latest drama’s, The Bridge and The American’s, never in a million years would have found Orphan Black. I don’t want to go into some menu scroll through the entire series of a show, just to find the current episode and wait a few seconds for playback. I want my stuff to be recorded on my DVR so I can get to my shows within one or two button presses.
For live content, it makes no sense not to have linear channels. Without linear channels, how am I supposed to keep an eye on multiple football, baseball or hockey games at once? Right now to flip between a football and a NASCAR race, I press the Swap button on my remote and am able to rewind each event to see things I missed when watching the other. How much of a pain in the ass would it be to do something similar solely relying on an On Demand based system?
No thanks, keep the current system in place.
And of course the quality of programming on OTA is garbage. OTA primetime programming is designed for the lowest common denominator. Do you really expect those that enjoy the simplistic, cookie cutter, formulaic storylines of CSI and Law & Order to be able to digest complex plots and character development of the dramas on FX, HBO or AMC? Aside from sports, OTA TV is useless. Never will understand why people think having 52 channels of over the air TV, with lame subchannels is so great. One of the complains by the cable haters is how they 'pay for religious and shopping channels no one watches’, when not only do you not pay for shopping and religious programming on cable, but there’s a good amount of the same stuff on the OTA subchannels.
--
4/17/13 - A Beautiful Day For Freedom, Thank You United States Senate!
Message to Anti-Gun Liberals: HA HA!
Hussein Obama 0, American Public 1
Repeal Obamacare Now!
| |
|
| | Reviews:
·Optimum Online
·Callcentric
·Verizon FiOS
1 edit | Re: Why do people still accept this "channel" concept? You have a point. Maybe linear channels+immediate VoD availability is the solution (I just don't see a need for DVR when Vod is now technically feasible).
About major networks primetime programming being designed for the lowest common denominator: do you think FX, HBO and AMC target a significantly more intellectual audience? Does the fact that someone subscribes for these channels assume that this person is more intellectually advanced? | |
|
| | Reviews:
·Comcast
| said by Steve Mehs:said by JoeSchmoe007:Everything should be on-demand. The whole idea that I have to watch what is shown when it is shown or have to program DVR to record it is a foreign concept to me.
Plus if I pay for something I expect it to have no ads whatsoever. Personally I don't watch anything with ads even if it's free. I receive all major networks OTA and rarely tune in anymore, main reason being a quality of programs and second reason being constant commercial interruptions.
Without linear channels, there’s no channel surfing, without channel surfing I would be missing out 10-15 of the current shows I watch. I would have never discovered FXs latest drama’s, The Bridge and The American’s, never in a million years would have found Orphan Black. I don’t want to go into some menu scroll through the entire series of a show, just to find the current episode and wait a few seconds for playback. I want my stuff to be recorded on my DVR so I can get to my shows within one or two button presses. For live content, it makes no sense not to have linear channels. Without linear channels, how am I supposed to keep an eye on multiple football, baseball or hockey games at once? Right now to flip between a football and a NASCAR race, I press the Swap button on my remote and am able to rewind each event to see things I missed when watching the other. How much of a pain in the ass would it be to do something similar solely relying on an On Demand based system? No thanks, keep the current system in place. And of course the quality of programming on OTA is garbage. OTA primetime programming is designed for the lowest common denominator. Do you really expect those that enjoy the simplistic, cookie cutter, formulaic storylines of CSI and Law & Order to be able to digest complex plots and character development of the dramas on FX, HBO or AMC? Aside from sports, OTA TV is useless. Never will understand why people think having 52 channels of over the air TV, with lame subchannels is so great. One of the complains by the cable haters is how they 'pay for religious and shopping channels no one watches’, when not only do you not pay for shopping and religious programming on cable, but there’s a good amount of the same stuff on the OTA subchannels. Yes, this is the usual argument, but you're bull shitting me if you are going to argue that you aren't paying for sports channels. The compromise is to have genre packages. If you have kids and need mainly cartoon channels or whatever then you should be able to get a cartoon/family package and not have to pay for sports premiums which always go up yearly.
Example: I want Boomerang for my kids, then I shouldn't have to pay for sports, but I will have to pay for the family package which includes Boomerang as well as other channels I might not want like Disney.
Some sort of group/genre packages is the solution. For example this family would have to pay for the ultra premium tier to get certain of these cartoon channels which with Comcast can rage past the $80 a month. It's illogical. I really don't know how you can even find 15 quality shows to watch on TV. I do research for hours and can't find more than one or two shows every six months that are worth watching. | |
|
| | | Steve MehsGun Control Is Using A Steady HandPremium
join:2005-07-16 | Re: Why do people still accept this "channel" concept? quote:
Yes, this is the usual argument, but you're bull shitting me if you are going to argue that you aren't paying for sports channels.
I don't know where you came up with that, since I never mentioned anything about not paying for sports. Considering I'm a sports fan, yes, I know it's uncool to admit that with all the vocal crybaby sports haters here, I don't care. I NEED my sports! Don't care the cost, whatsoever.
quote:
If you have kids and need mainly cartoon channels or whatever then you should be able to get a cartoon/family package and not have to pay for sports premiums which always go up yearly.
Why would you assume just because you want kids channels, means you don't like sports?
quote:
I really don't know how you can even find 15 quality shows to watch on TV. I do research for hours and can't find more than one or two shows every six months that are worth watching.
I believe my DVR list is up to about 70 shows now that I record on a regular basis. Lots of good stuff out there. Aside from a handful of shows on CBS and a few on Fox, all of them are on cable channels.
--
4/17/13 - A Beautiful Day For Freedom, Thank You United States Senate!
Message to Anti-Gun Liberals: HA HA!
Hussein Obama 0, American Public 1
Repeal Obamacare Now!
| |
|
|  BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness | said by JoeSchmoe007: I receive all major networks OTA and rarely tune in anymore, main reason being a quality of programs and second reason being constant commercial interruptions.
How do shows get made with no revenue coming in? | |
|
| | | | Re: Why do people still accept this "channel" concept? You do realize that ads are not the only source of revenue, right? I pay for Amazon Prime and Vod, Neftlix streaming and disc rental. All of these options offer me legal way of watching whatever I want without the ads. | |
|
| | | BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness | Re: Why do people still accept this "channel" concept? Someone out in the boonies with no internet connection and using OTA how is he contributing to the funding of these shows?
Also those sources of revenue are also more expensive exactly because they have no ads. Show on TV=FREE show on Amazon Prime = $4. Also the content creators and networks are not going to just accept less revenue. You're suggesting the just get rid of ads and give up billions in ad money. Sure. Would YOU take less pay for your job? | |
|
| | | | Reviews:
·Optimum Online
·Callcentric
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: Why do people still accept this "channel" concept? OTA shows (just like most transmitted over cable) include ads that someone in the boonies is watching. This is how he contributes. I don't see your point here at all.
Where did I say they should get rid of the ads? I never said that. I said ***I*** would never watch anything with the ads. And I never do. I use multiple legal sources to achieve that. Content creators still make money off of me. What is the problem here? Are you implying that revenue amount for content creators is supposed to be guaranteed somehow? If they can't make do they should go out of business. Is turning sound off or channel surfing during commercials a crime? | |
|
| | | | | BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness | Re: Why do people still accept this "channel" concept? said by JoeSchmoe007:OTA shows (just like most transmitted over cable) include ads that someone in the boonies is watching. This is how he contributes. I don't see your point here at all. because you suggested that broadcasters shouldn't bother having commercials at all. So I'm asking in that situation how are OTA viewers contributing? | |
|
| | | | | | Reviews:
·Optimum Online
·Callcentric
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: Why do people still accept this "channel" concept? I will repeat it one more time: I never said broadcasters should have no ads. I said ***I*** would never watch anything with the ads. This is my last post on the subject because you keep making things up that I never said or suggested.
All models have a place to exist. You want to watch it with ads as a part of your cable subscription - this is fine. I want to watch it without ads via Amazon or Netflix. Someone wants to watch it via OTA - they will watch the same ads you will. I will repeat it again: "If someone watches show via OTA they watch the same ads cable subscriber watches". Advertisers pay no matter where their ads are shown - on cable or via OTA.
Content providers derive revenue from OTA viewers otherwise they wouldn't bother with OTA. | |
|
| | | | | | | BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness | Re: Why do people still accept this "channel" concept? said by JoeSchmoe007:I will repeat it one more time: I never said broadcasters should have no ads. I said ***I*** would never watch anything with the ads. Ok once again using that statement you don't watch ads then it's logical to conclude many people don't watch ads, so let's say broadcasters decide "hey no one watches ads so let's dump them" Ok so now I am asking you how do OTA viewers contribute with no ads? Not sure why my question is making you angry. | |
|
| | | | | | | Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| Joe, you said " EVERYTHING" should be on-demand in your first statement, assuming that once that happens, there will no longer be ads to watch. Logically, when everything is on-demand, they will force feed us commercials. And when theres a work-around for that, there will be ads right smack in the middle of the show or movie. I dont look forward to the day 20 years from now when Tom Hanks steps forward out-of-character and endorses his Ensure or Depends products.
Have you watched youtube lately? The ads are getting worse and worse for almost every streaming video online. | |
|
| | | | | | | | Reviews:
·Optimum Online
·Callcentric
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: Why do people still accept this "channel" concept? said by ITALIAN926:Joe, you said " EVERYTHING" should be on-demand in your first statement, assuming that once that happens, there will no longer be ads to watch.
...
Not true. Even today you can watch new shows like "Hostages" and "Blacklist" on network's website with the ads for free. And at the same time without ads on Amazon VoD for a fee.
In my initial post I expressed what works for me. It doesn't mean it works for everyone else, I elaborated in later posts. Multiple business models can co-exist for a while.
As far as ads go - how much is too much? Do you really find 18 minutes out of the hour acceptable and then you still have to pay to watch it? Well I guess you do. I don't and I pick other options. If content producers didn't see this profitable they wouldn't license content to Amazon and Netflix - no ads there as you know.
Would you still be OK when it is 30 minutes/hour? And you would still be paying for it. And yeah, Tom Hanks will step out of character sooner than you think  | |
|
| | | | | | | | | BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness | Re: Why do people still accept this "channel" concept? said by JoeSchmoe007:As far as ads go - how much is too much? Do you really find 18 minutes out of the hour acceptable and then you still have to pay to watch it?
Then your choice is to buy it at Amazon/Itunes for $4 an episode. Some us would rather put up with ads. You do realize that TV shows were invented as a way to sell shit. Not the other way around. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | XJakeX
join:2005-03-05
Coventry, RI
1 edit | Re: Why do people still accept this "channel" concept? said by JoeSchmoe007:As far as ads go - how much is too much? Do you really find 18 minutes out of the hour acceptable and then you still have to pay to watch it?
I'm with Joe on the commercial issue. 18 to 20 minutes per hour, and even more on some networks, just ruins the immersion in a one hour drama or movie. But by the same token, I refuse to pay $4.00 per episode to watch ad free. I'll wait until Netflix or Amazon prime gets it, and watch it commercial free at my own pace for just the monthly fee.
I'm not anti commercial. I realize that supports the programming. But eventually you get to the point of diminishing returns. For me, that point has been reached. That, and the often very intrusive network logos on the screen all the time is why I cut the cord 4 years ago. The ever increasing cost was just a nuisance. For others, obviously, the point of diminishing returns is still further away.
And let's not forget that the TV industry survived quite well for it's first 40 years on just 8-10 minutes of commercials per hour. Sure programming costs have increased since those days, but so has everything else. That's not why you are seeing more ads. Commercial minutes only increased since the advent of cable, when the networks realized they had a real cash cow opportunity with a captive audience.
Letter sent from TV network to the cable companies in 1980: "Dear Cable Company, We are going to be offering you some new channels very soon. They will only cost you a few pennies per subscriber each month, and in return, we'll make sure that no one can watch these channels without subscribing to your service." Thus the cable only channel and "pay TV" for the masses was born, and the 20 or so channels available from the typical cable service blossomed to almost 80 by the end of that decade. And it didn't take long before those extra channels were no longer just "offered", but became part of mandatory bundling deals.
Many subscribers back in the early days had no clue the money they paid their local cable company each month was for anything more than running the wires to their house and getting them a clear picture with no snow or distortion. And they were happy to have it. The fact they were actually paying the TV networks was a completely foreign idea. They still had to watch ads, and the number of commercial minutes seem to be slowly increasing. Why should the networks get more?
Has the pendulum swung too far in favor of the content providers and away from the consumer? I believe so. If real competition (a la carte) was available, the current system would morph into something entirely new in a short time. Only the Congress or FCC can decide that the current system is a bit too anti trust and competition killing and change that. It will probably never happen on its own. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Why do people still accept this "channel" concept? It can happen on its own. People need to vote with their wallets and things will change. | |
|
| | | | | | | |  RockCakePremium
join:2005-07-12
Woodbridge, VA
·Verizon FiOS
| said by ITALIAN926:Have you watched youtube lately? The ads are getting worse and worse for almost every streaming video online.
Adblock Plus, problem solved. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness | Re: Why do people still accept this "channel" concept? said by RockCake:said by ITALIAN926:Have you watched youtube lately? The ads are getting worse and worse for almost every streaming video online.
Adblock Plus, problem solved. Ok first eventually website will start using adblock detection and not even let you on the sites. Some sites already do this. secondly will just lead to every website being subscription based. Hey no ads but know your internet is $500 a month.
How would like to bust your ass making a website and provide content for free and all you ask is people put with some advertising then these same people block ads so you lose ad revenue? You know what you'd do, you'd charge a subscription. | |
|
1 recommendation | Shocker This survey comes up with the shocking result that Americans want everything, but don't want to pay for it. | |
|
| | | Re: Shocker Many do, but some simply cut the cord.
Cable is a luxury. ESP with current pricing models.
Many people just want a handful of channels with content they like, and don't want to pay out the nose for channels they don't watch. | |
|
|  TransmasterDon't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
 ·CenturyLink
| And what is the percentage....... who are seriously thinking, as I am, of dropping "Cable/satellite" all together. I have so many viewing choices now that are essentially ah-la-cart. My Dish Network subscription is hardly worth the money I am paying each month.
--
I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's.
- Mark Twain in Eruption | |
|
| Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
·voip.ms
| Re: Shocker We need to stop dancing around the table. If cable systems go a la carte the sports empires will take a big dive as a vast majority of people won't pay $30 a month for sports channels.
In fact by do a la carte there will be MORE innovation not less, because then companies can test new inventions on OTT and other delivery methods.
The fact that you tune to a channel linerly and have to watch linearly was outdated the day Netscape went public some 20 odd years ago. It's almost stunning that this method of consumption still exists and is testament to the government creating copyright laws that enables this caveman behavior.
Just yesterday Turner cancelled a third-party contract to enforce bundling. This is getting VERY close to blowing up. | |
|
| | TransmasterDon't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY Reviews:
·CenturyLink
| Re: Shocker said by elefante72:The fact that you tune to a channel linearly and have to watch linearly was outdated the day Netscape went public some 20 odd years ago. It's almost stunning that this method of consumption still exists and is testament to the government creating copyright laws that enables this caveman behavior. Having to tune up and down like puts a person at great risk of having his/her whole life ruined if you get stuck even for a split second on Honey Boo-Boo, Oh God the horror.... 
--
I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's.
- Mark Twain in Eruption | |
|
| | | | So this is your professional analyst of the market?
I would be willing to bet there were people like you saying consumers wont pay $20-$30 a month for movie channels too. | |
|
|
4 edits | You read that 83% would be willing to pay up to $2 per channel was wanting everything but not willing to pay for it?
At that price a vast majority of channels will be earning more than they do now consider that there are VERY few channels right now that cost cable companies $2 a month.
In addition, one of the most overlooked things about this is that they can still do their bundling with pure a la carte. They just need to get more creative in how they do it.
EDIT: Fixed my % after seeing their charts. | |
|
| | BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness | Re: Shocker said by Skippy25:You read that 83% would be willing to pay up to $2 per channel was wanting everything but not willing to pay for it? It's say 16% won't pay more than 99 cents and 24% won't pay more than $2. that doesn't mean up to $1.99 that 16% remains static. It could be 20% won't pay more than $1.50.
At that price a vast majority of channels will be earning more than they do now consider that there are VERY few channels right now that cost cable companies $2 a month.
| |
|
| | Bottom line is.... Not all channels deserve to survive.
Current channel bundles are coercive/tied selling, and ought to be illegal. | |
|
| BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness | Re: Bottom line is.... people that say this tend to think NONE of the channels they watch are in that group. They are very wrong. | |
|
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | The real finding: champagne tastes and a beer budget ...only 38 percent would be willing to pay more than $3 per channel each month. | |
|
|
•••••••• |
| | I think the option to buy channels a la carte is a good one. I doubt there would be more than 10 channels on the television. The current model props up bad programming. Open the market up, let freedom dictate how much channels cost. Of course, they'd probably charge $15 a month for a channel like HBO or higher. People should vote with wallets. If enough call in to cancel, watch how fast they change their tunes. | |
|
|
•••• |
1 recommendation | A La Carte already exists Cord cutters have been discovering A La Carte already exists for years. Live sports probably takes the biggest hit, but the major networks still get you a fair amount of that via OTA. Between OTA, streaming services and DVD/blu-ray, you've got everything else covered. | |
|
| | 30% probably the other 30% want to cut the cord altogether and/or are pirates who aren't interested in paying a penny for content as a license or subscription fee. | |
|
| | What is the 65% or more number? 65% of those surveyed would buy 10 or more channels
Go much higher than 10 and their will be no money savings by switching to an a la carte system. | |
|
Reviews:
·Shaw
| Price Per Channel I'm guessing the average person would pay more for a channel based on its content. IE Sports Channels. Where most people prefer to watch it live and with great picture quality.
I would image you could charge more than 99 cents for sports.. but other channels like the major networks.. 99 cents should be plenty (especially in cities where you can pull them OTA for free).
I think A La Carte would drive up your average cost per channel (because its a bit lower because you have so many channels in bundling). I still think you'd save overall. Especially if all you want are sports channels, major networks, and a few favorites. I find there's only about 10-15 channels I watch on regular basis yet I pay for 50-60 in HD and another 50-70 in SD. | |
|
BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness
1 recommendation | And here is the rub A)73% of consumers would prefer a la carte
B) The study found that 16% refuse to pay any more than 99 cents per month, per channel. 24% refuse to pay more than $2, and 22% refuse to pay more than $3. Just 5% say they'd be willing to pay up to $8 per channel. 65% of those surveyed would buy 10 or more channels, 26% would order between six and nine, and the remainder of those polled would want even fewer.
There is no area in the entire universe where A and B can co-exist. The sooner customers get that the better. You want al a carte be prepared to pay more than 99 cents per channel. | |
|
|
•••••••• |
Reviews:
·Comcast
| Sports Channels need to go. All of the ESPN, FOX Sports, NBC SPORTS and regional sports channels need to be PREMIUM channels like HBO. The cost of the sports channels is outpacing all other channels.
I am very close to ditching DIRECTV and going the ITunes route where I purchase the shows that I want. | |
|
| | | Re: Sports Channels need to go. I don't need a literal a la carte. There can be a more reasonable "sports package" "kids package" "Broadcast channel package" Yup, I said it a "broadcast channel package". The broadcast nets are now so irrelevant many could do without. | |
|
| | For me, it's control For me, it's not about the cost. I want my money going to the programming I like and support. I get very upset knowing my monthly bill includes payment for content that is very offensive and sick. The first packages or channels I would delete would be any and all NBC cable channels, any and all MTV, VH-1, etc. so-called music channels, all C-Span channels, any and all HBO channels, and depending on how they are packaged several of the Discovery channels. | |
|
| | | Re: For me, it's control I forgot all ESPN. | |
|
| BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness | You do not pay for HBO unless you are actually paying for HBO. C-Span you are not paying for that on your cable bill. MTV and VH1 are owned by Viacom which also owns channels like Nickelodeon. So say goodbye to one say good bye to all. Most people don't get that just a fewer content owner actually control most of the content. ESPN? Yeah that's owned by Disney which also owns ABC. NBC, that's owned by Comcast. I'm pretty sure that Comcast is not going to stop providing their own channels. | |
|
|
|
