how-to block ads
|
Comments on news posted 2007-09-11 17:17:14: [att=1214067,r]FCC boss Kevin Martin keeps pushing his goal of forcing cable operators to offer TV channels "a la carte. ..
| |
page: 1 · 2 · 3  |
 
Choice
@nextweb.net
| It doesn't mean the end of bundles Just the addition of choice.
You will still have the same tier bundles, but the choice to buy a la carte. You look at what channels you want, and if a bundle ends up being cheaper, you just get that.
Big dish a la carte prices proves beyond any doubt that per channel pricing for average channels is about a buck a month. It's channels like ESPN that run up the basic cable bill.
Personally I would like the option to not have to pay for ESPN and their 24 hrs a day of worthless programming Poker and World's Strongest Man without having to give up cable or DBS all together. | |
| | Tim2
Premium
join:2006-06-19
| Re: It doesn't mean the end of bundles Are you suggesting that you'll have the choice of subscribing at the rate you now pay, plus the choice of buying ala carte?
That would be wrong, unless you wanted to make ala carte entirely pointless.
The simple economics are this... a lot more people will watch a channel that's considered "free" (although it's actually included in the cost of the bundled stations) than will ever voluntarily pay for it. (If BBR charged even $1 a month, how many people posting in this thread would pay?)
Meanwhile, the channels have their budgets... they need the same amount of revenue coming in if they want to keep their current level of programming.
So... say 50% take the bundle at the price they're paying now. They very small number of ala carte buyers will be asked to make up the other 50% of the budget (not to mention decreased advertising revenues with fewer viewers).
Few things in life are certain... but one of those of things is that above scenario will never work. | |
| Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA | ESPN might be hurt the worst! Sorry sports fans but nobody really needs ESPN and it is an expensive channel. Right now we have millions including those that don't even watch sports supporting the high wages of professional athletes. | |
| 
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
 ·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| I'm for and against While I like the idea of Ala Carte, I think the end result would be loss of quality networks and "dumbing down" to the lowest common denominator if you will....
IE Stations that are watched by the masses a little bit or niche followings will be killed.
The result is only channels that appeal to everyone survive.
So you're left with popular networks, while quality programming fades away. Some people will say "Free market system!" and I understand that argument... but still... Do you really want to watch only sports, news, Wrestling, Nascar and MTV?
I'd hope channels like Sci-Fi, A&E, Bravo, Discovery Channels, TLC, HGTV etc survive... but you never know.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
| | captnk
join:2001-03-07
Valparaiso, IN | On Demand first to go On Demand would be first to go. Its on the bottom tier and I cant get rid of it and NEVER watch it. Why am I paying for it? | |
| | 
Chuckles
Premium
join:2006-03-04
Saint Paul, MN | Re: On Demand first to go You're not. | |
| 
Doc Casualty
join:2005-02-06
Harbor Springs, MI
·Charter Pipeline
| A La Carte I watched Martin testifying about this before a Congressional committe a few months ago on C-Span. He stated that this model is being employed in other countries. Does anybody know what the experience has been elsewhere? Granted, I don't know if that would translate into the same experience here in the States, but might give us some clues. | |
| 
benc
Premium
join:2007-06-17
Glen Carbon, IL
·Charter Pipeline
 ·Future Nine Corpor..
·Callcentric
·AT&T Midwest
| I'd Like It To be honest, I'm in the very small minority of people who don't subscribe to satellite or cable. I live a life without TV channels, and I assure you, it's possible. I do this because as a child I grew up without it and I never developed the habit.
Nowadays, I really do believe in the saying "television rots your brain." It also seems that it's 50% ads, 49% junk, and 1% worth watching, so I'm not inclined to subscribe.
But, there are/were certain TV shows that I've liked. If I could get just those, and nothing else (not even ads), I might subscribe then. I might even subscribe if I can get pay-per-view without channels, as an alternative to renting VHS and DVD. Yes, I do have a TV, but it's just for the Nintendo, some VHS and DVD, and rented VHS and DVD.
What I wouldn't want to pay for is all the junk and crap that I don't care about (such as MTV...they don't have any real music anyway), and it seems that many if not most agree with me.
But for now, I'll just rely on renting VHS and DVD, maybe buying a copy if I like it enough and don't feel cheap. | |
| Tigerpaw509
Premium
join:2006-07-15
Huntley, IL | Garbage 80% of the programing id GARBAGE | |
| | 
chris231989
join:2006-02-12
Joplin, MO
clubs: | Re: Garbage ya the cable co's need to take out the trash.
it's stinkin up the place. | |
| Radioman991
join:2001-09-24
Dayton, OH
| An example of Ala Carte Broadcast radio is the ultimate example of ala carte.
For ease of the example, you have 10 FM and 10 AM stations where you live. On some of those 10 FM stations, there may even be format duplication (ex. 2 Country stations). Each one of those stations has maybe just a little different music rotation, or lays their stopsets in different areas of the clock. So you switch channels as you go down the road, when you hears stuff you don't like, want to skip spots, etc. Both stations make enough money to survive. If one of them screws up, and revenue drops, they change their format, improve their programming, or go away.
OK on the AM side, there are a boatload of talk stations, and an all polka station. If the all polka station can't pay the electric bill, it either changes format, or it turns in its license.
If 99% of the available audience doesn't like polka, they don't subsidize the station by listening...hence the MARKETPLACE determines who survives and who dies.
If 99% of the populous don't watch HSN and QVC, either put something INTERESTING on there, or lease the transponder to someone else. Again, the MARKETPLACE decides who lives and who dies.
So what if its a billing nightmare for the providers. Tough.
With todays Conditional Access Systems in sat receivers, and cable boxes, it should be a no brainer to feed me the channels I want to pay for. You can change your DirecTV programming from the web. Build a website and let me select my channels from a menu...no phone wizzard needed...and bill me appropriately. Why is this so hard, and stirs so much debate? | |
|
Mreposter
@wright.edu
| Choice is good When I go to the local newstand to buy a copy of Time they don't make me buy a copy of People, Sports Illustrated and Horse Fancier. Why should I be forced to buy 150 cable channels when I only want 6-7?
Let the free market decide which channels survive and which die? A healthy open marketplace will lead to plenty of good choices, it's when arbitrary regulations are imposed that everyone suffers. | |
| |
Chuckles
Premium
join:2006-03-04
Saint Paul, MN
| Re: Choice is good said by Mreposter :
When I go to the local newstand to buy a copy of Time they don't make me buy a copy of People, Sports Illustrated and Horse Fancier. Why should I be forced to buy 150 cable channels when I only want 6-7?
Ah... but do you read the magazine from cover to cover?
--
kustomerservice.net | |
|
m0m0m0
@verizon.net
| what's fair and not the only people this would be 'bad' for are those cable cos that knowingly force crap channels down our throats so they can exercise media deals good only for them.
it also means they stop getting money for nothing, I paid for 12 channels I either couldn't care less about, or didn't even speak the language of for over 15 years.....how is that fair to me? that's alot of my dough down the drain.
as noted above, this makes them more answerable to us the consumer, which is better than it is now.
this is more important nowadays when DVRs and such are growing at such a fast rate, and the media companies try even harder to restrict your even temporary recording of tv you already pay TWICE for, yes TWICE, once on your bill, once during every commercial.
helluva racket they have there....gee what a shame it would be to see that go.....
/fececious rant | |
| zod5000
join:2003-10-21
Edmonton, AB
·TELUS
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| Dilution of channel fees? So if the satellite/cable companies have to pay a certain fee per channel, and since everyone has different tastes, if it goes a la cart, people will pick according to their preferences.
there won't a la cart be more expensive? because with packaging.. you're paying for channels you dont' want, but someone one else likes the channels you don't like and is paying for ones you want. As a result you get more channels.
If people start paying for the ones they like... I'm not sure it would have such a profound impact because the companies would have to pay more to cover the fees because people aren't subsidizing each other different TV tastes. | |
| Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA
1 edit | Should be a benefit of digital cable A primary reason we ended up with bundling is that encryption is difficult and expensive with analog cable. Digital cable changes that and now mandatory tying is just a means for programmers to rip off consumers. People with digital cable should have the choice of a la carte or discounted bundles. Either that or the government should disallow channels that are tied from ever being encrypted. | |
| |
Aeroplain
@rr.com
| Payment Right now I pay about $50 for a bundle of about 120 or so odd channel. I only actually watch about 5 of these, ever.
I would rather my $50 went to those channels that I like. So, while I would be getting less for the same amount of money, that money would go to support only the channels I actually use.
Better yet though, would be to pay $25 for those 5 channels. Better for both me, because I pay less, and those channels because $5 is still more than they individually make in the bundle deal. In a way, it would be better for the cable provider too because now they only need to provide me 1/24 of the bandwidth and still get half the price.
Now, I'm sure it doesn't actually work this way. It's not as simple as simply dividing by bandwidth or channels and advertising is probably where the majority of profits come from anyways.
The point though, is that if they were to offer them a la carte, even at a substantially higher price per channel (meaning buying all the channels individually would be considerably more expensive, perhaps by a great deal, than getting them a la carte) I would be in favor of it.
It would still work out to my advantage, the individual channel's advantage, and arguably the cable provider's advantage. Unfortunately, these things are never so simple, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be.
Love,
Plain | |
| j_on_fire
join:2005-02-24
canada
| how will i know what i like? I like the idea of A la Carte, but how are you supposed to know which channels you will like? For example, who knew I would fall in love with *insert not well known station with limited advertising budget here*. I won't be able to just channel surf and find a channel that I actually | |
| | 
joetaxpayer
I'M Here Till Thursday
join:2001-09-07
Sudbury, MA
·Comcast
·Comcast Formerly ..
| Re: how will i know what i like? said by j_on_fire  :I like the idea of A la Carte, but how are you supposed to know which channels you will like? For example, who knew I would fall in love with *insert not well known station with limited advertising budget here*. I won't be able to just channel surf and find a channel that I actually My point exactly. Tough to pick up a new station without the ability to flip though. | |
| | |
joetvviewer
@rr.com
| Re: how will i know what i like? The content providers would have an interest in convincing you to spend more of your money with them. Probably the easiest way would be to offer a free preview of specific channels to allow you to see what that channel is all about. If you like what you see, then you can pay for that channel. | |
|
Cband Guy
@charter.com
| Anyone Remember the big dish? Anybody see those 10' across abandoned satellite dishes...I believe they offered ala-carte from day one. You can still subscribe to a few channels you want to pick and choose, but most have gone into large packages. Currently I just subscribe to CNN, CNNHN and Fox news (mini-bundle) costs me about $12/year. I used to subscribe to the MTV mini bundle (MTV, VH1, bet) and that was like $2.40/month, ESPN: hate sports, but it was like $5 month. Comedy Central, cartoon channel, weather channel like a $1/month. Shopping channels, religious, the ARTS channel...just hook up a big dish...they're free. I loved it, back in like 2003, I picked about 15 channels and paid about $12/month, I would have had to pay $30-40/month to get those same channels, and a bunch I would never watch, from cable or the mini dish.
want choices...see my programmer... »callnps.com/alacarte.htm | |
| mknowles
join:2007-09-14
San Antonio, TX
| get rid of analog I don't think that a la carte will work. you would end up with fewer choices and pay more.
What really needs to happen is that we need to get rid of analog and go ALL digital. Then we can free up more bandwidth for more programming and more HD, faster broadband and such.
Just my 2 cents.
Michael
--
Take a look at my blog please: »www.resellrightsclub.com/blog | |
| |
joetvviewer
@rr.com
| Re: get rid of analog Digital does not mean better, it means compressed. Compression degrades picture quality. Just because they can digitally compress 20 channels to fit within the bandwidth of one analog channel doesn't mean that I want to watch the pixelated picture that results.
Don't misunderstand me, a digitally compressed channel can have excellent picture quality but the more channels there are, the more the content providers will compress them to fit within their available bandwidth. It costs them money to add additional bandwidth. | |
|
No to ESPN
@comcast.net
| About Time Currently I do not have cable or satellite TV but am on COMCAST cable for the internet at home. So at present COMCAST gets zero dollars from me every month for cable TV service. I have several antennas for our TV sets and get a very good picture in my location. On weekends I do not watch TV because all that is on is sports so if COMCAST would allow me to purchase only Discover, History Channel, Comedy Central, and about 4 others in HD then I would part with some cash. So who is the biggest fool regarding this manner; me for not having cable or satellite TV because I do not want to pay for all the useless crap such as ESPN or COMCAST who ain't getting any extra cash from me every month? My vote is for COMCAST being the biggest fool. | |
|
chadi
@rr.com | But what will become of WGAS?? - The Who Gives A Shit Channel? | |
| | | |
|
