b10010011Whats a Posting tag?
join:2004-09-07
Bellingham, WA Reviews:
 ·Comcast Formerl..
| A la carte will end up with less choice Because the popular channels in a programming tier support the less popular channels. If a la carte gets pushed on us with in a few years the number of channels to chose from will start to decline. Eventualy cable companies will only carry a few popular channels because it will not be worth it for them to carry less popular channels if no one is buying them.
A la carte = A la crappy  |
|
 qdemn7Smurf in My LoopPremium
join:2003-09-16
Fort Worth, TX | said by b10010011:Because the popular channels in a programming tier support the less popular channels. If a la carte gets pushed on us with in a few years the number of channels to chose from will start to decline. Eventually cable companies will only carry a few popular channels because it will not be worth it for them to carry less popular channels if no one is buying them. A la carte = A la crappy That is exactly what will happen but people are too hard-headed to realize that.  If a la carte hits, within 5 years the number of channels will probably 1/4 of what they are now, and then the same people crying for a la carte now will be crying about a lack of "choice".
--
“We want the Republicans out of our bedroom and the Democrats out of our wallet and both out of our First and Second Amendment rights." - Alan Nathan |
|
|
|
| You mean I'd only have a choice of three shopping channels and not ten? 
Show me where the bad outwieghed the good in an a la carte offering? Which national cable provider has made such an offering longterm and provided evidence to such a conclusion. |
|
| reply to qdemn7
said by qdemn7:said by b10010011:Because the popular channels in a programming tier support the less popular channels. If a la carte gets pushed on us with in a few years the number of channels to chose from will start to decline. Eventually cable companies will only carry a few popular channels because it will not be worth it for them to carry less popular channels if no one is buying them. A la carte = A la crappy That is exactly what will happen but people are too hard-headed to realize that. If a la carte hits, within 5 years the number of channels will probably 1/4 of what they are now, and then the same people crying for a la carte now will be crying about a lack of "choice". Oh darn... I mean come one, choice to me does not mean that I should pay for 250 freaking channels as part of a package. You and I both know that the normal person probably only watches 30 of those at the most. The lack of "choice" that you speak about is all of the stupid no name channels that NO ONE EVER WATCHES |
|
| reply to qdemn7
No one will be crying in 5 years after it, people will be rejoicing all the crap channels get weeded out and finally the best/popular ones will be on TV on.
A la carte = great |
|
 celeritypcFor Lucky Best Wash, Use Mr. SparklePremium
join:2004-05-15
Caldwell, NJ | said by markopoleo:No one will be crying in 5 years after it, people will be rejoicing all the crap channels get weeded out and finally the best/popular ones will be on TV on. A la carte = great One man's crap is another's treasure. Just because you think a channel is crap or it does not receive the high ratings of other channels (which may indeed be crap) does not mean everybody does.
What a la carte will signify is the end of niche channels that may only be of interest to a limited audience and people will no longer have exposure to these channels perhaps finding out they like them. We will all end up with the same generic entertainment and massively expensive sports programming.
I have always felt the real solution is creating tiers of channels of similar interest. Also, by just removing sports programming from the general line up and letting those who want sports pay extra, we would all see a reduction in price with no reduction (and perhaps, the addition) of new channels. RSNs and ESPN et al represent about 25% or so of the cost of the channel lineup I now have. Keep in mind, I am just talking programming costs, not other costs associated with cable service. |
|
1 edit | reply to b10010011
Worst it could be more expensive if one looks at per channel. The studios will start demanding a high fee per channel. So a less popular channel might go $1.00 other channels cold be charge at HBO prices of $12.00, worst what happen if production and entertainment companies start demand WWE pay per view prices. Wold we see channels costing $39.00 a month? |
|
 pb5kCan't TriforcePremium
join:2005-11-16
Glendale, AZ | reply to celeritypc
Come to think of it I like your plan quite a bit. I don't watch much TV but when I do it's FX, History, Discovery or Scifi with a venture into SpikeTV when they have star trek reruns. No "news" channels (google news is faster to the punch anyway) and no sports channels. Sorry, I don't like to watch one millionaire tackle another millionaire (unless it's donald trump vs. bill gates, I would pay to see that.)
Personally I'd like an option to banish your least favorite options to a selectable level of hell. I would place G4TV in the worst level, to be tortured by imps and people that drive too slow in the fast lane.  |
|
| reply to celeritypc
While total 'a la carte' has a good sound the bottom line is that you will end up paying more. They did a partial 'a la carte' here some years ago, kinda of a basic package plus 'a la carte' and guess what happened- all the good popular channels were 'a la carte' and most of the basic (besides the 'BIG 3' and the local PBS) channels were shopping ,religion, and fluff- and this money saving idea cost most people more/ cable companies loved it.
McCain has lately with this and the illegals thing has dropped many notches with me. |
|
qdemn7Smurf in My LoopPremium
join:2003-09-16
Fort Worth, TX | reply to richardpor
said by richardpor:Worst it could be more expensive if one looks at per channel. The studios will star demanding a high fee per channel. So a less popular channel might go $1.00 other channels cold be charge at HBO prices of $12.00, worst what happen if production and entertainment companies start demand WWE pay per view prices. Wold we see channels costing $39.00 a month? Bingo! If anyone "thinks" they're going to save a ton of money with a la carte they are sadly mistaken. The cable companies will simply jack the price up on individual channels.
--
“We want the Republicans out of our bedroom and the Democrats out of our wallet and both out of our First and Second Amendment rights." - Alan Nathan |
|
 VigThread-safe since 1997Premium
join:2004-03-23
San Diego, CA | I'm inclined to agree on the face of it, but I have this nagging thought. If it would actually give the cable companies a way to make more money than they do now, why are they against it? There must be something more going on to make them prefer the status quo.
--
Visit the land of the never-setting sun |
|
b10010011Whats a Posting tag?
join:2004-09-07
Bellingham, WA Reviews:
·Comcast Formerl..
1 edit | said by Vig:I'm inclined to agree on the face of it, but I have this nagging thought. If it would actually give the cable companies a way to make more money than they do now, why are they against it? There must be something more going on to make them prefer the status quo. Because bundeling is not just how the cable company sells channels, it is also how they buy them. They have to pay for channels that nobody watches they get from the conted providers just like we have to pay for the channels we don't watch.
Also it will force them to go all digital requireing system upgrades and cable boxes in every houshold (but they will be able to charge for that) and they will need more/better billing software to handle everyone picky choices, more support staff...
In the end it's going to cost the cable companies a lot of money to switch over to a la carte programming and that cost WILL be passed on to consumers.
A la carte is NOT going to lower anyones cable bill. In the long run it will only lower the number of channels you get to chose from. |
|
 DryvlyneFar Beyond DrivenPremium
join:2004-08-30
Newark, OH | reply to b10010011
said by b10010011:Because the popular channels in a programming tier support the less popular channels. If a la carte gets pushed on us with in a few years the number of channels to chose from will start to decline. Eventualy cable companies will only carry a few popular channels because it will not be worth it for them to carry less popular channels if no one is buying them. A la carte = A la crappy Umm, ever heard the expression "only the strong survive"?
Let some good 'ol competition decide which channels stay and which ones get the axe. That would after all be the capitalist thing to do.
--
In relative terms life is shorter than the blink of an eye. Remember that each and every day because in the end it's not about what you've done but how you've lived.
|
|
ricep5Premium
join:2000-08-07
Jacksonville, FL | reply to b10010011
Your thinking is based on a paradigm developed in 1963.
People used to be able to get everything at Sears. Then specialization arrived and Sears is nearly a has been. Why? a la carte shopping. Choices came through Regional Malls, Target, Wal-Mart and others who niched and specialized.
People used to get everything at malls. The anchors subsidized the space costs of the food courts and kiosks. Then retail strip malls came and now regional malls are considered a less than optimal way for retail to market. Why? a la carte retail destinations.
People used to get technology at Radio Shack. Battery sales subsidized development of other products. Now people go to big box stores to get batteries. Radio Shack doesn't sell high tech anymore. Why? a la carte specialization.
History has shown that when a market is allowed to segment and specialize and promote "a la carte" access, prices drop and selection actually increases.
Those channels that "no one watches" usually are owned by a larger media entity that enforce carriage thru a "must carry" provision in their contracts.
Disney is the worst abuser of the 'must carry' provision by forcing ESPN entities in the basic packages. Turner is second worse. TNT, Cartoon Network and TMC are all vestiges of contractual obligations foisted on carriers of content.
ESPN signs new NFL deal? Next year, ESPN rates go up. TNT carries NBA basketball? Next year the rates go up.
What galls me the most in this movement to "pay to see" is that they all still carry commercials. Cable costs used to purely cover the cost of carriage plus any charges for premium content. Now, EVERYTHING is considered a premium content and yet the commercials are getting as bad as free broadcast.
Bring on "a la carte" and bring it on quickly. Break up these monolithic ways of carrying content. Let me choose. |
|
qdemn7Smurf in My LoopPremium
join:2003-09-16
Fort Worth, TX | said by ricep5: Cartoon Network and TMC are all vestiges of contractual obligations foisted on carriers of content. You sure you don't mean TCM (Turner Classic Movies)? Cause if you do, that and the Cartoon Network are two of the best channels on TV. TCM has NO commercials. And if you consider those two channels a "waste" of some sort, well then I think you are flat wrong.
--
“We want the Republicans out of our bedroom and the Democrats out of our wallet and both out of our First and Second Amendment rights." - Alan Nathan |
|
ricep5Premium
join:2000-08-07
Jacksonville, FL | said by qdemn7:said by ricep5: Cartoon Network and TMC are all vestiges of contractual obligations foisted on carriers of content. You sure you don't mean TCM (Turner Classic Movies)? Cause if you do, that and the Cartoon Network are two of the best channels on TV. TCM has NO commercials. And if you consider those two channels a "waste" of some sort, well then I think you are flat wrong. I meant TCM, not TMC. Yes, I know TCM has no commercials, however its existence is solely based on the Turner Broadcasting must carry contract. I never implied they were a waste, I was saying I don't have choice in having it (or not) on my cable plan. 'a la carte' would establish its true market value.
As a side note, profits from TBS showing Braves baseball (and syndicated shows) nationally subsidizes TCM. If TCM was forced into 'a la carte' selection, I doubt it would continue to be commercial free. |
|
qdemn7Smurf in My LoopPremium
join:2003-09-16
Fort Worth, TX | said by ricep5:As a side note, profits from TBS showing Braves baseball (and syndicated shows) nationally subsidizes TCM. If TCM was forced into 'a la carte' selection, I doubt it would continue to be commercial free. Then on that basis alone I'm opposed to a la carte.
--
“We want the Republicans out of our bedroom and the Democrats out of our wallet and both out of our First and Second Amendment rights." - Alan Nathan |
|
 Combat ChuckToo Many CannibalsPremium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA
1 edit | reply to markopoleo
said by markopoleo:No one will be crying in 5 years after it, people will be rejoicing all the crap channels get weeded out and finally the best/popular ones will be on TV on. A la carte = great I guarantee you that you have at least one channel you watch that would be gone with a-la-carte.
Heck I wouldn't be at all surprised if you saw even moderately popular channels like the history channel and Discovery adversely affected by this. Everyone watches these somewhat educational networks but many people don't realize how much they do and will likely go without them to save a couple bucks.
MY concern with a-la-carte is purely selfish tho. I have fairly eclectic taste in media (My favorite movie is Kung Fu Hustle, and I'm happy that Cartoon network has started showing Billy and Mandy again) so it's hard enough to find shows I like now.
--
gau gau |
|
Combat ChuckToo Many CannibalsPremium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA | reply to GhostDoggy
said by GhostDoggy:You mean I'd only have a choice of three shopping channels and not ten? Can we, as a society, stop using the shopping channels as examples of crap we don't watch.
You don't pay for them anyway and with a-la-cart you're still going to have access to them weather you want them or not being as you aren't paying for them in the first place.
--
gau gau |
|
| reply to b10010011
Amen, and I have no desire to pay for multiple digital boxes. Actually, I have no desire to pay for even one digital box. |
|
