Rob
In Deo speramus
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
 ·Comcast
 ·AT&T Southeast
| I get 99 channels...
I get 99 channels right now. I watch at most 10 of those. The others are 'fillers' to keep my (rising) cost of TV service down.
I doubt, seriously, that if A La Carte was available, that my 10 channels would be any cheaper.
--
YourIP.US - It's Your IP .. and more!
rr.cx - Personal Site.. coming soon. |
|
RockCake
Premium
join:2005-07-12
Woodbridge, VA | Same here (and I don't think I even watch 10!) |
|
RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
·XMission
| reply to Rob
said by Rob  :I get 99 channels right now. I watch at most 10 of those. The others are 'fillers' to keep my (rising) cost of TV service down. I doubt, seriously, that if A La Carte was available, that my 10 channels would be any cheaper. Of course not, since the providers have to prove that Martin et al. are wrong they will raise the cost of service by some calculated amount so that every time you say you do NOT want a channel, they increase your total bill. (Seems to me the providers have basically said that is what they will do, because it costs more to tell the computer to only to send you what you want????)
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. |
|
SD6
join:2005-03-26
| said by RayW :said by Rob :I get 99 channels right now. I watch at most 10 of those. The others are 'fillers' to keep my (rising) cost of TV service down. I doubt, seriously, that if A La Carte was available, that my 10 channels would be any cheaper. Of course not, since the providers have to prove that Martin et al. are wrong they will raise the cost of service by some calculated amount so that every time you say you do NOT want a channel, they increase your total bill. (Seems to me the providers have basically said that is what they will do, because it costs more to tell the computer to only to send you what you want????) They could easily provide a small number of different tiers. |
|
inteller
Sociopaths always win.
join:2003-12-08
Tulsa, OK | yeah, but every tier would include just one channel you want, and then 20 shopping and sports channels you dont.
--
"WHEN THE LAUGH TRACK STARTS THEN THE FUN STARTS!" |
|
John T
@verizon.net
| reply to Rob
said by Rob :I get 99 channels right now. I watch at most 10 of those. The others are 'fillers' to keep my (rising) cost of TV service down. I doubt, seriously, that if A La Carte was available, that my 10 channels would be any cheaper. Everyone watches 10-15 channels. However, those 10 channels are different from person to person; for example, my mother watches the Soap Opera Network, which of course I never watch. Lifetime is always one of the top 2 or 3 rated cable networks, and I never watch that either. The "cost per channel" idea pushed by the cable networks has a lots of flaws, since with the more channels the time spent watching each channel declines. That said, I usually appreciate getting an additional 10 channels even if I only watch 1 of them, since we all don't like the same 10-15 channels.
A decent number of channels are offered to the cable provider entirely free. Certainly a few channels are priced incredibly high, particularly ESPN, ESPNHD, NFL Network, and some others. The cable providers are not entirely at fault; the content providers have their own sort of monopoly over certain content, particularly exclusive sports content. A la carte would probably not reduce the costs; it would certainly reduce the chance of stumbling upon a show or network that you like (particularly if you have TiVO.)
What a confused post by me. The short form is that none of the players are really being honest or straightforward, but it still seems to me that none of the proposed solutions would actually help things, and might make it worse. |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| reply to Rob
Sure it would be.
For example in my area you can get basic cable from Charter for $50 amonth. You get 75 channels. That's 67¢ a channel. Now say I only watch 10 of them. Under ala carte I could just get those 10. I seriously doubt that Charter would or should charge $5 per channel. Seeing as how they only pay ESPN $3 and they are the highest cost, no way cable companies should be allowed to charge $5 a channel. Say it's capped at $2 a channel which is more than enough profit margin for cable companies on most channles. So 10 channels is $20. That's much cheaper than the way it is today. |
|
Rob
In Deo speramus
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
·Comcast
·AT&T Southeast
| said by BF69 : no way cable companies should be allowed to charge... Well that's the problem we've been facing with cable cos. Comcast just raised the rates on their cable service while posting profit earning quarters.
--
YourIP.US - It's Your IP .. and more!
rr.cx - Personal Site.. coming soon. |
|
NPGMBR
join:2001-03-28
Arlington, VA | reply to RayW
Something about this just doesn't make sense. U.S. Companies are always trying to squeeze an extra dollar out of their customers so you'd think they would jump all over A La Carte pricing.........Unless in fact it truly would drop prices. |
|
cpumodem
Premium
join:2003-09-28
Spokane, WA
| reply to Rob
Don't forget the cost to the cable companies on the re-transmission agreements for local channels. The one's that the broadcasters claim is free over the air TV. I'm sure there is some sort of monetary contribution the cable companies pay to the local broadcasters to transmitt these channels.
|
|
Phattieg
join:2001-04-29
Jacksonville, FL | reply to Rob
HAHAAHAAHAA, good luck Mr. Martin. |
|
GhostDoggy
join:2005-05-11
Duluth, GA
| reply to Rob
I watch HDnet via DirecTV's HDlite delivery. So, if I were to say I watch that one channel I'd have to forward I am forced to bundle a butt-load more.
Cable isn't the only forced-bundling agent around, and they all should be lined up and shot.  |
|
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| reply to NPGMBR
Depends on which companies you mean.
Cable companies are basically contracturally forbidden by the content providers from using a la carte. The content providers would get a smaller share of cable revenue under a la carte while a greater part of the revenue would go to system maintainence.
So, the content providers would lose money, the cable companies cannot do anything, and price would not change much.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher |
|
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| reply to BF69
said by BF69 :Seeing as how they only pay ESPN $3 and they are the highest cost, no way cable companies should be allowed to charge $5 a channel. Except that ESPN would jump to an HBO pricing model of multiplexing for $15/subscriber (or $8-$12 per individual ESPN channel), because ESPN would lose millions of non-sports watching subscribers who would no longer watch figure skating, WSM, or extreme sports once a month while otherwise watching other expanded basic channels.
More specialized channels like Sci-Fi and HGTV would have to jump significantly just to stay in business.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher |
|
Sex Dwarf
join:2007-01-11
Saint Joseph, MI | Sounds good to me. Let 'em jump. |
|
Sex Dwarf
join:2007-01-11
Saint Joseph, MI | reply to cpumodem
OTA signals under "must carry" are not charged to the cableco. In fact some pay the cable system for specific channel placement. |
|
NPGMBR
join:2001-03-28
Arlington, VA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| reply to marigolds
I see problems with that model. The content providers need to Cable operators to delivery their product. You'd think the CableCos would have the upper-hand but judging from what you said, they give the content providers all the power. I would have thought that the CableCos would try to snatch that power from the content providers when they sign their next contract because they need eachother other equally. |
|
John T
@verizon.net
| reply to BF69
said by BF69 :I seriously doubt that Charter would or should charge $5 per channel. Seeing as how they only pay ESPN $3 and they are the highest cost, no way cable companies should be allowed to charge $5 a channel. Say it's capped at $2 a channel which is more than enough profit margin for cable companies on most channels. Nope, wouldn't work that way. ESPN is $3 a person when everyone gets ESPN. People love their ten channels, and don't care about the others. If you have a la carte, then a bunch of people who don't care about sports drop ESPN. But the people who remain are more likely to be fanatical sports fans, so Disney/ABC raises the price for ESPN for all the cable providers.
Sure, some channels might still be close to free. But the channels loved by the most people will be more expensive than they are now. Probably, on net, it would be better for people with unusual tastes and worse for people with normal tastes to have a la carte. |
|
