how-to block ads
|
phattieg
join:2001-04-29
Winter Park, FL
 ·Verizon Wireless B..
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| reply to Ahrenl
Re: How hard would it be for cable to offer "a la carte"
said by Ahrenl  :Laugh.. $30's is HALF what I pay for my cable now (at full rates). Plus if I cancel my cable my Inet bill will practically double (which is what I use the most anyway). I enjoy the cable I use, and would prefer not to pay for the vast majority of it. I think there are many many others who feel the same. Judging by the end of your post, I would put VERY little stock in your instinct.. sorry. Thanks for proving my point though, I appreciate it. Well, I'm glad YOU feel that way, too bad though, because judging by the thumbs up I got on 2 of my posts, my point is made, and clear, and I hope you get your way, but not with cable. Thanks.
--
SIPPhone/Gizmo # 17476200648 / PIMPNET Chatline / Ran by Asterisk & Slackware 10.1. | |
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| reply to phattieg
Laugh..
$30's is HALF what I pay for my cable now (at full rates). Plus if I cancel my cable my Inet bill will practically double (which is what I use the most anyway). I enjoy the cable I use, and would prefer not to pay for the vast majority of it. I think there are many many others who feel the same. Judging by the end of your post, I would put VERY little stock in your instinct.. sorry.
Thanks for proving my point though, I appreciate it. | |
phattieg
join:2001-04-29
Winter Park, FL
·Verizon Wireless B..
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
2 edits | reply to Ahrenl
Ok, you don't get it, and have never worked for a cable provider, so you have no instinct on how this will go down. Rates WILL go up, and people who want 5 piss ass channels will get their way, all the while, people who HAVE a cable bill, will have to pay more. This doesn't impact FiOS, or Satellite. To make this strategy possible, cable boxes will have to be in EVERYONES house, which will raise rates on the amount of boxes stolen, damaged, or un-returned. I am done talking about it, because your logic pisses me off. Obviously you DON'T ENJOY your cable, so get rid of it. I did not TELL you to be happy paying for all those channels you don't watch, but I DID tell you to get rid of it if you don't agree with it. There are tons of people happy with the lineup. You constitute for less than 10% of my "complaint calls". You're not even on the radar because the cost to deploy will be outrageous. You HAVE options, it's called C-Band, and you can pick and choose any channel you specifically want. It requires a big ass dish, but look at the prices, and tell me how much cheaper it is. There's your research. $30.64 for 15 channels... 
THE PROVIDERS OF THE CHANNELS RULE THE ROOST, DUMBASS! DO THE RESEARCH... I've provided the proof, now reply with another stupid ass remark. Using your brain, you've done pissed me off, and I could care less what you think of me now.
READ THIS:
»www.callnps.com/alacarte.htm
Part # Basic Channels Annual 6 Month 3 Month Monthly
---------------------------------------------------------
396 AMC / Womens' Entertainment* $16.95 $8.89 $4.66 $1.59
397 Bravo * (digital) $11.12 $5.84 $3.05 $1.11
786 Cartoon Network * $11.65 $6.12 $3.20 $1.17
101 CNN/CNNI/Headline News/Fox News $21.19 $11.12 $5.83 $2.12
415 Comedy Central * $11.22 $5.84 $3.05 $1.11
261 Discovery (analog) $21.19 $11.12 $5.83 $2.12
355 Discovery HD Theatre (HDTV) $58.29 $30.60 $16.03 $5.83
270 E! Television * $10.59 $5.55 $2.92 $1.06
223 Independent Film Channel * $10.59 $5.55 $2.92 $1.06
611 International Channel (digital) $33.91 $17.80 $9.33 $3.39
805 Oxygen Network* (digital) $10.55 $5.53 $2.90 $1.06
138 TBS Superstation - Atlanta * $15.89 $8.34 $4.37 $1.59
905 TNT (Turner Network TV) * $27.55 $14.46 $7.58 $2.76
133 USA Network / SciFi Channel * $18.01 $9.46 $4.95 $1.80
248 The Weather Channel * $11.65 $6.12 $3.20 $1.17
498 WGN - Chicago * $16.95 $8.89 $4.66 $1.70
EDIT: I forgot to mention, you have to BUY YOUR EQUIPMENT, so no monthly rental fee's. WOW, this is MUCH cheaper. Oh, and lookie, I've got another thumbs up. I guess it makes sense to someone.
--
SIPPhone/Gizmo # 17476200648 / PIMPNET Chatline / Ran by Asterisk & Slackware 10.1. | |
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | reply to rtcy
It's not that he is easy to submit.
It's that, as an investor, he wants YOU to submit. | |
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
·Verizon FIOS
| reply to KrK
It's not really less if you didn't want it in the first place. I'd rather not have a steaming pile of manure dumped on my front yard.
Since we're going to pay more every year anyway, I'd be willing to bet that those who watch a sensible amount of TV (ie. do other things too) will pay less for a few years, until they gradually eek up the prices. Then they'll still be paying less than what the price hikes without the a la carte decrease would have been as well. | |
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
·Verizon FIOS
| reply to raybrett
Yeah, what is it $5's a month for each box? How many TV's do you have? You have NO cable boxes?
Also, separate converter boxes will be available from 3rd parties, you may even be able to get your cable company to kick you one for free since they aren't mandated to remove analogue, technically. | |
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
·Verizon FIOS
| reply to phattieg
Well we disagree. Your statements have no more factual support than mine however, and I hope you haven't fooled anyone else as much as, I BELIEVE, you've fooled yourself.
Your 1 pound for $2's vs. 10 pounds for $6 fails because it would imply equal intrinsic value. The coffee example where you get can get 1 pound of coffee you like for $2's or 10 pounds of 50 different types of coffee, 48 of which are different flavors of cat feces, for $6's is more apt. Since now you are paying $6's for 0.4 pounds of coffee you actually WANT.
The channel providers don't offer reductions, just more channels w/o extra cost, and it certainly isn't passed along. In fact I'm required to pay an extra $12/mo just to get the GUIDE with which I'm "given" 15 more craptastic channels.
By your logic, it would be MUCH cheaper for me, and the rest of any of the non-zombies if we weren't paying for those same "70 channels". That's the whole point. If you want to watch TV 23 hours a day with 10 bazillion channels, I have not problem with that, but why should everyone else have to pay more to watch less, so you can pay less to watch more?
Seeing as you "have worked for the cable company for 5 years", I'm going to assume you know how much cheaper this can make it for most subscribers, and how it may financial hurt your employer. Combine that with your no longer publicly subsidized 8,342,323 channels, and I certainly understand your viewpoint. That doesn't make it any more correct.
I post on here during my lunch breaks, and I continue to follow the sector and technology as a personal hobby, as well as maintaining a useful investment strategy.
I'd actually be against commercials paying 100% of the cost, since consumers would then lose any little bit of service we may already receive. (They did come and fix my signal from the pole for free yesterday! woohoo!) Perhaps if commercials covered the content cost, and consumers paid small maintenance fees for the equipment and network. That might work... [/dreaming] | |
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | reply to ColorBASIC
Yeah. No matter which way it works out, unless we have more competition enter the market (Even if the Telcos get into the TV business it won't be enough competition) you can pretty much assume that consumers will pay more for less. | |
ColorBASIC
8-bit Fun
Premium
join:2006-12-29
Corona, CA
| reply to KrK
I dunno. Currently last milers (eg cable and DBS) are often blackmailed into carrying less desirable programming. As was the case with MTV and ABC a while back, if a company wanted one channel like Noggin, ABC network or ESPN they were pressured to carry unpopular channels like ABC Family.
So you may end up with two media camps, the content creators like ABC/Disney and Fox vs the content delivery folks like cable and DBS.
Then it's just a matter of who has the most cash to bribe the politicians wins. | |
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
1 edit | reply to phattieg
Perhaps in the future we'll see something like this:
A la Carte Prices are $xx.xx per channel (List of rates)
or:
Bundles:
5 channels your choice for $xx.xx a month
10 channels your choice for $xx.xx a month
20 channels your choice for $xx.xx a month
etc.....
However I suspect what will actually happen is you'll see "core" popular channels in small bundles and other channels will become "a la carte" as in Pay-Per-View. Not so much pay per month buy pay per show or pay per hour or whatever.
Here's what I can guarantee. Given the limited amount of competition and the likelihood of others dropping out in the future, any plan that is designed to let consumers choose programming for LESS money will be thwarted by the large media companies. You'll get the worst of both worlds. You'll get less alright, and pay MORE for it.
In other words, a la Carte in the future is almost a given.... but expecting it to get you a lower Pay TV bill is unrealistic... because they are NOT going to let consumers wishes and best interests get in the way of corporate profits.
There's another risk, too. In order to get "maximum viewership" so that channels get picked up a la carte I think you'll see a lot of "quality" programming die to be replaced by the highest rating lowest-common-denominator type shows. | |
raybrett
join:2001-02-20
Saint Louis, MO
·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to rtcy
I am considering the cost of the digital receivers, not necessarily only the channels. If I were to go digital today, the receivers and the monthly cost of the "upgrade" to digital would cost me more than what I am currently paying for my basic plus enhanced channels. | |
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| reply to raybrett
said by raybrett :Unfortunately, you are right, but I will hang on as long as I can. After that, I may have to settle for DVDs. I am not sure I will go to digital receivers. Well all TV manufacture after March 1st 2007 have to have digital tuners built in. So if you buy a new TV( make sure the store isn't selling you on made before March 1 if under 27 inches ) and you can get off the air channels then maybe that's your best bet after Feb 2009 when all analog stations are cut off. Most local stations now broadcast in both analog and digital. A TV with a built in tuner and an antenna should get you at least some local stations. | |
rtcy
FACTS only please
Premium
join:1999-10-16
Beverly Hills, CA
·Verizon west (ex G..
| reply to devnuller
said by devnuller :If you want a la cart, get DirecTV... oh wait they don't do it... get FiOS TV... hmm... no that won't work either.. Perhaps it would be better of if the Government took over TV distribution from Cable, Sat, and Telco's since the obviously know how to run a profitable company... hmm... this argument isn't going well... they do not do it, because there are companies like Viacomm that shove the whole enchilada down the troats of cable dish operators and because Dishnetworks and Directtv are both barely making money, so in order to keep charging those exorbitant prices they like it just fine the way it is, oh yes and Cable likes it that way too so they can continue those excesive profits | |
rtcy
FACTS only please
Premium
join:1999-10-16
Beverly Hills, CA
·Verizon west (ex G..
| reply to raybrett
said by raybrett :If ala carte were mandated, I would likely lose my analog channels and have to pay significantly more for digital service and receivers. I doubt I would save any money. More likely it would double my costs. Fist off sooner than later you are going to loose that ANALOG box, it's called HD / Digital and it's mandated, so kiss those free channels away.
and NO it Ala Carte won't cost you twice it will cost you what ever you are *willing* to pay for. please notice the keyword is WILLING because you decide what you want to buy! | |
rtcy
FACTS only please
Premium
join:1999-10-16
Beverly Hills, CA
·Verizon west (ex G..
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :said by 59126125 :While I'm not sure if forcing them to offer channels individually is a good idea, wouldn't it be relatively easy to do if they had something similar to Time Warner's project of switched digital video holding the channels at the edge router? Even if legislation forces a la carte offerings, they almost for sure won't mandate pricing schedules. And the a la carte prices will be high enough that all except religious fanatics will stick with the tiered offerings. And if people don't want their kids to watch certain channels, every TV sold today and for the last 10 yrs and all STBs have a way to block individual channels. So no matter what happens, this won't change the face of cable TV at all. I never get people like you. how easy you submit | |
rtcy
FACTS only please
Premium
join:1999-10-16
Beverly Hills, CA
·Verizon west (ex G..
1 edit | reply to phattieg
said by phattieg :said by ColorBASIC :"Big dish" suppliers do it and it's generally cheaper for most channels. I would personally favor it because I could give a crap less about channels like ESPN which jack my rates while others who love sports would gladly pay for them. I only watch maybe 5 or 6 channels meanwhile I'm paying for these expensive channels like ESPN because they're part of even the most basic package. Well, I hope you get your way, so you can pay 3 times more for the channels you watch. You don't get it. It's like buying in bulk. well you DON'T get it but here is a clue for you, as to how inexpensive Ala Carte is, it means people liky YOU can buy the packaged version and people like me can buy what we want, it's called a CHOICE. think before you go calling the rest of us aholes.
»www.callnps.com/alacarte.htm
this is what I pay with my large dish, and I also have Dishnetwork for the rest of the house that costs 98.00 a month.
come back with a good answer | |
phattieg
join:2001-04-29
Winter Park, FL
·Verizon Wireless B..
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
1 edit | reply to Ahrenl
said by Ahrenl Heh, heaven forbid you switch off and read a book. :
Yeah, and heaven forbid you drop cable and read your own damn books if you "don't want to pay for channels YOU don't watch". I don't feel I should have to pay more for the same stations I have enjoyed as a bundle, nor do I want to have to call my cable company everytime I see something coming on a channel I USED to have.
My whole reasoning on that comes from other things in life, and with cable, that cost more "a la carte". For example, calling features on your phone. Buy a package (like Complete Choice) and get 7 features, but buy those features by themselves, and you pay twice as much. Get a cell plan with more minutes, and more text messaging, and you don't have to pay "overages" which is another way of saying "we're going to screw you because you didn't get a package". The media giants are the same way. So what if you don't watch ESPN, but Disney owns them, and a few other channels, and gives the cable company a break when they include them in the basic lineup, and they pass it to us, the customer.
said by Ahrenl Hey that's just how we feel, except we all think it will be cheaper to get the channels we want a la carte. :
Well, nobody denied that you FELT that way. But my comment actually got a thumbs up, and yours didn't, so I think it's the other way around, and people agree with what I'm saying, or at least see the logic involved. I actually addressed it, and labeled it "stupid thinking". I think my analogy of 1 pound for $2 vs. 10 pounds for $6, when you only needed 4 pounds to begin with, still is cheaper to buy 10 pounds, kinda nailed it. You just don't get the end result, do you? These channel providers like Viacom, Disney, AOL/Time Warner, etc, they don't need to price it "fairly" to the cable companies "customers". Case in point. Take away packages, and these @$$hole companies are going to make up for the channels nobody watches by charging more for the channels people DO watch. Thats how the channel providers work. They will recover the loss by charging more for the channels people actually watch. So while you're preaching to me that you "THINK" it will be cheaper, I am preaching back to you that I have worked for a cable company for 5 years, and this will NOT make things cheaper at all, PROMISED. It's going to force everything to digital, because their not going to make a channel trap for analog customers who "want to a la carte" service, there's just too many possible combinations. That means the cable box you rent from the cable company will be needed, which means more monthly income to the cable company for equipment you don't want. Does that make any sense to you???
said by Ahrenl You mean using negative numbers?
Your argument seems to be that it will be more expensive for you, because you like having a lot of channels, so the rest of us should just suck it up, and keeping paying more so you can be happy. That's quite compelling.. No, my arguement will be this. Right now, I pay $50 a month for basic cable. And I get 70 channels, for about $0.72 each channel. If you go a la carte, then those same 70 channels will cost $80, because the carriers will raise rates on the "good" channels, or the "popular" ones. All because you think it's cheaper. It's stupidity. Take your own advice, read a damn book at the library for free, or actually USE the product you're paying for.
said by Ahrenl I could probably live with just the networks, and NESN. I would just use OTA, but the price bump for my internet would make cost savings nil especially because I'm on the continuous $99/3 services package. :
Good, hook up the rabbit ears, and get the hell on with life if it don't mean much to you. Obviously you have better things to do, besides posting on here. Me, I enjoy getting off a long day of work, cracking open a beer, and watching whatever the hell happens to be on. I have a DVR, and my roommate uses it more than I do, because I have an opportunistic approach to how I watch TV. For you to even imply that I need to read a book is redundant to your own arguement, as you can read your own book, and be happy, while I watch the movie, and save 2-4 days of flippin pages, and catch the story in 2 hours. I'm glad you're on the triple play, but don't think for one second that even for the occasional user, a la carte channels will be "cheaper".
But, hard headed people don't learn. I think it will be unfortunate if this change is forced upon TV providers. You think it's hard enough getting a promo offer from your cable provider now, wait for this change. The TV providers (sat, fiber, and cable) won't be able to "package" anything, because each channel will not cost the same to add.
Flame away, though. It still makes no sense to a la carte things. If you REALLY want my opinion, the commercials all these channels play should pay for their own bills, and we should be watching TV for free, like the local channels, which I'm sure we can BOTH agree on.
--
SIPPhone/Gizmo # 17476200648 / PIMPNET Chatline / Ran by Asterisk & Slackware 10.1. | |
raybrett
join:2001-02-20
Saint Louis, MO | reply to BF69
Unfortunately, you are right, but I will hang on as long as I can. After that, I may have to settle for DVDs. I am not sure I will go to digital receivers. | |
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| reply to raybrett
said by raybrett :If ala carte were mandated, I would likely lose my analog channels and have to pay significantly more for digital service and receivers. I doubt I would save any money. More likely it would double my costs. analog channels are going to be going by the wayside anyways. | |
ColorBASIC
8-bit Fun
Premium
join:2006-12-29
Corona, CA | reply to clickie
I guess you missed the whole "reply to Phattieg" thing. | |
|
