sharksfan3
Premium
join:2004-02-16
Poughkeepsie, NY
 ·Verizon Wireless B..
 ·Optimum Voice
 ·Optimum Online
·Time Warner VOIP
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to DMS1
Re: Really bad.
said by DMS1  :Allowing a-la carte selection would quickly force the other 80% of the channels out of business. They could of course provide content worth watching. |
|
Chuckles
Premium
join:2006-03-04
Saint Paul, MN | Are you the one to decide what's worth watching? |
|
DMS1
join:2005-04-06
Carrollton, TX
| reply to sharksfan3
said by sharksfan3 :said by DMS1 :Allowing a-la carte selection would quickly force the other 80% of the channels out of business. They could of course provide content worth watching. My point exactly - they do provide content worth watching for at least some people. Take for example Ovation, which provides arts and culture programming. Not everyone's cup of tea, but a channel I watch regularly. I fear it would be one of the first to go. |
|
Richard B
Fur It Up
join:2007-06-22
Portland, OR
·Comcast
| reply to sharksfan3
Two words
Niche Markets
I do not care how good content is I not going to watch the Golf Channel but my hypothetical neighbor would be glued to the channel. At the same time he has no interest in Sci-FI but I do. a la carte will dumb down TV to the lowest common denominator. |
|
LostInWoods
join:2004-04-14
1 edit | reply to DMS1
So you expect that everyone else should subsidize your more -ahem- eclectic tastes? I hope you send money for your NPR habit to supplement the taxes we send to CPB to subsidize Big Bird ($400M for 2008, up 33% in 8 years).
I have no problem with packages of channels rather than true ala carte, but the deal now (at least on DirectTV) is a $30 package aimed squarely at the Bible Thumpers, and then $50 for a 140+ channels, 30-40% of which are XM radio. I know that they can manage different packages, because I have an older package that is no longer offered. (I have no idea what the differences are, but they seem to manage it OK.)
So why not a Pick30 with local channels for $30 package? Make ESPN cost an extra $5 if that's what Disney wants for it - an awful lot of folks would pay it. And maybe they can find someone who wants XM Suite 62 and Galavision - whatever they are.
Or maybe not. Nobody said being an artist would be easy... |
|
james
join:2001-02-26
antarctica
| reply to Chuckles
Your comment is really stupid if you take the time to think about it.
It isnt like he's saying "any channel I dont watch should go off the air" he's saying "any channel NO ONE watches should go off the air" and logically, if there is a channel that no one watches, it should change formats to appeal to more people or be replaced, otherwise millions of dollars are being wasted to appease 10 peoples horrible taste (as opposed to millions of peoples horrible taste i suppose, but still). |
|
BIGHUSKER
join:2002-01-20
Minneapolis, MN
1 edit | I'd have to agree that Chuckles posted an amazingly stupid question. Yes, consumers *should* be the ones who decide what's worth watching. What is wrong with you? |
|
stevephl
join:2000-11-27
Colorado Springs, CO
| reply to DMS1
I am sure that there might be a channel or two that I might watch that would go away due to a lack of interest by the market (viewers) so be it. Why should the rest of us subsidize your feel good channel? I've been saying for a long time that a large majority of the channels on the satellite (DirecTV) have a fairly small audience if any at all and should either be switched to programming that a majority of people would enjoy or removed entirely. A quick poll at work provided some interesting data, over 90% (around 25 people) indicated that they only watch a hand full of channels on their cable or satellite systems. Most (80%) also replied that they favor the a-la-carte business model. Let the free market place determine what are viable channels and what channels are financial losers. |
|
stevephl
join:2000-11-27
Colorado Springs, CO
| reply to Richard B
There is a huge plethora of channels dedicated to over the air selling (marketing)such as QVC and similar types, food channels, save the world/animal/green planet channels and several channels offering tv shows that never were able to garner an audience when first broadcast, a majority of these channels have a very small viewer ship, once again why keep channels that most people do not enjoy watching? If we go to the a-la-carte business model the major TV content providers will be able to asses the data and determine which channels do not enjoy an audience. One final thought just because other people might not enjoy watching some off the wall channel you enjoy does not mean we are being dumbed down. |
|
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
| reply to DMS1
said by DMS1 :I fear it would be one of the first to go. Oh it would be.
Convert to watching Football, Nascar, and Wrestling, and you'll be a happy man.
 |
|
ashworth
join:2001-10-06
Pittsburgh, PA | reply to sharksfan3
This is a billing nightmare to the service providers and a few companies own most of the cable channels. So if you want MTV you get BET too, because it's owned by the same big media conglomerate(Viacom).....Is this a great country or what ?? |
|
tlcbob
join:2001-07-11
Harrisburg, PA
·Vonage
| reply to stevephl
Let those marketing channels be FREE since they are getting revenue from sales. If they want to sell to us, allow them to be part of a FREE tier. The more popular channels can be a-la-carte. I can then pay $30 and get some free public interest, marketing, viewer funded (like PBS) channels in addition to my maybe 30 picked channels. |
|
chris231989
join:2006-02-12
Joplin, MO
clubs:
| reply to Chuckles
shouldn't we the consumers be the ones deciding whats worth watching anyways??? it's our money we're working hard for, handing over to the cable co's. if those channels aren't worth paying for individually why would they be any more worth buying in a bundle? |
|
Volcano Joe
@motive.com | reply to Chuckles
Are you kidding? My interest in ESPN shouldn't subsidize your wanting to watch super obscure programming. If those networks have a following, it will show up as subscribers in an a-la-carte model. Otherwise it will go away. |
|
Chuckles
Premium
join:2006-03-04
Saint Paul, MN | reply to james
I believe channels are on the air because someone is watching them. Someone's horrible taste could be you.
--
kustomerservice.net |
|
Chuckles
Premium
join:2006-03-04
Saint Paul, MN
1 edit | reply to BIGHUSKER
I'm sorry you read "you" as consumers and not sharksfan3.
Actually he said, "They could of course provide content worth watching." |
|
Mospaw
Head Ache
Hawaiian Jellyfish
join:2001-01-08
The Pacific
·Cox HSI
Host:
Road Warriors, Not..
All Things Macintosh
Automotive
| reply to Volcano Joe
Note: I'm pulling the numbers below out of the air, in order to make a point. They don't represent anything but hypotheticals.
Likewise, my interest in obscure programming shouldn't subsidize ESPN, in which I have zero interest.
ESPN might even be profitable on its own and be a freebie or very low cost in an a la carte lineup. Likewise, something a bit more obscure, call it the "Obscurity Channel" will have a smaller audience, and require maybe a dollar or two for each subscriber. I'm fine with that. I'd rather get rid of a bunch of crap channels I'll NEVER look that cost 10 cents a month and get one or two I do want that cost many times more.
Heck, you might even get some channels that pay you a tiny bit to have them, like QVC, HSN, etc.
I'm totally for this and hope it happens.
That way I can say goodbye to probably 30 channels for good AND not have to pay for them.  |
|
MaroonGuru
join:2003-09-03
Oconomowoc, WI
| reply to ashworth
said by ashworth :This is a billing nightmare to the service providers and a few companies own most of the cable channels. So if you want MTV you get BET too, because it's owned by the same big media conglomerate(Viacom).....Is this a great country or what ?? If this is a billing nightmare, better call NPS and tell them to close shop. If making smaller packages is a bad thing, better get rid of Star Choice. NPS sells by the channel for many of their channels. They also sell a variety of packages from a Discovery Channel package to a get-it-all package. I usually order just the channels I want and add the Starz/Encore package to get some fun movies thrown in. (FYI Starz package is about 30 channels total with 4 in HD) I can even decide to go for 90 days, 180 days, or a full year to save even more. I pay about $30 every 3 months to get my selection of channels, and another $35.75 to get the 30 channels of Starz. All digital and better PQ than DBS.
Star Choice up in Canada has nice little bundles of packages to choose from so you can add just music or just sports. Seems to work fine.
I'm not saying it doesn't take a little more effort than giving only 3 or 4 packages, but in reality, the DBS providers are supporting dozens of different pricings and packages due to various offerings over the years. They're smart, and they can handle it. In fact, they may enjoy having the forced unbundling since it might break the strangehold Capital Cities (ABC/Disney/ESPN) currently enjoys. The DBS providers must carry ESPN and Disney at the basic level and this money goes mostly back to CapCities. If subscribers are freed from this, they may spend more on more profitable segments like PPV and premium channels. |
|
Cabletvanon
| reply to Chuckles
said by Chuckles :Are you the one to decide what's worth watching? No the people are. If they don't want to watch it because they hate the shows maybe they should make a better attempt at making programs that appeal to the consumer and we shouldn't be forced to pay for a channel we don't watch. |
|
imanogre
join:2005-11-29
Mcdonough, GA
| reply to Chuckles
said by Chuckles :I'm sorry you read "you" as consumers and not sharksfan3. Actually he said, "They could of course provide content worth watching." So even if you did mean sharksfan3, how in the world did you infer that sharskfan3 even suggested that should be the one whom decides what's worth watching. He's just simply suggesting that some stations have no consumers, or not enough to sustain their programming lineup.
No offense, and Perhaps I'm wrong, but I can't help but think that you are trying to put an anti Free Market spin on this. |
|
