lew_jean
join:2005-05-13
Marietta, GA | Let me pay for what I want
Why should I have to pay for the shopping channels, sports channels, all the other channels I do not want or care for and lets not forget all the music channels.
we may watch about 15 channels it that much
|
|
Jmartz
join:2000-07-20
Tenafly, NJ
edit:
September 21st, @12:48PM
| Just think about it:
Everyone SHARES the cost of channels, even channels they don't watch.
A La Carte... 1/4 the number of people share the same cost (prices wont come down)... so that means the cost for the channel will increase to maintain the same revnue... so you're going to be paying the same, if not more, for LESS.
And, a lot of channels will go out of business if people don't subscribe. So you will have less to chose from, at a higher price.
It doesn't make sense to do a la carte. I prefer the packages, if Cable wants to do that, then give people a choice... people who want A La Carte can have it... but I want to keep my programming bundles. |
|
Jim Gurd
Sorry Roger, you tiger now.
Premium
join:2000-07-08
Plymouth, MI
 ·Comcast
| reply to lew_jean
said by lew_jean  :Why should I have to pay for the shopping channels, Actually you don't. The shopping channels pay the cable companies to carry them. I can live with that if it brings down the monthly fee.
--
We don't care. We don't have to. We're the phone company.
-- Ernestine |
|
mrfuzzy
@comcast.net
thumbs down from:
TK Junk Mail
| reply to lew_jean
So if you bought your fifteen channels you watch say at a reasonably price of $5 per….. That’s $75.... Now for *extended basic* (80 channels) generally goes for $53 |
|
BuriedCaesar
It's Not Polite To Stare.
join:2004-03-27
Richardson, TX
 ·AT&T Yahoo
| $5 per channel? Still not worth it.
Try $2-$3 max per channel. That might entice me to consider getting cable. Maybe.
Then again, taxes and fees and whatnot else they want to try to tack on below the line will still probably push it close to $5 per channel anyway.
What am I missing by not having cable? Not much.
--
That was preposterous! Utter Nonsense! Totally unsupportable drivel! You can't be serious!....Um, what did you say? |
|
brandon
Some truth included in this post.
Premium
join:2003-03-31
Hurley, MS
·AT&T Southeast
·CableOne
 ·Packet8
edit:
September 21st, @01:39PM
| reply to mrfuzzy
said by mrfuzzy :
So if you bought your fifteen channels you watch say at a reasonably price of $5 per….. That’s $75.... Now for *extended basic* (80 channels) generally goes for $53
Ah, but what about me who watches MSNBC, CNN, Comedy Central, and Fox on rare occasions? My bill just went down to $25. And if it's cheaper than $5/month, then my bill goes down even more.
The FCC is requiring them to offer a la carte...not necessarily making it the only option. Thus, bundlers could still save if they want 15 channels, and those of us that want 5 could save as well. No one seriously watches the 80 channels on "extended basic." |
|
swhx7
Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to Jmartz
The only way ala carte would help subscribers is if all the channels were priced the same. The same as each other, that is, regardless of popularity. That way, the cablecos would make less profit as a percentage on more popular channels (because their payments to content providers are higher) and more on less popular channels. So, on ESPN and HBO they would make pennies or take a loss; on golf channel they would make more. But with larger volume on the popular channels it might almost even out.
This would be good for subscribers because it would provide an incentive for the cableco to keep the smaller channels available; and they would have to keep the bigger channels to keep customers.
If they have to offer ala carte but prices are not required to be the same for every channel, they will charge according to demand, and drop less-watched channels, and cable will descend to the lowest common denominator - just sports, big Hollywood movies and those so-called "reality" shows. |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
edit:
September 21st, @02:05PM
| Or what they pay to content provider's could be tied to the number of subscribers selecting a channel. {shock} Then the providers could set the rates to what the market would actually bear, and comcast would rake some off the top for maintaining the infrastructure.. Sounds a little too free market though.. :P |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | reply to mrfuzzy
Using C-band as a guideline MOST channels will be MUCH less than $5's. |
|
bamabrad
join:2006-01-27
Port Orange, FL | reply to Jmartz
This type of business model is going the way of the dinosaurs-wait and see! |
|
travelguy
join:1999-09-03
Albuquerque, NM
| reply to Jim Gurd
said by Jim Gurd :said by lew_jean :Why should I have to pay for the shopping channels, Actually you don't. The shopping channels pay the cable companies to carry them. I can live with that if it brings down the monthly fee. You're making the same mistake lots of people make - assuming that what a cable or sat companies pays (or receives) for a channel has anything to do with how they price a channel or package a channel.
Channels and channel packages are priced by what people are will to pay - not by what they cost the distributor. |
|
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| said by travelguy :Channels and channel packages are priced by what people are will to pay - not by what they cost the distributor. Except for basic cable (where the shopping channels are carried), which by law must be priced according to the cost to the distributor.
Since basic cable is the only package that a cable provider can force you to carry, this is an important aspect.
--
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 Ahrenl
said by Ahrenl :Using C-band as a guideline MOST channels will be MUCH less than $5's. C-Band is not a good pricing good for future a la carte cable. The pricing model is based on the assumption that there is a small number of c-band customers who will not subscribe through other means (because they already invested in a big dish).
Essentially, c-band is subsidized by everyone else.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher |
|
travelguy
join:1999-09-03
Albuquerque, NM
| reply to marigolds
said by marigolds :said by travelguy :Channels and channel packages are priced by what people are will to pay - not by what they cost the distributor. Except for basic cable (where the shopping channels are carried), which by law must be priced according to the cost to the distributor. Since basic cable is the only package that a cable provider can force you to carry, this is an important aspect. Interesting - given the large number of shopping channels on most basic tiers, I'll bet the law was written to ignore those... Still - all these people who think ala cart is going to reduce their cable bill are in for a rude awakening.
The industry is built around average revenue of over $50 per customer. The huge capital investment requires that kind of revenue - not just the program providers. |
|
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| said by travelguy :said by marigolds :Except for basic cable (where the shopping channels are carried), which by law must be priced according to the cost to the distributor. Since basic cable is the only package that a cable provider can force you to carry, this is an important aspect. Interesting - given the large number of shopping channels on most basic tiers, I'll bet the law was written to ignore those... The law does include those. The problem with the law is the franchise authority is responsible for enforcing the provisions. I've never heard of a state enforcing this provision, and municipalities only rarely enforce it. It is not that uncommon for the price of basic cable to decrease in municipalities that do actively monitor basic cable prices (and the companies are required to turn over the information in aggregate).
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher |
|
clickie
join:2005-05-22
Monroe, MI
| reply to marigolds
You can use C-band pricing as a model to find a relative relationship of what channels cost, but you can't ignore that there are some substantial costs attributed to running a cable TV or satellite "head end in the sky" system. If a la carte pricing becomes a reality, cable and satellite customers won't get around those costs. |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
| reply to marigolds
So C-band is subsidized by everyone else, because their customers are locked into the service through the large up front costs? Sense, that does not make.
If anything you'd think that cable a-la carte would have to be lower, otherwise, why wouldn't I switch to C-band? |
|
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
edit:
September 26th, @04:35PM
| said by Ahrenl :So C-band is subsidized by everyone else, because their customers are locked into the service through the large up front costs? Sense, that does not make. If anything you'd think that cable a-la carte would have to be lower, otherwise, why wouldn't I switch to C-band? You wouldn't switch to C-Band if cable a la carte was more expensive because you have to shell out a ton of money up front and you have to have room for a big dish (which is not covered by the same FCC regs that allow small dishes).
The assumption is that c-band subscribers have highly elastic demand for individual channels. When they have paid such high upfront costs, they will not tolerate significant increases in the cost of an individual channel and will instead drop that channel for the free channels.
Since the group is so small, there is little revenue to be made in increasing their channel cost, or even in bother to lock them out of a channel. If there were more of them, then it might be worth it to develop a higher revenue pricing model.
Instead, it is a group with small numbers who are not willing to spend very much, but will be pretty vocal when they get cut off.
Solution: Leave them on their cheap packages and eat the very small loss.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
edit:
September 26th, @05:01PM
| Alright that does make sense.
So what would your opinion be on a DTC per channel charge? Where Comcast simply tacks on a carrier fee to whatever the content owners want to charge the customers, who pay the content owner directly (through their monthly comcast bill). This way Comcast acts as a service organizer, billing agent, and infrastructure servicer; and collects fees on all three. They no longer have to worry about the basis risk from what content owners charge them, and what customers are willing to pay. Of course they've been winning on this basis risk for their entire existence, but with a la carte, it (the risk) would increase. |
|
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| It is a feasible system (would not even require that much billing adaptation), but I think the content providers would fight it every way they could.
It seems the last thing they want is for consumers to know the real costs of individual channels. |
|
