Re: Let me pay for what I want in http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r19119133 en Wed, 08 Oct 2008 04:33:55 EDT Wed, 08 Oct 2008 04:33:55 EDT Re: Let me pay for what I want http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19152788 Ahrenl : Well, this would be the easiest way for a la carte legislation to proceed then. Require content providers to bill by customer if that customer opts into the a la carte program. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19152788 Thu, 27 Sep 2007 09:47:00 EDT Re: Let me pay for what I want http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19149365 marigolds : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19149365 Wed, 26 Sep 2007 18:03:39 EDT Re: Let me pay for what I want http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19149045 Ahrenl : 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. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19149045 Wed, 26 Sep 2007 17:01:21 EDT Re: Let me pay for what I want http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19148861 marigolds :
said by Ahrenl See Profile :

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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19148861 Wed, 26 Sep 2007 16:34:36 EDT Re: Let me pay for what I want http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19148213 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? ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19148213 Wed, 26 Sep 2007 14:42:34 EDT Re: Let me pay for what I want http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19123964 clickie : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19123964 Sat, 22 Sep 2007 11:19:58 EDT Re: Let me pay for what I want http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19122223 marigolds :
said by travelguy See Profile :

said by marigolds See Profile :

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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19122223 Fri, 21 Sep 2007 23:03:31 EDT Re: Let me pay for what I want http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19122155 travelguy :
said by marigolds See Profile :

said by travelguy See Profile :

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. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19122155 Fri, 21 Sep 2007 22:50:23 EDT Re: Let me pay for what I want http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19122109 marigolds :
said by Ahrenl See Profile :

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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19122109 Fri, 21 Sep 2007 22:42:26 EDT Re: Let me pay for what I want http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19122102 marigolds :
said by travelguy See Profile :

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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19122102 Fri, 21 Sep 2007 22:40:40 EDT Re: Let me pay for what I want http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19120008 travelguy :
said by Jim Gurd See Profile :

said by lew_jean See Profile :

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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19120008 Fri, 21 Sep 2007 16:21:35 EDT Re: Let me pay for what I want http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19119952 bamabrad : This type of business model is going the way of the dinosaurs-wait and see!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19119952 Fri, 21 Sep 2007 16:12:01 EDT Re: Let me pay for what I want http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19119149 Ahrenl : Using C-band as a guideline MOST channels will be MUCH less than $5's. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19119149 Fri, 21 Sep 2007 14:06:20 EDT Re: Let me pay for what I want http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19119133 Ahrenl : 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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19119133 Fri, 21 Sep 2007 14:04:47 EDT Re: Let me pay for what I want http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19119017 swhx7 : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19119017 Fri, 21 Sep 2007 13:44:09 EDT Re: Let me pay for what I want http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19118983 brandon :
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."]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19118983 Fri, 21 Sep 2007 13:38:07 EDT Re: Let me pay for what I want http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19118957 BuriedCaesar : $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?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19118957 Fri, 21 Sep 2007 13:30:51 EDT Re: Let me pay for what I want http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19118727 anon : 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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19118727 Fri, 21 Sep 2007 13:14:12 EDT Re: Let me pay for what I want http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19118820 Jim Gurd :
said by lew_jean See Profile :

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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19118820 Fri, 21 Sep 2007 13:04:21 EDT Re: Let me pay for what I want http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19118722 Jmartz : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19118722 Fri, 21 Sep 2007 12:47:12 EDT Let me pay for what I want http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19118697 lew_jean : 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
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19118697 Fri, 21 Sep 2007 12:40:04 EDT