kalphearion
In nomine Patri
Premium
join:2003-11-08
Denver, CO
clubs:
 ·Comcast
| They will get what they want
Cable CO's will never provide "a-la-carte" service. yes it will save the consume some cash, but it won't profit for the greedy cable exec's.
a la carte will never happen, unless Hell freezes over and cable exec's grow a heart and cater to the end users' wants. |
|
jeffs471
join:2005-09-16
Camarillo, CA
| said by kalphearion  :Cable CO's will never provide "a-la-carte" service. yes it will save the consume some cash, but it won't profit for the greedy cable exec's. a la carte will never happen, unless Hell freezes over and cable exec's grow a heart and cater to the end users' wants. charge 5.00 dollars each for the very popular channels ie tbs, tnt, comedy central and charge 1.00 for the crub like fuse.
Advertise the service with wording such as "channels as low as 99 cents" however when you add up all the channels you actually watch, the popular ones, you end up paying just as much or more than before but are getting less channels. I see the cable company making money anyway it goes, don't worry they will figure out a way. Its people like espn and mtv who are against it because they like to force their crappy second tier channels on us in order to get the popular channel everybody wants. |
|
CableTool
Poorly Representing MYSELF.
Premium
join:2004-11-12
| Because the cable cos put out XX amount of dollars for crud like FUSE and the smaller channels like BBC and SCI FI and such.
With only a minority of people subscribing to these channels and the channels themselves setting their own prices what do you think you will REALLY be paying?
No cable company is going to give you a channel for .99 when it costs them 6.50 per subscribed sub to offer it becasue the subscriber base is so low. They cant make money off of locals either.
Those that like ESPN and OVATION and other niche, genre channels will be paying through the nose for these channels.
Hell if Im going to pay the same Im paying now to receive 10 channles I REALLY REALLY want and not be able to view the other 200 or so channels I used to get for the same price. |
|
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| reply to kalphearion
I don't think it'll never happen, but it'll never be cost effective. And not because a la carte is flawed in some way, but because the cable companies will make sure it is not cost effective.
If they are forced into offering a la carte programming, they'll do some studies to find out how many channels the average person would order. Then they'll price the individual channels so that the total price is about the same as (if not higher than) their package prices.
In addition, they may price popular channels higher than unpopular ones. This would mean that it would take fewer channels on average to make a la carte more expensive than packages.
They would run with this for awhile, then do a study on cable costs and find (*surprise* *surprise*) that a la carte households were paying more than package households on average. This study would "prove" that a la carte was fundamentally flawed and they would use it to lobby to remove the requirement to offer an a la carte option.
--
-Jason Levine
My Gallery | Jason's Toolbox | PCQandA.com | URateit.com |
|
Fatal Vector
join:2005-11-26
| reply to CableTool
Then, Like I said previously. If the channel cannot compete and support itself, it will just have to go black and good riddance. There are far too many niche channels as it is, all playing the same crap over and over in rotation, like time warner. If you watch over the period of a couple months, you will see the same movie shown on all the time warner channels one after the other. |
|
Zoly
join:2004-01-04
Houston, TX
| reply to kalphearion
I'm very surprised! In such religious country as USA televangelists are worried??? Just relax, a Bible belt will pay as much as needed to keep those channels alive.
What really needs to be done is adding a new TV rating like REL (religion) so customers can block it on their cable or whatever boxes. And then everyone will be happy.
Or, like if you want to watch sport channels or Encore channels, you have to pay extra 5 dollars a month. I think that Cable companies shall put all religious channels in one package and sell them in one Inspirational package for let's say 1$ a month and in that case I will be sure that not even 1 cent of my money goes toward those guys. And I will be happy. |
|
CableTool
Poorly Representing MYSELF.
Premium
join:2004-11-12
2 edits | reply to Fatal Vector
Like BBC is showing crap? Or Ovation? Or SCI FI? ESPN is showing crap as well because Im not into sports. CNN is also showing crap becasue I dont get my news from tv.
I wouldnt mind if those channels folded and disappeared but I WOULD mind if TLC folded because DAM IF I DONT LOVE ME SOME TRADING SPACES!
Let your cable company only offer the channels the MAJORITY want after the niches have folded and mine will offer everything that everyone wants and we will see at the end of the day which system works and which you wold rather live in.
In a broad way your would rather see cable ran like a communist country. No real choices. You must like what the majority likes.
People arent built that way.
Your comparing genre tv to movie channels in speaking about TW showing the same movies on all channels.
Premium movie channels already ARE ala cart. They wouldnt be affected by this ruling. |
|
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| reply to Fatal Vector
There is nothing wrong with niche channels. Some niche channels ended up becoming more than that after gaining popularity. There is a pretty simple solution to all of this. Have your standard cable come with a wave of default channels (HSN, public access, broadcast channels, weather channel, cooking channel, etc) and a list of choices from a secondary tier of channels (Sci-Fi, Comedy Central, A&E, TNT, etc). Say you can pick 5-10 from a list and if you want more you pay a little more for another block of channels. Then you have the special package you can add to that like a sports package, news package, movie package, etc).
The fringe channels that make cable so interesting still get their support, you get to choose the important channels you want to keep, and you can pay extra for the expensive channels if you WANT to. There. Was that so hard? |
|
aztecnology
O Rly?
Premium
join:2003-02-12
Murrieta, CA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| reply to kalphearion
I think that the only way it can work is if the a la carte offerings come in a tier style package, grouped by genre or similar interests. Otherwise it would become cost prohibitive to provide the service or subscrbe to it. For the same reason you get the value meal at your local fast food joint instead of buying a la carte... it costs less.
You got kids and want the kid channels, then you have to get all the kid channels, disney, nick, noggin, etc
You want the sports channels, then you have to get all the sports channels, espn, fox, oln, speed, etc. So on and so forth...
--
.:|:.Tell a man there are 300 billion stars in the universe and he'll believe you. Tell him a bench has wet paint on it and he'll have to touch it to be sure. .:|:. |
|
stunod2002
join:2003-11-07
Carol Stream, IL
| reply to kalphearion
What they should do is both.. Offer the packages as they choose.. maybe the most popular ones with a few gotcha in there like they do now.. Also offer the individual ones are some pricing based on popularity, advertising or some other baseline.. Once you get to a point you may want the package.. or maybe not.. Its a win-win for everyone.. 
--
Stunod |
|
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| reply to SRFireside
I think this might be a good compromise between only offering packages and complete a la carte. Have a bare-bones default lineup which would include broadcast channels, shopping channels*, and a few of the most popular cable stations. Then let users either add on packages like they currently do (Sports, Movies, Kids, etc) or buy a "custom channel package" which would let the user select 5 of their favorite stations. Want more than 5 more stations? Buy another custom package and add 5 more stations. Repeat until you've got a lineup that suits you.
In addition, to help promote niche channels, cable companies could include a "Preview Channel" in the default lineup. This channel would take its content from a different non-default channel from week to week. This week it's HBO. Next week, it's Sci-Fi. The week after that it's Oxygen. You never know quite what you'll find on that station. That might help generate interest in niche (or recently added) channels.
* They pay the cable providers for access as opposed to the other channels which require the cable providers to pay them to air their content. That's why I'd add them by default.
--
-Jason Levine
My Gallery | Jason's Toolbox | PCQandA.com | URateit.com |
|
guitarzan
Premium
join:2004-05-04
Skytop, PA
 ·epix
1 edit | reply to Zoly
said by Zoly :What really needs to be done is adding a new TV rating like REL (religion) so customers can block it on their cable or whatever boxes. And then everyone will be happy. That is a good idea, then the other rating's we can have are SPO (sports) (OUT)outdoors for hunting,fishing and motorsports.FOX for FOX news,where the real news gets reported.
Then we can have HWT (hollywood trash) filter/block for the rest of the cable garbage line up.This way all HWT can be blocked.Better yet make cable ala-carte.This way one does not have to pay for all that gutter grade HWT.And then everyone will be happy.
--
Bass....the glue of rhythm and harmony...the heartbeat of the band.! Shaking the earth with deep,sonorous vibrations.The dark ominous thunder of an approching storm. |
|
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX | reply to Jason Levine
Smart idea about the preview channel. I only wish these ideas would actually sink into the heads of the people who actually make these decisions. |
|
Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| reply to Zoly
said by Zoly :I'm very surprised! In such religious country as USA televangelists are worried??? Just relax, a Bible belt will pay as much as needed to keep those channels alive. Honestly, if these folks are so worried about their message not being spread to the "unchurched" via a-la-carte cable...then why don't they offer their channel services up for free? Sure, they won't turn as much (or any) profit...but if spreading the message is the ultimate concern, surely running the channel non-profit wouldn't be a big concern, right?  |
|
Maarvin
Premium
join:2005-04-11
Denver, CO | reply to kalphearion
I agree wholeheartedly. Cable companies are in the business of making money, and that is all. They will even rob us if they can. No.."a la carte" will never happen. |
|
Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| said by Maarvin :Cable companies are in the business of making money, and that is all. They will even rob us if they can. No.. "a la carte" will never happen. Or if it does happen, the per-channel-price will be more than well padded out to make sure they're well within their projected profits. For cable companies to tell us that they will be losing profits is like Oprah to tell us she'll run outta Doritos. |
|
mr4july
join:2000-11-23
Park Forest, IL | reply to Thaler
What maks these "televangelist's" think that people watch these channels just because they are there...... |
|
Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| said by mr4july :What maks these "televangelist's" think that people watch these channels just because they are there...... They don't...it's all for show actually. It wouldn't be impressive to say "We're watched by 5 loyal fans!", but rather, "we're televised to every cable consumer out there!" If anything modern-day broadcasting has shown, is that if you put enough crap out there...eventually, someone's gonna watch some of it. |
|
