RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
 ·XMission
| A-la-carte not feasable they use to say?
Champion said media companies were currently a barrier to such an pricing plan, but the option was technically possible under AT&T’s service. The last couple of times it was the provider saying that they could not do it, now it is the media companies that are at fault? (which I tend to believe was the issue all along, just like the "pirate" issue, it is more a matter of control than real loss)
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. |
|
rachelsfx
join:2004-09-27
Pensacola, FL
| Unfortunately, opposition will come from elsewhere--free access programming. I'll bet strange bedfellows, like the ACLU, will come forward and sue to stop a-la-carte in the name of "diverse" programming. Then, less profitable channels, will sue on the grounds that a defacto monopoly is being created and nix the entire deal.
Perhaps the cable and IPTVs will "charge" some channels with small, loyal followings for "Quality of Service" inclusion in the basic plans?
Not to be paranoid, but it appears to me Cable and Satellite would love to jettison a few channels with small viewership so they can have the bandwidth for HD programming, and a few dozen more PPV channels, or the "new" channels the giants could deploy to get even more money out of everyone's pocket. Why not ESPN4, 5, 6 or Disney East, Central, and West?
In the end, cable's assertion isn't right about the money it'll cost them; but, it'll be right about the price to the consumer who covets their channels that have "disappeared" in the name of choice. I know a ton of people that dropped Dish when they kicked off Lifetime for DirecTV.
What will be the determining factor? Personally, I would like to see a basic tier, with the high-priced channels like ESPN ($2 per cable customer) put in packages, with the least expensive in a basic digital package that customers can block for content reasons. This keeps diverse programming in the mix without making us pay eventually the same price for less channels, and less choice. It would also make ESPN-types think about doling out billions for programming that loses money until you pay the ticket. (MNF lost a $1 million a night or more that is why ABC was glad to say Goodbye NFL!) |
|
RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs: | You are probably right Rachel, but it is nice to dream of being able to have what I want and not have to pull a lot of deadwood around. But then I guess that is being 'insensitive'.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. |
|
rachelsfx
join:2004-09-27
Pensacola, FL
| Hello,
I think that a-la-carte programming would eventually cost everyone more money. I think the "expensive" channels need to stop paying ridiculous prices for some programming. NFL comes easily to mind. ESPN would lose hundreds of millions without forcing it on everyone. Sports and Disney so far have become the most ridiculously high-priced channels. And, think about it, do you really want news and information censored by pricing schemes? Over-paying for programming is the biggest problem I see. The NFL and NBA don't make money until Cable and Satellite chips in the dough. Just about everyone else does. I would like to see PBS axed since we have enough news without taxes paying for it.
Rachel |
|
RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
·XMission
| Rachel,
I do not see why you are assuming that the news channels would be priced out of range (censored) and only the rich can afford a decent one. Most of them usually have advertisement to help pay the way. If people can not justify the cost, then the media will not carry them due to lack of interest, which means they would fold. A-la-carte would also mean that the sports channels would have to lower rates or not be seen, not just rake in captive customers since they can.
I must admit, I do not have cable or satellite, I do not watch TV (except sometimes on travel when I am in a hotel, IF there is anything decent on, and that usually means a book), I listen to a public supported (not tax) radio station in my area, and I look at the net and skim for news there. Quite frankly I do not care for the FORCED paying for diversity, I prefer the option of getting diversity if I CHOOSE to pay for it.
And on PBS, while it has had some good shows like "Nova" and "Nature", in the past it tended to be too one sided in what some people call a 'liberal' direction. A good idea gone sour due to attempts to be a one sided political platform paid for by taxes.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. |
|
insideoutwards
@comcast.net
| reply to RayW
Just make all video a-la-carte - PayPerView - PayPerShow - PayPerMinute - all on-demand all the time. It seems that we will be there eventually, so let the first - best provider win. The sponsors/advertisers will pay if the consumers won't. The consumers won't feel like they are paying for something they do not want. All you need is hardware-level security in the set-top box and that big pipe to the home. |
|
