mrfuzzy
@comcast.net
thumbs down from:
TK Junk Mail 
| reply to lew_jean
Re: Let me pay for what I want
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." |
|
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. |
|
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| 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 |
|
clickie
join:2005-05-22
Monroe, MI
| 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. |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | 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. |
|
