'A La Carte' via Satellite
NetSat reveals plan to offer television programming
, from Wholesale-Telecom, has unveiled its plan to offer
a full television programming service in addition to its satellite internet services. They claim that they will be offering these television programming choices “a la carte” - which means that consumers only pay for the channels they want. The press release
notes that more details will be sent out as agreements are put into place. Alpha testing for the service is set to begin in July and potentially begin rolling out in the 3rd or 4th Quarter.
Glen Head, NY
| I have zero, nada, zilch, interest in the sports channels and channel packages and would be very happy to not have them or pay for them. I fully support the right of sports fans to have them as long as they pony up the fee for them. In the same breath, I don't think they should be forced to take Tech TV, Home and Garden or any other channels that they might not be interested in. Myself, I would take CNN Headline, Fox News, Tech TV, TNT, Sci-Fi, A&E, BBC, VH1 Classic, and Discovery. After that I would consider USA, TV Land, Lifetime, Game Show, History, Bravo, AMC, IFC, TCM, and Spike.|
I support the right to keep and arm bears.
Re: Kicking and Screaming Keep in mind that the networks arguments for bundled packages isn't completely bull.
There are a lot of smaller, less well-funded networks that are essentially subsidized by much larger networks. Take, for example, A&E. I remember when that channel wasn't even it's own channel. They would "take over" another channel after prime-time. (at least in my area, Nickelodeon would switch to A&E after 10pm) Now, it is a large enough network to stand on its own, but had it not been for other networks - it wouldn't exist. The same goes for the Sci-Fi channel, the History channel, and oodles of other specialty channels. (about half the channels you listed would probably not exist were they not either actively being subsidized, or were subsidized when the first started)
So, if everyone goes ala-carte, don't be surprised when all that is left after a few years are channels you don't like, or the price for the channels you do like zoom WAY up. In fact, you might end up paying more than you do now, and have fewer choices to boot.
IOW - be careful what you wish for, you might get it.
| |fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
| |said by n2jtx:Cable Cable inc in canda offers a $1.99 per month per channel offering. (Keep in mind the canadian dollar)
I would take CNN Headline, Fox News, Tech TV, TNT, Sci-Fi, A&E, BBC, VH1 Classic, and Discovery. After that I would consider USA, TV Land, Lifetime, Game Show, History, Bravo, AMC, IFC, TCM, and Spike.
You would have 9 at $1.99 = $17.91. (this is not to say that if the U.S. did this, you would see this price, rather it's guessed to be more like $2.49 or $3.99 a channel here) You must also, here, subscribe to the lowest tier of service (about $13.00 on average) This is, without tax, $30.91. Add the converter rental of about $5.00 a month for $35.91 + taxes and lf fees to about $40.00 a month.
Tell me, where it the savings and benefits here? Sure, you can say you are only getting and paying for what you want, but I'd rather stay wit my $45.00 a month + tax and have a more robust 70 channel offering vs your approximately 35 channels.
A couple of important details:
1) It's only on the digital channels. To offer channels most often in the analog range, cable systems would have to either scramble their entire network and force EVERYONE back to the converter (make sure you make your home address public so others can thank you appropriatly) or have a digital simulcast in place in order for this to work.
2) You would also have to pay for a converter rental as well
3) You will never see the government "force" the netowrks to lower their fees for this. It's silly, and the government would have no way to justify forcing networks to operate in a negative profit environment. Also, I think by government treading into this area would be dangerously close to violating consitutional areas of the press. You would then have the government putting networks out of business.
4) Cable companies and Telephone providers of TV aren't going to back this and I support that as well. There is not profit really to be made in this type of environment and all you will do is slow the growth of new build from these providers giving people here yet another reason to complain that they aren't getting their new toys fast enough and why the government should be building new fiber networks, etc. It's just a bad idea and still has very little support in the private sector and in congress.
5) You aren't going to save any money in the long run so why bother?
See why this idea isn't going to work?
Re: Kicking and Screaming actually, i think he is exactly right.. who cares what you've been getting on C band for years... most people don't have 10 feet satellites in their yards, nor do they want them. the majority of americans get their cable TV through just that: cable. in order to convert the system to ala carte, providers would either have to get rid of analog, scramble everything, or make everything digital. in the end, everyone would have to pay for equipment on each and every tv they own... not to mention NO provider is *EVER* going to just charge you $5/mo for service, plus channels.. . its just not gonna happen. they can't make a profit off of serving a person one channel for $7, 2 for $9, etc... the infrastructure costs are figured right into the cost we pay now, but everyone wants to forget about the infrastructure costs and hope for ala carte where the infrastructure works on magic ...
| |fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
| I DO VERY MUCH have an idea of what I am talking about. I work in the industry, sir. You are just a guy with an outdated dish in your yard telling me I have no clue when I posted a very long and descriptive argument with facts as to why it will not work.|
For the record, yes I know it's about satellite... not C-band.. AND, who do you think sets the prices? It's the networks... You also mentioned these "cable networks"... I am not aware of any "cable" networks these days.. Last time I checked, HBO sold to cable, satellite, outdated c-band, and some telephone providers...
Ala Carte has NO interest in the private sector. Please post your source as to the "lots of interest" please, because last time I checked, the entire industry is pretty much dead set against it. There are some customers that would like to see this as an option, and they would also like to see it be something they can get for under $10.00 (ain't going to happen) and there is VERY LITTLE interest in congress to go after this either.
I hope you can understand that your situation does not represent the real market place today. There have been many valid posts here regarding why ala cart is not in the future at this point. One of them being that people want variety. People want more choice in viewing options. Alot of these "choices" are smaller channels that would not survive on their own and need their parent operating unit to support them. This multiplexing of channels and combined pricing is what keeps this system alive. There are people that like Soap net, many don't. Some people like GNS, many don't.. but these little networks are paid for by package pricing and offerings. If the smaller networks were not being purcahsed as much they would drop.. what happens then? Channels go down, we go BACKWARDS...
Someday you may be able to purchase smaller GROUPS of channels, but one at a time? Doubt it.
And to answer one last comment of yours? I would go out and find a c-band promgrammer, but they are few and far between these days. I am sure you are aware of DirecTv and Dish Network, right?
You should be carefull when starting off posts with "you have no idea what you are talking about."
- peace, out!
| |KoolMoeAw ManPremium
Re: Kicking and Screaming Groups of channels is something I've suggested as a good middle-ground for a while now. It's good to see that it may actually be considered. I've no need for the sports, foreign, and shopping packages, but the kids, nature, news, comedy, and scifi/mystery packages (and PBS, of course) would be cool to have ONLY.
I sure don't want to see 'pay as you go' though, unless it's on the order of cents per minute. It's hard enough to get the various family members to turn off the TV as is! I can imagine getting charged $50 because the TV was on Cartoon Network all afternoon cause the kids went to play outside without turning off the darn tube...