 
DaveNJ
No Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey | I agree with Ala Carte I agree with ala carte, But i dont agree with national franchises. Local control, thats what America is about. | |
|
|
 | 
qdemn7
Smurf in My Loop
Premium
join:2003-09-16
Fort Worth, TX
| Re: A la carte will end up with less choice said by b10010011  :Because the popular channels in a programming tier support the less popular channels. If a la carte gets pushed on us with in a few years the number of channels to chose from will start to decline. Eventually cable companies will only carry a few popular channels because it will not be worth it for them to carry less popular channels if no one is buying them. A la carte = A la crappy  That is exactly what will happen but people are too hard-headed to realize that.  If a la carte hits, within 5 years the number of channels will probably 1/4 of what they are now, and then the same people crying for a la carte now will be crying about a lack of "choice".
--
“We want the Republicans out of our bedroom and the Democrats out of our wallet and both out of our First and Second Amendment rights." - Alan Nathan | |
|
| | GhostDoggy
join:2005-05-11
Duluth, GA
| Re: A la carte will end up with less choice You mean I'd only have a choice of three shopping channels and not ten? 
Show me where the bad outwieghed the good in an a la carte offering? Which national cable provider has made such an offering longterm and provided evidence to such a conclusion. | |
|
| | | 
Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA
| Re: A la carte will end up with less choice said by GhostDoggy :You mean I'd only have a choice of three shopping channels and not ten? Can we, as a society, stop using the shopping channels as examples of crap we don't watch.
You don't pay for them anyway and with a-la-cart you're still going to have access to them weather you want them or not being as you aren't paying for them in the first place.
--
gau gau | |
|
| | | | 
OceanaJones
join:2004-10-18
Suffolk, VA
| Re: A la carte will end up with less choice I'm not paying for them? Then how come they are included in my top 180 channel line up, like the other garbage music, infomercial and religious fluff they stick in my package just so they can say I'm getting 180 channels? I PAYfor the channel line up, don't I? Have you ever flipped through the channel line up and seen what that crap is? Let the good programs weed out the fluff bad programs and guess what? The overpaid Hollywood "actors" and producers will will have to earn their money by putting out a better product. | |
|
| | | | |
Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA
| Re: A la carte will end up with less choice said by OceanaJones :I'm not paying for them? Correct, you're not.
said by OceanaJones :Then how come they are included in my top 180 channel line up Because they are 24 hour commercials and most likely they pay the operator to run them.
said by OceanaJones :like the other garbage music... ... and religious fluff they stick in my package just so they can say I'm getting 180 channels? Those are a different issue, you most likely are paying for those.
said by OceanaJones :I PAYfor the channel line up, don't I? yes, you also pay for newspapers and magazines and those have content that someone else is paying the publisher to include as well.
A-la-cart is not going to mean you won't have shopping channels, they're still going to be included with any other channels you choose.
--
gau gau | |
|
| | VansHSI
join:2005-01-29
America
| said by qdemn7 :said by b10010011 :Because the popular channels in a programming tier support the less popular channels. If a la carte gets pushed on us with in a few years the number of channels to chose from will start to decline. Eventually cable companies will only carry a few popular channels because it will not be worth it for them to carry less popular channels if no one is buying them. A la carte = A la crappy That is exactly what will happen but people are too hard-headed to realize that. If a la carte hits, within 5 years the number of channels will probably 1/4 of what they are now, and then the same people crying for a la carte now will be crying about a lack of "choice". Oh darn... I mean come one, choice to me does not mean that I should pay for 250 freaking channels as part of a package. You and I both know that the normal person probably only watches 30 of those at the most. The lack of "choice" that you speak about is all of the stupid no name channels that NO ONE EVER WATCHES | |
|
| | markopoleo
join:2003-04-02
Bonne Terre, MO | No one will be crying in 5 years after it, people will be rejoicing all the crap channels get weeded out and finally the best/popular ones will be on TV on.
A la carte = great | |
|
| | | 
celeritypc
For Lucky Best Wash, Use Mr. Sparkle
Premium
join:2004-05-15
Caldwell, NJ
| Re: A la carte will end up with less choice said by markopoleo :No one will be crying in 5 years after it, people will be rejoicing all the crap channels get weeded out and finally the best/popular ones will be on TV on. A la carte = great One man's crap is another's treasure. Just because you think a channel is crap or it does not receive the high ratings of other channels (which may indeed be crap) does not mean everybody does.
What a la carte will signify is the end of niche channels that may only be of interest to a limited audience and people will no longer have exposure to these channels perhaps finding out they like them. We will all end up with the same generic entertainment and massively expensive sports programming.
I have always felt the real solution is creating tiers of channels of similar interest. Also, by just removing sports programming from the general line up and letting those who want sports pay extra, we would all see a reduction in price with no reduction (and perhaps, the addition) of new channels. RSNs and ESPN et al represent about 25% or so of the cost of the channel lineup I now have. Keep in mind, I am just talking programming costs, not other costs associated with cable service. | |
|
| | | | 
pb5k
more cowbell
Premium
join:2005-11-16
Glendale, AZ
 ·Cox HSI
| Re: A la carte will end up with less choice Come to think of it I like your plan quite a bit. I don't watch much TV but when I do it's FX, History, Discovery or Scifi with a venture into SpikeTV when they have star trek reruns. No "news" channels (google news is faster to the punch anyway) and no sports channels. Sorry, I don't like to watch one millionaire tackle another millionaire (unless it's donald trump vs. bill gates, I would pay to see that.)
Personally I'd like an option to banish your least favorite options to a selectable level of hell. I would place G4TV in the worst level, to be tortured by imps and people that drive too slow in the fast lane.  | |
|
| | | | 
idjk
@144.226.x.x
| While total 'a la carte' has a good sound the bottom line is that you will end up paying more. They did a partial 'a la carte' here some years ago, kinda of a basic package plus 'a la carte' and guess what happened- all the good popular channels were 'a la carte' and most of the basic (besides the 'BIG 3' and the local PBS) channels were shopping ,religion, and fluff- and this money saving idea cost most people more/ cable companies loved it.
McCain has lately with this and the illegals thing has dropped many notches with me. | |
|
| | |
Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA
1 edit | said by markopoleo :No one will be crying in 5 years after it, people will be rejoicing all the crap channels get weeded out and finally the best/popular ones will be on TV on. A la carte = great I guarantee you that you have at least one channel you watch that would be gone with a-la-carte.
Heck I wouldn't be at all surprised if you saw even moderately popular channels like the history channel and Discovery adversely affected by this. Everyone watches these somewhat educational networks but many people don't realize how much they do and will likely go without them to save a couple bucks.
MY concern with a-la-carte is purely selfish tho. I have fairly eclectic taste in media (My favorite movie is Kung Fu Hustle, and I'm happy that Cartoon network has started showing Billy and Mandy again) so it's hard enough to find shows I like now.
--
gau gau | |
|
| 
richardpor
Fur it up
join:2003-04-19
Portland, OR
1 edit | Worst it could be more expensive if one looks at per channel. The studios will start demanding a high fee per channel. So a less popular channel might go $1.00 other channels cold be charge at HBO prices of $12.00, worst what happen if production and entertainment companies start demand WWE pay per view prices. Wold we see channels costing $39.00 a month? | |
|
| |
qdemn7
Smurf in My Loop
Premium
join:2003-09-16
Fort Worth, TX
| Re: A la carte will end up with less choice said by richardpor :Worst it could be more expensive if one looks at per channel. The studios will star demanding a high fee per channel. So a less popular channel might go $1.00 other channels cold be charge at HBO prices of $12.00, worst what happen if production and entertainment companies start demand WWE pay per view prices. Wold we see channels costing $39.00 a month? Bingo! If anyone "thinks" they're going to save a ton of money with a la carte they are sadly mistaken. The cable companies will simply jack the price up on individual channels.
--
“We want the Republicans out of our bedroom and the Democrats out of our wallet and both out of our First and Second Amendment rights." - Alan Nathan | |
|
| | | 
Vig
Thread-safe since 1997
Premium
join:2004-03-23
San Diego, CA
| Re: A la carte will end up with less choice I'm inclined to agree on the face of it, but I have this nagging thought. If it would actually give the cable companies a way to make more money than they do now, why are they against it? There must be something more going on to make them prefer the status quo.
--
Visit the land of the never-setting sun | |
|
| | | | b10010011
Whats a Posting tag?
join:2004-09-07
Bellingham, WA
·Comcast Formerly ..
1 edit | Re: A la carte will end up with less choice said by Vig :I'm inclined to agree on the face of it, but I have this nagging thought. If it would actually give the cable companies a way to make more money than they do now, why are they against it? There must be something more going on to make them prefer the status quo. Because bundeling is not just how the cable company sells channels, it is also how they buy them. They have to pay for channels that nobody watches they get from the conted providers just like we have to pay for the channels we don't watch.
Also it will force them to go all digital requireing system upgrades and cable boxes in every houshold (but they will be able to charge for that) and they will need more/better billing software to handle everyone picky choices, more support staff...
In the end it's going to cost the cable companies a lot of money to switch over to a la carte programming and that cost WILL be passed on to consumers.
A la carte is NOT going to lower anyones cable bill. In the long run it will only lower the number of channels you get to chose from. | |
|
| | | | | raybrett
join:2001-02-20
Saint Louis, MO | Re: A la carte will end up with less choice Amen, and I have no desire to pay for multiple digital boxes. Actually, I have no desire to pay for even one digital box. | |
|
| 
Dryvlyne
Far Beyond Driven
Premium
join:2004-08-30
Newark, OH
| said by b10010011 :Because the popular channels in a programming tier support the less popular channels. If a la carte gets pushed on us with in a few years the number of channels to chose from will start to decline. Eventualy cable companies will only carry a few popular channels because it will not be worth it for them to carry less popular channels if no one is buying them. A la carte = A la crappy Umm, ever heard the expression "only the strong survive"?
Let some good 'ol competition decide which channels stay and which ones get the axe. That would after all be the capitalist thing to do.
--
In relative terms life is shorter than the blink of an eye. Remember that each and every day because in the end it's not about what you've done but how you've lived.
| |
|
| |
| |
qdemn7
Smurf in My Loop
Premium
join:2003-09-16
Fort Worth, TX
| Re: A la carte will end up with less choice said by ricep5 : Cartoon Network and TMC are all vestiges of contractual obligations foisted on carriers of content. You sure you don't mean TCM (Turner Classic Movies)? Cause if you do, that and the Cartoon Network are two of the best channels on TV. TCM has NO commercials. And if you consider those two channels a "waste" of some sort, well then I think you are flat wrong.
--
“We want the Republicans out of our bedroom and the Democrats out of our wallet and both out of our First and Second Amendment rights." - Alan Nathan | |
|
| | | ricep5
Premium
join:2000-08-07
Jacksonville, FL
 ·AT&T Southeast
 ·AT&T CallVantage
·VoicePulse
·Comcast Formerly ..
| Re: A la carte will end up with less choice said by qdemn7 :said by ricep5 : Cartoon Network and TMC are all vestiges of contractual obligations foisted on carriers of content. You sure you don't mean TCM (Turner Classic Movies)? Cause if you do, that and the Cartoon Network are two of the best channels on TV. TCM has NO commercials. And if you consider those two channels a "waste" of some sort, well then I think you are flat wrong. I meant TCM, not TMC. Yes, I know TCM has no commercials, however its existence is solely based on the Turner Broadcasting must carry contract. I never implied they were a waste, I was saying I don't have choice in having it (or not) on my cable plan. 'a la carte' would establish its true market value.
As a side note, profits from TBS showing Braves baseball (and syndicated shows) nationally subsidizes TCM. If TCM was forced into 'a la carte' selection, I doubt it would continue to be commercial free. | |
|
| | | |
qdemn7
Smurf in My Loop
Premium
join:2003-09-16
Fort Worth, TX
| Re: A la carte will end up with less choice said by ricep5 :As a side note, profits from TBS showing Braves baseball (and syndicated shows) nationally subsidizes TCM. If TCM was forced into 'a la carte' selection, I doubt it would continue to be commercial free. Then on that basis alone I'm opposed to a la carte.
--
“We want the Republicans out of our bedroom and the Democrats out of our wallet and both out of our First and Second Amendment rights." - Alan Nathan | |
|
| GhostDoggy
join:2005-05-11
Duluth, GA
| There are only two things in life that are certain and require no evidence beforehand to be assured of: death and taxes.
Until someone shows me proof that it will fail I'll still stay the middle of the raod, and in doing so advocate a la carte. | |
|
| Axekick
join:2005-05-01
Saint Louis, MO | If they cannot sell themselves then those channels should not exist. I watch less than 10 percent of the channels on my cable television package and do not wish to pay for the other 90 percent that are never watched. | |
|
|
Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
·Qwest.net
| One Big problem McCain is so full of $hit his eyes are brown. A La Carte pricing will cost the consumer more not less The cableco's will love it they can charge more for everything.
McCain good ideas have cost us a lot. Look at his marvelous champagne reform law. It put even more money into this cesspool.
--
The older I get the more I prefer the company of my dogs over that of man kind. | |
|
| shadow520
join:2002-04-03
Warren, MI
| Re: One Big problem said by Transmaster :Look at his marvelous champagne reform law. It put even more money into this cesspool. Champagne reform? Never heard of it. Does that mean more bubbles and less alcohol?
Oh, you mean campaign reform. My bad.
--
Common sense is not all that common. | |
|
| |
Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
·Qwest.net
| Re: One Big problem This is what I get for trying to type before coffee in the morning.  But just think how much good Champagne all the money flushed down the campaign toilet would buy.
--
The older I get the more I prefer the company of my dogs over that of man kind. | |
|
| | |
Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA
1 edit | Re: One Big problem I feel bad for McCain. He's essentially the ace up the sleeve of every congress person looking to attach the appearance of bipartisanship to any bill and thus no one will stand up and call anything he puts his name to stupid or shortsighted. They keep him happy and he'll sign onto anything if it's remotely plausible.
I think the poor guy means well but he ends up looking like an idiot with his name attached to all this "should have been shot down" and "not quite finished" legislation.
--
gau gau | |
|
| 
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| said by Transmaster :McCain good ideas have cost us a lot. It's gonna be even worse if that McCaineddy-backed bill that grants citizenship to illegals becomes law.
I still find it funny how quickly the left went to attacking him for his perceived move to the "right." I guess he's not their favorite pal anymore.
--
Tancredo 2008! | |
|
| 
phattieg
join:2001-04-29
Winter Park, FL
 ·Verizon Wireless B..
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| said by Transmaster :McCain is so full of $hit his eyes are brown. A La Carte pricing will cost the consumer more not less The cableco's will love it they can charge more for everything. McCain good ideas have cost us a lot. Look at his marvelous champagne reform law. It put even more money into this cesspool. Even MTV networks is saying his bill is crap. They know because it means that budgets would be altered by the income generated from a la carte. A network with a slightly less success rate will fall even more, and get cut. People will start to lose channels that have intelligent programming, in exchange for crap like Nick at Night (no offense, but this is the new millenium, and shows from the 60's aren't exactly what the majority of America watches these days. If you consider that the majority of TV watchers are youths (look at all the drama based reality TV shows on EVERY major network, from Suvivor, Fear Factor, American Chopper) this is all crap I could care less about, but do get entertainment from occasionally. I will stop now with my rant, but you really need to consider that the cable lineup for your franchise is dependant on local demand, not what the company wants to buy. They negotiate deals to aquire certain channels from people like Viacom, Disney, Universal, etc, and the deals dictate they must sell certain channels together in the same tier, or else pay outragous fees to "cherrypick" the best stations. Lets go ONE STEP FURTHER and say NEITHER SATELLITE OR CABLE has offered a la carte packages for specific channels, which should tell you that both regulated (franchise regulated) and non-regulated TV products are both not offering it for a very good reason. Because satellite is nothing that involves stringing up wires on the poles around the city, they are not bound to the same tax brackets as CATV, and therefore can get away with a little more price reduction from the vendors because their content and packages stay the same nationwide, leaving customers with less choices. People not AGAINST a la carte need to re-think the math and politics involved in being an MSO (major service operator). If you'd have to raise your rates to offer select channels, then even the NON a la carte customers would suffer an increase in their bill because of the loss of revenue on the "pickey persons" complex with just memorizing their channels of choice. Get a cable box, set favorite channels, and just channel surf that way.
--
SIPPhone/Gizmo # 17476200648 / Ran by Asterisk & Slackware 10.1. | |
|
| |
DaveNJ
No Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
·Comcast
·Patriot Media
1 edit | Re: One Big problem said by phattieg : Even MTV networks is saying his bill is crap.
Probably because they would be the first network to be dropped by Millions of consumers looking for decent programming. The MTVs would be first, then lifetime, and WE. Does anyone remenber the last time mtv played a video ?
--
the darkest moment is often just before dawn (unless we hold onto the darkness). Anxiety spoils everything and solves nothing. | |
|
| | | b10010011
Whats a Posting tag?
join:2004-09-07
Bellingham, WA
·Comcast Formerly ..
| Re: One Big problem said by DaveNJ :Probably because they would be the first network to be dropped by Millions of consumers looking for decent programming. The MTVs would be first, then lifetime, and WE. You may think so but MTV Networks include these cable channels
* Country Music Television (CMT)
* CMT Pure Country (was VH1 Country)
* Comedy Central
* Logo
* MHD (MTV's high-definition channel)
* MTV
* MTV Desi
* MTV Hits
* MTV Jams
* MTV2
* mtvU
* Nickelodeon/Nick at Nite
* Nickelodeon GAS
* NickToons Network
* Noggin/The N
* Spike TV
* TV Land
* VH1
* VH1 Classic
* VH1 Soul
* VH1 Uno
MTV forces cable companies to carry most of these channels it they want to carry MTV. I do not see why this type of "bundeling" will have to change just becaue the cable company is forced to unbundle channels for the consumer. | |
|
| | | |
Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
·Qwest.net
| Re: One Big problem Ala Cart would farther solidify the control of programing on cable and satellite by Time Warner, and other giant entertainment holding companies. Small start ups would not stand a chance. How many of you have watched RFDTV. I have watched this first rate independent channel grow and continue to improve it's unique programming in the few years since it's beginning. Then there is stuff like FSTV (free speech TV) a Channel which seems like every time I have looked in on it has really fat ugly women bitching about everything. 
--
The older I get the more I prefer the company of my dogs over that of man kind. | |
|
| Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| Well the last study done showed the average person would save money so where is the proof in your statement?
I don't even need to do a study and can tell you it would cost us less for 1 simple reason: THE CABLE AND MEDIA COMPANIES DON'T WANT IT!
Do you honestly think that the cable execs that are more interested in their shareholders than their consumers would honesty refuse to do something that would bring in more revenue? Their jobs and everything about their pay is based on this. If al la carte would result in more revenues they would do it in a heart beat. | |
|
bamabrad
join:2006-01-27
Port Orange, FL
| You're thinking yesterday..... With new technology,in a few years the ideas that we now have of viewing TV will be completley different-everything will be delivered over IP with thousands of choices.That is what the pipe owners know and are positioning themselves to take advantage of the situation . | |
|
|
See 9 replies to this post |
|
xerxes3642
join:2006-02-24
Saint Charles, MO
·Charter Pipeline
| mccain rules local control is preferred, but it seems that the way the lobbiests are tossing money around, naitonal franchises are the way of the future.
A la carte would be a great thing. If we loose a bunch of crappy channels so be it. The last multichannel broadcasting magazine I read said that more people watch their local government and public access channels than the hallmark channel or outdoor life network. Cable will be like magazines, specialized and you can get what you are interested in, and skip out on the three home shopping channels and maybe just we instead of oxygen. | |
|
| majortom1981
join:2004-08-26
Lindenhurst, NY | Re: mccain rules Why does this only apply to cable tv. Satelite and now verizon offer tv services to you know. | |
|
odreian615
join:2006-01-18
Chicago, IL | Average Joe here and I like the word bundles shyt load of channels always sound better than picking them out one by one | |
|
tad20201
join:2006-06-09
Orange, CA
| How? How is it they (the A la Carte pushers) think cable co. are to implement this? Your basic cable doesn’t require a box and they use a trap to block the signals of "better" channels here. On my line they installed a trap to prevent all TV (I just have cable internet), even this trap doesn't block everything. I could still get the golf channel, a fuzzy MTV2 and some others. | |
|
| b10010011
Whats a Posting tag?
join:2004-09-07
Bellingham, WA
·Comcast Formerly ..
1 edit | Re: How? Everybody will have to rent an addressable or digital cable box from the cable company, making your cable bill even higher, and obsoliteing your cable ready TV
Believe me very very few people will end up saveing any money if this gets implemeted. | |
|
Masque
join:2001-12-04
Auburn, MI
·Charter Pipeline
| Personally..... Let's just get rid of cable, go strictly to local network channels and work on the obesity in this country.
--
"The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was making the world believe that he didn't exist" | |
|
|
DaveNJ
No Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
·Comcast
·Patriot Media
| Re: Personally..... yes get kids off ritalin, and have 1 and hour of gym each day. Those not wanting to do formal gym can do some other type of physical activity such as walking around the school and healthful eating classes.
--
the darkest moment is often just before dawn (unless we hold onto the darkness). Anxiety spoils everything and solves nothing. | |
|
nekote
join:2000-12-16
Hopkinton, MA
| Which costs MORE; Which costs LESS ??? I believe the underlying issue is cost to the consumer.
Total $dollars$ per month.
People are hungry to spend less per month for Cable TV.
Which is going to cost (me) MORE?
Which costs (me) LESS?
À La Carte or Buffet???
That's the real question, isn't it?
How to empower consumers so their costs go down?
--
Government is like fire - a dangerous servant and a fearful master - George Washington
Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all other forms of government. - Winston Churchill | |
|
aj_f
join:2004-06-05
77058-1124 | I would be more suspect of the messenger: John McCain He is no consumer's friend. If he is indeed pushing this bill then there is big bucks in it for HIM and his political aspirations.
Call me suspicious, but... | |
|
hurfy
Premium
join:2002-08-06
Spokane, WA
| Bizarre idea...compromise How about pick-a-pair programming?
Even has a nifty marketing ring to it.
Then the providers could subsidize a weak channel if they think it has a future by pairing it with a desired one.
Buy-one get-one free is always popular. Just don't get too carried away with the pricing.
And yes, MY costs would go up...because i don't get ANY cable now I don't want to buy 70+ channels to get the 5 i MAY want to watch. | |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| Question about Bundling As we all know, cable TV networks force cable providers to carry a bunch of channels they may not want in order to get the channels they do want.
Why do they do this? It seems weird to me that the cable TV network would want to spend money and resources on a channel no one really wants to see.
--
Tancredo 2008! | |
|
jengu
join:2002-04-26
Lake Placid, NY
| My experience with A la Carte My cable company used to offer The Weather Channel for $1 as A la Carte. My cable bill was $10 for local broadcast + The Weather Channel. When they dropped the A la Carte, I could then get it for $35 (now I think it's $50) for the basic 60 channel package. I took the other route and got rid of cable all together. In retrospect, the packages saved me $120/yr but the channel selection really went in the toilet. | |
|
|
|
|
McCain Compares Cable Choice to North Korean Election
A la carte will end up with less choice
Info on this bill - S.3457