  morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | Another reason for pay per channel
If AT&T is interested in allowing consumers to have a fair deal, they should offer pay per channel (a la carte). That way, consumers pay for only the channels they want. | |
|
 | beaups
join:2003-08-11
Hilliard, OH | Re: Another reason for pay per channel The content providers won't allow that. They demand what tier their channels be placed on. | |
|
| | axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC Reviews:
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Another reason for pay per channel I see this as a situation the federal government could improve, by forbidding contracts that tie one channel to another.
But, it's not important enough to merit government involvement. Private sector *could* handle this themselves, and the damage to the public is minor if AT&T doesn't carry the Hallmark channel or sell their cable TV at a fair price.
Save the government involvement for net neutrality, where it actually could be worth helping ;p | |
|
| | | Reviews:
 ·WOW Internet and..
| Re: Another reason for pay per channel and who is going to be given the power to enforce that? The FCC? Hollywood and the Content owners will eat them for lunch when they pull their legal teams in and go in front of a court. It will be worse than the RIAA going against Grandma for downloading music. The ones that will win in that one; will again; be the Content owners. ViaCom, Disney-ABC, CV, Comcast, Time Warner, and a few select other networks.
--
www.twopugsbrand.com Kosher, Vegan, and Organic Certified Dog and Cat treats/foods and other products! www.etsy.com/shop/snakx4u/ Organic, Kosher, Gluten Free, Vegan Human Baked Goods | |
|
|  Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | said by morbo:If AT&T is interested in allowing consumers to have a fair deal, they should offer pay per channel (a la carte). That way, consumers pay for only the channels they want. Blame the FCC, who is more interested in demonizing cable & telcos, and refuses to address Hollywood's Big Five content providers and their stranglehold on rates. AT&T is trying to do the right thing, but all the "cable & telco is evil" spokespersons refuses to accept that. | |
|
| | | | Re: Another reason for pay per channel This has nothing to do with the FCC because they have no control over the contracts negotiated between content creators and content distributors (the cable and telecom companies, and the like). The content creators are the ones largely responsible for this since they are the ones that say things along the lines of "If you want this channel, then you must pay for this other channel as well, and provide it on this level of service." | |
|
| | | KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | Re: Another reason for pay per channel Disney does that with ESPN i think. to get other Disney owned cable channels you must carry ESPN and on a fairly low tier.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Another reason for pay per channel Yes, cable companies must carry ESPN on a tier that almost 100% of their subscribers will get it, and Disney will get a fee for all of those subscribers. The only subscribers that don't get it all the basic cable subscribers.
If ESPN were put on a sports tier, Disney would be screwed. They love the sweet deal they force cable/sat/telco TV into. | |
|
| | | | |  tiger72SexaT duorPPremium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1
 ·T-Mobile US
| Re: Another reason for pay per channel said by skuv :
Yes, cable companies must carry ESPN on a tier that almost 100% of their subscribers will get it, and Disney will get a fee for all of those subscribers. The only subscribers that don't get it all the basic cable subscribers.
If ESPN were put on a sports tier, Disney would be screwed. They love the sweet deal they force cable/sat/telco TV into.
They don't force a thing. If people didn't demand to have ESPN, Disney wouldn't be able to make terms like that.
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara | |
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | tiger72SexaT duorPPremium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 Reviews:
·T-Mobile US
| Re: Another reason for pay per channel I'm fully aware of what Disney, Viacom, MTV, and NBC Universal own.
And I'm just as aware that programmers will guarantee that they're going to get their money no matter what.
Check out the C-Band pricing. That's actually around $4/channel. My $2/channel was being realistic about mass-market a-la-carte pricing. I think the per-channel pricing will go down when compared to 4dtv. However, even at HALF the price per channel, once you factor in a line access fee that the cable companies WILL charge (let's assume it's only $15/mo), the viability of per-channel pricing goes way down.
Factor in what effect contracts have on programming production and you're going to see a LOT of specialty networks floundering. No way in hell that SciFi would have been able to pay to produce Battlestar Galactica - a premium channel quality show on extended basic cable. Not without a contract guaranteeing their income. Good luck trying to convince the folks at NBCU to invest millions in a program like that, when they don't know what they're going to make next month - much less next year.
Then you're probably going to see even more networks where they know they can make money. Instead of the already overpriced NFL Network, imagine a single network for every. single. team. You like watching 2 NFL teams? Pay for 2 channels.
You like watching NCAA football? Each Conference will have a network. Why not? It'll make a lot of money.
You like seeing both The Office and 30 Rock? Sorry, The Office is on NBCU instead of broadcast. Gotta pay for that channel.
Wanna watch Survivor? Sorry, that's on CBS2. Gotta pay for that channel.
The successful programming will go to the higher priced channels.
You think the channels are absurd now, a-la-carte will simply be a money grab.
A la carte programming is great on paper, but in reality I don't see it saving the vast majority of viewers any money. If anything, it'll make programming worse.
Oh, and before anyone calls me a shill for the cable industry - I haven't had cable or satellite in 2 years, and I have DSL for internet access. Don't own a lick of stock in any film, tv, or cable company either.
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara | |
|
| | |
| | Reviews:
·Comcast
 ·Comcast Digital ..
| Re: Another reason for pay per channel blame congress. With the telecommunications act of 1996 we were supposed to have tons of competition and be able to purchase our own boxes by now. This also took away the authority of the fcc to regulate cable rates.
In some areas there is competition but in most areas like mine the only competition is directv,dish or antenna. | |
|
|  KommiePremium
join:2003-05-13
united state
kudos:2 | It would take an act of congress. And with our two party system its impossible. | |
|
| | Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
| Re: Another reason for pay per channel Wouldn't work even then. You'd see this on the news paper:
Content Owners/Creators vs The United States of America. and guess who will win on that one. It surely won't be the USA; unless you count the national debt going deeper.
--
www.twopugsbrand.com Kosher, Vegan, and Organic Certified Dog and Cat treats/foods and other products! www.etsy.com/shop/snakx4u/ Organic, Kosher, Gluten Free, Vegan Human Baked Goods | |
|
|  en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
1 edit | said by morbo:If AT&T is interested in allowing consumers to have a fair deal, they should offer pay per channel (a la carte). That way, consumers pay for only the channels they want. With these carriage disputes and a poor attempt at giving consumers a 'choice' of fighting for a channel vs. provider, I see the only real solution - which neither broadcaster or provider want, being the a la carte.
Channel/Broadcaster: My ratings are high - I want more money / channel. Management/shareholders demand profit.
Provider: You're eating into my profit - with nothing 'new' causing rates to go up - which customers don't like, and I can't control - let me pass this off as a channel/carrier issue. Management/shareholders demand profit.
Consumer: programming is getting diluted (500 channels and nothing on), rates are going up at ~10%/year, on a yearly basis with nothing to show for it ... why? Average person = sheep, and ends up paying for it. There will be a breaking point, as TV bills are getting high and eating a large portion of an 'average' consumers budget. Time to cut the cord, folks.
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
|
| tiger72SexaT duorPPremium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 Reviews:
·T-Mobile US
| It's been discussed at length, so I won't go into the details again here, but for most families, a la carte wouldn't be any cheaper, and frankly may be higher each month, depending on just how many channels your family watches.
Between access fees, and rates of about $2/channel/month, the math just doesn't add up to lower fees for most Americans.
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara | |
|
| | cacoPremium
join:2005-03-10
Whittier, AK | Re: Another reason for pay per channel Might not lower fees but people might be happier since they are only paying for the channels they want. Of course I'm sure programmers would make a la carte programming option so expensive that most would opt into package of channels in order to get discount.
--
Politicians and diapers have one thing in common. They should both be changed regularly, and for the same reason. | |
|
| | morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | I agree that a la carte wouldn't be cheaper for everyone. It depends on your viewing needs. I watch maybe 10-12 channels, so it would save me money. The main thing it would bring is choice and fairness. | |
|
| | | | | Re: Another reason for pay per channel it wouldn't save you money when you were actually paying for the cost of the channel. Content owners could demand as much as $10-20 per channel then. How would that save you money? | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Another reason for pay per channel The theory is that people would tell said channel "shove it, I'm not paying that much" and they would be forced to lower their price or go out of business... but people in the good old US of A love to bitch about things and then do nothing so that's why I said "theory." | |
|
| | | | morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | They could demand $1 million dollars per channel but no one would pay. They would have to compete. | |
|
| | |  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T DSL Service
| The problem is they will never lose money.
So let's say Ala Carte was mandated. Great we'd have ala carte. Problem is, they'd set a price, say $4 or $5 per channel.
Result: 10 channels, and you're still paying the same as you paid for 200.
Seriously. You know this is what would happen. There's no law anywhere that says a product or service has to sell for a price that's based off it's cost.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
|
| | | | morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | Re: Another reason for pay per channel said by KrK:The problem is they will never lose money. who? content providers or cable companies?
there's going to be a game changer. just waiting for that company to break free from the traditional providers. | |
|
| | elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·RoadRunner Cable
1 edit | said by tiger72:It's been discussed at length, so I won't go into the details again here, but for most families, a la carte wouldn't be any cheaper, and frankly may be higher each month, depending on just how many channels your family watches. Between access fees, and rates of about $2/channel/month, the math just doesn't add up to lower fees for most Americans. It all depends on your calculus. Sure, I'd agree that the average household will pay the same or more for *fewer* channels, but the difference with an ala-carte offering, is that they'll be paying that ONLY for the channels they want, and they'll be getting channels that currently would cost them even more, but they opt out of the upper tiers.
In our case, our household would actually buy pay tv, and we'd pay the $60 a month they wanted for one channel, to have our choice of the 20 we actually watch. But with the current model, they get nothing from us. Unfortunately, cord-cutting is not as common as Forum Readers want to believe, so SatelCableTelcoTVCo Inc doesn't care, and the tiers remain. | |
|
| Xsk8er
join:2001-01-02
Columbus, OH Reviews:
·Insight Communic..
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| said by morbo:If AT&T is interested in allowing consumers to have a fair deal, they should offer pay per channel (a la carte). That way, consumers pay for only the channels they want. You don't want A la carte.. It will cost you way more than your paying now for the Uverse packages... Say you want ESPN.. with A La Carte, Disney will say "well to buy ESPN will cost you like $3.00 for the channel, but wait, for you to buy it, we'll require you to buy the rest of the ESPN Suite, and the Disney Suite, and all our other less watched channels too... by the time you "buy" the channels you want.. you'll be paying more than you are now.
Channel and Content providers are not out for the consumer.. Only for how much money they can charge you to view their programming. | |
|
| | morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | Re: Another reason for pay per channel Let me be clear: I want a la carte.
I think the ESPN example you provided is fair. If Disney forces bundling in the a la carte system then at least it allows people that don't want to pay for sports to opt out. Let the sports watches fund ESPN. Same with all channels.
With a la carte, I can pay a european sports channel without having to bundle to more than $150 in other programming. | |
|
| | | | | Re: Another reason for pay per channel then let me be clear. BUY A CBAND DISH. Cause what you want; you're not getting. | |
|
| | | | | said by morbo:Let me be clear: I want a la carte. I think the ESPN example you provided is fair. If Disney forces bundling in the a la carte system then at least it allows people that don't want to pay for sports to opt out. Let the sports watches fund ESPN. Same with all channels. With a la carte, I can pay a european sports channel without having to bundle to more than $150 in other programming. ESPN should be a Premium channel pack. | |
|
| | | | Assumptions and scare tactics are common with this debate.
It has been shown on more than one occasion, by parties not in a direct position to make money, that the average consumer would save in an a la carte system.
Your assumptions on how they would work it is simply that, an assumption. But one thing is for sure, they would have no choice but to package it and sell it as the consumer wants. If they don't do that, they wont get the subscribers to begin with.
Channels that can't survive on their own, shouldn't. If they can't get the programming and ad revenues to compete then good riddance.
In the end one thing is clear, regardless of how you spin it, if they are against it, then it is because it gives the consumer control and lessens their hold on us. | |
|
| | | DolganPremium
join:2005-10-01
Sun Prairie, WI Reviews:
·Charter
| Re: Another reason for pay per channel You hit the nail on the head Skippy. The Content Providers are trying to support niche channels with forced bundling to the Telcos/Cable Cos/Sat Cos. The content providers also benefit from the increased ad revenue from the bundled channels.
Take History, Biography, & Hist Intl for example. They bounce reruns from channel to channel. If there was 1 channel, instead of 3, the consumers would have much more new content--instead of watching recycled shows. The consumer gets screwed. Furthermore, it seems like more than 1/2 of the bundled channels switch to infomercials earlier and earlier instead of offering new content...once again more value for the content providers as they do not have to fill the time slots with real programming. | |
|
| KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | I find it interesting that the TV portion of the cable bills go up and quality of programing goes down. while the Internet stays the same for a decade and speeds have only gone up.
Now i know content costs money to make but i wonder where most of the expense of the big shows is. something tells me its not in the crew and post production or even marketing. but the stars getting a few mil per episode.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
| |  r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T DSL Service
·row44
| Re: Another reason for pay per channel said by Kearnstd:I find it interesting that the TV portion of the cable bills go up and quality of programing goes down. while the Internet stays the same for a decade and speeds have only gone up. Now i know content costs money to make but i wonder where most of the expense of the big shows is. something tells me its not in the crew and post production or even marketing. but the stars getting a few mil per episode. I agree.
I went about the first 4 months of this year with OTA and internet. I had cable a few months now.
I am finding there is nothing good on about 90% of the time and I only watch about 4 channels. I still mostly watch shows online.
I am now considering dropping cable since it has very little value.
--
Your behavior is inconsistent with your desire to be treated like everyone else. | |
|
| | | another reason for bittorrent !!! | |
|
| | | I WANT MY HALLMARK CHANNEL BACK | |
|
| | | | Re: Another reason for pay per channel  May have to switch back to Comcast. I LOVE The Hallmark Channel. Good shows! Good CLEAN television at its' best! | |
|
| | | The Hallmark Channel is one channel I won't miss. I forgot it even existed until it was mentioned here. Who watches it? | |
|
| | | | Re: Another reason for pay per channel I used to love that channel until they took off MASH, now it can just disappear. | |
|
| | | I agree!! i just got a message "as a thank you for being a valued customer we've added 19 free Spanish channels." if i were truly a valued customer they would know I don't watch ONE Spanish channel nor any of the sports channels.! | |
|
 mobModerhatedPremium
join:2000-10-07 | Meh Will it end up in lower bills for all customers? | |
|
beaups
join:2003-08-11
Hilliard, OH | Rates I followed your link stating rates go up regardless of increases in carriage fees yet didn't see any data or reasonable opinion showing that this actually happens.
I find your opinion on these programming rates issues curious. How should the cable co's respond to increases being demanded from the content providers? Should they just sign the deal? I like to see them stand their ground. Please provide some sort of reasonable alternative as my opinion isn't set in stone. While your at it, please show me some of these "frequently misleading ad campaigns." | |
|
| Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: Rates said by beaups:I followed your link stating rates go up regardless of increases in carriage fees yet didn't see any data or reasonable opinion showing that this actually happens. I find your opinion on these programming rates issues curious. How should the cable co's respond to increases being demanded from the content providers? Should they just sign the deal? I like to see them stand their ground. Please provide some sort of reasonable alternative as my opinion isn't set in stone. While your at it, please show me some of these "frequently misleading ad campaigns." I agree. Yes, they are going to raise rates. But they will raise rates MORE if their costs go up. So that $3.00 hike they were always planning for is now going to be $5.00 if their programing costs go up more. They still want their $3.00 more a month....they aren't just going to turn it over to the programmers if they demand it. | |
|
| | Pay Tv is a choice If you don't like the high prices cut the cord. With HD TV the picture over the air is better anyway... If people say enough is enough and get rid of pay tv the prices will come down really fast. If all you are going to do is wine and continue to pay the providers are going to keep raising prices. | |
|
|  djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:1 | Re: Pay Tv is a choice We can't all get over the air. That's how cable TV started in hte first place.
--
AT&T U-Hearse
Your funeral. Delivered.
| |
|
| | Comes out to less than $1/hr I hate paying bills just like the next guy, but for the $70/mo I pay for TV, it is cheap entertainment. I probably watch 100's of hours of TV/month. I can't go to the movies, or go watch a play or concert for that cheap. If I go to a bar to watch sports, I have to buy their beer. To me, when put into perspective, we are not paying a whole lot for the entertainment factor. Not to mention the knowledge I have gained by watching educational shows and DIY like channels. | |
|
| | FIOS did the same thing They removed Hallmark from the normal lineup recently. | |
|
| | | Dead wrong. Moving a channel to a higher tier like Extreme HD is completely different than removing it entirely from subscribers.
--
This signature has consumed several bytes of your bandwidth. | |
|
| | | | Re: Dead wrong. Verizon moved it to Ultimate HD, not Extreme HD. | |
|
|
| | | Re: There goes my cunning plan.... You poor, poor man. If you watch any more of that, your testicles will shrink and become ovaries.
Get this man a beer, a stripper, and a fistful of singles, stat! | |
|
|  N3OGHYo Soy Col. "Bat" GuanoPremium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
kudos:1 | I would replace one of the N's in your title with a T..... | |
|
| | Still playing Shows no barker info, but still available to watch movies & shows on both channels. 176 & 794/1794 are still running as before. | |
|
cacoPremium
join:2005-03-10
Whittier, AK | Demograghic of this channels has lots of time on their hands ATT better get ready for a crap load of phone calls. Median age for people who watch this channel is 60 and female by wide margin.
--
Politicians and diapers have one thing in common. They should both be changed regularly, and for the same reason. | |
|
| | | Re: Demograghic of this channels has lots of time on their hands AT&T knows exactly how many people watch what channels. IPTV can easily track requests for channels.
Apparently Hallmark thinks it has a wider audience than AT&T sees. | |
|
| | Hallmark should license to some other channel provider.
Or, Hey Hallmark, resell/license to Netflix / Hulu / You-Tube or Apple. It's where the future is going... | |
|
| | Won't Miss Them I personally will not miss the channels and think a la carte should be done.
Regardless of that I think they should start a poll with their UVerse customers (have to log in to vote) and give 3 voting options.
1.) Drop them all together
2.) Keep them at the current rate
3.) Pay the fee
Let those that foot the bill decide. | |
|
 GbcueAlmost P.E.Premium
join:2001-09-30
Santa Rosa, CA
kudos:8 | Anybody Watch Hallmark Does anybody here even watch the Hallmark channel?
LOL.
--
My Blog 2.0 | |
|
|
See 7 replies to this post |
|
Reviews:
·AT&T Southeast
| Disputes like this Make the antenna on top of my house look better and better. Between HD OTA and Netflix my life is just as complete and the cash looks good in my pocket.
Besides, most cable channels are nothing but reruns we watched years ago. I can get that on RTV and This TV for free | |
|
| c4junkPremium
join:2004-05-08
Orlando, FL | Re: Disputes like this It is all slight of hand-- look over here at this rate dispute while behind your back they move more channels off basic onto premium channels, raise our rates, and double the commercials ! again! | |
|
| |  heat84Bit Torrent Apologist
join:2004-03-11
Fort Lauderdale, FL | Re: Disputes like this said by c4junk:It is all slight of hand-- look over here at this rate dispute while behind your back they move more channels off basic onto premium channels, raise our rates, and double the commercials ! again! Comcast is moving more channels to the lowest tier. It started like 8 years ago with Sci-Fi and History channel(and a couple others)and 6 months ago They made Biography and a few others basic.
--
Bit Torrent is my DVR. | |
|
| | en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Exactly.
Premium channels is where all the new/good programming is going.
Broadcast (OTA/basic cable) is where all the commercial filled junk just is ending up,
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
|
| | | | | Re: Disputes like this said by en102:Exactly. Premium channels is where all the new/good programming is going. Broadcast (OTA/basic cable) is where all the commercial filled junk just is ending up, Too bad they force you to buy all basic stuff to get the Premiums and even they I want Premium shows with out having buy the same movie repeated 600 times a mouth. | |
|
 joakoPremium
join:2000-09-07
/dev/null
kudos:5 | Perfect excuse I had U-Verse give me a $40/month or so discount and it expired last month. Perfect excuse to call back in and get the discount re-applied.
--
PRescott7-2097 | |
|
DaveRb
join:2005-02-12
Allen, TX | No more Cheers reruns you say? Crap!! And I almost had every episode of Cheers memorized to heart.... No more Jack and Diane you say?? What a bunch of crap! | |
|
iJohn
join:2010-04-04
Richardson, TX | They done us all a favor I think it's a God-send that they blacked out those terrible channels.
The problem is that these little watched channels want too much money. The providers have to practically give it away in a package to make it sell.
If there was "a-la-carte" options, these channels will die because no one would want them. We'd be down to a handful of channels, because most people will only pay for the few big channels (I know I would). I'd pay for maybe 20 channels if that was an option. The only way these dinky channels survive is with the business model that they are packaged in with hundreds of other channels that no one watches. | |
|
| | I missed a Lucy Marathon because of you guys AND - we just signed up on u-verse..
WHAT A CROCK... | |
|
|
|
·
