 bugabuga
join:2004-06-10
Austin, TX
| As usual Panic and horror. Except a la carte is not mandated to replace standard "buy a bucket of sh... and dig in it for your diamonds" programming packages. Simply would be offered in addition to.
But customers should not concern themselves with such irrelevant details.
Bleh.
p.s. diversity is nice, as long as it's not sponsored out of a pocket of someone who won't benefit from it.
--
Странные новости почти каждый день | |
|  | 
Camelot One
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Austin, TX
clubs:
 ·VoicePulse
| Re: As usual Oh come on now. If we weren't forced to subsidize channels like WE, BET, and Oxygen, they couldn't stay on the air! No one is going to pay for that crap. But as it is, the 3 people who want to watch those channels can, thanks to the combined pool of all of us.
--
Intel Quad Core QX6700 @3500Mhz/Asus P5N32-E SLI/4x 1024Mb Corsair/Seagate 750.10/PNY 7800GTs SLI/Silverstone 850W/Custom water cooler | |
| | | beaups
join:2003-08-11
Hilliard, OH
| Re: As usual really this is wild economics...if people were to pay by channel...and a channel could not survive because not enough people want it...then it should die, no?
I mean, if I sell a product that is not profitable unless I force people who DO NOT WANT IT to pay for it anyways...isn't something wrong with my business model??? lol | |
| | | | 
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
 ·Comcast
| Re: As usual said by beaups  :really this is wild economics...if people were to pay by channel...and a channel could not survive because not enough people want it...then it should die, no? Didn't they say the same thing about certain banks? 
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! | |
| | | | 
TWC Ate My Baby
@mindspring.com | quote:
I mean, if I sell a product that is not profitable unless I force people who DO NOT WANT IT to pay for it anyways..
Sounds like Microsoft's business plan for Vista. | |
| | | | 
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
 ·DSL EXTREME
·DSL EXTREME
| There's 2 sides to this issue:
1. I agree that a la carte and bundling should be available. 2. Prices will increase, and probably 3/4 of the channels would disappear or become too expensive.
TV (cable, satellite, FiOS, etc.) are all based on the following:
a) Management wants a minimum of ~$40 from you to support TV service. They currently want as much from you as you are willing to pay.
b) Management has to PAY for some channels... others (HSN, Shopping) are basically 'free', and others are sold - bundled by big media (Disney, ABC, ESPN, Big10).
Why not have a pseudo a la carte?
Basic package = x ($35-$40 range to keeps the basics happy), then a la carte and bundles after that ?
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
| | | |
Camelot One
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Austin, TX
clubs: | Clearly I should have used the "sarcasm" tag, as my bold examples weren't enough to relay it. | |
| | | | 
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| said by beaups :really this is wild economics...if people were to pay by channel...and a channel could not survive because not enough people want it...then it should die, no? YES! then that would free up bandwidth for channels people DO want
--
When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee | |
| | | | |
Camelot One
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Austin, TX
clubs:
·VoicePulse
| Re: As usual said by dvd536 :said by beaups :really this is wild economics...if people were to pay by channel...and a channel could not survive because not enough people want it...then it should die, no? YES! then that would free up bandwidth for channels people DO want Sadly, IF that were to happen, we'd have the "Survivor" channel, the "American Idol" channel, and 22 addition channels for their spin offs, running the shows 24/7.
--
Intel Quad Core QX6700 @3500Mhz/Asus P5N32-E SLI/4x 1024Mb Corsair/Seagate 750.10/PNY 7800GTs SLI/Silverstone 850W/Custom water cooler | |
| | | soothsayer15
join:2002-03-01
Irving, TX
 ·Verizon FIOS
·Verizon Online DSL
edit:
April 16th, @04:09PM
| said by Camelot One :Oh come on now. If we weren't forced to subsidize channels like WE, BET, and Oxygen, they couldn't stay on the air! No one is going to pay for that crap. But as it is, the 3 people who want to watch those channels can, thanks to the combined pool of all of us. That's ignorant to say no one would subscribe to those channels. The world doesn't revolve around what you like (read:you have no girlfriend or kids).
That being said, content providers know that few people would subscribe to all of those channels without them being bundled. Most of those extra channels are just extra revenue streams since they charge per subscriber.They can hold cable and satellite companies hostage by forcing them to take the extra if they want to provide popular channels.
If cable companies want MTV or BET, they have to take 4 other MTVs and BET Jazz. Want CNN, you have to get CNN International, TruTV, Headline News, and CNN World. Don't even get me started on Disney with their channels and ESPN. Content providers are the REAL reason why everyone's cable bills keeps rising. | |
| | | bugabuga
join:2004-06-10
Austin, TX
| So? If they can't get enough paying public the question becomes where does it end. Five channels? Twenty? Fifty? Where do you draw a line of subsidies and why exactly there.
For example I don't want to subsidise five shopping channels and five religious channels.
Biggest fear of small channels is that advertisers will know exactly how many people subscribe and watch them, and slash their rates (because they can't claim everyone who signed up for an extended cable package to be "semi-regular viewer").
Again, for those who like the idea of helping out small channels, packages would be available like before. Nobody forces you to switch to a-la carte, if you don't want to.
--
Странные новости почти каждый день | |
| | | | 
PaulHikeS2
join:2003-03-06
Merrimack, NH
| Re: As usual said by bugabuga :For example I don't want to subsidise five shopping channels and five religious channels. I realize this is just a small portion of your point, but you don't subsidize them. Those channels actually pay the provider for carriage. In effect, they subsidize your bill.
--
Jay: What the @#$% is the internet??? | |
| | | | | nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| Re: As usual said by PaulHikeS2 :I realize this is just a small portion of your point, but you don't subsidize them. Those channels actually pay the provider for carriage. In effect, they subsidize your bill. bzzzzzzt! wrong answer. Every time cable bills go up, the cablecos blame it on the increased cost of programming.
if Disney jacks up the rate of their new "bundle" because it includes a program nobody wants to watch, the cost gets passed straight on to you know who.
in the DC area, the comcast sports network was refusing to carry the Nationals games because 1) transmission rights were owned by another group (the real reason they bitched) and 2) they claimed they would have to raise rates (the truth? who knows). The pressure was too much, comcast caved, then promptly added $1.50 to every local customers bill.
no subsidizing going on for us, we're the marks in this carnival. | |
| | | | | |
PaulHikeS2
join:2003-03-06
Merrimack, NH | Re: As usual You apparently didn't read the post. It was referring to shopping and religious channels only.
--
Jay: What the @#$% is the internet??? | |
| | | | | | | hottboiinnc
Kyle
join:2003-10-15
Toledo, OH | Re: As usual You don't pay for the shopping networks. THEY pay the cable companies to be carried. | |
| | | | | | BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| said by Camelot One :Oh come on now. If we weren't forced to subsidize channels like WE, BET, and Oxygen, they couldn't stay on the air! No one is going to pay for that crap. But as it is, the 3 people who want to watch those channels can, thanks to the combined pool of all of us. "Thanks for the support"
-signed Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin | |
| | Thespis
join:2004-08-03
Keller, TX
·Verizon FIOS
edit:
April 19th, @07:34AM
| Let's see...
The public has a "right" to buy a product in whatever fashion they choose, but the producer of the product doesn't have the right to sell his product in the manner he chooses.
All this talk about free market economics and letting channels die if nobody watches them, but nobody blinks at the notion of making laws to force a content producer to market his product in a specific way.
What country is this again? | |
| 
Skeedatl
Ah, push it - push it real good
Premium
join:2007-12-26
The Cloud | Surprised? Cable seems to love channel extortion. Nothing gives them glee like forcing you to buy 100 channels you don't want in order to get the 1 channel you do want. | |
| | | | | Corydon
Cultivant son jardin
Premium
join:2008-02-18
Denver, CO
clubs:
·Comcast
| Re: Surprised? Still, forcing the cable companies to offer à la carte would provide them with the cover they need to stand up to the content providers. They couldn't be held hostage by the threat to deny access to ESPN or other networks.
I am kind of curious how the pricing scheme would work out. Presumably, all of the local must carry channels would still be must carry. Would everyone get charged the same basic rate with an additional single monthly charge for each extra channel they wanted?
Also presumably, this would require that all of the premium channels (everything but your must carry locals) would all have to move to digital, so you could turn them on or off remotely one by one. This could be a bonanza for the cable companies—they get to free up a lot of spectrum AND they get to rent a lot more set top boxes and they get to blame the FCC for it!
So why again are the cable companies resisting this? Perhaps it's because many of them are in the content business themselves?
--
My opinions are my own. No-one else would want them! | |
| | | | hottboiinnc
Kyle
join:2003-10-15
Toledo, OH | Re: Surprised? cable co's do have the power to stand up to the content providers but that doesnt mean you'll be watching tv. | |
| | | | | | | | | 
tiger72
NexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Kansas City, MO
clubs:
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Surprised? said by Skeedatl :said by tiger72 :Plus, how much do you think you'd pay for each channel if every channel were a la carte? I guarantee you'd pay more for each individual station than you would for a typical cable package. A la carte is not a solution to high cable/satellite prices. Depends on how many channels you want. This has already been done to death here a billion times but big dish a la carte pricing shows that a majority of popular channels run about $1 a month. It's primarily sports channels that cable forces upon basic cable subs that runs the bills up. And very rarely do cable operators protest. Rather they choose to just pass on these increases 2-3 times a year. $1 a sub is the negotiated "bulk" price which assumes x number of viewers (so that those channels can go on to tell advertisers that they reach x many households), etc... If the number of households reached goes down, advertising revenue does too. That means that content providers will likely raise their own rates to the consumer. Of course, the cable co will tack on an extra dollar per channel so that they can turn their own nice little profit.
So that a la carte $1 channel quickly creeps up to $3-5/chan. You don't have to watch too many channels before that adds up to the same that you're paying now for a far more diverse set of channels. And god forbid the cable/sat companies lock your channels in on an annual contract, and (for example) a show you watch on NBC gets pre-empted by sports, and gets moved to CNBC...
--
"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 | |
| | | | |
Skeedatl
Ah, push it - push it real good
Premium
join:2007-12-26
The Cloud | Re: Surprised? This has already been done before but if big-dish with as few viewers as they have can get those prices, certainly cable, if they chose to could do the same.
You're argument will be the price will go up with volume. That makes no sense. | |
| | | | | |
PaulHikeS2
join:2003-03-06
Merrimack, NH
| Re: Surprised? said by Skeedatl :This has already been done before but if big-dish with as few viewers as they have can get those prices, certainly cable, if they chose to could do the same. You're argument will be the price will go up with volume. That makes no sense. Where are you getting this pricing information? That is the basis of your whole argument. I've been looking at C-Band pricing information and I'm seeing prices of $3-$5/month for channels such as HGTV, Game Show Network, Lifetime movies and the like. It seems with the information out there most people would be paying a lot more with a la carte.
»www.callnps.com/alacarte.htm
--
Jay: What the @#$% is the internet??? | |
| | | | | | |
Skeedatl
Ah, push it - push it real good
Premium
join:2007-12-26
The Cloud | Re: Surprised? CallNPS is one of the most expensive resellers. Search this site, there have been multiple threads with price quotes. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
PaulHikeS2
join:2003-03-06
Merrimack, NH
| Re: Surprised? Even on that site, the cheapest price if you want ABC, NBC, and CBS is $15.75/month. With cable I can get 20 channels including all locals (including Fox, CW, and PBS) for about $15/month.
--
Jay: What the @#$% is the internet??? | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
PaulHikeS2
join:2003-03-06
Merrimack, NH
| Re: Surprised? said by Skeedatl :So what, OTA I get HD broadcast nets for free. No one is claiming a la carte is all things to all people. But I think people should have the CHOICE and be able to buy (a la carte vs bundles) that works out best for them. Your $15 is for broadcast basic only? If you're only interested in broadcast basic and can't get them OTA, then you would opt for a bundle of networks. But you should have the choice. I agree that choice is good, but anything outside of the tier that includes the local broadcast networks; which are regulated by the FCC and local authorities; are entertainment, and as such should not be subject to regulation by federal agencies, IMHO.
--
Jay: What the @#$% is the internet??? | |
| | | | | Corydon
Cultivant son jardin
Premium
join:2008-02-18
Denver, CO
clubs:
·Comcast
| said by tiger72 :$1 a sub is the negotiated "bulk" price which assumes x number of viewers (so that those channels can go on to tell advertisers that they reach x many households), etc... If the number of households reached goes down, advertising revenue does too. So why aren't the advertisers speaking up about this? Surely you'd be able to negotiate better prices (due to fewer people subscribing to each channel) while still reaching your demographic (you know the people buying a particular channel really want to watch it).
À la carte would seem to be a marketer's dream.
--
My opinions are my own. No-one else would want them! | |
| | | | | |
tiger72
NexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Kansas City, MO
clubs:
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Surprised? said by Corydon :So why aren't the advertisers speaking up about this? Surely you'd be able to negotiate better prices (due to fewer people subscribing to each channel) while still reaching your demographic (you know the people buying a particular channel really want to watch it). À la carte would seem to be a marketer's dream. You're assuming that everyone who's interested in the channel would actually pay for it. Marketers target their demographic with their ads, but they don't want to limit their products to only that demographic. Casual viewers who watch one program on the SciFi channel are unlikely to purchase the channel for that one show, and will likely just watch something else. Those are potential viewers and buyers that are lost in the a la carte system. While advertisers would know their market better, they don't want to lose those casual viewers.
--
"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 | |
| | | | | UncleDirtNap
join:2006-08-26
Pittsburgh, PA
·Verizon FIOS
·Verizon FIOS
| The ridiculous argument that price per channels would increase in an ala carte offering assumes that consumers would be willing to pay for the channels at any price, which they clearly wouldn't.
The price per channel would be no more than the market would bear ... which is the way it should be. | |
| | | | | |
tiger72
NexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Kansas City, MO
clubs:
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Surprised? said by UncleDirtNap :The ridiculous argument that price per channels would increase in an ala carte offering assumes that consumers would be willing to pay for the channels at any price, which they clearly wouldn't. clearly? A basic rule of markets is that when you buy in bulk, you gain bargaining power and save money. Since when do prices not go up when people stop bargaining as a group?
The price per channel would be no more than the market would bear ... which is the way it should be. This I absolutely agree with. I don't understand why you believe the market wouldn't allow the prices per channel to go up. Do you really think that the prices are at their peak and have no place else to go but down? If that's the case, the cable and satellite companies need to fire everyone who negotiates their carriage agreements.
--
"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 | |
| | | 
AZ_OGM
join:2007-01-12
Phoenix, AZ
edit:
April 16th, @04:11PM
| Edit: You took the words right out of my mouth Skeedatl. | |
| | | | | | | hottboiinnc
Kyle
join:2003-10-15
Toledo, OH | A la carte would not apply to satellite, AT&T or VZ. As they claim their not Cable companies. Only Comcast, TWC, Charter and alike would have to be a la carte. Which is first off not fair. | |
| | | |
tiger72
NexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Kansas City, MO
clubs:
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Surprised? said by hottboiinnc :A la carte would not apply to satellite, AT&T or VZ. As they claim their not Cable companies. Only Comcast, TWC, Charter and alike would have to be a la carte. Which is first off not fair. a very good point indeed.
--
"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 | |
| | 
Phattieg
join:2001-04-29
Jacksonville, FL
| said by Skeedatl :Cable seems to love channel extortion. Nothing gives them glee like forcing you to buy 100 channels you don't want in order to get the 1 channel you do want. Well, I like finding something good to watch, even if it's on a channel I don't normally watch. I also find new things while channel surfing for something out of all the channels I pay for, and honestly, with a program guide, I find something to watch. Sorry you are limited to reruns and specific shows. Like a new book, you may find a new show you like on the channel you least expect. Oh well, I know if a la carte goes, so will some good channels, and thats sad. Plus a la carte will mean the cost of a single channel will go up in cost by a long shot. If you did the math, the channels you ocasionally watch give the provider revenue to make money broadcasting new shows while running ads on stations that play reruns. | |
| beaups
join:2003-08-11
Hilliard, OH
| Did I read the letter wrong??? "In essence, they told Martin that they think he should drop the issue and encouraged him to turn his focus instead to the DTV transition; they reminded him that was something that Congress had strongly suggested he do already."
I didn't see ANY such mention in the letter.... | |
| neufuse
join:2006-12-06
Indiana, PA | only channels ever watch... are History and Discovery networks... I wish I could just get only them... I wouldn't care if it was $50 for them... would still be less then the $99 I pay now to get them in HD | |
| |
tiger72
NexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Kansas City, MO
clubs: | Re: only channels ever watch... what provider do you have? I have TWC, and i pay $55 (including HD reciever fee) to get my HD. | |
| | | 
MattE
Obama '08
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
 ·Corporate Colocation
| Re: only channels ever watch... said by tiger72 :what provider do you have? I have TWC, and i pay $55 (including HD reciever fee) to get my HD. Time Warner has the most abysmal selection of HD channels. They don't even carry Discovery in HD. (The Discovery Channel, not Discovery HD) | |
| | | |
tiger72
NexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Kansas City, MO
clubs:
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: only channels ever watch... said by MattE :said by tiger72 :what provider do you have? I have TWC, and i pay $55 (including HD reciever fee) to get my HD. Time Warner has the most abysmal selection of HD channels. They don't even carry Discovery in HD. (The Discovery Channel, not Discovery HD) Some divisions do have DiscoveryHD in addition to HD Theater. TW actually offer more HD than any other cable provider, and are 3rd place overall according tho this:
»www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthre···=1016467
While i'd love more HD, I'm glad the the HD channels I do have are mostly true HD and not HDlite, stretch-o-vision "HD", or 480i widescreen "HD". I see no point in having a bunch of bad HD stations which are HD in name only.
--
"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 | |
| goalieskates
join:2004-09-12
Knoxville, TN
·Comcast
·AT&T Southeast
| and of those complaining And of those cable networks complaining, I'd happily give up ESPN (a Disney company), MTV, Disney, and some of Fox.
So it wouldn't matter if I couldn't afford them, I wouldn't buy them. That's their real beef - they're considered "staples" and how would it look if people chose not to buy them. | |
|
AZ_OGM
join:2007-01-12
Phoenix, AZ
| If some channels disappear... So be it! I can recall a few channels that Turner has pulled the plug on because they couldn't compete with the incumbent. Anyone remember CNNSI or CNNFN? If a la carte happens, hopefully more channels will go dark. How many channels does the eMpTyVee empire have churning out crap 24/7? I shouldn't have to pay close to $65 for maybe 10 channels I watch which are Comedy Central, Dis |
|
|
|
Cable Execs Tell Martin to Forget A La Carte
Re: Surprised?