 | | 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 | |
|
 | | | 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 | |
|
| | |  pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | 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! | |
|
| | | | | 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. | |
|
| | |  en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | 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 | |
|
| | | | | Clearly I should have used the "sarcasm" tag, as my bold examples weren't enough to relay it. | |
|
| | |  dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | 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 | |
|
| | | | | | 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 | |
|
| |
1 edit | 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. | |
|
| | | | 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 | |
|
| | | | | 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??? | |
|
| | | | Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| 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 $1.50 to every local customers bill.
no subsidizing going on for us, we're the marks in this carnival. | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: As usual You apparently didn't read the post. It was referring to shopping and religious channels only.
--
Jay: What the @#$% is the internet??? | |
|
| | | | | | | | Re: As usual You don't pay for the shopping networks. THEY pay the cable companies to be carried. | |
|
| |  PhoenixDown-- Wants FIOSPremium
join:2003-06-08
Fresh Meadows, NY
kudos:1 | Yeah and it would be hard for the cable companies to explain their rate hikes when you decide to leave all the sports packages out! | |
|
| |  BF69Premium
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 | |
|
|  ThespisI'm not an actor, but I play one on TV.Premium
join:2004-08-03
Keller, TX
1 edit | 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? | |
|
 DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | 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. | |
|
|  Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 |  Re: Surprised?
said by Dogfather: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. The BBR headline is misleading. It wasn't the cable company execs, but the Hollywood content providers that sent this letter. And, of course, they don't want a la carte because it is they who force cable companies to pay for channels hardly anyone wants in order to get the popular channels.
Martin, with his head up his ass as usual is going after the wrong parties to force a la carte. He is sticking it to cable companies, when he should have been sticking it all along to Hollywood. Of course, there is the little matter of the fact he has no power over them. So he tries to score cheap political points by making scapegoats out of the wrong group.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
|
| | CorydonCultivant son jardinPremium
join:2008-02-18
Denver, CO | 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! | |
|
| | | | | 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. | |
|
|  tiger72SexaT duorPPremium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1
 ·T-Mobile US
| not sure why everyone blames cable. Agreements between content providers and cable cos often are multi-channel deals that require a lesser-known station be carried so that the far more popular consumer-demanded channel can be carried.
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. I can also bet that channels like NBC and ABC would put their popular shows on cable after a viewer base has built up, so as to increase their own revenue.
A la carte is not a solution to high cable/satellite prices.
--
"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 | |
|
| | DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
2 edits | Re: Surprised? 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.
A la carte is the ONLY solution to high cable prices. With a la carte people have the option to buy only those channels they want. Instead of content creators like ABC being able to rely on channel extortion and channel welfare to get you to buy ABC Family, they would have to COMPETE for every single subscriber.
Meanwhile those who like packages would continue to buy these lame filler channels in bulk, just like you can with big-dish. | |
|
| | | tiger72SexaT duorPPremium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 Reviews:
·T-Mobile US
| Re: Surprised? said by Dogfather: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 | |
|
| | | | DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | 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. | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: Surprised? said by Dogfather: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??? | |
|
| | | | | | DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | Re: Surprised? CallNPS is one of the most expensive resellers. Search this site, there have been multiple threads with price quotes. | |
|
| | | | | | DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
4 edits | »www.omegasource.com/c-band-big-d···ramming/
This site has you pick 5 channels to get the price.
Gameshow Network is $3 for 3 months of programming ($1/mo)
Comedy Central $4 for 3 months ($1.33/mo)
USA+Sci Fi $9 for 3 months for both channels ($1.50/mo/channel)
Weather Channel $5 for 3 months ($1.67/mo)
CNN+CNNi+HLN+Fox News $12 for 3 months $1/channel/month
They also offer a deal for $99 for a year and you pick 10 channels from their list of offerings which works out to $0.83/channel per month, but you actually get 10 channels you really want. I think that is better than paying say $0.33 per channel but having to buy dozens and dozens of channels you don't want.
Some channels are certainly higher but that is what is good about a la carte. People who only watch a few channels can buy the channels they want. Those that want more could bundle for savings.
So for people like me who only watch 6-10 channels I would do far better under a la carte rather than having to buy 2 or 3 tiers just to get the 6-10 channels I'm looking for. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | 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??? | |
|
| | | | | | | | DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
1 edit | Re: Surprised? 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. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Surprised? said by Dogfather: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??? | |
|
| | | | CorydonCultivant son jardinPremium
join:2008-02-18
Denver, CO | 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! | |
|
| | | | | tiger72SexaT duorPPremium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 Reviews:
·T-Mobile US
| 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 | |
|
| | | | | | 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. | |
|
| | | | | tiger72SexaT duorPPremium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 Reviews:
·T-Mobile US
| 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
1 edit | Edit: You took the words right out of my mouth Skeedatl. | |
|
| | | DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
2 edits | Re: Surprised? And you don't have to buy a year's worth those get those $1 rates. Typically, the sites I saw you paid quarterly (eg $3-4 per quarter). Of course some channels were more, but a lot like USA, Sci-Fi and Comedy Central are very reasonably priced.
The poster is right in that if you wanted a LOT of channels, bundling makes sense. But people like me only watch a dozen or less (none are sports) and my rates would be significantly cheaper a la carte.
It's like buying food. $50 for a ton of rice may be cheap, but when if you only wanted 1 small box. $50 isn't a deal if you don't need a ton of rice. | |
|
| | | | 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. | |
|
| | | tiger72SexaT duorPPremium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 Reviews:
·T-Mobile US
| 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 | |
|
| Reviews:
 ·Bright House
| said by Dogfather: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.... | |
|
| | 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 | |
|
| tiger72SexaT duorPPremium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | 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. | |
|
| |  MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | 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) | |
|
| | | tiger72SexaT duorPPremium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 Reviews:
·T-Mobile US
| Re: only channels ever watch... said by Matt: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 | |
|
| | 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 Reviews:
·Cox HSI
| 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, Discovery, History, ESPN, FSN, and my locals. And I'd be willing to pay for my share of ESPN without having others subsidize it.
/rant off | |
|
| DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | Re: If some channels disappear... Rates would go down if they would just put ESPN, FSN and other sports on to their own tier. Let those people who want these expensive channels support those expensive channels. | |
|
| dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | said by AZ_OGM:Anyone remember CNNSI or CNNFN? I do. i miss my CNNFN. i had it on DISHNETWORK but now i have cable and don't get it.
--
When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee | |
|
zed260Premium
join:2007-09-30
Cleveland, TN
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Charter
| A La Carte its not the cable companys fault
its the studios they bundle it so that if the cable company want to carry only disney they pay 30 cents for that channel but
if they bundle disney toon alone they pay 30
if they bundle both they pay 50
if you wanna regulate you'd need to regulate the studios | |
|
| | | Re: A La Carte said by zed260:its not the cable companys fault its the studios they bundle it so that if the cable company want to carry only disney they pay 30 cents for that channel but if they bundle disney toon alone they pay 30 if they bundle both they pay 50 if you wanna regulate you'd need to regulate the studios Of course it is the cable industry's fault.
Who else has the mass and legal talent to stand up to the content providers?
But the cable and satellite industry prefer the status quo, as they can force customers to buy higher and higher tiers, and justify their price increases on "programming costs". | |
|
| | Revision3 There is another brave new world in broadcasting and Revision3.com has hit it right on the head.
I don't even have cable anymore. With Hulu, revision3, cinemanow, and a netflix account I get almost everything I want. If cable went A La Carte then I would possibly pick up the rest of the content I'm missing, but until/if they do I will be happy without cable. | |
|
 DaMaGeINCThe Lan ManPremium
join:2002-06-08
Greenville, SC
kudos:2 | I dont watch cable I have long turned my cable off in favor of just downloading the tv shows I want. I have at my fingertips over 20 tv series's to watch at any time. Movies, documentaries, all of it. Internet 4TW | |
|
| | A la carte Programs I think if they decide to implement A la Carte services, each individual show should be able to be purchased for one time veiwing/recording. Is that such a bad idea? | |
|
| | | Re: A la carte Programs said by JoeSover:I think if they decide to implement A la Carte services, each individual show should be able to be purchased for one time veiwing/recording. Is that such a bad idea? Your absolutely right. I'm outraged that I have to subsidize "Oprah" and "The View" just because I want to watch "Lost".
--
Jay: What the @#$% is the internet??? | |
|
 SLDPremium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA | Easy Hey, if the request comes from big business, whether it be Hollywood or Cable Execs, you know it isn't a consumer-friendly request. | |
|
| | Huh? "ESPN, MTV, FOX, Turner, Disney and Univision"?
Well, if the only way available for me to not pay for these "popular" channels I never want to watch is to drop cable entirely, then, darn!, I guess I'll just have to do without. Is there actually anything on "TV" these days (worth watching--which is little enough as it is) that I can't get cheaper/free from someplace other than cable/satellite? Nope. I'm only willing to pay so much for the convenience of "cable TV". | |
|
| | No A La Carte, No Cash from Me I get wonderful HD OTA due to my location. I have all the sports I can desire for free. So, on the weekly call from Comcast wanting me to get cable TV "because it can save me so much money" I tell them no A La Carte No Cash. Confuses the hell out of them. What do I want and would pay for?
Discover
History Channel
TCM
National Geographic
Cooking Channel
Comedy Central
Make a package of those and I would pay for cable TV assuming that they were all HD.
What I will not pay for.
ESPN1, 2 whatever
Disney Channel
CNN
TBN
MTV
Country Music channels
Any music audio feed
A&E
Etc.
So if satellite or cable wants to get some cash let them meet my terms and conditions. | |
|
| | al la carte here please... Well one way to get a quick change in the pricing scheme is for a LOT of people to turn off their cable for a few months (not that it would hurt us to do it). The problem is that the cable companies, media outlets, and the government know that we are not going to do that so there is no reason to fix the problem of price gouging or the monopolistic franchising that is preventing a true market system from taking hold.
The telecos had the same thing going until people started turning off their landlines and going cellular...we are beginning to see a spark of change in the telco community. | |
|
Reviews:
·Comcast
| Do not government involvement 1. With the track record of government we do not need anther solution that worst than the disease it trying to cure.
2. The movement to web TV (hula.com CBS.com )as well as Itunes and DVD sales will make A La cart TV moot.
3. you do not need to have an entitlement to cable TV. I one doesn't like the selection unsubcribe | |
|
| Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA | Re: Do not government involvement said by Scatcatpdx:1. With the track record of government we do not need anther solution that worst than the disease it trying to cure. The government is the cause of this problem to begin with. The government granted these content providers copyright and IMHO the lack of an a la carte option suggest these content providers are indeed abusing their government granted monopoly at the expense of the people. What if every bookstore only sold a hundred books at a time? | |
|
| | ThespisI'm not an actor, but I play one on TV.Premium
join:2004-08-03
Keller, TX | Re: Do not government involvement said by Sammer: The government is the cause of this problem to begin with. The government granted these content providers copyright and IMHO the lack of an a la carte option suggest these content providers are indeed abusing their government granted monopoly at the expense of the people. What if every bookstore only sold a hundred books at a time? The government doesn't grant copyrights, they simply affirm and keep track of them. Copyrights are rights to works that one has created. You get a copyright by virtue of creating something.
If I write and produce a play, why should you be able to tell me how I can sell that play? If you don't want to see it because it's too expensive, fine. You don't, however have the right to force me to lower my ticket prices.
This whole argument is about how content providers market their product. Unless we want to socialize the entertainment industry, the government should do nothing. | |
|
| | | Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA | Re: Do not government involvement said by Thespis:said by Sammer: The government is the cause of this problem to begin with. The government granted these content providers copyright and IMHO the lack of an a la carte option suggest these content providers are indeed abusing their government granted monopoly at the expense of the people. What if every bookstore only sold a hundred books at a time? The government doesn't grant copyrights, they simply affirm and keep track of them. The Constitution granted limited copyright to promote the arts and sciences and gave Congress and the federal government the ability to regulate not just affirm copyright in order to balance it with the needs of the people. | |
|
| | | | ThespisI'm not an actor, but I play one on TV.Premium
join:2004-08-03
Keller, TX
1 edit | Re: Do not government involvement Yes, regulate. That means affirming and recording.
They do not "grant" copyrights as you maintained in your previous post. What "needs of the people" would be "balanced" by regulating how media content providers market their property?
Funny how you argue semantics and ignore the part of my post that negates your premise.
The government has no compelling reason (or right) to tell producers of a luxury item that nobody actually needs how to market that product. | |
|
| | | said by Scatcatpdx:1. With the track record of government we do not need anther solution that worst than the disease it trying to cure. 2. The movement to web TV (hula.com CBS.com )as well as Itunes and DVD sales will make A La cart TV moot. 3. you do not need to have an entitlement to cable TV. I one doesn't like the selection unsubcribe Bull. Hulu, Itunes, DVDs et al do not provide the same streaming content bundled as a TV service. Maybe IPTV will, if there is a universal standard for delivery, but watch for that to end up being priced as a bundled option just like cable.
Cable TV is a utility which has been granted a franchise and right-of-way access. It is naturally subject to some level of regulation. Likewise, satellite vendors have been licensed for orbital slots. They, too, are to be regulated.
The question is, to what degree.
Ideally, all of these folks would compete with each other and provide the consumer with a myriad of choices, and ala carte would be one of them.
But that has not happened. Instead, each remaining vendor (we're down from 5 satellites to 2, and no cable overbuilders to speak of) plays the same game, and rates continue to outpace inflation by a tremendous margin.
Even if they were competing against each other, many of us can't get OTA, satellite, cable, or the phone company offerings, based on where we live, so we're stuck. Indeed, we need an "entitlement", as you call it, to ensure that we have a signal. That was the original catalyst for CATV.
I'm not suggesting we need to have a "welfare service" or a "universal service fund", but the current state of affairs only favors collusion between last-mile providers and content providers. There is no incentive to benefit the consumer. Mandating ala carte, for which there are no real technical obstacles, would go a long way towards providing consumers with real choice, not just "Cable, or no cable?" | |
|
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Nothing to see here... Move along! Nothing to see here. Move along. Go harass our competition instead...
 | |
|
jfmezeiPremium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:22 Reviews:
 ·ELECTRONICBOX
| Cable may make itself redundant I think people are missing the point here.
Cable TV may make itself totally redundant. If they force you to buy a whole bundle of channels you don't want, only to watch a couple of programmes per week on the one channel you do want, people will end up downloading those programmes from the internet.
Say I want to watch program X on channel A. If they force me to pay $5.00 for a bundle of channels A.B.C.D , I'd rather send the $5.00 directly to the producers of the show instead of distributing the revenu to 4 channels, 3 of whcih i woudl never watch.
And then there are cases where I don't want to send money to a channel. For instance, when CNN stopped being a news channel and became the Bush Propaganda Network and has since morphed into an entertainment network where ratings are more important than news, I stopped watching it. But my bundle of news channels still includes CNN, and this means part fo my money still goes to CNN and I would really want to be able to send a strong signal to that network by ensuring none of my money goes to them. | |
|
| | Its like cell phones Like somebody else said, no matter how you try to shop around for different cable/satellite plans they always get at least 40 dollars a month from you. Its like cell phones. I looked into a cell phone but only needed one for emergencies but no matter which plan/provider then wanted at least 40 dollars a month.
I ended up with dish since they are the one provider that is not so big into owning content and they really try to negotiate lower carriages. A few years back Disney tried to force higher carriages on dish to add a third lifetime channel. Dish had paid earlier to negotiate the carriage for lifetime separately. Lifetime was pulled from dish but was added back later when Disney realized they could not extort more carriage for the other two crap channels though bundling (lifetime movies and the newer one I forgot what name. But I agree the bundling/extortion/ and increases in carriage is way out of hand. It also insures that little incentive for providing good content through competition.
I recently also had an international megapack from dish and finally canceled that since paying over 50 dollars for 8 channels was too much. Two months later they call me and say they will cut the bill by ten dollars. Still not enough.
The only way the madness will end is when we all start canceling or downgrading services as much as possible. Force them to lower prices and unbundled crap reality channels.
I also agree that the biggest violators for carriage extortion are the Disney owned Sports channels. The carriage is exponentially higher on those and only watched by a minority. There needs to be regulation once and for all for tiers to omit the sports crap. If someone never watches sports its not fair they have to pay for the million dollar salaries (and growing) of the athletes.
The bottom line is the current systems of bundling is unfair to the consumer and allows for price increases that are not reasonable. It ensures that content providers do not have to be competitive and can put out crap and charge for it. There was a time however, that bundling made things cheaper. But as content providers became more powerful and bigger and added more and more channels, they increased their leverage and could extort more and more (example Disney) Disney has even pulled some of its ABC networks in markets that did not conform to their carriage increases. Content providers have become too powerful and there needs to be regulation again.. and they will cry about it but their own greed caused it. | |
|
CaptEdPremium
join:2003-01-25
Overland Park, KS | Cut the cord and be done with it! I couldn't get to first base with my complaint to DirectTV about refusing a la carte pricing, so I dumped them for CATV. My local (TWC) no better, so dumped them. I now watch 5 Broadcast TV channels with great clarity over a rooftop antenna and pay $0.00/mo. I still have more choices than I need, and watch too much (about 10 hrs/week). Most of my time is taken up with business work, home work, and computer time. TV gets in the way and is obsolete. | |
|
|
|
·