Cablevision Likes A La Carte Too Everyone likes the idea, but nobody's doing it Cablevision joins AT&T in saying they suddenly like the idea of offering cable channels "a la carte", despite the fact national cable associations have been fighting the push tooth and nail for as long as we can remember. Techdirt notes: "if Cablevision really wanted to implement a la carte, it could just do it." Is this posturing at a time of year when customers - angry with fresh cable rate increases - are looking toward the FCC to actually do something about it? Or a legitimate desire to shift?
|
  Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4
2 edits | a la carte won't save most people any money A la carte programming costs will be such that it will never really save most customers money. For those who rarely watch TV and are satisfied with bare bones basic cable, a la carte could help them cut costs where they can take basic plus one or 2 favored channels. But for those who like a smattering of sports, movies, some HDTV, childrens shows, and a music channel or 2, the costs will turn out to be the same(but with less channels to watch).
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
My Web Page | |
|  | | | Re: a la carte won't save most people any money said by Romney2012:A la carte programming costs will be such that it will never really save most customers money. For those who rarely watch TV and are satisified with bare bones basic cable, a la carte could help them cut costs whree they can take basic plus one or 2 favored channels. Local channels and basic plus sports would suit me fine.
--
Bass....the glue of rhythm and harmony...the heartbeat of the band.! Shaking the earth with deep,sonorous vibrations.The dark ominous thunder of an approching storm. | |
| | | | Thank you Rich, but in this class we show our work on worksheets or we get no credit for the assignment.
Could you show your numbers? | |
| | | Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| Re: a la carte won't save most people any money said by Minister:Thank you Rich, but in this class we show our work on worksheets or we get no credit for the assignment. Could you show your numbers? my thoughts exactly. put up or shut up. | |
| | | | | | Re: a la carte won't save most people any money ESPN is half your bill, get rid of that and you'll be way better off. Me, All I need from my Sat provider is the discovery networks and the HD channels and I would be happy. I get NBC and Fox crystal clear HD off air and better looking than the feed from the sattelite. That's all I ever watch, that's all I should pay for. For those of you who like sports, your bill will increase, because the per subscriber rate will go up when they lose half or more subscribers currently forced (well I guess only forced if they want sat or cable) to pay for it. The even bigger bonus is, the really crappy networks nobody wants to pay for will just go away and not be a nuisance any longer.  And better yet, none of my money would go to Faux News | |
|
| |  marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | said by Minister:Thank you Rich, but in this class we show our work on worksheets or we get no credit for the assignment. Could you show your numbers? He can't show those numbers. Content providers craft contracts that keep those numbers sealed.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://whip.isca.uiowa.edu
Member: American Association of Geographers, American Geophysical Union, American Water Resources Association | |
| | |  cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:5
·Frontier FiOS
| He's right to some extent. The fight is over how many channels people would have to subscribe to a la carte in order to reach the "break even" point. An original FCC study said approximately 9 additional channels in addition to a very basic tier of mandated channels. Now the FCC says that study was flawed and the number is higher, more like 14 channels.
It's all a numbers games and only estimates can be used. This USA Today article has a small chart at the bottom that shows how a variety of channels rates would be effected by only a portion of total cable subscribers subscribing to that particular channel.
Subscriber rate 75% 50% 25%
Disney Channel $1.97 $2.95 $5.90
ESPN $5.12 $7.79 $15.82
MTV $0.64 $1.06 $2.32
Fox News $0.70 $1.06 $2.17
TBS $0.69 $1.12 $2.42
Mandated broadcast buy-through $10.00 $10.00 $10.00
Total bill to consumer $19.11 $23.99 $38.61
The poster above said that most people would see an increase, not all. I honestly think most would see an increase.
--
"What gives them the right to come in and do this?" she said. - Lady complaining that she was getting FIOS in her backyard. | |
| | | | | | Re: a la carte won't save most people any money Actually, your logic is so fatally flawed it's laughable.
By YOUR definition, the content providers get the SAME AMOUNT MONEY no matter how many people subscribe? In what magical land (north korea) is that true?
Let's carry all the way to the extremes, using the model you posted. So if only 3% of the subscribers get ESPN, then it would cost 126.56/month per subscriber. That's what the math comes out to. So of course, ESPN still gets the same revenue with only 3% of the people willing to pay for it?
ESPN BY ITSELF could not support the rates it is charging. Even at 100% subscription, it's getting 3.90/person. Please explain how I, the customer, am forced to pay 3.90/month for something I don't want. If I use the corporate apologists argument of 'it's not necessary', then YES, I agree with them. I don't want ESPN! I don't want to pay for ESPN! I WANT to vote with my pocketbook, but wait, I CAN'T. Cause I can't get the channels I DO want to vote for with my money unless it comes in a package with ESPN. If you don't see the total hypocrisy of the corporate apologists line there, then you must be blind.
--
Sure the internet has lots of porn and piracy, but I'm sure there's a downside to it. | |
| | | | | cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:5 Reviews:
·Frontier FiOS
| Re: a la carte won't save most people any money said by G_Poobah:Actually, your logic is so fatally flawed it's laughable. By YOUR definition, the content providers get the SAME AMOUNT MONEY no matter how many people subscribe? In what magical land (north korea) is that true? It's not really my logic. It's the FCC and content provider's logic. I'm not saying that they will get exactly the same amount no matter how many subscribe.
I think it would be safe to presume that under a la carte pricing, many channels would see a reduced number of subscribers. Just because the channel has fewer subscribers doesn't mean the operating expenses also decrease. They would stay more or less the same. However, since the channel will have fewer viewers, advertisers won't pay as much for fewer eyes watching. So the channel loses money in the process. That lost revenue has to come from somewhere, so they have to raise rates to create a balance.
ESPN charging $126 is absurd. Obvisouly they can't sustain a viable business charging those rates. If they were to do that they would price themselves out of business. But charging $15 I think is within the realm of a possibility.
With a la carte pricing, I will guarantee you that there will be fewer overall choices in channels because many of the small niche channels will essentially price themselves out of existence.
--
"What gives them the right to come in and do this?" she said. - Lady complaining that she was getting FIOS in her backyard. | |
| | | | | marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | said by G_Poobah:Actually, your logic is so fatally flawed it's laughable. By YOUR definition, the content providers get the SAME AMOUNT MONEY no matter how many people subscribe? In what magical land (north korea) is that true? Let's carry all the way to the extremes, using the model you posted. So if only 3% of the subscribers get ESPN, then it would cost 126.56/month per subscriber. That's what the math comes out to. So of course, ESPN still gets the same revenue with only 3% of the people willing to pay for it? ESPN BY ITSELF could not support the rates it is charging. Even at 100% subscription, it's getting 3.90/person. Please explain how I, the customer, am forced to pay 3.90/month for something I don't want. If I use the corporate apologists argument of 'it's not necessary', then YES, I agree with them. I don't want ESPN! I don't want to pay for ESPN! I WANT to vote with my pocketbook, but wait, I CAN'T. Cause I can't get the channels I DO want to vote for with my money unless it comes in a package with ESPN. If you don't see the total hypocrisy of the corporate apologists line there, then you must be blind. His logic is not that flawed, it is just missing an element. ESPN has to get the same amount of revenue because they have to pay for all of those sports programming contracts.
If ESPN was getting only 3% of the subscriber base, they would cut back significant on their program offerings so that their costs can meet their revenue. Keep in mind, if ESPN were forced to drop these offerings they would just end up going to the broadcast networks who have must-carry status and they still would come out of your pocketbook. And ESPN gets way more than $3.90/person. Somewhere close to $11/person in ESPN/ESPN II areas and $15/person in ESPN/ESPN/Classic areas. Sounds like a lot, but its no more than HBO.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://whip.isca.uiowa.edu
Member: American Association of Geographers, American Geophysical Union, American Water Resources Association | |
| | | | | | | | Re: a la carte won't save most people any money ESPN and others will simply need to renegotiate their fees or be forced to charge unreasonable fees for their services to those that do want it. Since this would hurt them and the events wanting to be broadcasted I think they will easily come to terms on this.
I agree many channels will lose subscribers as they should (and be cancelled), but many will also gain subscribers. I know people, including myself, that do not have certain channels because we would have to purchase another package that has several others we don't want. To me the cost for all those "extras" is not worth it for the very few channels I want.
Beyond local channels their are only about 8 or 12 other channels I would get. Only about 6 of those would be for myself and my wife, the rest for my kids. Sure I am willing to pay more for HD and DVR service, but is it worth an additional $12 a month on top of the already bloated fees I pay now? I personally say no, but I may reconsider that when I can get the channels I want for less then I have to pay for all the crap I get now. | |
|
|  kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY | said by Romney2012:A la carte programming costs will be such that it will never really save most customers money. For those who rarely watch TV and are satisfied with bare bones basic cable, a la carte could help them cut costs where they can take basic plus one or 2 favored channels. But for those who like a smattering of sports, movies, some HDTV, childrens shows, and a music channel or 2, the costs will turn out to be the same(but with less channels to watch). Of course, it's false again.
Rich, Rich, you're waaay too well-known here as the puppet of Big Business - do you really think people are totally dumb and cannot calculate how much they could save?
ROFL. | |
| | | Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4
3 edits | Re: a la carte won't save most people any money NM. Discussion is going off topic. | |
| | | | | | | |  TopmounterSent By Grocery Clerks
join:2001-02-20
Evergreen, CO | Re: a la carte won't save most people any money Yep, anyone who actually knows how the programmers price their programming to cable and satellite providers today knows enough to understand that "ala carte" pricing is not the solution to lower cable rates for most consumers.
If anything, it will make prices higher, or even put many niche networks out of business all together.
Congress and the FCC need to be whining about the programmers like ESPN and not the cable operators. | |
| | | | | | | Re: a la carte won't save most people any money Ahhhh, finally. Someone gets it right. | |
| | | | | | | | Re: a la carte won't save most people any money Really he doesn't.
ESPN, CBS, FOX, NBC bid in an open market to get distribution rights to these sporting events. They set the price they are going to pay for these events, the event coordinators / leagues don't. They may have a starting price, but until someone is actually willing to buy something the true value is $0 and the ending value is simply whatever the most money the last person standing is willing to pay.
Of course that gets passed down to the consumers and the advertisers. Of course, we the consumers, get it again when we go to purchase those products being advertised. | |
|
| | | |
| | | I'm surprised that nobody here has mentioned the politics involved in this issue. When this study of a la carte was released, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin mentioned that cable a la carte pricing would give parents more control over what content enters their home. Also, Martin touted the idea of cable and satellite companies providing family-friendly tiers and hinted that the cable content providers should clean up their act (even though they are not under the same regulations as broadcast TV). Also, Rep. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) has sponsored a bill to allow the FCC to regulate cable and satellite TV just as it does broadcast TV. Right now, cable companies are an easy target because many consumers are disgruntled with the constant price increases. This is definitely not a good time for Comcast to pass along a nationwide rate hike!
Personally I would like to see a la carte happen. I don't watch any sports channels, but I was forced to subscribe and pay for them. I would like to receive channels like TechTV (now G4) and Logo, but I would be required to get Digital Plus and pay for 200 other channels that I'll never watch. I'm sure all of you would gladly help me get Logo moved to basic so that you guys could subsidize it for me and get my cable bill lowered...HAHA  As absurd as that sounds, that's how I feel about having to pay at least 60% of my cable bill for ESPN, ESPN2, ESPN Classic, Golf Channel, Speed, Fox Sports, and even the garbage that is now on MTV, VH1, E!, and BET. If some of these channels are your favorites, I expect a 'thank you' since I have been subsidizing them for you for the past 10 years 
However, I have to say this idea of a la carte is nothing more than wishful thinking and political fluff so politicians can win votes with angry consumers.
First of all, big media companies have a lot of $$$ invested in their cable networks. Anything that threatens their lucrative business model will be fought long and hard. These vulnerable politicians would not stand a chance. By the time the FCC starts receiving input on this issue a new administration will be in-house with a different policy.
Second, many politicians have not weighed in on this issue yet but some feel that this is capitalism and the marketplace should dictate how these businesses operate. We seem to forget that it's not just Comcast that engages in this business practice of bundling content. DirecTV and Dish do the same thing. Dish offered a package called Dish Select in the 90's where a subscriber could chose any 10 channels that he/she wanted for $15. Ironically, nobody chose this option and the package was dissolved. I don't think that the package was profitable for Dish either. It is true that the satellite companies do not increase prices as frequently but an above post mentioned the hidden costs such as buying equipment and additional box fees. Also, let's consider the two satellite radio providers, XM and Sirius. Both companies are constantly adding new sports and famous personalities every year. As an XM subscriber, my rates have increased from $9.99 to $12.99 last year. I originally got XM for 10 music channels that I enjoyed but I am now paying more for Major League Baseball, Opie & Anthony cursing, and Snoop Dogg playing his favorite songs once a week. Also, Sirius has hinted that their users may experience higher prices because they have added such vale-added content such as Howard Stern's uncensored masturbation sessions and Martha Stewart baking cakes on the radio. Why doesn't the FCC require a la carte satellite radio so that they engage in this pricing cartel like the cable companies do?
A la carte would definitely benefit the consumer, but people should not look to the government to make such imposing rules to force companies to provide what we want. Did we learn anything from the AT&T breakup? I think that the only option for a la carte will be receiving programming over the internet (legally, of course). One good example of this is iTunes. Disney has tested the water by providing ABC and Disney Channel shows on an a la carte basis. This has proven to be very successful reaching 1 million downloads within a week, but Disney has encountered several issues with actors' unions and ABC affiliates not being compensated. Fox and Universal-NBC are talking to Apple and are expected to follow suit.
For those of you unhappy with your cable company, you have several options. Switch to satellite. Personally, I don't see this as a good option because I have three TVs in my household which would increase my monthly bill. So, instead of giving my money to Brian Roberts every month, the same amount will be going to Rupert Murdoch or Charlie Ergen.
You can also kick the habit of paying for cable all together and just use an antenna. Now that many TV station are broadcasting digital signals, you can experience crystal clear over-the-air reception with little interference. I have a digital over-the-air receiver that downcoverts the HDTV signal for my analog TV. I'm located north of Atlanta, and I receive all network affiliates perfectly and get TBS over the air for free, an added bonus You can also join subscription services like Netflix and Blockbuster Online. I joined Netflix which was much cheaper than getting HBO from Comcast since I am an analog subscriber and I would be required to upgrade to digital. Also, with these services, you get to choose whatever movies you want unlike HBO.
Sorry if this post got a little long but this is just some stuff to think about. Here is the article from the Washington Post that discusses some of this...
»www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co···chnology
Cheers! | |
|
BiggA
join:2005-11-23
EARTH Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| Nice idea not practical...... I guess I feel sorry for the people who cannot get satellite, but for those millions that can, if they don't like what the cable company is doing, get DirecTV or Dish, or visa-versa. I think when broadband pipes get really fat, we will see IPTV that is independent of the ISP/ incumbent (vonage for TV), but until then good look with a-la-carte. Instead of offering a package of the 50 popular channels, they will bundle all 13 discoveries for $15/mo, all 5 ESPNs, etc, so you will have to pay like $100 just to get ESPN1, MTV1, Discovery channel, ETC. Or, if it was all a-la-carte, it would cost $100/mo to get all channels except the permiums, not the $46 it takes now (DirecTV TC Plus w/ locals, 1 TV). | |
| |  TitoXxPremium
join:2003-03-19
Hamtramck, MI | Re: Nice idea not practical...... most people can get satellite.why do they still bother with cable and their rate increases.I switched to dish 5 1/2 years ago and never looked back. | |
| | | | | Re: Nice idea not practical...... I don't want to sign a contract | |
| | | | TitoXxPremium
join:2003-03-19
Hamtramck, MI | Re: Nice idea not practical...... A 12 mo. contract is nothing.But if u buy your system u dont sign a contract. | |
| | | |  LBDSLLightning BoltVIP
join:2002-01-07
Auburn Hills, MI
3 edits | said by jeffs471:I don't want to sign a contract said by »www.dishtv.com/best_programming_deal.jspPackage Cost FREE ACTIVATION: Pay a $49.99 Activation Fee and a get a $49.99 credit on your first bill.* Hardware: NO COST Programming: $31.99/mo (includes locals where available) DVR Service Fee: $4.98/mo Installation: FREE No Commitment*$49.99 credit on the first bill requires an 18-month commitment to Digital Home Advantage. If qualifying service is terminated prior to end of 18 months, a cancellation fee equal to the lesser of $240 or $13.33 per month for each cancelled month of service will apply. Contract only applies to get free activation.
--
Lightning Bolt Technologies | |
| | | | | | | Re: Nice idea not practical...... Yeah right. one month ago I wanted Directv.
2 year contract with HDTV
$10.99 a month extra for HDTV
$200 for equipment
And if the equipment breaks I have to buy a new one or I could pay them $7 a month for insurance.
In the end Comcast comes out cheaper, no contract and I get better quality (yes you read right). My neighbor has Directv HD and mine blows it away. | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Nice idea not practical...... The link he provided was for DISH NETWORK. DirectTV is a different company. | |
|
| |  novaflareThe Dragon Was HerePremium
join:2002-01-24
Barberton, OH | said by TitoXx:most people can get satellite.why do they still bother with cable and their rate increases.I switched to dish 5 1/2 years ago and never looked back. How much do you pay in total for dish per month with all your programing and how many non duplicate channels do you get?
--
DSLR security chat at us.ausirc.net chanel #dslr_sec lets pack this channelopen source dns server for *nix and windows »powerdns.com | |
| | | | novaflareThe Dragon Was HerePremium
join:2002-01-24
Barberton, OH | Re: Nice idea not practical...... said by novaflare:said by TitoXx:most people can get satellite.why do they still bother with cable and their rate increases.I switched to dish 5 1/2 years ago and never looked back. How much do you pay in total for dish per month with all your programing and how many non duplicate channels do you get? For dish network to get 120 channels would cost me 67.99 for 4 rooms. To bad there are 5 people here each watch something diffrent so got to tag on a extra 5 makeing it 72.99
TWC for digital cable digital phone and road runner is 141 per month no reciever needed for extended basic and no cost.
For digital tier its 59.95 for 2 to 158 thats 13.04 less. Extra box 2.99 so say 4x boxes so all rooms have digital (no extra cost for the service just the box) Total cost for digital in 5 rooms 71.95. Now remember just to get satalite in 5 room means a box for each room where as to just get basic 2 to 62 in every room of your house on every tv is 59.99. No matter how you look at it its cheaper for TWC cable.
Now i have digital home at 141 per month total. Break that down simply deviding by 3 cost 47 dolors per service. So lets have some more math fun. Say you want broadban dsl at 39.95 pluss vonage at 29.99 and dish in 5 rooms. Total price comes out to 142.99 2 dolors more than smart home digital/home. And thats for lower speed dsl to get road runner like 3 megs a secound speeds is more around 50 per month or more so 152 full 10 dolors more.
Dish is far from being cheap. Add in other hidden charges like repair costs cancleation fees etc and yourr talking much much more. 50% of those i know with dish have horrid reception in windy or wet conditions. Yet my cable remans clear all year round. Cable box does tend to crash now and then but thats a 5 minute reset on the box every few days.
--
DSLR security chat at us.ausirc.net chanel #dslr_sec lets pack this channelopen source dns server for *nix and windows »powerdns.com | |
|
| | | | I still bother because I prefer not to disconnect the TVs and recorders that I currently have connected. The price of receivers would likely exceed the cost of the service if I go with satellite. Now when I am forced to go digital, I will have to reevaluate, but until then I will stick with my analog system. | |
| | | | novaflareThe Dragon Was HerePremium
join:2002-01-24
Barberton, OH | Re: Nice idea not practical...... said by raybrett:I still bother because I prefer not to disconnect the TVs and recorders that I currently have connected. The price of receivers would likely exceed the cost of the service if I go with satellite. Now when I am forced to go digital, I will have to reevaluate, but until then I will stick with my analog system. Here each additional digital box is like 1.99 or 2.99 forget wich exactly now. Just dont break the remote those things are expensive. 30 bucks to replace. Now a remote that just goes dead costs you nothing to replace but if its oh i dont know steped on and busted (dont ask heh) they charge you for it heh.
As for digital its funny but 90% of tvs out there are not even capable of useing digital thats what the "converter box" is for. It converts the digital signal to analog so your tv can use it. Any projection big screen tv is analog as is all crts. LCD tv is digital (analog to digital converter in the tv) same for plasma. Not many people have plasma tvs or lcd tvs so your digital cable or satalite does nothing to improve your picture. Digital just lets them provide more channels at this point for most people.
Some one mentioned they get can great picture on hdtvs from arial count your self lucky here theres so much interfearance from cable lines your lucky to be able to get a fuzzy picture from any arial channel. Its like the cable wires have set up a jamming signal that prevents it. Hell its hard to pick up some radio stations on portable walkman like stereos if you below the wires.
--
DSLR security chat at us.ausirc.net chanel #dslr_sec lets pack this channelopen source dns server for *nix and windows »powerdns.com | |
| | | | | | | Re: Nice idea not practical...... Of course, $3.00 per receiver times 13 devices would be $39. Since all of the devices currently have analog tuners, I am not interested in dropping the extra on digital converter boxes. The main reason I went cable initially was to eliminate ghosting of the over the air stations. I don't know if over the air HDTV will ghost here or not, but since I have close to zero interest in HDTV, it may be a while before I find out. Frankly, in my opinion the improvement in picture quality is not enough to justify the additional cost of replacing my equipment. | |
| | | | | | | Your not very accurate in what you are saying. The closer to the TV the provider is able to get a pure digital signal the better it is going to be. The beauty of digital is that it is good or it is nothing. You can't have a fuzzy digital picture.
I would strongly disagree with your comment that analog TV's do not benefit from having the digital signal not getting converted until it is in a box on top of the TV. Even though the TV is not digital itself and has to have the signal converted to analog, it is working with a cleaner version of the picture to begin with. This is why DirecTV looks much better on any TV in my house then the analog cable does. That is a fact and is clearly evident by the naked eye.
There is not a TV out there and there never will be one that does not eventually convert a digital signal to analog because a human cant comprehend digital. Therefore the longer it stays digital and the better it is converted, the higher the quality. | |
| | | | | | novaflareThe Dragon Was HerePremium
join:2002-01-24
Barberton, OH | Re: Nice idea not practical...... said by Skippy25:Your not very accurate in what you are saying. The closer to the TV the provider is able to get a pure digital signal the better it is going to be. The beauty of digital is that it is good or it is nothing. You can't have a fuzzy digital picture. I would strongly disagree with your comment that analog TV's do not benefit from having the digital signal not getting converted until it is in a box on top of the TV. Even though the TV is not digital itself and has to have the signal converted to analog, it is working with a cleaner version of the picture to begin with. This is why DirecTV looks much better on any TV in my house then the analog cable does. That is a fact and is clearly evident by the naked eye. There is not a TV out there and there never will be one that does not eventually convert a digital signal to analog because a human cant comprehend digital. Therefore the longer it stays digital and the better it is converted, the higher the quality. Well heres the thing not every channel coming ofver the wire started as a digital signal many start as analog. Thus they are converted to digital and sent to you at that point the cable converter converts back to analog before sending the signal out to your tv. What does that mean exactly? Not a whole lot if the signal is good and strong and not being screwed up along the way some where. But if you got a bad cable in your house outside your house or up the road you loose signal power. So in the final conversion to analog you loose quality. This is what causes the pixlation youll see now and then on digital cable. In a perfect world all signals would be broadcast in digital and your tv would use digital.
--
DSLR security chat at us.ausirc.net chanel #dslr_sec lets pack this channelopen source dns server for *nix and windows »powerdns.com | |
| | | | | | | BiggA
join:2005-11-23
EARTH Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: Nice idea not practical...... The idea of competition (unlike the uncompetitive BB market) was the idea of my original post. Although in a few areas where you are way close to the cableco, analog may look fine, didgital is better. The best is hybrid with digital simulcast for alll channels, so the 65" TV can have a digital HD box, and then the 13 other tvs can have analog on the cheap. | |
|
 en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | hopefully the junk channels will go away Of course they like it - they can charge $10/10 channels or what ever form of channel bundling they want. In some ways, I actually hope that this will filter out the TV spam (cr@p) channels, as they will have to survive on their own merrit.
Good: Hopefully better over all TV channels
Bad: Price / channel will be significantly higher
Overall: Currently 500+ channels and nothing on. Will 20 channels of my picking be better for me - I think it might. I do think that large corporations that own many networks may benefit from it. I.e. Fox/DirecTv - anything Fox owns will be bundled for you, while other networks may be more expensive. | |
|  mbernsteBoostedPremium,MVM
join:2001-06-30
Piscataway, NJ | Cablevision "can't just do it" With all the "include the crappy channel" contracts that they have with Time Warner (HBO) Disney (ESPN) and Viacom (CBS), they can't offer a la carte until those contracts expire. Once they do expire, they would need federal law to be passed to prevent the content providers of such bundling. Once that is done, then, and only then can Cablevision offer a la carte.
--
Comcast BBQ | |
| | PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR | Re: Cablevision "can't just do it" said by mbernste:With all the "include the crappy channel" contracts that they have with Time Warner (HBO) Disney (ESPN) and Viacom (CBS), they can't offer a la carte until those contracts expire. Once they do expire, they would need federal law to be passed to prevent the content providers of such bundling. Once that is done, then, and only then can Cablevision offer a la carte. That's Right! Look at all the squabbling between the content providers and the distributors about which channels get included in the "basic" package; e.g., OLN and Dish Network. Unless the law changes, the content providers will never go along with a la carte, because they want to boost the ratings of their less-popular channels. | |
| | |  dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | Re: Cablevision "can't just do it" said by PDXPLT:Unless the law changes, the content providers will never go along with a la carte, because they want to boost the ratings of their less-popular channels. Those channels wont get any better ratings if nobody is watching them. I say let them die out naturally if nobody is watching them, they're just a waste of bandwidth. And it burns me that i have to subsidize those people that like sports. if you want it, you should pay for it like people that want HBO pay for it.
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth | |
| | |  Jmartz
join:2000-07-20
Tenafly, NJ | A La Carte does not mean Dish Network has to carry OLN though...... | |
|
 WorkinClsDogFormer VoIP EngineerPremium,VIP
join:2003-01-01
Piscataway, NJ
1 edit | I don't buy this -- not one bit Cablevision really, truly wants Ala Carte -- ok sure... right... next they'll be saying that they are glad FIOS is coming to their neck of the woods.
People have asked for Ala Carte for years... if they actually thought it was good thing, the Dolans would have done it many moons ago.
Also - say goodbye to those "sweetheart" deals that big cableco's are getting from multi-channel powerhouses like Disney and Viacom - if cable doesn't bundle them and have leverage to toss them into a forced level of service... then the channel owners have no incentive to offer deals to them.
--
WCD
Brian: Hey, barkeep, whose leg do you have to hump to get a dry martini around here?
| |
| | uvacow
join:2002-09-02
Charlottesville, VA | Re: I don't buy this -- not one bit excuse me, can you explain how "sweetheart" these deals are??
From what I can gather, it is those same networks that hold their basic channels hostage for teir expensive cable channels | |
| | | WorkinClsDogFormer VoIP EngineerPremium,VIP
join:2003-01-01
Piscataway, NJ
1 edit | Re: I don't buy this -- not one bit the "sweetheart" piece is for the cableco - not the average ratepayer like you and me 
the cableco can promise say 2.5 million basic subscribers if they toss (for example) Toon Disney into expanded basic... vs only let's say 1 mil if it's in Digital Basic - that gives a large cableco leverage for Disney to cut them a deal... but noone's saying that the savings ever shakes down to the consumer
With Ala Carte - and no more bundling - channel pricing will VERY likely go up, not down... and many smaller channels which have benefitted from bundling (E!, TV Guide, Bravo, Discovery, TLC, etc and pretty much any NEWER channel) will see their ratings tank and they will likely go belly up.
On the other hand, the Sports channels which are always in demand from hardcore fans will likely raise their rates per subscriber sky-high (these are already the most expensive on a per-subscriber basis) to compensate for the big loss of revenue from those of us out there who don't want or need 12 channels of sports... this also translates to more money out of pocket.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to cut down the number of useless channels on my dial - but ala carte doesn't mean lower rates in any scenario that I've ever heard mapped out.
--
WCD
Brian: Hey, barkeep, whose leg do you have to hump to get a dry martini around here?
| |
| | | | Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: I don't buy this -- not one bit said by WorkinClsDog:With Ala Carte - and no more bundling - channel pricing will VERY likely go up, not down... and many smaller channels which have benefitted from bundling (E!, TV Guide, Bravo, Discovery, TLC, etc and pretty much any NEWER channel) will see their ratings tank and they will likely go belly up..... ...Don't get me wrong, I'd love to cut down the number of useless channels on my dial - but ala carte doesn't mean lower rates in any scenario that I've ever heard mapped out. I don't think anybody knows what will happen under ala carte. But I'm sure the cable companies are scared to death a lot of people will pick just a handful of channels and their bill will be lower, even at a higher price/channel rate. Also, having more viewers getting more channels gives the cable companies better advertising numbers and they don't want to see those numbers go down.
I think you are exactly right about some channels tanking, but I doubt it will be the ones you listed. More likely, channels like "ninja bonsai gardening" will bite the bullet. | |
|
jfwjxn
join:2002-03-26
Portage, MI | A la carte means set top boxes... Of course Cablevision likes this. If the FCC requires A La Carte, the cable companies can start requiring everyone to have a set top box, and then rake in the profits from that. Plus the fact in the end it will not amount to a better deal for "power watchers." | |
| | WorkinClsDogFormer VoIP EngineerPremium,VIP
join:2003-01-01
Piscataway, NJ | Re: A la carte means set top boxes... said by jfwjxn:Of course Cablevision likes this. If the FCC requires A La Carte, the cable companies can start requiring everyone to have a set top box I don't think so - at least the way the regulatory environment is now - the FCC would have to shake up the rules a bit -
Set Top Boxes are not allowed to be "required" to provide basic services, and if I believe as such a cableco can not legally require one (look at Cable Cards as an example - they are legally mandated so that homes don't have to get a STB)
It will be interesting to see how the FCC spins this whole thing out and makes it work...
--
WCD
Brian: Hey, barkeep, whose leg do you have to hump to get a dry martini around here?
| |
| | | | | Re: A la carte means set top boxes... You could use a cable card but then the cable company will just raise the cost to rent a cable card up to $5. | |
| | | marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | said by WorkinClsDog:Set Top Boxes are not allowed to be "required" to provide basic services, and if I believe as such a cableco can not legally require one (look at Cable Cards as an example - they are legally mandated so that homes don't have to get a STB) A la carte channels do not have to be offered on analog though. It was a ruling the FCC made a couple of years ago, after which many cable companies got rid of analog hbo and cinemax. The FCC could have stopped at premium movie channels, but they didn't. So, you can either have a digital ready tv with cable card, or get a set top box. Basic services as defined by the local franchise still would have to be offered analog (and would still be a package), and everyone getting a la carte would be required to subscribe to basic services.
There is an exception though. If a system converts to all digital (like a true a la carte system), then set top boxes can be required of even basic subscribers.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://whip.isca.uiowa.edu
Member: American Association of Geographers, American Geophysical Union, American Water Resources Association | |
|
| | Idea is great but... At the end of the day, content is basically a fixed cost for a given number of channels (say that 150 channels are currently available). So, if "a la carte" programming is really a way for each and everyone to pick and choose the 20 channels or so that they really care about and lower the monthly bill, then the overall revenue will go down, and won't be able to support all the current channels. IMHO, a la carte programming will simply raise the cost of each channel so that at the end of the day, we are still paying the same monthly fee but have less channels to choose from. The most realistic scenario is that "a la carte" pricing will end up happening but each channel will be priced so high that only people who watch 10 channels or less will benefit, while the rest of us will continue buying the same "discounted" bundle of channels.
The current system means that we're subsidizing each other's viewing habits. I like Speed, G4, Sundance, IFC, DIY and a few others, don't care for ESPN and the religious channels while my neighbor is the exact opposite. His bill subsidizes my channels and I subsidize his. At the end of the day we all have more choices, and it's not that bad. If we really want to lower the monthly bill, the best way is to foster competition by letting the Bells join in the fray as fast as possible. | |
|  dadkinsCan you do Blu?Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
kudos:18 | I still want an explaination WTF do I need with the 7 non-english channels that are in my lineup?
What gives with the freakin Golf Channel?
Anyone?
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera | |
| |
See 7 replies to this post | |
| | dishnetwork I'm not sure about now, but I know for sure that Dishnetwork offered a la carte programming about 5 years ago. You could order just the movie channels and not have anything else.
Of course they charged you a little extra for this option, but it was nice that they offered this.
I can't say much about Directv, their prices are insane and they claim to offer more channels than Dishnetwork, but in reality they don't. As far as cable tv goes, well I don't see this happening ever...for that matter I doubt anyone will do it...because they'll lose too much money...everyone will be ordering what they want. | |
| | | CV's achilles heel Then you'd REALLY be able to compare channel-to-channel Cablevision's Price vs Verizon's price for such marquis channels such as HBO, CNN, Telemundo, etc. =-)
But, much like the oil companies saying they'll help lower prices.. much doesn't really materialize, ever. | |
| dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | My picks My picks would be:
Spike TV
USA network
Court TV
A&E
Animal planet
Discovery Science channel
TV Land
Game show network
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth | |
|  digiblurGot Sipura?Premium
join:2002-06-03
Louisiana | Not with analog cable Of course they would love to do the "a la carte", it would allow them an excuse to convert the hybrid analog/digital system to a full digital system. You could never do "a la carte" with analog. You'd have a filter for every channel you did or didn't want, based on how they did it.
I remember the days of the almost "a la carte" on C-Band.....
--
FWD#64466(6PM-11PM GMT-5)
»[Sipura] Make your Sipura Speak! - GetSipura Guide
And now for the PAP2-NA and unlocked PAP2's. | |
| | Jmartz
join:2000-07-20
Tenafly, NJ | Re: Not with analog cable Everyone should be very afraid of ANYTHING Cablevision supports... just look at their track record of failed or horrible services. | |
|
| | What's bad for Disney is good for America A la carte would definitely hold down programming costs. It would be bad for the Viacoms and Disneys of the world, and also bad for the NFL and Hollywood (less money chasing their products). Great for consumers. | |
| | Jmartz
join:2000-07-20
Tenafly, NJ | Re: What's bad for Disney is good for America Nah, basically what will happen is the Viacom's of this era will just fold up their "themed" channels, and just have one channel that shows all the stuff the 6 other channels used to show. MTV, VH1, VH1 Soul, MTV Hits, etc. all get combined into one channel that will play a variety of MUSIC. Maybe have two channels... another one for all the crap that MTV and VH1 run when they are not playing music videos.. but that's it. I just can not see Viacom keeping all the channels going at once. Especially since the channels Viacom own all seem to be the same exact type of channels... just with different programming, names, logos, etc.
--
[BetaNews | phpBB |MSN TerraServer |Space Imaging] | |
|
| |
|
|
