  newviewEx .. Ex .. ExactlyPremium
join:2001-10-01
Parsonsburg, MD
kudos:1 | ... tell me about it I know exactly what you mean Verizon ... I hate paying for channels I don't watch either ... like the entire Viacom networks and ESPN. | |
|
 |  Camelot OnePremium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Greenwood, IN
kudos:1 | Re: ... tell me about it It it were anyone other than Verizon, I would say this would blow up in their face when users such as yourself use their own argument against them.
But with the Verizon lobby machine, they might just get this to fly. We pay for 500 channels, they pay only for the dozen or so people actually watch.
--
Intel i7-2600k /ASRock P67 Extreme4 /4x 4Gb G.Skill /2x Intel 510 series 250Gb SSD /3x WD20EADS 2TB /2x PNY GTX 260 /Silverstone 850W /Custom water cooler /Antec Twelve-Hundred | |
|
| |  BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: ... tell me about it said by Camelot One:But with the Verizon lobby machine, they might just get this to fly. We pay for 500 channels, they pay only for the dozen or so people actually watch. And people that don't watch your channels are paying for them so you can watch them. | |
|
| | | ...Complains They're Paying For Channels Nobody is Watching
| |
|
|  LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | If this is actually followed thru on and other ISPs pick it up, this has the potential to kill dozens of the channels almost nobody watches. Maybe then the big content companies will stop bundling their dog networks along with the 1 or 2 that people actually watch. | |
|
| |  NPGMBR
join:2001-03-28
Arlington, VA | Re: ... tell me about it If anything they should get rid of all those music channels with the crap sound quality that I don't listen to. I wonder how much that would lower my bill. | |
|
| | | | its not about ISPs. its about MSOs. | |
|
| | This is a great idea.... I look forward to when Verizon passes on the savings to me and only bills me for the channels that I watch.
Do I really need to explain that was sarcasm? | |
|
| | | Re: This is a great idea.... it actually says in the WSJ article that customer bills won't decrease. this is about saving verizon money, which we won't see a dime of. | |
|
| |  skeechanAi OtsukaholicPremium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2 | Re: This is a great idea.... Unless you get a dividend statement. | |
|
| | | | There is a good possibility bills won't increase for a while though. | |
|
| | | skeechanAi OtsukaholicPremium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2 | Re: This is a great idea.... They have no problem raising HSI rates in the face of competition? What makes you think they wouldn't still raise video rates in the face of competition? | |
|
| | | | | | Re: This is a great idea.... Because video rates are getting too high and they know it. They may not be willing to admit it, but they know that with every price increase the chance of someone cord cutting also increases. They need to back off on the price increase on video for a while. | |
|
| | | | | skeechanAi OtsukaholicPremium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2 | Re: This is a great idea.... Same could be said for HSI yet they are not deterred from price increases. | |
|
| | | | | | | | Re: This is a great idea.... But the internet doesn't have a competing service that only costs $7.99 per month for unlimited use. | |
|
| | | | | | | skeechanAi OtsukaholicPremium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2 | Re: This is a great idea.... Verizon doesn't have a competitor than only costs $8 for over 100 channels of first run programming either. | |
|
| | | | | | | | DonLibesPremium,ExMod 2001
join:2003-01-19 | Re: This is a great idea.... True but quite irrelevant to more and more people who who realize that first-run programming is not a big deal. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | skeechanAi OtsukaholicPremium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2 | Re: This is a great idea.... Tell that to the 100M+ households with "cable" TV. | |
|
| | | | | | | | They are raising HSI rates to encourage people to Cut the cord. They are doing everything they can to get people off HSI as long as there is FIOS in that area they want people on that instead. And if not then they will squeeze what they can out of you until enough people have dropped where they can go back to the regulators and say Look no one wants this service can't we get rid of it. Then sell it off to some other small telco that can't maintain it. | |
|
| | | | | | | skeechanAi OtsukaholicPremium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2 | Re: This is a great idea.... They aren't trying to get FiOS HSI customers to cut the cord yet they are continuously raising HSI rates. | |
|
| | | |  dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | said by skeechan:They have no problem raising HSI rates in the face of competition? What makes you think they wouldn't still raise video rates in the face of competition?
hsi rates are going up because of cord cutting. LEGACY VIDEO subsidizes hsi, when those revenues dry up, gotta jack up hsi.
--
Despises any post with strings. | |
|
| | | | | skeechanAi OtsukaholicPremium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2 | Re: This is a great idea.... They're jacking it up because they can. It has nothing to do with cord cutting. | |
|
| | | | | |  AVDRespice, Adspice, ProspicePremium
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ
kudos:1 | Re: This is a great idea.... said by skeechan:They're jacking it up because they can. It has nothing to do with cord cutting.
exactly! supply and demand. The provider will jack up the price as high as the market can bear.
--
* seek help if having trouble coping
--Standard disclaimers apply.-- | |
|
|  n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY | said by ptbarnett:I look forward to when Verizon passes on the savings to me and only bills me for the channels that I watch.
Do I really need to explain that was sarcasm?
ROTFLMAO! So true! In fact, your rates will probably go up to pay for the monitoring system.
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears. | |
|
| BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | said by ptbarnett:I look forward to when Verizon passes on the savings to me and only bills me for the channels that I watch.
Do I really need to explain that was sarcasm?
Won't happen due to logic.
Cable company XYZ say 5 million customers. Pays 20 cents per sub per month for Channel X. So that's $1 mil per month for Channel X. Say only 500,000 customers actually watch Channel X.
Cable company on wants to pay for actual viewers. Ok now Channel X charges $2 per sub then. Chanel X still gets $1 mil. Your bill is still the same, but you get fewer channels. But you can feel good you have the "power" to only pay for only the channels you actually watch. Sounds awesome. | |
|
| | | | Re: This is a great idea.... Frankly, I don't have any problem paying more for the channels that I watch, just because they are no longer spreading the cost to people that don't watch the channel. I already make that choice for the "premium" channels. I wouldn't mind making that choice for all of them.
If Verizon is going to start tracking how long I watch any given channel, they can easily bill me accordingly. HBO is 5 cents/hour, and HGTV is 1 cent/hour. QVC can pay Verizon 1 cent/hour if I watch that channel.
(I'm not proposing these are the actual rates -- I'm just using them as an example). | |
|
| | | BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: This is a great idea.... said by ptbarnett:Frankly, I don't have any problem paying more for the channels that I watch, just because they are no longer spreading the cost to people that don't watch the channel. I already make that choice for the "premium" channels. I wouldn't mind making that choice for all of them.
If Verizon is going to start tracking how long I watch any given channel, they can easily bill me accordingly. HBO is 5 cents/hour, and HGTV is 1 cent/hour. QVC can pay Verizon 1 cent/hour if I watch that channel.
(I'm not proposing these are the actual rates -- I'm just using them as an example).
HBO being a premium channel wouldn't be subject to this. | |
|
| | | | The only post I have ever agreed with you on 
"Ala-Carte Convenience Fee - $19.99" also | |
|
| AVDRespice, Adspice, ProspicePremium
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ
kudos:1 | said by ptbarnett:I look forward to when Verizon passes on the savings to me and only bills me for the channels that I watch.
Do I really need to explain that was sarcasm?
its going to be the opposite, there will be the equavalent of data caps and overages on your video consumption.
--
* seek help if having trouble coping
--Standard disclaimers apply.-- | |
|
Reviews:
 ·Frontier Communi..
| al la carte We really need al la carte, turn Verizon into a dumb pipe and let consumers purchase the channels directly from the content providers, much the same way as my electric utility delivers the juice that I purchase on my own from a supplier. You'll never get to purchase TNT without CNN, Disney without ESPN, or A&E without History, but at the very least you could choose which content companies you want to do business with. Heck, perhaps they would allow you to get Disney without ESPN, though I'm sure you'd pay more for the privilege.
Everybody wins under this scenario, Verizon isn't paying royalties, you're not paying for channels you aren't watching, and the smaller content providers with small but loyal followings don't get shut out because ESPN raised their royalty rate yet again.
Of course, "everybody wins" is exactly why it won't happen. | |
|
| CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picturePremium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:1 | Re: al la carte Everyone but the shareholders. Since there is a great deal of profit collected for channels no one watches, they will resist any attempts at ala carte imposed on themselves. | |
|
| | | | Re: al la carte what a sad truth. | |
|
| | | Smaller stations and start-ups dont win either.... | |
|
| | | | Re: al la carte Please provide some detail as to why your blanket statement with no facts is true.
If smaller stations and startups dont have to pay X per ALL subscribers simply because the startup wants to carry the line does it not benefit them in requiring less capital and expense to support their service? | |
|
| | AVDRespice, Adspice, ProspicePremium
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ
kudos:1 | said by ITALIAN926:Smaller stations and start-ups dont win either....
sure they do, they go to youtube subscription service and distribute for free.
--
* seek help if having trouble coping
--Standard disclaimers apply.-- | |
|
| BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | said by Crookshanks:We really need al la carte, turn Verizon into a dumb pipe and let consumers purchase the channels directly from the content providers, much the same way as my electric utility delivers the juice that I purchase on my own from a supplier. You'll never get to purchase TNT without CNN, Disney without ESPN, or A&E without History, but at the very least you could choose which content companies you want to do business with. Heck, perhaps they would allow you to get Disney without ESPN, though I'm sure you'd pay more for the privilege.
Everybody wins under this scenario, Verizon isn't paying royalties, you're not paying for channels you aren't watching, and the smaller content providers with small but loyal followings don't get shut out because ESPN raised their royalty rate yet again.
Of course, "everybody wins" is exactly why it won't happen.
You think you'll be paying less but you won't. You'll be paying about the same for fewer channels. You think the networks will charge the same rates if they are getting less money.
For example TNT cost about $1 per sub and it's pretty popular. If they went ala carte you think you'd still pay $1? If 1/3 subscribed you can bet they'd charge $3. The fact is most people would pay the same or more and get less. A small % that watch very few channels would save. Then you have to winder why bother having pay TV at all if one watches that little of it?
People have their delusional fantasy that if ala carte came their cable bills will magically be cut in half or more. It's fantasy. | |
|
| | | | Re: al la carte i am in a different category. i only have the lowest basic cable package,(no premium channels). i used to have a higher bundle package, but they kept moving the few channels that i DID like, to an even higher,more expensive bundle. and i only watch minimal TV at that. so i just dropped down to the lowest package, so i would still have local news and PBS. if there were an a la carte option for me to add the two or three channels that i would like to add, even at 3 or 4 dollars per, i would do it. that would raise my bill from about 25 to maybe 35 or 40. still much less than the previuos type of bundle that i did have.
and if i were close enough to any of the local channels for OTA bunny ears, i would cut cable entirely. unfortunately, i am 55 miles from any broadcast transmitter, and buildings and terrain obscure those.
so i guess i am in the minority, someone who has the smallest bill possible, and who would pay some small amount more for only 2-3 extra channels. but i can dream! | |
|
| | | | | Re: al la carte Have you considered a hoverman antenna for OTA? If all you need it for is for local news and PBS you should easily be able to get both with OTA for the cost of a sub $20 DIY antenna.
The bunny ears antennas are a jokr, throw the hoverman in the attic or on a pole in the yard and you'll more then likely get some decent reception. | |
|
| | CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picturePremium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:1 Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| said by BF69:You think you'll be paying less but you won't. You'll be paying about the same for fewer channels.
I agree that's what the cable companies would try to do (and may succeed) BUT:
1) Hopefully, content providers would set a maximum price a cable company could charge as part of their agreement
2) As people drop channels from their current packages, their bill will HAVE TO go down... maybe not as much as they are expecting, but their bills will be lower. Depending on how they implement their 'price lowering algorithm', they could open themselves up to lawsuits. | |
|
| | This seems to be part of the opening salvos.... ....in a broader attack on the content companies.
Cablevision is suing Viacom over bundling and now Verizon is suing over ratings. This could be the start of a full blown war between the 2 sides that will not be good for consumers. No matter who wins, consumers will pay more somehow. | |
|
|
See 8 replies to this post |
|
Reviews:
 ·VoicePulse
| Will Verizon Charge Customers Only For Channels Watched? Will Verizon only charge THEIR customers for the channels they watch? Of course not. They will charge THEIR customers for an entire package of mostly unwanted and unneeded channels while demanding that their cable broadcast (channel) vendors only get paid from them based on what is watched. | |
|
 meskinctMad Scientist at WorkPremium
join:2002-01-07
Southbury, CT
1 edit | DSL and Phone Bundle And why exactly do they require phone and DSL service if you only want DSL? Hmmm. Nice try Verizon.
--
Rich. My Website | |
|
| Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..
| Re: DSL and Phone Bundle Because the copper plant is not cheap to maintain, it costs them nothing extra to provide both services, but they get more revenue they can use to maintain that plant?
Same reason why your local MSO charges you substantially more for internet if you opt not to get their TV or phone packages. | |
|
| | | | Re: DSL and Phone Bundle So drop phone service and run data instead. Data can provide an equivalent to phone service via VoIP very easily. But for the POTS to deliver equivalent data? You best be joking if you think even the fastest modem under ideal situations can keep up with the average data connection. | |
|
djcrazy
join:2009-08-05
Minneapolis, MN | LOL! Verizon customers, you will not save any money at all. I think most of you know this already. Any savings will stay at the top. | |
|
SunnyD
join:2009-03-20
Madison, AL | The holy grail of metered billing... Except where it would actually hurt our bottom line.
- Verizon. | |
|
 morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
 ·Charter
| Verizon wants a la carte for themselves; not for consumers It's great to see a provider admit that a la carte pricing will save money. Paying only for content used is a great model. Verizon proposing this new pay system for themselves at least means they cannot claim that if implemented, consumers won't also save money. | |
|
| | | Re: Verizon wants a la carte for themselves; not for consumers You clearly did not read the article as they said exactly that.
The proposal, if implemented, wouldn't reduce FiOS subscribers' cable bills, Mr. Denson said. But over time, he said, he hoped the shift would "stabilize retail prices for consumers," unless more people started watching smaller and midsize channels. If retail prices increase, "it would be due to consumer consumption," he said. | |
|
| | morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 Reviews:
·Charter
| Re: Verizon wants a la carte for themselves; not for consumers If an a la carte consumer model is rolled out, it will save consumers money just like it is saving Verizon money. Under the current bundling model, the provider will eat all the savings because they can. There is no way to roll back prices in a way that makes sense until a new use model is implemented. | |
|
| | kevinds
join:2003-05-01
Calgary, AB
kudos:1 | This was the part that confused me,
If retail prices increase, "it would be due to consumer consumption,"
Consumer bills wouldn't go down, but they could go up depending on how much TV was watched?
--
Yes, I am not employed and looking for IT work. Have passport, will travel. | |
|
| | | | | Re: Verizon wants a la carte for themselves; not for consumers Of course it wouldnt go down. They would just use it as more profit until all providers or at least a somewhat competitive set can start putting pressure on each other. If that doesnt happen, then it is collusion on their part.
There is no true competition being that all providers are "forced" to take it or leave it and have no real leverage to negotiate with content owners as a result.
Systems are now advance enough that they can certainly do a la cart and the STB's can certainly track channel usage for a system like what Verizon is proposing.
One other benefit to this would be same pricing for all. There are no diminishing cost related to a larger order here. It doesnt matter if a content owner gets 100 million, 10 million or 1 million viewers of their content. The cost to deliver it to all those existing eyeballs is fixed and paid for so a small ISP should not have to pay any more than Comcast for the exact same content.
Utilizing existing contract prices would be a good start. If ESPN really thinks their channel is worth $5.04 per subscriber, then that is what they get for every household that views at least 5 minutes of ESPN each month. More realistically - if they think their channels is worth $50.4 million per month and only 2 million watch it, then they are clearly living a pipe dream and better find a way to either A.) get 8 million more a month to watch it or B.) Find a way to get those 2 million to pay $25.20 a month for the channel. | |
|
| | No problem with me Look at it this way, if Verizon makes this happen, the networks that don't really get watched may go away. This frees up provider capacity, which in turn allows the company to deliver a higher quality product that actually gets watched.
Ah who am I kidding, Verizon would never do that. But the smaller companies that are still private and still give a crap about their customers actually would.
And the biggest bonus is; the people that participate in Nielsen, who I believe are actually lying, will no longer have any control over whats on the air. Could you imagine how much better the advertising gets and the content gets, when the ratings represent hard facts rather than perceived reality based upon what people choose to write down in their neilsen books. | |
|
| | | Re: No problem with me I don't think Neilsen has used the little books for quite some time. They had in the 80's when my friend was a Neilson household, a black box connected to the tv which called into and reported back to Neilsen every night in the middle of the night. Only was on the 1 tv though which Mom and dad watched. Never captured what the kids were watching in the playroom. | |
|
| | Vz says No price decrease for customer Vz and the article specifically states
"The proposal, if implemented, wouldn't reduce FiOS subscribers' cable bills, Mr. Denson said." | |
|
blushrts
join:2001-01-06
New Cumberland, PA | Won't lower rates This won't do anything to our rates, any savings will go directly into Verizon's pockets. The other thing this will do is kill of that cool niche channel that you like that no one else watches. | |
|
 linicxCaveat EmptorPremium
join:2002-12-03
United State
·CenturyLink
| It's just one more way to cherry pick Cable operators get content from two sources: OTA or a provider. The piggy-back infomercial drive the bottom line.
When I had a big dish there were 3-4 providers that packaged popular content. There was also ala carte packages like HBO and ESPN. With those packages you did receive only one channel. You receive all 7 channels (HBO) for one price; Then it was $6/mo. I received Canadian TV, music from the Caribbean, news from Germany and other OTA. No local channels but I could buy AN ABC, CBS,NBC and PBS package for $2. For $30 a month I had most of the stuff I wanted to watch and no informercials.
Those days are gone. Today I have a phone and net bundle from telco and Dish TV. It is cheaper than the telco bundle with Direct TV, and considerably cheaper than cable by at least $50. When one lives in rural America, we quickly learn that vaseline serves many purposes.  Treating battery posts is just one example. . .
--
Mac: No windows, No Gates, Apple inside | |
|
| | Its still Double dipping Broadcasters are still double dipping, even if we pay A-La Cart they get paid 2 times. Once by the Advertisers that run commercials during the shows, and then again by the Cable company who was paid by the consumer. So that means US.
The Rule should be If you are a channel and you run commercials paid for by advertisers then you can NOT charge cable company's to carry your channel. That's it... no fancy if this then that crap.. no loop holes. If you run commercials then you can't charge viewers. If you want to charge viewers then no commercials and put on good stuff and we will buy your channel. | |
|
| BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: Its still Double dipping said by mikesterr:Broadcasters are still double dipping, even if we pay A-La Cart they get paid 2 times. Once by the Advertisers that run commercials during the shows, and then again by the Cable company who was paid by the consumer. So that means US.
The Rule should be If you are a channel and you run commercials paid for by advertisers then you can NOT charge cable company's to carry your channel. That's it... no fancy if this then that crap.. no loop holes. If you run commercials then you can't charge viewers. If you want to charge viewers then no commercials and put on good stuff and we will buy your channel.
Then expect MORE commercials. More infomercials. More cheap reality shows. Forget any shows that are of decent quality ever. Those will be relegated to the HBO, Showtimes of the world where people happily pay $15 a month each. More repeats of old shows and repeats in general. No network, broadcast or cable, is going to lose revenue by either forgoing payments from TV providers or getting rid of commercials without making that lost revenue up somewhere. That's just the facts. | |
|
| | satellite and cable always use popular shows to subsidize If you could a la carte, television would be a heck of a lot cheaper, as you would not need to subsize.
Here in Canuck land, we pay for language based channels most would never pay for if we had a choice. I even have to navigate a search function that always plugs in dual language options even if I have the thing set for English only. It's such a pain.
It's worse than having to push 1 for English, instead of having it default to that automatically.
I'd rather pay for what I want, rather than support a bunch of stuff I don't want. I'd have maybe 10 channels then, plus the pay per views, since that is all we need in our house, not a bunch of channels repeated across the country ( I don't consider that a feature, I consider that marketing BS, they aren't different channels if they show the same stuff). | |
|
| BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: satellite and cable always use popular shows to subsidize said by Probitas :If you could a la carte, television would be a heck of a lot cheaper, as you would not need to subsize. You have that backwards. Ok ESPN is $5 a month and that's with everyone sharing the cost. Now say only 20% watch ESPN. Well for that 20% ESPN will now be $20-$25 a month. Hardly savings. But you can do that for ALL the popular networks. People have this fantasy that somehow the channels pricing structure will remain the same under a la carte. | |
|
| |  Great!
| |
|
BiggA
join:2005-11-23
EARTH | Great idea I'm just trying to figure out if it will cause the channels to make better quality content, or more trashy content... | |
|
| | This is how it'd work Okay Say your paying $50.00 a month now,(just saying, i don't know what the packages cost). What they'll do is charge a $45.00 connection fee. Cheaper right? But then they'll charge $5.00 for the package that lets you pick your channels then they'll charge for the channels themselves. You'll end paying more, but they can say they dropped the price. | |
|
|
|
