Dagda1175
join:2001-06-17
Goleta, CA | Personal Responsibility?
Morons. If you don't like MTV, use your v-chip. Thats what its there for. Don't make the rest of us pay more for a new system that lets you stop being an attentive parent. |
|
EL_TB
join:2003-05-03
Fairfax, VA | It seemed good to me until I realized I would probabaly get less channels and would have to pay more. |
|
reub2000
Premium
join:2001-12-28
Evanston, IL | To make up for this.....
For every channel that goes up by 20x, there are 20 channels that I don't want. Channels like speed, hsn, that religios channel, most news channels, espn, fsn, |
|
DonLibes
Premium,ExMod 2001
join:2003-01-19
| reply to Dagda1175
Re: Personal Responsibility?
said by Dagda1175  :
Morons. If you don't like MTV, use your v-chip. Thats what its there for. Don't make the rest of us pay more for a new system that lets you stop being an attentive parent.
It's not a matter of turning the channel. Right now, you're *forced* to pay for channels you don't want in order to get ones you do want. 15 years ago, this made sense. But with current technology there is no excuse for it.
The cable companies argue that rates would go up and diversity would suffer. But I do not find their logic compelling. (And I never asked for a v-chip either. Why the hell am I being forced to pay for it.) |
|
Laggy
join:2002-05-07
Indianapolis, IN
| Only good if the price is right
If I could get only sci-fi (rarely watch it), history, and discovery for $10-15, with no other costs other than my cable internet, which itself is overpriced. Then I would be happy.
Out of the 70 channels we do have I watch maybe 5. I'd love to be able to get some sort of discount and get just the 5 channels that I do watch. I know it would end up costing way more than I pay now though if such a system was put in place. |
|
RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs: | Have a better idea
Boycott the greedy so-and-sos. Except too many Americans (US type) depend on the boob tube for various reasons.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. |
|
Joe12345678
join:2003-07-22
Des Plaines, IL
| reply to Laggy
Re: Only good if the price is right
said by Laggy :
If I could get only sci-fi (rarely watch it), history, and discovery for $10-15, with no other costs other than my cable internet, which itself is overpriced. Then I would be happy.
Out of the 70 channels we do have I watch maybe 5. I'd love to be able to get some sort of discount and get just the 5 channels that I do watch. I know it would end up costing way more than I pay now though if such a system was put in place.
sci-fi kicks ass |
|
dweeb
join:2002-06-23
Ferndale, MI | reply to Laggy
This is going to be a huge mistake. Its going to end up costing $40 to get 10 stations. Don't think the tv companies are going to take a loss. |
|
Splitpair
Premium
join:2000-07-29
Cow Towne
 ·T-Mobile US
| Thats Discovery Channel Baloney
I would like to find where they get their numbers from. I pay $3.88 per quarter for Discovery A La Carte.
»www.bigdish.com/satala.htm
Splitpair
--
If you can't fix it with a buttset and some beanies you ain't a technician. |
|
Morac
join:2001-08-30
Riverside, NJ
 ·Comcast
| A La Carte should lead to cable competition
I think one of the reasons cable companies and some programmers are against a la carte channels is because they realize it could lead to competition which would eat into their profits.
The same technology that would allow buy cable channels a la carte, would also allow cable competition without laying down more lines.
Basically a la carte requires digital cable. It could be done with traps, but that really isn't feasible.
The thing about digital cable, is that it is just data. So just like your DSL provider can be different from the local phone company (which owns the phone lines) and in certain areas your ISP doesn't have to be your local cable companies, the cable company providing your channels doesn't need to be your local cable company. Your local cable company would charge another company a certain price for access to its lines.
Of course the local cable company would never do this willing so it would need to be mandated by the FTC or BPU just like how phone companies are mandated to allow competitors access to their lines.
If this came to pass then your local cable company could be Comcast, but the one providing the channels could be Time Warner or even the channel owner themselves.
--
The Comcast Disney Avatar has been retired. |
|
bokamba
Chengdu Rocks
Premium
join:2002-04-05
Falls Church, VA | Possible math behind the $6.33 figure
Perhaps they calculate that if you got only the Discovery Channel, you would pay $6.33 per month. I bet if you ordered an a la carte package of several channels, the marginal cost of each additional channel would decrease. |
|
ATLJ
Go Braves
Premium
join:1999-12-24
Atlanta, GA
clubs:
·Comcast Formerly ..
| reply to DonLibes
Re: Personal Responsibility?
said by DonLibes :
It's not a matter of turning the channel. Right now, you're *forced* to pay for channels you don't want in order to get ones you do want. 15 years ago, this made sense. But with current technology there is no excuse for it.
This all depends on the prices they set for a la carte. I can see the cable and content companies complaining about this but then sitting in a back room figuring how to use this to screw the consumers again.
If I could get locals, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNews, Fox Sports, MTV, TBS, Comedy Central and Fox News for a decent price it would be great. Doubt anything will happen in a long time though...Weren't all the broadcast companies required to have HD broadcasts by now but it keeps getting delayed?
--
"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home." --Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977 |
|
72276539
Premium
join:2001-01-19
Atlanta, GA
| reply to RayW
Re: Have a better idea
said by RayW :
Boycott the greedy so-and-sos. Except too many Americans (US type) depend on the boob tube for various reasons.
YEAH! Like documentaries, scientific programs, history and other crap shows that are on the boob tube that I can't see by walking out the door!
--
some people believe in astrology others believe in technology some people believe in all those -ologies but i believe in swordfish |
|
tklown
join:2000-09-17
Sayreville, NJ | a shame
A shame, one of the only good channels  |
|
impactstudio
join:2004-04-05
Vancouver, BC
| Not that easy...
Not that easy at all..
This is how things currently stand, and, as I go on to say, the trend towards bigger content-providers pretty much ensures that, apart from legislation, this isn't going to happen anytime so. And do we really want more legislation?
A) Technological Difficulties
(Note: this first only applies to cable carriers)
In order to be completely a la carte, all stations would have to be digital, which means everyone would have to have a digital receiver. It has been legislated that US carriers will be 100% digital by 2006, provided that at least 80% of consumers have the technology to use these services. That's a pretty big 'if'. To have a la carte on a regular cable signal would require a physical filter for every single channel, and, while marginally technically feasible, the costs involved would render such a route pointless.
B) Contracts
Cable companies (and satellite companies) have contracts with the various networks as has been mentioned previously. These contracts vary from network to network and carrier to carrier, but since there are, in actual fact, very few content providers, any cable or satellite carrier that chose to make an issue over one or two 'unpopular channels' would instantly alienate the parent company, which would either take the carrier to court over contractual breakages or dis-allow acces to other, more 'popular' content, thus crippling the carrier by forcing customers to switch to a provider that did still have the 'popular', as well as 'unpopular' content.
C) I pay, You pay, We all pay for TV
Even if it was technologically feasible and the carriers didn't have contracts that locked them in to providing channel A together with channel B if they want the rights to channel C, bundling still makes some sense, at least with channels that are more "premium" services. It works like this:
Content Provider Inc. (CPI) owns channel Super TV©®TM which they agree to license to Medium-Size All-American Cable Co. (MSAACC). Now if Super TV©®TM is provided as a premium digital a la carte channel, CPI charges MSAACC $5.00/month for every subscriber to that particular channel, so MSAACC charges their customers $15.00/month to receive it.
Now if MSAACC provides Super TV©®TM to at least 10,000 customers, CPI charges them a flat rate of $30,000.00 ($3.00/customer). MSAACC, in order to ensure that they are providing the service to at least 10,000 customers, bundles Super TV©®TM with The All-'Friends' Network©®TM which they know most subscribers just can't get enough of. As well, because they get such a great deal now on Super TV©®TM and on The All-'Friends' Network©®TM (with whom they have a similar arrangement) and because they have less customer turnover on these services together then they would have if each was seperate (which also lowers their costs) they can afford to offer this 'tier' for the low, low price of $12.00/month.
The result is that if you hate Super TV©®TM but love The All-'Friends' Network©®TM or vice-versa, you are still getting a better deal then you would if you were only paying for the channel you like.
Of course, that's a pretty simplified assessment. The contracts & pricing structures are so convoluted between content providers and the carriers that the relationship between the price that a cable/satellite company pays for the right to broadcast any one channel and that channel's net cost to the consumer is a tricky, tricky thing for anyone that doesn't have every single bit of info to figure out.
D) So what does it all mean?
In the end, the biggest issue is the control that the major content providers like Disney, Fox and Time-Warner (who is, of course, also a provider) have over pricing structures. They have that control because they are very, very big and there are not that many of them. That means carriers can't just 'get a different channel' as replacement if they don't (for the most part) allow that pricing structure to remain the way the content providers want it to. So the answer for better consumer pricing is pretty much smaller, more independent, content providers.
As that is the almost complete opposite of the trend in entertainment (sports, movies, TV programming) for companies to become bigger and bigger I wish you all the best of luck with that - I'm going to surf the web on my 5Mbps/1Mbps connection which I pay about $40.00/month (Canadian, no less!, about $29.00 US) for and look at all the great ad/pop-up/spam-paid-for content I want!
--
I keep the wolf from the door || Athlon 2800+|1GB DDR400 RAM|Seagate Barracuda 120GB|Radeon 9600XT 256MB|Viewsonic G22fb 21" |
|
ATLJ
Go Braves
Premium
join:1999-12-24
Atlanta, GA
clubs:
·Comcast Formerly ..
| reply to bokamba
Re: Possible math behind the $6.33 figure
said by bokamba :
Perhaps they calculate that if you got only the Discovery Channel, you would pay $6.33 per month. I bet if you ordered an a la carte package of several channels, the marginal cost of each additional channel would decrease.
That would make sense...they may have taken the total revenue they bring in now and divided by number of estimated subscribers if it was switched to a la carte...
--
"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home." --Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977 |
|
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
 ·Site5.com
 ·AT&T Midwest
·Comcast
| reply to EL_TB
Re: Personal Responsibility?
said by EL_TB :
It seemed good to me until I realized I would probabaly get less channels and would have to pay more.
This is probably what is going to happen.
On one side, you can select individual channels, but pay more for each one. On the other side, you can stay with the current system. Either way, you may be paying the same amount.
Right now, I get hundreds of channels, but I only watch a select few stations.
Fox Sports Detroit
ESPN
ESPN2
FX
Discovery Channels
History Channel
I wonder how much it is going to cost me just to get those few channels? You can bet the price is going to go up if they go a la carte. Would it be more worthwhile for me to stay with the current system?
You would think they would provide numbers and a reason behind their thinking when it comes to things like this and let the consumers decide.
Who knows what is going to happen.
--
My Domain
Nightfall's Hockey and Life Journal |
|
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
·Site5.com
·AT&T Midwest
·Comcast
1 edit | reply to bokamba
Re: Possible math behind the $6.33 figure
said by bokamba :
Perhaps they calculate that if you got only the Discovery Channel, you would pay $6.33 per month. I bet if you ordered an a la carte package of several channels, the marginal cost of each additional channel would decrease.
Possibly
Maybe they are taking into account how many people would buy into their channel. Lets say, they have 10 people getting the package deal today at .60 cents. Thats $6 right there. Well, if they go to an a la carte system, only one of those 10 will buy into the channel. Henceforth, the price has to go up in that situation because they don't expect 1 in 10 to get that channel. Heck, it is educational after all. 
My wife and I love it. 
--
My Domain
Nightfall's Hockey and Life Journal |
|
BigCreek
God Is Good.
Premium
join:2002-06-25
Heber Springs, AR | This is a good thing, IF ...
This is a good thing, IF ... they will simultaneously get rid of the endless irritating commercials on these channels.
I'll gladly pay for no commercials. |
|
CPM
join:2001-08-24
Miami, FL | Of course they fail to provide the math. It is so cheap per Television channel. People would be upset knowing that cable and sat are overpricing people. |
|
