Martin Endorses 'A La Carte' LawsAt the behest of family groups, cable industry once again annoyed ( old news - 10:54AM Thursday Apr 19 2007) tags: prices · fcc · business · Op/Ed · cable · Politics · contentTipped by jslik  FCC chief Kevin Martin pushed a little harder for "a la carte" cable pricing this week, going so far as to suggest that he would support legislation forcing cable operators to offer cable channels individually. The FCC chief has traditionally championed deregulation and has generally been "hands-off" when it comes to phone companies. The cable industry has therefore been complaining that Martin is picking on them (a claim he recently made light of). On this issue (and his frequent indecency campaigns), Martin, who is eyeing a post-FCC political career, is catering to "family values" organizations like the Parent's Television Council. They've been running a "cable consumer choice campaign" that rails against the "filth" on several networks: "To access these educational and family-friendly networks (Disney, Nickelodeon, ABC Family) [parents] are also forced to pay for channels they don't want and that actually make their job as a parent much more difficult. Now, in addition to trying to protect their children from the filth on Fox, NBC, UPN, and the other broadcast networks, they also have to try to protect their children from the much more explicit fare on MTV, FX, Comedy Central, and the like." The cable industry continues to insist that allowing customers to pick individual channels "would raise prices for most consumers and harm diversity in programming." Not surprisingly, the cable industry will also tell you that cable TV prices are dropping when they're constantly rising.
Related:- Martin, Comcast, Continue Lover's Feud
- Scott Cleland: Google Using 21x The Bandwidth They Pay For
- Tuesday Evening Links
- Time Warner Cable: Let's Not Talk About Net Neutrality
- The Metered Billing Fight Is About To Get Ugly
- Real Consumer Group Takes Aim At Fake Ones
- What Network Neutrality Is REALLY About
- Cable Industry: Shucks, Guess Nobody Wants CableCARDs
|
page: 1 · 2  |
 
59126125
Premium
join:2006-01-21
clubs:
| How hard would it be for cable to offer "a la carte" While I'm not sure if forcing them to offer channels individually is a good idea, wouldn't it be relatively easy to do if they had something similar to Time Warner's project of switched digital video holding the channels at the edge router?
--
There is a reason the wires are twisted together, it's called a pair. It defeats the whole purpose of twisted pair cabling by using the solid orange and solid green to wire the jack. | |
|  | 
ColorBASIC
8-bit Fun
Premium
join:2006-12-29
Corona, CA
| Re: How hard would it be for cable to offer "a la carte" "Big dish" suppliers do it and it's generally cheaper for most channels. I would personally favor it because I could give a crap less about channels like ESPN which jack my rates while others who love sports would gladly pay for them. I only watch maybe 5 or 6 channels meanwhile I'm paying for these expensive channels like ESPN because they're part of even the most basic package. | |
| | | 
phattieg
join:2001-04-29
Winter Park, FL
 ·Verizon Wireless B..
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| Re: How hard would it be for cable to offer "a la carte" said by ColorBASIC :"Big dish" suppliers do it and it's generally cheaper for most channels. I would personally favor it because I could give a crap less about channels like ESPN which jack my rates while others who love sports would gladly pay for them. I only watch maybe 5 or 6 channels meanwhile I'm paying for these expensive channels like ESPN because they're part of even the most basic package. Well, I hope you get your way, so you can pay 3 times more for the channels you watch. You don't get it. It's like buying in bulk. You buy 1 pound for $2, or 10 pounds for $6. You might not need 10 pounds, but even if you only needed 4 pounds, it would be cheaper to buy 10 pounds. Same with cable channels. When the FCC decides to control cable providers, like they have controlled censorship, then we will have a bunch of idiots willing to pay the same monthly price, just to watch what they like. Me, personally, I love having "the channels people don't watch", because if I see a commercial for a program I am interested in, or if none of the other channels I DO like are playing something interesting, I can usually find something that will pass time on one of the channels I watch the least. I usually watch National Geographic, or most of the Discovery channel related stations, but I occasionally watch G4 for some shows, or Spike TV. Did I mention I am not a sports fan, don't like Football, Basketball, Baseball, or any other sport, really, but yet I will watch extreme fighting challenges, which come on a variety of stations. It would be a shame that I have to pay extra money to get a decent variety, just because a few pretentious assholes want it their way. I think you should just think about how much money you're really going to cost US, the consumer, in the end. And maybe with the rate increases that it will generate, we might be able to actually hear cuss words on TV, instead of them pissing over our rights for "free speach", but I won't hold my breath, because the religious groups don't know how to "turn off the device" when it's spewing things you don't want to hear or watch. If the FCC does this, I will have to consider moving out of this country. I don't hate Americans, I just hate American politicians. We have the biggest joke of a government right now, if you sit back and look at the big picture.
--
SIPPhone/Gizmo # 17476200648 / PIMPNET Chatline / Ran by Asterisk & Slackware 10.1. | |
| | | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| Re: How hard would it be for cable to offer "a la carte" said by phattieg : I can usually find something that will pass time on one of the channels I watch the least. Heh, heaven forbid you switch off and read a book.
said by phattieg :It would be a shame that I have to pay extra money to get a decent variety, just because a few pretentious assholes want it their way. Hey that's just how we feel, except we all think it will be cheaper to get the channels we want a la carte.
said by phattieg :I think you should just think about how much money you're really going to cost US, the consumer, in the end. You mean using negative numbers?
Your argument seems to be that it will be more expensive for you, because you like having a lot of channels, so the rest of us should just suck it up, and keeping paying more so you can be happy. That's quite compelling..
I could probably live with just the networks, and NESN. I would just use OTA, but the price bump for my internet would make cost savings nil especially because I'm on the continuous $99/3 services package. | |
| | | | | devnuller
join:2006-06-10
Hollis, NH
| Re: How hard would it be for cable to offer "a la carte" If you want a la cart, get DirecTV... oh wait they don't do it... get FiOS TV... hmm... no that won't work either..
Perhaps it would be better of if the Government took over TV distribution from Cable, Sat, and Telco's since the obviously know how to run a profitable company... hmm... this argument isn't going well... | |
| | | | | | 
rtcy
FACTS only please
Premium
join:1999-10-16
Beverly Hills, CA
 ·Verizon west (ex G..
·Verizon FIOS
| Re: How hard would it be for cable to offer "a la carte" said by devnuller :If you want a la cart, get DirecTV... oh wait they don't do it... get FiOS TV... hmm... no that won't work either.. Perhaps it would be better of if the Government took over TV distribution from Cable, Sat, and Telco's since the obviously know how to run a profitable company... hmm... this argument isn't going well... they do not do it, because there are companies like Viacomm that shove the whole enchilada down the troats of cable dish operators and because Dishnetworks and Directtv are both barely making money, so in order to keep charging those exorbitant prices they like it just fine the way it is, oh yes and Cable likes it that way too so they can continue those excesive profits | |
| | | | |
phattieg
join:2001-04-29
Winter Park, FL
·Verizon Wireless B..
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
1 edit | said by Ahrenl Heh, heaven forbid you switch off and read a book. :
Yeah, and heaven forbid you drop cable and read your own damn books if you "don't want to pay for channels YOU don't watch". I don't feel I should have to pay more for the same stations I have enjoyed as a bundle, nor do I want to have to call my cable company everytime I see something coming on a channel I USED to have.
My whole reasoning on that comes from other things in life, and with cable, that cost more "a la carte". For example, calling features on your phone. Buy a package (like Complete Choice) and get 7 features, but buy those features by themselves, and you pay twice as much. Get a cell plan with more minutes, and more text messaging, and you don't have to pay "overages" which is another way of saying "we're going to screw you because you didn't get a package". The media giants are the same way. So what if you don't watch ESPN, but Disney owns them, and a few other channels, and gives the cable company a break when they include them in the basic lineup, and they pass it to us, the customer.
said by Ahrenl Hey that's just how we feel, except we all think it will be cheaper to get the channels we want a la carte. :
Well, nobody denied that you FELT that way. But my comment actually got a thumbs up, and yours didn't, so I think it's the other way around, and people agree with what I'm saying, or at least see the logic involved. I actually addressed it, and labeled it "stupid thinking". I think my analogy of 1 pound for $2 vs. 10 pounds for $6, when you only needed 4 pounds to begin with, still is cheaper to buy 10 pounds, kinda nailed it. You just don't get the end result, do you? These channel providers like Viacom, Disney, AOL/Time Warner, etc, they don't need to price it "fairly" to the cable companies "customers". Case in point. Take away packages, and these @$$hole companies are going to make up for the channels nobody watches by charging more for the channels people DO watch. Thats how the channel providers work. They will recover the loss by charging more for the channels people actually watch. So while you're preaching to me that you "THINK" it will be cheaper, I am preaching back to you that I have worked for a cable company for 5 years, and this will NOT make things cheaper at all, PROMISED. It's going to force everything to digital, because their not going to make a channel trap for analog customers who "want to a la carte" service, there's just too many possible combinations. That means the cable box you rent from the cable company will be needed, which means more monthly income to the cable company for equipment you don't want. Does that make any sense to you???
said by Ahrenl You mean using negative numbers?
Your argument seems to be that it will be more expensive for you, because you like having a lot of channels, so the rest of us should just suck it up, and keeping paying more so you can be happy. That's quite compelling.. No, my arguement will be this. Right now, I pay $50 a month for basic cable. And I get 70 channels, for about $0.72 each channel. If you go a la carte, then those same 70 channels will cost $80, because the carriers will raise rates on the "good" channels, or the "popular" ones. All because you think it's cheaper. It's stupidity. Take your own advice, read a damn book at the library for free, or actually USE the product you're paying for.
said by Ahrenl I could probably live with just the networks, and NESN. I would just use OTA, but the price bump for my internet would make cost savings nil especially because I'm on the continuous $99/3 services package. :
Good, hook up the rabbit ears, and get the hell on with life if it don't mean much to you. Obviously you have better things to do, besides posting on here. Me, I enjoy getting off a long day of work, cracking open a beer, and watching whatever the hell happens to be on. I have a DVR, and my roommate uses it more than I do, because I have an opportunistic approach to how I watch TV. For you to even imply that I need to read a book is redundant to your own arguement, as you can read your own book, and be happy, while I watch the movie, and save 2-4 days of flippin pages, and catch the story in 2 hours. I'm glad you're on the triple play, but don't think for one second that even for the occasional user, a la carte channels will be "cheaper".
But, hard headed people don't learn. I think it will be unfortunate if this change is forced upon TV providers. You think it's hard enough getting a promo offer from your cable provider now, wait for this change. The TV providers (sat, fiber, and cable) won't be able to "package" anything, because each channel will not cost the same to add.
Flame away, though. It still makes no sense to a la carte things. If you REALLY want my opinion, the commercials all these channels play should pay for their own bills, and we should be watching TV for free, like the local channels, which I'm sure we can BOTH agree on.
--
SIPPhone/Gizmo # 17476200648 / PIMPNET Chatline / Ran by Asterisk & Slackware 10.1. | |
| | | | | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
·Verizon FIOS
| Re: How hard would it be for cable to offer "a la carte" Well we disagree. Your statements have no more factual support than mine however, and I hope you haven't fooled anyone else as much as, I BELIEVE, you've fooled yourself.
Your 1 pound for $2's vs. 10 pounds for $6 fails because it would imply equal intrinsic value. The coffee example where you get can get 1 pound of coffee you like for $2's or 10 pounds of 50 different types of coffee, 48 of which are different flavors of cat feces, for $6's is more apt. Since now you are paying $6's for 0.4 pounds of coffee you actually WANT.
The channel providers don't offer reductions, just more channels w/o extra cost, and it certainly isn't passed along. In fact I'm required to pay an extra $12/mo just to get the GUIDE with which I'm "given" 15 more craptastic channels.
By your logic, it would be MUCH cheaper for me, and the rest of any of the non-zombies if we weren't paying for those same "70 channels". That's the whole point. If you want to watch TV 23 hours a day with 10 bazillion channels, I have not problem with that, but why should everyone else have to pay more to watch less, so you can pay less to watch more?
Seeing as you "have worked for the cable company for 5 years", I'm going to assume you know how much cheaper this can make it for most subscribers, and how it may financial hurt your employer. Combine that with your no longer publicly subsidized 8,342,323 channels, and I certainly understand your viewpoint. That doesn't make it any more correct.
I post on here during my lunch breaks, and I continue to follow the sector and technology as a personal hobby, as well as maintaining a useful investment strategy.
I'd actually be against commercials paying 100% of the cost, since consumers would then lose any little bit of service we may already receive. (They did come and fix my signal from the pole for free yesterday! woohoo!) Perhaps if commercials covered the content cost, and consumers paid small maintenance fees for the equipment and network. That might work... [/dreaming] | |
| | | | | | |
phattieg
join:2001-04-29
Winter Park, FL
·Verizon Wireless B..
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
2 edits | Re: How hard would it be for cable to offer "a la carte" Ok, you don't get it, and have never worked for a cable provider, so you have no instinct on how this will go down. Rates WILL go up, and people who want 5 piss ass channels will get their way, all the while, people who HAVE a cable bill, will have to pay more. This doesn't impact FiOS, or Satellite. To make this strategy possible, cable boxes will have to be in EVERYONES house, which will raise rates on the amount of boxes stolen, damaged, or un-returned. I am done talking about it, because your logic pisses me off. Obviously you DON'T ENJOY your cable, so get rid of it. I did not TELL you to be happy paying for all those channels you don't watch, but I DID tell you to get rid of it if you don't agree with it. There are tons of people happy with the lineup. You constitute for less than 10% of my "complaint calls". You're not even on the radar because the cost to deploy will be outrageous. You HAVE options, it's called C-Band, and you can pick and choose any channel you specifically want. It requires a big ass dish, but look at the prices, and tell me how much cheaper it is. There's your research. $30.64 for 15 channels... 
THE PROVIDERS OF THE CHANNELS RULE THE ROOST, DUMBASS! DO THE RESEARCH... I've provided the proof, now reply with another stupid ass remark. Using your brain, you've done pissed me off, and I could care less what you think of me now.
READ THIS:
»www.callnps.com/alacarte.htm
Part # Basic Channels Annual 6 Month 3 Month Monthly
---------------------------------------------------------
396 AMC / Womens' Entertainment* $16.95 $8.89 $4.66 $1.59
397 Bravo * (digital) $11.12 $5.84 $3.05 $1.11
786 Cartoon Network * $11.65 $6.12 $3.20 $1.17
101 CNN/CNNI/Headline News/Fox News $21.19 $11.12 $5.83 $2.12
415 Comedy Central * $11.22 $5.84 $3.05 $1.11
261 Discovery (analog) $21.19 $11.12 $5.83 $2.12
355 Discovery HD Theatre (HDTV) $58.29 $30.60 $16.03 $5.83
270 E! Television * $10.59 $5.55 $2.92 $1.06
223 Independent Film Channel * $10.59 $5.55 $2.92 $1.06
611 International Channel (digital) $33.91 $17.80 $9.33 $3.39
805 Oxygen Network* (digital) $10.55 $5.53 $2.90 $1.06
138 TBS Superstation - Atlanta * $15.89 $8.34 $4.37 $1.59
905 TNT (Turner Network TV) * $27.55 $14.46 $7.58 $2.76
133 USA Network / SciFi Channel * $18.01 $9.46 $4.95 $1.80
248 The Weather Channel * $11.65 $6.12 $3.20 $1.17
498 WGN - Chicago * $16.95 $8.89 $4.66 $1.70
EDIT: I forgot to mention, you have to BUY YOUR EQUIPMENT, so no monthly rental fee's. WOW, this is MUCH cheaper. Oh, and lookie, I've got another thumbs up. I guess it makes sense to someone.
--
SIPPhone/Gizmo # 17476200648 / PIMPNET Chatline / Ran by Asterisk & Slackware 10.1. | |
| | | | | | | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
·Verizon FIOS
| Re: How hard would it be for cable to offer "a la carte" Laugh..
$30's is HALF what I pay for my cable now (at full rates). Plus if I cancel my cable my Inet bill will practically double (which is what I use the most anyway). I enjoy the cable I use, and would prefer not to pay for the vast majority of it. I think there are many many others who feel the same. Judging by the end of your post, I would put VERY little stock in your instinct.. sorry.
Thanks for proving my point though, I appreciate it. | |
| | | | | | | | |
phattieg
join:2001-04-29
Winter Park, FL
·Verizon Wireless B..
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| Re: How hard would it be for cable to offer "a la carte" said by Ahrenl :Laugh.. $30's is HALF what I pay for my cable now (at full rates). Plus if I cancel my cable my Inet bill will practically double (which is what I use the most anyway). I enjoy the cable I use, and would prefer not to pay for the vast majority of it. I think there are many many others who feel the same. Judging by the end of your post, I would put VERY little stock in your instinct.. sorry. Thanks for proving my point though, I appreciate it. Well, I'm glad YOU feel that way, too bad though, because judging by the thumbs up I got on 2 of my posts, my point is made, and clear, and I hope you get your way, but not with cable. Thanks.
--
SIPPhone/Gizmo # 17476200648 / PIMPNET Chatline / Ran by Asterisk & Slackware 10.1. | |
| | | | clickie
join:2005-05-22
Monroe, MI
| It's not like buying in bulk because the free market forces have been removed. Your cable rates subsidize the broadcast medium of networks that otherwise would not be viable. To use your analogy, you go to the store to buy coffee and your option is $75 for coffee, no matter how much you want, but you have to take ALL the flavors. What you get is coffee in regular, regular blend, French vanilla (which you hate) and several other flavors like cola flavored coffee, lime-water flavored coffee and cat feces flavored coffee, which nobody wants. Your $75 purchase for a few flavors of coffee you enjoy nets you products you simply throw away and subsidizes people who are making coffee in favors no one wants. Ask yourself, why do the people making cat feces flavored coffee deserve one penny of the money? Is it just so the three people who actually enjoy that flavor can get it? Where's the free market and why are we as consumers finding ourselves gradually removed from the benefits of the free market while corporations take full advantage of it?
THAT is the state of pricing in cable TV and the consumer's ability to vote with their dollars has been removed. While it's all fine and well to get these niche channels as part of the deal, but at what point are there too many? The real limiting factor, a high barrier to entry in the form of cash to broadcast, has been removed so there is no real limit to the number of channels that can be added in this manner nor is there a limit to where your cable rates will go as it subsidizes these channels.
This method of pricing only reduces any incentive to produce a good product.
Ala carte pricing is, fortunately, a foregone conclusion as more and more networks will find other ways in which to distribute their product. Arguments about network neutrality are moot, if the consumer wants a network broadcasting on the internet, the consumer will find a way to watch it. | |
| | | |
ColorBASIC
8-bit Fun
Premium
join:2006-12-29
Corona, CA
4 edits | You are the one who doesn't get it. If I only need an ounce of sugar, how am I saving money buying 300LBS of it? That's the point, per your example I would only want the 2 LBS but in order to get 1/2 lb of this and a 1/2 lb of that I have to buy 20LBS...10LBS in 1 tier and 10LBS in another. For people who watch tons of stuff they can still buy tiers and for people like me, I'd like to buy the 6 el cheapo channels I actually watch.
I could give a crap less about channels like ESPN which jack my rates while others who love sports would gladly pay for them. Meanwhile if I want a $1 channel like Sci-Fi I'm forced to pay for an $8 channel like ESPN.
Looking at big dish pricing (which I can't get 'cause of my Nazi-HOA) my bill would be less than $15/mo for the EXACT same programming I WANT and am paying $60+ for because providers like E* jockey channels as to spread popular channels over all the tiers so you have to buy all the tiers and worthless channels if you want those few channels. | |
| | | | | raybrett
join:2001-02-20
Saint Louis, MO | Re: How hard would it be for cable to offer "a la carte" If ala carte were mandated, I would likely lose my analog channels and have to pay significantly more for digital service and receivers. I doubt I would save any money. More likely it would double my costs. | |
| | | | | |
ColorBASIC
8-bit Fun
Premium
join:2006-12-29
Corona, CA
| Re: How hard would it be for cable to offer "a la carte" There is nothing to say you wouldn't still have bundled tiers in addition to a la carte. That is what we see with the big dish market. You have both a la carte pricing and discounts when you buy more channels and/or prepay a few months in advance.
A la carte prices would only drop further if expanded as they would have to compete even harder for subscribers. Prices would drop and programming improve if these program providers had to compete for the dollar instead of get a free ride in basic forced on us tiers. | |
| | | | | | 
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| said by raybrett :If ala carte were mandated, I would likely lose my analog channels and have to pay significantly more for digital service and receivers. I doubt I would save any money. More likely it would double my costs. analog channels are going to be going by the wayside anyways. | |
| | | | | | | raybrett
join:2001-02-20
Saint Louis, MO | Re: How hard would it be for cable to offer "a la carte" Unfortunately, you are right, but I will hang on as long as I can. After that, I may have to settle for DVDs. I am not sure I will go to digital receivers. | |
| | | | | | | |
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| Re: How hard would it be for cable to offer "a la carte" said by raybrett :Unfortunately, you are right, but I will hang on as long as I can. After that, I may have to settle for DVDs. I am not sure I will go to digital receivers. Well all TV manufacture after March 1st 2007 have to have digital tuners built in. So if you buy a new TV( make sure the store isn't selling you on made before March 1 if under 27 inches ) and you can get off the air channels then maybe that's your best bet after Feb 2009 when all analog stations are cut off. Most local stations now broadcast in both analog and digital. A TV with a built in tuner and an antenna should get you at least some local stations. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | raybrett
join:2001-02-20
Saint Louis, MO
·AT&T U-Verse
| Re: How hard would it be for cable to offer "a la carte" I am considering the cost of the digital receivers, not necessarily only the channels. If I were to go digital today, the receivers and the monthly cost of the "upgrade" to digital would cost me more than what I am currently paying for my basic plus enhanced channels. | |
| | | | | | | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
·Verizon FIOS
| Re: How hard would it be for cable to offer "a la carte" Yeah, what is it $5's a month for each box? How many TV's do you have? You have NO cable boxes?
Also, separate converter boxes will be available from 3rd parties, you may even be able to get your cable company to kick you one for free since they aren't mandated to remove analogue, technically. | |
| | | | | 
asdfdfdfdf
@Level3.net | I don't think you can use the a la carte prices you find now as an indicator of what prices would be like if all the major players moved to a la carte. The small amount of a la carte happening right now isn't significant enough to have an impact. | |
| | | | | clickie
join:2005-05-22
Monroe, MI |
My analogy may not be perfect, but it sure as heck is better than yours. | |
| | | | | |
ColorBASIC
8-bit Fun
Premium
join:2006-12-29
Corona, CA | Re: How hard would it be for cable to offer "a la carte" I guess you missed the whole "reply to Phattieg" thing. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
ColorBASIC
8-bit Fun
Premium
join:2006-12-29
Corona, CA
| Re: How hard would it be for cable to offer "a la carte" I dunno. Currently last milers (eg cable and DBS) are often blackmailed into carrying less desirable programming. As was the case with MTV and ABC a while back, if a company wanted one channel like Noggin, ABC network or ESPN they were pressured to carry unpopular channels like ABC Family.
So you may end up with two media camps, the content creators like ABC/Disney and Fox vs the content delivery folks like cable and DBS.
Then it's just a matter of who has the most cash to bribe the politicians wins. | |
| | | | | | 
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Re: How hard would it be for cable to offer "a la carte" Yeah. No matter which way it works out, unless we have more competition enter the market (Even if the Telcos get into the TV business it won't be enough competition) you can pretty much assume that consumers will pay more for less. | |
| | | | | | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
·Verizon FIOS
| Re: How hard would it be for cable to offer "a la carte" It's not really less if you didn't want it in the first place. I'd rather not have a steaming pile of manure dumped on my front yard.
Since we're going to pay more every year anyway, I'd be willing to bet that those who watch a sensible amount of TV (ie. do other things too) will pay less for a few years, until they gradually eek up the prices. Then they'll still be paying less than what the price hikes without the a la carte decrease would have been as well. | |
| | | 
n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY
 ·Optimum Online
| [BQUOTE=ColorBASICI could give a crap less about channels like ESPN which jack my rates while others who love sports would gladly pay for them.[/BQUOTE
Same here. Other than the network and local channels I watch the news feeds CNN, CNN Headline, FNC, MSNBC, SciFi, Comedy, History, A&E, TVLand, Spike and FX. That's all I want/need.
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears. | |
| | | |
ColorBASIC
8-bit Fun
Premium
join:2006-12-29
Corona, CA
1 edit | Re: How hard would it be for cable to offer "a la carte" And if you look at big dish pricing for those few channels, they're about $1/mo each, some even cheaper. | |
| | | | |
rtcy
FACTS only please
Premium
join:1999-10-16
Beverly Hills, CA
·Verizon west (ex G..
·Verizon FIOS
| Re: How hard would it be for cable to offer "a la carte" said by GOLFnSUN :said by 59126125 :While I'm not sure if forcing them to offer channels individually is a good idea, wouldn't it be relatively easy to do if they had something similar to Time Warner's project of switched digital video holding the channels at the edge router? Even if legislation forces a la carte offerings, they almost for sure won't mandate pricing schedules. And the a la carte prices will be high enough that all except religious fanatics will stick with the tiered offerings. And if people don't want their kids to watch certain channels, every TV sold today and for the last 10 yrs and all STBs have a way to block individual channels. So no matter what happens, this won't change the face of cable TV at all. I never get people like you. how easy you submit | |
| | | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | Re: How hard would it be for cable to offer "a la carte" It's not that he is easy to submit.
It's that, as an investor, he wants YOU to submit. | |
| 
drslash
Goya Asma
Premium
join:2002-02-18
Marion, IA
| Let the crap channels die on the vine I would like to see how many channels could survive on their own. I would also like to see the most expensive channels, like the many ESPN flavors, only get revenue from those who watch. ESPN is probably the biggest reason for annual or semi-annual cable rate hikes.
--
Save water...drink beer! | |
| |
See 6 replies to this post | |
| |
See 6 replies to this post | |
Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs:
·Embarq
| Family friendly? and family-friendly networks (Disney, Nickelodeon, ABC Family) These stations aren't family friendly. Have you seen their advertisements? Sugar cereal, Bratz, McObese Kids, consume, consume, consume. No family should find these to be ok. I just go out and buy the DVDs of the shows my kids like so they don't have to be exposed to this filth. Plus, at the rate I would pay for cable and have built up a decent kids video collection that I can watch when I want, not when it's dictated to me.
--
"Padre, nobody said war was fun now bowl!" - Sherman T Potter
»www.cafepress.com/maxolasersquad
»maxolasersquad.com/
»maxolasersquad.com/network/ My DSL Network Guide
»myspace.com/mlsquad | |
| | 
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs:
·Charter Pipeline
·AT&T Southwest
| Re: Family friendly? said by Maxo :and family-friendly networks (Disney, Nickelodeon, ABC Family) These stations aren't family friendly. Have you seen their advertisements? Sugar cereal, Bratz, McObese Kids, consume, consume, consume. i thought what was coming next was advertisements for "girls gone wild" and sex phone lines. not sugar cereal.
this country runs because of our motto: consume consume consume. i don't like it, but i'm just one man. | |
|
Cysco24
@dadeschools.net
| Of Course "The cable industry continues to insist that allowing customers to pick individual channels "would raise prices for most consumers and harm diversity in programming." Of course the cable industry will also tell you that cable TV prices are dropping when they're constantly rising." How else are they gonna pay their CEOs 30+ million.
I can think of a handfull of channels i Like. Direct TV raised their prices by $10 a month. I remember the good old days where we used an antenna and watched tv for free. | |
| | RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
·XMission
| Re: Of Course said by Cysco24 :
I remember the good old days where we used an antenna and watched tv for free.
We still use our outside antenna, it is a choice we made since the other services are about paying for what you do not want to support, like overpriced sports channels that have to keep jacking rates to pay for inflated sports salaries.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
| | | TurtleFan
join:2003-05-03
Wyckoff, NJ
1 edit | Re: Of Course Another solution would just make all sports channels a separate package. ESPN 1=infinity, YES, MSG, etc. Let those folks pay for their precious sports and see how much our cable bill goes down  .
All the games that people want to watch can be had on 2-13 in HD anyway. Who wants to watch a game from the 1950's, or a Curling Tournament? Let alone those god awful card tournaments that are now the big fad.
edit - A Salary cap of $2 million a year should also be more than enough for players and CEO's. No one should need more than that in their lifetime. | |
| | | | smcallah
join:2004-08-05
Home
| Re: Of Course said by TurtleFan :Another solution would just make all sports channels a separate package. ESPN 1=infinity, YES, MSG, etc. Let those folks pay for their precious sports and see how much our cable bill goes down . If only it were that easy, then "a la carte" would be a reality. But ESPN and the NFL Network require payments from cable companies for the number of subscribers to the basic cable tier that includes the channel, and will not allow their channels to be in Sports Tiers.
The FCC really needs to be taking up their "a la carte" business with the channels, and not with the cable companies.
Cable companies don't want to have to pay for every subscriber to get ESPN and NFL Network, but they're forced to, or they don't get the channel at all. Then their customers go to satellite to get their sports channels. | |
| hoyleysox
join:2003-11-07
Long Beach, CA
·Time Warner Cable
·Cox HSI
| family values suck, but not a good idea Parents already have the ability to block individual channels they do not want to receive. I would be curious to find out how many people actually choose to block channels, I hypothesize that it is a low number. If most Americans have problems setting the clock on their VCR, it would be too complicated for many people to bother to setup the filters.
Cable companies might as well fill the pipe. It costs more to filter channels than it does to send everyone all channels. Adding the functionality too add individual channel preferences to the system would impose another cost onto the cable industry. This would be passed to consumers and raise prices. I think the cable companies should fill their pipe with as many channels as possible. | |
| | rickonline
join:2005-11-15
North Bergen, NJ
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: family values suck, but not a good idea Why not packages like this:
1. Any 5 basic cable entertainment channels for $4.99.
2. Any 10 basic cable entertainment channels for $8.99.
3. Any 3 basic cable sports channels for $6.99.
All would be on top of the broadcast channel package.
So if I wanted to watch just the broadcast channels plus SciFi, FX, TCM, Lifetime and Discovery then my cable bill would be about $20.00 for the programing.
--
Rick | |
| | | 
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| Re: family values suck, but not a good idea said by rickonline :Why not packages like this: 1. Any 5 basic cable entertainment channels for $4.99. 2. Any 10 basic cable entertainment channels for $8.99. 3. Any 3 basic cable sports channels for $6.99. All would be on top of the broadcast channel package. So if I wanted to watch just the broadcast channels plus SciFi, FX, TCM, Lifetime and Discovery then my cable bill would be about $20.00 for the programing. Dream on!
how many people would be on digital if cable didn't force you to get digital by putting some good channels ONLY on digital tier?
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth | |
| | | 
bouchecl
join:2004-09-13
Quebec, QC
·Videotron
1 edit | said by rickonline :Why not packages like this: 1. Any 5 basic cable entertainment channels for $4.99. 2. Any 10 basic cable entertainment channels for $8.99. 3. Any 3 basic cable sports channels for $6.99. All would be on top of the broadcast channel package. So if I wanted to watch just the broadcast channels plus SciFi, FX, TCM, Lifetime and Discovery then my cable bill would be about $20.00 for the programing. I really don't see why it can't be done in the US. Quebec largest cable company, Vidéotron is doing something like that with their "20/30 channels à la carte" digital packages for respectively $20 and $30/month (on top of the basic $14.99 basic package, which includes the local OTA channels, weather, the local equivalent of C-SPAN, etc).
With the 30 channels bundle, you also get your analog cable for free, which is perfect for a MythTV system with two or more inputs, since you can eliminate duplicates by carefully choosing the digital speciality feeds you subscribe to in order not to duplicate what's already there on analog.
With the 30 digital - 40 analog package and a 4-input MythTV system I record 50-75 hours a week. Needless to say, some of it goes directly to /dev/null! | |
| | | | hoyleysox
join:2003-11-07
Long Beach, CA
·Time Warner Cable
·Cox HSI
| At least someone is taking advantage of the blocking.
The ironic thing is that you would be paying more to exclude channels than you would to simply include channels. Cable costs would increase if they have to redesign their systems.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think that it costs cable companies any more to broadcast everything than it does to broadcast select packages, except maybe for license fees to content providers for pay per view, and stuff like that. | |
| 
AtlGuy
join:2000-10-17
Marietta, GA | A la carte pricing compared to naked DSL pricing I could easily see the cable companies doing the same things AT&T (I think) did with naked DSL pricing...charge so much that it isn't worth going a la carte. | |
| Prespd
join:2004-03-10
San Diego, CA
| what I want Lower prices: Sure, but that isn't going to happen in any scenario.
A la carte: Sure that would be nice to not get channels you don't want. Might be good for Switched video too that TWC is trying out.
What I really want:
The damn cable companies to stop showing me the channels I don't get in the cable onscreen menu. If i wanted them, I would pay for them. In fact, I have. Just let me delete the references to channels I don't get. I don't need to see ten pages of archaic sports channels, obscure golf crap, QVC and all the other shopping channels etc..just to get to the HD channels when scrolling the menu. | |
| openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| OK, If Everyone Plays Along I question the "need" to force corporate entities to deliver content a la carte on the premise of family values. Perhaps parents should fulfill their parental obligations. Or better yet, if access to such "filth" is such a hardship, maybe parents should step away from the TV, cancel their service, and partake in "family" activities.
Family values aside, if Martin wants to shove a la carte down content providers' throats, then it should be for all providers, to include telco, sat, cableco, IPTV providers, etc.
Side note, I'm a little miffed by the NCTA's comments that support continued bundling to create cost-efficiencies for minority and/or women-focused content. I think the fact that the content providers need to "force" delivery of this content says something about the desire for the content in the first place. | |
| flect
join:2006-05-31 | Wow That is the best damn news story I ever read. Kudos to whoever wrote it. | |
| kelso
join:2007-04-06
Ashburn, VA | I like it ! Yes, I like it! This should have happened years ago.
Toss the antiquated Tier system and embrace natural selection.
Imagine, a subscriber receiving only the channels he wants and none of the channels he doesn't. | |
|
anonymous coward
@internet.com
 from:
ArgMeMatey
| don't want _channels_ I want to pay for individual _programs_. | |
| |
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs: | Re: don't want _channels_ i like your thinking! | |
| 
Loker
Premium
join:2004-07-11
Fargo, ND
clubs:
| Am I the only one who sees this as causing rate INCREASES? Not only will many of the smaller or newer channels die out but I am betting since cable companies wont be able to buy in bulk like they could before they will have to pay much higher on a per subscriber basis for each channel....
--
"While preceding your entrance with a grenade is a good tactic inQuake, it can lead to problems if attempted at work." -- C Hacking | |
| | TurtleFan
join:2003-05-03
Wyckoff, NJ
| Re: Am I the only one who sees this as causing rate INCREASES? Who cares if the newer channels die out? Do we really need ESPN 4 with Ice Sulpcture Creating contests, or the all Poker Channel?
There's 700 channels on now, and STILL alot of nothing to watch except on the broadcast stations .
If it whern't for GSN and Cartoon Network/Boomerang, I'd cancel alltogether. Plus the occasional HBO and Cinemax HD movie of course ...
I say just do basic packages...
2-89 (no Sports, No Shopping). $9.99 a month.
HD 2-13 $4.99
HD Movies $30.99
Shopping - $5.99
Kids/Familly $3.99
Sports - $50.99
etc.. and whatever else is left. | |
| | |
rtcy
FACTS only please
Premium
join:1999-10-16
Beverly Hills, CA
·Verizon west (ex G..
·Verizon FIOS
2 edits | Re: Am I the only one who sees this as causing rate INCREASES? said by TurtleFan :Who cares if the newer channels die out? Do we really need ESPN 4 with Ice Sulpcture Creating contests, or the all Poker Channel? There's 700 channels on now, and STILL alot of nothing to watch except on the broadcast stations . If it whern't for GSN and Cartoon Network/Boomerang, I'd cancel alltogether. Plus the occasional HBO and Cinemax HD movie of course ... I say just do basic packages... 2-89 (no Sports, No Shopping). $9.99 a month. HD 2-13 $4.99 HD Movies $30.99 Shopping - $5.99 Kids/Familly $3.99 Sports - $50.99 etc.. and whatever else is left. you said it brother! there's 666 channels from hell and maybe one or two has a worthwhile movie or comedy on it, the rest is the same regurgetated crap that goes from one channel to the next, usually owned by the same parent corporations
right now for me it's
the science channel ( cosmos and planetary astrology stuff)
the comedy channels 107 and hbo comedy
the "super channels" as they were know in BIG dish land like
TNT
usa
WGN
KTLa (it's local to me so I watch it OTA in HD)
scifi to watch stargate / atlantis dr who
G4 to catch my daily dose of Star Trek (G$ is a perfect example of "aboslute power/money corrupts absolutely, they are owned by a cable company (forget which one) they bought out TECHTV and imploded it "aka merged it" with G4 and ruined the BEST computer / gadget related channel ever)
hbo to watch Bill Maher
I no longer watch CNN sice it has become a FU--ing soap opera, so I go to PBS and get REAL news from England as we have NO real news(the exception being McNeil Lerrer(that's hard to spell)) in the US anymore BBC NEWS
So what does my family watch the most? , REGULAR TV, and the kids have boomerang and the cartoon channels on.
We are blessed here in the Los Angeles area since we have 3 different PBS stations and all show different stuff at the same time and KCET is in "living color 720p HD" KOCe seems to be is a funk lately with their Hd and KLCS | |
| 
insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN
| Moot A la carte means nothing when you will have to pay a fee per tv since when digital is forced on us we will have to rent a cable box for each tv. The only people who will benefit are those with one tv. Cable companies will just charge a higher rental fee per box for an a la carte plan. Say five bucks a tv and 4 tvs, that's 15 extra a month on top of content. Then if they charge 5-10 a channel, it's just not going to be worth it. While their basic all inclusive plan will most likely include discounts on per tv rentals and other things to easily kill a la carte. | |
| 
richdelb
Go Hawks Go
Premium
join:2003-01-22
Algonquin, IL
·Comcast Formerly ..
| Service Fee Here's the way I see it playing out:
CABLE DELIVERY SERVICE FEE $39.99
A la carte regulatory fee 7.99
Equipment charge 11.99
Then you pay between 1 - 8 dollars per channel, depending on what you get. | |
| |
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| Re: Service Fee said by richdelb :Here's the way I see it playing out: CABLE DELIVERY SERVICE FEE $39.99 A la carte regulatory fee 7.99 Equipment charge 11.99 Then you pay between 1 - 8 dollars per channel, depending on what you get. there ya go!
remember when A T & T was forced to do "naked DSL" and the pricing was one dollar less than POTS + DSL.
no matter how you look at it cable prices aren't going down anytime soon.
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth | |
| 
Ebolla
join:2005-09-28
Dracut, MA
| Pricing ALAcarte is a good idea in theory but not sure it would pan out they way people expect. Unless the regulation hits more to the stations then the cable providers it really wouldnt be saving, or if it is saving it would be at the expense of a large amount of channels.
All of the channels have contracts stating $xxxx/year using XXX as a min. amount of subscribers. Less subscribers than that min and the company paying for that channel has to either eat the cost or pass it on to the subscriber. For example..
X channel wants 10mil a year for 5mil subscribers making a per subscriber cost $2.00 a year, If only 2.5mil people subscribe to that channel either the cable company loses 5mil a year carrying that channel, or ups its cost to $4.00 per year per sub.
Putting channels into "bulk" lowers the overall cost. I understand people dont want to subsidize channels they dont view as worthwhile, but in the longrun a true ALAcarte will impact ALL channels the same, not just a few. | |
| | Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO | Re: Pricing Search here for other A LA Carte threads. I know one of them leads to a very good article that shows a vast majority of subscribers will pay less money and will get the channels they want. | |
| | |
rtcy
FACTS only please
Premium
join:1999-10-16
Beverly Hills, CA
·Verizon west (ex G..
·Verizon FIOS
| Re: Pricing said by Skippy25 :Search here for other A LA Carte threads. I know one of them leads to a very good article that shows a vast majority of subscribers will pay less money and will get the channels they want. »www.callnps.com/alacarte.htm | |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| I find this funny "To access these educational and family-friendly networks (Disney, Nickelodeon, ABC Family) [parents] are also forced to pay for channels they don't want and that actually make their job as a parent much more difficult. Now, in addition to trying to protect their children from the filth on Fox, NBC, UPN, and the other broadcast networks, they also have to try to protect their children from the much more explicit fare on MTV, FX, Comedy Central, and the like."
Aren't these owed by the same company that runs FoxNews. You know the channel Jesus freaks watch? | |
|
No to ESPN
@rr.com
| I am in favor, but . . . I would consider getting cable or satellite if I did not have get all the sports channels. I do not want to be paying for millionaire salaries through ESPN. On the other hand I would buy most of the stuff that Mr. Martin is concerned about. In my view professional sports is a vice and should be treated as such. | |
| myerskl
join:2001-05-31
Fairborn, OH
| I want AlaCart I recently upgraded from DirecTV's basic package to the middle tire to get a fex extra channels I watched. Anyway then I found out that they removed several channels that I was getting in the basic to the top tier. I was very upset thinking after I found out several channels were removed that I had in the basic.
Anyway I called DirecTV again to complain and they gave me HBO for $3 for six months and Starz free for 3 months to make up for it.
I hate this game. I also watch around 6 channels plus locals which I can get anyway and better quaility free OTA but I have to get the top tier to get the 6 channels that I watch the most.
So the way I look at it is those 6 channels cost me $8-$10 each. | |
| majortom1029
join:2006-10-19
Lindenhurst, NY | verizon I would support it if verizon and the dish people had to also follow the law. | |
| | Thebodygd
join:2006-03-24
Colonial Heights, VA
| Re: verizon Here in a local market we had to pay what equals to 6 dollars a sub to carry one local channel, thats just one local, ESPN would be around the same individually. So 12 dollars for two channels so far. Tell me how individual pricing works again?
The reason your rates keep going up is all the bundling the media giants are forcing down the cable company and Dish companies throats. you can't carry this unless you carry twenty other channels and pay this price, then we're contractually obligated to carry those channels and make the bandwidth for them then carry them and have the equipment to broadcast it out maintain that equipment. Ever since the FCC gave so much power to the broadcasters the rates they have been charging carriers is crazy. | |
| | | |
|
|
