# ESPN costs me $6-12 a month: outrageous



## pfred (Feb 8, 2009)

I was just thinking, ESPN costs me $6-15 a month. That includes ESPN and all its spin-offs, plus the cut Dish gets for being the middle-man. That is money that I might as well have flushed down the toilet, since I don't give a rat's ass what is on those channels.

I wish more people would express their outrage, so we could get what we pay for.


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

Everyone has channels that they don't watch that they pay for. I probably regularly watch fewer than 10 channels that I don't subscribe to specifically (HBO, MLB-EI, etc).


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

pfred said:


> I was just thinking, ESPN costs me $6-15 a month. That includes ESPN and all its spin-offs, plus the cut Dish gets for being the middle-man. That is money that I might as well have flushed down the toilet, since I don't give a rat's ass what is on those channels.
> 
> I wish more people would express their outrage, so we could get what we pay for.


Many others don't give a crap about your channels, either.


----------



## boba (May 23, 2003)

pfred said:


> I was just thinking, ESPN costs me $6-15 a month. That includes ESPN and all its spin-offs, plus the cut Dish gets for being the middle-man. That is money that I might as well have flushed down the toilet, since I don't give a rat's ass what is on those channels.
> 
> I wish more people would express their outrage, so we could get what we pay for.


FIND the package that suits your viewing interests the best and subscribe to it. I like the Welcome Pak, no ESPN, that dosen't mean you will like the contents. If DISH dosen't have a package you like then you are subscribing to the wrong service look elsewhere for what will make you happy.


----------



## maartena (Nov 1, 2010)

pfred said:


> I was just thinking, ESPN costs me $6-15 a month. That includes ESPN and all its spin-offs, plus the cut Dish gets for being the middle-man. That is money that I might as well have flushed down the toilet, since I don't give a rat's ass what is on those channels.
> 
> I wish more people would express their outrage, so we could get what we pay for.


There are probably channels YOU watch that I don't give a rats ass about. Sorry, but that is how it works.... a-la-carte is never going to happen, big companies like Disney sell their channels in package deals, which includes every channel that starts with "ABC", "Disney" or "ESPN".

And there is NO cable provider, NO satellite provider, NO telco provider.... that sells any packages without a channel you might not like. There is a few without ESPN though.

So its either accept it or cancel altogether.

Want REAL a-la-carte? Take it one step further, don't choose channels, but choose individual programs from Netflix, Hulu, iTunes, and other sources. Your choice isn't going to be as great as Dish or DirecTV, but hey.... you won't be paying for all those channels you don't watch.


----------



## sregener (Apr 17, 2012)

pfred said:


> I was just thinking, ESPN costs me $6-15 a month. That includes ESPN and all its spin-offs, plus the cut Dish gets for being the middle-man. That is money that I might as well have flushed down the toilet, since I don't give a rat's ass what is on those channels.
> 
> I wish more people would express their outrage, so we could get what we pay for.


You select a package that has the channels you want, at a price you want it. That is fair. ESPN is costing you nothing if you don't want it - you're not paying for it. You are paying for a package of channels you want, which is priced at a level that you believe the channels are worth the cost you're paying. Nobody is robbing you here.

The cable stations have fought a la carte for a few decades - they aren't likely to give in now. But we do now have a la carte - by the program. And the costs compared to the package prices show how a la carte ends up costing more, not less, for most people and the way they view. The exception are those who are happy with only broadcast television for live and sporting events, and find older movies and television shows acceptable on Netflix or Amazon.com.

It is the nature of the customer to demand the most product for the least cost. And it is the nature of the producer to demand as much money for the least product as possible. Where the two meet is where free exchange takes place.


----------



## vahighland (Mar 29, 2005)

pfred said:


> I was just thinking, ESPN costs me $6-15 a month. That includes ESPN and all its spin-offs, plus the cut Dish gets for being the middle-man. That is money that I might as well have flushed down the toilet, since I don't give a rat's ass what is on those channels.
> 
> I wish more people would express their outrage, so we could get what we pay for.


++1


----------



## Wilf (Oct 15, 2008)

sregener said:


> . . . and find older movies and television shows acceptable on Netflix or Amazon.com.


It is a lot more than that ... it is "television without commercial interruption, even without the interruption of pushing the skip button. In my experience, after being a Netflix customer for over a year, I find it very difficult to watch TV with interruptions every ten minutes anymore - so I don't. Pay television should not have commercials!


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

Wilf said:


> It is a lot more than that ... it is "television without commercial interruption, even without the interruption of pushing the skip button. In my experience, after being a Netflix customer for over a year, I find it very difficult to watch TV with interruptions every ten minutes anymore - so I don't. *Pay television should not have commercials!*


Then pay television would be much more expensive.


----------



## richall01 (Sep 30, 2007)

Give some people a $1,000 bucks and they will will not be happy because you give it to them in hundred dollar bills!


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Perspective is needed here. And don't throw in Welcome Paks or other packages that don't offer access to USA, TNT, Syfy, FX, Lifetime, Comedy Central, Nickelodeon and MTV. Those are core cable channels.

ESPN requires that it be is in the lowest AT tier and the equivalents through every satellite/cable source I've seen.

It represents 10-15% of the cost each provider charges for that that bottom tier.

It is part of Disney's group of channels which represent 20%-30% for that bottom tier.


----------



## pfred (Feb 8, 2009)

maartena said:


> There are probably channels YOU watch that I don't give a rats ass about. Sorry, but that is how it works.... a-la-carte is never going to happen


Never say never. 
I have been hearing more talk from the media business that they know subscribers are fed up with spending so much for stuff they don't watch; and ESPN is the prime offender, and I whole-heartedly agree- stop forcing us to pay so much for ESPN and the rest of the sports tier (tear!).


----------



## tampa8 (Mar 30, 2002)

pfred said:


> Never say never.
> I have been hearing more talk from the media business that they know subscribers are fed up with spending so much for stuff they don't watch; and ESPN is the prime offender, and I whole-heartedly agree- stop forcing us to pay so much for ESPN and the rest of the sports tier (tear!).


:beatdeadhorse:

As so many, you don't realize what A La Carte _for current_ programming really means. Easily the same cost or more than the $6 for ESPN. A combination of just 10 channels most certainly would cost $50 $60. And no way any provider is going to sell you just a two or three channels, there's not enough money in it to operate on that kind of income. Yes sports in general is expensive and RSN's in my opinion should be separate from the packages. But ESPN generally is watched in most households.

I specifiy current programming because look at what it costs for episodes of current programs from the likes of AMC if you buy them from Amazon as an example.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

maartena said:


> There are probably channels YOU watch that I don't give a rats ass about.


But none that take as big a bite of the pie.


----------



## tommiet (Dec 29, 2005)

hilmar2k said:


> Everyone has channels that they don't watch that they pay for. I probably regularly watch fewer than 10 channels that I don't subscribe to specifically (HBO, MLB-EI, etc).


No other station cost a premium price as ESPN and FOX Sports do. What if I asked everyone else to pay for HBO to lower the price?

ESPN needs to be added to a premium tier. It's the only station I know of that cost customers over $10.00 a month and I have no choice in the matter. If I'm wrong, someone correct me.


----------



## tommiet (Dec 29, 2005)

On another note... Last year I send a comment about this to the CEO email address and I was given a $10.00 a month credit for a year. Guess its time to [email protected] again.


----------



## sregener (Apr 17, 2012)

tommiet said:


> No other station cost a premium price as ESPN and FOX Sports do. What if I asked everyone else to pay for HBO to lower the price?
> 
> ESPN needs to be added to a premium tier. It's the only station I know of that cost customers over $10.00 a month and I have no choice in the matter. If I'm wrong, someone correct me.


No choice? Someone is holding a gun to your head and insisting that you subscribe to a package that includes ESPN? You always have a choice. The fact that a choice you would like better is not available does not mean you do not have a choice. It means that you have had to compromise.

In a perfect world, I would insist that stations sell their channels individually. They do not. They sell them in groups, and they negotiate which tiers which channels must go into.

Here's my a la carte solution: eliminate programming packages. Allow each company to create their own list, and set the prices accordingly. So if Disney wants you to buy ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNNews/ESPNU/ESPN Classic/Disney East/Disney West/Broadcast ABC and the price is $20/month, you can choose to buy the Disney corporate package or not. Time Warner can create their own TNT/TBS/TWC/etc package, and you can choose to buy it or not. Dish can put together a package of freebies (channels whose advertising pays for itself, or loss leaders) available to all. What I suspect is that if ESPN were moved to its own package, along with all the other channels Disney owns, 90% of you would buy it because you would want the other channels, EVEN IF YOU NEVER WATCH ESPN! Disney will never agree to move ESPN to its own tier, without tying it to the other channels.

What you seem to want is the perfect world, where you only pay for the channels you actually want. Here's the rub: if ESPN isn't in that mix, you'll end up paying more for your perfect world of a la carte because your channels are not as popular as ESPN. By making ESPN optional, you'd make your favorite channels optional, and because so few people (relatively speaking) would opt into your favorite channel, the cost per subscriber would jump up quickly. In many cases, these smaller audience channels would cease to exist. We'd probably end up with 20-30 cable channels, but we'd each only get a subset of them and it'd cost us about what we're paying now for the 8-10 channels we wanted. On the other hand, the quality of the available content would jump dramatically, as the good stuff wouldn't be spread over 250+ channels. But niche viewers would be left out altogether.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

It's like the buddy system. You may not like those channels you're paying for but someone else does. Someone else doesn't like the channels you do but they pay for them as well. This keeps the cost down for everyone. If it went the ala carte way people keep talking about you might not even have the option to watch some of those channels as they wouldn't survive and those that did would cost more overall than what you pay now. These companies are not going to do something that reduces their profits so that means it would just cost more.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Yeah... choices exist whether you like them or not.

I would like to be able to just buy 5 Keebler cookies... not a pack that contains 12 or 20 or 60... but I can't. That means my choice is to buy the big bag of cookies or just not eat that brand.

You have a choice to pay for satellite/cable TV or not... then you have package choices if you choose to subscribe. That you don't have all possible choices is NOT an indicator that you don't have choice.

Also... I don't know where these ESPN numbers are coming from.

The title says "$6-$12" and then we have a recent assertion that it is costing someone $10 per month.

Does anybody REALLY know and have proof of how much of their Dish subscription goes to ESPN? Throwing large numbers around and talking about how awful they are loses meaning if these are made-up numbers.


----------



## SatelliteSolutionsNetwork (Apr 19, 2012)

DISH offers more options when it comes to channel packages than almost any provider. There are 9 English packages alone, plus 5 Spanish packages. The point in creating all of these packages was to make sure customers have more choice and are left with less channels they don't want.

I know it can be frustrating to feel as if you are paying for more than you want or need, but, as the others noted, it's impossible to create customized channel packages so you will inevitably have access to a few channels you don't watch.


----------



## tommiet (Dec 29, 2005)

sregener said:


> No choice? Someone is holding a gun to your head and insisting that you subscribe to a package that includes ESPN? You always have a choice. The fact that a choice you would like better is not available does not mean you do not have a choice. It means that you have had to compromise.
> 
> In a perfect world, I would insist that stations sell their channels individually. They do not. They sell them in groups, and they negotiate which tiers which channels must go into.
> 
> ...


Other than the basic package, I cannot get much of anything else without getting robbed for ESPN. I know of no other basic programming channel that cost more per customer than ESPN. I'm not asking for al carte. Just a choice of *not* having to pay for ANY premium channel. Not asking for too much. Dish does not require everyone to pay for HBO? Not much difference in price if you add ESPN and FOX SPORTS together. If everone would pay for HBO, I could save some each month. Yeah, that's stupid. But whats the difference?

If I end up paying the same for less channels, what did I lose? ESPN, FOX SPORTS and local sports. NO LOSS FOR ME AND MANY OTHERS. Sounds good to me!


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

sregener said:


> No choice? Someone is holding a gun to your head and insisting that you subscribe to a package that includes ESPN? You always have a choice. The fact that a choice you would like better is not available does not mean you do not have a choice. It means that you have had to compromise.
> 
> In a perfect world, I would insist that stations sell their channels individually. They do not. They sell them in groups, and they negotiate which tiers which channels must go into.
> 
> ...


It won't happen.


----------



## inazsully (Oct 3, 2006)

Sports on TV is the most popular programming in the world and especially in the USA. It's really a simple matter of offering what the majority wants. Soccer is number one in the world and football is number one in the US. Advertisers spend where they can get the most bang for their buck. Sports rules, always has and always will.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

tommiet said:


> Other than the basic package, I cannot get much of anything else without getting robbed for ESPN. I know of no other basic programming channel that cost more per customer than ESPN. I'm not asking for al carte. Just a choice of *not* having to pay for ANY premium channel. Not asking for too much. Dish does not require everyone to pay for HBO? Not much difference in price if you add ESPN and FOX SPORTS together. If everone would pay for HBO, I could save some each month. Yeah, that's stupid. But whats the difference?
> 
> If I end up paying the same for less channels, what did I lose? ESPN, FOX SPORTS and local sports. NO LOSS FOR ME AND MANY OTHERS. Sounds good to me!


Yeah... but what if I don't want to pay for the dozen channels that you like that I never watch? I want those out of my package too... but then many of those wouldn't survive, and you might be surprised at what few channels are left if we weren't all subsidizing each other's channels.

Besides... TV is not a right... it is a luxury... and there is always a choice to not watch TV if it costs too much.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Yeah... but what if I don't want to pay for the dozen channels that you like that I never watch? I want those out of my package too...


That argument only holds water for like-priced channels. I don't care if they have 30 channels I don't watch that are getting 30 or 40 cents each. When one oddball is included at 10-15 times the 'normal' rate, it makes the whole mess lopsided.

The fair way is to make ESPN a premium channel whether ABC/Disney likes it or not. If Dish, Direct and the cable companies would band together and make a stand, they could break Disney's will.

At the very least, do as I've suggested before; make each package level available with or without sports -- all sports channels including ESPN, Fuel, Tennis, Golf, HRTV, TV Game, FSC, FOXCN, the RSNs and anything else that is primarily sports focused.

AT120 With or AT120 Without for example. The names wouldn't have to be changed since they don't really reflect the number of channels accurately anyways.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

SayWhat? said:


> That argument only holds water for like-priced channels. I don't care if they have 30 channels I don't watch that are getting 30 or 40 cents each. When one oddball is included at 10-15 times the 'normal' rate, it makes the whole mess lopsided.


Wait... so it is unfair for you to have to pay $5 for one channel you don't want but it is somehow fair for me to have to pay $5 for 10 channels I don't want?

How does that work?

Isn't it the same argument?

My paying for ESPN in that package helps support you by me also paying for all those channels you like but that I never watch... similarly, your paying for those channels you like then helps me get ESPN.

While we all know why a la carte isn't the savior that people think it would be... at least people who want ALL channels a la carte are being fair to everyone. Your argument to just single out ESPN wouldn't be fair to everyone at all.

I would still be paying for dozens of channels that you like but that I don't watch in your scenario, whereas you would be saving money by not paying for ESPN. How is that fair?


----------



## jpeckinp (Nov 6, 2006)

SayWhat? said:


> If Dish, Direct and the cable companies would band together and make a stand, they could break Disney's will.


It's called collusion and would never stand up if and when it went to the courts.


----------



## tommiet (Dec 29, 2005)

ESPN (or sports in general,) is like a drug for some. Pay the cost no mater what and if you can get others to help pay for your drug of choice, even better....


----------



## Wilf (Oct 15, 2008)

tommiet said:


> ESPN (or sports in general,) is like a drug for some. Pay the cost no mater what and if you can get others to help pay for your drug of choice, even better....


That says it all! And that is why the media companies are fighting IPTV, which is where things are going, whether they like it or not.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

jpeckinp said:


> It's called collusion and would never stand up if and when it went to the courts.


No, it's called a boycott and it would never get to court because none of the carriers are required to carry any specific provider package.


----------



## Redbullsnation (Apr 16, 2012)

This is why more people need to wake up and realize what crappy channels they're paying for that they don't even watch. I watch like 3-4 channels a day, 7 total for everybody here and I still can't figure out why the other million channels are there...

A la carte will be the future OR the never...


----------



## Inkosaurus (Jul 29, 2011)

Redbullsnation said:


> This is why more people need to wake up and realize what crappy channels they're paying for that they don't even watch. I watch like 3-4 channels a day, 7 total for everybody here and I still can't figure out why the other million channels are there...
> 
> A la carte will be the future OR the never...


A la carte is the past, it was around and it failed.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 15, 2008)

Inkosaurus said:


> A la carte is the past, it was around and it failed.


No, it's here and now. It is known as Netflix, Amazon Video, Acorn TV, etc.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Wilf said:


> No, it's here and now. It is known as Netflix, Amazon Video, Acorn TV, etc.


Those aren't a la carte. You have to pay a monthly fee for everything whether you watch anything or not. While they are lower fees, they also have far less available content too... but definitely NOT a la carte.


----------



## sregener (Apr 17, 2012)

"Stewart Vernon" said:


> Those aren't a la carte. You have to pay a monthly fee for everything whether you watch anything or not. While they are lower fees, they also have far less available content too... but definitely NOT a la carte.


Amazon Instant Video is most definitely a la carte. Amazon Prime is not. ITunes is a la carte.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

sregener said:


> Amazon Instant Video is most definitely a la carte. Amazon Prime is not. ITunes is a la carte.


He said "Netflix" and "Amazon Video"... he didn't specify Amazon Prime vs Amazon Instant Video. Since he listed Netflix first, I assumed me meant Amazon Prime.

That said...

Amazon Instant Video and iTunes aren't "a la carte" in the sense of what people mean when they talk about TV.

Best Buy is a la carte using that logic... but I don't think most people compare their purchases at Best Buy or iTunes where you buy and own a movie to Netflix streaming or satellite/cable TV services.

I wouldn't call iTunes and Amazon Instant Video or any other place where you buy something "a la carte"... it's a different metric and comparison.

IF you purchase everything you want to watch, then you don't need cable or satellite or even Netflix at all.

IF you want to rent or stream or see things as they are released, then you need Netflix or cable or satellite or OTA or something else.


----------



## Inkosaurus (Jul 29, 2011)

Wilf said:


> No, it's here and now. It is known as Netflix, Amazon Video, Acorn TV, etc.


Thanks for not reading the post I was quoting and completely missing the context of mine.

Everyone knows when it comes to this forum, and even this thread (based on how its been brought up thus far) that when "a la carte" is brought up were talking about picking and mixing your channel line up with your tv provider, which is also what the person I was quoting was talking about.

Paying for individual episodes is the absolute extreme version of a la carte and honestly its not even a valid discussion in my opinion. The people who do purchase individual episodes more then most likely havent abandoned pay tv all together and are only buying these episodes because they dont want to change there package around to accomodate for one shows worth of episodes.

So once again.

A la carte is the past, and its failed.


----------



## tampa8 (Mar 30, 2002)

Inkosaurus said:


> ......
> Everyone knows when it comes to this forum, and even this thread (based on how its been brought up thus far) that when "a la carte" is brought up were talking about picking and mixing your channel line up with your tv provider, which is also what the person I was quoting was talking about.
> 
> Paying for individual episodes is the absolute extreme version of a la carte and honestly its not even a valid discussion in my opinion. The people who do purchase individual episodes more then most likely havent abandoned pay tv all together and are only buying these episodes because they dont want to change there package around to accomodate for one shows worth of episodes.
> ...


+1


----------



## sregener (Apr 17, 2012)

"Inkosaurus" said:


> Paying for individual episodes is the absolute extreme version of a la carte and honestly its not even a valid discussion in my opinion. The people who do purchase individual episodes more then most likely havent abandoned pay tv all together and are only buying these episodes because they dont want to change there package around to accomodate for one shows worth of episodes.
> 
> So once again.
> 
> A la carte is the past, and its failed.


But this is precisely the point: buying individual shows is a la carte, and it doesn't take much to realize just how much more expensive that route is than buying a package of channels for most people. People who advocate a la carte do so because they believe it will save them money. Odds are good it won't.

But that does not mean buying individual shows is not a valid option worthy of discussion. Buying a TiVo box and hooking it up to an antenna would give most people the majority of what they watch. Then, a pay-per-show option would likely save them quite a bit, as there aren't that many scripted shows on cable worth anything. The only thing lost would be lots of live sports. Netflix's mail service would provide plenty of movies. How is this not a valid option?


----------



## Wilf (Oct 15, 2008)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Those aren't a la carte. You have to pay a monthly fee for everything whether you watch anything or not. While they are lower fees, they also have far less available content too... but definitely NOT a la carte.


Perhaps 'a la carte' is not the correct term. But with the likes of Netflix, you are paying for TV without the ads. And that is really addicting. I believe most folks would find it intolerable if the local movie theater interrupted a movie with a three minute ad every ten minutes. Why should we accept that on our TV's when we no longer need to? I know you can choose to watch PPV without ads, but you are paying for that movie on top of the fees you are paying for all the channels you do not watch. It is a crazy system that we no longer need to tolerate.


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

You posted this in a DISH forum, but truthfully, there isnt a content provider where you can get any substantial programming package that doesnt include ESPN. Shouldn't your outrage be posted somewhere else?


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Wilf said:


> I believe most folks would find it intolerable if the local movie theater interrupted a movie with a three minute ad every ten minutes. Why should we accept that on our TV's when we no longer need to?


Who determines when we "no longer need to"?

You do realize that advertising is the major source of revenue for broadcast channels via OTA and a good chunk of revenue for cable/satellite non-premium channels as well.

if those ad dollars go poof (i.e. the end of commercials) where is that money going to come from? That's right... you and me. So our bills would skyrocket overnight IF commercials ended tomorrow.

Just because you don't see the money change hands doesn't mean it isn't paying for much of the programming you watch.

Those TV shows you stream on Netflix or buy on iTunes or Amazon or a retail store... most of them wouldn't exist if they weren't funded by commercials on TV.


----------



## inazsully (Oct 3, 2006)

Commercials are absolutely necessary. Now if we could just get them to run them all by me before they allow them to air. Many are so idiotic it makes you wonder if anybody actually screens them before letting them see the light of day.


----------



## satcrazy (Mar 16, 2011)

Having a lower tier dsl speed, I don't stream, so, Is Amazon instant and Itune commercial free?

I don't know what they offer, but I watch a few series on fx, usa, tnt, and a few others. Conceavably you could drop to the lowest package, and just stream/pay for what you want. Only if they are commercial free, of course.

or cut the cord and stream with OTA as back up. My problem is there isn't much of interest to me on locals, [with the exception of PBS and local news]

I'd have to do the math to figure out if its cheaper than subbing to the 250 pkg.

I am guessing here, but those ads that are jammed on us every 8 minutes are needed mostly to pay for the performer's rediculous salaries. The mute button is your friend.


----------



## tampa8 (Mar 30, 2002)

Wilf said:


> I believe most folks would find it intolerable if the local movie theater interrupted a movie with a three minute ad every ten minutes.


Remind me again how much that one 2 1/2 hour movie costs? Oh ya, for a family of three or four as much as a month of a multitude of TV channels and programming..... Where by the way you can watch that movie eventually possibly with no commercials depending on your package. For sure no commercials with a $16 or less premium movie package.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

tampa8 said:


> Remind me again how much that one 2 1/2 hour movie costs? Oh ya, for a family of three or four as much as a month of a multitude of TV channels and programming..... Where by the way you can watch that movie eventually possibly with no commercials depending on your package. For sure no commercials with a $16 or less premium movie package.


Yeah... that's the thing people conveniently forget... To watch first-run commercial free movies in the theater costs a pretty penny, especially if you have a family.

I often wonder... all the folk who complain about commercials and the cost of pay TV... how many of them go to theaters and pay a premium? I haven't been to a theater in so many years that I can't remember the last time. I get way more bang for my buck by subscribing to Dish and waiting for movies to show up there.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 15, 2008)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Who determines when we "no longer need to"?
> 
> You do realize that advertising is the major source of revenue for broadcast channels via OTA and a good chunk of revenue for cable/satellite non-premium channels as well.
> 
> ...


Wow! You make it sound evil to watch the likes of Netflix. I can only speak for myself, but I would gladly pay much more for Netflix if I had to.

Also keep in mind, Netflix, like all web services, is a low profit-margin business, unlike conventional cable.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Wilf said:


> Wow! You make it sound evil to watch the likes of Netflix. I can only speak for myself, but I would gladly pay much more for Netflix if I had to.
> 
> Also keep in mind, Netflix, like all web services, is a low profit-margin business, unlike conventional cable.


Keep in mind that the content you watch on Netflix only exists because it was paid for elsewhere. The movies exist because they were made for the movie theater... the TV shows exist because they were made to air (mostly) on commercial TV.

IF commercial TV goes away then those shows might go away... then Netflix doesn't have new content to stream!

OR... as I've said... the cost goes up to account for the lost ad revenue... and then Netflix will cost more too.

Netflix is fine for what it is... and fine as a supplemental business for viewing stuff. BUT if a substantial number of customers dropped cable and satellite in favor of Netflix, the cost of content to Netflix would increase to account for that lost revenue OR the content would stop coming.

It's not about good and evil... it's about reality. It's one thing to talk about greedy movie executives... but if they don't make money, they stop making content.


----------



## tommiet (Dec 29, 2005)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Those aren't a la carte. You have to pay a monthly fee for everything whether you watch anything or not. While they are lower fees, they also have far less available content too... but definitely NOT a la carte.


I'm only asking NOT to pay for premium channel that I do not want. And the cost of ESPN/FOX SPORTS is just as high as other premium channels. Customers should have a choice for ANY channel that cost more than $5.00 a month.

I can live without DISH and ESPN. Can you?

ESPN--- NOT MY DRUG OF CHOICE.....


----------



## Wilf (Oct 15, 2008)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Keep in mind that the content you watch on Netflix only exists because it was paid for elsewhere. The movies exist because they were made for the movie theater... the TV shows exist because they were made to air (mostly) on commercial TV.
> 
> IF commercial TV goes away then those shows might go away... then Netflix doesn't have new content to stream!


Hmmm - so I shouldn't use a new business model because it might harm the old business model? Interesting viewpoint.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

tommiet said:


> I'm only asking NOT to pay for premium channel that I do not want.


I'm not asking for a la carte either... I'm only asking NOT to pay for the channels you like, but that I never watch.

That, then, is how we get to a la carte because each of us likes different channels... but then that model has been tried and abandoned in large part because consumers almost always choose to bundle for savings rather than pay individual prices.



Wilf said:


> Hmmm - so I shouldn't use a new business model because it might harm the old business model? Interesting viewpoint.


That's not what I said at all. What I said was that Netflix is cheaper now because it is a secondary way to watch TV. You can bet if it becomes the primary choice, the costs will go up. That's the nature of business.

So the "use Netflix because it is cheaper" argument is only true for now... Move enough people away from cable/satellite and to Netflix and watch how Netflix costs go up.

History has taught us this over and over... New thing comes and is cheaper to get marketshare... gets marketshare and then prices go up because no good competition exists anymore... then next new thing comes along. rinse + repeat.


----------



## inazsully (Oct 3, 2006)

In a way today's marketing strategy proves your point. It doesn't matter if you're talking about "D" or "E" or the local cable company. They like to brag that they have the most HD channels. They don't mention the quality of said channels or how many are premium movie channels that you have to pay extra for. Just that we have the most HD channels. And it impresses us. Unfortunately quanity often times wins out over quality.


----------



## tommiet (Dec 29, 2005)

Stewart Vernon said:


> I'm not asking for a la carte either... I'm only asking NOT to pay for the channels you like, but that I never watch.


Steward... please do not take my comments personally. Its the system I'm not happy with.

Sounds like you are asking for a la carte. You do not want to pay for channel*s* you do not watch. That is a la carte. I'm asking for the option not to pay for premium channels I do not want. I think we are talking about 2 different things.

Good change that if you added up all the channels you do don't want (and are required to purchase due to packages offered,) they would not come close to the cost of the drug known as ESPN.

ESPN --- The crack cocaine of Dish programming.


----------



## oldschoolecw (Jan 25, 2007)

tommiet said:


> Steward... please do not take my comments personally. Its the system I'm not happy with.
> 
> Sounds like you are asking for a la carte. You do not want to pay for channel*s* you do not watch. That is a la carte. I'm asking for the option not to pay for premium channels I do not want. I think we are talking about 2 different things.
> 
> ...


You want la carte, it's called cord cutting. That what I'm really thinking about doing once my Dish contract is up in January 13

I have almost all the tools
PC
Boxee Box
Roku
XBOX360


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

tommiet said:


> Steward... please do not take my comments personally. Its the system I'm not happy with.
> 
> Sounds like you are asking for a la carte. You do not want to pay for channel*s* you do not watch. That is a la carte. I'm asking for the option not to pay for premium channels I do not want. I think we are talking about 2 different things.
> 
> ...


I'm not taking things personally... I'm just pointing out why you can't just have your way without giving others the option to have their way.

I guarantee you that the number of channels that I don't watch add up to more than what ESPN costs... because there are a lot of channels that I don't watch.

I really don't want a la carte, though... I'm actually okay with the current model that allows new channels to take pennies on the dollar and be in a package that gets them enough subscribers to have enough revenue to spend money on programming rather than have to mortgage themselves to infinity to start up a PPV premium channel and hope they eventually get out of the red!

I would love to see a historical comparison of pay tv price & number of channels over the course of history. My guess is that we aren't paying proportionally as much per channel now as we were when cable first started... and we have more choice by virtue of these packages, in some cases anchored by channels like ESPN that a lot of people want and are willing to pay for subsidizing other smaller less-popular channels existence.


----------



## sregener (Apr 17, 2012)

Stewart Vernon said:


> I would love to see a historical comparison of pay tv price & number of channels over the course of history.


I signed up for DirecTV in 1995. The cost was $29.95/month. There were about 70 channels, and many of the popular ones were not included because they were on USSB. There was no HD, and no DVR option. Local channels were not available, except in NYC and LA.

Today, I have an HD DVR and 250 channels, plus locals. That's 3.5x more channels. 3.5x $29.95 would be over $106/month. The package price for AT250 is about $85, including all DVR fees. This assumes a fixed dollar, but inflation over that period would indicate the price should be about double that, so about $212/month just based on channel prices.

Granted, this is a snapshot, not a long-term historical comparison. Still, it puts things in perspective, does it not?


----------



## tommiet (Dec 29, 2005)

oldschoolecw said:


> You want la carte, it's called cord cutting. That what I'm really thinking about doing once my Dish contract is up in January 13
> 
> I have almost all the tools
> PC
> ...


Looks like a whole lota cords to me!!!! :hurah:


----------



## pfred (Feb 8, 2009)

maartena said:


> There are probably channels YOU watch that I don't give a rats ass about. Sorry, but that is how it works.... a-la-carte is never going to happen, .


It doesn't have to be a-la-carte. They can also do tiers, like a sports tier, a DIY tier, science&nature tier, ... etc.
I think media companies are shooting themselves in the foot by telling me "You want Discovery, well you have to take ESPN and you over there, you want ESPN, you have to take Lifetime"


----------



## tommiet (Dec 29, 2005)

pfred said:


> It doesn't have to be a-la-carte. They can also do tiers, like a sports tier, a DIY tier, science&nature tier, ... etc.
> I think media companies are shooting themselves in the foot by telling me "You want Discovery, well you have to take ESPN and you over there, you want ESPN, you have to take Lifetime"


AMEN!


----------



## Link (Feb 2, 2004)

Even cable companies are finally offering cheaper cable options that don't include ESPN because of the costs. Expanded basic cable is about $70-80 now and gets more unaffordable each year. The cable companies have no choice but to start offering different tier options if they want to keep customers.


----------



## Gloria_Chavez (Aug 11, 2008)

sregener said:


> I signed up for DirecTV in 1995. The cost was $29.95/month. There were about 70 channels, and many of the popular ones were not included because they were on USSB. There was no HD, and no DVR option. Local channels were not available, except in NYC and LA.
> 
> Today, I have an HD DVR and 250 channels, plus locals. That's 3.5x more channels. 3.5x $29.95 would be over $106/month. The package price for AT250 is about $85, including all DVR fees. This assumes a fixed dollar, but inflation over that period would indicate the price should be about double that, so about $212/month just based on channel prices.
> 
> Granted, this is a snapshot, not a long-term historical comparison. Still, it puts things in perspective, does it not?


So, I've got to ask, are you watching 350% (3.5x in percentage terms) more TV today, compared to 1995?

If you're a median household, you're watching just 13% more TV.


----------



## sregener (Apr 17, 2012)

Gloria_Chavez said:


> So, I've got to ask, are you watching 350% (3.5x in percentage terms) more TV today, compared to 1995?
> 
> If you're a median household, you're watching just 13% more TV.


Much less than in 1995. But I'm getting a picture that is at least 3.5x sharper.

But a dollar today isn't worth what it was in 1995, either. Using the cost of a gallon of gas as a comparison (since government inflation figures are cooked to make things look better than they are), it was $1.16 in 1995 and about $3.66 in 2012. So are you getting 2.2x as far on a gallon of gas as you were in 1995?

Using that 2.2x number, the $29.95 package would be $65.89. Dish's Top 120 is about the closest package that I can come up with that is comparable to DirecTV's Total Choice package of 1995, and the retail price for the AT120 package is $44.99.

My guess is that if you're like most Americans, you spend more on gas than you do on cable/satellite. Maybe you should be more worried about rising energy costs than entertainment...


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

sregener said:


> My guess is that if you're like most Americans, you spend more on gas than you do on cable/satellite. Maybe you should be more worried about rising energy costs than entertainment...


That's actually a pretty good point... and coincides with a discussion I was having recently with my father about how people seem to get way more up in arms about things of lesser importance, while the things of greater importance keep on trucking.


----------



## Darcaine (Aug 31, 2009)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Keep in mind that the content you watch on Netflix only exists because it was paid for elsewhere. The movies exist because they were made for the movie theater... the TV shows exist because they were made to air (mostly) on commercial TV.
> 
> IF commercial TV goes away then those shows might go away... then Netflix doesn't have new content to stream!


That's not exactly true anymore. Netflix is now in the content creation game because its getting harder and more expensive to license content from the content providers. HBO won't license any of their content, and sees netflix as a direct competitor, esp with HBO Go on the same playground as Netflix.

Lilyhammer, new seasons of Arrested Development, possibly a reboot of Jericho etc will only be available via Netflix for first run viewing. Hulu and Youtube are also now in the first run content business (at least for the States). Won't be long before Amazon does the same thing. Once HBO and Showtime wake up (if they ever do) and realize there's a whole world outside the service providers that desire their content and are pirating it because they refuse to pay for this archaic system the content providers/distributors want to keep in place, and offer direct to consumer subscriptions ala Netflix, there will be a ton of (commercial free for a lot of it) first run content that doesn't require linear tv to access.

Outside of a few shows, most cable channels are becoming less desirable as competiton for first run video content increases from other places, especially to younger people, the likes of who will likely never subscribe to traditional tv.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 15, 2008)

Darcaine said:


> That's not exactly true anymore. Netflix is now in the content creation game because its getting harder and more expensive to license content from the content providers. HBO won't license any of their content, and sees netflix as a direct competitor, esp with HBO Go on the same playground as Netflix.


Also, there is a lot of great stuff from the Brits and some gems from Canada on Netflix. No ads, bugs, or banners is a major plus for this viewer.


----------



## Inkosaurus (Jul 29, 2011)

Wilf said:


> Also, there is a lot of great stuff from the Brits and some gems from Canada on Netflix. No ads, bugs, or banners is a major plus for this viewer.


Stewarts point still stands though, this is all content that was created elsewhere.
Part of the novelty of Netflix is its cost, if it becomes a venue for original content it wont have that price anymore.

Netflix is great but it wont be a "cut the cord" option for ever, especially if people keep cutting the cord.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Yeah, that was my point... the more Netflix becomes an original programming venue, the more they will need to charge.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 15, 2008)

If they need to charge more, I will pay it. Life is too short to spend 20 minutes/hr of TV watching ads. For me, it is the difference between un-watchable "TV", or "TV" I can enjoy.


----------



## goinsleeper (May 23, 2012)

Going back to A La Carte for just a second, I'm at a bit of a loss for the discussion. The easiest model to set the potential for A La Carte would be the current A La Carte, correct?

Why is HBO so expensive outside of the fact that it has no advertisements? Number of customers vs cost for content and exclusive rights?

If customer base drops, HBO would either need to *raise it's rates *or lower it's content. Same effect would apply to all channels that moved to A La Carte.


----------



## Darcaine (Aug 31, 2009)

Inkosaurus said:


> Stewarts point still stands though, this is all content that was created elsewhere.
> Part of the novelty of Netflix is its cost, if it becomes a venue for original content it wont have that price anymore.
> 
> Netflix is great but it wont be a "cut the cord" option for ever, especially if people keep cutting the cord.


My point is that it already has become a venue for original content (Lilyhammer, new episodes of Arrested Development, possibly new episodes of Jericho etc).

But you guys are right about the cost going up. It already has in the form of cutting DVD rentals from the streaming service. The streaming service will be getting another price hike in the next couple of years, I'm sure.



goinsleeper said:


> Going back to A La Carte for just a second, I'm at a bit of a loss for the discussion. The easiest model to set the potential for A La Carte would be the current A La Carte, correct?
> 
> Why is HBO so expensive outside of the fact that it has no advertisements? Number of customers vs cost for content and exclusive rights?
> 
> If customer base drops, HBO would either need to *raise it's rates *or lower it's content. Same effect would apply to all channels that moved to A La Carte.


Or the third option, market directly to subscribers and pick up all the folks who refuse to subscribe to MVPDs and pirate HBO content instead. Give them an option that is cheap, easy to use, offers quality and security that bittorents don't and a lot of people will pay for their content.

Not a likely situation for all channels sure, but the ones that can't compete in the new market don't deserve to survive.


----------



## maartena (Nov 1, 2010)

SayWhat? said:


> But none that take as big a bite of the pie.


Start adding up all the channels geared to women, and children. I don't watch any of it. There are about 15 channels for women (and I am including channels like E! in that), 10 channels for children and teens. I can do without Fox News and MSNBC as well as one is too right, the other too left. I never watch anything VH1/MTV related, including CMT, and that's a good 10 channels right there.

Wanna bet those 30-40 channels cost about as much as the 5-6 ESPN/Sports related channels?


----------



## lee635 (Apr 17, 2002)

Several years ago, I subscribed to "Dish Picks" where you could choose 10 channels for $15 bucks. The expensive channels weren't allowed of course, still there is an example of an actual ala carte program instead of all this speculation about prices jumping sky high. All this talk about the sky falling from unbundling channels is over-the-top. 

I would love an option to choose the channels I want and only pay for what I want. And I am quite certain it would be CHEAPER than what I pay now.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

lee635 said:


> Several years ago, I subscribed to "Dish Picks" where you could choose 10 channels for $15 bucks. The expensive channels weren't allowed of course, still there is an example of an actual ala carte program instead of all this speculation about prices jumping sky high. All this talk about the sky falling from unbundling channels is over-the-top.
> 
> I would love an option to choose the channels I want and only pay for what I want. And I am quite certain it would be CHEAPER than what I pay now.


That option went away several years ago ... 10 for $15 is $1.50 per channel ... and the basic "AT40" package was $19.95.

I don't see $1.50 adjusted for 10-15 years of inflation per channel to be cheap. Perhaps cheaper than AT120 if all the channels you wanted were available at that rate instead of needing AT250 to get one good channel.

In some ways, that "Dish Picks" pricing illustrates how expensive a la carte today could be. Channels that are 10c to 25c each when sold to 14 million customers turning into $1.50 (or more) per channel subscriptions. Where would the price of $5 subscription groups such as ESPN go other then up?

14 million DISH subscribers (plus subscribers on other distributors) paying $5 to ESPN gives them the money to purchase the sports needed to make ESPN the premier group of sports channels that they are. Cut their subscribers and they will need to raise their prices.

The same goes for the smaller channels getting 10c to 25c per 14 million subscribers. $1.4 to $3.5 million per year helps keep them on the air. If they had to rely on payment ONLY from people who thought of watching the channel in advance they would simply go out of business.

The challenge is figuring out what a channel is worth ... is a Fox Sports regional network worth $2 per month? A local TV station worth $1 per month? AMC worth 75c per month? Or are those channels worth less? That is the challenge for programmers to decide.


----------



## jbart1965 (Oct 12, 2006)

I am amazed at all the smart people defending ESPN, high cable costs and the excessive control of programmers - that's what you are doing even if you don't think so. 

You may accept and even rationalize the current system, but it's not ideal. Consumers have far less choice than they should to exert market pressure on programmers. That is never a good thing in an ostensibly competitive market.

It's true, a la carte could destroy some channels and the "hidden" cross subsidization helps some survive. This argument is overrated, though. ESPN certainly isn't in the business of cross subsidizing non Disney channels. I am sure they try to capture every penny of what they charge for themselves. The industry likes to tout that argument, but the economics are suspect.

There has to be a way for consumers and cable operators to fight back against high prices. Once people top the $100 a month the cost really starts to bite.

ESPN is a big offender. As a sports devotee, I'd be reluctant to give the station up, but how else is anyone going to hold the line on costs? I think ESPN and its family should be folded into a premium channel or higher tier.

A la carte will probably never come, for arguably some good reasons, but I do think Congress or the FCC could do one useful thing: bar programmers from tying. Dish should not be forced to carry ESPN on the basic tier or lose access to other Disney stations.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

jbart1965 said:


> You may accept and even rationalize the current system, but it's not ideal.


It isn't our system. We are just the ones who pay for it.



> ESPN certainly isn't in the business of cross subsidizing non Disney channels.


Not directly ... but in order to get ESPN one has to subscribe to a package of channels that includes non-Disney channels. The absence of a la carte works both ways. One cannot call up a provider and buy just ESPN/Disney. A person who wants ESPN puts money into the pocket of every channel in ESPN's tier.



> I think ESPN and its family should be folded into a premium channel or higher tier.


The math is pretty simple. If ESPN is currently getting $6 per subscriber and is being distributed to 14 million DISH subscribers they are collecting $84 million via DISH. That is $84 million that they can put toward purchasing the rights to broadcast and producing broadcasts of the sports people want to see, plus some sports people may not want to see but would not see anywhere else. If ESPN goes into a higher tier or becomes a premium package the per subscriber price has to go up just for ESPN to break even.



> Dish should not be forced to carry ESPN on the basic tier or lose access to other Disney stations.


It would just be done another way ... for example, higher prices if other networks are not carried. Buy ESPN for $8, Disney for $6 or both for $9. That kind of pricing may sound silly but that is the kind of deal that is being done. Being in all 14 million DISH homes is important enough that discounts are given to get the "lesser" channels a provider offers included along with the "popular" channels.

Perhaps no provider would be forced to carry ESPN to get the Disney stations, but the pricing would be set to where it would make the most economic sense to buy the bundle ... and pass the savings (and cost) on to the subscriber.


----------



## jbart1965 (Oct 12, 2006)

Your points are all well and good, JL, bu this industry simply does not have to face true market pressure. That's partly true in many industries, but especially so in entertainment.

There are plenty of studies that are critical of the rationale of cross-subsidization as an excuse for cable not to do a la carte. This argument is vastly overblown. I've covered this issue before Congress and am familiar with all the arguments pro and con.

That said, there ARE good reasons for companies not to do a la carte from a cost standpoint. I would do the same if I were an industry exec. There are also some benefits to some customers. Just not as much as the industry claims.

What bugs me is that ESPN pays these high fees to get programming, but customers have no way to say to ESPN that it's overpaying. Fact is, if ESPN did not get the rights, another viewable station would. Yet ESPN overbids and pushes up prices for everybody because there's not much reason for ESPN not to do it.

ESPN/Disney has a lot of leverage and they use it. Just wish customers had a little more leverage too, but it's probably a pipedream.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

jbart1965 said:


> What bugs me is that ESPN pays these high fees to get programming, but customers have no way to say to ESPN that it's overpaying. Fact is, if ESPN did not get the rights, another viewable station would. Yet ESPN overbids and pushes up prices for everybody because there's not much reason for ESPN not to do it.
> 
> ESPN/Disney has a lot of leverage and they use it. Just wish customers had a little more leverage too, but it's probably a pipedream.


Customers have all the leverage we need.

If we all called and dropped pay TV tomorrow, then the model would have to change OR go extinct.

The fact that 100 million or more people sign up for pay TV seems to indicate that many people believe the model is good enough for them.

If you are paying too much or paying for something you don't wish to buy, then stop paying. It really is that simple.

Arguments of "it isn't fair" can be applied to everywhere. Why is a six pack of Coke cheaper per bottle than 1 single bottle price? Why can't I get 1 bottle at the same price? Why is there not a Kroger closer to me? I have to drive too far to Kroger, so I'm "forced" to buy groceries at a closer store that I don't like.

Why is Wendy's the only fast food place with Chili? Why can't I get Chili at McDonald's or Burger King? I want McDonald's fries, Wendy's Chili, and Burger King's Whopper... why do I have to go to three different restaurants to get what I want? Why are the companies greedy and keep their own products only at their stores?

And so forth.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Customers have all the leverage we need.
> 
> If we all called and dropped pay TV tomorrow, then the model would have to change OR go extinct.
> 
> ...


Hmmm. As I mentioned elsewhere, I see a different sort of analogy.

I see the situation with a satellite/cable company as the Road Department billing me monthly a "retransportation fee" for every restaurant in town plus a charge for the car it provides (of course like our dvr's I still have to provide the fuel and insurance).

As it turns out, I don't eat pizza and am not crazy about tacos, but since they are popular foods I still have to pay to the Road Department a "retransportation fee" that they must transmit to the international corporation Yum! Brands which includes $6 for Pizza Hut, $5 for Taco Bell, and $7 for KFC so I can get to the local Chinese food restaurant which only gets 25¢.

The fact that 100 million people might accept this doesn't make it the best economic model. If that were standard, we really ought to seriously consider adopting the Chinese model of government as more people put up with it than any model in the world. In the case of television, it just makes it what is.


----------



## jbart1965 (Oct 12, 2006)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Customers have all the leverage we need.
> 
> If we all called and dropped pay TV tomorrow, then the model would have to change OR go extinct.
> 
> ...


Your arguments are simplistic, at best, and quite unrealistic. Everyone cannot just decide to stop paying for cable, and voila. Prices fall.

It's also beyond silly to argue that most people think the cable model works for them. Other than on this board, I have never heard a single person tell me they think their cable bill is a fair value.

To some extent people "need" TV and they are partly captive to the programmers because the market is not fully competitive. So prices are higher than they otherwise would be.

Is that fair? I don't know. If you look at my original post, I never mentioned the word "fair." I do have the choice to cut the cord entirely, as you have repeatedly stated in this thread.

Nor am I arguing that cable prices are very excessive. I quit DirecTV because I was paying $105 or so a month for service that I thought should have cost about $80 to $85.

Personally, I tried to send a message to DirecTV by switching to Dish. I have some power as a consumer. Just not as much as in other, more competitive markets.

You mention restaurants. Well, if cable were as competitive as that industry, we'd all be paying lower prices. It isn't.

You examples of supermarkets and six packs are similarly simplistic. I have the choice of more than a dozen supermarket chains within driving distance of me. And six-packs are cheaper because of basic economies of scale.

Yes, programmers can argue economies of scale - but they have far more market power than grocery stores and soda makers. So I am all in favor of laws that make markets more competitive, but not necessarily more regulated.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

phrelin said:


> Hmmm. As I mentioned elsewhere, I see a different sort of analogy.
> 
> I see the situation with a satellite/cable company as the Road Department billing me monthly a "retransportation fee" for every restaurant in town plus a charge for the car it provides (of course like our dvr's I still have to provide the fuel and insurance).


DBS satellite is not a common carrier. If they were your analogy might have legs ... or wheels.

To modify your analogy, we pay taxes to support our roads. Most people don't mind paying for roads that take them where they want to go but when the money seems to go to fix other people's roads it is more noticeable. There are roads I never drive on ... and quite frankly would not care if the road department ever repaired - except that if people didn't have those roads they would probably wear out the roads I do use faster.

But DBS is not a common carrier ... their job is not to simply provide transportation for the products of others.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

phrelin said:


> The fact that 100 million people might accept this doesn't make it the best economic model. If that were standard, we really ought to seriously consider adopting the Chinese model of government as more people put up with it than any model in the world. In the case of television, it just makes it what is.


You're right on that point... Just because 100 million people accept it doesn't make it the best way... but it does make it a viable way to do it. IF 100 million people said "no thanks" then the model would have to change, right?

There are a lot more than 100 million people who are similarly saying "no thanks"... so maybe if an alternative popped into place, some of those people would hop on board.

I don't drink or smoke... but those products have a market and lots of people do drink and smoke. I don't have to buy either or partake in either... but it doesn't mean that there isn't a market for it. Heck, most people know smoking is bad for you, and yet still there are enough people willing to buy to make it a profitable venture. Same for drinking, there are plenty of people who want to imbibe to make that profitable too.

So... 100 million people may not be 100% right... but they aren't entirely wrong, and if 100 million people are willing to pay, and you are running a business that can sell... you'd be crazy not to sell!



jbart1965 said:


> Your arguments are simplistic, at best, and quite unrealistic. Everyone cannot just decide to stop paying for cable, and voila. Prices fall.


Sure they CAN... I doubt that they ever WILL... but they most definitely CAN. Before the American Revolution, I suspect the British government said "everyone will not just decide to rebel from us"... and yet it happens.

Every once in a while something is important enough for people to take a stand. IF it isn't important enough, then it continues.

Arguably, if 100 million people are willing to partake... then even if they complain, as long as they pay their bills where is the incentive for cable/satellite to change their business model?



jbart1965 said:


> It's also beyond silly to argue that most people think the cable model works for them. Other than on this board, I have never heard a single person tell me they think their cable bill is a fair value.


How many people are members of DBSTalk? How many are members of other similar sites? Betting that number is FAR less than 100 million. 1 million forum members would only be 1% of the pay tv customers... and I know if you tally the members here and at other pay tv discussion forums, you will not approach that 1%... probably won't get above 0.5%...

And the fact that most of the 100 milllion customers are paying their bills month to month and year-to-year... well, that kind of supports the notion that even if they have complaints they value the service more than they de-value by the problems... thus they keep paying the bill to have the service.



jbart1965 said:


> To some extent people "need" TV and they are partly captive to the programmers because the market is not fully competitive. So prices are higher than they otherwise would be.


I'm not sure how much more competitive it could be... Dish, DirecTV, and each market has at least one cable option... some also have U-Verse or Verizon FIOS or something similar as well. I, for example, have options of Dish, DirecTV, U-Verse, and Time Warner. Oh, and I also could go "free" for OTA as well as a fifth choice for TV.

It costs a LOT of money to startup a DBS company and launch satellites... it isn't chicken feed to startup a cable system either. So it's not likely a mom & pop operation will launch something like they could a restaurant or retail store. Some businesses take too much startup funds for just anybody to try and compete.



jbart1965 said:


> You mention restaurants. Well, if cable were as competitive as that industry, we'd all be paying lower prices. It isn't.


We've done math before... regarding what cable TV cost say in 1980 and the number of channels available vs today's costs and number of channels available. Prices have gone up to be sure, but number of channels & choices has too... so arguably the price-per-channel has gone down over time.

That seems kind of competitive to me.

How are fast food places doing with that same metric? Price of burgers and fries goes up, and sometimes portion sizes go down... so you pay more for the same amount of food OR pay the same for less food than say 10 years ago.

The model of competitive pricing you suggest should mean that prices would go down over time at fast food places... but that isn't what is happening is it?



jbart1965 said:


> You examples of supermarkets and six packs are similarly simplistic. I have the choice of more than a dozen supermarket chains within driving distance of me. And six-packs are cheaper because of basic economies of scale.


As I noted, I have the choice of 5 methods of broadcast TV delivery... and some internet options I haven't even explored. It takes far less money to start a grocery store than it does to launch a cable or satellite outfit.

I have only a couple of choices for phone service to my home (traditional, not cellular), and only one choice for power and for water... Power and water are arguably necessities, and yet the price on those services has been kept down as a monopoly rather than competition. So... competition isn't always the best way to deliver affordable services.

Economies of scale... exactly! That's why Coke will sell me a 6-pack for less per drink than a single Coke. EXACTLY the same metric by which Disney will sell me their suite of channels more cheaply than any individual one by itself... and other companies bundle the same... and then Dish bundles those groups into tiers... and so forth.

Economies of scale works with TV too 



jbart1965 said:


> Yes, programmers can argue economies of scale - but they have far more market power than grocery stores and soda makers. So I am all in favor of laws that make markets more competitive, but not necessarily more regulated.


How? Genuinely... how could laws make markets more competitive? I honestly can't think of a way right at the moment.


----------



## sregener (Apr 17, 2012)

jbart1965 said:


> To some extent people "need" TV and they are partly captive to the programmers because the market is not fully competitive. So prices are higher than they otherwise would be.


What would a fully competitive market look like? Right now, I have three choices in pay-TV providers, and too many online options to count. I also have an antenna setup on the roof that provides me with 13 discrete channels of programming at no monthly cost, and a DTVPal DVR that also has no monthly fees. In other words, I have lots of options beyond simply not watching TV - but I did go through two 6-month stretches where I actually put the TV in the closet and didn't want any video at all. If you've never done it, I highly recommend it. It will change your perspective on how much you "need" video entertainment.

The only reason prices are higher than they would be in a fully free market is because government has created the idea of intellectual property, which is enforced through copyright laws. As long as the producers of intellectual property have exclusive rights to determine how their creative works are distributed, the market will not be truly free. However, the arguments about intellectual property rights are long and complicated, and as a content producer myself, I tend to side in favor of IP rights.

As far as prices being fair, the only people who can make the argument are the people who aren't paying them. People who say that cable costs too much but pay it are hypocrites - their actions do not match their words.


----------



## jbart1965 (Oct 12, 2006)

Most colonists did not in fact rebel against the British, SV. Historians generally agree that about one-third of the populace at the time supported revolt (and far fewer than that actively participated).. About one third were against and the rest were in the middle. Apathetic, if you will.

The example just goes to show how much one group can exert outsized power in proportion to its numbers. Sort of like a market imbalance or imperfect market.

Historical simplicities aside, SV, I find most of your arguments unpersuasive. Take the price-per-channel argument. Sure, you can argue that more channels are available today, but that’s a quantitative argument as opposed to a qualitative one. 

I watch a few dozen channels at most, no different than 20 years ago. All those extra channels are not necessarily providing me value. In my view, I am not getting a lot more for my money by having more channels. (The big improvements to me are HDTV and time shifting).

This particular sub-argument highlights the difficulty in judging the historical cost trends of pay television. Government inflation statistics adjust for qualitative improvements, but as in the case of more channels being available, it’s a very subjective call.

This is not just an obscure statistical argument, either. The real as opposed to the nominal price of cable would look very different based on how the government makes its adjustments.

Another way to look at cable pricing is as a percentage of a household’s budget over time. But again, you can look at this number and slice it up to make the trend look good or bad.

Sure, I have a choice of four carriers in my neighborhood, but they ALL buy programming from the same companies. It’s kind of like the UAW in the old days. I had the choice of three U.S. auto companies to buy from, but their prices were very similar because they all paid the same amount for labor. The UAW made sure that each auto maker agreed to a similar contract – or else.

As I noted earlier, I don’t use the word “fair” in terms of pricing. I would agree that cable prices are complex. The industry can make some compelling arguments for the current rates UNDER the current system. It’s the current system I question.

Some laws can and do create a more competitive environment. Antitrust law, for example, was used to block a Dish-DirecTV merger and arguably maintain a higher level of competition among carriers.

If I were emperor, I’d bar programmers from tying one channel to another. They would have to set a fee for each channel and could not force a carrier to take channels they do not want. Carriers would also be free to put any channel on any tier free from intimidation from the programmers.

At the same time, though, programmers would be allowed to offer discounts depending on the number of stations a carrier accepted. In my world, the cost of the channels each of us buys would be more reflective of the actual price. My guess is that most people would pay somewhat less but a few would pay significantly more.

Would this be legal? Would it do much to reduce or hold the line on prices? I do not know. Programmers would react in ways to minimize the effects of such a law. They always do, and rightly so, from their perspective. Panaceas rarely exist.

Clearly, Internet TV will be the biggest influence in the future on restraining cable costs. As a consumer, I did what I could by switching to Dish. I will use the service for the required time and switch to another carrier to get a better deal if necessary in a few years.

To sregener: I just went without cable for three months as a home addition was built. I would have been happy to stay disconnected for awhile, but my wife and daughter for different reasons insisted I resume service ASAP.

As for your definition of a hypocrite, all of us are hypocrites then. Every person in the country pay for some things they think are overpriced. Gas is a perfect example. The purists among are are few and I suspect this group does not even include you!


----------



## RasputinAXP (Jan 23, 2008)

TL;DR.


----------



## jbart1965 (Oct 12, 2006)

TS;DR.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

jbart1965 said:


> Most colonists did not in fact rebel against the British, SV. Historians generally agree that about one-third of the populace at the time supported revolt (and far fewer than that actively participated).. About one third were against and the rest were in the middle. Apathetic, if you will.


Still doesn't defeat my point, though, which was the people had the power... and enough people banded together made a difference.

So maybe everyone doesn't have to get together... maybe just 1/3 of pay tv customers could get together and make a difference?



jbart1965 said:


> Take the price-per-channel argument. Sure, you can argue that more channels are available today, but that's a quantitative argument as opposed to a qualitative one.


Perhaps... but how are you arguing qualitatively? Take the AMC dispute as an example... they arguably have only 65 hours of compelling original content in a year... is that quality? Maybe... but it isn't very much quality?

So... there are bundles of channels... but on any given channel there is a lot of crap too, so that has driven some people away from even a la carte and instead to individual program/shows that they like instead of whatever else a given channel might offer.



jbart1965 said:


> I watch a few dozen channels at most, no different than 20 years ago. All those extra channels are not necessarily providing me value. In my view, I am not getting a lot more for my money by having more channels. (The big improvements to me are HDTV and time shifting).


True... but you do have more choice. Without that increased choice, some of the options you do like might not be here. The movie industry puts out a LOT more movies now in a year than they did 30 years ago too... which means a lot more bad movies, but also more good movies too... IF you shave off the top and go back to 30 years ago... you would have less garbage to be sure, but less good stuff too.



jbart1965 said:


> This particular sub-argument highlights the difficulty in judging the historical cost trends of pay television. Government inflation statistics adjust for qualitative improvements, but as in the case of more channels being available, it's a very subjective call.


How so? The simple fact is that 100 million people are paying their bills, right? So... even if they complain... as long as they pay the bills, they must be finding more positive than negative.

Would you pay someone to jab you in the eye with a sharp stick? I hope not... because the damage would outweigh any enjoyment...

Yeah, a lot of people think they are paying too much... and wish we could pay less... but at the end of the day we feel we are getting value for our money OR we would not continue to pay for TV.

Why would you pay for TV that you don't find has value?

The market works in such a way that there wouldn't be 100 million customers for something that most of them didn't like.



jbart1965 said:


> Sure, I have a choice of four carriers in my neighborhood, but they ALL buy programming from the same companies.


That holds no water, though. Who else is going to sell HBO but HBO? Who else can sell Disney but Disney?

McDonald's can't and doesn't sell Whoppers... you have to go to Burger King for those.

If you own the content, you sell it as you see fit... HBO, for example, like other channels chooses to sell to an intermediary rather than direct to the customer.

I'm not sure what your argument is supposed to mean. Grocery stores by and large carry the same stuff... so if I want Pepsi, I can go to Kroger or Food Lion or Target or wherever... but it is still Pepsi.



jbart1965 said:


> Some laws can and do create a more competitive environment. Antitrust law, for example, was used to block a Dish-DirecTV merger and arguably maintain a higher level of competition among carriers.


Anti-trust is a far cry from what we are talking about here, though... which is you or I creating something and selling it for the price the market will bear. If I write a book, I get to set the price. I should pay attention to the market of course, but I could demand whatever I want and see how the book sells.

Someone else can't take my book and sell it as their own. Just like HBO or Disney or whatever gets to sell their channel however they want.



jbart1965 said:


> If I were emperor...


I'm sure in jest... but you realize the hypocrisy of wanting more freedom through the declaration of an emperor, right? 



jbart1965 said:


> ..., I'd bar programmers from tying one channel to another. They would have to set a fee for each channel and could not force a carrier to take channels they do not want. Carriers would also be free to put any channel on any tier free from intimidation from the programmers.


You have to realize, though... the market has essentially spoken in years past on this point. People want multiple channels from a company that has multiple channels... and people want packages that cost them less than individual channels do.

People used to have a la carte for everything when cable first started... then some hybrid "pick 10" scenarios for a while... and overwhelmingly customers chose bundled packages to get more channels for less per channel.

That's how the market evolved where it has... by most customers choosing to nudge it that way. So, the market and consumers really have spoken here.



jbart1965 said:


> At the same time, though, programmers would be allowed to offer discounts depending on the number of stations a carrier accepted. In my world, the cost of the channels each of us buys would be more reflective of the actual price. My guess is that most people would pay somewhat less but a few would pay significantly more.


You're falling into a trap that many do... assuming that a channel taking 25 cents now in a package would only ask 25 cents if they had to go a la carte. Channels can take 25 cents because they are in a tier that has millions of subscribers.

IF customers have the choice to buy or not buy, then the price will go up. How much? Depends on how many people are willing to buy that channel. The more people willing to jump on board, the lower the channel can be sold for.

Consider HBO for $15-$20 for its suite as an a la carte choice... expect other channel suites to need/want in that neighborhood if they too had to go it alone.

A lot of channels would go away for lack of viewership. Channels like AMC that only had 9 million viewers to its highest rated show ever... has less than 10% of the paytv market... and yet right now most of those people are kicking in a 25 cent per month fee.

Take that away and make AMC go alone... at most they would have 9 million customers... which means they would need $2.50 from each of those viewers to come close to what they make now from being in a tier. Then factor in that the 9 million was a blip in their ratings... and most of the year they aren't airing popular programming... and they might be a $4-$5 channel per month to get the same revenue that they enjoy today.

That might not be sustainable... and it might mean that (and other similar) channels couldn't afford to stay in business.

So instead of giving a quarter to a channel you don't watch or $5 to ESPN... you might be giving nothing to no one because your favorite channels are gone!


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

jbart1965 said:


> I'd bar programmers from tying one channel to another. They would have to set a fee for each channel and could not force a carrier to take channels they do not want. Carriers would also be free to put any channel on any tier free from intimidation from the programmers.


That sound good (impossible to get written into law, but good) except the next thing you say guts the entire idea.


> At the same time, though, programmers would be allowed to offer discounts depending on the number of stations a carrier accepted. In my world, the cost of the channels each of us buys would be more reflective of the actual price.


Here is the new price list under Emperor jbart's rules:
Each ESPN channel - $20 per month.
Each Disney/ABC cable channel - $10 per month.
Each O&O ABC Broadcast Affiliate - $5 per month.

A discount will be provided for providing ESPN and ESPN2 to the same customer. ESPN + ESPN2 will be discounted to $20 per month.
A discount will be provided for providing all of the ESPN feeds to the same customer. ESPN + ESPN2 + ESPN U + ESPNews + ESPN Classic will be discounted to $18 per month.
A discount will be provided for providing ESPN to a certain percentage of the carrier's subscribers. ESPN + ESPN2 + ESPN U + ESPNews provided to over 90% of customers will be discounted to $10 per month.

A discount will be provided for also carrying Disney / ABC cable channels and ABC owned and operated television stations. And at the end of the day, we are right where we are now ... carriers making the best deal possible with the carriers and a whole lot of bundling and tier placement going on.

(BTW: You may scoff at the "discount price" for combining ESPN channels being the same as each individual channel but there is a basis in reality for those examples - commercial a la carte rates. It is cheaper via commercial a la carte to buy all of the ESPN channels than to buy one. That is a discount.)


----------



## jbart1965 (Oct 12, 2006)

Yes, I was jesting about being an emperor. And no, I don't think being an emperor would necessarily solve what is a minor problem in my annual budget.

This debate is going nowhere, but we all knew that. I am not in the least persuaded by the rather vociferous and curious arguments I see here in favor of the current business model exactly as it is. Odd.

It's a pretty good model for carriers, but a better one for programmers. They have the most power and are insulated from full competitive pressure. Consumers have to act against their carriers to exert pressure on the programmers and it's not an especially effective tool.

Cable costs would be lower if programmers had less leverage, plain and simple. Perhaps not a lot lower, but lower. Prices would also not rise quite as fast. This is the history of all truly competitive markets and any arguments to the contrary are nonsense.

But that's not the way it is. I grant that these are high fixed-cost industries less suitable for ideal competition. There IS a fair amount of competition among carriers, but there is far less among programmers.. I don't really see anything changing that.

I will let barking dogs - me included - lie, gentlemen.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Part of why pay TV is different... is because of the product being sold, even moreso than how it is being sold.

McDonalds and Burger King and Wendys sell burgers... Arbys and others have other beef sandwiches... Subway and Quiznos and Jersey Mikes have sandwiches in general.

So... lots of choices of places to eat, and while we all have our preferences... if we are truly honest the products are more similar than they are different, so each place gets forced to compete on price to keep our business.

But...

HBO is the only place to get HBO programming.
Disney/ABC/ESPN is the only place to get Disney/ABC/ESPN
NBC/Universal has channels too
and so forth

so... it's not the same kind of competition. You can't subscribe to HBO and get all the different programs you want to get. You need more channels to get the variety you want...

Unlike fast food, though... where you'd have to drive to each place to make a meal from various stuff (Whopper, Wendys chili, McDonalds fries, Arbys pastry turnovers, etc.) Dish, DirecTV, and so forth essentially "visit" each channel and bring their programming to you.

Around here we have some delivery services that offer menus from various places... and you can pay them to bring stuff from different restaurants to you. You pay more, for the convenience of not having to go out yourself.

That's what we pay Dish for... This is why DBS has taken over from the C-band... C-band gave you direct access to feeds from the channel providers, though you had to pay for authorization to unscamble the encrypted ones... you were getting your feed from the satellites directly.

Dish and DirecTV are doing all that work for you... and offering you a menu with some "value meals" to choose from.

When we try and compare pay tv to other options for entertainment and value-per-dollar... we have to remember that competition is different.

It isn't Syfy vs TBS... those channels have different programming choices. Yeah, some folks would make that choice... but most of us either want both or neither. That's how the popular packages ended up forming... Channels that most people want end up in the lowest tier. Channels that want more money or are less popular (sometimes one leads to the other) are in higher tiers OR a la carte.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

jbart1965 said:


> This debate is going nowhere, but we all knew that. I am not in the least persuaded by the rather vociferous and curious arguments I see here in favor of the current business model exactly as it is. Odd.


Arguments in favor? More like statements of how the real world works plus a dose of reality for anyone who believes they can wave a magic wand and make it better.

It seems that the only fix for the problem would be a heavy handed government intervention. Perhaps not an emperor, but a pay TV czar who would dictate price and availability of channels. At the end of the day, which is the lesser of the evils?



> Cable costs would be lower if programmers had less leverage, plain and simple. Perhaps not a lot lower, but lower. Prices would also not rise quite as fast. This is the history of all truly competitive markets and any arguments to the contrary are nonsense.


There are few markets that come close to the marketplace of distributing pay TV. Most of the time when someone gives an example of what pay TV is like there are major holes in their comparisons.

The closest I can come is to consider the pay TV companies as our agents running a stock fund ... we have given them a proxy to spend our entertainment dollars on our behalf. Our return on investment is not cash in our portfolio but entertainment value. We can provide feedback on what we want our agents to do but there is no democracy. If you don't like the way your agent is running the fund your only true options are to 1) learn to live with it, 2) find another agent or 3) get out of the market.

Of course, the hole in that comparison is that your account returns to zero at the end of each billing month and one must pay more into the fund to continue receiving the dividend of "entertainment value". There is no way of pulling out the monthly funding and letting your previous investments ride like there is in a stock fund.

I disagree that a la carte would drive prices lower ... buying in bulk seems to be the only way prices have gone lower in this marketplace - and a la carte is the opposite of bulk channel deals.


----------



## jbart1965 (Oct 12, 2006)

James Long said:


> Arguments in favor? More like statements of how the real world works plus a dose of reality for anyone who believes they can wave a magic wand and make it better.


Uh, the "real" world works differently in different industries, James. I used to write about economics and business for a living, so I know a thing or two about competitive markets. Years ago I covered congressional hearings on cable prices and I read a number of studies from the industry and critics alike about the merits of the current system. It's flawed and not fully competitive. Any reasonable person can see that.

Where I agree with you and the curious band of brothers defending the current system EXACTLY AS IS is a disinclination to call for federal intervention. In my experience covering Congress, it has often done more harm than good, particularly with cable. There's a long, sad history there.

The system is what it is. It's not a bad system, it's just not a great one for consumers. It's merely okay.

As for true a la carte, I don't believe that's the answer. I'd just like to see carriers get more leverage and say in what they include in their packages and how they structure their tiers.

Is it realistically possible? Probably not. Yet it's absurd to suggest that the current structure of the market is ideal. Rarely is that the case in anything.

Bundling in general does have advantages and it's common practice in many industries. Some form is probably essential, never mind inevitable.

The FCC did a study under Michael Powell in the 1990s showing that true a la carte would actually increase prices for consumers and/or lead to fewer channels (not something I necessarily oppose). Some on the left - Consumers Union - charged bias because Powell was a Republican with free-market leanings. The study was persuasive, though, and Congress dropped the issue.

I'd rather the government leave an imperfect market alone than get involved again.


----------



## jbart1965 (Oct 12, 2006)

Charlie Ergen knows a thing or two about the business and he evidently does not think the current model is great, either. Here is what he plans to say at a congressional hearing on Wednesday (from Fierce Cable News):

"Broadcasters play the pay-TV providers against one another. They cut off the most popular sports and entertainment programming if their demands for drastically higher rate increases are not met," says Ergen, whose company has battled Fox Broadcasting and several other TV station groups over increased retransmission-consent fees. "Consumers lose because they cannot see the programming they paid for, they end up paying higher rates, or both."

Testimony is here.

http://republicans.energycommerce.h...0627/HHRG-112-IF16-WState-ErgenC-20120627.pdf

***

Now, it's true Ergen has an ax to grind and favors regulation beneficial to his company. He might even have more trust in Congress than I do.

On the other hand, I also suppose it's possible Ergen does not live in the real world. Perhaps he also needs a lesson from the band of brothers as to why the current business model favoring the programmers is actually great for all of us consumers.

Some people just can't recognize the ideal even when it gobsmacks them in the face!


----------



## satcrazy (Mar 16, 2011)

> As far as prices being fair, the only people who can make the argument are the people who aren't paying them. People who say that cable costs too much but pay it are hypocrites - their actions do not match their words


.

Not a fair assessment. I can think of several apartment-type high rises that house seniors and disabled here, and not only is cable their only option, I would venture to say it is their primary, if not only mode of entertainment. I'm sure they hate the high cable bills for crappy tv, but sometimes options amount to "zip".


----------



## RasputinAXP (Jan 23, 2008)

jbart1965 said:


> On the other hand, I also suppose it's possible Ergen does not live in the real world. Perhaps he also needs a lesson from the band of brothers as to why the current business model favoring the programmers is actually great for all of us consumers.
> 
> Some people just can't recognize the ideal even when it gobsmacks them in the face!


You consider the current situation ideal?

Everybody gets held hostage when, for example, their local syndicate decides to start a pissing match with Dish or Direct. They want to get paid more. A lot more. So they pull their signal, or get pulled by the satcaster.

They can't import a station to cover the shortage. It's not allowed, and there's not a lot they can do about that. It would be good to allow in this situation for a neighboring network to be carried.


----------



## jbart1965 (Oct 12, 2006)

RasputinAXP said:


> You consider the current situation ideal


I was being facetious.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

jbart1965 said:


> I'd just like to see carriers get more leverage and say in what they include in their packages and how they structure their tiers.


I'm not sure what this part means.

When negotiating a single channel, Dish and channel YYY negotiate on price and tier. The more money the channel wants, the higher the tier Dish wants to place it. Accept less money? Go in a lower tier. That's about as free as the negotiation can get.

When negotiating with say, Disney, who has multiple channels... then the negotiations can go multiple ways. Maybe Disney wants all channels in the same tier... or maybe they want most in a lower tier but are willing to put others in a higher tier. Again, the bundling part is something Disney can do however they want (whether we like it or not) with their channels... but the tier it gets placed in Dish has some say over that in the negotiations.

Dish has dropped channels before over the channel wanting lower tier placement without lowering the price.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

jbart1965 said:


> Uh, the "real" world works differently in different industries, James.


Can I say "duh"? That was my point ... the cable/satellite industry is a unique beast. Trying to make it work like other industries is like putting a round peg in a smaller square hole.



> I'd rather the government leave an imperfect market alone than get involved again.


Can I say "duh" again? There are notification rules that cable companies must follow that could be applied to satellite carriers but I don't see that as helping the core problem. Getting companies to agree. And that really can't be forced.


----------



## jbart1965 (Oct 12, 2006)

Posters can say "duh" all they want. I don't mind. People of limited vocabularies and limited imaginations should stick to what they know best.

Cable is not so unique as a market. Lot of industries with pipes - electric, gas, water, phone, rail - are similar but different nations achieve different results with different rules in regard to competition.

In any case, Charlie Ergen and I agree. I don't mind being in the same company. I had the pleasure to interview him several times years ago. A truly brilliant and interesting businessman - and a really nice guy. Not too many of those around here.

His vocabulary extends beyond the word "duh," too.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Perhaps you missed it, but you agree with me as well - even though it seems that you want to phrase your messages in a way that expresses disagreement.


----------



## jbart1965 (Oct 12, 2006)

As they say in SC rulings, I concur in part and dissent in part.

I'll let Charlie take over from here. Be interesting to see if he offers any realistic solutions at the House hearing during the Q&A. His written testimony included none.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Well if the rich guys in the industry and the practically anonymous on the Internet after midnight can't figure out a solution I suppose we're doomed. 

If I ever hear a solution that isn't pie in the sky or heavy government interference I might be more interested.


----------



## sregener (Apr 17, 2012)

satcrazy said:


> Not a fair assessment. I can think of several apartment-type high rises that house seniors and disabled here, and not only is cable their only option, I would venture to say it is their primary, if not only mode of entertainment. I'm sure they hate the high cable bills for crappy tv, but sometimes options amount to "zip".


Okay... If we really want to split hairs, I don't think many people feel that what Lifeline cable costs are unfair. In my area, it's $15/month. That includes WGN and all the broadcast locals. Not a bad deal for $180/year. The FCC mandates that cable companies offer Lifeline service, and the price has to be in that range. In many areas, it's about $10/month. If you hold that these prices are too high, then I misunderstood the argument, since this thread is about ESPN, which is not included in lifeline service.

If, on the other hand, these seniors are choosing to pay for "basic cable", they are substantiating my argument that they must be deciding that cable costs are not too high - by purchasing basic cable, they are saying that the benefits justify the cost. They may not like cable prices, and may wish that those prices are lower, but by choosing to purchase it anyway, they are adding weight to the side of the argument that says that cable prices are fair.

It is the nature of a free market that the consumer wants the most product for the least cost. And the producer wants the most money for the least product. Where the two opposite forces meet is where free exchange takes place. In a perfect world for cable, you'd pay them $1 million/month for no service. In a perfect world for you, you'd pay nothing for all the channels in the known universe in HD with a DVR. The world is not perfect for either of you, so compromise must take place.

Arguments that something is too expensive must be based on the fact that you cannot have them. If you have them, then you can't say they are too expensive. What you mean is that you wish they were cheaper.

If cable cost $1000/month, I think most people would decide they don't need what cable has to offer.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Wilf said:


> It is a lot more than that ... it is "television without commercial interruption, even without the interruption of pushing the skip button. In my experience, after being a Netflix customer for over a year, I find it very difficult to watch TV with interruptions every ten minutes anymore - so I don't. *Pay television should not have commercials*!


I disagree with this. I can't get TV OTA so I have to have a service provider if I want TV.

Commercials are the only thing keeping the cost where they are now.

Could you imagine how expensive it would be if the sole source of revenue is subscription costs.

Mike


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

sregener said:


> Okay... If we really want to split hairs, I don't think many people feel that what Lifeline cable costs are unfair. In my area, it's $15/month. That includes WGN and all the broadcast locals. Not a bad deal for $180/year. The FCC mandates that cable companies offer Lifeline service, and the price has to be in that range.


Someone better tell Comcast that ... Basic Cable for $24.99 per month (Limited Basic) which is mostly broadcast and the required public interest channels - only a couple of "real" cable channels.

I've looked for this "mandate" of which you speak and can't find a price point. Got a link?


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

sregener said:


> Okay... If we really want to split hairs, I don't think many people feel that what Lifeline cable costs are unfair. In my area, it's $15/month. That includes WGN and all the broadcast locals. Not a bad deal for $180/year. *The FCC mandates that cable companies offer Lifeline service, and the price has to be in that range.* In many areas, it's about $10/month. <snip>


 The FCC has *NO* requirement for a local/public access/gov't access channels only package.

The FCC mandates that service providers carry local channels, public access, gov't access, etc. The FCC mandates that these channels must be included no matter what programming package the customer chooses. However, that package can include any assortment of channels the provider wants at any price the provider wants to charge (within FCC rules on cost). There is no ≈$15/mo requirement for locals only by the FCC. Some States have these requriements but it's not mandated by the FCC.

The FCC *DOES* have a mandated program called Lifeline (Link). It provides discounts on telephone service for low income families and is supported by the Universal Service Fund (that fee on our phone bills).

The FCC Lifeline program ensures everyone regardless of income has access to basic telephone services such as 911 and has absolutely nothing to do with cable TV.

Mike


----------



## oldengineer (May 25, 2008)

James Long said:


> Someone better tell Comcast that ... Basic Cable for $24.99 per month (Limited Basic) which is mostly broadcast and the required public interest channels - only a couple of "real" cable channels.
> 
> I've looked for this "mandate" of which you speak and can't find a price point. Got a link?


I live in the Philly locals area and am one of many subs who cant get any RSNs because Comcast is still hanging on to the Terrestrial Loophole exception to the Communications Act even though it was removed. Nothing they do surprises me.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

sregener said:


> Arguments that something is too expensive must be based on the fact that you cannot have them. If you have them, then you can't say they are too expensive. What you mean is that you wish they were cheaper.
> 
> If cable cost $1000/month, I think most people would decide they don't need what cable has to offer.


That's kind of where I was trying to steer the idea too... We would all like more for less, just like the companies would like to charge us more for less 

The free market slowly balances things.

IF prices were lower, would there be more than 100 million pay tv customers? Probably... but there would still be people for whom the price is not going to be low enough... so even for free, some people still wouldn't want the service.

Similarly, as prices go up some people will drop away. What is the price above which all subscribers would stop paying? Hard to say, there might be a price point where Trump, Gates, and a handful of other billionaires would still pay and be paying enough to keep the service active. I don't think we'll reach that point, but technically such a point might exist.

As paying customers we have the right to complain... as non-paying customers you have the right to say "I wish I could be a paying customer"...

but as paying customers, we obviously are voting with our wallets and saying that even IF we have strong opinions and disagreements about the service and pricing... we still mostly feel we are getting value for our billing, because at the point we felt we were not then we would cancel service.


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

Might be time for Freeview like the UK has
http://www.freeview.co.uk/

http://www.freeview.co.uk/Services/Freeview2


> The best of telly for free
> 
> Freeview gives you 50 channels and 4 HD channels to play with and features such as series record and Smart TV.
> 
> Free from contracts, free from subscriptions. The best bits of telly are free for everyone and free forever.


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

Stewart Vernon said:


> That's kind of where I was trying to steer the idea too... We would all like more for less, just like the companies would like to charge us more for less
> 
> The free market slowly balances things.
> 
> ...


That is probably the reason everyone at one time or another subscribes to DISH because of their excellent choices of different prices of programming packages available to choose from.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

TBoneit said:


> Might be time for Freeview like the UK has
> http://www.freeview.co.uk/


The "free" programming is over the air channels ... most of them are government supported, or in otherwords, paid for by the subscribers via the "TV Tax" instead of subscription.

That model in the US would be pay a few hundred dollars for a receiver and dish, pay ~$225 per household for having a color TV ($5.7 billion dollars was collected in 2010-11). And get OTA broadcast material. The fine for not paying the annual license (even if you watch OTA or live over the internet) is over $1500.

Then add the pay channels.

Personally I would not mind an FCC rule that required local broadcasters to give consent to retransmission and some national copyright license fee instead of negotiating with each station. It would solve most of the disputes.


----------



## sregener (Apr 17, 2012)

Mea culpa.

Apparently the broadcast-only package and regulations are handled locally, not by the FCC.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

No problem.

Some of these things are done to AVOID the FCC. DISH and DirecTV started their "family" packages (and welcome package and DISH introduced a locals only package for DTV conversion). They were not mandated but there was pressure at the time that such a package might be mandated so they decided to introduce one. Better to be a package of THEIR choice instead of one designed by the government.


----------

