# a la carte - Revisited



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

tedb3rd said:


> I understand your point but my take is that it's more like having to purchase 2 dozen CDs where you only listen to about 2 songs from each CD vs. the 'new option' of downloading only what you want from Napster... Cut the excess you don't need.
> 
> Now I'm glad that Dish & Direct were not allowed to merge. It might have been better but could you imagine what one of the companies would do if it weren't for competition from the other--in terms of package pricing, high def channels, equipment, customer service, etc? This is an all-out battle. When the company knows you can go elsewhere, they take that into consideration!


Until there is "real" competition between the program providers we will never have real choice. While the distributors (D*, E* cable) can compete on who "delivers" Pay TV to you, they still are forced into similar "must carry" contracts by the same pool of programmers who force us to take things we do not want and brainwash many of us into thinking that it's much cheaper to have 100 channels for $75 over 50 channels for $50 even if we only watch 5 channels.

I bide my time until the day comes in which the channel counters (those who are hell bent to get more channels no matter what the cost) willl actually have to pay for their channels instead of forcing me to "subsidize" their channels by forcing me to take channels I do not want.

So until congress stops taking payoffs from the pay TV industry (everytime ala-cart comes up the money starts to flow again and the issue is dropped!) we will always be stuck for while 20% of our bill (give or take) goes to the distributors and we can move from D* to E* to Cable and back again to try and lesson that 20%.... the other 80% comes from the programmers who provide the same programming to all the distributors with arcane package deals that are so anticompetative that it mystifies me how the government does not step in and stop these anti-competative practices.

You want to sell ESPN to me then give "me" a price for 1 channel fo ESPN and then a separate price for the entire ESPN package. Let "me" decide if I need the extra "tracker pulls" or "stupid men beating each other up" channels. You want to give me a break on taking "all" your channels instead of just the main channel then so be it but right now I have ZERO choice and I have to ask myself why?

Why do I need to pay for all the ESPN channels if I do not watch sports?
Why do I need to pay for more than the main ESPN channel?

(ESPN just being the example)

Why do I pick on EPSN? Because they are one (if not the most) expensive "supposedly" basic channel. They are multiple times more expensive than the other "basic" channels and ESPN will not allow themselves to be placed in higher packages, broken up into single channels or even put into a premium package like they belong.

We can want it....
The distributors can want it...

But as long as ESPN will not allow it we have ZERO choice.

The same goes for other blocks of packaged channels that are forced on us.

grrrrr

makes me sick sometimes

-JB


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

jrb531 said:


> You want to sell ESPN to me then give "me" a price for 1 channel fo ESPN and then a separate price for the entire ESPN package. Let "me" decide if I need the extra "tracker pulls" or "stupid men beating each other up" channels. You want to give me a break on taking "all" your channels instead of just the main channel then so be it but right now I have ZERO choice and I have to ask myself why?


OK

ESPN $4.15 per month
ESPN and ESPN2 $3.95 per month
ESPN, ESPN2 and ESPNews $3.50 per month
ESPN, ESPN2 and ESPN Classic $3.50 per month
ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNews, ESPN Classic _and_ ESPN HD and ESPN2 HD $3.35 per month
ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNews, ESPN Classic, ESPN U _and_ ESPN HD and ESPN2 HD $3.35 per month

Sense a pattern here? ESPN wants carriage and penalizes for non-carriage.
(BTW: These are MDU rates charged by DISH commercial services.)


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

James Long said:


> OK
> 
> ESPN $4.15 per month
> ESPN and ESPN2 $3.95 per month
> ...


This is what they would do unless they were forced to be fair.

This is why the governement has to step in and stop this from happening. I'm sure this is why Dish does not bother offering a single channel EPSN. What's the point?

Now "if" ESPN was forced to give "real" prices then:

1. ESPN = $2.95
2. ESPN1 &2 = $3.95
3. ESPN Package (all channels) = $4.95

This is what I'm talking about. If you do not watch sports you can save a few $$$'s - if you only want the main channel you could save a few $$$'s

Anti-competative pricing should be stamped out. I do not think anyone has a problem with them offering a sweetheart deal if you take all their channels there should always be a cost savings if you only want the one channel.

The HBO's and like "PAY" channel packages are not a part of this because I can already elect to either take them or pass on them.

If I could also elect to take all or pass on all ESPN channels I would be happy wioth that but right now ESPN is a "premium" package that is "forced" on us in the lowest tier and their is no way to pass on ESPN unless I drop to the family package.

If ESPN was a "cheap" channel then I would not have an issue with them being forced on us. The fact is that ESPN is the most expensive package of forced channels and the only reason they got away with this is because they started off way back when as a single "cheap" channel and gradually got more expensive and added channels over the years.

Why not "force" everyone into taking HBO? I'm sure it would be MUCH cheaper. How is forcing everyone to take HBO really any different than forcing us to take the entire ESPN package?

We've talked about this before and I came up with many suggestions how to keep it fair and retain an incentive to keep the channels but in the end "any" change means less money for Dish and/or ESPN so it will never happen unless it's forced on them.

Years ago when people were paying $2 a minute for long distance the very same people cried how getting rid of the telco monopoly would spell the doom of quality phone service. For sure there were some hickups but in the end can anyone say we are not much better off?

I'll take a 2-5 cent per minute long distance rate over the old $2+ per minute rate deal we had years ago and this only occured after the government stepping in and forced competition. What do you think the rates would be today if we still had limited competition?

Now sure Dish, D* and the cable companies compete to "distribute" the channels but as long as the programmers can do near anything they want with "forced" packages, prices that are set up to punish those who take less and other monopolistic "take crap channel A and B or you can't have popular channel C" we will never have "real" competition.

I do not want governement to run my life but just as they have to step in to other aspects of business that cross the line... they need to step in now. It would be nice if the programmers would play nice on their own but it's very clear that they like the current setup. More profit for them = less choice and money in our pockets. You can't have it both ways.

If a business is not profitable it goes under. If a channel is not popular it either goes under or if it's a nitch channel then those who want it have to decide if it's worth the extra money per month to keep getting it. The answer is NOT to "force" everyone to subsidise an unpopular channel.

Now if ESPN (using them as an example as they cost the most) wants to pay huge fees to carry the NFL or other leagues they have to decide if their subscribers are willing to pay higher fees.

This would keep them honest. Right now they can do and pay anything they want because they can just up their fees and we "all" have to pay for it.

Can I drop ESPN in protest if they cross the line and become too expensive? Nope
If HBO, Showtime etc... become too expensive can I drop them? Yep

No I cannot drop individual channels from the prime three packages (I wish we could!) but the real difference here is that ESPN is one of the (if not thee most) most expesive set of channels in the lowest main programming pacakges.

I guess I'd even be happy if they moved it to the level 3 package. Funny how they seem to be able to justify moving expensive channels to the top teir but leave the most expensive ESPN package to the lowest tier.

We all know why... ESPN forces Dish o do this.

Why are they allowed to get away with this?
Why do we accept this?

-JB


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

James Long said:


> The current $6 "no HD package" penalty fee that is applied to ViP owners who do not subscribe to any level of DishHD or the old HDPack is hoing up to $7 next week.
> 
> As far as anyone knows, the $6 lease fee (or $6 extra receiver fee for owned receivers) that applies to HD receivers will remain the same.
> 
> ...


Everytime this comes up in congress it's killed in committee after a few million in "donations" hit the right people. I'm not making this up. It's public record and they will not even bring the issue to an open debate. They are deathly afraid of any public discussion about this because it would air dirty laundry of special interests and payoffs.

The programmers pay a ton of money each year to our "public servants" who only seem to represent those who pay the most 

Sad but true. Links were posted in the past here and I could dig them up but what's the point? I think this last came up in 2004 and was killed off quickly without debate when they were told to kill it without any other comment aside from...

"we looking into it and ala-cart would mean larger prices"

This has become the poster child line for the ala-choice side (channel counters and industry hacks)

People who get some strange sense of joy counting how many channels they have shake in their boots at the thought that they might have to actually pay for all the channels they want instead of having others who are forced to subsidise their channels.

They do not seem to understand that if I pay $75 for 100 channels that I do not care if $50 for 20 channels does not make sense to them... if I get to pick those 20 channels and can save $25 then it matters not to me that I lose 80 channels.

Unwatched channels mean nothing to me and if select channels go under because they are either too expensive or unpopular then so be it. This makes room for new channels to start up.

When was the last time we lost a channel? Sure it happens but so infrequently as to be almost never. Why can't they add more HD? Why are they out of room?

Maybe if they did not have this seemingly endless growth of never ending new channels each year their would be room.

How many shows can you watch at one time? Last time I checked most people watched one show at a time and having 100 or 200 channels tapped into the same pool of available programming starts to get silly.

Right now we have no choice and while I'm not advocating the move to pure ala-cart (I think it would work in the end) there has to be some middle ground here but as long as the payoffs keep rolling in we'll not get any help from congress.



-JB


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

HDG said:


> Thank you. I knew you'd be Jimmy-on-the-spot with the term. And that's exactly what I was refering to in my post. There's always going to be a number of channels included in a package that some or most don't like. In the case of E*, I'm pretty sure they are being cagey by bundleing HDNet and UNIHD into the package so as to sway you to keep Voom.


LOL how many people who keep Voom if it was "just" Voom?

Same goes for the way they package the prime 3 base packages. Ever notice how there is always 1-2 "must" have channels in the next package?

Coincidence? I think not 

-JB


----------



## HobbyTalk (Jul 14, 2007)

While I agree with parts of what you say, I do not want the gov. in there making the rules. In very few cases like this has the gov. made things better. ESPN is already seeing competition from things like Fox Sports Networks, all of the NFL, MLB, BTN, CI, etc. programs.

We can see from the costs of some of those channels just what this can do for those that want to see those channels. Not many are willing to pay the costs of them. In the end, your total bill would go up (or at the very least not go down) as the cost to produce even the channels you want to watch would be spread across far fewer people. Either the cost would go up or the quality would go down... quality go down, you have no choice to go elsewhere because all of the competition is out of business.

Having the "must carry" packages greatly lowers the cost of the programmers entry into a market and aids in competition. If the price of entry is too high, there is no competition and everyone suffers at some point.

Letting the channels die that aren't watched by the majority sounds like a good idea but in the real world doesn't work. Many valuable channels would go off line if they weren't in packages. You would have only one news channel and would only get to see their view of the news, your would have only one sports channel get to watch what they wanted you to watch, you would only have a couple of major movie channels and not be able to see classic, foreign or non mainstream movies. TV would get to be a pretty boring and one sided medium.


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

HobbyTalk said:


> While I agree with parts of what you say, I do not want the gov. in there making the rules. In very few cases like this has the gov. made things better. ESPN is already seeing competition from things like Fox Sports Networks, all of the NFL, MLB, BTN, CI, etc. programs.
> 
> We can see from the costs of some of those channels just what this can do for those that want to see those channels. Not many are willing to pay the costs of them. In the end, your total bill would go up (or at the very least not go down) as the cost to produce even the channels you want to watch would be spread across far fewer people. Either the cost would go up or the quality would go down... quality go down, you have no choice to go elsewhere because all of the competition is out of business.
> 
> ...


How does free TV work?

How many "good" shows go off the air because not enouhg people watch them and the ads stop?

How many good shows go off the air because they have marginal numbers but their production costs are too high?

At least with pay TV these nitch shows might have a chance if people were willing to pay for them.

What I do find a bit ironic is how many of the same people are dead set against the governement stepping in and breaking up monopolistic practices yet they have little issue with the programmers forcing channels on them with not even a compromise position.

Look... I'd rather the government not step in either but if they do not then we have to accept business as usual.

Normal market forces are not in play here. We have only two choices:

1. No pay TV
2. Pay TV

If we were allowed even limited choices then normal market forces would keep prices in check with reality. Just like any other business, ESPN would have to decide if their next price increase would cause more people to cancel over the additional revenue they would bring in.

How is this a bad thing?

Right now ESPN can charge darn near anything they want because their contract with "all" the distributors dictate that they are a "must carry" channel. I cannot move to D* to escape paying ESPN.

My suggestion in the past (numbers just an example) was to have the government require programmers to offer all channels ala-cart and allow discounts for multiple channels. IE you can still offer the ESPN package for $4.95 but you must then offer individual ESPN channels for "real world" prices individual... not charge $4.94 for 1 ESPN and $4.95 for 3 ESPN's.

If you want to be included in a base package your individual channels cannot cost more than 3 times the average price for all the channels in that package.

Example:

Dish Base Package has 20 channels in it

The Package costs $10 (not including distribution costs as that is separate)

Now each of those channels cost Dish from 10 cents to 75 cents each with the "average" cost of all channels being 50 cents.

If ESPN wanted to charge $3 for one channel of ESPN then they could not be placed in that package because they are more than three times the average (average being 50 cents so the most expensive channel would be $1.50)

This would mean that ESPN could do one of three things:

1. Lower their price to $1.50 to reach more customers
2. Enter into their own pay package like HBO and charge whatever they want
3. Enter into another "higher priced" package that had a higher "per-channel" cost.

This would allow some competition and not require a strict ala-cart format. It would keep the programmers honest and allow some form of sanity.

Put all the expensive channels into the higher tier, keep the cheap channels together. It would keep everyone honest.

Some might think this is complicated but it really is not.

You want to raise fees for your channel? Fine but you better stay in line with the other channels in your package or you risk being moved to a higher package or being placed in your own nitch package.

-JB


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

jrb531 said:


> James Long said:
> 
> 
> > ESPN $4.15 per month
> ...


This is what they ARE doing. These are _real_ rates.



> Now "if" ESPN was forced to give "real" prices then:
> 
> 1. ESPN = $2.95
> 2. ESPN1 &2 = $3.95
> 3. ESPN Package (all channels) = $4.95


Congratulations. You just gave ESPN a 47% increase in price.
Most of us want lower prices ... not higher.

I'll skip the rest of your rants for now (I might come back to them later).
If the government is to interfere, I'd rather see a system where the MDU prices be extended to common customers than some upside down system that gives providers MORE of our money.

The real issue of a la carte isn't ESPN forcing us to take all of their sports channels at a lower price than one, it is the bigger conglomerates that require out of genre channels ... the ones that say "if you want SpikeTV at a decent rate you must subscribe to all the Nickelodeon channels".

The bottom line with ESPN is that it is actually CHEAPER to get them all than to cherrypick. Not just cheaper per channel, simply cheaper.


----------



## HobbyTalk (Jul 14, 2007)

I say let's go for a pay for what you eat. Pay $2 per hour for watching anything and they can offer 1000 channels. The people would truly pay for what they consume.

How about $5 to talk to a CSR? $4 to pay your bill by check. $7 for extra DVRs (oh yeah, they do that). $40 to activate the EHD (oh yeah, they do that). Charge people for what THEY use.... but you see, when that is done you have a whole other group of people that *****.

And you think the consumer, over all, will come out ahead in any of these scenarios?

You can't please everyone


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

James Long said:


> This is what they ARE doing. These are _real_ rates.
> 
> Congratulations. You just gave ESPN a 47% increase in price.
> Most of us want lower prices ... not higher.
> ...


Now James I think you know that my numbers were just examples. ESPN is the poster child for high priced "nitch" programing that is forced into the lowest tier.

There is no "logical" reason for it to be set up this way. This is no different than the other "forced" packages.

Rant? maybe but there is still truth in my rant.

-JB


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

HobbyTalk said:


> I say let's go for a pay for what you eat. Pay $2 per hour for watching anything and they can offer 1000 channels. The people would truly pay for what they consume.
> 
> How about $5 to talk to a CSR? $4 to pay your bill by check. $7 for extra DVRs (oh yeah, they do that). $40 to activate the EHD (oh yeah, they do that). Charge people for what THEY use.... but you see, when that is done you have a whole other group of people that *****.
> 
> ...


Well you can compromise which is what I support. There are middle of the road ways to allow some choice which was the idea I proposed.

The problem is that Dish, as much as they proclaim that they fight for the little guy, still gets a cut from each channel that we pay for and less channels would mean less money for Dish (or they would just raise their fees)

Anything good for the consumer is bad for business (usually) and the current system was set up to maximize profits for business at our expense.

Some of you feel that everything is fine but myself, and at least a few others LOL, feel that they have crossed the line with BS fees, forced programming and endless yearly price increases which allow us little choice in what we really want to pay for.

Very soon everything will be coming off the internet and this entire issue will be moot. People are already getting used to the idea of paying for only what they want via a Netflix, Itunes etc...

I would like to see a system set up like many gas companies in which we see a separate distribution fee and a gas usage fee. Dish would show us on their bill how much they charge to distribute the programming and we would see how much we are paying for each channel. This way we could compare distribution costs between E*, D* and Cable as well as the telcos and also see how much the programmers charge.

Fees go up? Fine... at least we see "who" is raising prices and we then have a choice to either accept the new fees, drop programming or pick a different distributor.

-JB


----------



## HobbyTalk (Jul 14, 2007)

jrb531 said:


> Very soon everything will be coming off the internet and this entire issue will be moot. People are already getting used to the idea of paying for only what they want via a Netflix, Itunes etc...


You think it will be cheaper for you via the Interent? Think again, aready being tested by a number of large Internet providers.

In Favor Of Per-Byte Broadband Billing?

All You Can Eat Broadband Is Dead

 Billed By The Byte



jrb531 said:


> I would like to see a system set up like many gas companies in which we see a separate distribution fee and a gas usage fee.


And we all know how inexpensvie gas is now days.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

jrb531 said:


> There is no "logical" reason for it to be set up this way. This is no different than the other "forced" packages.


Sure there is.

You may have noticed (or not) but ESPN carries advertising. They charge customers for that advertising. The more homes they are in the more they can charge (plus being on the dial is the first requirement of getting ratings that lead to higher ad rates). Selling all their channels for $3.35 instead of one for $4.95 is an incentive to get ALL of their channels into every home.

The second part of that desire to be in every home is the package level. Yes, ESPN wants as many channels as possible to the most viewers possible. In a tiered system that means "get the channels in the lowest tier". We have seen evidence of prices (such as in the CourtTV fight last year) where the provider apparently offered the carrier a lower price per customer to be in the lower package. (In the CourtTV case, CourtTV wanted a higher price per viewer when E* bumped them into a higher tier).

Not being in the lowest tier costs the channel providers in advertising. I would not be surprised if the actual fee paid by the carrier was a loss or a wash being in the lower tier. Another 3-4 million viewers are worth something.

Yes, DISH would rather have people at the $59.99 level than the $49.99 or $39.99 levels. DirecTV solved that problem by simply starting at the $52.99 level and making their "Xtra" level such a small price step that it is barely noticeable.

There are core costs to providing satellite service ... those need to be covered. Both providers have set up tiers to meet that goal in a highly competitive marketplace.


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

James Long said:


> Sure there is.
> 
> You may have noticed (or not) but ESPN carries advertising. They charge customers for that advertising. The more homes they are in the more they can charge (plus being on the dial is the first requirement of getting ratings that lead to higher ad rates). Selling all their channels for $3.35 instead of one for $4.95 is an incentive to get ALL of their channels into every home.
> 
> ...


Do you not agree that there needs to be some change to allow us at least a small bit of choice?

Say ESPN wants to raise prices to pay for yet another takeover of a sport. What's to stop them from asking for more money from all the distributors? You and I know that Dish, D* or cable would never drop ESPN so as long as ESPN charges about the same rate for everyone then they can charge darn near anything they want.

Correct or no?

Yes this the the very same issue with the other programmers packages. You want "must see channel A" well then you have to take this el-crapo channel B.

So lets assume that we all feel this is wrong for them to do. How is this going to change without the FCC or goverment stepping in and telling them that this is anti-competative?

I do not want to start the crazy dozen eggs or case of pop examples  but I fail to see why pay TV is allowed to operate different than other companies.

If everyone was forced to subscribe to USA Today then we would all get a cheaper deal (see I've done it again LOL) and we could *insert endless examples* of a zillion ways we have at least some control over what we pay and do not pay for.

The items that are limited in competition are controled in some way by the government. Electric company wants to raise rates by $50 a month... well they sure as heck have to base those increases on something real and still have to get them passed by state or local goverment.

Same for other utilities. So what is a utility? Is phone service? Pay TV? My thinking is that we have "some" competition with the distributors which is why they did not allow the D* E* merger. The government most certainly did step in and nix that deal because they felt that in the boonies where people do not have cable that D*/E* would charge more for Sat than in the cities in which they did have competition. (the real reason was that Cable pitched a ***** because they would be unable to compete with a merged company because it costs the same (well almost) to broadcast to 1 person or 300 million from Sat while Cable has to wire every home)

So now we have programmers who provide the same programming to all the distributors. Now we have near zero control over the programming we get as it's grouped into the same 70's "packs" that were due to technical issues of limited scrabling methods 30+ years ago.

They set up their entire system based on these packages and are unwilling to change because they know full well that people will lower their bills if they could only pick the channels they wanted.

I still want to know how many channels over the past 20 years have not made it. Either the programmers are the best business people on the planet or some of these channels only exist because we are forced to take them.

-JB


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

HobbyTalk said:


> You think it will be cheaper for you via the Interent? Think again, aready being tested by a number of large Internet providers.
> 
> In Favor Of Per-Byte Broadband Billing?
> 
> ...


I was talking more about Natural Gas. Yes it's high and low but the price is reflected in real world conditions and not the whim of the gas companies.

I pay $75 per month for Dish. If I paid even $1 for each episode of what I want to watch I would save about $30 

Now I admit that I do not sit in front of the TV and channel surf. Maybe to those people they would end up paying more but you know what... why is this bad?

Why should those who watch less pay the same as those who watch 10x as much?

Say I like one 1 hour program on 3 different channels that happen to be in three different packages) why should I pay $75 to watch 3 hours of shows when you watch 200+ hours and either pay the same or less?

Yes my example is in the extreame but it's still a valid point.

So do I want 100% ala-cart? No but for crying out loud give us some choice. All the packages should be separate.

If I want Package C then why do I need to pay for A and B in order to get it?

Go ahead and have 6 different packages if you want but they all should be separate. If I want package A, C and F then so be it.

There is a middle ground here between total 100% ala-cart and the current system. Can there be no change?

-JB


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

jrb531 said:


> Do you not agree that there needs to be some change to allow us at least a small bit of choice?


Choice IS allowed ... the market has spoken as to what choices are allowed. What you apparently want is for the government to step in and take away the choice.



> I do not want to start the crazy dozen eggs or case of pop examples  but I fail to see why pay TV is allowed to operate different than other companies.


Name the other companies (actually "industries") ...



> If everyone was forced to subscribe to USA Today then we would all get a cheaper deal ...


If everyone were forced to pay for emergency services such as police and fire protection we'd get a cheaper deal. Why can't I go a la carte there? I'll protect my home with Smith & Weston. 

Some things DESERVE the 'everyone' treatment ... but no one is forcing you to buy TV. That is a choice. 10% of American households do not watch TV. Perhaps we should force them to buy satellite service (even to buy a TV set) to make things cheaper for the masses? That is where your (admittedly flawed) USA Today example goes.

The closest newspaper example is if one is forced to buy a subscription instead of being able to buy the per copy price at the newsstand or the obvious fact that in nearly all cases one is forced to buy the comics to read the news (and vice versa). I don't read the classifieds, lifestyle or the business sections ... please don't give those sections to me. Save a recycled tree!

NEXT INDUSTRY PLEASE!



> The items that are limited in competition are controled in some way by the government. Electric company wants to raise rates by $50 a month... well they sure as heck have to base those increases on something real and still have to get them passed by state or local goverment.


As an exclusive service provider (got competition other than gas vs electric vs propane tanks?) the government has chosen to protect us from gouging.



> Same for other utilities. So what is a utility? Is phone service? Pay TV?


Phone service has required competition now (with new CLECs that own practically no infrastructure being able to resell ILEC services at a discount). What was historically a high priced monopoly wasn't taken down by the government stepping in and setting prices ... it was taken down by private companies offering something better ... then seeking government protection from the monopoly that tried to prevent their offerings. Basically competition.

The government was doing a lousy job until Sprint and MCI forced the issue.

Pay TV? Regulators collecting regulatory fees would love to call it a utility. Because of the roots in the CATV industry it basically is a utility ... even though satellite TV does not require the level of local services that cable requires. (No poles, easements, torn up streets, etc.)

Is Pay TV on the same level as telephone, gas, electricity, water and sewer? No.



> I still want to know how many channels over the past 20 years have not made it. Either the programmers are the best business people on the planet or some of these channels only exist because we are forced to take them.


A list doesn't help the argument. Those channels succeeded and failed in a marketplace where bundling and tiers are allowed. Even comparing this to foreign markets is apples and oranges.


----------



## HobbyTalk (Jul 14, 2007)

jrb531 said:


> I was talking more about Natural Gas. Yes it's high and low but the price is reflected in real world conditions and not the whim of the gas companies.


Yes I know... it still is not cheap. Nat. gas has gov. controlled pricing and the profits are controlled by the gov. Profits have become so slim that exploration for NG has all but stopped in this country and more and more LNG is being imported all the time.

Cable costs are also controlled on the local level in most cases but that doesn't make cable any cheaper or better. Gov. control does not mean cheaper or better. As was already pointed out, bundling may actually make the programming less expensive because the programmers can get higher adverising fees for more eyeballs.

NG is an essental product for living and does need to be controlled (or at least overseen). TV isn't.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Ala carte has been tried, and actually is still available (somewhat). You need to choose a big ugly dish to get it. I find I'd spend a whole lot more for a whole lot less.

I've looked at the numbers, many of the arguments, and studies and continue to believe that the system works better than any I can envision the government proposing. Ala carte mostly died for whatever reason. Economic viability, or lack thereof, is my best guess.

I'm glad that some providers have created a "family tier" between the "limited, basic" and the normal tiers. It saves money while giving customers a nice option of channels. Yes, this was likely created because of government saber rattling, the point is that it did without government legislation.

Lastly, remember, each individual option available to customers adds confusion, CSR calls, and billing/authorization overhead and bandwidth. All that adds core costs of delivery without increasing what is delivered. So, on average monthly bills won't go down. They have to go up, again on average.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

You all seem to think that I advocate 100% ala-cart. I do not. The current system is a dinosaur from the 70's when technology limited the number of indepenent scrambling methods and they had to group channels into packages that fit.

Dish and D* just followed the tried and true cable way even though they could have broken from the mold and I do seem to remember Dish offering ala-cart which they do not.

While some may "claim" that Dish stopped offering ala-cart because people just did not want it. I have to point out that we do not have any data to prove or disprove this and it costs Dish nothing to offer ala-cart. Even if individual channels were 20x more expensive I sure would like the option of adding a single channel for even $5 to a package instead of having to pay $10 to get the entire package.

Ala-cart, IMHO, was removed because the programmers did not like it. It was not some tried and true method that failed.

I fail to see how offering more packages that had channels "logically" grouped would not work.

1. Sports
2. Education
3. Basic
4. Basic Plus
5. Movies

If I want package C then why do I have to pay for Package A and B in order to get it? Been waiting for this answer for quite some time 

These are just examples.

Yes yes I know that "everyone" wants their channel to be carried in the basic package to attract more ad revenue. I seem to remember that the reason we started to pay for TV (or one of the reasons) was to limit the number of ads we had to watch.

Ads pay for programming, we want no ads then we pay for programming.

At what point did we start paying for programming "and" get ads?

My example about the gas company and phone company stands.

Gas company = no competition (or very limited) so the government makes sure that prices are at least somewhat in line with reality.

Phone company = some competition that has resulted in "much" lower costs over 30 years ago and prior to competiton the prices were sky high!


Now how long ago did the FCC block the D* E* merger? A few years if I remember and the reason was that it would lower competition.

Ok we have a "very" competative "distribution" system in which Cable, Dish, DirecTV, Phone Companies, Internet all compete for the right to "distribute" programming.

Here is the issue (insert broken record here LOL)

The "distributors" all compete to distribute the same (Well Dish users hope to have the same HD soon LOL) programming. There is little or no competition for programming. (if you say that there is then list a few Pay Channels that have gone under due to competition in the past 10 years)

So yes I want government to step it but I want them to step in to force the programmers to stop forcing channels, packaging and other anti-competative deals onto the distributors that force them to offer near identical packages and prices on us!

You want a popular channel then you have to pay for my unpopular channels. This is right?

Sure we'll offer you "just" the popular channel but then I'll charge you a "punishment fee" that is so high that you would never take it.

Would I rather the government not step in... sure but when will the Pay TV industry self police itself? 

In the end it's the very same answer to everything. Business vs the consumer and our right to buy only what we want.

I asked this before with no reply (seems that some people will skip the hard answers LOL)

If ala-cart is "so" unpopular and few people would be willing to pay $1 or $2 or even $5 for a single channel then what hard does it do to at least offer it along with the current setup?

What are they afraid of?????

Offer the 100 channels for $50 (not exact numbers) but then offer me individual channels for $5 each.

Want to know why I think they do not do this (and it's not because WE do not want this)

1. They know that I would take the base package and instead of paying $20 more to get packages B and C ($10 each) I would take the one channel I want in package B and pay $5 and the one channel I want in package C and pay $5 and instead of having to pay $30 for three packages I would only pay $20 ($10 for base package and $10 for the two add on channels)

$5 for one channel is on the upper end of the extreame as to what a channel would cost. I would expect it to cost less but even if they made that one channel cost $5 (as opposed to $10 for the entire package) I would still save money!

So why not require that everyone take the "base" package but allow individual channels to be added?

Why not? Because then business makes less money! Choice for us = less money for them and this is why government has to step in.

$$$ talks and consumers just do not have a voice here. Even with new sources of "distribution" of Pay TV... as long as the programmers can do anything they want, charge anything they want and pay off anyone they want... we'll never have real choice.

The gas company example is the wat to go and keeps "everyone" honest.

1 section for distribution costs (Dish, DirecTV, Cable etc...
1 section for programming costs

The distributors charge us a per channel fee for distribution that includes billing, equipment rental, infrastructure etc... and the programmers charge us (collected by the distributors) for the channels we want.

You can offer discount packages along with individual prices.

They fear this. This would force the programmers to compete with each other based on price and quality of programming... JUST LIKE ANY OTHER BUSINESS!

The distributors would not care what the programmers charge as they are being paid to distribute the programming. ESPN wants to raise rates? Well Dish, Cable, DirecTV would not care as it does not affect them in the least.

Will this ever happen? I dunno as it seems that the channel counters along with business like things just the way they are but eventually as our bills climb and climb something will have to give.

Perhaps many of us with realize that 20+ years ago when we had 3-5 channels of programing that we got for free that there more things to life than sitting in front of the magic box and being fed pre-packages information into our brains.

Physical activity, socialization, hobbies and other aspects of life that we all used to do now passes us by as we anticipate more and more channels being fed into our brains 

-JB


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

Tom Robertson said:


> Ala carte has been tried, and actually is still available (somewhat). You need to choose a big ugly dish to get it. I find I'd spend a whole lot more for a whole lot less.
> 
> I've looked at the numbers, many of the arguments, and studies and continue to believe that the system works better than any I can envision the government proposing. Ala carte mostly died for whatever reason. Economic viability, or lack thereof, is my best guess.
> 
> ...


Keep the current setup for those who are unable to comprehend anything different. Does this prevent them from offering the rest of us options to add individual channels to packages?

If I want to pay $5 for a single channel in package C so I do not have to pay for package A, B and C... what prevents this?

I fail to see how offering ala-cart channels at a fixed price to existing channels would confuse people. Dish offering it before and stopped. Was it a CSR nightmare or more what I think... the programmers stopped allowing Dish to do so or Dish felt they could force more people into taking the $10 package to get that one channel instead of paying $5?

-JB


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

HobbyTalk said:


> Yes I know... it still is not cheap. Nat. gas has gov. controlled pricing and the profits are controlled by the gov. Profits have become so slim that exploration for NG has all but stopped in this country and more and more LNG is being imported all the time.
> 
> Cable costs are also controlled on the local level in most cases but that doesn't make cable any cheaper or better. Gov. control does not mean cheaper or better. As was already pointed out, bundling may actually make the programming less expensive because the programmers can get higher adverising fees for more eyeballs.
> 
> NG is an essental product for living and does need to be controlled (or at least overseen). TV isn't.


Why did they block the D* E* merger then? They said it would result in less competition so they blocked it. Not an esential service yet they still stepped in.

Right now the programmers are using preditory pricing to force the distributors into limiting choice to maximize their profit at our expense.

-JB


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

jrb531 said:


> Keep the current setup for those who are unable to comprehend anything different. Does this prevent them from offering the rest of us options to add individual channels to packages?
> 
> If I want to pay $5 for a single channel in package C so I do not have to pay for package A, B and C... what prevents this?
> 
> ...


The confusion if foresee is describing the difference between the individual Discovery offerings for example. I can see someone calling in and saying "I want Discovery Channel" and getting confused that he/she really wanted Discovery Science. Therefore the channels will have to increase self branding at an extra cost.

My guess is the C/Ku band big dishes (which still has very limited ala carte) and Dish Network both found ala carte uninteresting to the normal consumer. I know I was much more interested in a cable model when I had my BUD, I didn't want the hassle of deciding which channels I wanted and the channels I wanted were much better served in a package. (Some of the pay once per year packages were very nice.)

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## HobbyTalk (Jul 14, 2007)

I still haven't seen a good arguement against pay per hour. Have all channels available to you and you pay for what you watch. That would give you granular control over your costs. This is no different then any other utility you use (since many like to compare TV to electric and gas bills). You pay for what you use.

Not much on interesting this week? You pay very little. Why pay for something that you are not using? You might even save a bit on your electric bill because you would now turn off your TV for those 8 out of 15 hours that it is on and no one is watching. 

On 21 September 2006, Nielsen Media Research, Inc. revealed the latest statistics about America's TV habit. Americans now watch an average of 4 hours 35 minutes of TV every day. This is up three minutes from last year. Furthermore, a TV is playing in the average American household for 8 hours and 14 minutes every day. That is also another record. 

So in other words, about half the time the TV is on, no one is watching. If we take the 4 hour average (lets incease that to 5 hours) and the charge is $0.50 per hour (just using that as an easy to figure out example), the monthly cost would be $75.00. The average 2 hour PPV movie would cost $1.00 to watch.

If your current bill is $130, you could watch 8.3 hours per day for the same cost. Using the Nielsen averages, that is equal to the TV being on 16 hours per day but only actually watching it half the time. Turning the TV off for 8 hours per day would save you about $20.00 per month on your electric bill.

Do I really believe this is a good idea? I won't say, but it is an interesting discussion that does have some merit.


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

HobbyTalk said:


> I still haven't seen a good arguement against pay per hour. Have all channels available to you and you pay for what you watch. That would give you granular control over your costs. This is no different then any other utility you use (since many like to compare TV to electric and gas bills). You pay for what you use.
> 
> Not much on interesting this week? You pay very little. Why pay for something that you are not using? You might even save a bit on your electric bill because you would now turn off your TV for those 8 out of 15 hours that it is on and no one is watching.
> 
> ...


But you forget that the current setup forces people who watch less to pay for the habits of the couch potatos.

Perhaps you and I might love a system in which we have "access" to all programming but only pay for what we watch but what will the bill look like for those who sit in front of the set for 10 hours a day vs our 1?

I'm a big supporter of only paying for what you watch but I suspect I'm in the minority as our society becomes little more than veggies.

The current setup is great for people who want all the channels at the cheapest rate possible. As our rates go down, theirs will go up which is one of the reasons that some people here associate "ala-cart" with a form of kryptonite 

Those who want to brag that they have 10 zillion channels will also have a bill to reflect those channels.

Nothing wrong with that in my mind. You want to drive 10 cars then you pay for 10 cars. Stop asking me to subsidize your habbit!

-JB


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

Tom Robertson said:


> The confusion if foresee is describing the difference between the individual Discovery offerings for example. I can see someone calling in and saying "I want Discovery Channel" and getting confused that he/she really wanted Discovery Science. Therefore the channels will have to increase self branding at an extra cost.
> 
> My guess is the C/Ku band big dishes (which still has very limited ala carte) and Dish Network both found ala carte uninteresting to the normal consumer. I know I was much more interested in a cable model when I had my BUD, I didn't want the hassle of deciding which channels I wanted and the channels I wanted were much better served in a package. (Some of the pay once per year packages were very nice.)
> 
> ...


You know... keep the current setup as is but add a small "ala-cart" option on your web page. Tell the CSR's not to say anything about ala-cart unless asked and you solve the potential problem with those who are unable/unwilling to comprehend the "rocket science" of ala-cart 

Me? Well I'll order my basic package and add 1-2 ala-cart channels for a nice bit of savings 

-JB


----------



## HobbyTalk (Jul 14, 2007)

jrb531 said:


> Perhaps you and I might love a system in which we have "access" to all programming but only pay for what we watch but what will the bill look like for those who sit in front of the set for 10 hours a day vs our 1?


Maybe it would even decrease (or hold down increases) our health insurance as it would induce more people to get off that couch and get outside.... or heaven forbid, read a book, listen to radio or talk to your family members. 

In the end it would be THEIR choice. Why should I (or you) subsidize their viewing habits?


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

HobbyTalk said:


> Maybe it would even decrease (or hold down increases) our health insurance as it would induce more people to get off that couch and get outside.... or heaven forbid, read a book, listen to radio or talk to your family members.
> 
> In the end it would be THEIR choice. Why should I (or you) subsidize their viewing habits?


I agree with you 100%

I'm sure others do not 

While I admit to spending more time on the internet than I should, at least the internet is two-way communication and some user interaction is needed.

To be fair the same could be said for the internet. Why should someone who checks their email once a day pay $20 a month vs the person who downloads 24/7?

At least many net providers do now offer different tiers of speed for the lessor users so while I may pay $30 for more bandwidth they can get away with $15 a month for less.

Not so with Pay TV as they distribute channels over multiple tiers in order to force people to subscribe to more than they need or want.

You are paying for the "possiibility" of watching these channels and they care not if you watch 1 minute or 10,000 minutes per month.

In many cases it would be cheaper to actually pay per show. Short term this would rub people the wrong way because there is this "perception" that we are getting such a great deal because we have the "ability" to watch so many channels 24/7. In reality most people watch far less and much TV time is nothing but a time filler that would be easily filled with other, often more productive activities like reading, physical activities, hobbies or even just talking to friends or neighbors.

I suspect that the number of "must watch" TV hours is far far less than the average. How many of us switch on the TV when we have some time to kill and just surf?

If we had to just pay for the shows we actually "wanted" to watch then many of us could save a ton of money.

Of course there will be those here (channel counters I suspect LOL) who will point out that the programmers would just adjust their rates to compensate and that individual shows would skyrocket in price.

They seem to forget that if you price something too high people will just take a pass.

Want to watch that episode of 24 for $1 each week ($4 a month) and many people would go sure.... charge $5 a show and then people will just wait until next year and rent the season at Netflix for much less (I do that now LOL)

The one think we can say for sure is that people do not like change and some people fear any form of change whether it be good or bad.

We all tend to think the worse when some change can be for the better.

-JB


----------



## jutley (Oct 11, 2006)

HobbyTalk said:


> While I agree with parts of what you say, I do not want the gov. in there making the rules. In very few cases like this has the gov. made things better. ESPN is already seeing competition from things like Fox Sports Networks, all of the NFL, MLB, BTN, CI, etc. programs.


+!

While I agree with the concept of a la carte, our government is too big as it is...keep them out!


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

jrb531 said:


> ... I do seem to remember Dish offering ala-cart which they do not.


They don't offer 100% a la carte, but there are more than a few channels that ARE still offered a la carte instead of requiring a buy through to the next tier.

I recall DISH offering some sort of "pick X for $Y" type packages but I can't find a reference on short notice.



> ... it costs Dish nothing to offer ala-cart.


No, it costs DISH a really big upgrade to their billing system. And when a channel provider finds out that they have lost millions of subscribers (and the ad revenue connected) it will cost DISH more to keep their channel on their system - if they can keep it at all.

EVERYTHING is bulk rate. If a satellite company can go to a provider and say "we will deliver your six channels to 13 million (or 15 million) customers" they will get a better deal than if they cannot guarantee a number of subscribers or can only guarantee a lower number.

Unless a la carte is a flop and nearly all customers stay with long term contracted packages so the companies can guarantee the subscriptions we will see _ALL_ prices increase with a la carte. Only the most popular channels would remain inexpensive ... maybe ... there would be the bulk savings but there would also be the temptation to raise the price to see how much people would pay.



> At what point did we start paying for programming "and" get ads?


Day one? The first MVDS was CATV ... community antenna TV. We paid a 'cable' company for the use of their antenna and distribution system to watch OTA locals and eventually a few satellite carried local channels from other markets.

Premium movie channels were eventually added (and they remain "commercial free") but every other channel I recall from the early days HAD ADVERTISING. It was one of the key features (and still is) of The Weather Channel to insert local advertising (including the name of your local dealer on a network ad). I'm sure you can find a couple of non-commercial channels that were eventually added, but we've had commercials on pay TV since the beginning of the industry.



> Phone company = some competition that has resulted in "much" lower costs over 30 years ago and prior to competiton the prices were sky high!


And what did the government do about it 30 years ago? Let the monopoly rule. It wasn't until competition _in the industry_ forced the issue that they did anything to help.

The industry isn't begging for a la carte.



> I asked this before with no reply (seems that some people will skip the hard answers LOL)


It is so easy to miss questions in pages and pages and pages (and pages) of ramble. 


> If ala-cart is "so" unpopular and few people would be willing to pay $1 or $2 or even $5 for a single channel then what hard does it do to at least offer it along with the current setup?


See above. Higher rates for all, including the package subscribers.

Last year DISH Network decided to make a move that would reduce the number of homes CourtTV was in from 13 million to 9 million. That move was to place CourtTV into AT200 instead of AT100 when the package names changed. The move could have very well been to offer CourtTV a la carte cutting their voluntary subscription level to 9 million (or less). The result was CourtTV demanding MORE MONEY per home. DISH lost the bulk rate they were paying because they no longer offered 13 million subscribers.

[Remainder skipped ... I don't have all night.]



jrb531 said:


> HobbyTalk said:
> 
> 
> > I still haven't seen a good arguement against pay per hour. Have all channels available to you and you pay for what you watch. That would give you granular control over your costs. This is no different then any other utility you use (since many like to compare TV to electric and gas bills). You pay for what you use.
> ...


Some people buy for quality, other's buy for quantity.


> Perhaps you and I might love a system in which we have "access" to all programming but only pay for what we watch but what will the bill look like for those who sit in front of the set for 10 hours a day vs our 1?


If we applied your opinion about a la carte channel purchasing they may end up paying LESS.

Offer an "all you can eat" 24/7 unlimited package (limited only by the number of tuners on the account) for the couch potatoes and sell TV by the hour to the other folk. They pay $29.99 to $119.99 (depending on how many channels were available 24/7) ... the current package price ... and you pay $1 per hour ... $2 per hour for the more popular channels, $3 per hour for movie channels.

But alas we run into the same problems ... the carrier cannot guarantee the payments of 13 million / 15 million subscribers and must therefore pay more to the provider for the content. Plus billing is crazy.

It is cheaper for the phone companies to offer unlimited long distance than to produce a detailed bill for the long distance that people use. Unlimited is either on or off ... no debating with a CSR that a call was or wasn't made since it costs the same. The first savings for phone companies was to get away from distance rated calls (just bill per minute and stop calculating where people called). Then they stopped printing detailed bills. Now many plans just "round up" to a number that covers the cost of calls by people on the plan plus the profit the company wants to collect. Group rates ... or buying in bulk and saving. All because no one has to produce a detailed bill.



jrb531 said:


> They seem to forget that if you price something too high people will just take a pass.


Don't forget that yourself. Let the providers keep saving money by buying channels in bulk (available to millions of customers 24/7 at one low price) and, believe it or not, passing the savings on to us.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Well said, James.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

Or, the simple method...

Most RSN's were a la carte, and the price of a premium channel. Notice how that changed.

Disney Channel was a premium channel. Notice how that changed.

Programming distributors want their channels to be in packs. Pay TV providers want those channels to be in packs. And with 85 percent of the nation subscribed to these pay TV services, most likely with a pack, it certainly means the market has accepted channel packaging.


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

If I was on their side I would want everything in packs too.

How hard is it to understand that the current system is set up to maximize their profits at our expense!

If ala-cart would mean more profit for them then we would already have ala-cart.

They do not want competition. No business wants competition and the programmers know that while being able to select the channels you want would not lead to true apple-apple competition in the form of multi sci-fi channels but their would be some competition based on price and this makes them shake in their boots.

All this "gloom and doom" and fear of change with predictions of the sky falling if we are offered any choice on our channels seems a bit silly.

No one still has answered why we have tiers packages and not independent pacakges... AKA I can take C without being forced to pay for A and B first.

Yes I understand the concept of advertising and being in the most homes but why then even have three packages and since when is maximizing the programmers profits become a concern of ours?

I often seems like some of us here are more concerned with the programmers making a profit rather than what is fair and just. This really puzzles me which is why I have had more than a passing thought that more than a few people here are no more than paid shills for the Pay TV industry.

Does anyone here speak for the little guy? Is the current system perfect? Is their room for no change at all?

And a few points....

1. Yes Dish used to offer a pick 10 out of 20 (or close to that) deal for channels. They did NOT stop this because we did not use this.

2. It will not cost Dish one penny to upgrade their system. They already have ala-cart in their system. They would have to input the channels into the single channel side but I hardly think this "costs DISH a really big upgrade to their billing system"

Look I know full well that bills will go up for those who want "all" the channels. Is this wrong? Right now those channels are being subsidized by forcing people to pay for channels they do not want!

For most people who only want a modest number of channels that they do actually want will see a savings. While we can argue if this will be a big savings or small savings the real point is that long term this would serve to limit future price increases (it's called competition!) as we will be able to drop channels that charge too much or do not show programming that is not to our liking.

In closing let me ask this.... how do other businesses manage to stay in business and make a profit when they have to compete and cannot "force" you to buy what you do not want? I'm sure you will site some examples but the vast majority of business has to compete on price, quality and service. Right now the programmers have none fo that.

Name a few channels that have gone belly up? Either they are all perfect or the industry is acting as an artificial support system for these channels.

-JB


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

HobbyTalk said:


> I still haven't seen a good arguement against pay per hour. Have all channels available to you and you pay for what you watch. That would give you granular control over your costs. This is no different then any other utility you use (since many like to compare TV to electric and gas bills). You pay for what you use.
> 
> Not much on interesting this week? You pay very little. Why pay for something that you are not using? You might even save a bit on your electric bill because you would now turn off your TV for those 8 out of 15 hours that it is on and no one is watching.
> 
> ...


This is scary if I didn't know any better i'd say you've been talking to my father! Because my dad basically did just this kind of set-up when we were kids. My dad agreed to get cable tv in our household when I was about 11 or 12 on the condition that we all pay our share of the bill. He figured out who owed how much by having us write down on a pad next to the tv what we watched and for how long. When the monthly bill showed up he'd add up the total hours of tv watched by everyone and used that to figure out what the "per hour charge" for that month would be and then of course our individual "bills" would be that times however many hours we watched. So we all (four of us kids) got to determine how much of our allowance got eaten by the cable box every month. :lol: It was a fairly ingenius idea that not only made it so he didn't have to pay as much out of his own wallet to have cable in the house but it also "encouraged" us to go play outside or read or something else that didn't take money out of what we already considered our way too small allowances! :lol:


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

Here's a fresh take on this stale topic: 

An FCC commissioner mentioned recently that he'd like to consider ending forced bundling in the dealings between content providers and multichannel carriers, not necessarily including consumers. 

This way, Disney would have to make ABC Family available for separate purchase by the dish/cable companies, regardless of whether they want to carry, say, ESPNews. The dish/cable companies would still be free to sell programming to viewers in whatever packages they choose.

Is this a la carte proposal any better or worse than mandating consumer-level a la carte? Please discuss in a friendly, dispassionate manner.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

jrb, you don't need to add four pages worth of comments, 


> If I was on their side I would want everything in packs too.
> 
> How hard is it to understand that the current system is set up to maximize their profits at our expense!


Uh, who is out for number one? I guarantee you want a higher yearly pay increase than your co-worker. And that is how this business is justified.


> No one still has answered why we have tiers packages and not independent pacakges... AKA I can take C without being forced to pay for A and B first.
> 
> Yes I understand the concept of advertising and being in the most homes but why then even have three packages and since when is maximizing the programmers profits become a concern of ours?
> 
> I often seems like some of us here are more concerned with the programmers making a profit rather than what is fair and just. This really puzzles me which is why I have had more than a passing thought that more than a few people here are no more than paid shills for the Pay TV industry.


There are many things wrong with this. It all boils down to one statement:

Because you have completely forgotten about the dollars to be earned by the multichannel providers. Versus is in the top pack on Dish Network because that is where they want it to be. And it may help Dish Network's bottom line if Versus will cause some subscribers to bump their subscription up to AT250.

The main issue I see isn't that some of us are concerned about the programmers' bottom lines, but balancing that out with the providers' bottom lines.


> And a few points....
> 
> 1. Yes Dish used to offer a pick 10 out of 20 (or close to that) deal for channels. They did NOT stop this because we did not use this.


Are you SURE? I know what Charlie Ergen said, but when the man gets up in court and says under oath he'll requalify all of his distant network subscribers, then thumbed his nose at the court, what exactly can you believe?


> For most people who only want a modest number of channels that they do actually want will see a savings. While we can argue if this will be a big savings or small savings the real point is that long term this would serve to limit future price increases (it's called competition!) as we will be able to drop channels that charge too much or do not show programming that is not to our liking.


You don't know this. You don't know this at all. And it opens up a very large can of worms, including those facts assumed not to change.

Imagine we go a la carte. Guess what becomes the most expensive channels on the system? The local channels. Unless, of course, you need the government to create another law to supplant the free market.


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

FTA Michael said:


> Here's a fresh take on this stale topic:
> 
> An FCC commissioner mentioned recently that he'd like to consider ending forced bundling in the dealings between content providers and multichannel carriers, not necessarily including consumers.
> 
> ...


Sounds like a start. Lets see if there is a sudden influx of "donations" to certain politicians and then it's dropped like last time.

As long as they will not be able to use "punishment" prices then this might be all we need. If, after this, DIsh refuses to offer some choice then we can complain to Dish and they will not be able to pass the buck and blame onto the Programers and their evil binding contracts.

While I expect a discount for multiple channels I do not expect the old... $4 for one channel and $4.01 for 5 channels 

Thanks for the info!

-JB


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

Greg Bimson said:


> jrb, you don't need to add four pages worth of comments,  Uh, who is out for number one? I guarantee you want a higher yearly pay increase than your co-worker. And that is how this business is justified.There are many things wrong with this. It all boils down to one statement:
> 
> Because you have completely forgotten about the dollars to be earned by the multichannel providers. Versus is in the top pack on Dish Network because that is where they want it to be. And it may help Dish Network's bottom line if Versus will cause some subscribers to bump their subscription up to AT250.
> 
> ...


If we were as concerned with "our" bottom lines as some of seem to be concerned with Dish and the programmers bottom lines then maybe we could accomplish something.

When Pay Tv cost $30ish a month and we had to take channels we did not want then well we ate the extra fees because they did not cost so much. Now that our bills are at least double with them going up each year as more channels and silly fees are added to the price we need to be able to cut things to keep the bill down.

Just like "I" can elect to keep my home at 65 degrees or 85 degrees and elect to save or spend as much $$$ as I want I should be able to have at least some choice in Pay TV.

Being able to cancel all Pay TV does not cut it when the only reason the packages are setup the way they are now is to maximize their profits at our expense. They are not in any logical order and there are not technical reasons for their to be only 3 main packages (4 if you count the family one)

Can you all tell me with a stright face that in the current system there is room for ZERO compromise? The current system is perfect correct?

How long did it take Dish to seem to get out of binding contracts to create the Family Package when Dish and the programmers were "deathly" afraid that congress was going to mandate we have choice?

My goodness it seemed to happen overnight (some will proclaim that they were in intense negotioations for years and the timing was just a coincidence) and as soon as the Family Pack popped into play the call from congress for choice dropped.

They will do "just enough" to keep government out of the picture and part of this is paying BIG BIG bucks in donations to just the right people.

Some people might wonder if they could drop their rates if they did not have to "donate" so much to congress 

Sorry for the long posts. I'll try and keep them down.

In closing...

Do you all feel that we have to have an all or nothing system?

Do we have to have 100% ala-cart or 100% pre-packages?

-JB


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

jrb531 said:


> No one still has answered why we have tiers packages and not independent pacakges... AKA I can take C without being forced to pay for A and B first.


It has been answered. Apparently you don't like the answer and have blocked it out.



> Does anyone here speak for the little guy? Is the current system perfect? Is their room for no change at all?


Plenty of room ... but the best change comes from WITHIN - not from the government forcing the issues for a few whiners.



> 1. Yes Dish used to offer a pick 10 out of 20 (or close to that) deal for channels. They did NOT stop this because we did not use this.


You cannot state this as a fact as you don't know the subscriber levels.



> 2. It will not cost Dish one penny to upgrade their system. They already have ala-cart in their system. They would have to input the channels into the single channel side but I hardly think this "costs DISH a really big upgrade to their billing system"


Dish has a handful of a la carte channels - most of them international channels thatare sold at very high (relative) prices. You are asking that DISH take a 270 plus channel system that is currently broken into four packages and create a line item bill for each of those channels (or at best, a couple dozen theme packages). How you expect that to cost DISH less than one penny is beyond belief.



> For most people who only want a modest number of channels that they do actually want will see a savings.


But who are the most people? Those that just want something on their TV and will pay $29.99-$119.99 for that content in tiers or those who want a la carte? YOU WANT TO RAISE THE PRICE ON EVERYONE! Yes, read your own writing ... you don't care if the people who buy packages pay more and you don't care that people who want a la carte pay much more per channel. You just want higher prices for all ... and a choice to buy or go without.

Sorry, you don't speak for most people. Most people who only want a modest number of channels pick a low priced tier with core channels and a variety of content. The same kind of core package that one would have to buy to get a la carte. There are no savings.



> In closing let me ask this.... how do other businesses manage to stay in business and make a profit when they have to compete and cannot "force" you to buy what you do not want?


They all have that goal. Programmers just are BETTER at meeting the goal of increasing profits through bundling and bulk sales.



> Name a few channels that have gone belly up? Either they are all perfect or the industry is acting as an artificial support system for these channels.


Plenty of channels have died over the years even though they were supported by conglomerates. They died on ratings and lack of acceptance by the carriers. Do you believe that a la carte will help them survive or kill off more channels?



jrb531 said:


> Can you all tell me with a stright face that in the current system there is room for ZERO compromise?


There are programmers that ALLOW their channels to be offered a la carte. That's compromise.



> In closing...
> Do you all feel that we have to have an all or nothing system?
> Do we have to have 100% ala-cart or 100% pre-packages?


Since we DON'T have an all or nothing system and we DON'T have 100% either then ... well I believe you know the answer. 

I look forward to skimming through your next four pages for a glimmer of understanding. Be brief, we'll listen. I'd rather have your points made a la carte than in huge packages that I don't have the time to read most of.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

FTA Michael said:


> Here's a fresh take on this stale topic:
> 
> An FCC commissioner mentioned recently that he'd like to consider ending forced bundling in the dealings between content providers and multichannel carriers, not necessarily including consumers.
> 
> ...


I don't like government intervention ... and as noted before, if ABC/Disney can't sell their packages in bulk to millions of subscribers at a time (nearly all of each provider's subscribers) they are going to raise their rates on everybody.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

The status quo in television _is_ a certain level of government intervention. You can't just build your own transmitter or run your own cable company without obeying particular government-issued rules.

So if there is a question about government intervention, your choices are to roll it back all the way (as in the early, early days of radio) or determine exactly _what_ you want your government intervention to look like.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

This should tell you all you need to know right here...


> When Pay Tv cost $30ish a month and we had to take channels we did not want then well we ate the extra fees because they did not cost so much. Now that our bills are at least double with them going up each year as more channels and silly fees are added to the price we need to be able to cut things to keep the bill down.


Bills and products of all types have doubled over the past ten years. That includes house payments, car payments, etc. And the complaint is with an entertainment service?

However, under the "guise" of channel selection, the reason a la carte should be considered is, "we need to be able to cut things to keep the bill down." And we always get the ESPN issue, as it is the most expensive channel in the normal entry-level package. Then there is some misguided belief (we'll call it hope) that your bill would go down because you can cut something out of a standard program package, or better yet, get better pricing a la carte.

Because ESPN will NEVER VOLUNTARILY give up their spot in the most basic of packages, you will never see a "basic" package without it (Family packs not withstanding). And those basic packs are what makes the multichannel providers lots of money.

If you are worried about silly fees, start thinking about the fee to access a la carte. Does this mean if I only want ESPN, that DirecTV would be happy to take my $4 a month? There of course would be fees on top of that.


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

Greg Bimson said:


> This should tell you all you need to know right here...Bills and products of all types have doubled over the past ten years. That includes house payments, car payments, etc. And the complaint is with an entertainment service?
> 
> However, under the "guise" of channel selection, the reason a la carte should be considered is, "we need to be able to cut things to keep the bill down." And we always get the ESPN issue, as it is the most expensive channel in the normal entry-level package. Then there is some misguided belief (we'll call it hope) that your bill would go down because you can cut something out of a standard program package, or better yet, get better pricing a la carte.
> 
> ...


I know a few people who still do not have Pay TV. I tell them about the History Channel or Discovery and yes they express interest in paying for those few channels (maybe 5 channels total) and they ask me how much it would cost.

I have to tell them their bill would be $40ish and they then say... sorry but that's too much for 5 channels.

So they pass on Pay TV but the question still stands. Since Dish can sell the Family Package and supposedly make a profit on it then why can't we pay whatever "distribution" costs, pay 100% for our own install, our own equipment and then pay for the few channels we do want?

Greed?
Programmers inflexability in allowing the distributors to sell what they want?

I know some of you may find it hard to believe but many people only watch a very few number of channels. I myself would be happy with maybe 10 channels.

-JB


----------



## FogCutter (Nov 6, 2006)

Now "if" ESPN was forced to give "real" prices then:

1. ESPN = $2.95
2. ESPN1 &2 = $3.95
3. ESPN Package (all channels) = $4.95


Ah, I love the smell of price controls in the morning --- it smells like, well, a bad idea. Price controls have historically led to bad things: limited supplies, narrow choices, less competition.

Rather than force Dish or Direct into ala carte, why not let the market decide and launch a third player that is strictly ala carte. The content suppliers will charge more, so the product of this new player will cost more for less, but what the heck -- it's all about choice -- dang the cost.

In the case of ESPN, they can charge higher advertising rates if they can put their content in front of more eyeballs. That's probably why they penalize for fewer channels. That's why the NYT sells their paper for a couple of bucks when it costs $8 a copy to print -- the advertisers shoot the gap, and the paper still makes money.

If we forced them to be fair, then we'd have to force the advertisers to pay more to cover ESPN's reduction of ad space, and that would have to go into product prices or come out of advertiser profits. So we would pay more at the store or suffer in our 401Ks with lower stock prices -- maybe layoffs.

Does anyone remember the old, old days of C-band? One feed of HBO was $25 a month.

I do agree with you, if you don't want to pay for content you are not watching you surely should not be forced to pay for it. But for the reasons above, you will have to pay more to exercise your power of choice. But if it's worth it, it's worth it.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

I remember C band. What a PITA! Trying to pick channels, paying more than cable would have been, but had NFL ST (Before DIRECTV got it.)


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

jrb531 said:


> I have to tell them their bill would be $40ish and they then say... sorry but that's too much for 5 channels.
> 
> So they pass on Pay TV but the question still stands. Since Dish can sell the Family Package and supposedly make a profit on it then why can't we pay whatever "distribution" costs, pay 100% for our own install, our own equipment and then pay for the few channels we do want?


Let me get this right...

The people that won't pay $40 a month would be happy to shell out HUNDREDS of dollars to buy their own equipment and install, as opposed to signing up for a lease and only pay $40 a month?


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

FogCutter said:


> Now "if" ESPN was forced to give "real" prices then:
> 
> 1. ESPN = $2.95
> 2. ESPN1 &2 = $3.95
> ...


Those were just examples. I do not want any form of price controls. They have price controls now. When a programmer can dictate punishment fees like they do right now it ties the hands of the distributors who cannot package things as they might otherwise.

My example about ESPN was to just have government do two things:

1. You can offer volumn discounts but you must offer single channels also
2. You must base your prices on real world conditions and not use predatory pricing to limit choice....

Example:

ESPN #1 = $2.95
ESPN Package = $2.96

Clearly it costs ESPN more than 1 cent to provide multiple channels and any such pricing would be done "only" to get around any requirment that you must offer singles channels.

The government would not set prices but if there is a complaint about prices then perhaps the FCC (or whoever) could step in and see that the company is not setting prices in such a way to be anti-competative.

If Dish asked for only the main channel of ESPN would ESPN "have" to provide it right now?

If they had to could they not just say (as James hinted before) you can have ESPN for a gazilion dollars or our entire package for $1.99?

Please do not misunderstand my call for government intervention. I would rather they self-policed themselves but apparently this is not going to happen.

-JB


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

Greg Bimson said:


> Let me get this right...
> 
> The people that won't pay $40 a month would be happy to shell out HUNDREDS of dollars to buy their own equipment and install, as opposed to signing up for a lease and only pay $40 a month?


It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that shelling out a few hundred dollars short term and saving $30 a month pays for itself long term.

$30x12 = $360 a year in savings. How much does a box and install cost?

Even if it was only $20 a month that still is $240 a year.

-JB


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

jrb531 said:


> Those were just examples. I do not want any form of price controls. They have price controls now. When a programmer can dictate punishment fees like they do right now it ties the hands of the distributors who cannot package things as they might otherwise.
> 
> My example about ESPN was to just have government do two things:
> 
> ...


But...
ESPN might find that the real world financial cost differential be only 1 cent because of higher advertising rates. There are economies of scale at play.

Just like if you buy a selection of car features in a particular package that separately would cost thousands more than the package.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

jrb531 said:


> Those were just examples. I do not want any form of price controls. They have price controls now. When a programmer can dictate punishment fees like they do right now it ties the hands of the distributors who cannot package things as they might otherwise.
> 
> My example about ESPN was to just have government do two things:
> 
> ...


Go take a look at the conditions to sell Sony products in a store. Minimum advertised pricing, etc. You don't just buy TV's from Sony and put them in your store to sell at whatever price you want. Sony has conditions on how the store sells their products.

Yet this real world example probably won't be good enough.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

Greg Bimson said:


> Let me get this right...
> 
> The people that won't pay $40 a month would be happy to shell out HUNDREDS of dollars to buy their own equipment and install, as opposed to signing up for a lease and only pay $40 a month?





jrb531 said:


> It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that shelling out a few hundred dollars short term and saving $30 a month pays for itself long term.
> 
> $30x12 = $360 a year in savings. How much does a box and install cost?
> 
> ...


Holy crap!

You can lease a free receiver and receive a free install, and you'd have to shell out $40 a month.

Somehow, you think that by picking the programming you want, you'd be able to HALVE your bill. Yet I will guarantee it would cost more than $240 for your equipment and install.

And you wouldn't be able to halve your bill. Not even close. Heck, half of the $40 monthly bill is PROFIT to Dish Network. And you think Dish Network wants to sign up people at $20 a month?


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

As I consider this yet again, I'm considering a concept that the current system is really a win-win-win for everyone involved.

End customers get cheaper prices because of economies of scale, less advertising, less billing overhead, less customer support, etc.

End customers get more channels to watch on a spontaneous basis. Imagine the watercooler, "Did you see that new show, _The Closer_ lastnight?", "No what channel?", "TNT and in HD". "Dang, I don't get that one, it will take a couple days to turn on and I don't know if I can afford it..."

Cable networks get more money overall because of the base advertising rates are higher because of the larger base subscription numbers. Those savings are passed on to the customers (well maybe not in the case of ESPN) 

Cable/Satellite providers have simpler billing and authorization systems, simpler customer support, fewer transactions (as people add and drop channels willy nilly), etc.

Win-win-win for the bulk of people especially if the tiers are correctly setup/negotiated. The family packs have helped a lot.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

FTA Michael said:


> So if there is a question about government intervention, your choices are to roll it back all the way (as in the early, early days of radio) or determine exactly _what_ you want your government intervention to look like.


As little as possible. 



jrb531 said:


> Since Dish can sell the Family Package and supposedly make a profit on it then why can't we pay whatever "distribution" costs, pay 100% for our own install, our own equipment and then pay for the few channels we do want?


I assume that DISH breaks even on the Family Package, but I suspect the only reason why the non-included base channels allow it (without penalty) is that it is not an overwhelming choice and isn't part of the regular tier system. If family packages increased in subscription count to a noticeable level you would see the 'troublesome' providers trying to force their way in.

Every customer not getting a provider's channel is a problem.



jrb531 said:


> I do not want any form of price controls.


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Oh, that wasn't intended as a joke. That's exactly what the next step is. You can't just force providers to sell a la carte to carriers without some control on the price.



> If they had to could they not just say (as James hinted before) you can have ESPN for a gazilion dollars or our entire package for $1.99?


Not a hint ... an actual price sheet for bulk MDU rates.



> Please do not misunderstand my call for government intervention. I would rather they self-policed themselves but apparently this is not going to happen.


Neither is a la carte enforced by the government. They are not that stupid.



jrb531 said:


> It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that shelling out a few hundred dollars short term and saving $30 a month pays for itself long term.


We're not selling to rocket scientists. We're selling to people who want to pay as little as possible for TV.


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

Tom Robertson said:


> As I consider this yet again, I'm considering a concept that the current system is really a win-win-win for everyone involved.
> 
> End customers get cheaper prices because of economies of scale, less advertising, less billing overhead, less customer support, etc.
> 
> ...


And yet my main beef is not that they group many channels into the basic package so they can get their ad rates but why can't I add "one" channel from package C to package A instead of having to subscribe to all three packages?

There are many issues invloved here but my call for "compromise" could be met if they were willing to.

Let me pay $5 for that one channel (if anything would even cost that much!) but to force me to subscribe to Package A, B and C just so I can subscribe to the one channel in package C that I do want is justified how?

Oh I'm sure some of you will tell me how that too is in "our" best interest.

For crying out loud... all I keep hearing is how cheap Pay Tv is. Cheap how? I want a few channels and no more yet you all keep telling me how cheap I am getting all these channels for. I don't want 90% of these stinking channels yet they keep adding more channels, raising our bills and telling us how cheap we have it.

Cost per channel means NOTHING if you are not watching those channels.

How about trying this...

Instead of calculating what you are paying per channel how about taking that same bill and calculating what you are paying per channel for only the channels you watch.

Sure $75 for 100 channels only costs 75 cents each but if I only watch 10 channels and now I'm paying $7.50 each!

Yes I understand that concepts of volume and ads but that still is set up to maximize "thier" profit at the expense of my wallet. I have been willing to listen of the past few years and as such I have modified my position to move away from 100% ala-cart to separate packages and the ability (like my example above) of being to add a single channel to a package without being forced to take an entire package just to get a single channel.

Please show me where the programmers and distributors have compromised? The family package was forced on them by congress when the call for ala-cart popped up. Funny how they all seemed to get together very fast after so called years of rigid "we cannot change anything" to come up with a "bare minimum" package set up to kill ala-cart.

Boy they sure are afraid of ala-cart and choice! I wonder why 

-JB


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

jrb531 said:


> For crying out loud... all I keep hearing is how cheap Pay Tv is. Cheap how? I want a few channels and no more yet you all keep telling me how cheap I am getting all these channels for. I don't want 90% of these stinking channels yet they keep adding more channels, raising our bills and telling us how cheap we have it.
> Cost per channel means NOTHING if you are not watching those channels.


Another possibility would be to try broadening your interests and watching more channels.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

jrb531 said:


> There are many issues invloved here but my call for "compromise" could be met if they were willing to.


Get the content/channel providers to allow their channels to be sold a la carte without "gouging". I'm pretty sure E* and D* will go along (with appropriate markups to cover the billing expense).

Look at the channels already doing this ... Bloomberg, RFDTV and Veria come to mind. Open minded content/channel providers help.


> Oh I'm sure some of you will tell me how that too is in "our" best interest.


Why bother? We've said it and it hasn't sunk in yet.


> For crying out loud... all I keep hearing is how cheap Pay Tv is. Cheap how? I want a few channels and no more yet you all keep telling me how cheap I am getting all these channels for. I don't want 90% of these stinking channels yet they keep adding more channels, raising our bills and telling us how cheap we have it.


And yet the options you offer are not cheap. If choice is the goal be prepared for EVERYONE to pay more. If cheap is the goal, find an appropriate solution.


> Sure $75 for 100 channels only costs 75 cents each but if I only watch 10 channels and now I'm paying $7.50 each!


And with a la carte your bill could actually be $75 and you only get the 10 channels.

You can do bogus calculations all you want - when the customer's cost of doing it the way you want exceeds the cost of doing it the way it is being done the SMART customer is going to go with packages. Not per channel cost or per hour or per anything ... your proposal describes a system where people would pay more for a handful of channels than for a regular package. Not a workable option.


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

James Long said:


> Get the content/channel providers to allow their channels to be sold a la carte without "gouging". I'm pretty sure E* and D* will go along (with appropriate markups to cover the billing expense).
> 
> Look at the channels already doing this ... Bloomberg, RFDTV and Veria come to mind. Open minded content/channel providers help.
> Why bother? We've said it and it hasn't sunk in yet.
> ...


Some of the very same "the sky will fall" talk was brought up when they broke up the bells. People are afraid of change but in the end, after some hickups, change that brings more competition always ends up being for the best.

Yes their were some hickups when the bells were broken up but look at the services and prices we pay now?

Maybe I am a bit optimistic but are you not on the other end of the spectrum James?

Maybe out bills will not drop to a penny a channel  but your prediction that prices will stay the same for less channels or actually rise is based on the same logic I use.... guess work 

Now do you really expect that currently basic channels with ads will rise to the level of $7.50 each when we pay only a few $$$'s more for multi-movie packs with little or no commercials now?

Please lets be real here. You once published some costs for Big Dish systems who allow ala-cart and they were nowhere near $7.50 each.

How about commenting about allowing us the ability to add single channels to the core packages?

Basic Package required but you could add any single channel from package B or C for $5. Is this also unworkable?

I just have a hard time trying to understand that you all feel that the current system is 100% fine as is... not for them but for US

It's perfect right?

-JB


----------



## HobbyTalk (Jul 14, 2007)

I'm not sure how you would figure this would increase competition (ala baby bells) to lower the price of programming? If anything it would increase the cost of individual channels. The reason prices went down with the baby bells is because they now had competition from outside sources. In your suggestion for ala cart the competition would actually decrease because some channels would be eliminated/go out of business.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

How would price controls work with wholesale a la carte? FCC Chairman Kevin Martin said he's not sure about that one either. 

"FCC Chairman Vague On Capping A La Carte Prices"
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6527816.html


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

HobbyTalk said:


> I'm not sure how you would figure this would increase competition (ala baby bells) to lower the price of programming? If anything it would increase the cost of individual channels. The reason prices went down with the baby bells is because they now had competition from outside sources. In your suggestion for ala cart the competition would actually decrease because some channels would be eliminated/go out of business.


Right now each channel charges a fee to be carried. We cannot cancel a channel if we feel they cost too much or the content is lacking.

Each year the programmers can raise fees knowing that they cannot (or will not) be cancelled and when you add to this the fact that many programmers offer groups of channels and often force the distributors to carry crap channel B and C or they cannot have "must have popular" channel A.

Now say we have the ability to cancel channels... what would happen is this:

1. Less popular channels will either have to become more popular either by showing better programming or lowering their cost to attract more business (like other business) or they can become a "nitch" channel and raise rates because they serve a select subscriber base who is willing to pay more for their nitch programming. If all else fails they go under... just like any other business.

2. More popular channels who currently demand a premium (as opposed to the average channel cost) will have to be very carefull when they consider rate increases because if you raise prices too much then people will cancell... just like any other business.

Right now there is nothing to keep these programmers from charging darn near whatever they want. They force unpopular channels onto us by the threat of withholding popular channels.

We need to get off this channel count fixation that we have. How many channels is enough? 25? 50? 100? 200? When will it end? Already we have an issue in which we cannot add more channels because there is no more room. Already we are paying for extra Sats that "may" not be needed if we did not have so many channels.

Will choice cut our bills a ton? Of course not but it would, down the line, lead to some sanity and checks and balances that we currently do not have. Of course this is but my opinion but considering that every other business has to compete and risks losing customers if they raise their prices too much or their product falls in quality I fail to see how the Pay TV industry should get a pass.

If the FCC blocks the D* E* merger because if "might" result in less competition (no one seems to mind that the government steped in then) then how is the current situation with the programmers a good thing?

-JB


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

jrb531 said:


> Maybe I am a bit optimistic but are you not on the other end of the spectrum James?


There is no 'bit' to your optimism. 



> Now do you really expect that currently basic channels with ads will rise to the level of $7.50 each when we pay only a few $$$'s more for multi-movie packs with little or no commercials now?


Considering all of the promotions that are involved IF you are a package subscriber and IF you make a commitment and depending on the choice of channels you want, yes. The sticker price of the channels may be lower (perhaps $5 purchased individually) but the overall cost of getting just those 10 channels subscribed and delivered isn't going to be cheap.

The premium movie packages are (once again, follow along) bulk rates. You're getting multiple channels for the price. You're also paying DISH a fee to support their network (unless you have a base package).



> Please lets be real here. You once published some costs for Big Dish systems who allow ala-cart and they were nowhere near $7.50 each.


You're right ... most channel prices are not "each". The best price is in PACKAGES. Smaller packages in the C-Band world but still packages.



> How about commenting about allowing us the ability to add single channels to the core packages?


I've done that. Please read my posts.



> It's perfect right?


I never said it was and I'm tired of you claiming I did. The system isn't perfect - but you are not going to change it. Especially to something that is even LESS perfect.


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

FTA Michael said:


> How would price controls work with wholesale a la carte? FCC Chairman Kevin Martin said he's not sure about that one either.
> 
> "FCC Chairman Vague On Capping A La Carte Prices"
> http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6527816.html


My solution:

Any channel that costs more than three times the average of channels in a package would either have to be moved to a different package or be offered ala-cart.

This allows a "cheap" basic package and if ESPN want to be in that package then they could not charge more than 3x what the average cost is for the channels in "that" package.

This results in almost no government intervention. If all the channels need to raise rates due to inflation then there is no issue because all channels within that package would raise rates the same.

What this does do is to make sure that no "individual" channel could go crazy and raise rates above the average or risk being bumped right out of that package or being forced to go ala-cart only.

You could also have a second package with more expensive channels. This seems very win-win for everyone except the programmers. It would allow the distributors some freedom to package channels in more creative ways and allow us "some" choice without resulting in a total ala-cart system.

This would introduct "checks and balances" that, while not true free market, would at least allow so sanity in pricing.

Example:

Basic package has 20 channels with an average price of 50 cents each (these numbers are just an example so please don't tell me I'm too high or too low LOL)

Now ESPN want to be in the basic package to attract more ad revenue. ESPN could not charge more than $1.50 (3x - note this 3X number is just an example also as it could be 2.5x 3.5x - IE I do not have the real numbers)

So now it's time to increase fees due to inflation or whatnot. All the channels decide they need an extra 5 cents so the average for the basic package goes up to 55 cents. Now ESPN could bump there fee to $1.65 (3x) and if they somehow felt they wanted to charge $2.00 then they would not be able to be placed in the basic package.

Not say there is a 2nd package - this package could have more expensive channels that average a higher price.

Perfect? No but IMHO it's a far cry better than what we have now. Yes it takes some freedom away from the distributors and programmers but it's a compromise (in a compromise everyone is not happy LOL)

This also does not set any prices and is future proof. As long as the programmers keep their prices in line with everyone else there is no issue but if any programmer wants to get silly and raise rates too high then they will be bumped from the basic package (or whatever package they are in)

Must Carry would also be restricted - why should a distributor be required to carry a channel that they do not want?

-JB


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

jrb531 said:


> Must Carry would also be restricted - why should a distributor be required to carry a channel that they do not want?


To prevent them from excluding channels that certain people might want.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

jrb531 said:


> Now say we have the ability to cancel channels... what would happen is this:
> 
> 1. Less popular channels will either have to become more popular either by showing better programming or lowering their cost to attract more business (like other business) or they can become a "nitch" channel and raise rates because they serve a select subscriber base who is willing to pay more for their nitch programming. If all else fails they go under... just like any other business.
> 
> 2. More popular channels who currently demand a premium (as opposed to the average channel cost) will have to be very carefull when they consider rate increases because if you raise prices too much then people will cancell... just like any other business.


Great. Just what I've always wanted to do.

Make a check out to DirecTV.
Make a check out to ESPN.
Make a check out to HBO.
Make a check out to Fox.
Make a check out to Viacom.
Make a check out to Time Warner.

You do realize by being able to "delete" channels, you are attempting to establish a buisness relationship with the channels that you subscribe to?

What is with the concern about the amount programming costs the provider? I still don't understand this? It is part of the bill that is rolled to you by the multi-channel provider.

Instead, it always relates to "let me drop the ESPN suite so I can save $4 a month." Then when everyone drops more than half of their channels, over half of those channels would go under.

I didn't sign up for DirecTV in order to buy programming like a supermarket. There are a few options. And that is fine with me. And obviously the 85 percent of the nation that purchase these services.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

jrb531 said:


> My solution:
> 
> Any channel that costs more than three times the average of channels in a package would either have to be moved to a different package or be offered ala-cart.
> 
> This allows a "cheap" basic package and if ESPN want to be in that package then they could not charge more than 3x what the average cost is for the channels in "that" package.


But this should be done without government intervention, yet ESPN would never voluntarily agree to this.


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

Greg Bimson said:


> Great. Just what I've always wanted to do.
> 
> Make a check out to DirecTV.
> Make a check out to ESPN.
> ...


Who said anything about writing checks to every programmer?

Dish is being paid as a distributor and would bill us as they do now. Nothing changes in this regard. Right now Dish takes our payment, keeps a chuck for themselves and writes checks to all the programmers.

-JB


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

jrb531 said:


> If the FCC blocks the D* E* merger because if "might" result in less competition (no one seems to mind that the government steped in then) then how is the current situation with the programmers a good thing?


There are laws on the books currently to prevent abuse of market power. The Department of Justice normally looks at these before determining whether or not a merger should go through.

Meanwhile, the FCC must provide diversity. In 2002, the FCC already did not appreciate the fact there was usually one cable company in a given area, and you'd expect them to create a satellite monopoly and reduce competition? Going from three providers to two would certainly lessen competition.


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

Greg Bimson said:


> But this should be done without government intervention, yet ESPN would never voluntarily agree to this.


Ahhhh that is the real problem now isn't it?

Yes I am advocating "some" government involvement. I'd love for the programmers to police themselves but alas they would rather the system remain unchanged because it helps them make more profit via no competition at our expense.

-JB


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

Greg Bimson said:


> There are laws on the books currently to prevent abuse of market power. The Department of Justice normally looks at these before determining whether or not a merger should go through.
> 
> Meanwhile, the FCC must provide diversity. In 2002, the FCC already did not appreciate the fact there was usually one cable company in a given area, and you'd expect them to create a satellite monopoly and reduce competition? Going from three providers to two would certainly lessen competition.


Logic would dictate that one sat company would mean a ton of saving.

After all it costs the very same to broadcast to one person as it does to 10 zillion (locals excluded of course) so using "pure" logic it shoudl result is lower bills.

Having said this I know the temptation to raise rates would be increase as there would be less competition. I just did not buy into the crock that the FCC used as an excuse to kill it.... namely that they blocked in because in rural areas without cable service that one Sat company would not have competition.

As if Dish would charge one rate for rural areas and less for the cities with cable competition.

So if you apply this to the programmers I fail to see how they can get away with some of the things they are able to do today. I think we all know how but "donations" to congress can go a long way 

-JB


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

jrb531 said:


> As if Dish would charge one rate for rural areas and less for the cities with cable competition.


They wouldn't ... but they would look at the big picture, realize that their penetration in cabled areas is more likely to be limited by other issues (including line of sight and multiple competition) and simply shift their business to areas where they CAN make an easy profit.



> So if you apply this to the programmers I fail to see how they can get away with some of the things they are able to do today. I think we all know how but "donations" to congress can go a long way


That is a nasty allegation. As a moderator I'd prefer you check that junk at the door and not bring it in here.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

jrb531 said:


> Who said anything about writing checks to every programmer?
> 
> Dish is being paid as a distributor and would bill us as they do now. Nothing changes in this regard. Right now Dish takes our payment, keeps a chuck for themselves and writes checks to all the programmers.


What, you expect each programmer to take a hit without safeguards in a new contract? You believe Food Network would say to Dish Network it is a flat rate of 30 cents per month if you have 1 subscriber to the channel or 10 million on a system? I should think not.

That would create pricing increases on a whim! I'm sure we'd all love that.

In effect, because you'd like to delete channels from a package, you'd appreciate the reverse. You'd prefer to write checks out to each channel to which you subscribe. You've made the supposition that each channel would price themselves through the multichannel provider/distributor, and therefore, would be happy with whatever the distributor pays them. In the end, it would be in the PROGRAMMERS best interest at that point to have a direct relationship with you. This way they can target their advertising a lot better than they do now, and can remove the middleman.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

<Moderator Note>
This topic, by necessity, walks a very fine line between DBS discussion and Politics. We want to encourage talk about the regulations that affect us all and in general terms the people and agencies that enact them.

That said, we can not allow the discussions to become too personal nor too political in nature.

You've all done a very good job so far, thanks.

Tom


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

jrb531 said:


> Logic would dictate that one sat company would mean a ton of saving.
> 
> After all it costs the very same to broadcast to one person as it does to 10 zillion (locals excluded of course) so using "pure" logic it shoudl result is lower bills.


You just finished arguing about the establishment not being happy with the breakup of Ma Bell (because it was a monopoly). Now you are arguing for a monopoly? Here's the reminder:


jrb531 said:


> Some of the very same "the sky will fall" talk was brought up when they broke up the bells. People are afraid of change but in the end, after some hickups, change that brings more competition always ends up being for the best.


So where is this new "pure logic" being applied, and where is it being ignored?

Using "pure logic", I guarantee you that if the merger had went through, we'd be paying more now than we currently do. The "New Echostar" only would need to be pennies cheaper than the local cable company, as there would be no other competition. There is only an indirect correlation between costs and revenues, so the "New Echostar" would not have to pass any savings to customers by combining operations with DirecTV.

It is the law of supply and demand; you charge what the market will bear. And it is because of competition that ESPN is in the most basic of tiers. The first multichannel carrier that removes ESPN from the basic tier is the one that will lose the most subscribers in that given quarter and the following one.


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

James Long said:


> They wouldn't ... but they would look at the big picture, realize that their penetration in cabled areas is more likely to be limited by other issues (including line of sight and multiple competition) and simply shift their business to areas where they CAN make an easy profit.
> 
> That is a nasty allegation. As a moderator I'd prefer you check that junk at the door and not bring it in here.


It's not an alligation. I'll look up the links and provide them. Would that make it better?

The Pay TV industry donates millions each year to congress (as do other companies) and they expect something in return. While I cannot prove that congress actually does anything based on these large contributions but the fact is that they do get them.

My intent is not to paint a picture of dishonest politicians but one fact is clear. Back in 2004 when congress was about to look into the entire Pay TV industry, contributions increased and it was dropped with little comment.

Suspicious at best IMHO.

-JB


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

Some interesting links:

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/The-High-Price-Cable-TV-Cartel-87743

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1358024/posts

http://politicalchase.com/2007/10/18/campaign-contributions-and-fisa/

And if there was one "must read" then this one is it:

http://www.publicintegrity.org/telecom/report.aspx?aid=406



> WASHINGTON, October 28, 2004 - A new investigation by the Center for Public Integrity has found that the broadcast industry spent more than $186 million* lobbying the federal government from 1998 through June 2004-a period of increasingly intense battles over ownership rules.
> 
> In addition, television and radio companies contributed more than $26.5 million to federal candidates and lawmakers during the same period. The companies and their principal representative organization-the National Association of Broadcasters-also sponsored 84 trips for lawmakers and regulators at a cost of $165,474, bringing total spending to affect policy and elections by the industry to at least $210 million.*
> 
> The volatile political climate also saw 24 individuals with close ties to both the industry and its regulatory overseers make lucrative moves back and forth between the two.


The link above lists the companies who have been providing the "donations" so I hope this is enough to back up what I said. I'll refrain from using the more derogatory terms some use for "donations" 

I'm sure they have many other interests other than ala-cart and Pay TV regulations but the fact is that big money does go toward influential members of congress and "some" people, myself included, feel that this affects their ability to be neutral.

-JB


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

But would "the Pay TV industry" also include the likes of Comcast, DirecTV and Dish Network? Don't you think they have reason to continue the status quo? And we know they donated money to politicians.


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

Greg Bimson said:


> But would "the Pay TV industry" also include the likes of Comcast, DirecTV and Dish Network? Don't you think they have reason to continue the status quo? And we know they donated money to politicians.


Technically yes but the beef we have is with the programmers who are very well represented on this list.



> The top spenders:
> 
> General Electric Co., which owns 80 percent of NBC Universal in addition to a number of cable networks, topped the lobby spending list for broadcasters at more than $85 million.* The total includes all lobbying. The giant conglomerate draws only a portion of its revenue from broadcast operations, but broadcast-related lobbying numbers are not reported separately.
> 
> ...


85 million! Considering the donation limits they must have donated to everyone 

Just spotted this one:



> Finally, David Goodfriend, interim executive vice president and general counsel for liberal radio network Air America, was at one time deputy staff secretary at the White House under President Bill Clinton, director of legal and business affairs at satellite television broadcaster EchoStar, legal advisor to Commissioner Susan Ness and a telecommunications lawyer with Willkie Farr & Gallagher.


-JB


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

<Moderation note>
Sigh, two warnings were not enough. This thread has turned too political in nature and has been closed.

This topic is an important one but we must maintain our rules as well.

Please remember, political discussions are to be very limited at DBStalk.

Thanks,
Tom


----------

