# Is alacart even feasable?



## inazsully (Oct 3, 2006)

Many folks seem to think that alacart is a reasonable solution because we would only pay for what we wanted. Some have even suggested that congress get involved and mandate alacart programming. It has been mentioned that companies like Disney/ESPN/ABC want program packaging for obvious financial reasons. So what if alacart became the law of the land. What do you think the charge would be for a list of say your dozen favorite channels? My list would include (with locals being free) USA, TNT, TBS, Discovery, ESPN, ESPN2, FoxSN, CW, PBS, Animal Planet, A&E, and Golf Channel. Anybody have an idea what those channels would cost me in an alacart world?


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

In order for it to work, prices would have to be fixed by a third party and would have to work out to less than the price of current packages. I can see a base service delivery rate charged by the carrier. Maybe Dish would charge $20 or so that would include a base tier of programming. Most other channels like Nick, A&E, TVLand, Discovery, NatGeo, CNN and Lifetime would have to be in the $0.50/mo range with some channels like ESPN running $1.00/mo or more.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

This keeps coming up... and the answers are usually the same:

1. A la cart wouldn't work like a lot of people think. You wouldn't divide today's package prices by the number of channels in it and get to pick channels at that price. All channels would have to charge more as standalone than they do as part of a tiered package.

2. Your bill would only go down if you wanted to watch just a few (less than 5) channels... and only then IF those channels didn't happen to be ones that are less desired by the masses and result in either them going away or raising to high prices.

3. A la cart was the name of the game when cable and satellite originally came to be... and for the most part, when people were given a choice of picking a few channels for a per-channel price OR picking a discounted bundle price on multiple channels... people chose the discounted tier price over an individual channel price. This led for the most part to the end of a la cart.

Bottom line... the only people who really would save from a la cart pricing that would emerge, would be people that really don't watch much TV anyway and they could save that money today by just canceling their pay TV.

Also, many niche channels would become so expensive that no one would pay to keep them... so we would be left with far fewer channels than we have today. Some think that would be good... but be wary, as those might be channels you like! Another also, the prices on the remaining lower number of channels would then cost the same or more than the tiers we have today... so in the end, you can bet that instead of lower prices and more choice you would end up with higher prices and less choice... you would end up having to pay the same or higher than today, and you would lose a bunch of channels.


----------



## inazsully (Oct 3, 2006)

Stewart Vernon said:


> This keeps coming up... and the answers are usually the same:
> 
> 1. A la cart wouldn't work like a lot of people think. You wouldn't divide today's package prices by the number of channels in it and get to pick channels at that price. All channels would have to charge more as standalone than they do as part of a tiered package.
> 
> ...


Understood and agreed upon completely. It is because the question comes up so often and the reasons why it won't work are as you say, that I posed the question, what if? If you could get what you only wanted what do you think it would cost. My guess, more than you're paying now if you wanted a dozen channels. I think my mentioned channel package would be over $100 mo. I get 150+ now for less than that.


----------



## pfred (Feb 8, 2009)

Stewart Vernon said:


> This keeps coming up... and the answers are usually the same:
> 
> 1. A la cart wouldn't work like a lot of people think. You wouldn't divide today's package prices by the number of channels in it and get to pick channels at that price. All channels would have to charge more as standalone than they do as part of a tiered package.
> 
> 2. Your bill would only go down if you wanted to watch just a few (less than 5) channels... and only then IF those channels didn't happen to be ones that are less desired by the masses and result in either them going away or raising to high prices.


5 channels??????
I don't know where your logic comes from. I have Americas top 120 grandfathered with no locals for $43 tax included. I assume the current packages would still be available for roughly the same price. I say tell me what it would cost for my current channels, minus the sports networks, and any other channels I would be happy to not pay for.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

inazsully said:


> Many folks seem to think that alacart is a reasonable solution because we would only pay for what we wanted. Some have even suggested that congress get involved and mandate alacart programming. It has been mentioned that companies like Disney/ESPN/ABC want program packaging for obvious financial reasons. So what if alacart became the law of the land. What do you think the charge would be for a list of say your dozen favorite channels? My list would include (with locals being free) USA, TNT, TBS, Discovery, ESPN, ESPN2, FoxSN, CW, PBS, Animal Planet, A&E, and Golf Channel. Anybody have an idea what those channels would cost me in an alacart world?


Short answer: No

The cost for the consumer wold be high, in more ways than one.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

pfred said:


> 5 channels??????
> I don't know where your logic comes from. I have Americas top 120 grandfathered with no locals for $43 tax included. I assume the current packages would still be available for roughly the same price. I say tell me what it would cost for my current channels, minus the sports networks, and any other channels I would be happy to not pay for.


No, it would cost you substantially more per channel and the availability of channels would be greatly diminished. A la carte does not work.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

inazsully said:


> Many folks seem to think that alacart is a reasonable solution because we would only pay for what we wanted. Some have even suggested that congress get involved and mandate alacart programming. It has been mentioned that companies like Disney/ESPN/ABC want program packaging for obvious financial reasons. So what if alacart became the law of the land. What do you think the charge would be for a list of say your dozen favorite channels? My list would include (with locals being free) USA, TNT, TBS, Discovery, ESPN, ESPN2, FoxSN, CW, PBS, Animal Planet, A&E, and Golf Channel. Anybody have an idea what those channels would cost me in an alacart world?


No chance of ala carte. None!


----------



## dare2be (Jul 25, 2008)

pfred said:


> 5 channels??????
> I don't know where your logic comes from. I have Americas top 120 grandfathered with no locals for $43 tax included. I assume the current packages would still be available for roughly the same price. I say tell me what it would cost for my current channels, minus the sports networks, and any other channels I would be happy to not pay for.


Not to beat a dead horse (a la carte does not work), but I think I see where he is coming from. I believe he is saying to keep the existing packages and price points, require them to get to a certain level of a la carte choices (individual channels in the next tier package) but allow a la carte selection of channels in the next tier until the total price is higher than the next tier's package price, which would then be more cost effective to just upgrade to the next higher tier.

Here's my real life example: Based on the channels our family watches, the AT200 package best fits our needs, but because 1 or 2 channels (Boomerang, Bio) are in the AT250 package, and my wife and daughter both don't want to go without, we are paying the extra $10 for AT250, in effect for 2 channels. If we could just get AT200 and buy BOOM and BIO for $1-2 each, we would save $6-8 a month.

Now the consumer wins because they can pay less when their viewing needs fall between 2 packages, and Dish wins in the cases where someone decides that they can't afford or don't want to upgrade to the next higher package, but can spend a few extra dollars to get some a la carte channels from that package.

I hope this is explained clearly enough.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Here's my old explanation of why it won't work.


> People who want a la carte use that chart (Seen here: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=2669036#post2669036) to show how cheap channels should cost us. They'll say, "See...BBCA should only cost us $0.12." They fail to realize that a la carte wouldn't make a lot of stations any money. At $0.12/sub, Directv pays about $2.1 million & overall BBCA gets about $8.2 million from all providers. BBCA highest rated show ever had 1.7 million viewers & that's over all providers. So, if only 1.7 million will watch BBCA's highest show, then it's safe to assume 2 million will add it al a carte...and that's being generous. At $0.12/sub for 2 million people, that earns BBCA a whopping $240,000 from all providers combined. Bye-bye BBCA! For BBCA to earn the $8.2 million they get now, the price for little ol' BBCA would be about $4.10 per month. Now, imagine how much actual popular stations would cost...


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

However if Congress passed a law saying that a la carte must be offered that would imply that channels from one provider can not be bundled.

Anyone remember when Dishnetwork had a package that you could pick x amount of channels out of for a set fee.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

This is not something Congress should even come close to.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

inazsully said:


> If you could get what you only wanted what do you think it would cost. My guess, more than you're paying now if you wanted a dozen channels. I think my mentioned channel package would be over $100 mo. I get 150+ now for less than that.


Sigma reposted a good post for speculating costs for a la cart. While we have no true way to be sure, besides guessing that it should cost more... we can look at ratings.

One example, was BBC America... IF their highest rated show ever had 1.7 million viewers... that's viewers of all providers, not just Dish. And one could assume that's a good number to start and figure maybe 2 million subscribers is a good target number for their total subscription. Right now they are in a tier that gets them many more "subscribers" so they can afford to have a lower per-channel price... but take that same price and multiply by 2 million and it isn't close to what they get today.

Either the channel would disappear OR would probably increase in price by 1000% or more to try and stay above ground.



pfred said:


> 5 channels??????
> I don't know where your logic comes from. I have Americas top 120 grandfathered with no locals for $43 tax included. I assume the current packages would still be available for roughly the same price. I say tell me what it would cost for my current channels, minus the sports networks, and any other channels I would be happy to not pay for.


Not a good assumption. Why would a channel be available for say $5 a la cart AND 50 cents as part of AT120 for very long? IF they aren't getting $5 then a la cart is a failed endeavor... IF they are getting $5 from enough subscribers, why would they agree to remain in that tier? And once popular channels a la cart begin pulling away from tiers, then that package is left with the channels no one wants.

As I said... when people had a choice, they chose discounted tiers over individual channel a la cart pricing. Ultimately, this meant that channels like HBO were getting good a la cart money so they stayed a "premium" channel, while virtually all other channels became tier-only channels because that is what worked best for them based upon consumer choice.

In my earlier portion of this message... I mentioned how low tier pricing and high a la cart pricing aren't compatible for long term.

You say "channels you don't want to pay for"... but everyone has a different list... so a lot of good channels will fall by the wayside because outside of a tier no one will be willing to pay more per channel to keep them. The channels that survive will be the ones people will be willing to pay more to keep... thus when the dust settles there will be far less channels left and prices will level out to where they are now.



dare2be said:


> Here's my real life example: Based on the channels our family watches, the AT200 package best fits our needs, but because 1 or 2 channels (Boomerang, Bio) are in the AT250 package, and my wife and daughter both don't want to go without, we are paying the extra $10 for AT250, in effect for 2 channels. If we could just get AT200 and buy BOOM and BIO for $1-2 each, we would save $6-8 a month.


That isn't how it would shake out, though... without the guaranteed revenue from all subscribers in a specific tier... the per-channel price would be much higher because channels would have to price according to "what if" they needed all their income from a la cart subscribers.

I would be very surprised if any popular channel would be available a la cart for less than $5 per channel. Some, like ESPN, would probably end up at $10 for their suite of channels if they were a la cart.



Hoosier205 said:


> This is no something Congress should even come close to.


Agreed. I would only advocate government intervention for the opposite. i.e. Government should NOT mandate a la cart... BUT government should step in IF Dish/DirecTV/cable tried to force a channel into a package instead of a la cart.

But the latter doesn't seem to happen. I can't think of a channel that wanted to be a la cart that couldn't be... Usually it is the channel that wants to be in a specific tier... and while they might not get the tier they wanted... they didn't want to be a la cart OR they could have been.


----------



## JWKessler (Jun 3, 2004)

Back in the C-Band days I was able to buy programming alacart. A typical non-premium channel cost me about $10 to $15 per year. Towards the end the program service (NPS) started offering bundles but alacart was still available.

I think Bell ExpressVU in canada had a good compromise. They offered bundles of perhaps 10 channels in targeted categories. There was a news package, a couple of education bundles, a couple of sports bundles, etc. You could then buy a package containing some number of bundles depending on your budget. You then picked the bundles you wanted in your total package. This allowed you to build up a package that was oriented towards your own interests, though you might still get some channels you didn't want. You were required to buy a base line package that provided local channels, and of course, premiums were handled separately.


----------



## pfred (Feb 8, 2009)

I guess my only hope is that internet streamed programs will force the media companies to give us more choice. Kind of like what happened to the music industry.


----------



## Alsat (Jun 30, 2004)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Sigma reposted a good post for speculating costs for a la cart. While we have no true way to be sure, besides guessing that it should cost more... we can look at ratings.
> 
> One example, was BBC America... IF their highest rated show ever had 1.7 million viewers... that's viewers of all providers, not just Dish. And one could assume that's a good number to start and figure maybe 2 million subscribers is a good target number for their total subscription. Right now they are in a tier that gets them many more "subscribers" so they can afford to have a lower per-channel price... but take that same price and multiply by 2 million and it isn't close to what they get today.
> 
> Either the channel would disappear OR would probably increase in price by 1000% or more to try and stay above ground.


You are making the assumption that those 1.7 million also watch all of their other shows, just in smaller numbers. Their next highest rated show could be 1 million views, with none or few of them watching the other show.

Two people may subscribe to an NFL channel, but one only watches Steelers' games and the other only Cowboys' games. They only overlap when the two teams play each other.

I watch a few CBS shows, but I know practically no one who watchs Survivor or Big Brother, yet those seem to be a couple of their highest rated shows.

I would like to have BBC America, but I didn't find it worth the $60/month price. I was only watching about 5 or 6 channels regularly so at $5/channel I could cut my bill in half. I did occasionally find something on some other channel, but since almost all of the niche channels have evolved into the generic USA/TBS/CBS/SYFY model of reality shows, reruns from other networks and movies from a couple or more years ago, you really only seem to need 1 channel to see everything.

Over the years I have had Dish, I have spent over $15,000. If I would have used that money to buy DVDs, I could have built up a library of 750-1000 or more. Now, I do admit, I have watched movies on HBO or Cinemax that I would not have otherwise, and that is why I have kept my service, although reduced to just the access fee plus the premium channels to keep my bill under $60/month.


----------



## tommiet (Dec 29, 2005)

Alacart will probably never work, but it would be nice for ANY channel that cost more than "X" dollars per month should be an option and NOT forced on everyone (ESPN for example.)


----------



## inazsully (Oct 3, 2006)

Stewart Vernon said:


> This keeps coming up... and the answers are usually the same:
> 
> 1. A la cart wouldn't work like a lot of people think. You wouldn't divide today's package prices by the number of channels in it and get to pick channels at that price. All channels would have to charge more as standalone than they do as part of a tiered package.
> 
> ...


Stewert, you need to look at my question again.It does not keep coming up and the answers are only based on the individuals wish list. I'm not asking if alacart will work and most of us know why it won't work. The question is meant to be a light hearted trip in the land of what if. What would your top 12 choices cost you if alacart was you only option?


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

inazsully said:


> Stewert, you need to look at my question again.It does not keep coming up and the answers are only based on the individuals wish list. I'm not asking if alacart will work and most of us know why it won't work. The question is meant to be a light hearted trip in the land of what if. What would your top 12 choices cost you if alacart was you only option?


If you look through the forum, you'll see that most of what we are discussing now is a regular thing that we keep re-discussing. Nothing wrong with that... it's just that there is really no new news on this front.

It's hard to "what if"... because One group will always "what if" using 50 cents per channel and think they can buy 10 channels for $5 based on what a tier costs them today... and that isn't realistic enough for me to devote any time to "what if".

IF I was going for pie in the sky "what if" then I would just want everything to be free 

So I have to interject some realism into a "what if" scenario... and I don't see any way that this would result in lower pricing for most consumers.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Stewart Vernon said:


> If you look through the forum, you'll see that most of what we are discussing now is a regular thing that we keep re-discussing. Nothing wrong with that... it's just that there is really no new news on this front.
> 
> It's hard to "what if"... because One group will always "what if" using 50 cents per channel and think they can buy 10 channels for $5 based on what a tier costs them today... and that isn't realistic enough for me to devote any time to "what if".
> 
> ...


That is part of the problem ... the discussion over whether or not a la carte would or would not has been so common and overdone that it seems no one can get past it. Acknowledging that the marketplace would never allow such a system I'm willing to play "what if" ... and come to the same conclusion.



inazsully said:


> So what if alacart became the law of the land. What do you think the charge would be for a list of say your dozen favorite channels? My list would include (with locals being free) USA, TNT, TBS, Discovery, ESPN, ESPN2, FoxSN, CW, PBS, Animal Planet, A&E, and Golf Channel. Anybody have an idea what those channels would cost me in an alacart world?


I expect the charge would be about the same as you're currently paying for them. Perhaps a couple of dollars less but no incredible discount. The current package level needed for those particular channels costs $59.99 (Animal Planet and Golf in AT200, FoxSN in AT120+).

You have included a couple of known expensive channels in your list. In an ala carte I would not be surprised to see ESPN charge $15-$20 for their channels (losing the "bulk purchase" buying power of having millions of "like it or not" subscribers). An RSN that charges $2.50 in bulk could easily go for $5-$10 in an ala carte world. The rest, just for fun, could be priced for $3-$5 each ... and there would probably be some sort of base subscription management fee that would cover the "free" locals and the cost of a receiver. (Additional receiver charges would still apply.)

If you change your taste in programming you could theoretically get away with a lower bill ... but so can AT120 and DISH Family subscribers who have chosen a lower subscription package.

The ala carte argument is generally "paying for what you want" ... but it remains one where you would get what you pay for - which is basically where we are today except we have neatly organized bulk rate packages negotiated by our carriers to choose from. In most cases we're still getting a better deal.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 15, 2008)

James Long said:


> The ala carte argument is generally "paying for what you want" ... but it remains one where you would get what you pay for - which is basically where we are today except we have neatly organized bulk rate packages negotiated by our carriers to choose from. In most cases we're still getting a better deal.


About 40% of the average cable bill is for sports channels (from the WSJ a while back). For those that do not watch these channels and do not want to pay the sports "tax", dropping the core package is the only option. This is much easier to do now because IPTV provides a very pleasant alternative.


----------



## pfred (Feb 8, 2009)

James Long said:


> Acknowledging that the marketplace would never allow such a system


I know this is what we keep hearing from the cable/satellite conglomerates. But, is it possible it is in their best interest to convince us it is true, whether or not it is?


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

pfred said:


> I know this is what we keep hearing from the cable/satellite conglomerates. But, is it possible it is in their best interest to convince us it is true, whether or not it is?


I'm not James... but it really isn't about the companies in this case as much as it is the consumers.

Consumers want the McDonald's Value Meal instead of individual items... They want to bundle sat+phone+internet instead of getting those individually.

Consumers wanted channel packages instead of a la cart.

Now... it is true that companies like Disney and Universal and so forth do push channels that are less desirable into packages with their other channels because they want more eyeballs and money.... so yes, we consumers suffer a small amount on those lack of choices...

BUT... we wouldn't get that choice anyway. Disney and Universal and Viacom and whomever would likely keep all their channels bundled... so you couldn't just buy Disney without taking ABC Family and likely ESPN as well... and that's just how that would unfold.

Consumers long ago voted against a la cart when overwhelmingly choosing packages for discount over individual channels at higher prices. That ship has sailed.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

In reading this discussion, I have to smile at the idea that Congress would mandate a la carte. They won't even set up a decent way to resolve carriage disputes because of the _Disney/ABC-Comcast/NBCU-CBS-News Corp-TimeWarner_ lobby. Even if a la carte were a good idea and of great benefit to the average viewer, it has virtually no chance.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

pfred said:


> James Long said:
> 
> 
> > Acknowledging that the marketplace would never allow such a system
> ...


The market has the power to make it true. All channel providers have to do is continue doing what most are doing today ... refuse to grant carriage unless the channels are delivered in tiers at the level of service they want to be at.

This has worked both ways ... some channels demand full carriage - deliver us to all of your customers or you can't deliver us to any customer (basic ESPN channels, Fox News and YES fit in this category). Others WANT to be in a special tier or added value package (such as the Starz! channels).

Very few channels have allowed themselves to be distributed a la carte. Channels need high "subscriber" counts to get producers to place their programming on the channel and get better add revenue. Moving to a system where they are in less homes isn't good for business - and as long as no one forces them to do something not good for their business there is no reason to change.


----------



## inazsully (Oct 3, 2006)

What If Dish offered a whole new concept in packaging, call it the CUSTOM+ Package. The custom part of the package would include your choice of any 50 channels (No Premiums and you must choose exactly 50 channels) and the + part of the package would include all locals including PBS and CW. If it was priced at $80mo would you go for it?


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

$80?

Nope.


$40? Probably.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

It's hard to say yes or no when it would never work anyway.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

This is really the same conversation as the a la cart discussion... so I expect at some point the need to merge or close one of these threads.

Pick-your-own channels in a package is not much more likely than a la cart because it presents all the same problems.

I can say, however, the proposed $80 for 50 channels is a non-starter even if the companies would go for it... because with Dish I can just about get everything (except premiums) for that price... so why would I want to pay the same or more for less than I have now?


----------



## boba (May 23, 2003)

inazsully said:



> What If Dish offered a whole new concept in packaging, call it the CUSTOM+ Package. The custom part of the package would include your choice of any 50 channels (No Premiums and you must choose exactly 50 channels) and the + part of the package would include all locals including PBS and CW. If it was priced at $80mo would you go for it?


*NO ALA CARTE* can't you understand?
Stewart please close this redundant thread?


----------



## inazsully (Oct 3, 2006)

Yeah, I understand. Why is it so impossible to think that Dish could be innovative enough in a crowded market and offer a package different than everybody else offers. 5,228 posts must make you quite the expert. Maybe it's redundant to you but I think suggesting changes is a good thing. The package I propose is hardly a la cart, it's just another package like the 200 and 250 package. I doubt that 90% of the subs could come up with any channels beyond 50 that they would really care to watch. Plenty of packaging available within a 50 channel package. Maybe I haven't been around here as long as some but I didn't just join this year either. I've seen plenty of changes and I'm sure there will be many more. Maybe even some you don't like.


----------



## sliderbob (Aug 10, 2007)

$80? Geez! One can get the AT250 for $69.99 and that gets you almost ALL channels, except for the premiums.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

The only way I could see this working, was if all those channels that negotiated carriage in the basic tier (ESPN, etc) were included. As you know, that is one if not the highest priced basic channel. In other words, the contract requires the providers to carry certain channels. If that is the case, you would not be able to opt out of those expensive channels to get your 50 wanted channels.

Now, during renegotiation of the contracts, that option could be added, but I would suspect since ESPN knows how many subscribers actually watch it, they would raise the price of the channel accordingly. So would all the others. Then, you would never be able to add 50 channels for $80, unless they were all public service and religious channels. Oh you dont want ESPN? Then you cant have any of the networks owned by ABC or Disney. I believe that is the way the current contracts are, and I dont see the programming owners changing that.


----------



## Skeeterman (Jun 24, 2003)

Being a former...big winner is the Ala carte department, I can say the person with the 5,228 post, aka the expert here, as no clue of what ala carte would offer. So, let me give the expert a clue. When I had C-Band satellite the BUD subscription boys knew ala carte like the palm of their hand.
Before C-Band ended and with a DSR-922 4DTV receiver I was getting 147 channels...with 90% in digital form for $24.99 a month... that was a package deal. I added the ala carte package Denver 8 digital channels for $7.79 a month, plus another ala carte package of 24 channels for 9.99 per month. Total cost per month...$42.77. Now expert, tell me if you can beat that with a stick getting Dish to fulfill your dreams.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

inazsully said:


> Why is it so impossible to think that Dish could be innovative enough in a crowded market and offer a package different than everybody else offers.


As was stated in the other thread, it isn't up to Dish. It's up to the content providers. If you can convince Disney, Viacom and the others, then something may happen.


----------



## Orion9 (Jan 31, 2011)

Currently I pay $45 and there are 2 channels in the next package up that I'd like but I'm not willing to pay $60. So would I pay $80? Um... Nope.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

"inazsully" said:


> Yeah, I understand. Why is it so impossible to think that Dish could be innovative enough in a crowded market and offer a package different than everybody else offers. 5,228 posts must make you quite the expert. Maybe it's redundant to you but I think suggesting changes is a good thing. The package I propose is hardly a la cart, it's just another package like the 200 and 250 package. I doubt that 90% of the subs could come up with any channels beyond 50 that they would really care to watch. Plenty of packaging available within a 50 channel package. Maybe I haven't been around here as long as some but I didn't just join this year either. I've seen plenty of changes and I'm sure there will be many more. Maybe even some you don't like.


It won't work. The reasons are obvious.


----------



## satguy801 (Jul 21, 2011)

I dont think it would work


----------



## boba (May 23, 2003)

inazsully said:


> Yeah, I understand. Why is it so impossible to think that Dish could be innovative enough in a crowded market and offer a package different than everybody else offers. 5,228 posts must make you quite the expert. Maybe it's redundant to you but I think suggesting changes is a good thing. The package I propose is hardly a la cart, it's just another package like the 200 and 250 package. I doubt that 90% of the subs could come up with any channels beyond 50 that they would really care to watch. Plenty of packaging available within a 50 channel package. Maybe I haven't been around here as long as some but I didn't just join this year either. I've seen plenty of changes and I'm sure there will be many more. Maybe even some you don't like.


*It is a shame you and skeeterman are such professionals that you know all about DBS. DISH Network started as Echosphere Corporation a "C" band manufacturer and retailler. Oh and did you know they also sold programming You also apparently don't know that in the early days of DISH they offered a 15 channel ALA CARTE programming package with some channels excluded from the ALA CARTE. Yes DISH has already been where you want them to go and even now does offer some ALA CARTE programming. So get off your SOAP BOX and try reading some history instead of sticking your foot in your big mouth.*


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

_Let's try and keep it civil and not attack each other... attack the topic._

Meanwhile...

Boba is just speaking from past thread discussions as well as his presumable own experience. I never had C-band, but I knew about it... and basically consumers seem to have ran from those options and towards DBS... similarly, consumers ran from a la cart and towards packaged prices.

Just like the pure a la cart discussion... this "pick your channels" discussion would be revisiting the past... a past which consumers and companies both equally have been moving away from.

In other words... don't hold your breath.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

I never had C Band because I couldn't afford the equipment at the time and didn't really have room for a 10' dish. Can't remember now why, but a 6' dish wouldn't have worked for me.

One thing I do remember when I was looking into it was the very thick satellite magazines that included programming guides and service options. There were full pages of checklists where you could pick and choose channels you wanted to subscribe to. Some were individuals, some were grouped for a certain fee per month.

The other real detraction for me was the way they changed channels. I'm a channel surfer and didn't like the idea of waiting for the dish to reposition itself for certain channels.


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

I had a 10' BUD (Big Ugly Dish) for 10 years. I steadfastly resisted all temptations os what we called back then the "pizza pan dishes" because of the a-la-carte pricing, wildfeeds and freebies (in my case, getting the Expos in French on SRC, the French CBC from Canada).

So why have I had a "pizza pan" for 11 years? The last straw was the Dishplayer - recording the digital signal on a hard drive. No more "Honey, what tape did you put 'The Sopranos' on?". That got me to sign on the dotted line. But, on top of that there was:

- programmers going away (a-la-carte options diminishing)
- no more distant networks
- could take several minutes to reposition from one end of the arc to another
- digital encryption (4DTV)
- elimination of wildfeeds
- had to pay full subscription price for a 2nd receiver, to say nothing of needing another dish.


----------



## Slamminc11 (Jan 28, 2005)

:beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse:


----------



## Skeeterman (Jun 24, 2003)

There are some that like to play the game, and there are those that know the game. So, I give my "early days" knowledge on the "in's and out's" on what was the old C-Band system.

I worked for a company in Missouri...Solid State Industries", from 1968-1996, who made printed circuit boards for a number of growing satellite related firms. They would be Channel Master, Houston Tracker, Drake, and Uniden.
Before satellite television came into world, we had to have a orbital satellite.

The first commercial satellite was launched in 1972 by Canada, called the Anik-1. The first DBS (Direct Broadcast Satellite, was launched in 1974. The first satellite to carry "Direct-To-Home" television, was launched in 1976 by the Soviet Union. It was called the EKRAN. A company in Chanute, Kansas made of the first satellite dishes, called the Birdview, a canvas covered structure. Worked very well and some might still be in use today. One of the first metal mesh dishes was a firm in Augusta, Ark called the Unimesh that made the first "parabolic" receiving dish. To get the satellite, you had to have a 50 ohm impedance "gas filled hardline coaxial cable", to the receivers (videociphers).

Probably wouldn't be any satellite television today if it wasn't for Mr. H. Paul Shuch, a amateur radio and microwave engineer, who made the first home satellite receiver...with the Solid State printed circuit board we supplied.

This is some brief knowledge for those that only play the game, not those that know the game.

Yes!. old Charlie did sell C-Band satellite dishes( he didn't own the firm at that time) when we made the trip from Tennessee to Littleton, Colorado back in early 1980's. BTW, his old Chevy pickup had trouble in Wichita, Kan and he had to wire for some money from the firm in Littleton to get him to Colorado.


----------



## inazsully (Oct 3, 2006)

You guys are making this question way too technical. Even though I can see the remote possibility of Dish contemplating such a package or at least looking into the possibility with the ABC/Disney/ESPN's of the world. I don't think it would ever happen. I just asked, if they had this package option would you pay more for 50 channels ($80 is an arbitrary price) than you now pay for over 200 if you could choose your specific channels 50? I would. I also think that 90% of the subs would choose the same 30 channels of the 50 allowed.


----------



## inazsully (Oct 3, 2006)

I just read something interesting that some here may be able to verify. Once upon a time Dish offered 10 channels for $10mo plus $1.50 for every additional channel. Here is the list of channels you could pick your 10 from.
A&E, Cartoon, CNBC, CNN, CNNHN, FN, Comedy, CMT, Court TV, C-Span, Discovery, E, ESPN, ESPN2, EWTN, Family, History, HSN, KTLA, Learning, Lifetime, MTV, Nashville(Spike), Nick, QVC, Sci-Fi, MTV, TBN, TBS, TNT, Travel, TMC, Food, USA, Weather, WGN, WPIX.


----------



## sliderbob (Aug 10, 2007)

inazsully: If they'd offer that plan, I MOST DEFINITELY would jump on that deal. I'd get A&E, Comedy, E, Spike, Sci-Fi, TBS, TNT, USA, WGN, WPIX


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

inazsully said:


> What If Dish offered a whole new concept in packaging, call it the CUSTOM+ Package. The custom part of the package would include your choice of any 50 channels (No Premiums and you must choose exactly 50 channels) and the + part of the package would include all locals including PBS and CW. If it was priced at $80mo would you go for it?


Nope!


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

inazsully said:


> You guys are making this question way too technical. ... I just asked, if they had this package option would you pay more for 50 channels ($80 is an arbitrary price) than you now pay for over 200 if you could choose your specific channels 50? I would.


The question makes no sense.

Why would you pay more than you pay now for less channels even if you don't watch the extras?

You are asking, essentially, if people would pay more for their "top 50" channels than they currently pay for those same channels + others... that question makes no sense.

It's like... if I asked you... would you pay more for just a burger than you pay today for the value meal that includes fries and a drink? The answer should be no. Why would you pay more even if you don't want the drink and fries? Pay the price now and just throw the rest away if you don't want it.


----------



## inazsully (Oct 3, 2006)

Depends on how many of your top 50 channels were in the top 250 list. Like I said, the $80 was an arbitrary price. It could be $50 or whatever Dish felt was a reasonable price. 
It's just an exercise in something different. How would you restructure Dish's packages to allow more flexibility? Mine was just an option.


----------



## SeaBeagle (May 7, 2006)

No for only 50 channels that would be way to expensive.


----------



## SeaBeagle (May 7, 2006)

"sliderbob" said:


> $80? Geez! One can get the AT250 for $69.99 and that gets you almost ALL channels, except for the premiums.


Good post.


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

That's one of the reasons I left my last provider.I did not want to pay more for less.


----------



## inazsully (Oct 3, 2006)

SeaBeagle said:


> Good post.





Jhon69 said:


> That's one of the reasons I left my last provider.I did not want to pay more for less.


Just curious but does anybody, even with a family and kids, watch more than 50 channels? I can't even think of 30 that anybody in my family would ever watch.


----------



## SeaBeagle (May 7, 2006)

"inazsully" said:


> Just curious but does anybody, even with a family and kids, watch more than 50 channels? I can't even think of 30 that anybody in my family would ever watch.


I look at The Weather Channel, WPIX for The Honeymooners, SCI FY for Ghost Hunters, RFDTV, Spike, and KTLA.


----------



## inazsully (Oct 3, 2006)

Man, I tried to write down the channels we might possibly watch, even once a week, and could not come up with 30. But then again we watch a lot of stuff on the local majors. I was surprised.


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

inazsully said:


> Just curious but does anybody, even with a family and kids, watch more than 50 channels? I can't even think of 30 that anybody in my family would ever watch.


When I had to downgrade(because of the bad economy) I also needed to consider which package I could go to not only to have a cheaper price,but to also maintain my HD For Life commitment.I found Dish Network's AT120 to be the lowest I could drop to to maintain HD For Life,or so it stated in My Account at that time.

But it actually did not matter as I found Dish Family to be missing channels I like to watch.


----------



## koralis (Aug 10, 2005)

Stewart Vernon said:


> I'm not James... but it really isn't about the companies in this case as much as it is the consumers.
> 
> Consumers want the McDonald's Value Meal instead of individual items...


Ok. But sometimes I want Onion Rings, not fries. Or sometimes I may want Fries with my Salad. I'm not inclined to buy the Salad + a Value meal. McDonalds lets me buy the Salad and Fries...and if they didn't, I'd be buying just the salad and McDonalds is leaving money on the table.



> They want to bundle sat+phone+internet instead of getting those individually.


Then Dish is screwed, aren't they? Lacking phone or reasonable internet, they can't possibly be still in business?

People only want the "deal" because the providers of such things artifically inflate the individual pricing so that they can give you a great "discount." I was a Comcast subscriber when they did just that as they added Internet service. Suddenly prices on phone and TV went up, but dropped back to their normal levels if you dropped your DSL service and took the bundle.

This also completely ignores the "first year" come-on pricing that convinces people to change their habits, thinking that they're getting a bargain because they're too dense to realize that the price will increase in 12 months.



> Consumers long ago voted against a la cart when overwhelmingly choosing packages for discount over individual channels at higher prices. That ship has sailed.


Just like with McDonalds and not allowing you to buy Fries except with a Value meal, Disney, Universal, etc, are leaving money on the table by a lot of people that could be convinced to spend an extra $5-$10 for select channels but not another $20-$30 for the whole next tier.

I realize that these boards are largely populated by people that subscribe to superpacks and don't blink an eye at spending over $100 a month on TV, but realize that you're the minority.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

It won't work. It hasn't worked. You'd end up with higher prices and fewer choices.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Hoosier205 said:


> It won't work. It hasn't worked. You'd end up with higher prices and fewer choices.


From now on, I should just copy and paste what you typed in the a la carte threads.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

koralis said:


> People only want the "deal" because the providers of such things artifically inflate the individual pricing so that they can give you a great "discount."


Not all of the inflation is artificial. There is overhead - the basic cost of having you as a customer (plus the basic cost of being open so they can serve any customers at all).

You walk in/drive up and order just the sandwich vs the entire value meal. The amount of employee time consumed is not that much difference between ordering just the sandwich and a full meal. If you decide to order individual items that are not part of value meal it costs the business more in employee time (especially if the order is complicated). The closer you, the customer, can get the order to one of the preprogrammed keys on the register the cheaper it is for the business. The discounted package meals help pass some of the savings on to you!



> I was a Comcast subscriber when they did just that as they added Internet service. Suddenly prices on phone and TV went up, but dropped back to their normal levels if you dropped your DSL service and took the bundle.


Prices and costs are always a balance. The core cost for a cable company is their infrastructure. They have to pay for that regardless of what you pay for their services. Their only savings is if you're not a customer at all and they don't have to install a drop to your home. They still have to run their feeder past your house (in most cases) to potentially provide you service and to provide services to your neighbors.

If the pricing were true one would probably see half of their bill being infrastructure and the rest divided up between the services. Voice services are practically free ... per GB data is cheap at the ISP level. Fees have to be paid for retransmission of the TV/cable channels but the core cost is getting those signal from where the provider gets the signal to your home.



> ... leaving money on the table by a lot of people that could be convinced to spend an extra $5-$10 for select channels but not another $20-$30 for the whole next tier.


I'm sure the channels have done their research and have come to the conclusion that charging everyone they can for their channel is better than charging the people who actually want their channel more. Sure - they might be able to get a relatively few people to pay for their channel individually - but not everyone. Placing their channels in the provider's tiers brings in more money. If it didn't, they would not do it.

Yes, you would find people who would pay $5 for Speed or BBC America or Turner Classic Movies ... you would find more people willing to pay $2 for each of those channels. And one would certainly find more people willing to pay $10 for 36 channels who could rationalize it by finding five or more of those that they really want.

It is easy to make a list of channels that one doesn't want and make the grand assumption that if they could drop those channels their bills would drop by the same percentage but that isn't the way it works. The infrastructure still needs to be paid for.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

I kind of like the idea of tiers, but not the way they are now. There is no pattern to what channels or types of channels you add with each higher tier. It's just too random and you end up with too many channels you never watch. 

A > Do a basic family/info package with things like Toon, Boom, one Nick channel, the news channels, TVLand, ABC Family, E!, MTV, VH1 and a few others.

B > Then add more entertainment with A&E, Life, Hist, TLC, Soap, Sci, Disc, the other Nick channels, etc.

C > Add in the movies with the Encore channels, TCM, AMC, FOXMO

D > Add all of the sports channels in a separate tier.

Once you have A, you could add B, C, and/or D based on your preferences, but you wouldn't have to add any group you didn't want.

Somewhere above the first tier, add a "Pick 10" tier where you could pick 10 channels from a list of available choices for a certain fee.

Then the premiums and specialty channels.

Customers need to feel they have more choice over what they get. There are probably only 4 or 5 channels in AT250 that I want, but those are among the channels I watch the most and dropping to a lower package would mean losing those.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

"Stewart Vernon" said:


> From now on, I should just copy and paste what you typed in the a la carte threads.


I can't keep them all straight. It's like Groundhog Day and we all keep reliving the same silly topic.


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

If only things were different, they would be better - RIGHT - NOT NECESSARILY.

The grass is always greener... (over the septic tank).


----------



## inazsully (Oct 3, 2006)

Hoosier205 said:


> I can't keep them all straight. It's like Groundhog Day and we all keep reliving the same silly topic.


You group us all together in your use of the word "we". Many have not been here since 2007 like you, so they are not reliving the same silly topic. Be a little more flexible and when you see a silly revisited topic, just ignore it.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Jim5506 said:


> The grass is always greener... (over the septic tank).


Mine's got a bare spot over it. Can't get the grass to grow. :sure:


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

"inazsully" said:


> You group us all together in your use of the word "we". Many have not been here since 2007 like you, so they are not reliving the same silly topic. Be a little more flexible and when you see a silly revisited topic, just ignore it.


You've been here since 2006 and you started the thread on this topic.


----------



## inazsully (Oct 3, 2006)

Quite true, and yet I do not consider any questions, even redundant ones, about the working of Dish Network to be silly. Have you noticed the people with 10 or less posts responding with this question? If not for responses here and on another similar site I would have never known that once upon a time Dish offered a package that allowed you to pick 12 channel(or was it 10) from a list that included most of the popular choices of the day (including ESPN and ESPN2) for $10mo plus $1.50 per additional channel. Not knowing what the carriage charges are these days it would be interesting to see what the charges from Dish would be for a similar package today. I'm not sure when this package was offered but ESPN2 was around.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

"inazsully" said:


> Quite true, and yet I do not consider any questions, even redundant ones, about the working of Dish Network to be silly. Have you noticed the people with 10 or less posts responding with this question? If not for responses here and on another similar site I would have never known that once upon a time Dish offered a package that allowed you to pick 12 channel(or was it 10) from a list that included most of the popular choices of the day (including ESPN and ESPN2) for $10mo plus $1.50 per additional channel. Not knowing what the carriage charges are these days it would be interesting to see what the charges from Dish would be for a similar package today. I'm not sure when this package was offered but ESPN2 was around.


Your first post, the purpose of this thread, was not about Dish. It was about a la carte...a topic you were already discussing elsewhere. It has been discussed multiple times just in the past six months. How many times must we say it has not worked and will not work? You started two threads on the same topic in two days.


----------



## inazsully (Oct 3, 2006)

Hoosier205 said:


> Your first post, the purpose of this thread, was not about Dish. It was about a la carte...a topic you were already discussing elsewhere. It has been discussed multiple times just in the past six months. How many times must we say it has not worked and will not work? You started two threads on the same topic in two days.


Not necessary to say it anymore times. I thought the two posts were worded differently enough to get different responses. As I mentioned several times already, after 5 years here I know it won't work and I know why it won't work. My question was IF IF IF a la cart were your only option what 12 channels would you chose and what do you think Dish would have to charge for them. I know it's an exercise in fantasy and I assumed most would take it that way.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

_A friendly reminder to attack the topic, not each other..._


----------



## Michael P (Oct 27, 2004)

inazsully said:


> Quite true, and yet I do not consider any questions, even redundant ones, about the working of Dish Network to be silly. Have you noticed the people with 10 or less posts responding with this question? If not for responses here and on another similar site I would have never known that once upon a time Dish offered a package that allowed you to pick 12 channel(or was it 10) from a list that included most of the popular choices of the day (including ESPN and ESPN2) for $10mo plus $1.50 per additional channel. Not knowing what the carriage charges are these days it would be interesting to see what the charges from Dish would be for a similar package today. I'm not sure when this package was offered but ESPN2 was around.


It was 10 channels, however there were fewer "tiers". When I signed up for E* there was a top-40 & a top-50. It included all the super-stations that were available at the time. Then they launched the first satellite to the 110 orbital location (previously all channels were on 119 with a smattering on 61.5). The channels added to 110 were placed on a new top tier. Super-stations were removed and became ala-carte. I stayed on the middle tier for years, only moving up to top-250 after they gave me a $10/mo. loyalty credit for a year. There were several channels in the top-250 that interested me, but midway through the year of the loyalty credit I finally bit the bullet and upgraded (mainly due to a program on VH1 Classic I wanted to watch).

The Family pack had some top-250 channels (but no ESPN). It was an option except I also wanted some sports (like my local RSN's).

You can't please everyone with the "top" packs but at least it beats paying more per channel for less (but getting just what you want to watch).


----------



## inazsully (Oct 3, 2006)

From what I can gather, the program Dish offered for $10mo. consisted of choosing 10 channels from the following list. A&E, Cartoon, CNBC, CNN, FN, Comedy Channel, CMT, Court TV, C-Span, Discovery, E, ESPN, ESPN2, EWTN, Family, CNN HN, History, HSN, KTLA, Learning, Lifetime, MTV, Nashville, Work 9Spike), Nick, QVC, Sci-Fi, TBN,TNT, TBS, Travel, TMC, Food, USA, VH1, Weather, WGN, WPIX. Additional channels beyond your first 10 were $1.50 each. I have no idea when this was in effect but since it included ESPN2 someone can probably figure some kind of time line.


----------



## mhcdenver (Apr 9, 2009)

I think $80 would be too much for that.


----------



## dbspr (May 17, 2008)

What if start a new satelite co.? That offered a near a-la-cart channel or theme. Many people choose if save money. Now suppose that not all network meet a agreement with the new Sat Co. but after the time the new Sat Co. have a lot of sub. My other question is theses network start a new negotiation?.

Pick-pakage, Themed and a-la-cart (like option) are possible.


----------



## tkrandall (Oct 3, 2003)

a la carte resulting in fewer channels does not strike me as necessarily a bad thing. The content providers would be forced into coming up with programming that the market would support. The barely watched stuff today hogging bandwidth would wither and go away. ESPN, etc would have to learn to earn their keep based on actual viewership. All channels would. I don't buy the "but you'd have to pay $200 a month for half the channels" argument.


----------



## inazsully (Oct 3, 2006)

I don't buy it either. The market would seek it's own livable level or disappear. Unfortunately it will never happen because only the consumers could force this type of resolution and the consumers are content with the status quo.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

tkrandall said:


> a la carte resulting in fewer channels does not strike me as necessarily a bad thing. The content providers would be forced into coming up with programming that the market would support. The barely watched stuff today hogging bandwidth would wither and go away. ESPN, etc would have to learn to earn their keep based on actual viewership. All channels would. I don't buy the "but you'd have to pay $200 a month for half the channels" argument.


What do you mean ESPN would have to earn their keep? They're one of the highest rated channels. This past college BCS title game was the most-watched cable broadcast ever with 27.3 million viewers.


----------



## tkrandall (Oct 3, 2003)

What I mean is today pretty much every DirecTV subscriber for example, whether they watch ESPN or not, if they want other good channel choices has to subscribe to a package with ESPN. So, they pay for it in their rate and ESPN gets monthly revenue royalties for each and every one of these customers - many who do not care for sports at all and never ever watch the channel. With less subscribers ESPN would have to 1) raise rates on the rest who do subscribe, 2) make-do with less revenue, and/or 3) reduce their costs. 

I am not picking on ESPN, I am using it as an example.


----------



## koralis (Aug 10, 2005)

James Long said:


> Prices and costs are always a balance. The core cost for a cable company is their infrastructure. They have to pay for that regardless of what you pay for their services.


And they had a price for that previously that was competative with what I'd get buying the same service from their competitor. After adding the new service, the individual pricing went up, and became roughly the same "after value-meal discount" again.



> Their only savings is if you're not a customer at all and they don't have to install a drop to your home. They still have to run their feeder past your house (in most cases) to potentially provide you service and to provide services to your neighbors.
> 
> If the pricing were true one would probably see half of their bill being infrastructure and the rest divided up between the services. Voice services are practically free ... per GB data is cheap at the ISP level. Fees have to be paid for retransmission of the TV/cable channels but the core cost is getting those signal from where the provider gets the signal to your home.


And it was already paid for. I was already a subscriber to both voice and tv at the time. It's what made me drop comcast for Dish. Didn't really have a reason to change voice until they totally cancelled my plan and refused to let me pay-per-call.



> I'm sure the channels have done their research and have come to the conclusion that charging everyone they can for their channel is better than charging the people who actually want their channel more. Sure - they might be able to get a relatively few people to pay for their channel individually - but not everyone. Placing their channels in the provider's tiers brings in more money. If it didn't, they would not do it.


I'd suggest a tier+ package. Buy the tier then add ala cart on top. For people that actually want the value it's there. For people that want so many of the add-ons that it makes sense to get the tier anyway, the situation stays the same. I can't imagine too many people paying $30 for a new tier solely for 1 channel, but maybe I'm nieve and there ARE a lot of people that don't care about costs.

The channels can't do this sort of arrangement unless the cable/sat companies play ball. $5 for "1 tier" up, $10 for a channel of "2 tier" upgrades. If it's just one or two channels probably they're living without.



> It is easy to make a list of channels that one doesn't want and make the grand assumption that if they could drop those channels their bills would drop by the same percentage but that isn't the way it works. The infrastructure still needs to be paid for.


It isn't an issue of infrastructure. The infrastructure is constant whether I'm a tier 1 or tier 3 subscriber. If they can make tier 2.5 money off of a customer instead of tier 2 or even *shudder* tier 1, then it's a bonus.

So long as the costs of the add-ons are balanced correctly you won't see a mass dropping of tiered subscriptions, but should see extra revenue from people buying channels that they couldn't justify previously. It would take some time with subscriber numbers and a few test studies to determine the correct price-points, but you get the idea.

The idea is not to go to no-tiers and add all of the individual channels you want, the idea is that you need a base tier and can make a partial payment for a tier you can't justify having at full tier price. Sort of like the McDonalds thing... "I wouldn't buy the fries at $1.50, but for an extra 30 cents, sure..."


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

dbspr said:


> What if start a new satelite co.?
> 
> Pick-pakage, Themed and a-la-cart (like option) are possible.


Feel free to try. If the major programming providers stay off of your system you won't get far. A service without the major providers isn't going to survive.



koralis said:


> I can't imagine too many people paying $30 for a new tier solely for 1 channel, but maybe I'm nieve and there ARE a lot of people that don't care about costs.


The tiers are not that far apart. On DISH it is:
AT120 + $5 = AT120 Plus (adding local RSNs)
AT120+ + $10 = AT200 (adding additional basic channels)
AT200 + $10 = AT250 (adding additional channels)

The AT250 to AEP jump is $35 but look at what is being added ... four premium movie packages that can be purchased a la carte. One doesn't have to pay $35 for one channel ... one could pay as low as $13 for the premium package that included that one channel - with discounts applying for those purchasing multiple premium packages (and other discounts available).



> The channels can't do this sort of arrangement unless the cable/sat companies play ball.


Most channels do not want an a la carte arrangement. Other than the billing complexity the cable/sat companies wouldn't mind but when the channel approaches the carrier and says "give us 14 million customers and pay us 25c each" they are asking for $42 million a year. If the carrier says no and offers a la carte at 50c per subscriber that channel has to convince 7 million customers to want their channel enough to pay for it individually.

The channels are better off holding out for the bulk deals. Being in a package, even a higher tier, puts them in front of more viewers than they would have a la carte. And while they might lose a few viewers who would be willing to pay individually they gain many more who unwillingly pay - and the bottom line is to get as many "subscribers" as possible (for use in marketing) and get paid as much as possible. Getting tier carriage does that.



> The idea is not to go to no-tiers and add all of the individual channels you want, the idea is that you need a base tier and can make a partial payment for a tier you can't justify having at full tier price. Sort of like the McDonalds thing... "I wouldn't buy the fries at $1.50, but for an extra 30 cents, sure..."


The key is getting channels to accept the position of being fries. Right now DISH can offer a sliding range of 4 to 14 million subscribers depending on the price (or placement in DISH Platinum if the channel fits that package). Most channels reach all 14 million subscribers ... others have agreed to higher tiers where they may entice subscribers to pay $10 more for a group of channels. Very few channels have agreed to be paid for only subscribers who individually elect to pay for their channel (we call that a la carte). Most who have agreed to a la carte are not popular enough to demand a 4 million plus audience.


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

dbspr said:


> What if start a new satelite co.? That offered a near a-la-cart channel or theme. Many people choose if save money. Now suppose that not all network meet a agreement with the new Sat Co. but after the time the new Sat Co. have a lot of sub. My other question is theses network start a new negotiation?.
> 
> Pick-pakage, Themed and a-la-cart (like option) are possible.


Nearly all of your premises are wrong.

Firstly you will have virtually no programming, because the programming providers are the driving force behind the package deals.

Secondly with no programming, you will have no subscribers.

With no subscribers you have no influence with the programming rpoviders.

Satellite and cable companies would welcome a-la-carte, but the big boys who run most of the programming will not even consider it.


----------



## Stalky14 (Feb 18, 2005)

First of all there's no reason it has to be all one way or the other. DishPix was a great example of this. Pick 10 for $15, BUT you could also buy a tiered package if you saw greater value in that. For most people, the tiered package would be the better value, but for people like me who only care about 5 channels, let alone 10, paying $20 for 5 channels is a MUCH better value than paying $50 for 200 because the other 195 channels are worth $0 to me. 

Offering a-la-carte would not kill tiering under the proper pricing structure. I'm sure BBCA would love to get $1.50 per ALC subscriber vs. $.50 (for example) per tiered subscriber. This way, even in the extremely unlikely circumstance that everyone floods to ALC, they still make money.

Second, there NEEDS to be a collapse in channel count anyway. What we have now is a lot of channels of low quality programming, most of which are owned by a handful of conglomerates. A collapse of 5 channels to 2 for such a company would allow them to move their best programs to those channels and redirect operational costs to improving product. Channel themes are a joke now anyway with SciFi showing wrestling, MTV showing anything but music videos, G4 showing movies and Star Trek reruns... Internet TV and EPG's/DVR's are teaching us more and more that it's about the shows, not the channels. The concept of the channel is fast becoming irrelevant.

Third, there is another way halfway between tiered and a-la-carte: themed packages. I discovered this when I was on Cox cable a few years back. There was a base package that you could order and you could add $5 theme packages on top of it. I was able to opt out of most of the sports channels and opt into a movie package and a news package (that included BBC World by the way, *AHEM, Dish*). It wasn't the perfect solution as it was structured, but it did make me feel like I was more getting my money's worth than any other system I've been on.

So yes. A-la-carte CAN work! It's all about the implementation and the people in the distribution process being willing to adapt. We know what happens to those that don't adapt, though it may take a long while.

Oh, and my ideal a-la-carte: AMC, IFC, BBCA, Comedy Central, and BBC World. Done.


----------



## sliderbob (Aug 10, 2007)

I totally agree. If I could get 10 for $15, I'd pick SyFy(there's still a few good shows on there), USA, CMDY, E!, A&E, TNT, HIST, AMC, BBCA, FX


----------



## inazsully (Oct 3, 2006)

Stalky, you make way too much sense. I guess you know what that means. That's the kind of insight I was looking for when I started this thread. Where you been?


----------



## Inkosaurus (Jul 29, 2011)

Stalky14 said:


> First of all there's no reason it has to be all one way or the other. DishPix was a great example of this. Pick 10 for $15, BUT you could also buy a tiered package if you saw greater value in that. For most people, the tiered package would be the better value, but for people like me who only care about 5 channels, let alone 10, paying $20 for 5 channels is a MUCH better value than paying $50 for 200 because the other 195 channels are worth $0 to me.
> 
> Offering a-la-carte would not kill tiering under the proper pricing structure. I'm sure BBCA would love to get $1.50 per ALC subscriber vs. $.50 (for example) per tiered subscriber. This way, even in the extremely unlikely circumstance that everyone floods to ALC, they still make money.
> 
> ...


This would all be great and dandy if we just stopped assuming that the owners of those channels suddenly wished to stop making maximum amount of money for showing reruns of all the same shows on are there channels.

God forbid they lose money, drop some channels, then have to invest money in getting new shows started as well.
This will never happen.


----------



## tampa8 (Mar 30, 2002)

Stalky14 I would disagree with most of what you think would work or make it better but specifically you are way off for cost of 5 channels. In most instances picking your own channels will mean picking the most popular and you are closer to $35 for 5. I AM Basing that on fact of what the big dish was starting to cost before my Father dropped his and went to the small dish. (Dish)


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

There is also the fact that if your able to receive OTA networks and their subchannels you can get by with a cheaper package price.For example in my area OTA I have a subchannel that shows sports,Universal Sports Channel and two other subchannels that show old movies,THiS TV,and Antenna TV,then there is another subchannel that shows older series.ME TV.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

tampa8 said:


> Stalky14 I would disagree with most of what you think would work or make it better but specifically you are way off for cost of 5 channels. In most instances picking your own channels will mean picking the most popular and you are closer to $35 for 5. I AM Basing that on fact of what the big dish was starting to cost before my Father dropped his and went to the small dish. (Dish)


Yes... people seem to forget basic economic theories when they discuss a la carte.

Niche channels wouldn't have as many subscribers without being in a package... so they would have to raise their prices in order to afford to stay in business... so niche channel prices would skyrocket OR the channel would go away entirely.

The popular channels might not skyrocket at first... because they would get a lot of subscribers still... but once the niche channels all dropped away, and you had less choice... then the popular channels will start raising their rates too because they know you want them and you will then have less choice.

As for those who say "why not offer both"... meaning keep the packages but also allow individual a la cart... The same theory still applies. IF most of my customers choose the package, then I really don't want to expend energy for a handful of customers who want a la cart... so I'm going to price the a la cart price high enough that either I make a killing OR it discourages customers from choosing that since it forces me to have to track another metric for my billing.

And most importantly... years ago people began speaking that they preferred bundle discounts instead of a la cart... and increasingly chose that... so the a la cart offerings were slowly phased out over time. The people/customers picked this path.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

Stewart Vernon said:


> And most importantly... years ago people began speaking that they preferred bundle discounts instead of a la cart... and increasingly chose that... so the a la cart offerings were slowly phased out over time. The people/customers picked this path.


Regardless of whether a la carte would be good or bad, our channel bundling system has its roots in old technology, not customer requests.

When cable systems began, the choices were all or nothing. When cable added a few premium channels, it required physical filters for every household to either scramble or allow each premium, depending on the system.

Once cable and satellite systems could directly address individual receivers, that's when a la carte became possible. But program providers, at least, have every incentive to maintain the current bundled system, so a la carte remains limited.

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what a customer says to indicate he prefers bundles to a la carte. If it sounds like "I wish I could get Pay Channel X for free instead of paying $8/month extra," followed by silence when his bill later goes up $1/month, then I'm sure you could find examples of that. If you have better specific examples, please post them here.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

FTA Michael said:


> I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what a customer says to indicate he prefers bundles to a la carte. If it sounds like "I wish I could get Pay Channel X for free instead of paying $8/month extra," followed by silence when his bill later goes up $1/month, then I'm sure you could find examples of that. If you have better specific examples, please post them here.


It has been brought up by others several times that C-band had a lot more options for a la cart than DBS... but the move from C-band to DBS seems to say that pretty loudly to me.

I grant you that DBS is a smaller, easier to configure dish too... and that plays a part... but C-band customers who already had a setup that worked also chose to move to DBS and away from their a la cart options.

Also... people bring up the old Dish plan that allowed customers to pick 10 channels for a price... that option has been phased out, and the grandfathered people have been mostly forced out of that by now... but there was a time when it was a package Dish customers could have chosen... but it would appear that most customers instead chose one of the other tiers of bundled packages over that pick-10 pack... as it seems a small number of customers were grandfathered over the years.

Those are a couple of thoughts that pop to mind as ways customers have chosen against a la cart.

More nebulous connections are things like people being much happier now with HBO as a premium that includes a bunch of different HBO channels than when it was just HBO for that price. I haven't seen anyone wishing they could just pay for HBO without all the other channels in the HBO suite.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

Thanks for offering some examples. Please forgive me if I don't find them convincing.

The huge majority of DBS users would never consider erecting a C-band dish as an alternative. We're pretty techie and hobby-oriented here on the forum, but most regular folks either want someone to install a "free" dish or hook up to cable.

It's been (wow!) 10 years since I signed up for Dish Network. I still have the 311 that I bought at Sears. At that time, I carefully chose PBS and WPIX a la carte, but I was never presented the opportunity to get the Pick 10 pack. Therefore, I suspect that the huge majority of current Dish subs never had the opportunity for meaningful a la carte.

Again, this is completely apart from the question whether widespread a la carte would be a good thing. But I continue to believe that very few customers have been able to choose significant a la carte, and therefore only a small percentage of multichannel viewers have ever used their wallets to vote against it.


----------



## Inkosaurus (Jul 29, 2011)

FTA Michael said:


> It's been (wow!) 10 years since I signed up for Dish Network. I still have the 311 that I bought at Sears. At that time, I carefully chose PBS and WPIX a la carte, but I was never presented the opportunity to get the Pick 10 pack. Therefore, I suspect that the huge majority of current Dish subs never had the opportunity for meaningful a la carte.


Not quite, Agents at the time were telling customers over the phones about the Dishpicks, the majority refused it.
It was phased out because it was largely unpopular by choice not due to people not knowing about it


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

FTA Michael said:


> The huge majority of DBS users would never consider erecting a C-band dish as an alternative. We're pretty techie and hobby-oriented here on the forum, but most regular folks either want someone to install a "free" dish or hook up to cable.


People tend to choose things that are easier, cheaper, or hopefully both!

So I know many would choose DBS over C-band for that reason.. but what about the people who had C-band and dropped it in favor of DBS? They already had the big dish, and dropped it... I assume that they weighed the options and liked the smaller dish over the a la cart options they lost.

Think about cars.. There are fancy sports cars with low gas mileage, and there are less fancy cars with high gas mileage... People seem to consistently choose the more attractive car over the less attractive, when they could have saved money... thus car manufacturers consider the look of the car moreso than its fuel efficiency in designs in many cases.

IF people truly wanted better mileage... they would sacrifice looks for performance... and then we would get better performing cars that look better because the car companies would still try to make them look good.



FTA Michael said:


> Again, this is completely apart from the question whether widespread a la carte would be a good thing. But I continue to believe that very few customers have been able to choose significant a la carte, and therefore only a small percentage of multichannel viewers have ever used their wallets to vote against it.


To some extent, it's an argument neither of us can prove... because today's customers don't have the options that we are talking about... in part because yesterday's consumer decided/voted against it.

So I guess we don't know for sure about the current customer... but that is true about a lot of things that consumers of the past chose for us now that we are stuck with.


----------



## inazsully (Oct 3, 2006)

Maybe they voted against it because they felt that the newer smaller dish was simply less of an eye sore. The car analogy is way off base. There is nothing unattractive about today's smaller more efficient cars. The new Sonata, Fusion, Accord, Impala, Camry etc are very efficient and like many other cars out there are considered quite attractive.

The original question was not if a-la-cart was a good idea but if it was even feasable in today's much higher priced market. In other words, if they offered say a 10 channel package would it require such a high price that nobody could afford it.


----------



## BobaBird (Mar 31, 2002)

Implying that customers didn't want choice is a bit disingenuous. The problem with Dish Pix was the lack of choice. Several of the more popular channels wouldn't allow themselves to be part of the option, so custumers were stuck getting big packages that had them.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

inazsully said:


> The car analogy is way off base. There is nothing unattractive about today's smaller more efficient cars. The new Sonata, Fusion, Accord, Impala, Camry etc are very efficient and like many other cars out there are considered quite attractive.


So then why are other less fuel efficient sports cars still in high demand?

I'm not saying *I* think the cars are ugly... I'm just saying that clearly people are choosing less fuel-efficient sports cars for some reason... and it sure seems to be because they like the look better than the more fuel-efficient cars.



inazsully said:


> The original question was not if a-la-cart was a good idea but if it was even feasable in today's much higher priced market. In other words, if they offered say a 10 channel package would it require such a high price that nobody could afford it.


And I thought the answer to that question was that the price would be more than most people think, and probably more than most would be willing to pay once they realize they could have had many more channels for a little bit more.

Say you don't like paying $50 for 200 channels... and you wish you could pay $10 for 10 channels you really like... but then you find that those 10 channels would really cost you closer to $40... most folk would either drop pay TV entirely if that was too much money OR would continue with the $50 package that has 200 channels because it is a better deal.

Like when I'm at the fast food place... and a burger and fries cost me $5, but for $6 I can also get a drink that normally would cost me $2 by itself... I like the $6 full meal even if I wasn't fully thirsty for it when I walked into the place.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

Stewart Vernon said:


> To some extent, it's an argument neither of us can prove... because today's customers don't have the options that we are talking about.


I agree completely. We're talking about angel pinhead census data. Absent major, unforeseen shifts in the way content owners offer their channels, this is all irrelevant.


----------

