# A LaCarte Programming



## Kendick (Feb 1, 2005)

Various News and financial reporters are talking about a campaign to force Cable operators and others to offer customers choices of programming.
I have not seen any response from Dish Network but it is an interesting development, especially since some Congressmen are talking about it. The Platinum package could be reducced substantially, if there was a choice.
If one could choose only "Favorites", it might be a new ball game.
Intersting......It could happen.


----------



## rcbridge (Oct 31, 2002)

The primary group to convince are the content providers not the cable-co's and Satellite operators!


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

Dish Network, which has relatively minimal ownership of significant programming channels, is in favor of a la carte. But because this is not a Dish-specific issue, there has been more discussion of the FCC's new report in the General Discussion forum. 
http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=52574


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

Want to bet how long it takes for the "Programmer Plants" to invade this thread (like all the other ala-cart threads) and try to convince us how great forced packages are and how evil ala-cart is?

Higher bills is a good thing because we get more channels for less $$$ even if 75% of those channels we never watch LOL.

Egg salesman to the consumer....

"But 120 eggs only cost you 40 cents each ($48)... it's so cheap to get them in bulk! Delivery is only $10 a month for ONLY $58 a month! If I were to only sell you the 30 eggs you want I would have to charge you $1.20 an egg!"

Consumer to egg salesman....

"But I only eat 1 egg a day and the rest will spoil after a month so I only want 30 eggs! Even at 3 times the bulk price I would still save money and not waste any eggs" ($1.20 x 30 = $36 + $10 delivery charge = $46)

Egg salesman to the consumer....

"Sorry we will only sell you 144 at a time no matter how many you use or toss out!"

Consumers choice.... Do we take more than we want and toss out the rest or do we stop eating eggs?

Some choice but a zillion channels is so very good for us!

ROTFL

-JB


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

A recent news story on ABC mentioned that if you chose between 17-20 channels, depending on which ones they were, ESPN will cost an arm and a leg, you might save between 3 and 13 percent...personally that isnt near enough of a savings for losing literally 80% of the channels you currently get now....put your aluminum hat back on, I think the radiation is getting in..."Programmer plants" LOL


----------



## fchall (Jan 26, 2006)

CCarncross said:


> A recent news story on ABC mentioned that if you chose between 17-20 channels, depending on which ones they were, ESPN will cost an arm and a leg, you might save between 3 and 13 percent...personally that isnt near enough of a savings for losing literally 80% of the channels you currently get now....put your aluminum hat back on, I think the radiation is getting in..."Programmer plants" LOL


What's your problem with saving 3 to 13 percent to not get the 80% of channels you/I will never watch? ESPN will cost an arm and a leg. OH NO; go cry me a river. The espn channels would be the first to drop from my list and life( whiny women ) time next.


----------



## the_bear (Oct 18, 2004)

There are 25 pages on this subject at AVS.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=610066

The only recent news is that Booz Allen is not good at math.


----------



## sikma (Dec 11, 2003)

Who cares what it costs or how much you would save. Give the public the choice. Like I've said in other posts, when I had my B.U.D. I could buy each channel seperately (yearly sub.) and if I remember correctly I spent around $225 a year in programming. AND, I only bought the channels I watched.............what an idea!


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

CCarncross said:


> A recent news story on ABC mentioned that if you chose between 17-20 channels, depending on which ones they were, ESPN will cost an arm and a leg, you might save between 3 and 13 percent...personally that isnt near enough of a savings for losing literally 80% of the channels you currently get now....put your aluminum hat back on, I think the radiation is getting in..."Programmer plants" LOL


If you do not think that a few people on these boards are not employed by the billion dollar industry then I'll trade my aluminum hat for some swamp land 

This is one (if not the #1) of the open public forums for those in the know in regards to pay TV. If I was in charge of PR for one of the huge programmers and distributors I would consider a presence on this board to be most usefull for any number of reasons.

While I do not see black helecopters following me *smiles* nor do I think "programmer spies" are lurking in every thread, I do think that a number of posters here are very well linked to the industry and as such a few posts that represent "their" interests have and will continue to be posted.

-JB


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

As long as it doesn't raise the package prices they can fool around with a la carte all they want. But I can't imagine a scheme that wouldn't raise package rates to cover losses.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Also worth mentioning that a la carte predates packages... and it would appear the public has spoken years ago. IF a la carte was what the public wanted, then it would be what we have across the board... but when given the option more people chose packages that offered more channels for the same or less money than paying for individual channels.

That's how we got to where we are today.

I can't envision any kind of a la carte system forced on us today that wouldn't result in higher prices for some, less channels for all, and higher dissatisfaction for most.


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

HDMe said:


> Also worth mentioning that a la carte predates packages... and it would appear the public has spoken years ago. IF a la carte was what the public wanted, then it would be what we have across the board... but when given the option more people chose packages that offered more channels for the same or less money than paying for individual channels.
> 
> That's how we got to where we are today.
> 
> I can't envision any kind of a la carte system forced on us today that wouldn't result in higher prices for some, less channels for all, and higher dissatisfaction for most.


When have "I" ever had a choice in the past 8 years with Dish to select the channels I wanted?

When you use terms such as "if the public wanted it we would have it" - how do you justify this?

The handfull or channels that were/are available as ala-cart is hardly a choice now is it? If you are alluding to the fact that the public can just voice their thoughts by cancelling all Pay TV... well that is just silly.

I'm not trying to put words into your mouth so can you please clarify what you meant by the public has spoken?

-JB

P.S. If in the very beginning users had an option for ala-cart for the tiny number of channels available back then... how would this translate to 2006?


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

There was Dish Pics, which predates my Dish package.

There was and is C-band a la carte.

Those are two examples of a la carte that predate our current packages.

Also, here are two points to keep in mind:

* A la carte vs. packages doesn't have to be exclusive. The Canadian system is a good example -- once you hit your minimum, you can pick and choose or you can get plans with several packages.

* We don't know what form of a la carte we're talking about. Is this reverse a la carte, where subs get a little for opting out of a channel? Will absolutely every channel be available individually? We just don't know.


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

James Long said:


> As long as it doesn't raise the package prices they can fool around with a la carte all they want. But I can't imagine a scheme that wouldn't raise package rates to cover losses.


Are we only a few of the ones that actually get it?

:eek2:

Yes choice is a great thing, but the small percentage of people that are actually willing to potentially pay extra for the choice of fewer channels is very very small, almost infinitesimal...when an actual a la carte pricing plan is released, and if any changes that will create for their current pricing plans, we can all talk about this until the cows come home....

Several a la carte models have been attempted in the last 20 years or so, they failed each and every time....pretty soon, the providers dont try again....

How much do you really think you pay for all those channels you consider garbage channels you dont watch? Percentages will say you pay very little...sure there will exceptions.

There are valid arguments for both sides, in teh end, we all lose something, as is the case in almost all format type wars....


----------



## Link (Feb 2, 2004)

They need to offer a la carte or more variety in packages because at the rate they increase package prices $3 or $4 a year--in 5 years no one will hardly be able to afford satellite or cable TV.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

jrb531 said:


> When have "I" ever had a choice in the past 8 years with Dish to select the channels I wanted?
> 
> When you use terms such as "if the public wanted it we would have it" - how do you justify this?
> 
> ...


Carload beat me to it... The DishPics choice plan, which I gather there are still a handful of people grandfathered into that old plan... the C-band that a lot of folks point out as an option for a la carte... and the early days of cable & satellite all brought various forms of a la carte.

The common complain against cable in the early days was why pay for TV? Then it became, why pay so much for just a few channels? Cable and then satellite really didn't start to take off until there was more variety available. And the variety is partially supported by the bundles that permit the stronger channels to prop up the new and/or weaker channels.

Many of the channels we have today would not be able to exist if they weren't part of the packages.

No one can say 100% for sure what would happen if a new a la carte system were forced on us... but I have a strong feeling that it would be one of those "be careful what you wish for" scenarios that would implode the entertainment industry and result in less channels for the same or slightly more money.


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

CCarncross said:


> Are we only a few of the ones that actually get it?
> 
> :eek2:
> 
> ...


When in the past 10 years has anyone offered true ala-cart aside from a few nitch channels? Because it failed 10+ years ago with a third of the available channels when we were paying less than half what we do now means that in 2006 it will fail again?

Don't know about you but the cost of pay TV has grown to be so much that the entire notion that ala-cart will never make any form of real dent seems a bit outdated.

How many people on this forum have "ever" had the choice to pick and choose "all" their channels?

Anyone?

-JB


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

HDMe said:


> Carload beat me to it... The DishPics choice plan, which I gather there are still a handful of people grandfathered into that old plan... the C-band that a lot of folks point out as an option for a la carte... and the early days of cable & satellite all brought various forms of a la carte.
> 
> The common complain against cable in the early days was why pay for TV? Then it became, why pay so much for just a few channels? Cable and then satellite really didn't start to take off until there was more variety available. And the variety is partially supported by the bundles that permit the stronger channels to prop up the new and/or weaker channels.
> 
> ...


So because of what "might" happen we should be locked into the current setup? Is there a middle road?

I bet the consumers would compromise.... it seems like the programmers are unwilling to give even an inch.

-JB


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

jrb531 said:


> When in the past 10 years has anyone offered true ala-cart aside from a few nitch channels? Because it failed 10+ years ago with a third of the available channels when we were paying less than half what we do now means that in 2006 it will fail again?


We study the past so that we are not doomed to repeat it! Why repeat past mistakes?

Oh... and perhaps by the numbers we may be paying more at $40 today vs $20 20 years ago... but $40 today isn't worth near as much as $20 was back in the early 1980s. I daresay a LOT more people today afford satellite and cable that couldn't even imagine paying for TV back in 1985.

So if TV were truly pricing itself out of the market, the market wouldn't be growing as it has been in recent years. The fact that more people keep adding cable or satellite and upgrade to more expensive packages to boot, tends to disprove the theory that TV is becoming too expensive.


----------



## StarTech (Oct 2, 2004)

Why not BOTH?

Put basic packages in place,

The offer programing on a channel and channel basis, 

Let's face facts here, some channels wouldn't be here it not for PACKAGES.

So put the low interest channels in packages and offer the popular ones at say a buck and a half each per month.


----------



## jerryez (Nov 15, 2002)

When I had C-Band, it was ala carte. I only paid for ten of the 100 or so available channels and saved a bundle. If you wanted more than 20, the saving dwindled so much that the package was cheaper. 
When I switched to the little dish, only packages were available. No ala carte. No savings. If Dish went ala carte, I would only get maybe 20 channels.

When I get my new Dish bill, I might cut back to AT60 and HBO with the HD package. I currently have AT120, HD package, HBO and Max, with distant locals. That would save about $20 per month.


----------



## StarTech (Oct 2, 2004)

I think the point is being missed!

Customers will buy what ever there is for sale,,,,,,if they desire it. That is where supply and demand comes in. May the strong programs win! Put the losers in packages at a discount like any other retailer who is trying to sell a slow mover.


----------



## retiredTech (Oct 27, 2003)

the real reason E* was able to offer ala carte in the past and why C band still does to some degree is NOT because "the people spoke" and that is why it went away or why it is still there. It is because, in the early days of E* the number of subcribers didn't "matter" in "bulk numbers" to the "program providers". E* didn't have enough to matter and C-band still doesn't , BUT now that the NUMUBERS are LARGE the GREEDY "Channel Providers" WILL NOT ALLOW contracts for the channels to be sold ala carte. I really find it difficult to understand why many indviduals are so pro big business now, do they own that much stock? Are they that naive, to believe constant lies that corporation use to hide what is really in the best interest of the individual? What has happened to the individual's common sense? This is such a no brainer! The worst that could happen has already happened. They have taken away YOUR freedom to choose. Don't try and tell me, that I can go somewhere else. Because the "channel providers" have this locked up on E*, D *, and cable. I know of NO other industry that does NOT allow for "optional" choice. Think about it, telephone, internet, and so on. They all allow choice , packages AND single options. IE : get call waiting and you don't NOT HAVE to take the whole optional BUNDLE! As far a channel going away. Maybe. Maybe not. It really isn't channels that matter. It's programing. It's ratings that rule programing, and bundling does NOT, really, affect a program's rating. So many a program has left the air not because of channel but because of ratings.
And price going higher, I don't believe that either. I think that most people wil still choose bundles and that the "channel providers" would probably make more money. They are just too stupid to realize it. But whatever the case, I am for the individual. The customer is always right, and they are in business to serve the customer. So big business, wake up, start making us happy, and you might even make more money in the process. Now there is a forgotten idea.


----------



## StarTech (Oct 2, 2004)

retiredTech said:


> the real reason E* was able to offer ala carte in the past and why C band still does to some degree is NOT because "the people spoke" and that is why it went away or why it is still there. It is because, in the early days of E* the number of subcribers didn't "matter" in "bulk numbers" to the "program providers". E* didn't have enough to matter and C-band still doesn't , BUT now that the NUMUBERS are LARGE the GREEDY "Channel Providers" WILL NOT ALLOW contracts for the channels to be sold ala carte. I really find it difficult to understand why many indviduals are so pro big business now, do they own that much stock? Are they that naive, to believe constant lies that corporation use to hide what is really in the best interest of the individual? What has happened to the individual's common sense? This is such a no brainer! The worst that could happen has already happened. They have taken away YOUR freedom to choose. Don't try and tell me, that I can go somewhere else. Because the "channel providers" have this locked up on E*, D *, and cable. I know of NO other industry that does NOT allow for "optional" choice. Think about it, telephone, internet, and so on. They all allow choice , packages AND single options. IE : get call waiting and you don't NOT HAVE to take the whole optional BUNDLE! As far a channel going away. Maybe. Maybe not. It really isn't channels that matter. It's programing. It's ratings that rule programing, and bundling does NOT, really, affect a program's rating. So many a program has left the air not because of channel but because of ratings.
> And price going higher, I don't believe that either. I think that most people wil still choose bundles and that the "channel providers" would probably make more money. They are just too stupid to realize it. But whatever the case, I am for the individual. The customer is always right, and they are in business to serve the customer. So big business, wake up, start making us happy, and you might even make more money in the process. Now there is a forgotten idea.


Okay........what he said! Only the customer is right only when he holds the cash, once he lets go of it.....well its contract time!


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

StarTech said:


> I think the point is being missed!
> 
> Customers will buy what ever there is for sale,,,,,,if they desire it. That is where supply and demand comes in. May the strong programs win! Put the losers in packages at a discount like any other retailer who is trying to sell a slow mover.


I think a lot of a la carte people are missing the point too!

The channels they say they would pay for are the very ones that need the packages the most... so if a la carte came into being, it is likely that your favorite channels would go off the air due to loss of revenue and you'd be even worse off than you think you are now because at least now you get the channels you want while paying for others you don't... in the a la carte future if your channels go away, you'd be faced with the choice of paying for channels you don't want and not having any you wanted left!


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The new FCC report is flawed for the same reason that the first report was flawed ... it relies entirely on assumptions. There is no way of testing those assumptions without destroying the system that we have now.

The break even point better be pretty high before we go to a la carte. The smallest E* package is the new FamilyPack with "40" channels for $20. Then we have "60" channels (closer to 70) for $30, "120" channels for $40 and "180" channels for $50.

There will always be an overhead charge. Maintaining the database isn't free. That charge is now $6 (was $5 prior to Feb 1st). That assumes that the customer is also buying other programming (such as internationals or locals) that also has a high per channel price tag. So when you start figuring a 'per channel' price for packages you need to keep the base in mind.

But there is also a 'free channel bonus' - channels that the government REQUIRES to be carried by satellite companies at the channel's cost. These don't 'cost' anything to be in a package. (There are also other channels, such as shopping networks, that would PAY to be on satellite to gain viewership. Simple math is too simple for a complex problem.)

But let's do simple math for the simple minded folks at the FCC:
FamilyPack is "40" channels for $20 ... 50¢ each?
AT60 - "60" channels for $30 ... 50¢ again? is this a trend?
AT120 - "120" channels for $40 ... 33¢? Uh ohh ... 
AT180 - "180" channels for $50 ... 27¢? Getting cheaper?

Simple math doesn't work ... so let's cut the music out as a package - but what value should we put on the 32 CD music channels and 19 mono audio channels? $5? What about regional sports? E* has allowed people to add their RSNs to AT60 for $5 (AT60Plus). Does that give them a value of $5? That complex arrangement makes AT120 = AT60 ($20) + RSNs ($5) + CDs ($5) + 28 other channels ($x). The magic $x is "free"!

AT120 - "90" video channels for $40 ... 44¢ - not counting the complexites of RSNs and music in the last paragraph. (But 30 extra channels for $10 is 33¢.) The next step up to AT180 is even cheaper.

The bottom line for me is that I don't want to pay more to individually select the 150 or so channels I subscribe to than I pay now. The FCC can't _promise_ that my rates won't go up under a la carte. Until they do make that promise I can't support the a la carte system. I'm not looking for 20-30 favorite channels.


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

HDMe said:


> I think a lot of a la carte people are missing the point too!
> 
> The channels they say they would pay for are the very ones that need the packages the most... so if a la carte came into being, it is likely that your favorite channels would go off the air due to loss of revenue and you'd be even worse off than you think you are now because at least now you get the channels you want while paying for others you don't... in the a la carte future if your channels go away, you'd be faced with the choice of paying for channels you don't want and not having any you wanted left!


The popular channels would go away?

More likely the nitch channels will stay because there is no competition. Sci Fi? one channel gotta have it. Food Network? It's the channels that duplicate reruns that will compete with each other.

It's all about competiton. Sure there will be channels that go bye bye but so what? What about that TV show we love but does not gather enough ratings so it gets cancelled?

You can never please anyone and right now the only happy people are the programmers who can do whatever the heck they want because we have zero choice!

The day I can cancel ESPN and their huge bill is that day I'm happy. If you want to pay overpriced spoiled athletes then fine by be but don't force me to participate and right now give be a single option be it D* or E* or cable that allows be to cancel ESPN aside from not having Pay TV?

I grew up with 3 stinkin tv channels... now we have well over 100 and it grows every year.... how many channels can we watch at one time?

I used to watch sports for free on tv. Had to deal with comericials but that was the price to pay for free sports.

Enter 2006

Now I have to pay ESPN because they have outbid all the free networks by offering silly $$$ to the teams and guess what? They still have the same number of commercials.

Does this extra $$$ going to the teams keep the prices down? Of course not.

1986: Free sports with commericals and you can afford to take your family to the game

2006: Pay to watch sports with the same commericials and you cannot afford to go to the game

Progress? I think not!

Same goes for the rest of pay TV. Shows used to be 50 mins with 10 mins of commercials and this was free. Today: Shows are 40-45 mins, we pay for them and they have even more commericials.

We are now paying for less and arguing to keep the status quo or allow even more power to big business.

Let be bend over so you can stick it up me.... well NM I think you get the point 

-JB


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

James Long said:


> The bottom line for me is that I don't want to pay more to individually select the 150 or so channels I subscribe to than I pay now. The FCC can't _promise_ that my rates won't go up under a la carte. Until they do make that promise I can't support the a la carte system. I'm not looking for 20-30 favorite channels.


The bottom line is that I do!

You see if I only watch 10 channels why do I care about some deal to get 50 more if I dont watch them?

We would not need 50 channels if we could pick the ones we want. This has nothing to do with some game to see who has the most channels.

Do you despute that they mix up the channels in all three packages to try and entice (some say force) people to have to subscribe to more channels?

Is there any "logical" reason to not put "all" sports in a sports pack?

-JB


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

James Long said:


> The bottom line for me is that I don't want to pay more to individually select the 150 or so channels I subscribe to than I pay now. The FCC can't _promise_ that my rates won't go up under a la carte. Until they do make that promise I can't support the a la carte system. I'm not looking for 20-30 favorite channels.


The bottom line is that I do!

Why do I have to subsidise your channels?

You want 150 zillion channels... fine but "you" pay for them.

I want 10 channels... why "force" me to pay fro 140 I do not want just to keep your bill down.

You see if I only watch 10 channels why do I care about some deal to get 140 more if I dont watch them?

We (well most people LOL) would not need 150 channels if we could pick the ones we want. This has nothing to do with some game to see who has the most channels.

Do you despute that they mix up the channels in all three packages to try and entice (some say force) people to have to subscribe to more channels?

Is there any "logical" reason to not put "all" sports in a sports pack?

-JB

P.S. And if some channels go bye bye... good! if they are so unpopular that people are not willing to pay for them then maybe they should go away.


----------



## yooper (Jan 28, 2006)

James Long...how many of those 150 channels do you really watch? For myself I only watch regularly only a few..so if I payed $10 a channell including the #6 access fee my bill would still be less than the 150 channell tier. The most important thing for me is quality programing and when alowed to choose I will pay for quality. Better programing for all will result.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

You don't have to be a "provider plant" to be skeptical that a la carte will save money. Let's deal with the arguments presented instead of trying to discredit others without real evidence


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

According to the FCC, a la carte is supposed to make things cheaper.
I believe they are dead wrong.

If a la carte allows some customers to get their 20-30 favorite channels without raising package prices fine.
But the FCC can't guarantee that and neither can posters in this thread.

Less channels for more per channel is not the solution.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

jrb531 said:


> Enter 2006
> 
> Now I have to pay ESPN because they have outbid all the free networks by offering silly $$$ to the teams and guess what? They still have the same number of commercials.
> 
> ...


However, attendance for most of these sports is at an all-time high. Sports are still in demand (Super Bowl 40 the second-highest rated show ever, behind the series finale of MASH), and it still appears the public has a thirst they can never quench when it comes to programming.

We can go on and on about this. There are two solutions to getting to a la carte:

1) the channel providers (and the cablers and DBS companies) will somehow believe it is in their best interest to offer a la carte. Of course this means that a la carte will generate more revenue for the interested parties than the current system, which by default means that the prices will go higher, or...
2) the government mandates it, through laws that will somehow withstand any Constitutional issues.

Of course, there is the third option. The only true way to stop the flow of money for objectionable programming is to stop paying the distributors that carry the objectionable programming. That is, start a boycott of pay TV. The only way prices can come down any is to put the pressure on everyone to stop raising rates by both complaining about the rates and to no longer pay. If you are still paying and complaining, you are part of the problem.


----------



## MusicDan (Feb 10, 2006)

I'm not sure how you can legislate that each channel be sold individually, ie, ala carte. Like to know how some rocket scientist can predict the savings. One would truly expect individual pricing to skyrocket in order to retain profit. Basically, would simply lead to having fewer channels and paying about the same price. Also, one would not expect any equipment promotions that are economical.


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

MusicDan said:


> I'm not sure how you can legislate that each channel be sold individually, ie, ala carte. Like to know how some rocket scientist can predict the savings. One would truly expect individual pricing to skyrocket in order to retain profit. Basically, would simply lead to having fewer channels and paying about the same price. Also, one would not expect any equipment promotions that are economical.


Rem when the phone company charged an arm and a leg for long distance? It was so high that few people used it. Then the government stepped in and broke up the phone companies (now reforming LOL) and everyone said that the sky would fall yadda yadda.

Well the sky did not fall, long distance got very very cheap and remains that way. Would this have happened if the government had not forced competition? No Way!

The government is not always the bad guy. When private industry sets itself up with deals to keep away competition (they hate competition!) then the government sometimes has to step in and break things up.

Right now, due to very similar agreements between the programmers and the distributors of having forced packaging of multiple channels in mandatory tiers removes any semblance fo competition.

If ala cart will be so expensive and no one will want it then why not offer both and let the market decide?

I'll tell ya why. Because most people would drop down to the basic tier and then add the handfull of additional channels they want instead of the current system which forces you to take 2 or 3 tiers just to get a few extra channels you want.

The 180 tier would never survive IMHO and the 120 would have a rocky foundation.

They also fear that people that actually would only take 5-6 channels and be happy with that. Some people really only watch a few tiny number of all these channels. They are very afraid that people would just drop the higher prices channels in droves.

What's that? You think the programmers are packaging channels to "help" the consumer keep costs down? Want some swamp land?

So offer both. Offer ala cart "and" packages and let the public decide?

What are they afraid of? *smiles*

-JB


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

MusicDan said:


> I'm not sure how you can legislate that each channel be sold individually, ie, ala carte.


About the same way you legislate that landlords can't enforce restrictions against balcony dishes -- through an FCC rule. Off the top of my head:

"All programming vendors (DBS/cable) must provide individual pricing for every channel they sell. Content providers may not require vendors to force consumers to purchase more than one of a content provider's channels. All contract language to the contrary shall be unenforceable. This rule will take effect six months after it is published."

The FCC's rule would probably add a page to that, but you get the idea. Such a rule would still permit packages as an option. Vendors could also require a certain minimum purchase or access fee. It would need to give a little time for the vendors and content providers to scurry around and create new contracts.


----------



## sikma (Dec 11, 2003)

If my memory serves me correctly the major reason the little dish took off and left the BUD's in the dust was the simplicity of installation, operation and the cost of the equipment. It had nothing to do with the cost of programming (actually BUD programming gave you more options for less money). 

And don't fool yourselves into thinking that the little dish market won't price themselves out of the market. I personally know of several people in my area that have switched back to cable tv. Why, because it was cheaper. Although the cable company doesn't offer ala carte, they do offer the same 'tiers' as little dish, as well as high-speed internet and phone service as a bundle. They don't charge and arm and a leg for their equipment and do not keep coming out with new equipment that you have to buy/lease in order to receive new programming.

There's a reason why most, if not all new tv's in production have cable-card slots in them. Pioneer didn't spend the money on providing same unless they were convinced that cable will always be a major competitor of satellite tv.

My point being, that sooner or later the little dish companies will have to offer ala carte programming or they will continue to lose customers. I find it hard to believe that anyone needs 60 channels let alone 180 (I am forced to buy the at60, although I actually watch about 5 channels + locals). I have a lot of respect for Mr. Long, as I have been reading his posts for a couple of years. I just don't happen to agree with him on this topic. It seems to me, that no matter what the product, the consumer ultimately has the power to manage the cost of same. I liken it to the automobile industry. The truck I bought new in 1999, I could replace today with a 2006 for slightly less than I paid 7 years ago. Why, because the public slowed down in their purchases of pickups. It wasn't because the production costs have decreased, it was because it became too costly to operate them (gas prices). So what did the auto. industry do, they basically froze the price of trucks. In other words, the consumer won. 

If the masses want to continue to pay $50-$150 a month to watch tv then that's how it will stay, but if the people decide they're tired of paying that kind of money to actually watch a dozen channels on a regular basis and demand an alternative, the 'big 2' will have no choice.


----------



## fchall (Jan 26, 2006)

I live in the boonies and cable is never coming here. Satelite is the only option for TV and I was hard pressed to even justify that. We started with the 50 channels + locals of which we only watch maybe 10. There is one channel in the AT180 we would like but not at the extra $20. Packages are nice but I don't have time or inclination to watch all that much TV. So keep your packages if you want but give me the choice to pick and choose what I want. If the alacarte prices get too much we will just limit what we watch. Unlike, apparently, some people on this board, we will not die if we can't get a gazillion channels. We just bought a new car and believe me we did not have to take all the bells and whistles to get the features we wanted. The dealer still made his profit.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

jrb531 said:


> More likely the nitch channels will stay because there is no competition. Sci Fi? one channel gotta have it. Food Network? It's the channels that duplicate reruns that will compete with each other.


Actually, SciFi is one of the channels that would not do well a la carte. It is a commercial channel with really only a handful of new programming that people watch and SciFi (the concept not the channel) is not as popular with the masses as you might think. This channel would skyrocket in price if it had to make all its revenue a la carte, and then neither of us would be able to watch it.



jrb531 said:


> It's all about competiton. Sure there will be channels that go bye bye but so what? What about that TV show we love but does not gather enough ratings so it gets cancelled?


Those TV shows would continue to be cancelled... and perhaps even moreso because the channels would be carried in less homes therefore almost certainly lower ratings for some shows.



jrb531 said:


> You can never please anyone and right now the only happy people are the programmers who can do whatever the heck they want because we have zero choice!


Who says only the programmers are happy? I'm happy. There are apparently 12 million reasonably happy Dish network customers and 14-15 million DirecTV customers who would disagree with your statement.



jrb531 said:


> I grew up with 3 stinkin tv channels... now we have well over 100 and it grows every year.... how many channels can we watch at one time?


So you should be able to be happy going back to free OTA TV then, right? I mean if you grew up on it like I did that should be more than sufficient if you can't watch but a few channels anyway! And you could put your money where your mouth is and stop paying for satellite/cable that you think is so overpriced! Win-win situation for you!



jrb531 said:


> I used to watch sports for free on tv. Had to deal with comericials but that was the price to pay for free sports.
> 
> Enter 2006
> 
> Now I have to pay ESPN because they have outbid all the free networks by offering silly $$$ to the teams and guess what? They still have the same number of commercials.


We've been through this and you've ignored my response before... ABC, CBS, FOX, and now NBC will have NFL football next season! ABC and CBS have college baskbetball and college football games and next season FOX will have some as well. There's lots of golf on ABC and CBS. NBA basketball on ABC. I can go on and on with the lots of free sports there are on the local OTA free channels. It sounds like you like sports after all, so why not watch the free stuff if you hate ESPN so much?


----------



## sikma (Dec 11, 2003)

First of all, sci-fi would 'not just be al a carte.' Trust me, a channel that's been around as long as that has would not disappear. And even if certain channels disappeared, I can guarantee you that other channels still on the air would broadcast the most popular of shows. 

And the fact is, sooner or later if anyone wants to watch the NFL, they will have to have cable or satellite. ABC (free for most) will no longer have NFL. Now you must have ESPN to watch Monday night. ABC didn't care, they're own the same company. Now, the NFL Network will be broadcasting games....more NFL that cannot be watched for free. I'd stake my life on the fact that the NFL Network will never be part of the lowest tiered sat. package. As far as the other major sports, there will come a day when nothing will be watched OTA. History has proven it.

A blanket statement that all E* and D* customers are happy is so inaccurate it's crazy. Have an independent poll of all 'your' 27 million sat. customers asking them if they would prefer an option of al a carte, along with the already channel tiers. Then ask them to write an essay of how very very happy they are with the satellite prices and how many of the 60, 120, 180 channels they actually watch. HDMe, if the answers to these questions back your understanding of what the masses really want from their sat. provider then I for one will 'shut up.'


----------



## IowaStateFan (Jan 11, 2006)

HDMe said:


> Actually, SciFi is one of the channels that would not do well a la carte. It is a commercial channel with really only a handful of new programming that people watch and SciFi (the concept not the channel) is not as popular with the masses as you might think. This channel would skyrocket in price if it had to make all its revenue a la carte, and then neither of us would be able to watch it.


If the SciFi channel (or any other channel for that matter) can't make it in an la carte world it should go off the air. I have no interest in subsidizing your TV choices by subscribing to television that I don't want to watch. If something I watch becomes too expensive or goes of the air that's just the way it is. Would I like it? Not really, but I'd move on.



HDMe said:


> Those TV shows would continue to be cancelled... and perhaps even moreso because the channels would be carried in less homes therefore almost certainly lower ratings for some shows.?


It's tough to find buggy whips nowadays 'cause there just isn't a big market for them. TV should be no different.



HDMe said:


> Who says only the programmers are happy? I'm happy. There are apparently 12 million reasonably happy Dish network customers and 14-15 million DirecTV customers who would disagree with your statement.?


I'm not unhappy. Your point about not paying if it's not worth it are well taken. Apparently Locals, ESPN HD, and the regional sports networks are worth $60/mo to me. That's all I really watch.



HDMe said:


> So you should be able to be happy going back to free OTA TV then, right? I mean if you grew up on it like I did that should be more than sufficient if you can't watch but a few channels anyway! And you could put your money where your mouth is and stop paying for satellite/cable that you think is so overpriced! Win-win situation for you!?


I too grew up on free OTA. I could live with that. However, OTA (analog or digital) is not an option for me so I have to pay if I want television. The cost is getting to the point that I may have to drop down to a locals only option. Even that will cost me something like $10/mo. I go back to my original points. Each program and channel should stand alone. If enough people watch it, it will survive. If not, oh well. I shouldn't have to subsidize your television viewing ( nor should you subsidize mine) in order to get channels that I like.



HDMe said:


> We've been through this and you've ignored my response before... ABC, CBS, FOX, and now NBC will have NFL football next season! ABC and CBS have college baskbetball and college football games and next season FOX will have some as well. There's lots of golf on ABC and CBS. NBA basketball on ABC. I can go on and on with the lots of free sports there are on the local OTA free channels. It sounds like you like sports after all, so why not watch the free stuff if you hate ESPN so much?


Obviously, I would pay for the sports programming, but the OP doesn't want to. He wants other basic cable channels, but not sports. So he's in effect subsidizing my sports programming in order to get SciFi, or USA or Food Network (or whatever else he wants). Again, he shouldn't have to.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

sikma said:


> A blanket statement that all E* and D* customers are happy is so inaccurate it's crazy. Have an independent poll of all 'your' 27 million sat. customers asking them if they would prefer an option of al a carte, along with the already channel tiers. Then ask them to write an essay of how very very happy they are with the satellite prices and how many of the 60, 120, 180 channels they actually watch. HDMe, if the answers to these questions back your understanding of what the masses really want from their sat. provider then I for one will 'shut up.'


If most, or even a substantial minority, of the current satellite customers were unhappy... they could vote with their wallets and force changes.

People like to jump up and down and say "why won't companies" listen, meanwhile they continue to buy the product. If people don't like the product for the money they ask, then don't pay... and if enough of them don't pay, then change will come.

The more people pay, the more it says the company is doing the right thing. This is pretty simple logic.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

IowaStateFan said:


> If the SciFi channel (or any other channel for that matter) can't make it in an la carte world it should go off the air. I have no interest in subsidizing your TV choices by subscribing to television that I don't want to watch. If something I watch becomes too expensive or goes of the air that's just the way it is. Would I like it? Not really, but I'd move on.


I respect everyone's right to an opinion... I was just point out to the other poster, as I have before, that the kind of channels he says he watches are likely to be on the chopping block. A "win" for him with a la carte might result in his channels being dropped. I don't think everyone who asks for a la carte considers these ramifications.



IowaStateFan said:


> It's tough to find buggy whips nowadays 'cause there just isn't a big market for them. TV should be no different.


True... but there are also lots of things that society contributes to for the good of all. Our taxes, for one thing, pay for all kinds of things that I will never partake of... we are all subsidizing each other in more ways than just pay TV... and pay TV is something we choose to pay for, vs taxes as an example.



IowaStateFan said:


> I'm not unhappy. Your point about not paying if it's not worth it are well taken. Apparently Locals, ESPN HD, and the regional sports networks are worth $60/mo to me. That's all I really watch.


That's ultimately how I judge value... I can't possibly watch 180 channels. I can only watch 1 channel at any given time, so I'm always not watching most things I'm paying for... but at the end of the month, if the entertainment value I got is worth the next bill that comes in the mail for the service... then I pay it and move forward.

A movie ticket might cost me $8 for one movie at the theater... My satellite bill is about $85 or so per month these days. So it doesn't take much TV watching during the month to feel like I'm getting what I'm paying for.

If I didn't feel like I was getting good value for the money, I would complain and contact the Dish people... and if they didn't provide better service/programming for my bucks... then I would first cut back on the packages I get... and then ultimately stop paying for it. It just seems silly to me for people to get on the "I'm being ripped off" train when they could stop paying the bill if it isn't worth it to them.


----------



## wkomorow (Apr 22, 2002)

For me, choice is too complicated; it may not be for others. There a several channels on which I only watch a program or two. I would have to decide if the two programs are worth the subscription price for the channel. If the programs moved from the channel, would it be worth the hassle to de-subscribe from it. If the channel changed format, would it be worth the hassle to de-subscribe from it. Likewise, this afternoon, I was flipping through channels and saw Voyager on WWOR. Its been several months since I last watched WWOR, but for some reason Voyager appealed to me this afternoon. Would channels be available on-demand? 

Would there be a minimum subscription to continue being a subscriber? In other words, would you need to subscribe to $20 in programming (or whatever the amount) in order for it to be worth Dish to sell/install/maintain a satellite system for you? Would subscribers be able to adjust their packages seasonally? ESPN only during the football season? Would Dish be allowed to continue to charge a downgrade or sidegrade fee?


----------



## IowaStateFan (Jan 11, 2006)

wkomorow said:


> For me, choice is too complicated; it may not be for others. There a several channels on which I only watch a program or two. I would have to decide if the two programs are worth the subscription price for the channel. If the programs moved from the channel, would it be worth the hassle to de-subscribe from it. If the channel changed format, would it be worth the hassle to de-subscribe from it. Likewise, this afternoon, I was flipping through channels and saw Voyager on WWOR. Its been several months since I last watched WWOR, but for some reason Voyager appealed to me this afternoon. Would channels be available on-demand?
> 
> Would there be a minimum subscription to continue being a subscriber? In other words, would you need to subscribe to $20 in programming (or whatever the amount) in order for it to be worth Dish to sell/install/maintain a satellite system for you? Would subscribers be able to adjust their packages seasonally? ESPN only during the football season? Would Dish be allowed to continue to charge a downgrade or sidegrade fee?


Point well taken. I'm not advocating doing away with packages. I might even subscribe to a package if I thought the value and convenience were worth it to me. Even in the C-Band days that people compare a la carte to there were packages. Per channel they were much cheaper, but you ended up paying for things you didn't want, though the convenience and price were often worth it. I even watched things that I wouldn't have been able to if I'd done a la carte, 'cause that channel wouldn't have made my cut. As far as changing programming, that kind of flexibility would almost certainly increase prices, but I think distributors would give discounts for longer subscriptions (such as quarterly or annual). You want the ability to switch programming often, you should have to pay for that priviledge.


----------



## IowaStateFan (Jan 11, 2006)

HDMe said:


> I respect everyone's right to an opinion... I was just point out to the other poster, as I have before, that the kind of channels he says he watches are likely to be on the chopping block. A "win" for him with a la carte might result in his channels being dropped. I don't think everyone who asks for a la carte considers these ramifications.


True. And that is an important consideration. If a channel has a market it will survive a la carte, if not it will die. In the end, asking for more choice thru a la carte will probably result in less choice. Personally, I think that would be for the better. I realize not everyone will agree, but I believe the market should dictate our choices, not the suppliers.



HDMe said:


> True... but there are also lots of things that society contributes to for the good of all. Our taxes, for one thing, pay for all kinds of things that I will never partake of... we are all subsidizing each other in more ways than just pay TV... and pay TV is something we choose to pay for, vs taxes as an example..


Yes, there are some things that I contribute to that I don't use, but it is for the good of society. However, pay television should not be one of those things. It is a luxury, not a necessity.



HDMe said:


> That's ultimately how I judge value... I can't possibly watch 180 channels. I can only watch 1 channel at any given time, so I'm always not watching most things I'm paying for... but at the end of the month, if the entertainment value I got is worth the next bill that comes in the mail for the service... then I pay it and move forward..


I absolutely agree with this. Unfortunately for me, my television costs are going up more than the value I'm getting for it. As I said, I've seriously considered dropping everything except locals. There's only so much money (and time) to go around and television is starting to take a back seat for me.



HDMe said:


> A movie ticket might cost me $8 for one movie at the theater... My satellite bill is about $85 or so per month these days. So it doesn't take much TV watching during the month to feel like I'm getting what I'm paying for..





HDMe said:


> If I didn't feel like I was getting good value for the money, I would complain and contact the Dish people... and if they didn't provide better service/programming for my bucks... then I would first cut back on the packages I get... and then ultimately stop paying for it. It just seems silly to me for people to get on the "I'm being ripped off" train when they could stop paying the bill if it isn't worth it to them.


You got that absolutely correct. I think that's what some people are asking for with a la carte. I know I am. There are some things I want but the price is too high because I have to subscribe to a higher level package. I'd like to drop MTV for example, but I can't under the current structure and still get the other things I do want. Would I pay more per channel? Yes. Would I pay more per channel that I actually watch? I don't think so. I'm at $60 for the AT120 + locals + HD. I actually watch locals, ESPN, ESPN2, RSN and 3 or 4 other basic channels. That's 10 channels or $6/channel. Would my cost for that package drop below $6/channel? I think so, but if it didn't then I would consider a package to be a better value. Right now I can't decide that for myself. I'm at the mercy of the programmers and distributors.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

IowaStateFan said:


> True. And that is an important consideration. If a channel has a market it will survive a la carte, if not it will die. In the end, asking for more choice thru a la carte will probably result in less choice. Personally, I think that would be for the better. I realize not everyone will agree, but I believe the market should dictate our choices, not the suppliers.


I have to agree with that also... there are lots of programs and channels that simply aren't good enough, in my opinion, and I wouldn't mind seeing them go away. Though, at the same time I realize that someone might like them... and if they pay part of the bundle fee that covers channels I like, then I can pay part of the bundle fee that covers the channels they like... and we can all have something to watch.



IowaStateFan said:


> Yes, there are some things that I contribute to that I don't use, but it is for the good of society. However, pay television should not be one of those things. It is a luxury, not a necessity.


I say that a lot... about it being a luxury, and some people get riled at that as if it were a constitutional right to TV 



IowaStateFan said:


> You got that absolutely correct. I think that's what some people are asking for with a la carte. I know I am. There are some things I want but the price is too high because I have to subscribe to a higher level package. I'd like to drop MTV for example, but I can't under the current structure and still get the other things I do want. Would I pay more per channel? Yes. Would I pay more per channel that I actually watch? I don't think so. I'm at $60 for the AT120 + locals + HD. I actually watch locals, ESPN, ESPN2, RSN and 3 or 4 other basic channels. That's 10 channels or $6/channel. Would my cost for that package drop below $6/channel? I think so, but if it didn't then I would consider a package to be a better value. Right now I can't decide that for myself. I'm at the mercy of the programmers and distributors.


For the record... there are lots of channels I'd drop if I could do it and save money. I think everyone would do that! I am on AT180 in part because of just a few channels there that I want, and I've considered dropping to AT120 to save money but I'd only save $10 and would lose several good channels... so I keep it.

So I understand about wanting to budget and wanting to pay less for things I definately want. My fear, though, is that a la carte will not be the magic cure-all that some think it will be... and I fear a scenario where the channels are dropping left and right, and we end up paying about the same thing for far less channels, and some of the niche ones that are good to watch a few hours a week can't stay afloat.

If I thought a la carte would work... I'd support it too.


----------



## Kendick (Feb 1, 2005)

Kendick said:


> Various News and financial reporters are talking about a campaign to force Cable operators and others to offer customers choices of programming.
> I have not seen any response from Dish Network but it is an interesting development, especially since some Congressmen are talking about it. The Platinum package could be reducced substantially, if there was a choice.
> If one could choose only "Favorites", it might be a new ball game.
> Intersting......It could happen.


When I started this thread, I felt a degree of optomism and anticipation for the a la carte option. After reading all the various opinions, I feel I must say "Be careful what you wish for."


----------



## IowaStateFan (Jan 11, 2006)

HDMe said:


> I have to agree with that also... there are lots of programs and channels that simply aren't good enough, in my opinion, and I wouldn't mind seeing them go away. Though, at the same time I realize that someone might like them... and if they pay part of the bundle fee that covers channels I like, then I can pay part of the bundle fee that covers the channels they like... and we can all have something to watch.
> 
> I say that a lot... about it being a luxury, and some people get riled at that as if it were a constitutional right to TV
> 
> ...


It appears that our opinions are a lot closer than I would have expected based on what I'd read in some of your previous posts. I think we will have to disagree on whether or not we believe it will work, 'cause I do. To be honest, I really don't think much would change. I think most people would prefer packages and the distributors will supply those at a good value. What may happen (and of course this is all speculation as I have no inside information or knowledge) is that there will be some very basic 15 or 20 channel package (like the family pack) with optional add ons such as sports, music, movies, news etc. Additional channels could be added individually or in groups. Of course, one sticky point to that plan would be deciding which channels belong in the basic pack. Maybe we'd end up back where we are because the programmers would insist that their channel(s) belong in the basic pack. I think it could be worked out but no one ever said it would be easy.


----------



## Mike D-CO5 (Mar 12, 2003)

I think that with all the new "BECAUSE WE CAN" Fees that Dish has instituted now, that any savings with Ala carte would be gone . Imagine the fees they now charge and the ones they could come up with in the future. 


NO basic pack fee of $6.00.
The hd enabeling fee of $6.00 on the mpeg4 receivers if no hd pack added. 
The dvr fee of $5.98 on EACH DVR you own. 
The no phone connection fee of $4.99 or is it $5.00 now?
The lease fee on anyone who adds the new receivers of $6.00. 

And I am sure that Dish would add the new ALA CARTE fee if you did ala carte and it would be around $6.00. Knowing Dish they would add it per receiver . Now imagine what you would pay in just fees alone now if you did ala carte? 

I think Ala carte would work for the consumers out there but NOT WITH DISHNETWORK.  They would nickel and dime you to death and you would pay what you do now , with the Platinum pack and receive only 20 channels in addition to your locals. OF course most people would then switch to another service provider ,either Directv or cable and Dish would have to change all of its new fees or they would loose all their customers who want ala carte. 

So maybe ala carte will become the catalyst that changes Dish and their "BECAUSE WE CAN" fees.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Lease fee or additional receiver fee is $5 each or $6 each if HD.
The 'additional tuner fee' waived if you connect a phone line is $4.99.

There are certain fixed costs. I'm suprised that E* doesn't charge for the lease AND the additional receiver since they are two different services.


----------



## IowaStateFan (Jan 11, 2006)

James Long said:


> Lease fee or additional receiver fee is $5 each or $6 each if HD.
> The 'additional tuner fee' waived if you connect a phone line is $4.99.
> 
> There are certain fixed costs. I'm suprised that E* doesn't charge for the lease AND the additional receiver since they are two different services.


Of course, there are fixed costs. Dish has to factor them into any pricing system. I agree with your assessment of the lease fee and additional receiver fee. I don't like the DVR fee though. The only way I can justify that fee is if the programmers are charging dish extra because they are afraid we'll record and skip the commercials (or quit watching reruns and therefore commercials). Knowing how the politics work, I suppose that is a possibility (or probability).

Any a la carte system will have to recoup those fixed costs. Therefore, they'll have to have some minimum level of service or a non-package fee. I understand that, but I'm willing to bet that my cost per viewed channel will go down under an a la carte system because I'll only be paying for the channels I view (along with the fixed costs).


----------



## mplsjeffm (May 28, 2005)

does anyone know how much E* pays per channel:
the contract price or the price per cust they pay to the programmer. 
I get storts cost the most..
I removed all the sports channels from my guide, why should I pay for them?


----------



## IowaStateFan (Jan 11, 2006)

mplsjeffm said:


> does anyone know how much E* pays per channel:
> the contract price or the price per cust they pay to the programmer.
> I get storts cost the most..
> I removed all the sports channels from my guide, why should I pay for them?


I don't think anyone here knows (or can say if they do). The contract with each programmer is different. And yes, the consensus is that sports cost the most. Charlie said in the last chat that ESPN's price increase is quite abit more than the typical channel (I believe it was 13% vs. 8%). If you've read this entire thread you will find answers to your last question, though some of us believe you shouldn't have to pay for them.


----------



## Notorious (Aug 18, 2005)

James Long said:


> As long as it doesn't raise the package prices they can fool around with a la carte all they want. But I can't imagine a scheme that wouldn't raise package rates to cover losses.


McDonalds has Packages and Ala Carte....why cant TV?

What percentage of channels that DISH offers do you view? Not counting the Music Channels, just pure TV channels???

I probably watch on a regular basis...5 or 6 channels...and maybe another 10 channels on and off....how many channels total are there so I can calculate the percentage.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Notorious said:


> McDonalds has Packages and Ala Carte....why cant TV?


McDonalds overcharges for everything. The discount in their packages is usually close to the retail value of their fountain drinks ... the most overpriced element in the meal.

With a la carte, every channel or mini-package is a choice. If a program moves from one channel to another you have to go back and realign your choices. There is little room for "on a whim" program viewership. You have to plan your whims in advance.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Notorious said:


> McDonalds has Packages and Ala Carte....why cant TV?


Continuing with your example... Menu items at McDonalds that customers do not purchase often enough a la carte soon disappear!

Even items like their popular McRib sandwich is only brought out for a month or so each year because as a regular menu item people just don't buy enough of it to keep it on the a la carte menu all year long.

I expect similar things would happen to channels... We would see some channels go away entirely... and other channels would morph into what the Adult channels have... like a $24.95 pay-per-view 4 hour block of SciFi channel available for purchase a la carte


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

IowaStateFan said:


> It appears that our opinions are a lot closer than I would have expected based on what I'd read in some of your previous posts. I think we will have to disagree on whether or not we believe it will work, 'cause I do. To be honest, I really don't think much would change. I think most people would prefer packages and the distributors will supply those at a good value. What may happen (and of course this is all speculation as I have no inside information or knowledge) is that there will be some very basic 15 or 20 channel package (like the family pack) with optional add ons such as sports, music, movies, news etc. Additional channels could be added individually or in groups. Of course, one sticky point to that plan would be deciding which channels belong in the basic pack. Maybe we'd end up back where we are because the programmers would insist that their channel(s) belong in the basic pack. I think it could be worked out but no one ever said it would be easy.


I think that sometimes in these kinds of forums people sometimes argue over things they actually agree on, but word the concept differently... In a perfect world I would love a la carte and only pay for what I wanted... I just don't believe it would work that way, and I understand there are other folks like yourself who think it could.

I echo JLs sentiment... that if they could introduce a la carte and it didn't make my bill go up and it didn't result in the dropping of channels I like... then I would support other folks having their choice to go a la carte.

I think your last point kind of echoes the full-circle I envision though... with a la carte seeming to work at first, then different kinds of packages form to encourage folks to buy at discounted prices, while some niche channels go away from lack of support... and then we end up with a new group of packages that cost the same but with less channels and we all lose.

Speculation to be sure... but enough fear of it in there for me not to want to rock the boat!


----------



## Wicked (Oct 29, 2005)

James Long said:


> McDonalds overcharges for everything. The discount in their packages is usually close to the retail value of their fountain drinks ... the most overpriced element in the meal.


 with the fountain drinks you are getting actually a good deal because you have the choice of multiple refill (depending on the actual restaurant) now tell me what retail store will give you free refills?


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Kendick said:


> The Platinum package could be reducced substantially, if there was a choice.


What possible reason would someone who is on a budget or is interested in limited programming options want to go for the "full boat"???

Just as Platinum is cheaper than Gold if you subscribe to a couple of movie suites, it may be that limiting your channels doesn't equate to a savings. They say that the average viewer watches 17 channels. I think they are guessing high, but if we have to pay for the obscure stuff that is being subsidized, watch out.

As was also pointed out, ala carte must start with the programmers and the distributors need to remember who provides their goods as well as who the customer is.

The problem as I see it is that the FCC doesn't have any control over the programmers so they have to put the squeeze on the distributors and hope that it shakes the foundations.


----------



## IowaStateFan (Jan 11, 2006)

James Long said:


> With a la carte, every channel or mini-package is a choice. If a program moves from one channel to another you have to go back and realign your choices. There is little room for "on a whim" program viewership. You have to plan your whims in advance.


That is one advantage of a package, and a big reason why I think most of us would choose a package plan. Sure, I only watch a handful of channels regularly, but every once in awhile along comes something interesting that isn't on my regular channels. I've locked myself out if it's not in my "plan". I'm an old C-Bander. While I'm an advocate of a la carte, I had a package because for just a few bucks more I could have the convenience of "whim" viewing. It's not just about price, it's really about value. I felt that those extra channels provided a good value - even though I rarely watched them. Unfortunately, I'm currently at the very edge of value for me and would like some way to reduce my monthly cost without sacrificing too many of my favorite channels. While I know you disagree, I believe a la carte would get me there.


----------



## StarTech (Oct 2, 2004)

HDMe said:


> I think that sometimes in these kinds of forums people sometimes argue over things they actually agree on, but word the concept differently... In a perfect world I would love a la carte and only pay for what I wanted... I just don't believe it would work that way, and I understand there are other folks like yourself who think it could.
> 
> I echo JLs sentiment... that if they could introduce a la carte and it didn't make my bill go up and it didn't result in the dropping of channels I like... then I would support other folks having their choice to go a la carte.
> 
> ...


AS far as cost going up on a la carte......look at it this way.

1. You subscribe to top 60 at 34.99 mo.....(thats with locals).
You only watch approx. 0nly 10.
Doing the math.....You pay $3.49 per month for each of those watched channels.

2. So if the FCC couldn't control cost per channel and the starting base price was 
approx. 27 cents per channel ( Mr. Long's Math), then Dish could offer my 10 
prefered channels at sat $2.50 each. I would then only be paying $25.00 each
month at a savings of approx. $9.99 per month.

A la carte is a choice, and to some in represents 'Control'. To Satellite CEO's it means lose of revenue from programers. I ask that those CEO's look at advanced ON DEMAND opportunity with A La Carte menu?

You can stick your head in the sand, but the reality of it all is that A La Carte is coming sooner than later. It would be musch better to be a pioneer than a follwer.

Don't be fooled by fear tactics that say 'Your" favorte channel will be CUT because it is not popular. They REALLY don't know!

But the Truth is that there is a whole un-tapped market for A La Carte! When are we going to get started and move on? The ad dollars will follow the REAL ratings.
Those ratings will be decided by DOLLARS spent purchasing an individual Channel, not some poll of 1500 viewers who have no life but to watch TV and answer a survey for a $5.00 pay off. The opportunity for revenue is huge, A La Carte is wide open and waiting, get on with it Dish or someone else will!

StarTech


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Wicked said:


> with the fountain drinks you are getting actually a good deal because you have the choice of multiple refill (depending on the actual restaurant) now tell me what retail store will give you free refills?


Retail stores sell pop for 2.5¢ per ounce when it's not on special. That's 40oz of soda at the fountain for $1 (plus the quality of fountain soda isn't monitored as closely as canned/bottled drinks and often you're buying a lot of ice that cuts down on the actual quantity of soda received as well as diluting quality if you don't consume the beverage fast enough). Plus the free refill doesn't apply to drive through and all situations.

You can go to an "all you can eat diner" for a decent price - that's more reflective of the current package prices. Plenty of food laid out - much of it you will never choose - really too much choice for anyone to enjoy every option in one sitting - but it's there to serve your whim. You don't have to decide at the door when you enter what you want. You don't have to buy something from the menu and decide once you see it that it wasn't worth getting and now you have to pay for a replacement choice or go without. It's all there for you to look at and choose just how much of whatever you want you will put on your plate.

Fortunatly with food service there are menu places and all you can eat places as well as fast food for near instant meals and supermarkets for those who want to save money by cooking for themselves. We don't have that many options with satellite and cable.

Go ahead ... open up the menu diner. But please don't close the all you can eat diner or raise the prices. Thanks.


----------



## IowaStateFan (Jan 11, 2006)

StarTech said:


> AS far as cost going up on a la carte......look at it this way.
> 
> 1. You subscribe to top 60 at 34.99 mo.....(thats with locals).
> You only watch approx. 0nly 10.
> ...


So far so good. However, you forgot the fixed costs that Dish would have to recoup. They certainly can't afford to sell you one channel for $2.50. There will have to be a minimum purchase. Is 10 enough?



StarTech said:


> A la carte is a choice, and to some in represents 'Control'. To Satellite CEO's it means lose of revenue from programers. I ask that those CEO's look at advanced ON DEMAND opportunity with A La Carte menu?


I don't understand? If satellite CEO's see a loss of revenue what incentive do they have to offer a la carte? What's advanced ON DEMAND? Are you arguing for total choice at the program level. I'm sure for some it would be worthwhile, but I think that would be prohibitively expensive for most of us. I don't forsee Dish making much money off that, but I could be wrong.



StarTech said:


> You can stick your head in the sand, but the reality of it all is that A La Carte is coming sooner than later. It would be musch better to be a pioneer than a follwer.


Here I agree with you 100%. I think the FCC will mandate this. They may have to because the programers are the ones holding things back. They are insisting that their programs be taken in bundles and placed in the most favorable tier that they can. Charlie has been paying lip service to a la carte, but it's been pretty easy for him to do that because the programmer's won't let it happen.



StarTech said:


> Don't be fooled by fear tactics that say 'Your" favorte channel will be CUT because it is not popular. They REALLY don't know!


True, no one knows which channels - if any - will be cut. However, you can't guarantee that there won't be any cuts either. I suspect there will be. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing. It might create better quality programming.



StarTech said:


> But the Truth is that there is a whole un-tapped market for A La Carte! When are we going to get started and move on? The ad dollars will follow the REAL ratings.
> Those ratings will be decided by DOLLARS spent purchasing an individual Channel, not some poll of 1500 viewers who have no life but to watch TV and answer a survey for a $5.00 pay off. The opportunity for revenue is huge, A La Carte is wide open and waiting, get on with it Dish or someone else will!
> 
> StarTech


You are contradicting yourself here. First you say not to be fooled by fear tactics, then you say that ad dollars follow real ratings. Won't some people lose their favorite channels? You also said earlier that CEO's fear losing revenue, but that opportunity for revenue is huge. Which is it? I want to see a la carte. I believe it will work, but it's not as simple as you make it sound. If you and I spend less on our programming using a la carte, who will make up the difference? Dish has fixed costs that need to be recouped and they want to make a profit. They can't just give up our revenue. Something will have to give.


----------



## IowaStateFan (Jan 11, 2006)

James Long said:


> Retail stores sell pop for 2.5¢ per ounce when it's not on special. That's 40oz of soda at the fountain for $1 (plus the quality of fountain soda isn't monitored as closely as canned/bottled drinks and often you're buying a lot of ice that cuts down on the actual quantity of soda received as well as diluting quality if you don't consume the beverage fast enough). Plus the free refill doesn't apply to drive through and all situations.
> 
> You can go to an "all you can eat diner" for a decent price - that's more reflective of the current package prices. Plenty of food laid out - much of it you will never choose - really too much choice for anyone to enjoy every option in one sitting - but it's there to serve your whim. You don't have to decide at the door when you enter what you want. You don't have to buy something from the menu and decide once you see it that it wasn't worth getting and now you have to pay for a replacement choice or go without. It's all there for you to look at and choose just how much of whatever you want you will put on your plate.
> 
> ...


Nice post. It really says what I've been trying to say. If the all you can eat place offers a good value, I'll go there but I'd sure like to have the option to eat off the menu if it doesn't.


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

HDMe said:


> Who says only the programmers are happy? I'm happy. There are apparently 12 million reasonably happy Dish network customers and 14-15 million DirecTV customers who would disagree with your statement.


Ahhh so just because we continue to pay each month each and every one of us is "reasonably happy" and the ala-cart whackos are just trying to spoil it for everyone?

I would bet anything that if you asked every single current subscriber to all forms of pay TV if they were happy with the current system an overwhelming majority would say no.

Do I know this? Of course not but neither do you know that everyone is so happy with the status quo.

We don't need 180 channels. Heck we don't even need 50. You want a zillion channel. Am I stopping you? No but pay for your own darn channels and I'll pay for mine.

Logic dictates that if I want 10 channels and you want 100.... guess what you pay 10 times what I do. Fair is fair. Take some 20% "volume" discount as everyone expects buld discounts but let those of us who struggle each month to pay the bills an option of have some... heck ANY say in what we pay for.

I asked this many times before so I'll ask again and I still wait for an answer:

If Dish currently makes $10 a month to maintain my account and I own my own equipment and I want to order just one channel then why can't I order my one channel?

Why will they not take my money? I'm not asking them to lose money on me. I'm not asking for a special deal. I'm willing to pay the very same "account fee" as someone who subscribes to 180 channels but I only want one channel.

You pay $1 a month for that channel in bulk discount.... well I'll pay you $5 or 5 times the going rate!

Why can't I do this now?

Now before you answer remember that I'm going to counter (how's this for being fair.... I'm telling you my next post LOL) by asking you to name any other business in the US that is allowed to work the way the current system is set up.

Book stores that will not sell you one book but only 20 at a time
Food stores are all like Cosco and will only sell you 4 bottles of ketchup
Gas stations that will only sell you gas if you buy over 10 gallons.
Want a pack of smokes? Forget it.... you'll buy 10 cartons or nothing!

Shall I go on?

Who is allowed to do this? My best guess was the phone company but last time I checked they were forced to split off all their package deals and offer both packages and basic cut rate service.

By your own example we should all be paying $75 a month for phone service. Sure many of us do not need caller ID, Special rings, Call forwarding, and all the other number of "add-ons" but by golly we should all be forced to pay for them just to keep the rates down.

Business will charge what the market will bear and if one company charges too much we switch to another but what happens when there is no competition (the same programmers provide ALL the channels to ALL the distributors)? What happens is that the government steps in and ensures that their will be competition.

Rem when the FCC blocked the sale of DTV to Dish because they felt their would be no competition? What about these programmers? While the FCC is watching the distributors, the programmers are going hog wild with our wallets and no one seems to be watching or care.

-JB


----------



## rcbridge (Oct 31, 2002)

Another point of view, we all chose to subscribe to a service if you are not happy drop it, it is only TV!!


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

rcbridge said:


> Another point of view, we all chose to subscribe to a service if you are not happy drop it, it is only TV!!


A few years ago when the phone rates were getting silly and the price of a long distance phone call was about 10+ times what it is now I wonder if the solution would be to cancel phone service.

A phone is different you say? A phone is required you say? How so? Some times we get so used to things that they "become" essential. Fact is that many of the things we cannot live without are really not needed... nice for sure but not required.

Many people today cannot live without their cell phone.

Many people today cannot live without their microwave oven.

No you do not need to watch pay TV but this does not preclude an unfair system in place.

Why did the government go after Microsoft?

Telling people to just cancel all pay TV if we do not care for the unfair system and monopolistic practices of the programmers is silly IMHO.

Gas costs too much... why take the bus of course 

-JB


----------



## IowaStateFan (Jan 11, 2006)

jrb531 said:


> A few years ago when the phone rates were getting silly and the price of a long distance phone call was about 10+ times what it is now I wonder if the solution would be to cancel phone service.
> 
> A phone is different you say? A phone is required you say? How so? Some times we get so used to things that they "become" essential. Fact is that many of the things we cannot live without are really not needed... nice for sure but not required.
> 
> ...


Actually, dropping TV is much more of an option than any of the other things you mentioned. Over the last year, my television was out of commission for 2 months at 2 separate times. Certainly, we suffered through withdrawal, but eventually we found other things to do for entertainment , such as reading or heaven forbid playing games as a family. After those experiences, I've considered dropping Dish. I think if I had OTA locals I would. Unfortunately, I only get ABC & PBS (analog only) OTA so it makes the decision much tougher for me. Don't get me wrong. I am on your side when it comes to the unfair TV system we have. It's just that I think too many people are making more of the problem than necessary. As I've said before, it's only TV. There are plenty of other ways to spend your entertainment time and $s.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

jrb531 said:


> Ahhh so just because we continue to pay each month each and every one of us is "reasonably happy" and the ala-cart whackos are just trying to spoil it for everyone?


I never said a la carte people were "whackos"... You said it, not me. But it is a very valid observation that if you pay your bill every month, you must think you are getting value for it. Otherwise it means you are voluntarily paying money that you think is a waste... and that might put you in the category you brought up.



jrb531 said:


> I would bet anything that if you asked every single current subscriber to all forms of pay TV if they were happy with the current system an overwhelming majority would say no.
> 
> Do I know this? Of course not but neither do you know that everyone is so happy with the status quo.


Why would you bet on something that you don't know? If the overwhelming majority would say no, then it should be relatively easy for you to help get them all together and organize a boycott to stop their satellite subscriptions and force a change to a la carte, right?



jrb531 said:


> We don't need 180 channels. Heck we don't even need 50. You want a zillion channel. Am I stopping you? No but pay for your own darn channels and I'll pay for mine.
> 
> ...
> 
> I asked this many times before so I'll ask again and I still wait for an answer:


You never answer my questions... so I don't need to answer yours. Why am I paying taxes for roads you drive on but I do not? Pay for your own roads!

Why does part of my phone bill go to cover installation of phone lines in remote areas so we all have a lower phone bill instead of me close to the city being cheap and someone out in the country being expensive? Pay for your own phone!

This logic works in so many areas that I don't think you really want to apply it...



jrb531 said:


> If Dish currently makes $10 a month to maintain my account and I own my own equipment and I want to order just one channel then why can't I order my one channel?
> 
> Why will they not take my money? I'm not asking them to lose money on me. I'm not asking for a special deal. I'm willing to pay the very same "account fee" as someone who subscribes to 180 channels but I only want one channel.


Since they don't do a la carte right now... you are asking for a special deal 



jrb531 said:


> Business will charge what the market will bear and if one company charges too much we switch to another but what happens when there is no competition (the same programmers provide ALL the channels to ALL the distributors)? What happens is that the government steps in and ensures that their will be competition.


The government should not step in for entertainment and luxury services! TV is not a requirement... our government has no business mandating entertainment for the country. You want "freedom" and "choice" but then you want the government to force something on companies and the rest of the country. How is that freedom?

A company selling an entertainment product should be able to sell it for however much they want to and in any manner that they want to... if the consumers want it, we will buy it... if we don't, then we won't. The government has no business mandating how an entertainment business sells their product.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

jrb531 said:


> Many people today cannot live without their cell phone.
> 
> Many people today cannot live without their microwave oven.


Many people are spoiled! Homeless people don't even have a home to have a microwave oven in! There are still entire countries without cell phones or microwave ovens. I like my microwave, but if it died tomorrow and I couldn't replace it, would I starve? No, *that* would be silly!



jrb531 said:


> No you do not need to watch pay TV but this does not preclude an unfair system in place.
> 
> Why did the government go after Microsoft?


The government was wrong to go after Microsoft... but that's a whole different rant. Interestingly enough, though, our same government who forced Microsoft to unbundle their internet browser because it was supposedly unfair to competition... is the same government that designed their own web sites to only be compatible fully with Internet Explorer... and a lot of the recent Katrina sufferers were unable to register online for aid because they weren't using the IE browser that our government supposedly fought for us not to have to use!

Irony is a wonderful thing.



jrb531 said:


> Telling people to just cancel all pay TV if we do not care for the unfair system and monopolistic practices of the programmers is silly IMHO.


Treating TV as if it was a constitutional right and implying that you can't live without it is sillier, in my opinion.



jrb531 said:


> Gas costs too much... why take the bus of course


A bus needs gas too. Increased gas prices would mean increased bus fare!


----------



## the_bear (Oct 18, 2004)

Soft drinks have a higher profit margin than burgers. Does anyone really disagree with this?

I do think the Sci-Fi channel would survive under and a la carte mandate, because they will make up for loss revenue by replacing original series with Martha Stewart Apprentice reruns. Smaller independent stations would be gobbled up by Disney so Disney would have something to water down their sports programming with.

Yes, there are professional Dish installers on this board that have in interest in not having a law that bans bundling. Such a law would take money out of their packets. That extra money you pay for content you don't want translates into how the installer gets paid. I would not call this a consperacy, but I do think it gives DBSTalk and anti-government mandate bias.

For those that think Dish would provide a choice of bundles or a la carte, this makes no sense. Let's see Dish currently only chooses to sell TV in bundles. Now you give Dish a choice to sell in bundles and a la carte at a low price, or bundles and a la carte at a ridiculously high per-channel price. Which do you think they would choose? Only a complete outlawing of channel bundling would provide an incentive to sell individual channels at any kind of price people could afford. Dish has agreed to only sell bundles, because that is what is most profitable for Dish, not because Charlie is mean or because Disney held a gun to his head.

While it is nice to post some hypothetical examples of what a la carte pricing might be, I'll trust the experts that spent months researching the issue. Even the FCC which is pro adding more laws for them to enforce, says a la carte will only save the average viewer 3-13%.
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-263741A1.pdf


----------



## IowaStateFan (Jan 11, 2006)

HDMe said:


> IWhy am I paying taxes for roads you drive on but I do not? Pay for your own roads!
> 
> Why does part of my phone bill go to cover installation of phone lines in remote areas so we all have a lower phone bill instead of me close to the city being cheap and someone out in the country being expensive? Pay for your own phone!
> 
> ...


Your tax argument for television programming just doesn't fly, IMO. As your post says, television is not a requirement. But I say roads are! It is appropriate for all road users to subsidize the building of roads. This is done through the gas tax. I'd love to see the taxes raised and the roads built closer to the local level rather than at the federal level, but in the end roads are a public good and should be subsidized by all that use them.

The telephone lines in remote areas are starting to blur that distinction, but probably should be subsidized by all. Actually, until recently I paid an extra $12 per month "distance fee" per line because I lived to far away from the switching office. Communication in emergencies is important, and as a society we probably have a responsibility to get phone service to remote areas.

I believe there are services that should be subsidized by all, because they are essential and cannot be provided for by the individual in an economic fashion. However, pay television is NOT one of them. I suppose one could make the argument that television is necessary for the government to communicate with individuals in an emergency, but that does not support my subsidizing your non-essential viewing or vice versa.


----------



## IowaStateFan (Jan 11, 2006)

the_bear said:


> For those that think Dish would provide a choice of bundles or a la carte, this makes no sense. Let's see Dish currently only chooses to sell TV in bundles. Now you give Dish a choice to sell in bundles and a la carte at a low price, or bundles and a la carte at a ridiculously high per-channel price. Which do you think they would choose? Only a complete outlawing of channel bundling would provide an incentive to sell individual channels at any kind of price people could afford. Dish has agreed to only sell bundles, because that is what is most profitable for Dish, not because Charlie is mean or because Disney held a gun to his head.
> 
> While it is nice to post some hypothetical examples of what a la carte pricing might be, I'll trust the experts that spent months researching the issue. Even the FCC which is pro adding more laws for them to enforce, says a la carte will only save the average viewer 3-13%.
> http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-263741A1.pdf


Why doesn't it make sense? The C-Band providers did this. The customer had lots of options. Some had pick-a-pack options, some had several different types of packs, all sold individual channels. Needless to say the individual channels were much higher priced than the bundles (on a per channel basis) but it gave the customer the ability to choose the programming that gave him/her the best value. Certainly the economics of the c-band providers were different. They were just middle men that were piggy-backing off the existing distribution system. However, they found ways to package the channels that gave customers choices and provided profits to themselves and the program providers. E*, D*, and the cable companies could too, if they really wanted. While I agree, it won't save me a lot of money, every little bit helps. There are also the folks that have a moral objection to supporting a program or channel that they find objectionable. I'm not one of those people, but I do sympathize with them.


----------



## the_bear (Oct 18, 2004)

It will always be more profitable to sell customers more than what they want. No government regulation will change that. C-Band providers would love to only sell big bundles. Likewise, Dish would love to sell only their everything pack. Competition is what prevents further bundling. Duty to shareholders is what encourages bundling. The system we have now is a balance between the two. What the FCC is suggestion is a law to disrupt this balance between profit and flexibly. This balance is the natural state. TV service providers and viewers will simply change their habits to once again achieve balance no matter what the FCC does.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

IowaStateFan said:


> Your tax argument for television programming just doesn't fly, IMO. As your post says, television is not a requirement. But I say roads are! It is appropriate for all road users to subsidize the building of roads. This is done through the gas tax. I'd love to see the taxes raised and the roads built closer to the local level rather than at the federal level, but in the end roads are a public good and should be subsidized by all that use them.


Roads are certainly more of a necessity than TV 

But I drive on a very small portion of the roads that my tax dollars pay for. I was responding to his blanket "pay for your own channels" statement, and noting that this can't just be applied that way... because we are all paying for lots of stuff we don't use every day.

I have no problem subsidizing the road system for the betterment of the country... but IF I were to use the same logic, it is a fair complaint that if I drive only on a few roads, why can't I just pay for those roads?

Why not make all roads into toll roads, remove the fee from the gasoline, and then we all pay for the roads we use and not the ones we don't. That would be fair and analogous to a la carte.

I also could have used education as an example, because I am paying taxes that fund public school and I do not have any children... so I could ask why am I paying for other people's kids to go to school?

I know the answer... and I'm fine with doing it... but its worth mentioning because some (not all mind you) of the a la carte supporters are not so much about "better TV for all" as they appear, but more about "me me gimme what I want" when it comes down to it... and they don't mind other people subsidizing their stuff but don't want to return the favor.

Some folks are more rational and reasonable than others.


----------



## IowaStateFan (Jan 11, 2006)

the_bear said:


> It will always be more profitable to sell customers more than what they want. No government regulation will change that. C-Band providers would love to only sell big bundles. Likewise, Dish would love to sell only their everything pack. Competition is what prevents further bundling. Duty to shareholders is what encourages bundling. The system we have now is a balance between the two. What the FCC is suggestion is a law to disrupt this balance between profit and flexibly. This balance is the natural state. TV service providers and viewers will simply change their habits to once again achieve balance no matter what the FCC does.


Point well taken. Going back to the McDonald's analogy, they encourage supersizing with each order. Obviously, they get an extra $1 for a tiny fraction of the cost, ie. more profits. However, the perceived value has to be there for the customer to "bite". For me personally, I am at the very edge of perceived value with my programming. I have a hard time justifying $60/mo for TV. I realize many here are paying 2x that (or more). If they are getting their money's worth, great. I just think many of us are finding that it's not worth it, and are looking for a solution.

Also, if you read my posts, I don't think you'll find that I am advocating government intervention. I am very opposed to that. I believe I said it will happen. And that's too bad. I don't believe, as you do, that "this balance is a natural state." I think that the distributors hands are being tied by the program providers. In most cases, the distributors are program providers too (and vice versa). This creates a conflict of interest and puts distributors like E* at a disadvantage. They can say, "Carry the programs that your customers want on our terms". Their incentive to offer programming to competing distributors is limited. I think some in Congress are seeing the anti-competitive nature of this business and are looking to break it up. I don't relish that because whenever Congress tries to "fix" something they inevitably break something else. Also, Congress wouldn't be getting involved if they weren't being pushed by their constituents. That's us- the consumer. So anyone saying all 12 million Dish customers are happy is wrong. Somebody is complaining pretty loudly.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

IowaStateFan said:


> Why doesn't it make sense? The C-Band providers did this. The customer had lots of options. Some had pick-a-pack options, some had several different types of packs, all sold individual channels. Needless to say the individual channels were much higher priced than the bundles (on a per channel basis) but it gave the customer the ability to choose the programming that gave him/her the best value.


C-band has been brought up before... as support that a la carte can be done... but then no one seems to choose C-band.

I've asked people before, if C-band does this a la carte then why not go C-band? Then the "I don't want a big dish" arguments come in... some people (not all) can't be pleased and some of the truth comes out.

The folks that cry "Dish has a monopoly I have no choice" don't want to hear that C-band is a choice if they want a la carte. Its like this...

Shopper goes to Wal-Mart and doesn't like the prices or selection... Target is in their neighborhood too, but is a mile or two farther away. Target has better selection and lower prices... but instead of driving further and shopping at Target, the shopper continues to go to Wal-Mart and complains of being ripped off and says it isn't fair, Wal-Mart should be more like Target.

Wal-Mart, meanwhile, says if you like Target so much then go there... Target says, we are already doing what you want so why aren't you coming to us?

And the customer keeps shopping at Wal-Mart so he can complain, rather than switch.

The truth sometimes isn't that there is no choice... but some people want everything and don't want to take the choice that is already there. They want Dish to be more like C-band, rather than going to C-band themselves.

Why can't my Ford dealer sell me a Chevy? I want a Chevy, but I want to buy it at my Ford dealer? This is a sillier argument, but not entirely dissimilar than folks who say Why can't Dish give me what C-band offers even though they won't go to C-band.


----------



## IowaStateFan (Jan 11, 2006)

HDMe said:


> C-band has been brought up before... as support that a la carte can be done... but then no one seems to choose C-band.
> 
> I've asked people before, if C-band does this a la carte then why not go C-band? Then the "I don't want a big dish" arguments come in... some people (not all) can't be pleased and some of the truth comes out.


Good point. I left C-Band for two reasons. First, and most importantly, everything was going digital and the cost to switch receivers was prohibitive. Sure the monthly programming was cheaper (and more flexible  ), but it would have taken a lot of savings to recoup the hardware costs. There is no competition on the hardware side for digital receivers. Second, I was having my sceptic system repaired and the contractor cut the cable from the dish because "no one uses them anymore." I quit waiting for him to come repair the cable and switched to Dish. I would have switched eventually but that just pushed me a bit sooner. The nice thing is that the contractor did eventually fix the cable and I can us my BUD for some pretty neat free backhaul stuff  . That's my story and I'm sticking to it.  Don't get me wrong. DBS is a lot more convenient and probably a better overall value than C-Band. I can get my locals, don't have to wait for the dish to change, much cheaper hardware etc. I only used C-Band as an example that a la carte can be done.


----------



## IowaStateFan (Jan 11, 2006)

HDMe said:


> Roads are certainly more of a necessity than TV
> 
> Why not make all roads into toll roads, remove the fee from the gasoline, and then we all pay for the roads we use and not the ones we don't. That would be fair and analogous to a la carte.


Actually, because of the gas tax those that drive more pay more. Not sure it all goes to the roads, but that's a different discussion :nono2:



HDMe said:


> I also could have used education as an example, because I am paying taxes that fund public school and I do not have any children... so I could ask why am I paying for other people's kids to go to school?
> 
> I know the answer... and I'm fine with doing it... but its worth mentioning because some (not all mind you) of the a la carte supporters are not so much about "better TV for all" as they appear, but more about "me me gimme what I want" when it comes down to it... and they don't mind other people subsidizing their stuff but don't want to return the favor.


I guess I'm in the "me me gimme what I want" camp. For me, better TV for all is when programming is compelling and economically viable. If people are willing to pay their hard earned bucks for a channel then I'm all for it. If the program providers must bundle their lesser watched "junk" with the good stuff in order for us consumers to buy it, that's just wrong, IMO. And yes, I'm willing to subsidize others - if it's for the common good of society.



HDMe said:


> Some folks are more rational and reasonable than others.


I just wish you'd see that I AM being reasonable  .


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

IowaStateFan said:


> Don't get me wrong. DBS is a lot more convenient and probably a better overall value than C-Band. I can get my locals, don't have to wait for the dish to change, much cheaper hardware etc. I only used C-Band as an example that a la carte can be done.


I wasn't so much speaking to you as I was replying  Other folks have brought up C-band before as an example to support that a la carte can work... but then they had excuses why they wouldn't use C-band. So I would always question why they would say there are currently no choices if they want a la carte, then they bring up an existing example to say how a la carte would work, then they go back to saying they have no choices


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

IowaStateFan said:


> I guess I'm in the "me me gimme what I want" camp. For me, better TV for all is when programming is compelling and economically viable.


Now you want compelling too  Frankly, even the channels I like to watch often have shows that I am completely baffled as to how they stay on the air! There's a subset of the AT180 channels that I watch, and of those channels only a subset of the programming that I actually watch... probably IF it were possible to bundle all the programs I actually watch, it could be done with just one channel 24 hours a day.



IowaStateFan said:


> If people are willing to pay their hard earned bucks for a channel then I'm all for it. If the program providers must bundle their lesser watched "junk" with the good stuff in order for us consumers to buy it, that's just wrong, IMO. And yes, I'm willing to subsidize others - if it's for the common good of society.


You know... the thing is... lots of companies actually bundle even if it isn't always obvious. I sell collectibles sometimes, for instance... and sometimes I get a really good deal on a hot item. I know I can sell the hot item, so instead of lowering the price because of the great deal I got... I package it with another harder to sell item and make a bulk deal that is more attractive than either item alone. When it comes to recordkeeping, I consider that I sold the hard to sell item for full price and gave a discount all on the hot item, so that in my mind I sold both items for a profit 

Companies do all kinds of stuff like this... See all those TV offers where they will sell you a pocket fisherman for $19.99 and throw in a set of steak knives and a can of tuna for free? Well... the reality is probably more like they are selling the cans of tuna that they got stuck with, but no one would pay $19.99 for a can of tuna! So they say they are selling the pocket fisherman for $19.99 and giving you the steak knives and tuna... but really they are selling the tuna and knives and giving you the pocket fisherman.

Its all about the art of distraction!

I suspect more businesses do this than we ever know... Computer company gets a deal on a few microprocessors and motherboards... then uses them to build a computer inside their crappy cases that they got stuck with and sell a computer to you for a profit!



IowaStateFan said:


> I just wish you'd see that I AM being reasonable  .


I would say thus far you have been one of the reasonable ones!


----------



## the_bear (Oct 18, 2004)

IowaStateFan said:


> ... If the program providers must bundle their lesser watched "junk" with the good stuff in order for us consumers to buy it, that's just wrong, IMO. .. .


Is it a common practice and even taught in business school? Yes.
Is it morally wrong? Maybe.
Should the government prevent it? Definitely not.

I think we are in agreement on that one. C-Band needs to give customers something to compete with Dish. Since they cannot undercut Dish on price, the beat Dish with flexibility.


----------



## UTFAN (Nov 12, 2005)

James Long said:


> The new FCC report is flawed for the same reason that the first report was flawed ... it relies entirely on assumptions. There is no way of testing those assumptions without destroying the system that we have now.
> 
> The break even point better be pretty high before we go to a la carte. The smallest E* package is the new FamilyPack with "40" channels for $20. Then we have "60" channels (closer to 70) for $30, "120" channels for $40 and "180" channels for $50.
> 
> ...


All this will have to be legislated, by congress. You know, the folks who brought us the tax code.

Sadly, the government will have so many rules and protections, the free market won't work here. That's too bad.


----------



## IowaStateFan (Jan 11, 2006)

the_bear said:


> Is it a common practice and even taught in business school? Yes.
> Is it morally wrong? Maybe.
> Should the government prevent it? Definitely not.
> 
> I think we are in agreement on that one. C-Band needs to give customers something to compete with Dish. Since they cannot undercut Dish on price, the beat Dish with flexibility.


I have an MBA and I don't remember the topic of bundling products or services ever coming up. That doesn't mean it's not common, just that I don't recall studying it. I should have chosen my wording a little more carefully. You and HDMe both picked up on it. It's not "wrong" for a program provider to bundle its lesser watched channels. I'm just disgusted that I am being "forced" to take them in order to get the channels I want. I stumbled on the word when I first wrote it. I guess I'm not quite sure how to express my opinion. I just don't like it. Doesn't mean it's wrong, but I sure wish they wouldn't do it.

This discussion has peaked my interest in C-Band programming. I've done a little searching and the monthly costs are quite a bit cheaper. I saw a 15 pack (pick your channels) for $23 or so. Of course that doesn't include locals, or HD. The choices are somewhat limited as many of the "good" channels have gone digital and require a new receiver. That's where I was about 3 years ago. The stuff I wanted was moving to digital and the cost of the new receivers was about $1,000. My C-Band provider was actively pushing Dish and I got a free receiver and install thru them. Easy choice. I don't think I'd save enough on programming to justify the expense of new hardware.


----------



## IowaStateFan (Jan 11, 2006)

HDMe said:


> Now you want compelling too  Frankly, even the channels I like to watch often have shows that I am completely baffled as to how they stay on the air! There's a subset of the AT180 channels that I watch, and of those channels only a subset of the programming that I actually watch... probably IF it were possible to bundle all the programs I actually watch, it could be done with just one channel 24 hours a day.


Of course I want compelling. I is payin' my money, I expect good programming.

BTW, do you realize what you wrote? Of course, all of the programs you watch could be bundled in a 24 hour day. That's a lot of television  . I understand your point. Unless we get to a true on-demand pay-per-view system, there will always be bundling. There may be a few people that want that, but for most of us it would be too cumbersome and too costly. However, Apple and several other companies are going that direction with their Internet download services. We may just see it readily available in the not too distant future. Is that what E* has in mind with the ethernet ports on the new Vip receivers?


----------



## audiomaster (Jun 24, 2004)

I bet the consumers would compromise.... it seems like the programmers are unwilling to give even an inch.>>
-JB[/QUOTE]

They will have to give if Congress mandates ala carte in cable, and once they do that they will be greatly pressured to do it with DBS. If I were Charlie, I would mail out a poll with the next bills. Check boxes for the channels you would like to get if you had ala carte. It would be easy then to figure out what that would cost and mail it out with the next billing.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

IowaStateFan said:


> BTW, do you realize what you wrote? Of course, all of the programs you watch could be bundled in a 24 hour day. That's a lot of television  .


I realized... but I'm not sure I worded it properly to accurately reflect what I really meant...

Regular shows I watch: The Closer on TNT (1 hr), South Park on Comedy Central (0.5 hr), Smallville on WB (1 hr), Battlestar Galactica on SciFi (1 hr), Monk on USA (1 hr), Justice League on Cartoon Network (0.5 hr), Family Guy on FOX (0.5 hr), Dead Zone on USA (1 hr)

Yes, I listed a cartoon! 

Aside from that... I watch college football & basketball most of the season, particularly involving ACC teams or high-ranking teams in marquee matchups. I also watch NFL football and NBA basketball, though NBA I start watching mostly with the All-star game after the NFL season completes.

I'll watch Dr Who when SciFi starts carrying it soon, but then the other shows I watch will be on hiatus again probably.

There are other things I watch non-regularly, and if a documentary or movie catches my eye then I watch those as well... but my regular can't-miss-gotta-watch-every-week programming added together for an entire month is probably close to one 24 hour day. I just don't watch much of the regular stuff on a regular basis.

It's all the sports and then the random things I find on channels that are part of the package that I watch to fill the rest of the time. If I didn't already have USA, I'd never have started watching two regular programs that I watch... same for SciFi, and I wouldn't have known I was missing them.

I saw an interesting HD thing late one night on HDNet I believe about a bridge they were building somewhere in Europe, a really long and high bridge... and that's not a program I'd have scheduled time to watch nor subscribed to a channel to get but I was glad it was there when I was flipping around. There's all kinds of new things I find or one-shot movies/documentaries/whatever that I find while flipping through the guide... BUT if I only picked the channels I watch regularly, I wouldn't even know that stuff was on.


----------



## IowaStateFan (Jan 11, 2006)

HDMe said:


> It's all the sports and then the random things I find on channels that are part of the package that I watch to fill the rest of the time. If I didn't already have USA, I'd never have started watching two regular programs that I watch... same for SciFi, and I wouldn't have known I was missing them.
> 
> I saw an interesting HD thing late one night on HDNet I believe about a bridge they were building somewhere in Europe, a really long and high bridge... and that's not a program I'd have scheduled time to watch nor subscribed to a channel to get but I was glad it was there when I was flipping around. There's all kinds of new things I find or one-shot movies/documentaries/whatever that I find while flipping through the guide... *BUT if I only picked the channels I watch regularly, I wouldn't even know that stuff was on*.


Sounds like your viewing habits are similar to mine. For me it's mostly sports, and some of educational channels, PBS, Discovery, History and Food. Don't have many must see programs. I agree very much with the bolded statement above and that's why I don't think offering a la carte would end up being a huge change for the providers or customers. I would probably buy a package because there is some value in getting those hidden gems. I think most people would. Actually, I think I'd like something like the HD Bronze plus my RSN. With the new metal plans my choices have become less. To get HD I have to get voom. (Used to be able subscribe to the HD pack only). To get my RSN I have to get silver. (There was an AT60+). I think that's probably what's bothering me the most and why I'm so adament about getting a la carte. Dish keeps raising rates, and justifies it by telling me I'm getting more programming. If I'd wanted voom, I would have subscribed to it. Now they're telling me if I want a better receiver, and ESPN2HD, I have to buy voom. Why? Because they couldn't sell Voom on its own. So my bill goes from $53 on 1/1(pre rate increase) to $71 on 4/1 because I want a new receiver and ESPN2HD. For me there is absolutely no value in that. When they offer me the networks in HD, I'll consider it but even then it's alot of $ for TV, IMO.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I happen to get the current HD Pack and Voom... and whenever I upgrade, I'll be ok with the new $20 (essentially) HD+Voom since I would want to get them all... BUT, I completely understand the folks who weren't buying Voom already not wanting to make that jump just to get the other HD channels.

I wish they'd have kept the HD Pack for $9.99 and then made the Voom pak another $9.99 for the Voom 15, and let you choose either or both packages, rather than making them both $20 as part of the new metallic packages.

While I don't want to see them breaking apart packages and forcing a la carte for reasons I've gone on about in other posts... I also don't want to see them slamming things together either just because they can.

So in this case, I support the folks who wanted to just get the non-Voom channels. This was already a separate package, so it would have been nice to keep it that way. Even though I'm ok paying for both... and I sort of understand what motivated them to do it... I would have preferred they kept it tiered and separate to let people choose to not get Voom if they didn't want them.

To me, this would be like if they suddenly combined AT60 and AT120 into one package so that people had to get AT120 as the new minimum.


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

Here is what I find so objectable:

If they want to have only 3 packages fine but let me subscribe to any or all of them that I want. If I want package C why do I have to take A and B?

Now here is the twist and why I am so pissed...

Say I want Package A but "only" like a single channel they offer in Package B. Why can't I subscribe to Package A and ala-cart that one channel I want?

This is so logical it slaps you in the face but no... this is not allowed. 

Since each package costs $10 more I don't care if Dish changes be $5 for that one extra channel in Package B as it would still save me $5 a month on my bill. Some of you will counter.... but for only $5 more you would get 10 more channels... well if I don't want them or watch them that is just $5 wasted.

Same goes for sports. Why in the world is sports not in a totally separate package? It just makes so little sense to force everyone to pay for sports. Those who like sports do not like this idea because it would raise their bills. 

So in my ideal world:

$15 per month distribution fee (no matter how many channels you subscribe to)
$10 for Package A
$10 for package B
$10 for package C
$10 for sports package
$5 for any individual channel in package A-B-C
$5 for local channels

$60 for everything (we'll give you locals for free because you took it all)

This excludes the current "HBO type" channels of course.

What does this do?

Example:

I "could" subscribe to package C and 1 channel in package A and this would cost:

$15 distribution fee
$10 Package C
$5 for extra channel
$5 for locals

$35 per month + taxes + rental fees

or

I "could" subscribe to package A and C and 1 channel in package B and this would cost:

$15 distribution fee
$10 Package A
$10 Package C
$5 for extra channel
$5 for locals

$45 per month + taxes + rental fees

This is how it would work if I had my way 

-JB


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

IowaStateFan said:


> I don't think I'd save enough on programming to justify the expense of new hardware.


And there you have the case study in bundling hardware and programming. BUD doesn't subsidize the hardware with programming fees which means that hardware is based on cost and the programming is cheaper. DBS and cable subsidize lots of things with their programming, so the rates are higher.

In this day of HD, DVRs and multiple interesting events overlapping, BUD's not got much life left in it*. Sure you can buy packages, but you can't insure that you won't be pointing all over the sky to get said programming. I spoke with a gent the other day that swore up and down that it was impossible to serve up multiple birds with a single dish. This is the mindset.

As satellite subscribers we're paying high programming fees to subsidize some pretty special hardware and that's not necessarily a bad thing. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation gives what kind of computers to schools and libraries? They give them the razor and Microsoft sells them the blades.

* we don't need a lecture about the wonders of what you can get FTA on a BUD.


----------



## rcbridge (Oct 31, 2002)

Another thing to think about if ala-cart ever occurs it will be the end of the analog transmission (not that this a bad thing) the only way the cable-co's can control what every individual gets is through a STB, that means no more splitting of the signal for those extra TV's!! A STB for every TV in your home (rental fees)!!
For some of you this has no impact buy for many of us we have that extra set in the basement garage or wherever. These are facts!!


----------



## IowaStateFan (Jan 11, 2006)

harsh said:


> In this day of HD, DVRs and multiple interesting events overlapping, BUD's not got much life left in it*.
> 
> * we don't need a lecture about the wonders of what you can get FTA on a BUD.


Yep. As I said earlier, this discussion has sparked an interest in seeing if I can revive my BUD. At the risk of violating the *, I still have mine hooked up for the free wild feeds, and it is "wonder"ful. I may even add one of the FTA MPEG receivers. However, there is no practical way to switch back. I love my DVR and Dual Tuners. BUD just can't handle that. Of course the benefits and drawbacks of C-Band are not the point of this thread. I was just using it as an example of how a la carte has worked and was asked why I don't just switch since it is so wonderful.


----------



## IowaStateFan (Jan 11, 2006)

jrb531 said:


> Here is what I find so objectable:
> 
> If they want to have only 3 packages fine but let me subscribe to any or all of them that I want. If I want package C why do I have to take A and B?
> 
> ...


I agree completely (though your actual $ amounts are a bit off). Dish could offer plans like you describe. The problem is that they won't, unless they see it as being in their best interest. You and I have to decide if that one extra channel in package B (AT120) is worth subscribing to the whole package. If we do subscribe then Dish is making an extra $10 (using your $s) off us. If not, but we are willing to pay $5 for the one channel then Dish is losing $5 by not offering us the option to buy it a la carte. I suspect that most of us are holding our noses and paying for the full package. If that's the case, E* has no incentive to offer a la carte.


----------



## the_bear (Oct 18, 2004)

jrb531 said:


> Here is what I find so objectable


No matter how you phrase it, what you are really asking for is for Dish to reduce their profit. There is no way Dish will reduce their profits voluntarily.


----------



## IowaStateFan (Jan 11, 2006)

the_bear said:


> No matter how you phrase it, what you are really asking for is for Dish to reduce their profit. There is no way Dish will reduce their profits voluntarily.


Perhaps. If enough people quit subscribing to the next level for only one channel, they could increase their profit by selling us that one channel. ie. they get $0 from me for 60 channels at the next level, or $5 for 1 channel from that level. But as long as I'm willing to pay $10 or more for the 60 channels, to get my 1 you are correct. They will be giving up profit.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

jrb531 said:


> Here is what I find so objectable:
> 
> If they want to have only 3 packages fine but let me subscribe to any or all of them that I want. If I want package C why do I have to take A and B?
> 
> ...


Since someone brought McDonalds into things... here's a fast food example.

Quarter Pounders are $2.59 or something like that. Sometimes they will have a "2 for $2.25" sale on them, so even if I only want one burger I go ahead and buy two of them. Why won't McDonalds sell me just one for $1.13? Lots of reasons are possible, but the most important one is that they have decided to sell them either at $2.59 or 2 for $2.25 and you can pick that choice or eat somewhere else.


----------



## IowaStateFan (Jan 11, 2006)

HDMe said:


> Since someone brought McDonalds into things... here's a fast food example.
> 
> Quarter Pounders are $2.59 or something like that. Sometimes they will have a "2 for $2.25" sale on them, so even if I only want one burger I go ahead and buy two of them. Why won't McDonalds sell me just one for $1.13? Lots of reasons are possible, but the most important one is that they have decided to sell them either at $2.59 or 2 for $2.25 and you can pick that choice or eat somewhere else.


Shall we use dualing McDonald analogies? McDonald's has chosen to sell a Value Meal that includes a Big Mac, Fries and Drink for $5. They will also sell each to me a la carte. If I only want a Big Mac and Drink it will cost me $4.50 (or something like that). A la carte, the fries cost $1 so the total price a la carte would be $5.50. I can save 50 cents buying a la carte 'cause I don't want fries. You save 50 cents buying the package 'cause you do want Fries. We both win (as does McDonald's).


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

the_bear said:


> No matter how you phrase it, what you are really asking for is for Dish to reduce their profit. There is no way Dish will reduce their profits voluntarily.


Exactly!

Which is why congress has to step in and force them to play fair.

I agree 100% that big business will do "anything" they can get away with to increase profits. Look at the companies who file a bogus chapter 11 so they can screw their loyal workers from their full pensions. I don't see the heads of these companies giving up their pensions.

Since the same programmers provide to all the distributors it's not like we can switch to another "sci-fi" channel so to speak.

If the FCC can block the sale of DTV to Dish because they felt it "might" be less competition then they can most certainly ensure that the programmers do not instill practices that prevent "real" competion.

Fair is fair and this is a no brainer.

-JB


----------



## the_bear (Oct 18, 2004)

IowaStateFan said:


> ...We both win (as does McDonald's).


I think you missed the point of the McDs analogy. It is the convince of buying a drink from the same place as the burger that allows ridiculous drink markups. There is no way drinks could get that kind of profit margin on their own.

A better analogy (and the one I got in school) is my movie theater does not sell any small bags of M&Ms They only sell the big $3 bags. They do not expect me to eat the whole thing. They are well aware if I ate their whole M&M bundle, I would be puking during the show. Most people that want some M&Ms end up buying the big bag. Why not simply sell small bags at $3? Because people will buy the big $3 bag, eat some and throw the rest away, but no one will pay $3 for a small bag. For me, I'll wait until the movie comes out on DVD so I can have a beer with it.


----------



## IowaStateFan (Jan 11, 2006)

jrb531 said:


> Exactly!
> 
> Which is why congress has to step in and force them to play fair.


Wrong! We consumers should do something. Quit buying the added packages, if the cost for the one channel you want is too high. The last thing we need is Congress involved in this. They will make things a lot worse than they are now.



jrb531 said:


> I agree 100% that big business will do "anything" they can get away with to increase profits. Look at the companies who file a bogus chapter 11 so they can screw their loyal workers from their full pensions. I don't see the heads of these companies giving up their pensions.


Yes big business will do anything they can get away with. We consumers are as much to blame as anything. If we are paying their prices, then they must not be too high. If someone else can offer a better deal, we go there and the big businesses that are charging too much lose profit. It's simple, really.



jrb531 said:


> Since the same programmers provide to all the distributors it's not like we can switch to another "sci-fi" channel so to speak.


That is a big part of the problem here, and why I think Congress will get involved. Not only are the same programmers providing to the distributors, in most cases the programmers are distributors. IMO, this is where the competitive market breaks down and why are prices are so high and choices are limited.



jrb531 said:


> If the FCC can block the sale of DTV to Dish because they felt it "might" be less competition then they can most certainly ensure that the programmers do not instill practices that prevent "real" competion.
> 
> Fair is fair and this is a no brainer.
> 
> -JB


Yes, the FCC can and probably will get involved.


----------



## IowaStateFan (Jan 11, 2006)

the_bear said:


> I think you missed the point of the McDs analogy. It is the convince of buying a drink from the same place as the burger that allows ridiculous drink markups. There is no way drinks could get that kind of profit margin on their own.


No, I got the point of the first analogy, and yes it's true. But you see, McDonald's doesn't make me purchase the overpriced drink in order to get a burger. Yes, it may be more convenient, but I often get just the meal when I eat out, and buy my drink later. The point that I was trying to make is that there are plenty of examples where a business will sell items indivually, *and* in packages. If you want the package, you can often save money. Sometimes packages are more convenient. Or maybe there's something in the package you wouldn't normally buy, but because the extra cost is small you decide to try it out. Whatever your reasons for buying the package are fine with me. However, sometimes it's cheaper to buy the items individually and leave out what you don't want.



the_bear said:


> A better analogy (and the one I got in school) is my movie theater does not sell any small bags of M&Ms They only sell the big $3 bags. They do not expect me to eat the whole thing. They are well aware if I ate their whole M&M bundle, I would be puking during the show. Most people that want some M&Ms end up buying the big bag. Why not simply sell small bags at $3? Because people will buy the big $3 bag, eat some and throw the rest away, but no one will pay $3 for a small bag. For me, I'll wait until the movie comes out on DVD so I can have a beer with it.


But once again, I am perfectly free to pay for the movie, and not buy the overpriced M&Ms. I realize that if enough people quit buying the M&Ms my movie ticket would go up. So those of you that buy them are subsidizing my movie. I thank you for that, but it's your choice. That's all I'm asking for here. I want to choose what I spend my money on, not be forced into "an all or nothing" decision.

BTW, I'm with you on waiting for the DVD. Beer is so much better than M&Ms.


----------



## Rogueone (Jan 29, 2004)

this is funny, how'd I miss this for so long? haha. 
there are so many parallels between this arguement and others from the past, it's almost funny. 

The break up of AT&T was mentioned, and that is a very good example of this situation. Back in the early 80's when this was being discussed, MCI and the like were claiming if they were given a chance, they could offer services for LD cheaper than AT&T. Opponents argued the change would impact service quality and prices would go higher, not lower. We all know how that turned out. Quality has not suffered enough to be really noticeable, and prices are so far under any historic levels that people make LD calls all the time now without worrying about going broke  

And there are other examples of the free market impact both good and bad. Two or three that I have watched and been affected by, and most reading this have as well, are from the PC world. 

Intel, Microsoft and 3Dfx are some examples of positives and negatives that somewhat parallel this one. Intel is an example of a company with a stranglehold on a market, until a small vendor (AMD), who was helping Intel make its chips, decided to try to make their own, improved versions of Intel's chips. The first thing Intel did to stop AMD was attempt to patent the x86 naming scheme. In other words, they wanted to "own" 486, 586, etc. The courts ruled this not possible as numerical designations for ic chips have been the standard for all chips. Hence, Intel changed their lineup to be called Pentium, for 586, and that name they could trademark. Amd could only continue with names like K5, K6, and eventually Athlon. Over the years, AMD has continued to be provide CPU's which are much cheaper than Intel's offerings, and with a performance that has equalled or exceeded Intel at similar speeds. Amd has continued to make small gains in market share, then loose some, then gain some, depending on their manufacturing more than anything. The impact to us, the consumer, has been profound. Intel typically releases their top of the line CPU at near $1000. AMD usually counters with their top line unit several hundred cheaper (lately they've even been close to $1000). But especially in the low priced, mainstream market, AMD is constantly pushing prices lower to move product and get some market share. Each time they do this, it forces Intel to lower it's prices. If Intel tries to get down to AMD's price points, AMD lowers theirs. In all, over the past decade, had there been no AMD to push Intel, we'd be lucky to have surpassed the 1.5 or 2Ghz speed at this point. There would have been no reason for Intel to rush new product to market without first maxxing out profits on existing architechure. We have faster, cheaper computers than ever today, because there was "choice" that was viable. Mac can not be considered choice, as it is as different from Intel as Cband is from cable and dish. Mac and Cband may be better in some ways, but they simply are not built and designed and priced for mainstream users. 

Then there is Microsoft, on the other side of this issue. MS is the modern day AT&T. They have complete control of a market segment. They control product flow, they control pricing, they force distribution channels to follow their monopolistic policies, or will alter the flow of product or pricing to hurt those trying to offer competing products. During the later 80's and early 90's, these tactics were extensively in use. I recall when IBM's OS2 warp came out, that it was almost impossible to find on a store shelf at places like Comp USA, and none of the computer companies were offering preinstalled OS2 systems. there were a few custom order options, but that was about it. I was working at a computer store then, and had asked one of the mainstream computer suppliers why they didn't offer an OS2 system, seeing as it was a much better OS than Windows 3.1 and Dos. His simple answer? MS would penalize them with higher costs per copy of windows, would delay or cut the number of licenses they received, etc. OS2 Warp was out over 2 years before Windows 95, was much more stable, but was never able to get traction. Developers of MS compatible products weren't making OS2 versions, stores weren't offering them when the developers did make them, and the hidden secret, those stores allow the product developers to pay them for product placement and to push their product over a competitor. It didn't matter what was best for the consumer, it was and is mostly, who pays the most to have me push their stuff. That is why the justice department and many states tried to bring suites against MS and why the EU has also being bringing suites. If, back in the 80's, IBM hadn't been so short sighted, they wouldn't have given software rights to MS. IBM thought hardware was were the money was, how wrong were they? haha. But, over the years, there have been competitors to MS, and none have been able to get any traction. Mac is the only one to last, but has realized it can't compete and it's only hope is to be a niche player. Linux is the only current hope for breaking MS's stranglehold. it has survived mostly due to it's being open source and not being a typical product in which a company needs to make money on it to survive. Linux still hasn't quite made it to mainstream status, but it is constantly growing. And finally, now that MS has a seroius threat, changes to how they do business can be seen. They have actually had to try to make their software less buggy, how funny is that  And lets not forget what happened to one of the best products MS ever crushed under its heals. Netscape was the first to sell a web browser for the masses. It was the internet charm of the mid 90's, and the stock market saw a lot of potential there. MS rolled out Windows 95 with an inept IE version, and over time realized they couldn't compete in the retail sector with Netscape, IE wasn't a good enough product. But they did figure out they could claim it was part of the OS and include it for free. And with that move, a piece of software that should have been on the open market was given to all Windows users and crushed Netscape by the sheer power and weight of a monopoly using it's resources to absorb the costs of development. Of course, what was Netscape's mozilla based browser has continued in the open source world, and now we have Firefox, a much better product than IE, which is having to fight its way onto your desktops because so few know about it. This is the power of a monopoly, to stagnate improvements and progress all in the self interest of profits.

The last example I can think of is not as much a monopoly as an example of the market flowing, but 3Dfx was the first maker of 3d gaming video cards for the PC. In the beginning, the other players were Matrox, nVidia, S3, and ATI, with some lessers as well. 3Dfx was dominant, but over time nVidia was able to make some equally impressive cards. This began a drive to be unique by both companies. 3Dfx's choices lead to delays in product shipment and their speeds fell below those of nVidia. ATI and Matrox and S3 continued to make announcements of wonderful products, all of which fell far below expectations. After about 4 years, 3dfx was no more, they had run themselves out of the market thru poor choices, and nVidia became king, and stayed that way for 3 or so years. Over this time, only ATI survived, because their main products were sold in premade systems, not to high end gamers who buy individual video cards, while nVidia was solely selling to the gamer. Today, both of them provide parts to both markets, and today, they battle for supremesy. ATI did catch nVidia in performance a couple years ago, and nVidia took 2 years to catch back up. And now there are two solid players, so consumers have choice and price competition.

So, how does all this tie into TV distribution? Look at what has happened when true competition has been in place versus no real competition. When 1 side is always in control (in TV, that is the channel suppliers, who we know from Hollywood history play ball together), it's almost impossible for the consumer to break that hold. A statement like, you could just stop paying, isn't valid. We all know the Oil companies price fix, it's obvious. Just watch prices at your local gas stations. Where is the competition? Someone speculates oil will go up in 6 months, we see a price increase tomorrow. Someone says oil prices will drop, we don't see the drop until that flow of oil actually shows up. TV is probably most like Oil and the old phone company. Cable as well, is a lot like the old phone company. Have you not noticed there is only one cable provider per area? There isn't any real competition for cable. But I suspect once FiOS type services show up, we'll see some changes. Just like the way the phone companies are offering DSL at much lower rates than cable in most areas. In the end, truly, breaking the current method of "you can have channel A only if you carry channels B,C & D" will benefit us all. With competition will come lower advertising costs, lower production costs, less fluff. In the short term, we are likely to see a reduction in channels, but long term, we'll end up with more strong channels which provide programming we actually want to watch. 

I have to agree with those that say they shouldn't have to support ESPN for me, as I'd rather not support MTV for those that want MTV. To make the change now will be painful, to have always had it, we wouldn't notice. But, as in all cases of collusion and price fixing, once the stranglehold is broken, pricing drops and competition provides better products to the consumer. It just might take a little time in the case of TV.


----------



## the_bear (Oct 18, 2004)

I’ll be the first one to post my opposition to a Disney Viacom merger, but that is not what is being suggested.

I’m not convinced the content creation and distribution joint ownership is pushing prices up. I do think it is reducing content availability. For example, no National Geographic HD on Dish. If Fox cutout the middleman and allowed National Geographic HD PPV on the web, I don’t think anyone would complain about Fox being the sole distributor. I’m perfectly fine with Fox selling directly to the public whether it be through the internet or D.


----------



## Rogueone (Jan 29, 2004)

bear, I don't quite get what you are saying about fox and nat geo hd? why would that be offered on the web in hd?  and what's this about Disney/Viacom? I'm pretty sure the FCC wouldn't allow ABC and CBS to merge like that. That would be an unfair advantage over NBC and Fox by their normal way of thinking. Sort of like when they reject some of the big internet/phone mergers without some spinoffs.


----------



## retiredTech (Oct 27, 2003)

Rogueone said:


> But, as in all cases of collusion and price fixing, once the stranglehold is broken, pricing drops and competition provides better products to the consumer. It just might take a little time in the case of TV.


Bravo! Rogueone
Yes, I have been trying to convey that for a while here. The "wholesalers" are "unfairly" controling the marketplace. But there are "those" who just can't quite seem to see what's going on.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

IowaStateFan said:


> No, I got the point of the first analogy, and yes it's true. But you see, McDonald's doesn't make me purchase the overpriced drink in order to get a burger. Yes, it may be more convenient, but I often get just the meal when I eat out, and buy my drink later. The point that I was trying to make is that there are plenty of examples where a business will sell items indivually, *and* in packages. If you want the package, you can often save money. Sometimes packages are more convenient. Or maybe there's something in the package you wouldn't normally buy, but because the extra cost is small you decide to try it out. Whatever your reasons for buying the package are fine with me. However, sometimes it's cheaper to buy the items individually and leave out what you don't want.


I was kind of going the other direction... It seems to be commonly accepted that fast food places make the most profit on a fountain drink, particularly if you buy it to go and don't stay for refills. Knowing that not all customers will purchase a drink, it is reasonable to make the following hypothesis:

McDonalds includes their cost of a fountain drink in the price of their burgers. So when you buy a burger, you are paying the cost of the burger + the cost of a drink + some profit on that burger. So, if you buy a burger and no drink then that portion of the bill is extra profit to McDonalds!

If you buy a drink, then it is pure profit to them because they already charged their cost with the burger... so they get the whole $1 for the drink as profit! BUT, you get a big drink to go with your burger. Win-win!

In a package you get charged less per channels but get more channels. In a la carte you pay more for each channel, including some built-in costs to cover what you aren't buying otherwise from the company!

So, while you can save money by buying a la carte in some cases... you actually may still be paying for stuff you aren't watching! How? Because some portion of the profit on that a la carte channel goes to offset the profit they aren't making from you for a package!

Just like the drink at McDonalds... you are really paying for it whether you buy it or not! You can either pay for it and not get it... or pay a little more for it and get it to go with your burger.

Did I lose anyone? 



IowaStateFan said:


> But once again, I am perfectly free to pay for the movie, and not buy the overpriced M&Ms. I realize that if enough people quit buying the M&Ms my movie ticket would go up. So those of you that buy them are subsidizing my movie. I thank you for that, but it's your choice. That's all I'm asking for here. I want to choose what I spend my money on, not be forced into "an all or nothing" decision.
> 
> BTW, I'm with you on waiting for the DVD. Beer is so much better than M&Ms.


With you completely on the movies... Since I was a kid, theaters never made money on ticket sales because except for a blockbuster like Star Wars that people see dozens of times... the ticket sales at a theater were barely break-even for their cost to "rent" the film to show in the theater. ALL profit was from the concession stand.

And, as the other poster pointed out... no one will pay $3 for the actual amount of M&Ms they could eat because it would be highway robbery! So they sell the big bags for $3 and people think they aren't getting ripped off as much, even if they throw some away.

Popcorn and drinks cost them next to nothing so those are where the big profits are!

These days I just buy DVDs when I really like a movie so I can watch whenever I want and it is still cheaper than seeing a movie and feeding myself at the movie!


----------



## IowaStateFan (Jan 11, 2006)

Rogueone said:


> So, how does all this tie into TV distribution? Look at what has happened when true competition has been in place versus no real competition. When 1 side is always in control (in TV, that is the channel suppliers, who we know from Hollywood history play ball together), it's almost impossible for the consumer to break that hold. A statement like, you could just stop paying, isn't valid.


I agree it is difficult for the consumer to break that hold, but not impossible. We as consumers are still paying the bills. They can't charge more than we are willing to pay. It is impossible. I know that I for one have made sacrifices in the television programming I would like - because it costs more than I'm willing to pay. It still comes down to supply and demand. We all have to decide what we're going to do with the limited resources we have. Television is not a right, it's entertainment.



Rogueone said:


> We all know the Oil companies price fix, it's obvious.


No, we don't all know that. It isn't obvious to me, but that's a discussion for a different thread on a different forum. I won't hold it against you because I agree with most of the rest of what you've said  .



Rogueone said:


> TV is probably most like Oil and the old phone company. Cable as well, is a lot like the old phone company. Have you not noticed there is only one cable provider per area? There isn't any real competition for cable. But I suspect once FiOS type services show up, we'll see some changes. Just like the way the phone companies are offering DSL at much lower rates than cable in most areas. In the end, truly, breaking the current method of "you can have channel A only if you carry channels B,C & D" will benefit us all. With competition will come lower advertising costs, lower production costs, less fluff. In the short term, we are likely to see a reduction in channels, but long term, we'll end up with more strong channels which provide programming we actually want to watch.
> 
> I have to agree with those that say they shouldn't have to support ESPN for me, as I'd rather not support MTV for those that want MTV. To make the change now will be painful, to have always had it, we wouldn't notice. But, as in all cases of collusion and price fixing, once the stranglehold is broken, pricing drops and competition provides better products to the consumer. It just might take a little time in the case of TV.


This whole section makes a lot of sense to me. The only problem I have is what is the remedy? If television were a necessity I'd support some sort of government intervention. It's not. We are all free to choose whether or not to buy tv programming. Let the market decide what's a fair price and distribution system.

Having said that, I feel like I'm arguing in circles. On the one hand I want the market to work this out, but on the other I'm saying that the market isn't truly free. There very well may be some anti-trust issues here. Perhaps a little pressure from Congress and the FCC aren't a bad thing (I can't believe I just wrote that :eek2: ). We've seen plenty of posts questioning why E* is the only distributor that has programming pulled (see lifetime discussions). Is it because they don't sell content to other distributors? D* and Time-Warner have a conflict if they try to put too much pressure on the other providers. My head is spinning


----------



## sikma (Dec 11, 2003)

For those of you out there that think no one cares or would be interested in having the option of a la carte, there are over 100 posts and 1500+ views in the four days since this thread started!


----------



## the_bear (Oct 18, 2004)

Rogueone said:


> bear, I don't quite get what you are saying about fox and nat geo hd? why would that be offered on the web in hd?  and what's this about Disney/Viacom? I'm pretty sure the FCC wouldn't allow ABC and CBS to merge like that. That would be an unfair advantage over NBC and Fox by their normal way of thinking. Sort of like when they reject some of the big internet/phone mergers without some spinoffs.


Every example you gave has customers paying a higher price because of an anti-trust issue. This thread is about customers paying a higher price because of a packaging issue. Adding laws to control packaging to reduce price is completely new ground for the US government and why we have so much controversy.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

sikma said:


> For those of you out there that think no one cares or would be interested in having the option of a la carte, there are over 100 posts and 1500+ views in the four days since this thread started!


Many of those DON'T want a la carte.


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

James Long said:


> Many of those DON'T want a la carte.


And you still do not say why?

All I hear is that you don't want it because you feel it would drive up prices.

And if it did not drive up prices?

Would you still say no?

Are you opposed to freedom of choice because of the possibility that it may cost "you" more $$$ or for some other reason not stated?

Are you opposed to freedom of choise because you feel that unpopular channels will go bye bye if forced to stand on their own?

I'm just trying to figure out why "choice" is a bad thing?

Now if you feel that it will drive up "your" costs how do you feel about forcing others to subsidize your TV viewing? This is the real reason is it not?

People who subscribe to huge programming packages are deathly afriad that choice will mean that they will lose their huge subsidies and be forced to pay the full cost of those 180+ channels.

Seems like every concreate example that has been presented shows the same old cry wolf...

1. OMG OMG if we make a change the sky will fall!
2. Shakeup happens
3. Sky down not fall and prices actually come down long term.

I'd be very interested in an example of competition actually driving prices up.

-JB


----------



## WHNB (Jan 15, 2004)

Media consultant predicts a la carte in the U.S. within three years:

www.usatoday.com/money/media/2006-02-12-martin-usat_x.htm


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

jrb531 said:


> And you still do not say why?
> All I hear is that you don't want it because you feel it would drive up prices.
> And if it did not drive up prices?
> Would you still say no?


Feel free to read the thread you are replying to. Answers can be found.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

James Long said:


> Feel free to read the thread you are replying to. Answers can be found.


Why didn't I think of saying that!


----------



## IowaStateFan (Jan 11, 2006)

HDMe said:


> Why didn't I think of saying that!


I guess you're just a little slow on the uptake


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

IowaStateFan said:


> I guess you're just a little slow on the uptake


Sometimes I do need to be hit over the head more than once to get my attention...


----------



## IowaStateFan (Jan 11, 2006)

HDMe,

Thanks for the discussion. I really enjoyed it and even learned a thing or two. While we disagree, I have to believe that a la carte will be better for consumers. Of course, it looks like it will be a long time before we ever find out. I'm not holding my breath that anything will change anytime soon.

Paul


----------



## Rogueone (Jan 29, 2004)

WHNB said:


> Media consultant predicts a la carte in the U.S. within three years:
> 
> www.usatoday.com/money/media/2006-02-12-martin-usat_x.htm


3rd paragraph says it all. The reason there is a base tier Tv package is it is a Federal Requirement.

also notice the comments that the distributors like Disney and Viacom do NOT allow unpackaging. That is price control or content control. And while it hasn't reached anti-trust levels yet, it will soon if it keeps up. This is the definition of what anti-trust laws are there for. Some industires have done a good job, even great, avoiding anti-trust issues, likely thru very very large contributions to both sides of the isle to buy disinterest.

as to comments that if TV cost to much we'd stop paying, well, part of the way the free market works is, just like now, TV rates have reached the upper end of what people are willing to pay. Hence, all these moves to break up systems which cause the high prices and restrict the customer's choices. When a business gets out of control, consumers do speak up, and not always by "not buying" the product. Sometimes the product is still wanted, but taking it to the legislature to break monopoly style tactics is required. Keep in mind, actions which are classified as anti-trust normally don't start that way, they grow into it thru the suppression of competition over a period of time. AT&T wasn't violating anti-trust issues in the 50's, but it was in the 80's by the findings of the courts. there wasn't a competition being suppressed in the 50's, there was by the late 70's 

I also agree with the comment that as telephony companies like Verizon and ATT come in with FiOS services and want to offer ala carte, they will by themselves force the industry to change. These aren't exactly small startups, these are major corporations, and being the upstarts, they'll have to differentiate themselves somehow. Pricing and packaging are the most likely ways  But these services first have to get permission to get to you, by changing existing laws that were created when the first community antenna/cable systems went in, which prevented competition.


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

James Long said:


> Feel free to read the thread you are replying to. Answers can be found.


I have read your posts as you have read mine. I just wanted you to admit that you object to ala-cart based upon the potential for it to raise "your" bill if others are allowed to stop subsidizing the viewing habits of people who want a zillion channels or want everyone to subsidize the very high cost sports on the backs of people who either do not watch sports or would like to make a statement against the spiraling costs of some of these programmers.

Your one-line response sidesteps such an admission.

Having said that I would prob feel the same way as you if I was on a quest for a zillion channels at the lowest possible cost 

But it's still not fair... never will be.

No matter how people "try" and cloak this it still boils down to dollars and sense. I do not buy for one minute the excuse that people are against this because lessor watched channels will not survive. With the amount of utter crap that is put on these channels as "filler" I have no question that popular content will find a way to survive no matter what the channel. Now we can split hairs over what each of us considers popular or even quality - I, for one, cannot understand how the public can stomach all this "reality crap" but I can just elect to not watch this. Someday I hope to elect to also not pay for this 

-JB


----------



## LtMunst (Aug 24, 2005)

I would bet that most people who tried A Lacarte would eventually want to go back to a package. Sure, most people spend 90% of their viewing time watching maybe 10 - 20 channels. It is nice, though, to be able to hit that guide once in awhile and go browsing. Sometimes you find something interesting on those other channels.

Once people see that they are not really saving a whole lot by choosing 20 channels, they will start to miss what they once had.

Also, there's always the brag factor. I know when I have company over, I enjoy hearing "wow, how many channels do you have?" Won't hear that if all I have is 20 channels.

Alacarte will probably come, but it will die from lack of interest.


----------



## IowaStateFan (Jan 11, 2006)

LtMunst said:


> I would bet that most people who tried A Lacarte would eventually want to go back to a package. Sure, most people spend 90% of their viewing time watching maybe 10 - 20 channels. It is nice, though, to be able to hit that guide once in awhile and go browsing. Sometimes you find something interesting on those other channels.
> 
> Once people see that they are not really saving a whole lot by choosing 20 channels, they will start to miss what they once had.
> 
> ...


I think you are pretty close to the mark here. I'm an advocate of a la carte, but I'll probably end up with a package. It's just more convenient, and the extra few $s it might cost for the package would represent some value. I'm not sure it would die - assuming we ever get it - but it won't be the first choice of most people.


----------



## Chris Freeland (Mar 24, 2002)

IowaStateFan said:


> I think you are pretty close to the mark here. I'm an advocate of a la carte, but I'll probably end up with a package. It's just more convenient, and the extra few $s it might cost for the package would represent some value. I'm not sure it would die - assuming we ever get it - but it won't be the first choice of most people.


This is basically the way I feel too, I will still stick with a package my self, if "a la cart" ever becomes an option their is a chance I might decide to go with a slightly smaller package perhaps and then add a channel or two from the highest tier, perhaps not. The main reason I would like some kind of "a la carte" option is to break up these big programing cartels we have now who seam to be able to continually raise rates and force their content on satellite and cable and not allowing room for the smaller independent programing providers. I do believe we need to move cautiously though, I only want "a la cart" as an option only if it can be structured in such a way that it does not end up costing the majority of us more money for less content just so a small minority can just buy their favorite 10 - 15 channels in order to save a Nichol.


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

LtMunst said:


> I would bet that most people who tried A Lacarte would eventually want to go back to a package. Sure, most people spend 90% of their viewing time watching maybe 10 - 20 channels. It is nice, though, to be able to hit that guide once in awhile and go browsing. Sometimes you find something interesting on those other channels.
> 
> Once people see that they are not really saving a whole lot by choosing 20 channels, they will start to miss what they once had.
> 
> ...


I have nothing againist packages as much as it sounds. It's the way they are packaged and forcing me to take an entire pack to get 1-2 channels.

IMHO most people would still take packages but instead of taking all three most people take a pack or two and add 1-2 additional channels instead of being forced to take and entire pack.

This is why ala-cart will never die. Most people will prob take the el cheapo basic pack and then add a few channels they like.

-JB


----------



## LtMunst (Aug 24, 2005)

jrb531 said:


> Most people will prob take the el cheapo basic pack and then add a few channels they like.
> -JB


That assumes adding alacarte channels to a package would even be an option. I'd bet it would be all or nothing. Either you take a package, or you take alacarte.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

jrb531 said:


> I have read your posts as you have read mine. I just wanted you to admit that you object to ala-cart based upon the potential for it to raise "your" bill if others are allowed to stop subsidizing the viewing habits of people who want a zillion channels or want everyone to subsidize the very high cost sports on the backs of people who either do not watch sports or would like to make a statement against the spiraling costs of some of these programmers.
> 
> Your one-line response sidesteps such an admission.


There is nothing more to admit. It's all in the thread. Try to talk about the issue instead of challenging people to duels! And try READING the thread if you want my opinion.


----------



## IowaStateFan (Jan 11, 2006)

LtMunst said:


> That assumes adding alacarte channels to a package would even be an option. I'd bet it would be all or nothing. Either you take a package, or you take alacarte.


I suspect you are partially right. The plans will be pick so many channels, or pick from prebundled packages. I do think there will be lots of smaller packages where the content is related, such as News, Sports, Movies, Music, Variety, Educational etc., along with tiers that combine the most popular channels. The distributors could get really creative with the way the package the channels. We might even find some of the content providers paying the distributors to be in a certain package, rather than holding the distributors hostage by requiring them to carry channels B & C to get A. But I agree, I don't think you'll see a basic package with the option to add individual channels.


----------



## Rogueone (Jan 29, 2004)

question becomes, what would be a basic package in an ala carte world? I too suspect it would not lead to you have to pick each channel you want, and pay X per channel. it's more likely there will still be packages just like today, and those packages will have the most channels for the lowest price per channel. 

but I would expect ala carte to be offered in several flavors. Pick any 40, 50, 60 channels from list and pay a set fee. And I'd expect some channels like ESPN might not be offered in such packages. I'd expect some packaging in sports, like all the ESPN"s for a price, the RSN's for a price, etc. 

I could also see packaging based on content, New, Sports, Movies, Kids, Family, etc. But for it to really be "ala carte" there does need to be an option of picking individual channels. Even if the "base" package is pick the 20 channels you want. I don't see the FCC forcing the providers to allow a customer to only buy 4 or 7 channels, that simply isn't cost effective. But I could see a 20 channel limit. Or maybe, the base package would be locals + PBS type channels, then add 5/10/15/20 for various prices. 

there are so many options it's hard to think of them all  if you read that article, it mentioned some European offererings having 90 options. could you imagine the headaches in trying to pick thru all that haha. but at least we'd be paying for what we watch, and while the savings wouldn't be huge, $5 a month is still $60 a year or $600 over 10 years.


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

James Long said:


> There is nothing more to admit. It's all in the thread. Try to talk about the issue instead of challenging people to duels! And try READING the thread if you want my opinion.


Did not think this was any form of duel.

You keep saying over and over how you do not like ala-cart.

I know why you do not want ala-cart because I have read each and every one of your posts. It amounts to the two reasons I listed and asked you to verify:

1. You do not want to pay more $$$ by having to pay for your channels instead of others having subsidize them by being forced to take them.

2. You claim you suspect some channels will not make it is they had to survive on their own.

Why you keep saying to go re-read all your posts is nothing more, IMHO, than you not wanting to come right out and say that this is about $$$ and little more.

180 channels would cost a darn lot of $$$ if you had to pay full market value.

Well I'll stop now and save you the trouble of a response....

JB - go re-read everything I posted if you want to know why I feel the way I do.

There.... I responded for you 

-JB


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

Rogueone said:


> question becomes, what would be a basic package in an ala carte world? I too suspect it would not lead to you have to pick each channel you want, and pay X per channel. it's more likely there will still be packages just like today, and those packages will have the most channels for the lowest price per channel.
> 
> but I would expect ala carte to be offered in several flavors. Pick any 40, 50, 60 channels from list and pay a set fee. And I'd expect some channels like ESPN might not be offered in such packages. I'd expect some packaging in sports, like all the ESPN"s for a price, the RSN's for a price, etc.
> 
> ...


My best guess is that right before congress gets involved the distributors and programmers will get together and come up with "just enough" to satisfy everyone including "theme packs" with an allowance for additional channels to be added on at market price (read: cost alot LOL) As long as sports are separate (ESPN will hate this!!!) I would support this 100%

-JB


----------



## Rogueone (Jan 29, 2004)

I get the feeling this current FCC guy isn't interested in a half baked solution. From reading that article, in which the previous FCC head concluded ala carte was bad, then this guy says, how in the world did they ever conclude that, I have to think this guy is thinking outside the box and outside the special interests. If he was in big money's hip pocket, he wouldn't have reopened this discussion. should be interesting to see how it all falls out


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

jrb531 said:


> 1. You do not want to pay more $$$ by having to pay for your channels instead of others having subsidize them by being forced to take them.


THE FCC is claiming that a la carte will not raise prices. I want that to remain honest. This has nothing to do with subsidies and such inflamatory language is only meant to garner an EMOTIONAL response instead of an RATIONAL response.


jrb531 said:


> 2. You claim you suspect some channels will not make it is they had to survive on their own.


By saying I claim I suspect you make it sound like I really don't suspect that I'm only claiming. But it's not me who made that claim. So I suspect that you are wrong about reading MY posts.


jrb531 said:


> Why you keep saying to go re-read all your posts is nothing more,


Because my opinion HAS been stated. Ignoring it and misquoting it will not change it.


----------



## the_bear (Oct 18, 2004)

jrb531 said:


> ..I just wanted you to admit that you object to ala-cart based upon the potential for it to raise "your" bill if others are allowed to stop subsidizing the viewing habits of people who want a zillion channels or want everyone to subsidize the very high cost sports on the backs of people who either do not watch sports or would like to make a statement against the spiraling costs of some of these programmers....


I don't see how you could call a law that bans bundling a law for choice. Such a law only removes choice. The choice for a TV programming provider to bundle. I only watch about three shows a month via DBS. Most of my TV watching is free OTA. If there is anyone paying a premium for the "browse feature" it is I. An al la carte mandate would probably lower my bill closer to the upper 13% limit rather than the 3% cost reduction for the average Joe (using the FCC's own numbers). My problem with a law the bans bundles is that is sets a precedence for other government bundle bans. Next, will be a ban on the big M&M bundles in movie theaters. I'm sure I could also save 3% if the government banned those big bags of M&Ms, not to mention the health benefits for M&M eaters. I think 3% is a reasonable price to pay for the ability to flip through channels and don't see viewers any better off without a channel flipping ability. Once all the non-OTA content I want is available one the internet (legally), I will likely cancel my Dish service. Of course by that time, competition, not the government, will have already lowered the rates at Dish.


----------



## IowaStateFan (Jan 11, 2006)

James Long said:


> THE FCC is claiming that a la carte will not raise prices. I want that to remain honest.


Actually, I believe they are claiming that it will lower prices by 3 - 13%. The problem is that means somebody will be losing 3 - 13% of their revenue and that's why the content providers are fighting it.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

If a la carte didn't result in my bill going up to make up for other people's choices, I would be ok with it.

If a la carte didn't result in some of the niche channels disappearing, I would be ok with it.

Nobody knows what will happen until it is tried again... I might survive a 10 story fall from a building (people do survive that sometimes), but I don't want to jump and find out.

Even the most avid supporters of a la carte would pick a package if it saved them money... so to say "the evil satellite companies just want to make money" is no more valid than saying the "evil" customers want to pay as little as possible 

It is all about money! We want to pay less, they want to maximize profit. This has been true since the beginning of time and will likely be true until the end of time as well.

If I could choose just the channels I watch regularly, and the amount I paid was less than I pay now, and none of my favorite channels were lost... I might do it too! But, if everyone did it... then unless we all like the same channels, and it is obvious we don't, then our bills would start going up and some of all of our favorite channels would go away eventually.

I would also lose the browsing ability that I like when I scan all the available channels to see if something unexpected is coming on that I'd like to watch. Can't do that if I don't have the channels.

And last, but not least... ANY decision regarding a la carte should come about because customers speak and want it. Stop spending money if you feel you are being ripped off, write your cable & satellite companies and tell them why you stopped spending and what they can do to get you back!

But do NOT ask the government to mandate anything... government was not originally intended to run our lives... we are supposed to be intelligent and mature enough to do that for ourselves... and the government stepping in and mandating a la carte or something like it would not be in anyone's best interest. You can almost guarantee that.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

the_bear said:


> I don't see how you could call a law that bans bundling a law for choice. Such a law only removes choice.


Any a la carte ruling or law would be very unlikely to ban bundling. It's probable form would be to require providers to include a la carte as an option for subscribers, and to invalidate any contract clause with content owners that would prevent such an option.

As has been said, many or most subscribers are likely to just grab a bundled package even if a la carte were available. Some might even start with a basic bundle before adding certain other channels.

As I keep saying, *we don't even know what the rules would be* for a la carte (reverse? absolutely every channel? Canadian-style six-packs?), yet some here insist that it will definitely increase or definitely decrease the average viewer's bill. IMHO, predicting the details of a post-a la carte world is like predicting all the ramifications of airline deregulation 30 years ago.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

Now you are saying that we would have to know what the plan is before we know whether it is good or bad. Well that is just ridiculous.


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

HDMe said:


> Even the most avid supporters of a la carte would pick a package if it saved them money... so to say "the evil satellite companies just want to make money" is no more valid than saying the "evil" customers want to pay as little as possible
> 
> It is all about money! We want to pay less, they want to maximize profit. This has been true since the beginning of time and will likely be true until the end of time as well.


Nope. Big difference!

The programmers was to "force" us to pay for channels we do not want!

I just want to pay for the channels "I" want.

I'm not saying "give me all the channels for less money"

I'm saying "Tell me what you will charge me for your channels and I will decide if they are valuable enough to me for me to subscribe"

Kind of like "most" of the world works 

They want to offer "deals" by means of special packages along with the single channels then I'm all for that but this is all about choice.

If the programmers end up losing $$$ they will only do so because they have been cheating us for so long. It's their own darn fault for ramming these channels down our necks and structuring all contracts to disallow the distributors from deciding how to distribute them.

-JB


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

I like the Science Channel - this channel in "only" in the 180 pack.

I subscribe to the 120 pack.

I would like to add just the science channel to my 120 without having to pay an extra $10 for an entire tier of programming that I do not want.

Does anyone want to logically explain why I cannot subscribe to the 120 pack and add on this one channel at whatever the rate would be?

For crying out loud this is so simple here. It makes sence and yet we are still going around and around about why people should not have this option?

We all know darn well that the 3 tiers are mixed up to "force" us to take more than what we want.

Theme pack's make sense. The current set up does not.... well unless you are the programmers trying to make more $$$ off the backs of people who simple want to watch their fav programs without having to pay for 50+ other channels we do not want or need.

-JB


----------



## the_bear (Oct 18, 2004)

carload said:


> Any a la carte ruling or law would be very unlikely to ban bundling. It's probable form would be to require providers to include a la carte as an option for subscribers, and to invalidate any contract clause with content owners that would prevent such an option...


There is no way to enforce an al la carte mandate without a complete ban on bundling. An optional a la carte is what we have now. How would per-channel price be determined? $100 per channel would certainly encourage people to buy bundles. Or would the government put on price caps?


----------



## retiredTech (Oct 27, 2003)

FACT 1: current "media corporations" ARE using market manipulation to ensure
"their channels" are being "bundled" for improper advantage.
FACT 2: this practice would be considered a violation in almost any other industry
FACT 3: there are "providers" who would like to sell "said channels" "separately" as well as "bundled"
FACT 4 there are consumers who would like a CHOICE to purchase "said channels" "separately" as well as "bundled"
FACT 5 until the "said market manipulation" is stopped and "CHOICE" is allowed and the FREE MARKETPLACE functions as a free marketplace, speculation about how price will go up/down, ect
is mostly that... speculation.
The free market should be allowed to work,
but when one side or the other is manipulating it,
then it is time for the government to say :
Clean up your house, or we will clean it for you.
This is what anti-trust, breaking monopolies,writing laws, ect is for,
to intercede for the consumer.


----------



## retiredTech (Oct 27, 2003)

the_bear said:


> There is no way to enforce an al la carte mandate without a complete ban on bundling. An optional a la carte is what we have now. How would per-channel price be determined? $100 per channel would certainly encourage people to buy bundles. Or would the government put on price caps?


WHERE is the optional a la carte ?
MOST "owners" (ie media corpartions) of the "channels" DO NOT allow for a la carte per their "contracts" with the providers (ie E* D* Cable).

So there is NOT a optional a la carte, THAT is the POINT!


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

Now let's ask the $1,000,000,000 question:

What *incentive* is there for ESPN to remove itself from basic cable to be placed in a "sports only" pack? ESPN is available to over 90,000,000 households. Why would ESPN voluntarily do something to reduce their exposure?


----------



## IowaStateFan (Jan 11, 2006)

Greg Bimson said:


> Now let's ask the $1,000,000,000 question:
> 
> What *incentive* is there for ESPN to remove itself from basic cable to be placed in a "sports only" pack? ESPN is available to over 90,000,000 households. Why would ESPN voluntarily do something to reduce their exposure?


They wouldn't. And if Dish refused to put them in a basic package, ESPN would just pull the plug on Dish. Dish believes that enough of us would switch that it would hurt their bottom line. And they'd probably be right. The problem here is that ESPN won't sell their flagship without ESPN2, ESPNEWS, and ESPN Classic. How many of us would switch if those were lost? I'm a sports junky and I don't think I would, assuming Dish's prices were cheap enough.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

> The problem here is that ESPN won't sell their flagship without ESPN2, ESPNEWS, and ESPN Classic. How many of us would switch if those were lost? I'm a sports junky and I don't think I would, assuming Dish's prices were cheap enough.


Last I saw...

Buying ESPN alone costs distributors more than buying the entire ESPN suite. Then, if the distributor places, in order, ESPN, ESPN News, ESPN Classic, and ESPN2 together, the distributor gets even more of a discount.

Packaging isn't only done by the distributor.


----------



## IowaStateFan (Jan 11, 2006)

Greg Bimson said:


> Last I saw...
> 
> Buying ESPN alone costs distributors more than buying the entire ESPN suite. Then, if the distributor places, in order, ESPN, ESPN News, ESPN Classic, and ESPN2 together, the distributor gets even more of a discount.
> 
> Packaging isn't only done by the distributor.


I stand corrected. I'm not privy to contract negotiations, and just made some assumptions. And you know what that means


----------



## the_bear (Oct 18, 2004)

retiredTech said:


> FACT 1: current "media corporations" ARE using market manipulation to ensure
> "their channels" are being "bundled" for improper advantage. .


You call is market manipulation. I call it supply and demand.


retiredTech said:


> FACT 2: this practice would be considered a violation in almost any other industry


 As posted before, getting customers to buy more than they want is a common way to boost profits.


retiredTech said:


> FACT 3: there are "providers" who would like to sell "said channels" "separately" as well as "bundled"


This is not true. When I look at Dish's actions, all I see is they want to pay less for channels and charge customers more. Dish bundles for the same reason Disney bundles. If Dish wanted a la carte they could easily create such a service. Dish signs contracts for bundling because that is what makes Dish the most money. Disney and Viacom have already signed a la carte deals with Apple iTunes Video. When Disney asks for $30 sub, Dish will surely kick them out of basic. In business, everything has a price.


retiredTech said:


> FACT 4 there are consumers who would like a CHOICE to purchase "said channels" "separately" as well as "bundled"


All I see is customers that want to pay less. No one is asking for the ability to block channels without any financial compensation. It's not about choice. It is about money.


retiredTech said:


> FACT 5 until the "said market manipulation" is stopped and "CHOICE" is allowed and the FREE MARKETPLACE functions as a free marketplace, speculation about how price will go up/down, ect


Even I find it hard to believe a ban on bundling would raise prices for the average Joe.


----------



## vahighland (Mar 29, 2005)

I would support theme-based packages instead of the arbitrary packages (AT60, 120, 180). I don't like the fact that sports are bundled into the arbitrary packages. Sports programming is the most expensive segment. Why should I have to supplement $100 million dollar player salaries? It's like paying an extra tax just so I can watch channels like Discovery, TLC, A&E, etc. 

NO distributor, satellite or cable, gives me the choice. And I do realize that it may be the content providers to blame, but the distributors should have some amount influence on the providers. Although I generally believe government should stay out of the market, I'm all for congress stepping in to create some competition. If some channels die, so what! If sports programming became so expensive that no one could afford it, then they would have to make it cheaper to stay in business. If sports salaries were cut to stay in business, so what!


----------



## IowaStateFan (Jan 11, 2006)

the_bear said:


> All I see is customers that want to pay less. No one is asking for the ability to block channels without any financial compensation. It's not about choice. It is about money.


I have to disagree with you here. There are plenty of people who don't want to pay for channels that they find "objectionable". I think this is where some in Congress are coming from. Mostly, it's about money but not exclusively.


----------



## AcuraCL (Dec 12, 2005)

HDMe said:


> Also worth mentioning that a la carte predates packages... and it would appear the public has spoken years ago. IF a la carte was what the public wanted, then it would be what we have across the board... but when given the option more people chose packages that offered more channels for the same or less money than paying for individual channels....


It never was well publicized. IIRC, *IF *you asked about it, they would tell you.

I still get one UPN ala carte, I guess through grandfathering. I really need to have them remove that one too ....


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

I don't believe that "grandfathering" is involved with the superstations. I think that isa falt out mistake.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

jrb531 said:


> I like the Science Channel - this channel in "only" in the 180 pack.
> 
> I subscribe to the 120 pack.
> 
> ...


Ok, wait... I had to re-read your post about five times to see if my eyes were lying to me.

Can you please re-read what you just wrote above?

You only like one channel in the 180 pack... so if you are buying the AT180 for $10 more, then you must currently believe that it is worth $10 to you or you would cancel it, right?

So why would Dish be motivated to offer you that channel a la carte for anything less than $10?

The ONLY way Dish would be motivated to offer you (or anyone) the channel a la carte for less than the $10 would be if a bunch of customers, significant revenue loss for Dish to notice, banded together and dropped the package and informed Dish "We want the Science Channel a la carte, we do not want the rest of the AT180 package, this is why we dropped our service"... and then maybe they will listen.

BUT, as long as you keep paying $10 for the AT180 package... you are essentially saying that one channel is worth $10 to you. Case closed, no motivation for Dish to charge less or offer a la carte.

In your example, the "whatever rate it would be" is $10, and then you get the other channels as a "free" bonus


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I am in favor of a la mode. I like ice cream with my pie, so I am a big supporter of a la mode.

I am less of a supporter for con carne. I like my chili without beans, so chili con carne is something I am less in support of.


----------



## retiredTech (Oct 27, 2003)

the_bear said:


> You call is market manipulation. I call it supply and demand.
> As posted before, getting customers to buy more than they want is a common way to boost profits.
> This is not true. When I look at Dish's actions, all I see is they want to pay less for channels and charge customers more. Dish bundles for the same reason Disney bundles. If Dish wanted a la carte they could easily create such a service. Dish signs contracts for bundling because that is what makes Dish the most money. Disney and Viacom have already signed a la carte deals with Apple iTunes Video. When Disney asks for $30 sub, Dish will surely kick them out of basic. In business, everything has a price.
> 
> ...


Where were you when "Disney" threatened to pull "broadcast ABC" channels IF E* didn't carry "Toon Disney" ? 
If you don't think that free market manipulation is being done by these large media giants, then all I can say is that you must be naive.
You can label it something else, if you like, but it is still wrong.
Where is the supply and demand? 
The demand is suppose come from the consumer NOT from the "retailer".
NO ONE is suggesting BANNING bunding!
JUST adding a la carte as an OPTION WITH bundling!
What if Pepsi said tomarrow that you can no longer buy Pepsi alone but had to buy Moutain Dew, and bunch other drinks with it?
And also Coke, 7UP, DrPepper, and every other soft drink wholesaler conspired together in the same fashion to do same.
So no matter what store or machine you went to you could only get bundles of different kinds of softdrinks together and that was the only way they could be purchased.
Now, you say, that's stupid. They would never do that. But what if the corporations thought this would make them lots more money and they DID do it?
We all know this would be wrong and would want something done.
But somehow, some here, think it's ok for "media corporations" to do this.
Well I for one, DO NOT!
I am NOT , buying that the tv industry is that much different.
If you want to be fooled by giant corporations, go ahead.
I will NOT!


----------



## IowaStateFan (Jan 11, 2006)

HDMe said:


> Ok, wait... I had to re-read your post about five times to see if my eyes were lying to me.
> 
> Can you please re-read what you just wrote above?
> 
> ...


Actually, I think you need read what he wrote again. He subscribes to the AT120, but would like the Science Channel, but won't pay $10 more for it. If he'd be willing pay $2 or $3 or whatever, Dish is losing that amount because they'll only sell it to him for $10 as part of the next tier.


----------



## IowaStateFan (Jan 11, 2006)

HDMe said:


> I am in favor of a la mode. I like ice cream with my pie, so I am a big supporter of a la mode.
> 
> I am less of a supporter for con carne. I like my chili without beans, so chili con carne is something I am less in support of.


But I don't like a la mode. It makes my pie crust soggy. On top of that you're bundling again. At least we're consistent :lol: (I have no opinion on con carne)


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

IowaStateFan said:


> But I don't like a la mode. It makes my pie crust soggy. On top of that you're bundling again. At least we're consistent :lol:


Ok... to keep things straight...

1. Pie a la mode is bundling
2. Channels a la carte is not

You can also get pie a la mode on the side... to keep your pie crust from getting soggy. All the benefits of bundling and a la mode, on the side!

Oh, and even though pie a la mode is bundling... you get to choose whatever pie and whatever flavor of ice cream... so you have to buy pie and ice cream BUT you get to pick the flavors.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

IowaStateFan said:


> Actually, I think you need read what he wrote again. He subscribes to the AT120, but would like the Science Channel, but won't pay $10 more for it. If he'd be willing pay $2 or $3 or whatever, Dish is losing that amount because they'll only sell it to him for $10 as part of the next tier.


I may have taken his example too literally... So the first part of my reply may be in error. I'll still stick to the latter part, in that if he doesn't tell Dish why he isn't buying AT180 (i.e. that he would pay more for just the channel he wants) then they don't know why he isn't buying it... and unless more people are like him and don't purchase the package and do inform Dish of why... then Dish either won't know or won't be motivated to offer what he wants.


----------



## IowaStateFan (Jan 11, 2006)

HDMe said:


> Ok... to keep things straight...
> 
> 1. Pie a la mode is bundling
> 2. Channels a la carte is not
> ...


LMAO, Thanks :lol: :lol:


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

the_bear said:


> Or would the government put on price caps?


Probably. The McCain bill had language that put a cap of something like half of a package's price for any single channel in the package. So you'd be free to charge $20/month for The Chess Channel as long as you didn't include that channel in a package that costs less than $40/month.

That's just one way of approaching that question. With reverse a la carte, if you got wholesale-value credit for dropping every channel except the one you wanted, that remaining channel would probably cost more than half of the bundle price.

---

I keep coming back to airline deregulation - was that good or bad? On one hand, lower prices on popular, competitive routes save flyers a lot of money. But some smaller airports have fewer choices and there, prices have risen. Instead of competing through better service at a fixed price, airlines compete through cutthroat pricing and reduced food service. Many of the old airlines folded because of pricing pressure. The hub-and-spoke system means that many airports are mostly "owned" by one large airline.

Now imagine that it's 30 years ago. Consumer groups are saying deregulation would save customers a lot of money, but the industry is complaining about the hardships that would be involved. Maybe they were both right, but I have a hard time labelling the result as simply bad or good.


----------



## Rogueone (Jan 29, 2004)

yeah, airline issues are varied. Poor management in some cases, over agressive unions in others, the hub and spoke system not being the most efficient with so many choices and so many redundant flights, and now gas prices, ugh.


----------



## the_bear (Oct 18, 2004)

retiredTech said:


> ..JUST adding a la carte as an OPTION WITH bundling!


I have yet to see a proposal where a la carte and bundles can coexist. Unless, we switch to socialized TV.


retiredTech said:


> ...What if Pepsi said tomarrow that you can no longer buy Pepsi alone but had to buy Moutain Dew, and bunch other drinks with it?


When I think of customer friendly companies, Pepsi is at the bottom of the list. They charge any reseller a penalty for giving customers a choice between Coke and Pepsi. Of course, Pepsi calls this an "exclusive drink discount" rather than the "give customers a choice penalty". As a Coke drinker I hate being told sorry we only sell Pepsi, but I don't think the government should create a Coke mandate.

If it only cost Pepsi a penny to add a can of Mountain Dew to a can of Pepsi, I'm sure we would only be able to buy Pepsi-Dew bundles, because a Pepsi-Dew double can bundle would sell for more than a penny over a single can of Pepsi.


retiredTech said:


> ...every other soft drink wholesaler conspired together in the same fashion to do same.


Show me an I'll bundle if you bundle agreement between D and E and I will be first to call the Justice Department.


IowaStateFan said:


> .. He subscribes to the AT120, but would like the Science Channel, but won't pay $10 more for it. If he'd be willing pay $2 or $3 or whatever, Dish is losing that amount because they'll only sell it to him for $10 as part of the next tier.


I'm in the same situation, but like most, I fork out the $10 every month.


carload said:


> Probably. The McCain bill had language that put a cap of something like half of a package's price for any single channel in the package. So you'd be free to charge $20/month for The Chess Channel as long as you didn't include that channel in a package that costs less than $40/month.


That sounds like a bill that would encourage bundling. Since the current Dish bundles are in $10 increments, I do think many people would go for a single channel at $5. In order to maximize profit, Dish would have to consolidate channels into bigger bundles. With a $40 bundle that had a lot of channels, like your example, I don't think anyone would be willing to pay $20 for just one.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

the_bear said:


> When I think of customer friendly companies, Pepsi is at the bottom of the list. They charge any reseller a penalty for giving customers a choice between Coke and Pepsi. Of course, Pepsi calls this an "exclusive drink discount" rather than the "give customers a choice penalty". As a Coke drinker I hate being told sorry we only sell Pepsi, but I don't think the government should create a Coke mandate.


You accidentally made me think of a cool example.

Soft drink companies usually sign exclusive agreements with restaurants. For example... McDonalds only has Coke products. (No Pepsi, Coke)

So... if I go to McDonalds I can't get anything but a Coke product to drink. Where's my choice? Why can't McDonalds sell Pepsi and Coke side-by-side and let me decide, and if more people want Pepsi then Coke would suffer?

I can't eat McDonalds food anywhere else but McDonalds (is that a monopoly?) so if I want McDonalds then I have to drink Coke!

Oddly enough, the only places around here that you seem to be able to get Pepsi in a restaurant are places that Pepsi owns or has partial ownership in... like for a while the KFC/Pizza Hut/Taco Bell conglomerate was owned by Pepsi, and they all carried Pepsi products. Don't know if that is still true as I haven't eaten at any of them in a while.

It is pretty rare around here, even with Pepsi being the "taste of the Carolinas" to be able to go to a restaurant and drink Pepsi. If I want Pepsi, I have to get it at the grocery store and bring it home.

Maybe the government should force McDonalds to have Pepsi? Or force them to have both?


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Rogueone said:


> yeah, airline issues are varied. Poor management in some cases, over agressive unions in others, the hub and spoke system not being the most efficient with so many choices and so many redundant flights, and now gas prices, ugh.


Hmmm... and the less popular airlines have gone out of business or are going out of business... and the ones remaining don't always have what we want.

Wow, I'm convinced that a la carte will be completely different!  Oddly enough the airline industry somewhat parallels my thoughts on how "good" a la carte might be if it were forced.


----------



## Rogueone (Jan 29, 2004)

sorry, airlines can't really be compared to TV, and less popular airlines are failing? huh? American, Delta, United filing for bankruptcy isn't because they are less popular. Granted, Southwest is super cheap, but not everyone wants to fly SW, nor do they fly where everyone wants to go. usually they are out of the way. 

Lots affect airlines that are NOT in the airlines control, especially gas prices. And, unlike TV, you want choice, there's an aweful lot of choice in airlines. What seems to be hurting airlines is more the old hub/spoke system and changes in how people travel that make it less cost effective, along with costs of trying to upgrade planes etc. SW only flys the small buggers, no 747's and 777's etc. for overseas. And if overseas flgiths for the big boys don't pay off, that can hurt them a lot if they also can't price match SW since SW doesn't have the same payscales as the others. I loved US Air, it is local here in DC, but it has just about always been the most expensive to operate. They payed the highest pilot saleries at once point, and they've had major money issues trying to cut costs and renegotiate union contracts. 

TV doesn't have so many factors. Terrorism doesn't strip TV of it's userbase, it actually enhances it. High gas prices doesn't hurt TV, it increases viewership, as people have less money for movies and going out, so they stay in more. Heck ,the worse the economy gets, the less money people have, so more TV watching  Better to pay $20 a month for a movie package than try to go to a single movie at $9-10 a ticket and close to the same per person to eat. 

TV and telephony are a more appropriate match, and you are going to be hardpressed to claim we the consumer have been adversely affected by the break up of AT&T (at least until the baby bells rebuild into one huge conglomerate megaglob of a mess) haha

Simply, we have too many airlines with too much overhead involved in the system. What is happening is Free Market in action. dead weight has to get shed, it's painful, but necessary. Once things shake out, airlines will be fewer but more streamlined, likely a more fluid interconnection system will form, and possibly a litle more regional cooperation to cut down on expenses. Oh, and while YOU might not have the choices you think you want, others seem to be voting with their wallet as you've said us TV folk should, and stripped down service is what non business wants. But if you want the old style service, it's still there, you just have to pay for it. and First class is still first class


----------



## diospyros (Nov 14, 2005)

I think a la carte is good. I don't like paying for something I don't like.
I think bundling is good. I wouldn't know what I like if someone hadn't offered me a variety and continued to offer me a variety.


I think the Science Channel is available in AT180 and Family, but nothing in between. I think I think too much, or maybe not enough. 

Puzzlements everywhere.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

the_bear said:


> I have yet to see a proposal where a la carte and bundles can coexist.


A la carte and bundles coexist in Canada; does that count?

Reverse a la carte starts with a bundle, then gives the subscriber the opportunity to reduce his bill by dropping channels. Does that count?

The McCain bill was designed to add a la carte, but you say that it "would encourage bundling." Doesn't that mean that they would coexist?


----------



## eckertman (May 20, 2005)

The science channel is also avaible in the Family Tier. I am already paying less than I have been and don't care what happens in regards to ala carte pricing. I am grateful that I will be able to see television at all when the analog ota channels disapear.


----------



## LtMunst (Aug 24, 2005)

carload said:


> The McCain bill was designed to add a la carte, ...


McCain's campaign finance reform worked real well..:lol: Looking forward to what he can do with alacarte. :eek2:


----------



## Chris Freeland (Mar 24, 2002)

Some of you seam to be blaming E*, D* and Cable for the lack of "a la carte" choices, some blame can be found with the multi-channel service providers especially cable and possibly D*, but most of the blame is that the larger channel providers like Disney and Viacom have eliminated "a la carte" as an option, if E*, D* and Cable want these channels to offer their customers they have to take all or most of the channels these providers have in their inventory and in a basic programing tier. Both E* and Verizon have went on recored as supporting "a la carte" programing, however the channel cartels will not allow it

When E* first started, they had an "a la carte" package called "Dish Pix" which allowed anyone to pick 10 channels for $10/mo and more then 10 for an extra $1/mo each, and you could pick from any channel from AT40(only other pack that E* had at the time) except Disney(even Disney was "a la carte" for $9.99/mo) and it was counted as a basic package, however it was not long until "Dish Picks" was $15/mo($1.50/mo for additional channels) and AT40 was still $19.99/mo and more and more channel providers kept pulling their channels from "Dish Picks" availability. One of the big things I like about E*, although they no longer have "Dish Picks" like they once had, they still have more "a la carte" and package choices then any other provider.

I suspect a "Dish Picks" like package would work again quite nicely say for $19.99/mo allowing one to pick any 10 channel's frome any of the DF, AT or DL packs except maybe the ESPN channels or Disney channel or your local RSN. Then allow locals to be added for $5/mo, the ESPN suite to be added for say an extra $5 - 8/mo(depending on weather you take all or just 1 or 2 ESPN channels, your local RSN(s) for say an extra$5/mo, Disney an extra $9.99/mo and more then the standard 10 for say an extra $2 - 3/mo each. I suspect most people would still stick with one of the AT or DL like packages, but this would allow people who do not want to pay for a pre-packaged bundle to do so. If a law is structured in some way to allow this sort of "a la carte" choice, I do not believe the sky would fall or many if any channels would die or the pre-bundled packages would get any more expensive then they are now and E*, D*, Cable, Verizon, AT&T and the channel providers would still make money.


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

HDMe said:


> Ok, wait... I had to re-read your post about five times to see if my eyes were lying to me.
> 
> Can you please re-read what you just wrote above?
> 
> ...


I never said I subscribed to the 180 pack. I said I wanted the science channel. Currently it is not worth $10 more for me (I don't like it that much LOL) so I take a pass. Had I been offered the option of adding this one channel for a few bucks I would and Dish and the programmers would make more $$$ on me.

Not everyone responds well to pressure and I'm one of them. If Dish and the programmers think that they can apply some pressure by mixing cahnnels up the way they do they prob have some market research that shows more lemmings than warriors 

There is no question that change will mean less money for the programmers in the short term. This is why we have the system set up the way we do. Since we have little or no say in this the entire system is set up to maximize profits for the programmers.

When I pay my gas bill each month I have an account fee and a delivery fee (Dish/DTV/Cable) and I then have a "gas fee" (programmers) - Each is kept separate so I can see who is getting what.

In "my" pay TV system it would work this way:

1. Programmers would provide two prices to me: individual channels and multiple channel discounts. (IE if Disney has 5 channels give me a price for them individually and a price for all 5 at the same time)

2. Distributors would charge and "account fee" that everyone would pay regardless of how many channels they subscribed to.

3. Distributors would charge a "rental fee" for equipment

4. Distributors would charge a "distribution fee" which would amount to the number of channels you get and not how much each channel costs. After all you are paying dish to distribute it and distribution has nothing to do with content 

5. Taxes will be added

Here is what my offerings would cost:

1. Sports Package: $10 ($9 to programmers and $1 distribution fee)
2. Basic Package: $10 ($9 to programmers and $1 distribution fee)
3. Education Package: $10 ($9 to programmers and $1 distribution fee)
4. Kids Package: $5 ($4 to programmers and $1 distribution fee)
5. Music Package $5 ($4 to programmers and $1 distribution fee)
6. Local Channels $6 ($1 to programmers and $5 distribution fee)
7. Premium Basic Package $41 (All of the about with a 10% discount)

Any individual channel could be added to any package for $4 each.

Account Fee would be $10 per account

There would be no minimum. If you wanted only 1 channel it would cost you:

$10 account fee
$5 rental for 1 box
$4 for that 1 channel

$19 + tax

If you wanted all channels (aside from the HBO types) it would cost:

$10 account fee
$5 rental for 1 box
$41 for Premium Basic

$56 + tax

Well this is my setup 

-JB


----------



## IowaStateFan (Jan 11, 2006)

Chris Freeland said:


> Both E* and Verizon have went on recored as supporting "a la carte" programing, however the channel cartels will not allow it


I suspect that's because E* and Verizon don't provide content. They are distributors only. D* and many of the other cable companies also sell programming. Since they want their programming as widely distributed as possible, they don't put up a fight to prevent others from bundling their programming.



Chris Freeland said:


> I suspect a "Dish Picks" like package would work again quite nicely ... I suspect most people would still stick with one of the AT or DL like packages, but this would allow people who do not want to pay for a pre-packaged bundle to do so. If a law is structured in some way to allow this sort of "a la carte" choice, I do not believe the sky would fall or many if any channels would die or the pre-bundled packages would get any more expensive then they are now and E*, D*, Cable, Verizon, AT&T and the channel providers would still make money.


I agree, though I hate the idea of a law being created. I think HDMe is right. We as consumers need to quit paying $10 to buy a package if it only contains 1 channel we want, and then tell the distributor why. If enough of us speak with our wallets, perhaps it will change.

While I generally dislike the idea of government intervention, I think I could be persuaded to support a law separating the content providers from the distributors. As technology improves there will be more competition among the distributors, and they will do what it takes to differentiate themselves from each other. That's the nature of competition and the free market. But as long as the content providers dictate how their programming is distributed, the market isn't truly free.


----------



## the_bear (Oct 18, 2004)

carload said:


> A la carte and bundles coexist in Canada; does that count?


Canadian model = socialized TV


carload said:


> A Reverse a la carte starts with a bundle, then gives the subscriber the opportunity to reduce his bill by dropping channels. Does that count?


Give people a penny a year for every channel they drop and see how many channels get dropped.


carload said:


> A The McCain bill was designed to add a la carte, but you say that it "would encourage bundling." Doesn't that mean that they would coexist?


Yes it encourages bigger bundles and some individual channel purchases, but no way to get to the huge %3 saving for the average Joe with this bill.


Chris Freeland said:


> Some of you seam to be blaming E*, D* and Cable for the lack of "a la carte" choices, some blame can be found with the multi-channel service providers especially cable and possibly D*, but most of the blame is that the larger channel providers like Disney and Viacom have eliminated "a la carte" as an option, if E*, D* and Cable want these channels to offer their customers they have to take all or most of the channels these providers have in their inventory and in a basic programing tier. Both E* and Verizon have went on recored as supporting "a la carte" programing, however the channel cartels will not allow it


Dish has basically said they want to buy a la carte, but sell bundles. No big surprise there. It is pretty easy to put out a press release that says, "My company wants to sell a la carte". Prove your company wants to sell a la carte by actually doing it. No one is making D and E bundle but a bigger bottom line. Do you really think Disney would sell a la carte to Apple, if they thought they could get Apple to buy the whole Disney package?


----------



## Vasanth B (Oct 13, 2005)

IowaStateFan said:


> But as long as the content providers dictate how their programming is distributed, the market isn't truly free.


HERE's the rub...the current market for TV, cable & satellite, is not a truly free market. The media conglomerate content providers (Disney, Viacom, examples) force channel bundling all both the cable & DBS distributors. No one has a choice on Disney programming--only Disney offers the content.

I'm as laissez faire as they come when it comes to true free markets (Pork bellies, most tech commodities, etc) but for these markets where a few giant players control the content, I think there needs to be sensible regulation to expand consumer choice. I'm in favor of this McCain bill but I'd need to see all the nitty-gritty details. So many laws with good intentions can lead to bad policy due to the Law of Unintended Consequences.

As it stands now, D* or E* can't offer an low cost ala-cart option for a monthly flat rate because of the content provider bundling requirements. If they could, they could really undercut Cable on price and then the Cable Cos would be forced to offer a low-cost option for those of us who are in the know and realize we only watch 5-10 channels.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

the_bear said:


> Yes it encourages bigger bundles and some individual channel purchases


I'm glad we can agree that bundles and a la carte can coexist. As to savings, I never made any such claim. My perspective is that the full ramifications of an a la carte system are unpredictable, particularly since we have no consensus on what the a la carte rules would be.


----------



## the_bear (Oct 18, 2004)

Vasanth B said:


> I'm as laissez faire as they come when it comes to true free markets (Pork bellies, most tech commodities, etc)


No law will ever be able to commoditize TV programming. It is the uniqueness that has value. TV will always have a bigger markup, or in the case of socialized TV more waist, than a commoditized products.


Vasanth B said:


> As it stands now, D* or E* can't offer an low cost ala-cart option for a monthly flat rate because of the content provider bundling requirements. If they could, they could really undercut Cable on price and then the Cable Cos would be forced to offer a low-cost option for those of us who are in the know and realize we only watch 5-10 channels.


C-Band providers do offer much more flexibility than cable. But, they don't undercut cable in price. If you are trying to say Dish could not suddenly offer complete a la carte tomorrow, then I agree. If you are saying Dish could not move to complete a la carte in a few years, I would like to see some evidence?


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

the_bear said:


> Dish has basically said they want to buy a la carte, but sell bundles. No big surprise there. It is pretty easy to put out a press release that says, "My company wants to sell a la carte". Prove your company wants to sell a la carte by actually doing it. No one is making D and E bundle but a bigger bottom line. Do you really think Disney would sell a la carte to Apple, if they thought they could get Apple to buy the whole Disney package?


That is the problem: DirecTV and Dish Network cannot sell a la carte. The contracts they have with the channel providers list the availability and terms into their "packages".

You want ESPN? You must place it in the lowest tier. You want a discount? Take the ESPN suite, in the lowest tier. You want a bigger discount? Place the channels in this order: ESPN, ESPN News, ESPN Classic, ESPN2.



Vasanth B said:


> I'm as laissez faire as they come when it comes to true free markets (Pork bellies, most tech commodities, etc)


That is the problem. Your version of "true free markets" are commodities. Although programming itself can be considered a commodity, the programs and the channels are brands. And if you want these brands as a distributor, you have to abide by their terms and conditions to gain access to their content for redistribution to your customers.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Rogueone said:


> Oh, and while YOU might not have the choices you think you want, others seem to be voting with their wallet as you've said us TV folk should, and stripped down service is what non business wants.


Being truthful... I don't fly. I have flown in the past, when I had a job that required it. I did not want to fly, and if I could have lived my enitre life without flying I would be just fine...

I was speaking more for people that I know who do fly, and their comments about how things have been going in recent years.

I do, essentially, vote with my wallet by not flying 

If they could come up with a way to fly much slower and not so high off the ground, I might be interested


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

the_bear said:


> C-Band providers do offer much more flexibility than cable. But, they don't undercut cable in price. If you are trying to say Dish could not suddenly offer complete a la carte tomorrow, then I agree. If you are saying Dish could not move to complete a la carte in a few years, I would like to see some evidence?


Let's take the Dish Network-Hearst-Lifetime spat.

Dish Network, by 31 December, had figured out they were having problems with Lifetime, and possibly Hearst. This would have affected the following properties:

Lifetime (which was on AT60)
Lifetime Movie Network (which was on AT120)
Lifetime Real Women (which is a new channel)
The Hearst-Argyle broadcast properties (mainly mid-market ABC affiliates)

Dish Network couldn't come to an agreement with Lifetime, which caused Dish Network to sign a separate carriage agreement with Hearst-Argyle for the mid-market ABC affiliates. Dish Network did not want another Viacom fiasco on their hands; missing ABC affiliates could prove deadly to the subscriber levels.

Finally, on 31 January, Dish Network signed a new agreement with Lifetime, which renegotiated the Hearst-Argyle contract as well. Lifetime was placed in AT60 again, Lifetime Movie Network was placed on AT180 (moved to a higher tier), and Lifetime Real Women is either on or coming on AT180. These channel placements were negotiated.

Dish Network did ask for the ability to go a-la-carte for Lifetime. Lifetime refused, mainly because it would require the subscriber to opt-in to receive the programming. Lifetime wanted their channel in the basic subscription package.

So the question becomes: How would a distributor make the channel provider sign a carriage contract for a la carte, in addition to a standard carriage contract for channel placement and tiering?

Take a look at Disney Channel. If you want Disney Channel East and West on Dish Network, you can get them. It is priced at $9.99 per month. Is that the kind of choice you want for a la carte? Bloomberg was $1.50.


----------



## the_bear (Oct 18, 2004)

Greg Bimson said:


> &#8230;Finally, on 31 January, Dish Network signed a new agreement with Lifetime, which renegotiated the Hearst-Argyle contract as well. Lifetime was placed in AT60 again, Lifetime Movie Network was placed on AT180 (moved to a higher tier), and Lifetime Real Women is either on or coming on AT180. These channel placements were negotiated.


&#8230;because Hearst gave Dish a deep discount for the favorable placement. Up the price and customers get a lot more say in packaging. This is why I used C-Ban as an example, flexibility comes at a price.


Greg Bimson said:


> Dish Network did ask for the ability to go a-la-carte for Lifetime. Lifetime refused, mainly because it would require the subscriber to opt-in to receive the programming. Lifetime wanted their channel in the basic subscription package.


Dish made Lifetime a ridiculously low offer for a la carte Lifetime, because Dish did NOT want Liefetime a la carte. If Dish was serious about a la carte Lifetime, Dish would have made a serious offer. Lifetime is a great example of how Dish does not want to sell a la carte because it would cut into Dish's bottom line.


----------



## Rogueone (Jan 29, 2004)

HDMe said:


> If they could come up with a way to fly much slower and not so high off the ground, I might be interested


hhaahahahahaha

um, ultralites will do that for ya, but you have to do the fueling, packing, flying, landing, etc  but hey, it's low and slow ans shorter than driving hahahaha


----------



## Rogueone (Jan 29, 2004)

why do people keep trying to say Cband is comparable to little Dish and cable offerings? it's not even in the same ball park. The only thing similar is it's a TV picture providing service. This is like comparing SGI computers to Intels and Macs and saying that SGI's business model proves some new model for Intel and Mac can't work because SGI isn't more successful doing something like that new way. 

C-band isn't an option for the vast majority of people in the US. It's simply too large, too expensive, and too ugly for most people. Then there is the problem of actually getting sight to all the various birds. You realize the vast majority of people have either tress in their yards, or live in crowded areas where other homes or buildings would prevent reception? Little Dish became viable because you only needed 1 small dish to hit 1 or 2 sats, and it could sit on your roof and look over the obstructions in your area  

And what about people living in condos and apartments and townhomes and places with HOA's. people on wooded lots. there are simply dozens of factors which have and still do prevent c-band from being viable for most people. Equipment is very expensive, and programming is as well, because there is no "volume" purchasing for the providers. They aren't ordering service for 12 million people or 40 million people etc. Equipment costs can't be spread over millions of subs. it's a niche market, niche rarely compares to mainstream.



so back to the real discussion. something that I don't think has been brought up is, what about all the millions of people who do NOT subscribe to dish or cable? there are Millions out there with just OTA. They are likely light TV watchers, but they also see no point in paying $40 for something they get free. They look at the packages and there isn't something compelling for their needs and desires. But, if ala carte is offered, and they would be interested in 5 or 10 channels, maybe Fox news, and disney for the kids, and weather channel, and science or animal planet. Stuff that isn't possible on OTA. Maybe they'd pay $10 for programming and $5 for leasing the recr. Maybe they would take a few channels at $10-$20. Get 2 million people paying $15 and that's a lot of money. If the pricing agreements can be worked out reasoanbly, then a provider could still make $2 or $3 per month per sub, and even at $1 profit, that could mean a couple million in profits. Don't you think they would like to serve them too? 

The problem now is, Dish likely could offer ala carte, but the cost would be so prohibitive to us that no more than a hundred or two people would order it. As others stated, the programmers put so many restrictions and stipulations in place that for now a distributor could not "realistically" offer a la carte at this time.


----------



## IowaStateFan (Jan 11, 2006)

sikma said:


> For those of you out there that think no one cares or would be interested in having the option of a la carte, there are over 100 posts and 1500+ views in the four days since this thread started!


I thought this thread had died long ago. It's now into it's 6th day with 180+ posts and almost 2400 views. Somebody hit a nerve. :eek2:


----------



## IowaStateFan (Jan 11, 2006)

Rogueone said:


> The problem now is, Dish likely could offer ala carte, but the cost would be so prohibitive to us that no more than a hundred or two people would order it. As others stated, the programmers put so many restrictions and stipulations in place that for now a distributor could not "realistically" offer a la carte at this time.


Okay Rogueone. I think I'm on your side here, except that I can't come up with a remedy that doesn't involve some sort of government intervention and that medicine is almost always worse than the disease!:bang


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

IowaStateFan said:


> Okay Rogueone. I think I'm on your side here, except that I can't come up with a remedy that doesn't involve some sort of government intervention and that medicine is almost always worse than the disease!:bang


There is no way, IMHO, that big business will do the right thing if it involves a potential loss of $$$ without government intervention.

Sometimes the threat of intervention is enough to loosen things up but I do not think this will work in this case because there are too many different programmers involved. If it was just 1 or 2 I can see them being able to self regulate but without strict guidlines they would all have to follow you will never have everyone on the same page.

-JB


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

the_bear said:


> This is why I used C-Ban as an example, flexibility comes at a price.


I noticed that the C-Band ala carte is made up of the same kinds of bundles that afflict everyone else. If you want Disney, you have to buy everything under the Disney umbrella for a little more than $8/month. The ESPNs can be had apart from the Disney package for a lot less and that's a good thing.

No valid value comparison can take place without putting together a desired collection of channels and comparing the price. Saying that Brand X does things differently doesn't prove that Brand A, Brand C or Brand T are doing it wrong unless it can be demonstrated that a substantial majority of the subscribership could actually save money.

If you have to jump through hoops or make too many compromises to get the programming you want, is it really worth it? Do you think it would be cheaper for you to assemble a television from parts? I have enough trouble trying to figure out what I want on my deli sandwich.


----------



## the_bear (Oct 18, 2004)

Rogueone said:


> why do people keep trying to say Cband is comparable to little Dish and cable offerings?


 No one is saying c-band is interchangeable with Dish. What I am saying is c-band offers more flexibility than Dish because of customer pressure, not because they are nice guys. No one has shown that customer pressure only applies to c-band and not Dish.


Rogueone said:


> Don't you think they would like to serve them too?


 Not at today's prices. More people would drop to smaller packages than new customers would sign up.


Rogueone said:


> The problem now is, Dish likely could offer ala carte, but the cost would be so prohibitive to us that no more than a hundred or two people would order it. As others stated, the programmers put so many restrictions and stipulations in place that for now a distributor could not "realistically" offer a la carte at this time.


 I agree, today's bundles are too cheap to give Dish any incentive to kick ESPN out of basic. Between the rapid rise of basic service and new TV service over the internet, these cheap bundles will become expensive in comparison over the next few years. As I have posted before, no way I will pay Dish $100 a month, when Apple iTunes gives we almost all the shows I want at $10. The free market will force prices down and increase flexibility over the next few years, but ironically if the government adds price caps, everyone will be thanking congress instead.


----------



## IowaStateFan (Jan 11, 2006)

jrb531 said:


> There is no way, IMHO, that big business will do the right thing if it involves a potential loss of $$$ without government intervention.


That's where you and I disagree. I do agree that Big (and small) business will do whatever is in it's best interest. However, setting their prices higher than the market will bear, and cutting off their customers is generally not in their best interest. Ignoring the grumblings and allowing the government to intervine is certainly not in their best interest. We consumers do have some say here. As long as we are paying their asking price, they have no incentive to change.



jrb531 said:


> Sometimes the threat of intervention is enough to loosen things up but I do not think this will work in this case because there are too many different programmers involved. If it was just 1 or 2 I can see them being able to self regulate but without strict guidlines they would all have to follow you will never have everyone on the same page.
> 
> -JB


I think you've got that backwards. Generally, more suppliers creates more competition. If everyone else raises prices and restricts the products, I can undercut them, get mine to the market and make more $. If someone thinks there is a market for a science channel and that the current prices are too high, they'll create their own at a price they can profit. If there were only 1 or 2 programmers out there, they'd undercut any startup. We see that in the airline industry all the time. I'm not arguing that we have true competition in this market, just that your reasoning seems backwards to me.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

jrb531 said:


> There is no way, IMHO, that big business will do the right thing if it involves a potential loss of $$$ without government intervention.





IowaStateFan said:


> That's where you and I disagree. I do agree that Big (and small) business will do whatever is in it's best interest. However, setting their prices higher than the market will bear, and cutting off their customers is generally not in their best interest. Ignoring the grumblings and allowing the government to intervine is certainly not in their best interest. We consumers do have some say here. As long as we are paying their asking price, they have no incentive to change.


But you haven't given a remedy.

FCC Chairman Kevin Martin proposes a *goal*: pay television goes to an a la carte model. There was a study to justify his position. But there wasn't a path given to get to the goal.

FCC Chairman Kevin Martin started this proposal by stating giving people the ability to remove offensive programming from bundled packages. The top four multichannel providers gave "remedies". They all started offering "Family Packs". Of course, these were anywhere between a few to fifteen dollars cheaper than the normal "basic" package. And they lack sports programming, amongst some other general programming.

However, once again, for a la carte, there is no "remedy" proposed. The pay-television sector will not simply acquiesce to changing all of their carriage contracts to an a la carte mode when they are fat and happy with the profits their shareholders and bondholders expect.

Unless a law is passed that not only stops bunding but caps pricing on a la carte (which is simply allowing the FCC to re-regulate the cable industry), this will not happen.

And this will not happen with a Republican House, Republican Senate and Republican President.

Once again, vote with your wallet. It sends a better message.


----------



## IowaStateFan (Jan 11, 2006)

Greg Bimson said:


> But you haven't given a remedy.


You're right. I haven't given a remedy. I'd like to think that the market will take sort it out. The thought of government intervention abhors me. As I've said many times, we as consumers are currently paying the asking price for our television programming. There is no way any company can charge us more than we are willing to pay - as long as the transaction is voluntary. No matter how much anybody objects, *pay TV is purely voluntary*. If you have to buy the entire package to get the program you want, its up to you to decide if it's worth it. If it's not, then don't buy it and tell your provider why you aren't buying it.



Greg Bimson said:


> FCC Chairman Kevin Martin proposes a *goal*: pay television goes to an a la carte model. There was a study to justify his position. But there wasn't a path given to get to the goal.
> 
> FCC Chairman Kevin Martin started this proposal by stating giving people the ability to remove offensive programming from bundled packages. The top four multichannel providers gave "remedies". They all started offering "Family Packs". Of course, these were anywhere between a few to fifteen dollars cheaper than the normal "basic" package. And they lack sports programming, amongst some other general programming.
> 
> However, once again, for a la carte, there is no "remedy" proposed. The pay-television sector will not simply acquiesce to changing all of their carriage contracts to an a la carte mode when they are fat and happy with the profits their shareholders and bondholders expect..


I laud that goal. I want more choice in how I spend my entertainment $. I also agree that the television industry is only going to do the minimum required to keep the regulators happy. We aren't going to get any real change just because the FCC and Congress are making "noise".



Greg Bimson said:


> Unless a law is passed that not only stops bunding but caps pricing on a la carte (which is simply allowing the FCC to re-regulate the cable industry), this will not happen.
> 
> And this will not happen with a Republican House, Republican Senate and Republican President.
> 
> Once again, vote with your wallet. It sends a better message.


I hope you are wrong that it requires that type of law. I'm not sure I quite understand your last comment. I do vote with my wallet. I don't purchase all the programming I'd like because the cost is not worth it for me. If you are suggesting I vote for someone that will promise to lower my bills and give me more "stuff", I reject that. That's not what government should be doing, IMO.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

No, the "vote with your wallet" statement is directed to anyone that feels they are being bent over by these programmers.

I tend to agree with you. I don't want the government involved, either. However, to creatively add to the banter...


IowaStateFan said:


> I also agree that the television industry is only going to do the minimum required to keep the regulators happy. We aren't going to get any real change just because the FCC and Congress are making "noise".





Greg Bimson said:


> Unless a law is passed that not only stops bunding but caps pricing on a la carte (which is simply allowing the FCC to re-regulate the cable industry), this will not happen.





IowaStateFan said:


> I hope you are wrong that it requires that type of law.


It would most definitely require some kind of law I propose. Let's take a look at something DirecTV does...

NFL Sunday Ticket is now $249 for the season. Someone sued the NFL because they didn't feel the NFL had the right to only charge for the season; that games should be available on a per week basis. The court agreed.

The remedy? The NFL had to allow Sunday Ticket to be sold on a weekly basis.

The price the NFL came up with? $39.99.

*$39.99*

Buying seven weeks a la carte is comparable to the price of the season. There are *17* weeks in the season. So if you buy Sunday Ticket weekly for every week of the season, you are paying $680. The season package is almost *one-third* the price if you bought weekly.

Needless to say, there aren't very many takers in the weekly version of Sunday Ticket.

So unless a law is crafted to stop bundling and cap a la carte pricing, the pricing for these channels in a la carte world will be cost prohibitive.


----------



## BabaLouie (Apr 2, 2004)

Greg Bimson said:


> No, the "vote with your wallet" statement is directed to anyone that feels they are being bent over by these programmers.
> 
> I tend to agree with you. I don't want the government involved, either. However, to creatively add to the banter...It would most definitely require some kind of law I propose. Let's take a look at something DirecTV does...
> 
> ...


That's not a good example. For one thing, how many of Directv's competitors offer Sunday Ticket, either on an annual or a weekly basis?

That's right, NONE. Directv has a MONOPOLY on that service.

If Dish Network also offered Sunday Ticket, you might well see that weekly price fall. Right now, there is no competitive pressure on Directv, so they are able to charge a ridiculous price for weekly ST. In other words, they charge $39.99 a week BECAUSE THEY CAN.


----------



## IowaStateFan (Jan 11, 2006)

BabaLouie said:


> If Dish Network also offered Sunday Ticket, you might well see that weekly price fall. Right now, there is no competitive pressure on Directv, so they are able to charge a ridiculous price for weekly ST. In other words, they charge $39.99 a week BECAUSE THEY CAN.


Let's extrapolate this to general programming. If the distributors were allowed to offer a la carte, I believe the prices would be set by the market. If E* felt they could make more money by selling the a la carte programming for less than D*, they'd do that. Note that E* has tried to distinguish itself as the low cost provider. They have the AT60, where D*'s lowest pack is equivilent in price and content to the AT120. E*'s family pack is less $, but also less programming. I think its safe to assume they'd continue to try to do this under an a la carte system which should put pressure on the other distributors to keep costs down. The catch to all of this is how the content providers price their offerings.


----------



## IowaStateFan (Jan 11, 2006)

Greg Bimson said:


> No, the "vote with your wallet" statement is directed to anyone that feels they are being bent over by these programmers.
> 
> I tend to agree with you. I don't want the government involved, either.


Good. On that we are in agreement. There is a place for government involvement and I'd like to think this isn't one of them, though as you kindly pointed out, I am waffling on that :slowgrin:



Greg Bimson said:


> So unless a law is crafted to stop bundling and cap a la carte pricing, the pricing for these channels in a la carte world will be cost prohibitive.


Assuming we must have government intervention, I think a better solution would be to separate the programmers from the distributors. Technology is already allowing lots of creative ways of distribution (Internet, Cable, Fiber Optic, Satellite, WiFi) but the content is being controlled by companies that have a vested interest in the means of distribution. If they were separated I think it would lead to a freer market.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

jrb531 said:


> There is no way, IMHO, that big business will do the right thing if it involves a potential loss of $$$ without government intervention.


Ignoring the a la carte discussion for a minute...

Do you realize what you just said?

That governments should make businesses risk losing money?

So basically, any business that is turning a profit should be forced by the government to change their business model so that it risks being unprofitable?

Huh?

Maybe the government should look at each of us and if we are able to save money after paying all of our bills then we should be required to give that extra "profit" money away?


----------



## WHNB (Jan 15, 2004)

At a Senate Commerce Committee hearing on video franchising yesterday (Wednesday, 2/15), Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona said that he would introduce a bill that would exempt new competitors of cable (like the phone companies) from local franchising regulations if they would offer their video channels a la carte.

The bill would have a two-fold purpose: to lower subscribers' cable bills while also allowing parents to control objectionable programming coming into the home.


----------



## Chris Freeland (Mar 24, 2002)

WHNB said:


> At a Senate Commerce Committee hearing on video franchising yesterday (Wednesday, 2/15), Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona said that he would introduce a bill that would exempt new competitors of cable (like the phone companies) from local franchising regulations if they would offer their video channels a la carte.
> 
> The bill would have a two-fold purpose: to lower subscribers' cable bills while also allowing parents to control objectionable programming coming into the home.


Yes, but this will do them no good if the program providers will not sell them channels if they are offered on a "a la carte" bases. Until the program providers start allowing the program distributors (a la E*, D*, Cable and Phone company cable) to sell "a la carte" it will not happen. Part of the problem too is that the two largest cable companies, Comcast and TW and 1 satellite provider D* also are owned by or own program providers. Unless Senator John McCain's bill addresses this issue too, it is not going to happen.


----------



## retiredTech (Oct 27, 2003)

the problem with "product" being "sold" is akin to magazines. 
Much of it's profit for the "wholesaler" is from the advertising NOT "so much directly" the product.
This is why is SO important to the "wholesaler" to ensure large subscriber numbers (even if they aren't "truly watching", the "wholesaler" still uses these numbers to generate ad revenue)
This explains exactly why C-band has some a la carte now and why in the early days of E* they were able to neogoiate a la carte contracts with the "wholesalers". When viewers numbers are low then "direct subcription revenue" is as important as ad revenue.
BUT when viewers numbers reach E*s levels , then ad revenue is FAR too important for the "wholesalers" to miss a penny of.
THIS IS EXACTLY WHY THE MEDIA CORPORATION WHOLESALERS WON'T MAKE CONTRACTS THAT ALLOW FOR A LA CARTE !
Now the real truth of how much ad revenue, they would lose if a la carte was allowed along with bundles is not known. AND can not be known until it happens.
But they think they would lose money, and thats why they don't want it.
So anything, else they say about it, is a lie. They like it this way and don't want to lose a penny, but who knows, they might make more money.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

HDMe said:


> Ignoring the a la carte discussion for a minute...
> 
> Do you realize what you just said?
> 
> ...


The original thought was that a business will act to maximize profit. If there is a compelling reason, the government may intercede to force the business to act in a way which reduces its profit but benefits the public. Pollution controls, minimum wages, nutrition labelling, it's easy to think of examples of laws designed to promote public welfare at the cost of reducing business profits.


----------



## Rogueone (Jan 29, 2004)

on the issue of competition, I do believe we'll see changes start to come in as Verizon and AT&T start widely offering services. They realize they need to be different to get subs, but they also don't have the bandwidth restrictions of Sat or cable when FiOS rolls out. 

Verizon signed a deal with NBC/Universal before they even got their video service off the ground, where they agreed to carry all of NBC/Uni's digital channels. I believe this means some no one has yet, and all digital and HD when applicable. now verizon has discussed ala carte is something they will offer. And if I'm a supplier, I wouldn't be overly interested in pissing off Verizon or SBC/ATT. The packaging they will likely be doing is bound to be popular, and with all the disgruntled customers out there, you gotta think a lot with jump once it's available. Heck, how many here have said once Fios is up for them, they are GONE! I know it'll be hard for Dish to keep me unless there are some serious issues with content and price. And if the gov't gives them preferrential treatment if they'll offer ala carte, don't you think the others will start trying to figure out how to match them? 

man, it's funny to think of the telephone company as the upstart, but I know where I am, Verizon offers dsl much cheaper than comcast does cable internet. And anytime verizon goes with higher speeds and lower costs, comcast's only retalliation is to increase speeds, never to lower pricing. I'm at 3m now, really, I don't have any use for 6m except maybe twice a year. If Verizon can do to TV what they've done to broadband internet, I'm all for them crashing this party!!


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

carload said:


> The original thought was that a business will act to maximize profit. If there is a compelling reason, the government may intercede to force the business to act in a way which reduces its profit but benefits the public. Pollution controls, minimum wages, nutrition labelling, it's easy to think of examples of laws designed to promote public welfare at the cost of reducing business profits.


Except that the examples you just gave do not end up reducing profit really... Pollution controls, minimum wage increases, and nutrition labelling are examples of the government forcing all companies to do something... and since all companies are forced to do it, then all companies can add the increased cost to their prices and recoup the lost profit.

Every time the minimum wage goes up, companies that product saleable product simply increase the cost of their items, and the bar has thus been reset with no savings to consumers.


----------



## LtMunst (Aug 24, 2005)

HDMe said:


> Every time the minimum wage goes up, companies that product saleable product simply increase the cost of their items, and the bar has thus been reset with no savings to consumers.


Or they just lay some people off and make the rest work harder.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

Regarding my pricing discussion of the NFL Sunday Ticket...


BabaLouie said:


> That's not a good example. For one thing, how many of Directv's competitors offer Sunday Ticket, either on an annual or a weekly basis?


None. The NFL signed an exclusive arrangement with DirecTV.


BabaLouie said:


> That's right, NONE. Directv has a MONOPOLY on that service.


No, not a monopoly, but an exclusive agreement. That's much different.

A monopoly is control of a given commodity. DirecTV does not have control over sports programming. However, the NFL has control over professional football. The NFL here is the monopoly.

And let's not forget, the NFL dictated the terms of the sale of the package to DirecTV and C-Band at that time. The NFL only allowed full season sales. DirecTV was sued in the exact same lawsuit, and was not found to be the guilty party, as the NFL dictated that DirecTV could only sell a season package.


BabaLouie said:


> If Dish Network also offered Sunday Ticket, you might well see that weekly price fall. Right now, there is no competitive pressure on Directv, so they are able to charge a ridiculous price for weekly ST. In other words, they charge $39.99 a week BECAUSE THEY CAN.


You must remember that some of the pricing constraints are dictated by the NFL, which signed this agreement.

However, there is no reason to say "If Dish Network also offered Sunday Ticket." Heck, if I won the PowerBall, I'd be a millionaire. Either occurance happening are the same odds. 

You may believe that if Dish Network sold Sunday Ticket that pricing would come down. However, *there is no real competitive difference in pricing on the rest of the sports packs that both Dish Network and DirecTV sell.*

Reread the last sentence. Because neither provider is cutting pricing on NBA League Pass to outdraw reps from another provider. And that is probably because of the contracts that each provider signed with the NBA.

And once again, that proves the channel or content providers are the driving force behind the pricing to the distributor.


----------



## BabaLouie (Apr 2, 2004)

Greg Bimson said:


> You may believe that if Dish Network sold Sunday Ticket that pricing would come down. However, *there is no real competitive difference in pricing on the rest of the sports packs that both Dish Network and DirecTV sell.*
> 
> Reread the last sentence. Because neither provider is cutting pricing on NBA League Pass to outdraw reps from another provider. And that is probably because of the contracts that each provider signed with the NBA.
> 
> And once again, that proves the channel or content providers are the driving force behind the pricing to the distributor.


You don't think Directv would be charging more than they currently are for the NBA League Pass if Dish Network (and cable companies) didn't offer it? Certainly the content providers come up with a minimum, but you don't think Dish and Directv will get whatever they can on top of that? Have you ever been involved in business? As another poster stated, "A business will act to maximize profit." The reason there is "no real competitive difference in pricing on the rest of the sports packs" is mostly BECAUSE of competition, rather than in SPITE of it.

If Directv had an "exclusive agreement" to carry NBA League Pass next season, you can bet the price would go up by at least $40.00 per season.

You think the NFL told Directv they had to force customers to take the Total Choice package if they wanted to purchase Sunday Ticket? Sorry, I don't blame the content provider for that--that's purely Directv wanting to make as much $$$ as possible.


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

HDMe said:


> Ignoring the a la carte discussion for a minute...
> 
> Do you realize what you just said?
> 
> ...


I don't seem to recall saying that 

When a business starts using monopolistic practices to increase their profits then yes I think the government should step in as they have been doing for well over 100 years.

If some of these channels cannot survive on their own and only exist because of forced price supports or by co-linking them with more popular channels then perhaps they should go bye bye. While public welfare is often needed to help put a roof on peoples head as well as something in their stomach, I hardly think we need a form of welfare for the pay TV industry.

If the programmers want to introduce a new channel they need to take the same risks as any other product launch. If an existing channel becomes unpopular or fails to be able to support itself then it goes away to make room for another channel. This is why we have more and more and more channels... how many ever go away under the current setup? To be sure you may be able to quote a few but in the past 10 years how many failed channels have we had vs start up channels?

Now if you mean to say that Pay TV can only survive under the current format and moving to a form of ala-cart and "unforced" packages will be the end of Pay TV then maybe you better explain why this will happen?

I will agree that when ala-cart occurs that the Pay TV industry will experience a drop from "obscene" profits to those more in line with other industry but much like the music industry.... I will not shed a tear!

Growing fat off the profits of consumers by charging unreasonable fees "just because you can" may bring you in huge windfalls in the short term but in the end you create a form of consumer anamocity (sp?) that often comes back to haunt you.

Much like sports or music figures who cry that they had to take a paycut from 10 million a year to "only" 1 million, I will "not" feel sorry for the Pay TV industry who has lined their pockets all these years by using back door deals, contracts full of strings and "must-carry" clauses and so many other forms of day to day operational practices that, IMHO, have crossed the line.

While dropping huge piles of cash via donations to the right people may sting congress along for awhile, eventually the public reaches the breaking point and that point is now.

So on behalf of all the families who would like to keep a handfull of entertainment channels but are struggling to pay the monthly bills I say this to the Pay TV industry....

Screw you!

I'm so sorry your profits "may" dip slightly if you were to allow people to actually have freedom of choice aside from what you currently offer...

1. EXPENSIVE Pay TV

or

2. NO Pay TV

what's wrong with offering a third?

3. SOME Pay TV

-JB


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

HDMe said:


> Except that the examples you just gave do not end up reducing profit really... Pollution controls, minimum wage increases, and nutrition labelling are examples of the government forcing all companies to do something... and since all companies are forced to do it, then all companies can add the increased cost to their prices and recoup the lost profit.
> 
> Every time the minimum wage goes up, companies that product saleable product simply increase the cost of their items, and the bar has thus been reset with no savings to consumers.


If the programmers were struggling for their very survival on razor thin profits then this might hold up. How can anyone say that the programmers insisting:

1. Take all our channels or you get none
2. You can only offer our channels in certain packages
3. You cannot sell our channel ala-cart

and any number of other "strings" is not akin to monopolistic practices?

What competition do these programmers have? Who are they competing with?

If they are forced to offer ala-cart and as a result they raise the individual channel costs then we have the option of cancelling channels we feel are not worth it.

THIS is competition. Raise your costs too much and we switch to a cheaper channel!

-JB


----------



## IowaStateFan (Jan 11, 2006)

jrb531 said:


> I will agree that when ala-cart occurs that the Pay TV industry will experience a drop from "obscene" profits to those more in line with other industry but much like the music industry.... I will not shed a tear!
> 
> Growing fat off the profits of consumers by charging unreasonable fees "just because you can" may bring you in huge windfalls in the short term but in the end you create a form of consumer anamocity (sp?) that often comes back to haunt you.


Please define "obscene profits" and what makes pay tv's profits fall into that category. Please be specific. Also, what you consider unreasonable fees may be different to others. James Long, for example, seems to think his tv fees are reasonable. Remember, paying for tv is totally optional. No one can force you to pay more than you are willing to pay. E* could charge $1000/mo for an everything pack that included all PPV sports, movies, etc. Would people buy it? I suppose some might but I doubt there would be enough to make it profitable. I would love to pay less and get more tv. I'd also love to have a 6,000 sq ft house with a live in maid. Unfortunately, there is a market price for both of those that is more than I can afford.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

IowaStateFan said:


> I'd also love to have a 6,000 sq ft house with a live in maid.


Hey... now YOU are bundling!


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

As someone else alluded to in this thread...

Dish is not a monopoly. DirecTV, cable, SkyAngel, C-band, and free OTA are examples of other ways to get your TV.

If I made cookies... then I would have a monopoly on HDMe's cookies, but not on cookies in general! You can only get HDMe's cookies from me, and I can charge whatever I want... and if I also have HDMe's chips, I could make 2-packs of cookies and chips and choose to only sell them that way... If you want HDMe's cookies or chips then you HAVE to buy HDMe's cookies AND chips!

But I wouldn't have a monopoly on cookies or chips... you can buy cookies and/or chips elsewhere OR not buy cookies or chips at all!

CBS is the only place you can get CBS programs... but CBS isn't a monopoly, because there is ABC and FOX and so forth. Disney is the only place you can get Disney, and they own ABC and ESPN... and neither ABC nor ESPN are monopolies... so Disney can choose to market all their programming as one package. This is choice on their part to do so at the risk of losing sales to folks who don't want the whole package.

Hard as I try... I can't see any monopolies at work here. IF one day there is one company that buys up all the programming OR buys up all the satellite/cable/OTA providers OR buys up all of both... then we would have a monopoly. But we don't, so those rules don't apply.

No one is entitled to their favorite CBS or Disney or ESPN... it is a luxury and our right to "pursue happiness" per the constitution... but our constitution doesn't say anything about guaranteed happiness or entitlement to happiness... only a guarantee that we have the right to pursue happiness. There is a difference.


----------



## IowaStateFan (Jan 11, 2006)

HDMe said:


> Hey... now YOU are bundling!


I'm all for bundling when it is to *my* advantage. Now that you mention it maybe I should drop the maid, then maybe I could afford the house - *NOT*


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

BabaLouie said:


> You don't think Directv would be charging more than they currently are for the NBA League Pass if Dish Network (and cable companies) didn't offer it? Certainly the content providers come up with a minimum, but you don't think Dish and Directv will get whatever they can on top of that?


Then why do all the DBS companies and cable companies charge exactly the same price for the package? Why hasn't one cut their pricing in half, to attract more subscriptions? Because the contract with the sports league doesn't allow it.


BabaLouie said:


> As another poster stated, "A business will act to maximize profit." The reason there is "no real competitive difference in pricing on the rest of the sports packs" is mostly BECAUSE of competition, rather than in SPITE of it.


Prove it. As a matter of fact, tell me how the NHL, which is the number two out-of-market sports package take (surprise, surprise) behind the NFL, receives their money from the packages. When you come up with the answer, you'll understand why you are wrong.


BabaLouie said:


> Have you ever been involved in business?


Sure have. And when you realize how the broadcast business works, then I might believe you.


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

HDMe said:


> No one is entitled to their favorite CBS or Disney or ESPN... it is a luxury and our right to "pursue happiness" per the constitution... but our constitution doesn't say anything about guaranteed happiness or entitlement to happiness... only a guarantee that we have the right to pursue happiness. There is a difference.


You are most correct but we are entitled, IMHO, to a straight up...

How much will you sell me CBS for?
How much will you sell me Disney for?
How much will you sell ne ESPN for?

And if the price is too high I can elect to not buy their product.

Right now my choice is simple.... do I want "all" or "none"

This is the issue. I don't think anyone is telling a private business what they should charge but rather tell a private business that they cannot create deals that try and force people to pay for channels that are unwanted.

I don't give a flying donkey if ESPN wants to charge $100 a month for their channel. I, and I suspect many others, will simply elect not to subscribe to that channel. ESPN will be then forced to act like any other business. Do they lower price and gain customers or keep prices high?

-JB


----------



## IowaStateFan (Jan 11, 2006)

jrb531 said:


> You are most correct but we are entitled, IMHO, to a straight up...
> 
> How much will you sell me CBS for?
> How much will you sell me Disney for?
> ...


Entitled? Nope, not IMHO. Disney is entitled to say, "we'll sell you Disney, but only if you buy ESPN too." It is their product, after all. Now if they can make more money by selling you Disney a la carte, they'd be foolish to refuse, but in the end it's up to them to decide how they want to sell their product. Do I like it? Nope again. Do you and I have enough leverage to change it? Not alone, but if enough of us refuse to buy a package only to get one channel and tell Dish why, maybe it will change, though I'm not holding my breathe. It seems most of us are willing to pay for packages that include stuff we don't want. Disney is clearly not motivated to make a change at this time.


----------



## IowaStateFan (Jan 11, 2006)

IowaStateFan said:


> Please define "obscene profits" and what makes pay tv's profits fall into that category. Please be specific.


JB,
No reply to this yet? I suspect it's because you can't show that their profits are "obscene". I think your emotions are clouding your judgement. The entertainment industry (which includes, Disney, TW, Viacom, etc.) has a profit margin of 7%. That means that they are spending $1 on employees, marketing, lawyers, taxes, equipment and much more in order to generate $1.07 in sales. That sure doesn't sound obscene to me. They've got their capital at risk, and are entitled to a profit.

Look, I'm frustrated too. I want to upgrade my 921 to a 622, but I'm not sure it is worth it. Here are my choices:

Keep my 921 and current HD @ $10/mo (I don't subscribe to Voom)
Upgrade and buy the new HD silver for an additional $20/mo (Voom is now bundled)
Upgrade and buy the HD bronze (and lose some SD programming I like)
Upgrade and pay $6/mo to not have any HD programming
Switch to DirecTV.
Cancel all of my pay tv

What I want is to upgrade and get all of the HD except voom for the price I'm currently paying, but that choice is not offered by Dish. So what should I do? I could write to Congress and ask them to pass a law forcing Dish to sell me what I want. Let me give you an example of why that is a bad idea. I think this also shows what those against a la carte are afraid of - less choice. A few years back a couple of California towns passed a law saying that banks couldn't charge for the use of ATMs in their town. Now none of us like paying for the priviledge of getting our money from an ATM, so this seems like a reasonable law, right? Well you know what the banks did? They said that non-customers could not use their ATMs. So instead of being able to shop around and find the cheapest ATM, people in those towns had to go elsewhere to use an ATM (unless they could find an ATM that was run by their bank). There are often unintended consequences when government gets involved in private transactions.

So back to my choice. All I can do is choose the offer that gives me the best value and voice my concerns to Dish. It's up to them to decide if they'll make more money by offering the options I want. If it's worth it to them, they'll do it otherwise I'm SOL.


----------



## BabaLouie (Apr 2, 2004)

Greg Bimson said:


> Then why do all the DBS companies and cable companies charge exactly the same price for the package?


Do you really think that if one of these companies had "exclusive rights" to this package, they would be charging the same price for it as they do now? PROVE to ME that the price isn't where it is at least in PART because of competitive pressure!



Greg Bimson said:


> Why hasn't one cut their pricing in half, to attract more subscriptions?


I said that there is undoubtedly a MINIMUM that Dish and Directv and the others must charge to fulfill their contract with the league. I don't know if any carrier could "cut their pricing in half"--they certainly aren't going to carry programming at
a LOSS! But do you not understand that, at least in part, the price might be where it is, and not higher, BECAUSE of the pressures of COMPETITION? How do you KNOW that Dish Network would not charge $20.00/year MORE for the NBA package than they currently are, were it not for the fact that Directv (and the cable carriers) are charging what they currently do?



Greg Bimson said:


> Because the contract with the sports league doesn't allow it.


Have you read the contract? Can you reproduce it for us?



Greg Bimson said:


> Prove it.


Prove your statements.



> As a matter of fact, tell me how the NHL, which is the number two out-of-market sports package take (surprise, surprise) behind the NFL, receives their money from the packages. When you come up with the answer, you'll understand why you are wrong.


Why are you surprised that the NHL is "the number two out-of-market sports package take"? I'm not. NHL fans are more passionate than NBA or MLB fans. But there is no one who has "exclusive rights" to the NHL, and if anyone did, do you not think they would jack up the price to take advantage of those passionate fans?



Greg Bimson said:


> Sure have. And when you realize how the broadcast business works, then I might believe you.


And I might believe you when YOU offer something in the way of PROOF!

Bimson's world: Competitive pressures mean NOTHING to Dish Network and Directv. They set their pricing SOLELY at what the programming providers tell them it can be. They would never think of maximizing profits. In fact, they would never try to make ANY profit UNLESS and UNTIL the programming providers decide to have them make it. Often, they simply pass along programming to their customers at the same price they pay for it!

Come on, Greg. You can't really believe all of this.

I notice you chose not to respond to one of my questions:
"You think the NFL told Directv they had to force customers to take the Total Choice package if they wanted to purchase Sunday Ticket? Sorry, I don't blame the content provider for that--that's purely Directv wanting to make as much $$$ as possible."


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

jrb531 said:


> You are most correct but we are entitled, IMHO, to a straight up...


Let's be realistic for just a moment... We aren't even entitled to a roof over our heads and food and water. IF we all were entitled, then there would be no homeless and hungry in the world.

So debating "entitlement" in relation to a luxury item like TV is risky at best.

The only entitlement I grant in regards to this subject is... the contract, with Dish for instance, says "customers will get xxx and will pay $yyy.yy" so as long as we pay our $yyy.yy then we are entitled to the xxx. Beyond that, I don't see any implied or expected entitlement.



jrb531 said:


> How much will you sell me CBS for?
> How much will you sell me Disney for?
> How much will you sell ne ESPN for?
> 
> And if the price is too high I can elect to not buy their product.


Yes, I'll grant you that in a perfect world we would all get to pick from all possible choices and everyone could get exactly what we want... but very few things work this way, and most things can't function this way.

As the saying goes... you can please some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time... but not all of the people all of the time!



jrb531 said:


> Right now my choice is simple.... do I want "all" or "none"


But it is a choice... and if you pay the bill, then you are making a choice.

I'll be fair though... sometimes, and in this case obviously it applies to you, we don't always get the choices we want. There is a difference, however, between no choice and no choice that we like.

I choose, for instance, between working for a living and being poor... I'd rather not work, but I don't want to be poor... so I choose. If I could have my dream choice, it would be to not work AND not be poor 



jrb531 said:


> This is the issue. I don't think anyone is telling a private business what they should charge but rather tell a private business that they cannot create deals that try and force people to pay for channels that are unwanted.


Going back to my every popular buffet example...

What if things were described this way...

Instead of AT60, AT120, and AT180...

For $29.99 you can choose from a list of channels up to 60 of them for one low price! Take as many or as few as you want from that list at no extra charge!

For another $10 you can also choose from another list of channels as many as you want!

For yet another $10 you can choose from another list of channels as many as you want!

Pick your package! One price, and you choose from the list of channels! Its a la carte. Don't pay for what you don't want. Want just 5 channels, fine... pick them and pay $29.99!

Is the above marketing methodology any more palatable?


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

> Do you really think that if one of these companies had "exclusive rights" to this package, they would be charging the same price for it as they do now? PROVE to ME that the price isn't where it is at least in PART because of competitive pressure!


I fully agree with Greg when he states "there is no real competitive difference in pricing on the rest of the sports packs that both Dish Network and DirecTV sell". Want proof? Look at the history of theSports Subscription Packages. While it can't be proven in the case of NFL ST, take a look at the facts and the precedent and then make an educated conclusion.

It wasn't up until a few years ago that Dish got most of the season sports packages. DirecTV used to be the exclusive mini dish provider of NHL Center Ice, NBA League Pass and MLB Extra Innings as well as NFL Sunday Ticket and Mega March Madness. Dish only had the 2 ESPN NCAA Packages and MLS Shootout.

The contracts we're written that DirecTV was the exclusive DBS provider, but InDemand started offering these packages to cable, then in 2001 or 2002 Dish got the NHL and NBA, in 2004 the MLB. You can check the Web Archives, but DirecTV did not lower the price of the sports packages when digital cable got them and DirecTV and Indemand didn't cut the price when Dish got them. Dish entered the market charging the exact amount as the competition, not a penny less.

Back when Primestar was around they had NHL CI and NBA LP after DirecTV bought out Primestar they we're the only ones offering those package, new found exclusives, cha-ching. And the price didn't sky rocket. They might have went up $10 a some point but if you take a look at what the packages cost in the late 90s when DirecTV held most of the exclusives they were cheaper back then. Since '98 MLB EI has went up $40, NHL CI and NBA LP went up $30.

Anything can happen, but the history is not there to back up your thoughts and there is no reasonable reason to believe that if there was a flaw discovered and the contract between DirecTV and the NFL became null invoid and Dish was allowed to and did pick it up that they would charge anything other then $209.


----------



## Art7220 (Feb 4, 2004)

BabaLouie said:


> That's not a good example. For one thing, how many of Directv's competitors offer Sunday Ticket, either on an annual or a weekly basis?


 The answer is two, Bell Expressvu and Star Choice. Been watching the BEV ST for awhile now, might sign up next season too.

-A-


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Art7220 said:


> The answer is two, Bell Expressvu and Star Choice. Been watching the BEV ST for awhile now, might sign up next season too.


The key word in the challenge was "competitors". Neither Bell Expressvu nor Star Choice are competitors to DirecTV. Granted, they are similar services, but in different markets. This is the nature of "exclusive" agreements.


----------



## Jacob S (Apr 14, 2002)

I beleive that if we see ala carte on satellite or cable that we will see an access fee charged in addition to those channels that you pick and choose for not picking a package of channels. The satellite and cable companies want to make a minimal amount of money off of you.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

BabaLouie said:


> Do you really think that if one of these companies had "exclusive rights" to this package, they would be charging the same price for it as they do now? PROVE to ME that the price isn't where it is at least in PART because of competitive pressure!


I don't have to. All I have to do is this...

The NFL will make *$700 million a year* off of DirecTV for the Sunday Ticket exclusive. MLB, NBA, and NHL will not even come close.

Once again, the problem isn't that DirecTV won't allow competition for the pricing, it is that the NFL wants their $700 million a year from DirecTV for Sunday Ticket. By the way, NONE of the NFL contracts are money generators for those that hold the contracts. Fox has operated their NFL contracts at a loss for years.


BabaLouie said:


> I said that there is undoubtedly a MINIMUM that Dish and Directv and the others must charge to fulfill their contract with the league. I don't know if any carrier could "cut their pricing in half"--they certainly aren't going to carry programming at a LOSS!


Why is there a minimum? Who determines that minimum? And are all providers charging the minimum? Why? I've questioned all of this before, without an answer, and that answer is very important...


BabaLouie said:


> Bimson's world: Competitive pressures mean NOTHING to Dish Network and Directv. They set their pricing SOLELY at what the programming providers tell them it can be. They would never think of maximizing profits. In fact, they would never try to make ANY profit UNLESS and UNTIL the programming providers decide to have them make it. Often, they simply pass along programming to their customers at the same price they pay for it!


Nowhere did I say this. Everyone knows the cablers, DirecTV, and Dish Network price their non-sports packages at a point where they balance their expenses with their ability to make money.

Think about this: competitive pressures force the DBS and cable companies to offer out-of-market braodcasts of non-NFL sports leagues at some minimum price, set by the leagues.

WHY?

If there are competitive pressures, why can't anything be done with the pricing on the sports packages?

Why are the non-NFL sports leagues involved in the minimum pricing? Why is it the non-NFL sports leagues get to determine the minimum pricing?


----------



## BabaLouie (Apr 2, 2004)

Greg Bimson said:


> Everyone knows the cablers, DirecTV, and Dish Network price their non-sports packages at a point where they balance their expenses with their ability to make money.


Only non-sports? So you believe that Dish Network and DirecTv are either breaking even or losing money on their sports pakcages? I highly doubt it.

BTW, you still have ignored my point about DirecTv requiring Sunday Ticket customers to subscribe to Total Choice. Do you think the NFL required that? Isn't it interesting that back when Sunday Ticket was available BOTH on C-Band and DirecTv, it could be purchased ala-carte, but after DirecTv got exclusive rights in the US, surprise, surprise, you then had to take a $40.00 per month package to get Sunday Ticket.

Also, in Canada, where there are several providers offering Sunday Ticket, the price is significantly LOWER. Am I to believe that competiton has NOTHING to do with that? Yes, I'm aware that NFL football is not followed by as large a percentage of the Canadian population as here in the US, yet the fans that are there are passionate about their football.



Greg Bimson said:


> If there are competitive pressures, why can't anything be done with the pricing on the sports packages?


Again, how do you know the competitive pressures AREN'T keeping the pricing LOWER than it would otherwise be?

You have not proven that the leagues tell Dish and Directv what they must charge for their packages.

Consider this: Last summer, DirecTv told its Sunday Ticket customers they would have to pay $99.00 EXTRA a year to get NFL games in HD, which in previous years were provided at NO extra charge. The new plan was followed by a flood of complaints. DirecTv agreed to cut the price in half. There's NO evidence there was any stipulation by the NFL as to what extra amount DirecTv had to charge for HD games, if ANY. That was purely DirecTv's decision to charge the extra, and it was their decision to cut the price down.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

Once again, we are arguing apples and oranges:

The reason why the non-NFL sports packages have a minimum set price is because the leagues get half the payment for the package; the distributors in some other fashion get the other half.


BabaLouie said:


> Only non-sports? So you believe that Dish Network and DirecTv are either breaking even or losing money on their sports pakcages? I highly doubt it.


Stop putting words in my quotes. I said that the DBS companies price their non-sports package for the best way they can make money.

The sports packages, and most other "premium" services are basic revenue sharing agreements. The studios get a slice of each PPV purchase; the adult films generate about a 90 percent share for the cable or satellite company; the regular movie channels and the sports packages allow the distributor to keep half the take while giving the other half to the content provider (HBO, NBA, Showtime, MLB, etc.).


BabaLouie said:


> BTW, you still have ignored my point about DirecTv requiring Sunday Ticket customers to subscribe to Total Choice. Do you think the NFL required that? Isn't it interesting that back when Sunday Ticket was available BOTH on C-Band and DirecTv, it could be purchased ala-carte, but after DirecTv got exclusive rights in the US, surprise, surprise, you then had to take a $40.00 per month package to get Sunday Ticket.


And when the NFL decided to renew a contract, which allows them to increase their payment from DirecTV from $400 million to $700 million a year, you figure out what happened. The NFL decided to allow DirecTV to sell this with DirecTV's Total Choice. In order for DirecTV to make any money, they need the subscribers to have a minimum package now. That wasn't the case years ago.


BabaLouie said:


> Again, how do you know the competitive pressures AREN'T keeping the pricing LOWER than it would otherwise be?


Because the leagues other than the NFL get half share from each subscriber. If the leagues are setting the minimum price, the leagues are therefore setting some kind of "artificial" minimum. They could pick numbers out of a hat, tell everyone that is the minimum price. It is an artificial construct that allows the league to receive a set share from their rebroadcasting partners that is not based in "competition". Just because many cablers, DirecTV and Dish Network offer NHL Center Ice does not mean that any of them are competing for the dollars associated with the package. They can't drop below a minimum price.


BabaLouie said:


> Consider this: Last summer, DirecTv told its Sunday Ticket customers they would have to pay $99.00 EXTRA a year to get NFL games in HD, which in previous years were provided at NO extra charge. The new plan was followed by a flood of complaints. DirecTv agreed to cut the price in half. There's NO evidence there was any stipulation by the NFL as to what extra amount DirecTv had to charge for HD games, if ANY. That was purely DirecTv's decision to charge the extra, and it was their decision to cut the price down.


Consider this...

The NFL holds a competitive process to determine who their television partners are. The NFL resigned with DirecTV for $700 million in a somewhat competitive process, as the contracts allow the current contract holder the right of first negotiation and the right of first refusal. For this $700 million, DirecTV gets to set the price* of the Sunday Ticket package to their customers.

Because of the competition in the bidding process, this is a "free and fair market solution". Everyone will pay dearly for the NFL games because the NFL brand is one of the most popular in the US. And DirecTV will set the price because they won the exclusive contract.

How does this tie to a la carte? If the NFL is a version of the "free and fair market value", a la carte pricing will go way up over time. The more you build a brand, the more customers that appreciate that brand, the more the customers will pay for it. ESPN has been receiving double-digit rate increases yearly because they are a very popular brand, and because any system that loses it will lose more than 20 percent of their customers overnight.

(* -Disclaimer- I have argued different things in the past. I believe that DirecTV does set the price to the end user for their customers, while I may have believed differently a few years ago.)


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

And then we have an analysis of the report, direct from SkyReport.com (reprinted without permission):


> OUTSIDE THE BOX: A La Carte - Upon Further, Further Review
> By Bruce Leichtman, Leichtman Research
> 
> The headline of a recently released FCC study proclaimed "Report Finds Substantial Benefits in A La Carte Model of Delivering Video Programming." Press coverage of the report quickly latched onto the statement that consumers would save up to 13 percent, and newspaper editorials championed the cause, using the same statistic as justification that consumers should be able to buy only the channels that they want (the apparent irony that newspapers do not allow consumers to buy only the sections that they might want not withstanding). Consumer groups also lauded the Report's findings as a potential victory for consumers, and politicians rushed to find ways to mandate the delivery of a la carte cable programming. Unfortunately, it is unclear if these individuals actually read the report, because the report's content does not necessarily corroborate the headline, or the spin.
> ...


----------



## IowaStateFan (Jan 11, 2006)

A few lines from the article with my comments.



> With all the "mistakes" corrected, this implies that with a la carte:
> 
> *Consumers would get about 16-20 channels for the same amount that they are currently spending
> 
> Clearly, stating the Further Report's finding this way, however, would have made a less enticing story.


Assuming that this analysis is correct, it does not change my position - a la carte should be an option. I currently watch 14 channels regularly, of the remaining 100+ (I subscribe to AT120 + HD pack) I watch 3 - 5 very rarely (and wouldn't miss them), and the remainder never ever. If I could subscribe to the 14 a la carte my bill might come down $10/mo. That is just a wild a** guess, it could be a little more or a little less. $10/mo is not much, and I'd probably choose the package anyway, but if money were tight at least I'd have that option.



> This is hardly information that would make consumers rush to get a la carte, or that should inspire government to mandate cable and satellite TV providers offer a la carte.


Agreed. I think most of us would continue to choose a package, and I do not advocate any government mandate.



> The Further Report acknowledges that "competition continues to provide consumers with increased choice."


Sort of. There may be more programs coming into our homes to choose from, but are they worth watching? How many times have you surfed the EPG and found nothing on? Are we really getting more choice? Actually, I believe we are getting less choice. For example, there are a few channels in the AT180 I'd like to have, but I'm not willing to spend the $10/mo to get them. So now my viewing choices have been restricted because I'd have to buy several channels I don't want to get the few I do. That's probably my biggest gripe with the current bundling system. The distributors put a few "goodies" in each of the tiers to entice you to buy the whole package. If I could, I'd dump a whole bunch of the channels in AT120 and add the few from AT180 that I'd like. Now that would give me increased choice.



> The concept of a la carte may initially sound appealing (and politically correct to champion), but the economic and technical realities of the marketplace do not necessarily produce a compelling consumer proposition. With more competition than ever before in the video arena, if a la carte makes sense, the market, not headlines, should decide.


I agree with this, too. Most people would probably continue to buy packages. The convenience and ability to watch something spontaneously are worth the extra cost to them. I'd love to see the market work this out, but I don't believe that the industry is truly competitive. Most of the distributors are also the content providers. They don't currently have an incentive to fight the system because they all are after the same thing. Even Charlie who supposedly champions a la carte, started bundling Voom with the HD pack now that he's part owner of Voom. If any government action is required it might be to split the content providers from the distributors.


----------



## vahighland (Mar 29, 2005)

This article does not indicate the cost of sports programming as a segment. Why not??? Sport programming is very expensive and I believe that if people had the option of selecting theme-based packages without sport programming, they would save $$$. It does not account for theme-based packaging, only pure a la carte.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I still like my buffet example.

Some buffets have tiered setups too.

You can buy the one-trip or to-go buffet for one price... Choose from anything you want, but only one trip!

You can buy the whole buffet all-you-can-eat for another price good for that visit... Leave and come back tomorrow and pay that price to eat again.

You can buy just the main course buffet, without trips to the dessert bar, for a different price (less than the full buffet). You can eat anything except the dessert bar.

On the weekends there is a breakfast bar... One price for all you can eat breakfast but only from 8-11 am. After 11am you cannot order the breakfast bar and get breakfast. BUT, if you come at 10:30am you can stay for more than an hour and sample from the breakfast AND lunch buffets!

Some nights they have shrimp/lobster on the buffet and the dinner price costs more.

But if the buffet is $7.99 all-you-can-eat... you can't just pay $1.99 and eat mashed potatoes and corn. You have to pay $7.99 even if you don't want most of the buffet.


----------



## ClaudeR (Dec 7, 2003)

HDMe said:


> I still like my buffet example.


I agree fully with the buffet example - that is why I'll go next door to McDonalds and get a double cheese burger and fries for $2, and use the drink I have at home. Otherwise, I go to Wendy's and buy the 99 cent backed potato and chicken tenders. There are options, and Dish is offering options, such as the new DishFamily. Each rate increase is blamed on ESPN, so I would like a non-sports package at $20. Dish still gets its fee for DVR, fee for warranty, fee for not having phone line, fee for downgrading service, fee for paying your bill, fee for being a customer, etc..


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

mpeltz said:


> This article does not indicate the cost of sports programming as a segment. Why not??? Sport programming is very expensive and I believe that if people had the option of selecting theme-based packages without sport programming, they would save $$$. It does not account for theme-based packaging, only pure a la carte.


And what, pray tell, will cause the multichannel industry in the United States to go to a theme-based packaging scheme? The free market has already evolved to this point, so how is anyone going to be able to create a "theme-based package"?

And just remember, how in the world would a theme-based package be packaged? WGN, TBS, TNT, F/X etc., all show some type of sports programming. Would they end up in the "sports theme"? If you don't like the packaging now, you may not like the packaging in the future.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

It must also be arguable that people want sports! If people didn't... then how would all those sports teams be making all that money?

I see people in the seats... so those people must like sports too.


----------



## Mike D-CO5 (Mar 12, 2003)

Just spin off the sports into it's own ala carte package and then most people would be happy. That and make forced bundeling by content providers illegal. This right here would solve most problems and the need for ALL channels to be ala carte would go away.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

Mike D-CO5 said:


> Just spin off the sports into it's own ala carte package and then most people would be happy.


Nice comment. Now who is going to force this?


Mike D-CO5 said:


> That and make forced bundeling by content providers illegal. This right here would solve most problems and the need for ALL channels to be ala carte would go away.


But what about forced bundling by distributors? There should be some kind of law that discriminates between channel providers bundling and distributors bundling?


----------



## vahighland (Mar 29, 2005)

Greg Bimson said:


> And what, pray tell, will cause the multichannel industry in the United States to go to a theme-based packaging scheme? The free market has already evolved to this point, so how is anyone going to be able to create a "theme-based package"?
> 
> And just remember, how in the world would a theme-based package be packaged? WGN, TBS, TNT, F/X etc., all show some type of sports programming. Would they end up in the "sports theme"? If you don't like the packaging now, you may not like the packaging in the future.


Let me elaborate on what I mean by themes. Start with one of Dish Network's programming pages: 
http://www.dishnetwork.com/content/programming/packages/at_150/index.asp?viewby=1&packid=10045&sortby=1
Currently, they display the channel lineup by themes such as Lifestyles Entertainment, News/Informational, Family, Sports, Education/Leaning, etc. Of course not everyone will agree with these themes, but the point is that there's a reason why they display the channel lineup in this manner.

Now, there are methods by which you could determine what the themes are. Firstly, get the customers involved. Customers could and would be happy to fill out surveys, create affinity diagrams, and perform other activities to come to some consensus with what the themes are. I know I would. To answer your specific questions about those channels, I don't know but I know how to find out. LET THE CUSTOMERS DECIDE. If I were in the surveys, I would ask questions like what % of sports programming does TBS have? And yes the % could change over time, but so could the themes and placement of channels.

The content providers should not be the ones dictating the packages. The large distributors of content (Dish, DirecTV, Comcast) are in a unique position to stand up to the content providers in lieu of government involvement. Believe me; I would rather NOT have the government involved, unless all other options have been exhausted.

Keep in mind, I'm just stating this as an alternative to pure a la carte if pure a la carte is deemed too difficult to manage. By the way I'm not just picking on sports, I think the current offerings AT60, AT120, AT180 make no sense period.


----------



## vahighland (Mar 29, 2005)

HDMe said:


> It must also be arguable that people want sports! If people didn't... then how would all those sports teams be making all that money?
> 
> I see people in the seats... so those people must like sports too.


We all know that. The people who really want sports should have the freedom to spend as much as their hard-earned money on sports as they want. Some people optionally pay for DirecTV's NFL Ticket and I think that's dandy. The keyword is OPTIONAL!!!


----------



## vahighland (Mar 29, 2005)

HDMe said:


> I still like my buffet example.


I've enjoyed many of the analogies, especially the buffet, but it's just not the same thing. When it comes to food, a consumer has many choices because of competition. You can go the grocery store and buy individual items. There are countless grocery stores, gourmets, and market stores to choose from. And of course this is the cheapest way to eat. Or, you can pay a little more money and have someone else get the food and prepare it. There are countless restaurants with different menus, food quality, and prices to choose from. Some offer buffets with optional choices, some just a plain buffet, and many with no buffet. You decide want you want and go get it. It's that simple.

Not true for TV land. If all I want is A&E, Discovery, TLC, DIY, and the local channels, it's impossible to get.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

mpeltz said:


> Now, there are methods by which you could determine what the themes are. Firstly, get the customers involved. Customers could and would be happy to fill out surveys, create affinity diagrams, and perform other activities to come to some consensus with what the themes are. I know I would. To answer your specific questions about those channels, I don't know but I know how to find out. LET THE CUSTOMERS DECIDE.


And the funny thing is DBS has gone from zero to 27 million customers over the past 12 years without letting the customer decide on which channels to buy. However, the customers have decided to buy those packages; currently 27 million customers.


mpeltz said:


> The content providers should not be the ones dictating the packages. The large distributors of content (Dish, DirecTV, Comcast) are in a unique position to stand up to the content providers in lieu of government involvement. Believe me; I would rather NOT have the government involved, unless all other options have been exhausted.


What unique position? Suppose Dish Network draws a line in the sand: Dish Network will now only sell theme-based packages. All of their current carriage contracts must be ripped up and renegotiated. There will be fights between Dish Network and the content providers. A large chunk of channels go missing while carriage agreements are finalized. And the customers are left in limbo. Dish Network would lose customers practically overnight.

The content provider has had the upper hand, because as one TV executive has said, "content is king!". And if the content isn't available on a platform, people will move to another platform. Just look at how long the Viacom/Dish Network dispute lasted before an agreement was made (all of three days). Dish Network took the brunt of the backlash in both terms of media and subscribers.


----------



## Art7220 (Feb 4, 2004)

What everyone forgets is that lots of channels wasn't a problem when cable bills were $20/month. Then rates kept climbing up to 40 if not more, now it's a problem.

Cable can make ala carte not work by colluding together to raise rates for smaller channel groups so they can say, "See, ala carte is more expensive."

I read on Broadcasting Cable that the NCTA and Disney produced another ala carte study that concluded it would not be cheaper and that the last study was flawed. This is an example of the cable lobbying group and a programmer colluding to say ala carte won't work. What did you expect?

-A-


----------



## the_bear (Oct 18, 2004)

HDMe said:


> Some nights they have shrimp/lobster on the buffet and the dinner price costs more.
> 
> But if the buffet is $7.99 all-you-can-eat... you can't just pay $1.99 and eat mashed potatoes and corn. You have to pay $7.99 even if you don't want most of the buffet.


The buffet changes my eating habits. When I get to the buffet, I go straight to the shrimp and lobster, but when I order a la carte I eat the mashed potatoes and corn. I can only assume under a la carte I will be watching less "History of National Parks" and more "Law & Order" reruns.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

mpeltz said:


> I've enjoyed many of the analogies, especially the buffet, but it's just not the same thing. When it comes to food, a consumer has many choices because of competition. You can go the grocery store and buy individual items. There are countless grocery stores, gourmets, and market stores to choose from. And of course this is the cheapest way to eat. Or, you can pay a little more money and have someone else get the food and prepare it. There are countless restaurants with different menus, food quality, and prices to choose from. Some offer buffets with optional choices, some just a plain buffet, and many with no buffet. You decide want you want and go get it. It's that simple.
> 
> Not true for TV land. If all I want is A&E, Discovery, TLC, DIY, and the local channels, it's impossible to get.


You have to think of it this way... Yes, there are many different restaurants... but you can ONLY get a Mcdonald's Quarter Pounder at McDonald's! Yes, you can get burgers elsewhere, but only one place to get that burger!

There are lots of different TV channels... and lots of different ways to get TV signals (Dish, DirecTV, C-band, SkyAngel, Time Warner, Cox, Comcast, Charter, Verizon in some areas, DVD, VHS, Betamax, free OTA)... so there is competition and choice! But there is only one A&E channel, and you can't get A&E everywhere.

To get a Quarter Pounder, you have to eat at McDonald's... but you could eat elsewhere. To get A&E your choices are similarly more limited... but IF you just wanted to watch TV, then there are lots of options.

Some folks want to apply the "monopoly" tag where it isn't appropriate. You could say McDonald's has a monopoly on the Quarter Pounder, and you'd be right... but you can get hamburgers elsewhere.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Art7220 said:


> What everyone forgets is that lots of channels wasn't a problem when cable bills were $20/month. Then rates kept climbing up to 40 if not more, now it's a problem.
> 
> Cable can make ala carte not work by colluding together to raise rates for smaller channel groups so they can say, "See, ala carte is more expensive."
> 
> ...


And the wine/beer companies fund all the studies that say alcohol is good for your heart too... what's the point?

If consumers want an unbiased survey/study, then the consumers would need to get together and do that... the lack of initiative on the part of the "I want a la carte" consumers tends toindicate that they are in the minority and are not that well organized to take a stand.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

HDMe said:


> If consumers want an unbiased survey/study, then the consumers would need to get together and do that


You mean that some "union" of consumers ought to commission a study?  http://www.hearusnow.org/tvradiocable/whatsatstake/cablechannelchoice/

Me, I'm thinking back to those glorious three-plus weeks when this thread was dormant. Ah, those were the days!


----------



## IowaStateFan (Jan 11, 2006)

mpeltz said:


> The content providers should not be the ones dictating the packages. The large distributors of content (Dish, DirecTV, Comcast) are in a unique position to stand up to the content providers in lieu of government involvement. Believe me; I would rather NOT have the government involved, unless all other options have been exhausted.


Unfortunately, the distributors are *NOT* in a position to stand up to the content providers - they *ARE* the content providers. They have no incentive to stand up to each other. Why would DirecTv refuse to buy Comcast's channels in bundles, when they want to sell their NewsCorp channels in bundles? While I won't go so far as to call it collusion, there certainly is some back scratching going on. It's all one big happy family. I think part of Charlie's problems with negotiating (and why channels keep going off Dish) is that he's not part of the content provider family, so he's more willing to fight them. However, now that E* has ownership interest in Voom, I think he'll be changing his tune. He certainly has started bundling Voom with the other HD pack. So while I am a free market guy, I don't believe this market is truly free. I don't believe a government mandated a la carte will work, but the government could step in and forceably separate the content providers from the distributors. Should that happen, I believe that a la carte will occur.


----------



## IowaStateFan (Jan 11, 2006)

carload said:


> Me, I'm thinking back to those glorious three-plus weeks when this thread was dormant. Ah, those were the days!


I sure got a lot more work done during those days. :lol:


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

carload said:


> Me, I'm thinking back to those glorious three-plus weeks when this thread was dormant. Ah, those were the days!


You know... when I saw the first new reply in here, I thought "here we go again" 

But some of the 720p/1080i HD vs "lite" discussions also got new life again recently... and I promised myself to stay out of it this time around!

Maybe if we get HD Lite a la carte, then all will be happy!


----------



## ClaudeR (Dec 7, 2003)

Art7220 said:


> What everyone forgets is that lots of channels wasn't a problem when cable bills were $20/month. Then rates kept climbing up to 40 if not more, now it's a problem.


I couldn't agree more. I started D* at $19.99 and quit when they kept jacking the $ and dropping the channels. I like that E* has a $20, and with only a couple channel changes I would jump all over it.


----------



## Mike D-CO5 (Mar 12, 2003)

Greg Bimson said:


> Nice comment. Now who is going to force this?But what about forced bundling by distributors? There should be some kind of law that discriminates between channel providers bundling and distributors bundling?


 Maybe I didn't use the right words here . Let me try to dumb it down. Make it illegal for the people who sell the sat/cable providers their channels in forced bundeling. For example Disney/Hearst company. They make you buy All of the Espn channels , Disney channels just so you can get the Abc stations. THis inflates your price. Also make it illegal to allow sat and cable companies to sell you the sports channels in their basic bundles like top 60 /120/180. Only in something like Aep where all premium channels are included.

The way to do this would be for Congress to enact a law that deals with this, just like they did with the origional Shiva laws/ Must Carry Rules and the new Shivra law or what ever they call it now. Then the FCC would be the one to make sure that the law is enforced on all parties concerned. Much like they have done with Dish and the ONe dish solution for your sd locals . Dish has to the end of May of this year to be in compliance with this law passed or they will be fined daily till they are.

This is not difficult people . It requires a change from what we have been doing or the market place will make that change for them.

For eample the new teleco companies that do their own video distribution can change things from the start . Like ATT might do with their new Light speed video. 
Or like Verizon and the new company they have started , I think it is called Ficos or something like that.

With a lot of new competition and a CHANGE from the status quo with regards to forced bundeling of the sports channels and you will see this will cause the other competition like sat and cable to want the same freedom to cut cost for their customers or they will have a whole lot of fresh churn and eventually decline of new subs.

Ala carte for each channel would probably not be good for anyone. To be able to spin off sports to its own premium package just like the premium movies like Hbo/Showtime/Cinemax/Starz, would go a long way to cutting the cost for the average subscriber who doesn't watch sports.


----------



## vahighland (Mar 29, 2005)

Mike D-CO5 said:


> To be able to spin off sports to its own premium package just like the premium movies like Hbo/Showtime/Cinemax/Starz, would go a long way to cutting the cost for the average subscriber who doesn't watch sports.


Absolutely!!!


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

Mike D-CO5 said:


> Maybe I didn't use the right words here . Let me try to dumb it down. Make it illegal for the people who sell the sat/cable providers their channels in forced bundeling.


So that the distributors can make their own forced bundling requirements to their customers?


Mike D-CO5 said:


> For example Disney/Hearst company. They make you buy All of the Espn channels , Disney channels just so you can get the Abc stations. THis inflates your price.


Not entirely true.


Mike D-CO5 said:


> Also make it illegal to allow sat and cable companies to sell you the sports channels in their basic bundles like top 60 /120/180.


Define a sports channel. TNT, F/X, TBS, WGN, etc., all show sports programming. Your version of a sports channel may be different than either the channel provider or any proposed law.


Mike D-CO5 said:


> This is not difficult people . It requires a change from what we have been doing or the market place will make that change for them.


But you are talking about a legislated change in the marketplace, which has no basis in the free market.


Mike D-CO5 said:


> The way to do this would be for Congress to enact a law that deals with this, just like they did with the origional Shiva laws/ Must Carry Rules and the new Shivra law or what ever they call it now. Then the FCC would be the one to make sure that the law is enforced on all parties concerned. Much like they have done with Dish and the ONe dish solution for your sd locals . Dish has to the end of May of this year to be in compliance with this law passed or they will be fined daily till they are.


Nowhere near similar. The original version of the SHVIA did not address placing locals on one dish. However, DirecTV went to the FCC to propose a solution of using two dishes, and were shot down. Dish Network, on the other hand, simply implemented their policy of using the wing slots, and the FCC basically did nothing. The new law pushed Dish Network to stop discriminating against the locals placed on the wing slots. The new law clarified the stance that was implemented in the original law. This is much different than legislating the breakup of packaging.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

Mike D-CO5 said:


> Ala carte for each channel would probably not be good for anyone. To be able to spin off sports to its own premium package just like the premium movies like Hbo/Showtime/Cinemax/Starz, would go a long way to cutting the cost for the average subscriber who doesn't watch sports.





mpeltz said:


> Absolutely!!!


Much different, again.

The HBO channels are bundled by Time Warner. If you buy one HBO, you buy them all. The Cinemax channels are bundled by Time Warner. If you buy one, you buy them all. The TMC and Showtime channels are bundled by Viacom. If you buy one, you buy them all. Same thing with Starz.

However, a proposed "premium sports package" will not be controlled by one given entity. And ESPN, the local RSN's, and anyone else with sports programming will not go quietly in the night if their programming is being packaged only because someone wants to discriminate against them.


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

Mike D-CO5 said:


> Just spin off the sports into it's own ala carte package and then most people would be happy. That and make forced bundeling by content providers illegal. This right here would solve most problems and the need for ALL channels to be ala carte would go away.


I would be happy with this with one addition....

You can subscribe to "any" of the packages regardless of what package you already subscribe to.

IE: I can take A and C without taking B

While this might force them to juggle a few channels it seems 100% silly that in order to get a channel in package C I have to take A and B.

So in summary:

Package A - Mixed channels - $15
Package B - Mixed channels - $15
Package C - Mixed channels - $15
Package D - Sports - $10
Locals - $5
HD - $20
Family - $20

You can take any set in any order. While I would prefer a more themed setup (Educational and childrens packages come to mind) this would be a good "compromise" that would give and take a bit from everyone.

-JB


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

Great.

So between jrb531 and Mike D-CO5, you just raised my bill quite a bit.

Oh, yes, before I forget, the locals will probably not be $5 any more. Since forced bundling goes away, the local channels will start to receive ESPN-like money. Locals will cost a heck of a lot more than $5.


----------



## Chris Freeland (Mar 24, 2002)

jrb531 said:


> I would be happy with this with one addition....
> 
> You can subscribe to "any" of the packages regardless of what package you already subscribe to.
> 
> ...


Why is this any better then the current tiers from E*, D* and cable? With your system their likely will still be a few channels in each of your A, B, C, D and Family that I would want but not likely all, I would still likely need to buy all the packages that you have listed just to get the 15 - 20 channels that my family and I want, this would cost more then what E* AT180, D* TC Plus and Comcast Digital cost now. Once again, how is this better? Personally I prefer the tier system of today, I would not mind if the providers offered more "a la carte" and mini-pack options in addition to the basic tiers, but I an not sure that I want the government involved to do this.


----------



## Mike D-CO5 (Mar 12, 2003)

Sorry but the government is already involved and John McCain is the one pushing the ala carte thing. Whether you sports people want to admit it or not your days of the free ride are fast coming to a close. If enough people push this ala carte thing you will see sports being spun off ala carte and maybe all channels sold individually. If the congress doesn't get involved then the market place will. IF the Telecos start up their video distribution systems without forced bundeling you will see a rush of customers flock to them to escape paying for something they do not watch. 

Will it raise your rates , will your favorite channels go away, only time will tell. But one way or another the way people get their tv shows is changing. People are buying shows individually over ipods , video on demand etc. It would be foolish to think that the old distribution system will stay in place as it is. People have a certain amount of money they are willing to pay for programming and we have reached that point for the average Joe out there.


Ala carte is coming .......


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

Mike D-CO5 said:


> Sorry but the government is already involved and John McCain is the one pushing the ala carte thing. Whether you sports people want to admit it or not your days of the free ride are fast coming to a close.


Congratulations. You think us people that like sports have been taking you for a ride. No wonder you are so biased...

...yet no matter what anyone believes, the FCC report touting the greatness of a la carte just showed that a la carte would only have the effect of reducing choice and raising rates. That would be the same report that FCC Commissioner Martin said was "great for consumers".


Mike D-CO5 said:


> If the congress doesn't get involved then the market place will. IF the Telecos start up their video distribution systems without forced bundeling you will see a rush of customers flock to them to escape paying for something they do not watch.


I have the deed to a bridge I'd like to sell you...

So as the cable companies all have their triple-play, in order for the Bells to compete, they will have to offer more for less. Offering less channels will not cut it.


Mike D-CO5 said:


> But one way or another the way people get their tv shows is changing. People are buying shows individually over ipods , video on demand etc.


Yep. And they are paying heftily for it, too. The choice is there, and it costs more on average than any bundling ever. Two dollars a show. And since this appears to be in high demand, the pricing will only go up.


----------



## IowaStateFan (Jan 11, 2006)

HDMe said:


> I still like my buffet example.


I like your buffet example too. Let's see if I can concoct an analogy using your example to show why this market is not free.

In the restaurant world there are several choices. You can eat at a buffet, fast food, family style, fine dining or just about any ethnic restaurant you like. This is because these "distributors" have found a market and are trying to fill it. In the pay tv market there aren't any cook to order restaurants - only all you can eat buffets. Why is that? Is it because there is no market for a la carte? Clearly not, looking at passions this thread has generated and the fact that Congress is making noises about it. I believe it is because the content providers are in direct competition with their distributors.

Let me try to use the restaurant analogy. Lets say I decide to open Cyclone Restaurant. I negotiate with the various suppliers in my area to get the food (tv programs). I'll have to have a beef dish (ESPN?), as well as pork, chicken, fish, potatoes and other veggies. If I don't offer a beef dish I will lose customers to other restaurants. You are the sole supplier of beef and potatoes in my area. You also run HDMe's Buffet. So I contact you and you are willing to supply my beef at a cost of $2 per person who enters my restaurant and you'll add the potatoes for total cost of $1.50/person if I buy both. I really don't want to pay you for every person who enters because I'm trying to supply the market for a cook to order restaurant. I offer to pay you $5 for each person that orders beef and $1 for each order of potatoes. While you are required to sell beef to me because of anti-trust laws, your incentive to accept my offer is limited because my restaurant is in direct competition with yours. You really don't want me to enter the market with a cook to order restaurant, so you refuse my offer. In order to open my restaurant, I must pay my suppliers per person that comes in (subscriber), rather than by the amount that's actually ordered. I can differentiate myself on price, atmosphere or the way the food is prepared, but not on the way it is served. So in the end, the only restaurants in the area are all you can eat buffets. The consumers' choices are reduced because there are no cook to order restaurants. I believe this is what is happening in the pay television market. There are no a la carte providers, even though there appears to be a consumer demand for it, because the content providers are also in direct competition with the distributors.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I think ultimately the pro-a la carte folks will be very disappointed if they truly get their wish. Once the dust settles, probably very few channels will survive and the ones that do will be like $10+ per channel and we'll all end up paying more for less except for the 5 guys that just want to watch 1-2 channels. Those 5 guys will save money.

On the plus side... if this all happens... then more of us couch-potatoes will get off the couch and accomplish stuff because there'll be nothing compelling left to watch on TV!


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

HDMe said:


> On the plus side... if this all happens... then more of us couch-potatoes will get off the couch and accomplish stuff because there'll be nothing compelling left to watch on TV!


*smiles*

You mean no reruns of shows that were originally free in the first place 

-JB


----------



## jerryez (Nov 15, 2002)

Ala Carte will not end the normal packages. The packages will be available just as they are now. Ala carte wil be in addition to the regualr packages. If ala carte is not purchased, it will disappear. It NOT a threat to the selling of packages. So, why the big fuss about ala carte.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

jerryez said:


> Ala Carte will not end the normal packages. The packages will be available just as they are now. Ala carte wil be in addition to the regualr packages. If ala carte is not purchased, it will disappear. It NOT a threat to the selling of packages. So, why the big fuss about ala carte.


What you just said describes how some of us feel about a la carte... that there is no a la carte because people chose packages in the past over individual channels.

Having a la carte AND packages for many if not most customers will result in folks choosing a package to get more bang for the buck... so it would be hard for a la carte to coexist with packages.

It truly seems like one of those deals where either one or the other, but not both, could exist.


----------



## Mike D-CO5 (Mar 12, 2003)

Greg Bimson said:


> Congratulations. You think us people that like sports have been taking you for a ride. No wonder you are so biased...
> 
> Sorry, you feel I am biased but I feel the same way about your prefence towards sports as well.
> 
> ...


----------



## motorcycle_rider (Jan 8, 2005)

HDMe said:


> I wasn't so much speaking to you as I was replying  Other folks have brought up C-band before as an example to support that a la carte can work... but then they had excuses why they wouldn't use C-band. So I would always question why they would say there are currently no choices if they want a la carte, then they bring up an existing example to say how a la carte would work, then they go back to saying they have no choices


Actually I have tossed around the idea of going to C-band. For FTA and subscriptions but then I look at LOS issues. I would hate to invest into something like that then not be able to see the sat I wanted to.


----------



## IowaStateFan (Jan 11, 2006)

Mike D-CO5 said:


> Have you ever noticed it is the sports people who are the ones wanting the status quo? I have yet to hear anyone who likes sports say:" I want ala carte for all my sports viewing needs". Nor will I ever hear that because the price would be HUGE if you had to spin off the sports into it's own little pack. That is why most people who watch sports , want the present pack system - to spread cost to EVERYONE equally . Regardless whether they watch or like sports period.


I thought you'd been reading my posts. I am a sports fan. I want sports. Sports is about the only thing I'm watching lately. I think they should be separate. I am paying for AT120 mostly for the sports content not included in AT60. And I'll be consistent here. I won't ask you to subsidize my sports programming if you'll let me quit subsidizing your MTV (or whatever it is you watch that I don't). If my bill goes up then I guess I lose, but I'm willing to take that chance.



Mike D-CO5 said:


> But if you think that the future of tv is going to stay the same I have news for you: EVERYTHING CHANGES.
> 
> My point is that the future is always changing and the way we watch tv is one of them. Ala carte will become a reality if the public pushes for it . Ala carte will become a reality if the sat/cable companies price themselves out of the market with all the yearly price hikes. Ala carte will become a reality if the congress pushes for it legally as John McCain has been pushing far. Ala carte will become a reality if the competition not yet invented or well established yet like the Telecos , push a system that does nothing but theme packs or ala carte programming.


Here you and I completely agree. Change will happen, whether we like it or not. In 11 years, a la carte may have come, only to be replaced by some new technology or marketing system that makes it obsolete. It may not happen, either. But we can be sure that we won't be watching tv the same way we do now. It will be different, not necessarily better or worse, just different.

Edited to change quote from Greg Bimson to Mike D-CO5


----------



## IowaStateFan (Jan 11, 2006)

HDMe said:


> What you just said describes how some of us feel about a la carte... that there is no a la carte because people chose packages in the past over individual channels.
> 
> Having a la carte AND packages for many if not most customers will result in folks choosing a package to get more bang for the buck... so it would be hard for a la carte to coexist with packages.
> 
> It truly seems like one of those deals where either one or the other, but not both, could exist.


I disagree. I think people chose packages initially because that's all that was offered. The old analog cable systems couldn't easily offer a la carte, and there weren't that many channels 20 yrs ago. They didn't even have tiers at first. So the system became entrenched. While I agree with you that most consumers will take packages, I think they can coexist with a la carte. Technologically there is very little cost to the satellite provider to offer a la carte. The only downside for E* is if too many people choose a la carte. That could cut revenues. But I think there is a new market to tap by offering a la carte. There are plenty of people out there that don't subscribe to pay tv because of the cost. I suspect they could be lured in, if they could buy just one or two channels. Also, some people will switch from cable if E* were the first to offer a la carte. In the end, a la carte will be a niche market, but a valuable one to those that offer it.


----------



## Chris Freeland (Mar 24, 2002)

I too believe that "a la carte" could exist side buy side with packages. I do believe however that we get a better value with the packages but I do not have a problem with the program service providers offering "a la carte" as an option. I do think however that the government would have to force the issue in order for "a la carte" to become a reality and I am not sure that I am in favor of that, the government is already too involved in are daily lives as it is now.


----------



## WHNB (Jan 15, 2004)

A study done for Disney, owner of ESPN, states that under an a la carte system, ESPN would have to charge $20 a month to survive. A Consumers Union spokesman counters that ESPN is only forty cents a month in France, where a la carte has existed for awhile, and he does not believe that the sports programmer's rates would rise to $20/month in the U.S.

The full article:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/2006-03-15-cable-a-la-carte_x.htm


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

HDMe said:


> I think ultimately the pro-a la carte folks will be very disappointed if they truly get their wish. Once the dust settles, probably very few channels will survive and the ones that do will be like $10+ per channel and we'll all end up paying more for less except for the 5 guys that just want to watch 1-2 channels. Those 5 guys will save money.
> 
> On the plus side... if this all happens... then more of us couch-potatoes will get off the couch and accomplish stuff because there'll be nothing compelling left to watch on TV!


I would think all current packages would continue for those who want them, I would hope!


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Think about your local fast food places for a moment.

You have a la carte there (fries, burgers, drink) and you have packages ("value meals").

Yes, they coexist... but how many different choices do you have? Not many. Fast food places tend to have little selection, and the packages are different combinations and you can't get a package that has 1 of everything in it to feed your whole family.

Then there are the "fancy" restaurants... where everything is in "package" form but you can get some things a la carte like a bowl of soup or a side salad or a vegetable. Can't get enough a la carte to make a meal, but you can add them to your package dinner.

I believe that a la carte for every channel would not coexist with the current packages. They could have a la carte and some packages... but these would not be the same packages as today, and a lot of the current channels would be gone and unavailable via a la carte or package choice.


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

HDMe said:


> What you just said describes how some of us feel about a la carte... that there is no a la carte because people chose packages in the past over individual channels.
> 
> Having a la carte AND packages for many if not most customers will result in folks choosing a package to get more bang for the buck... so it would be hard for a la carte to coexist with packages.
> 
> It truly seems like one of those deals where either one or the other, but not both, could exist.


You keep saying that I passed on ala cart and selected packages which is why we have them. The example given is that a zillion years ago Dish allowed you to pick 20 channels for $20 (or something like that)

Well "I" (and I suspect many many many others!) never got that option so how is this excuse still valid in 2006?

Ala cart would work and work well. I could take package A and 1-2 channels ala cart instead of being forced to take package B "and" C "just" to get 1-2 channels that are only offered currently in package C.

If I subscribe to Package A right now and I want to Science channel (only in C now) I would have to pay $20 to subscribe to B and C.... if I could pay a few $$$'s to "just" take the science channel then ala-cart works the way most people would use it.

Offer us 20 for $20 now (or even $50!!!!) and watch how many people suddenly embrace ala-cart ROTFL!

-JB


----------



## IowaStateFan (Jan 11, 2006)

HDMe said:


> Think about your local fast food places for a moment.
> 
> You have a la carte there (fries, burgers, drink) and you have packages ("value meals").
> 
> Yes, they coexist... but how many different choices do you have? Not many. Fast food places tend to have little selection, and the packages are different combinations and you can't get a package that has 1 of everything in it to feed your whole family.


True enough, but I can buy 1 of each item separately. It may cost me more per item, but at least I have the choice. That's the beauty of it, you can have your package, and I can have my single item.



HDMe said:


> Then there are the "fancy" restaurants... where everything is in "package" form but you can get some things a la carte like a bowl of soup or a side salad or a vegetable. Can't get enough a la carte to make a meal, but you can add them to your package dinner.


Then there are the "super fancy" restaurants that serve several courses. Generally one must choose each item separately as the meat does not automatically come with a veggie. There are even restaurants (some not even fancy) that allow you to choose your entree and sides separately. The point is that each restaurant (distributor) is allowed to package its offerings in any way it chooses, in order to serve its customers. Under the current pay television system, the ability of the distributor to package its offerings is being restricted by the supplier.



HDMe said:


> I believe that a la carte for every channel would not coexist with the current packages. They could have a la carte and some packages... but these would not be the same packages as today, and a lot of the current channels would be gone and unavailable via a la carte or package choice.


It is almost certain that many of the current channels will go away under an a la carte only system - and they should if they can't support themselves. However, I believe that packages will continue to exist. Most of us would rather spend the few extra $s on a package than go thru the effort of choosing our channels. Some cable systems will try to use packages to attract customers, others will offer customers the flexibility to choose their channels. However, the distributor that offers a la carte will have a marketing advantage over those that don't - even if most people choose packages. Many of us like the idea of flexibility. How many posts have you seen from people complaining about an 18 month commitment for a lease upgrade on their receivers because they don't want to be locked into something?
Will a la carte save everyone big bucks? No, but I don't think it will result in huge price increases or the demise of packages either. In the end, I don't think it will really make much difference at all. It will be a niche thing, for those who want more control over their television programming and costs.


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

WHNB said:


> A study done for Disney, owner of ESPN, states that under an a la carte system, ESPN would have to charge $20 a month to survive. A Consumers Union spokesman counters that ESPN is only forty cents a month in France, where a la carte has existed for awhile, and he does not believe that the sports programmer's rates would rise to $20/month in the U.S.
> 
> The full article:
> http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/2006-03-15-cable-a-la-carte_x.htm


Kind of like the record companies saying that they lose XXX dollars due to downloading music but they have little way to back up their claims other than to say that they make less $$$ than they used to (due to other entertainment choices but not "just" downloads)

How does ESPN (or anyone) know how many people would dump sports if we had the option?

I say a ton and if ESPN would need to charge $20 a month to survive then what a perfect example of why we should be allowed to dump sports!

In reality all that would happen is that ESPN would not offer obscene amounts to the sports teams for exclusive coverage and the prices paid would fall back in line with what they should be instead of ESPN paying darn near anything because they have the deep pockets of "forced" sports subscriptions!

Instead of paying 100 million a year for baseball (or whatever the numbers are) then pay only 50 million (and now that $20 becomes $10)

If ESPN thinks telling us that sports will cost $20 a month if we are allowed to drop sports (playing the boogy man card!) and this will cause people to back off I have another take on this.... now I am "more" inclined to do anything I can to stop paying for sports and ESPN's 75% crap coverage of tracker pulls and other "filler" that is aired tween main sports events.

Pay the cry baby athletes $100,000 a year to play a game for half a year instead of 1-100 million and I suspect that tickets will drop from $50+ as well as the ole ESPN bill.

$20 for sports!!! Are they nuts???

-JB


----------



## the_bear (Oct 18, 2004)

motorcycle_rider said:


> Actually I have tossed around the idea of going to C-band. For FTA and subscriptions but then I look at LOS issues. I would hate to invest into something like that then not be able to see the sat I wanted to.


 C-Band would definitely be a lot more popular if DBS was not currently offering such big bundle discounts. These bundle discounts come in the form a low setup cost and the convenience of a 4 foot smaller dish. On the bright side, if DBS ever tried to make the bundle discount smaller, people would simply switch to c-band.


IowaStateFan said:


> ..While I agree with you that most consumers will take packages, I think they can coexist with a la carte. Technologically there is very little cost to the satellite provider to offer a la carte. &#8230;


 The dream world that many posters on this thread predict would only occur if there was a lot more competition in the TV industry. The current small market combined with a low incremental cost produces very large bundle discounts. It would be impossible to change that without near complete socialization of TV. While you could completely socialize US TV, I'd think that benefits customers either.


jrb531 said:


> ..I say a ton and if ESPN would need to charge $20 a month to survive then what a perfect example of why we should be allowed to dump sports!..


I doubt ESPN would even exist under an a la carte mandate, for the reasons you state. Sports would simply be sprinkled throughout the channels that do sell. Discovery, also expensive, would have a similar fate.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Regarding ESPN, sports, and athletes overpaying... Yes, many are over-paid... BUT, this is not exclusive to sports. Look at actor, actress salaries and high-profile directors... some folks get $20,000,000 for one movie! Yet, we never hear an outcry that USA costs too much because the actors wanted too much money... why not? It's the same argument.

Also, an interesting thing that I notice... Many of the "I want a la carte instead of bundling" people are the same ones who want their Internet/phone/TV service from the same company. Why is that?

If choice and non-bundling is better?


----------



## IowaStateFan (Jan 11, 2006)

the_bear said:


> The dream world that many posters on this thread predict would only occur if there was a lot more competition in the TV industry. The current small market combined with a low incremental cost produces very large bundle discounts. It would be impossible to change that without near complete socialization of TV. While you could completely socialize US TV, I'd think that benefits customers either.


I'm sorry, I must be dense, but I don't get it. First, you say we need more competition for my "dream world" to happen and then you say it would have to be socialized. In my mind those are at opposite ends of the spectrum. I do think more competition would bring about my "dream world". That's the real rub here. The same people providing the programming are also controlling the distribution system so there is no real competition.



the_bear said:


> I doubt ESPN would even exist under an a la carte mandate, for the reasons you state. Sports would simply be sprinkled throughout the channels that do sell. Discovery, also expensive, would have a similar fate.


I disagree. Sports programming is very popular. People are willing to pay quite a lot for it. Witness all the "season ticket packages" that go for upwards of $150/year. They couldn't charge that much if people weren't subscribing. I think many people would willingly pay $20/mo for ESPN. That's quite comparable to the movie packages people are buying now. I don't subscribe to movies, but I would subscribe to sports. I agree with those who don't want to subsidize my sports programming.


----------



## the_bear (Oct 18, 2004)

IowaStateFan said:


> I do think more competition would bring about my "dream world". That's the real rub here. The same people providing the programming are also controlling the distribution system so there is no real competition.


Large packages are not reducing competition, the package size is a symptom the lack of competition. People can no more control the laws of economic than the laws of physics. Attempt to reduce package size and you simply replace one symptom with another. Throw more programmers into the mix and current control becomes limited. Until this happens, we can only wait.


IowaStateFan said:


> .. Witness all the "season ticket packages" that go for upwards of $150/year.


 ST is currently underprices by D to get people to move from cable into D basic programming, where the real money is. If basic programming was eliminated, the fair market value of ST would be closer to $300.


----------



## IowaStateFan (Jan 11, 2006)

the_bear said:


> Large packages are not reducing competition, the package size is a symptom the lack of competition. People can no more control the laws of economic than the laws of physics. Attempt to reduce package size and you simply replace one symptom with another. Throw more programmers into the mix and current control becomes limited. Until this happens, we can only wait.


I also think that large package sizes are the result of a lack of competition. More programmers might be the solution, but I think the real problem is that most of the distributors are also suppliers. They have no incentive to offer their programming at a lower cost, or allowing it to be sold a la carte. The few distributors out there that don't also create content are at a disadvantage when it comes to negotiating a carriage agreement.



the_bear said:


> ST is currently underprices by D to get people to move from cable into D basic programming, where the real money is. If basic programming was eliminated, the fair market value of ST would be closer to $300.


If you are right, you are making my point. The fair market value is the price that buyers are willing to pay for a product. If it is truly $300 for ST, then don't you think people would pay $20/mo for ESPN? Personally, I think ST is overpriced at $180 or whatever it is currently, but I would pay $20/mo for ESPN.


----------



## WHNB (Jan 15, 2004)

*1st Item:*
CBS and Verizon announced a retransmission deal today, allowing Verizon to carry CBS O&O TV stations on its fiber optic system. But there was no requirement that CBS be bundled with Viacom cable channels. CBS is said to be now more interested in seeking financial reimbursement from cable operators/telcos for carrying its owned and operated TV stations, rather than in the previous policy of forcing cable systems to carry some Viacom cable channels if they wanted to carry the CBS Network.

The reason for the change in policy: CBS split off from Viacom in January and is now a separate company from the one that owns MTV Networks (the corporate name for the Viacom cable channels like TVLand, VH1, Nickelodeon, etc.)

*2nd Item:*
The president of Charter Communications told a cable convention Monday that some type of a la carte system will happen. He hoped that the cable industry would come up with a plan before the government forces one on them. He cited pressure on the cable business to unbundle channels from both the political right, who are concerned with indecency, and the left, who want more choice and value.


----------



## Opynion (Mar 21, 2006)

Years ago satelite companys offered both on C-band, "a la carte" and channel packs, they co-existed, 
and they can co-exist on E also, that is if Uncle Sam does something about it,
at least TCM should be offered a la carte, because it's the only channel not available in non of the Latino packs, not even the HD Latino Platinum.
Personally, I think it's unamerican to pay for stuff that you don't want, for this reason, why pay for channels that you don't want?


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Opynion said:


> Years ago satelite companys offered both on C-band, "a la carte" and channel packs, they co-existed


And I hate to have to say it again... but...

So why isn't everyone on C-band?

If it is so great and held up as an example of a la carte goodness... I would think people would be eating it up!


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

WHNB said:


> *1st Item:*
> CBS and Verizon announced a retransmission deal today, allowing Verizon to carry CBS O&O TV stations on its fiber optic system. But there was no requirement that CBS be bundled with Viacom cable channels. CBS is said to be now more interested in seeking financial reimbursement from cable operators/telcos for carrying its owned and operated TV stations, rather than in the previous policy of forcing cable systems to carry some Viacom cable channels if they wanted to carry the CBS Network.
> 
> The reason for the change in policy: CBS split off from Viacom in January and is now a separate company from the one that owns MTV Networks (the corporate name for the Viacom cable channels like TVLand, VH1, Nickelodeon, etc.)


I wouldn't count that as a change in policy... If CBS is split from Viacom now, then they wouldn't be able to require a bundle of CBS + Viacom as in the past.

I suspect CBS still would, however, try to bundle any CBS-owned (say for instance the new CW co-owned with WB network) items together.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

IowaStateFan said:


> I also think that large package sizes are the result of a lack of competition. More programmers might be the solution, but I think the real problem is that most of the distributors are also suppliers. They have no incentive to offer their programming at a lower cost, or allowing it to be sold a la carte. The few distributors out there that don't also create content are at a disadvantage when it comes to negotiating a carriage agreement.
> 
> If you are right, you are making my point. The fair market value is the price that buyers are willing to pay for a product. If it is truly $300 for ST, then don't you think people would pay $20/mo for ESPN? Personally, I think ST is overpriced at $180 or whatever it is currently, but I would pay $20/mo for ESPN.


Ok, I'll jump in here... I like sports, and I wouldn't like a la carte if it meant less channels for more money... but I also wouldn't pay $20 for ESPN! I like sports, but I don't like it that much!


----------



## the_bear (Oct 18, 2004)

IowaStateFan said:


> If you are right, you are making my point. The fair market value is the price that buyers are willing to pay for a product. If it is truly $300 for ST, then don't you think people would pay $20/mo for ESPN? Personally, I think ST is overpriced at $180 or whatever it is currently, but I would pay $20/mo for ESPN.


ST at $300 and ESPN $20 assumes there will be a lot less sports watching than currently. Although ESPN could get $20 from a lot of people with it's currently line up, the total revenue EPSN brings Disney would be lower than today. The loss of revenue would result in ESPN being out-bid by other networks for sports coverage. In turn ESPN, would have to lower rates. Pretty soon there would be no ESPN or at least nothing like it is today.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

And from another retransmission-type battle:

Dish Network paid Hearst-Argyle 45 cents per sub for their ABC affiliates during the Lifetime spat. When the new agreement came around for Lifetime, the Hearst-Argyle agreement was terminated and Dish Network paid all fees for Lifetime-managed properties and Hearst properties to Lifetime, and Lifetime paid Hearst for the local retransmissions.

No matter what, this will become more and more interesting over time.


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

the_bear said:


> ST at $300 and ESPN $20 assumes there will be a lot less sports watching than currently. Although ESPN could get $20 from a lot of people with it's currently line up, the total revenue EPSN brings Disney would be lower than today. The loss of revenue would result in ESPN being out-bid by other networks for sports coverage. In turn ESPN, would have to lower rates. Pretty soon there would be no ESPN or at least nothing like it is today.


And this is bad? Right now ESPN can outbid all the networks because their deep pockets of "forced subscriptions" allows them.

Now instead of us being able to watch sports for free, paid for by commercials, we have to pay for sports "and" watch the same commercials.

I am supposed to feel sorry for ESPN?

I don't care if ESPN want's to become a premium "HBO" type provider as long as they have to play by the same rules as HBO. If HBO raises rates too high then people can elect to cancel them. If ESPN raises rates too high for some we can do what?

Currently the only thing we can do is to elect to cancel "all" pay TV - silly in the extream.

As I said before.... if ESPN can no longer afford 100 million a year for rights then they simple pay 50 million in turn the players then make half of what they are making - I'm sure they will not starve if they are "only" making 500 thou instead of 1 million 

-JB


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

jrb531 said:


> And this is bad? Right now ESPN can outbid all the networks because their deep pockets of "forced subscriptions" allows them.
> 
> Now instead of us being able to watch sports for free, paid for by commercials, we have to pay for sports "and" watch the same commercials.


This statement has been said multiple times, and it simply isn't true.

The list of freely watchable sports on ABC, CBS, NBC, and FOX is too long to mention. Also TNT, while not being OTA, is a channel other than ESPN that has lots of sports... and there are other channels as well that contain sports programming. ESPN is NOT outbidding all the other networks.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Titus2525 said:


> Since everyone is using an obscure French word for picking your channels like a la carte, then bundled channels should be called table d'hote!


I wondered about that myself... since usually a la carte is used on restaurant menus for a list of "on the side" items that you can add to a meal... with the presumption being you would buy a meal and then add items a la carte to it.


----------



## BobaBird (Mar 31, 2002)

HDMe said:


> Regarding ESPN, sports, and athletes overpaying... Yes, many are over-paid... BUT, this is not exclusive to sports. Look at actor, actress salaries and high-profile directors... some folks get $20,000,000 for one movie! Yet, we never hear an outcry that USA costs too much because the actors wanted too much money... why not? It's the same argument.


Here's why it is the same argument. Yes, many actors are able to demand jackpot salaries. How? Because they generate box office ticket sales. Those tickets are paid for by people _willing_ to pay $5-10. Don't like movies at all? No problem - don't buy tickets and no need to worry about paying taxes to build the local cineplex. Similarly, if people didn't by CDs by ___, then he/she/they wouldn't be so rich. All from the pockets of willing fans.

I am sure actors get residuals from many sources, but I doubt much of it is from USA. I don't begin to know how much USA pays to air Hollywood movies, but rarely if ever is it enough to be able to claim a small-screen debut. They usually get them after, in varying order, theaters, DVD rental/purchase, premium channels, and broadcast networks. By then the cost is more in line with the budget of a "basic" channel.

In the sports world, everybody gets to pay. The sports channels cost many times what other basic channels cost. Municipalities pony up millions, paid from taxes, to build stadiums for millionaires that generate jobs for dozens of part-timers. The only ways to opt out are to get no pay TV at all (a truly silly alternative if you want some pay TV) and to move to a town or county that has not sold out.

And no, this is not like taxes for other things you don't like or need. If you've recently spoken to a CSR or fast-food cashier you see the need for education even if you don't have kids. You may only drive on a few roads but if take a look to the left and right when you come to a red light you'll see plenty of other people who do the same. These are for the good of society and we all chip in. Sports is nowhere near the same category yet we see city after city catering to the arrogance and greed of the owners and players.

Part of this thread is about a la carte. Another part is about removing what has become a premium channel from the economical base package. ESPN can't have it both ways.


----------



## IowaStateFan (Jan 11, 2006)

HDMe said:


> And I hate to have to say it again... but...
> 
> So why isn't everyone on C-band?
> 
> If it is so great and held up as an example of a la carte goodness... I would think people would be eating it up!


I can repeat myself too. I think we had this discussion earlier in this thread. Nobody is suggesting C-Band is great, just that it is an example that packages and a la carte did co-exist once upon a time. Is it proof that they can again? No, not proof, but it is suggestive. To suggest that C-band is nearly dead because they had both packages and a la carte is silly. There are lots of reasons C-band is almost dead but I don't think that is one of them.


----------



## IowaStateFan (Jan 11, 2006)

the_bear said:


> ST at $300 and ESPN $20 assumes there will be a lot less sports watching than currently. Although ESPN could get $20 from a lot of people with it's currently line up, the total revenue EPSN brings Disney would be lower than today. The loss of revenue would result in ESPN being out-bid by other networks for sports coverage. In turn ESPN, would have to lower rates. Pretty soon there would be no ESPN or at least nothing like it is today.


Maybe..... or they could set the price at a point where they get revenues very similar to what they are getting today. If revenues drop at $20/mo maybe they could lower the price to gain more subscribers (ie make it up in volume).


----------



## Opynion (Mar 21, 2006)

HDMe said:


> So why isn't everyone on C-band?
> 
> If it is so great and held up as an example of a la carte goodness... I would think people would be eating it up!


Well maybe if C-band would come up 
with some kind of a small dish, similar to the ones that E and D have, and offer the same deal: Free system and free installation, only then C-band could and would compete with E and D, specially with the 'a la carte' option'.
and yes, IF a la carte goodness was being offered at this time (by E, D and Cable), millions of people would be eating it up! 
I wouldn't mind paying the same amount I'm paying right now, as long as I would pay only for the channels I want. 
For the price of AT120 
20 channels a la carte would be fair enough, specially if you could get some of the premium channels included, after all, you can get all of them for $30 something, so you might as well have them a la carte also.!


----------



## IowaStateFan (Jan 11, 2006)

BobaBird said:


> Part of this thread is about a la carte. Another part is about removing what has become a premium channel from the economical base package. ESPN can't have it both ways.


Unfortunately they can. At least they do now. Actually, I agree with most of your post. Remember I am a sports fan. I understand the argument about why cities should fund stadiums but I disagree with it. Sports is an entertainment business and stadiums should be privately funded. However, sports teams also create an identity for a city which many cities covet. If Pittsburgh (or any city) won't build a new stadium, there are plenty of others that will and the owners would be foolish to turn that down. In a perverse way, it is a supply and demand market. I also agree that ESPN has become a premium channel. They are in a position to make demands on the distributors, because the distributors would lose customers in an instant if ESPN weren't carried. ESPN is never going to voluntarily become a premium channel. So what is the remedy?


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

All I like to point out is how the people who say "C-band does it, why can't Dish" never seem to be C-band customers. They apparently have decided that Dish or DirecTV with bundles is a better deal for them than C-band with a la carte.

Maybe it is the small Dish, maybe it is the lease/free receivers... but somehow Dish even with its ultimate evilness of no a la carte and paying for channels they swear they don't want... people keep choosing Dish over C-band.

So my point, everytime someone brings up C-band is... well, customers keep making the choice to leave C-band for all that Dish offers... then want to complain about what Dish is not.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

BobaBird said:


> Part of this thread is about a la carte. Another part is about removing what has become a premium channel from the economical base package. ESPN can't have it both ways.


Aye, laddie, an' now we are at the crux of the problem...

How can you say that ESPN is a "premium channel"? It has never been one before.

What is an "economical base package"? Something that everyone can afford?

My point all along has been that ANYONE'S belief that ESPN should now be a premium channel is faulty. It is not the consumer that makes this decision. According to all of you, the first multichannel provider to stand up to Disney will reap the rewards. So I'll let you all imagine what happens to the first multichannel provider that pulls ESPN from their lineup. ESPN determines how ESPN is sold. Not the distributor nor the consumer. At least not until someone stands up.

Oh, and an "economical base package" is whatever the market will bear. Since ESPN is in 90 million out of 110 million homes, and is the most subscribed basic cable channel, I'll assume that 90 million households find their base pacakge is already economical. As someone else said...


BobaBird said:


> ESPN can't have it both ways.


Well, ESPN has had it both ways for quite some time. The issue here is that the consumer can't have it both ways. You cannot complain about how expensive something is and continue to buy it.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

HDMe said:


> Look at actor, actress salaries and high-profile directors... some folks get $20,000,000 for one movie! Yet, we never hear an outcry that USA costs too much because the actors wanted too much money... why not? It's the same argument.


Because either:

(a) People are more eager to see a Bruce Willis movie than a Universal movie, but they're more eager to see a Yankees games than a Derek Jeter game. *OR*

(b) Entertainment owners know that publicly growsing about stars' salaries will decrease demand for tickets, but a lot of sports owners haven't figured that one out.


----------



## Opynion (Mar 21, 2006)

Dish is okay, but it is not perfect, it's missing the a la carte option, and the sky will not fall if uncle Sam steps in, to help with this option.
of course, the dish packs should remain for those who want more channels. 
some people like to compare this with meals in restaurants; 
(let's see if I can do the same) 
let us suppose that restaurants sold their meals in bundles of 60_Meals, 120_Meals and 180_Meals,
and a customer walks in and says that he only wants a steak, onion rings, a piece of french bread, a dessert and soda,
and the waitress tells him,
I'm sorry Sir, but a la carte is not an option, we only sell meals in bundles, 
to be 
"cost effective and to help keep prices low";--(duz this sound familiar?).


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Greg Bimson said:


> The issue here is that the consumer can't have it both ways. You cannot complain about how expensive something is and continue to buy it.


Several of us, on both sides of the a la carte debate, have essentially said this.

What I see, to use a real-world shopping example... is a lot of people who want to shop for clothes at K-Mart for convenience and lower prices BUT expect to find the same selection they would find at an upscale store like Hecht's.

If it walks and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck... and no matter how much you blow the dog whistle to call it to you... it will still be a duck!

So people pick Dish over something like C-band, which they say offers them more choice, but then want to keep spending their money with Dish and have something to complain about.

I've felt ripped off before, felt like I got bad service more than once at a place, and felt like I wasn't getting my money's worth... and I stopped going to those places and stopped giving them my money! It's really a simple concept.


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

Greg Bimson said:


> Oh, and an "economical base package" is whatever the market will bear. Since ESPN is in 90 million out of 110 million homes, and is the most subscribed basic cable channel, I'll assume that 90 million households find their base pacakge is already economical. As someone else said...Well, ESPN has had it both ways for quite some time. The issue here is that the consumer can't have it both ways. You cannot complain about how expensive something is and continue to buy it.


Tell me "when" I have had a chance to cancel ESPN????

How many of those 90 million out of 110 million people have an option to cancel ESPN and how many are "forced" to subscribe because their only option to get rid of ESPN is to cancel "all" pay tv?

And to your first question about when did ESPN become a premium channel?

IMHO "any" channel (or channel package as in the multiple ESPN channels) become "premium" once they starty charging triple the average cost for channels in the basic package. Now of course this is just "my" interpretation but just because ESPN started long ago as a "much" cheaper single channel does this mean that they have cart blanc to raise fees forever?

At what point would you say enough is enough? Since the public cannot cancel ESPN we have no say so what is keeping ESPN in line?

-JB


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

HDMe said:


> Several of us, on both sides of the a la carte debate, have essentially said this.
> 
> What I see, to use a real-world shopping example... is a lot of people who want to shop for clothes at K-Mart for convenience and lower prices BUT expect to find the same selection they would find at an upscale store like Hecht's.
> 
> ...


Actually I just want the option to cancel ESPN (or any other runaway channels) as well as subscribing to the science channel (for example) without having to subscribe to package B and C for an extra $20 for 1 channels.

No one is saying to tear down the entire system but there has to be some give as the costs rise and rise.

Making people subscribe to package "a" and "b" just to be able to get "c" is silly at best. Making people pay for premium channels (no matter what you say ESPN is now a premium channel package!) just because is not a good enough reason.

I know, and you know, why ESPN wants to force everyone to pay for them... $$$

90 million people paying $5 a month = $450 million!

now lets say that half of the people would drop ESPN if they had the option (IMHO it would be more long term)

45 million people would have to pay $10 to equal to same revenue. If ESPN doubled their fee to make up for the lost "forced" subscribers then it would cause even more people to cancel thus forcing another price increase.

Eventually ESPN would have to cut back services until they found a happy medium - a price that a core group of people would be willing to pay.

Is this not what other premium services have to do? Why is ESPN exempt from playing the game the same way as eveyrone else? Because long ago they "used" to be a cheap basic channel is an excuse for how long?

Why not force everyone to pay for HBO? Would is not be cheaper then for everyone? I asked this before but the only answer I got was that sports was more popular that HBO... well back up your facts. If sports are truely more popular then make it a premium package and people will surely pay ESPN whatever they want because ESPN (and sports) is just so popular 

right? 

-JB


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

jrb531 said:


> Tell me "when" I have had a chance to cancel ESPN????
> 
> How many of those 90 million out of 110 million people have an option to cancel ESPN and how many are "forced" to subscribe because their only option to get rid of ESPN is to cancel "all" pay tv?
> 
> At what point would you say enough is enough? Since the public cannot cancel ESPN we have no say so what is keeping ESPN in line?


So, how much do you pay ESPN a month? Do you write a check to ESPN every month?

Your issue is more with the distributor than with ESPN, as the distributor believes the channel must be in the most basic package in order to drive more subscribers. The reverse belief must also hold true: without ESPN in the basic package, the expectation for damage to the distributor's business is high.

ESPN is in basic because most distributors believe they cannot do without it. So if you really want to do some damage, grab a bunch of people and boycott.


jrb531 said:


> Actually I just want the option to cancel ESPN (or any other runaway channels) as well as subscribing to the science channel (for example) without having to subscribe to package B and C for an extra $20 for 1 channels.


And there is a reason the distributors helped to package the channels this way. The distributors make more money by forcing people to take higher tiers for programming. I don't get Sports Pack from DirecTV, although I would love to have Fox Sports Soccer and CSTV. It is just not economical for me to get these channels. As a wise first lady once said, "Just say no!".


jrb531 said:


> IMHO "any" channel (or channel package as in the multiple ESPN channels) become "premium" once they starty charging triple the average cost for channels in the basic package. Now of course this is just "my" interpretation but just because ESPN started long ago as a "much" cheaper single channel does this mean that they have cart blanc to raise fees forever?


Until enough people actually sock the distributors in the wallet by stopping subscriptions altogether.

Just because it is your opinion that ESPN is a premium channel does not make it so. It is a basic channel, just like CNN and TBS.


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

Greg Bimson said:


> Your issue is more with the distributor than with ESPN, as the distributor believes the channel must be in the most basic package in order to drive more subscribers.


Can Dish remove ESPN from the basic package if they wanted to or does ESPN "require" per contract that ESPN be in the basic pacakage?

If Dish (or the distributor as you say) is the one forcing ESPN on me then I will redirect my efforts and anger to Dish and the first "distributor" who allows me to remove ESPN will get my $$$'s.

It is my understanding that the programmers are running the show by requiring "must carry" as well as dictating what packages their channels are being placed in.

Now if I am wrong please let me know 

-JB


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

Everything is negotiable. ESPN generally stands alone when it comes to pricing, separate from the rest of the Disney properties.

Remember, you now have the option of moving to a "family pack", which no longer contains ESPN. So the question here is if you can do without other channels as well as ESPN by moving to the family pack.

However, you are correct that many programmers run the show when it comes to channel packaging and placement. Look at Dish Network's last two public battles: Viacom (when it was both CBS and Viacom) and Lifetime. Dish Network really took the brunt of the public relations hit for removing the CBS channels and Nickelodeon, as well as the MTV suite. Lifetime, however, was quite a different story. Lifetime wasn't able to keep their movie network in the mid-tier Dish Netowrk package. The new contract pushed Lifetime Movie Network into the high-end AT180 package.

Until a distributor stands up and says ESPN is gone unless they can be negotiated out of basic cable, ESPN will charge whatever the market will bear, until the market stands up. And remember, their market is the distributors, not the consumers. ESPN will have to take notice, as if their sub numbers are affected, they will need to adjust advertising revenues due to loss of subscribers.


----------



## rcbridge (Oct 31, 2002)

I have read a lot of different views of this topic, regardless of what any of us feel this is a service offered to anyone with a certain structure, no one has to have it, it's your option to purchase it, if you only use a small percentage of the available service (I am sure most of us do) if you really want it you keep it if not just cancel!!

The government cannot force them to change the structure (they can suggest)
It is a private company with a business model.

Technically the content providers do force the bundling but the carriers don't mind
if there take rate went down they would be out of business soon (not to mention the stock holders). Any free installation or discounted equipment would go away, a new business model would mean many changes at numerous levels.

Again you are not forced to subscribe!!


----------



## IowaStateFan (Jan 11, 2006)

HDMe said:


> I've felt ripped off before, felt like I got bad service more than once at a place, and felt like I wasn't getting my money's worth... and I stopped going to those places and stopped giving them my money! It's really a simple concept.


So have I. I will argue that this is different. In the retail business, if I get a bad product or service, I have several other options to choose from. While Walmart, Kmart, Sears and Target all sell similar items, one may have better prices,services or brands than another. If I've gotten poor products or service from one, I can go to another. While that is partially true with pay tv, I can't really address the issue at hand by switching providers. They all have very similar packages that include channels I may not want. I cannot switch from Dish to DirecTv to purchase a package without channel X. So my choice is to purchase a package and pay for channel x, or not purchase pay TV. Withholding my business from E* over the issue, but purchasing the very same thing from D* does not send a very strong message. I want channels A, B and C without channel X, but that is not an option with any provider.


----------



## IowaStateFan (Jan 11, 2006)

rcbridge said:


> I have read a lot of different views of this topic, regardless of what any of us feel this is a service offered to anyone with a certain structure, no one has to have it, it's your option to purchase it, if you only use a small percentage of the available service (I am sure most of us do) if you really want it you keep it if not just cancel!!


I won't blame you if you haven't read this whole thread - it is rather long and sometimes repetive :sure:. I have said much the same thing. Pay television is optional, I understand that. What I object to is being forced into an "all or nothing" choice. Telling me that if I don't like it I don't have to subscribe just doesn't cut it. So far I've found value in the program packages that I have subscribed to. However, that seems to be changing. I may end up making the "nothing choice" and drop pay tv if the prices keep going up. I'm trying to find a way to get what I want, at a price I'm willing to pay. While many here disagree, I believe a la carte would give me that ability.



rcbridge said:


> The government cannot force them to change the structure (they can suggest)
> It is a private company with a business model.


Wanna Bet??!! Absolutely they can. Most of the cable companies are regulated by local municipalities. On top of that there are FCC requirements. The DBS providers are using public airwaves that are regulated by the FCC. Congress can jump in anytime and force the issue using their interstate commerce powers. While I don't advocate government intervention, don't be so sure it can't (or won't) happen. If enough consumers get fed up with the system, they'll put enough pressure on Congress to "fix" it - though the "fix" will likely be worse than what we've got.



rcbridge said:


> Technically the content providers do force the bundling but the carriers don't mind
> if there take rate went down they would be out of business soon (not to mention the stock holders). Any free installation or discounted equipment would go away, a new business model would mean many changes at numerous levels.


I think this is what scares most of the people who are against a la carte. It will force some changes in the way the business works. Some changes will make the system better, others may be worse. Some channels may go away. I don't have a crystal ball that will tell me whether or not it will be better for me. I think it will or I wouldn't be arguing so passionately about it. I certainly would like to see it tried.


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

rcbridge said:


> The government cannot force them to change the structure (they can suggest) It is a private company with a business model.


If the government deems that a "private company" is practicing monopolistic practices then can and will step in... just ask Microsoft or AT&T 

The programmers provide their wares to three (currently) distributors:

1. Your local cable company
2. Direct TV
3. Dish

Now if ESPN (for example) refuses to allow the distributors to distribute their product as the distributors see fit then this "can" be monopolistic. After all I could not dump Dish and move to cable if I no longer wanted ESPN as long as ESPN "forces" the same on all current distributors.

The government stepped in when Microsoft was practicing what they considered good business practice while others said it was anti-competative. Could we not have just said "if you don't like microsoft use another OS?"

The question is this....

Do the programmers "force" packages or do the distributors?

IMHO the programmers have no business whatsoever telling the distributors anything other than what is considered normal practice:

1. What will you charge me per customer?
2. What discount will you provide if we exceed certain levels (volume discount)?

Any other "deals" can seem awfully close to monopolistic practices and anti-competative behavior.

Never forget that the government blocked the Dish-Direct TV merge because it "might" have resulted in less competition. These were two "private" businesses doing something that made perfect sence from a logical standpoint (it costs the same to beam pay tv to one house or 10 zillion so why have duplicate hardware in two difference companies?) so ask yourself this:

Which is less compentative?

1. Dish-Direct TV merged vs Cable
2. Dish vs Direct TV vs Cable being supplied by the same programmers with near identical contract who dictate how the distributors will distribute their programs

-JB


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

IowaStateFan said:


> I think this is what scares most of the people who are against a la carte. It will force some changes in the way the business works. Some changes will make the system better, others may be worse. Some channels may go away. I don't have a crystal ball that will tell me whether or not it will be better for me. I think it will or I wouldn't be arguing so passionately about it. I certainly would like to see it tried.


I remember when the government broke up AT&T. The cost for long distance was so high that few could afford to even use it. People moaned that this breakup would mean poor service and higher bills. In the long term, however, our bills (inflation adjusted) have either stayed the same or have gone down.

Long distance is often cheaper than local calls! In fact many people can now talk unlimited long distance for a very small fee. What people used to pay for one long distance call we now pay for unlimted 24/7 long distance.

This all came about due to competition. A certain percentage of people will alway run in circles saying the sky is falling anytime change is in the air but we have to look 10 years down the road and not 10 months.

Ala-cart will happen and while short term there may be some bumps, 10 years from now we all will be better off for it.

Using a 30 year old pay TV business model until the end of time is not the way to go IMHO.

-JB


----------



## the_bear (Oct 18, 2004)

IowaStateFan said:


> If revenues drop at $20/mo maybe they could lower the price to gain more subscribers (ie make it up in volume).


 I have to agree with the ALC advocates that it would be impossible for Disney to receive the same amount of revenue it does today without bundle discounts. If you think of a more practical example, if there was a law passed, that limited the amount Costco to give as a bundle discount, Costco revenue would be reduced. The bundle discount causes customers to buy more from Costco. A price of $20 for ESPN ALC does not mean that is what price gives ESPN the same amount of revenue today. What it means is that at $19 ESPN only gets 4% more subscribers and at $21 ESPN loses 6% of its subscribers.



Opynion said:


> IF a la carte goodness was being offered at this time (by E, D and Cable), millions of people would be eating it up!
> I wouldn't mind paying the same amount I'm paying right now, as long as I would pay only for the channels I want.


What you are asking for is to buy individual items at the bundled price. No doubt individual items would be stellar sellers at bundle prices, but no company can make money by doing this. Bundle discounts can come in many forms. In the case of pay TV, it one form is free installation and smaller dishes.


IowaStateFan said:


> So what is the remedy?


 Move football to Discovery. That should satisfy complaints about creating theme channels and make ESPN cheaper and Discovery more expensive. I assume this is what we all want?


BobaBird said:


> ..Don't like movies at all? No problem...


Those movie studios keep bundling scenes with Bruce Willis with those without. I only want to see scenes Bruce Willis. When is the government going to do something about this?


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

jrb531 said:


> If the government deems that a "private company" is practicing monopolistic practices then can and will step in... just ask Microsoft or AT&T


And in both cases, which function of government stepped in? Hint: not Congress or the President.


jrb531 said:


> Now if ESPN (for example) refuses to allow the distributors to distribute their product as the distributors see fit then this "can" be monopolistic. After all I could not dump Dish and move to cable if I no longer wanted ESPN as long as ESPN "forces" the same on all current distributors.


Explain how it can be monopolistic. Explain why ESPN cannot dictate their product should be in the basic tier.


jrb531 said:


> Which is less compentative?
> 
> 1. Dish-Direct TV merged vs Cable
> 2. Dish vs Direct TV vs Cable being supplied by the same programmers with near identical contract who dictate how the distributors will distribute their programs


You forgot that option 1 should read:

Dish-DirecTV merged vs cable, being supplied by the same programmers with near identical contracts that dictate how the distributors will distribute their programs, with DBS assets under control of one company which creates a monopoly.

Which makes option 2 more competitive.


----------



## the_bear (Oct 18, 2004)

jrb531 said:


> I remember when the government broke up AT&T. The cost for long distance was so high that few could afford to even use it. People moaned that this breakup would mean poor service and higher bills. In the long term, however, our bills (inflation adjusted) have either stayed the same or have gone down.


Since the AT&T breakup was the REMOVAL of regulations, your analogy is going the wrong way. The current state of TV is like today's long distance. The proposed ALC mandate is like long distance 25 years ago.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

Exactly how was the breakup of AT&T the removal of regulations?


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

the_bear said:


> Since the AT&T breakup was the REMOVAL of regulations, your analogy is going the wrong way. The current state of TV is like today's long distance. The proposed ALC mandate is like long distance 25 years ago.


So regulations kept the "one" company's prices high?
No competion had nothing to do with it?

-JB


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

Greg Bimson said:


> And in both cases, which function of government stepped in? Hint: not Congress or the President.


Actually the justice department stepped in which is part of the Executive branch.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

But to get a remedy, it had to go through a lawsuit for violations of the Sherman Anti-trust Act, which means it went through the courts. The remedy was a judgment that broke up AT&T. Just like it was the courts that decided Microsoft was a monopoly.


----------



## IowaStateFan (Jan 11, 2006)

Geronimo said:


> Actually the justice department stepped in which is part of the Executive branch.


Using laws created by Congress.


----------



## the_bear (Oct 18, 2004)

Geronimo said:


> Exactly how was the breakup of AT&T the removal of regulations?


"States then began regulating rates so that those in rural area would not have to pay high prices, and competition was highly regulated or prohibited in local markets. Also, potential competitors were forbidden from installing new lines to compete, with state governments wishing to avoid "duplication.""

from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT&T


----------



## IowaStateFan (Jan 11, 2006)

Greg Bimson said:


> But to get a remedy, it had to go through a lawsuit for violations of the Sherman Anti-trust Act, which means it went through the courts. The remedy was a judgment that broke up AT&T. Just like it was the courts that decided Microsoft was a monopoly.


The courts don't/won't/can't enter the fray unless someone asks them to. That is the executive branch's (presidential) responsibility, or the States' Attorneys role - unless of course it is a civil suit but I don't think we have a civil case here. I'm not even sure there is a criminal case.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

jrb531IMHO said:


> "any" channel (or channel package as in the multiple ESPN channels) become "premium" once they starty charging triple the average cost for channels in the basic package. Now of course this is just "my" interpretation but just because ESPN started long ago as a "much" cheaper single channel does this mean that they have cart blanc to raise fees forever?


So... if the average cost is $0.50 then any channel at $1.50 (triple the cost) is now a Premium channel?

I don't know what the average cost is... but since you argue ESPN is way more than the average cost, I have to assume the average cost is low... so a lot of them would qualify as a premium using your definition most likely.

Why don't they have a right to raise prices forever? EVERYTHING else in this country raises prices? Maybe you should never get a raise at your job either. Your raise directly influences the cost of the service/product you provide... so you get a raise, I have to pay more... I don't want you to get a raise!

Everything is connected... people want more salary but want to pay less for everything. This continues to confuse me.

Also confusing are the great number of people who claim to want choice, but when are given a choice they don't want it. Ultimately I think people want 500 channels, but they only want to pay for 5 of them. Notice how many people complained recently that Dish didn't give them a free HBO/MAX preview because they were on a non-qualifying package... End result is they wanted something for nothing... just like most people.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

the bear found this reference:


> "States then began regulating rates so that those in rural area would not have to pay high prices, and competition was highly regulated or prohibited in local markets. Also, potential competitors were forbidden from installing new lines to compete, with state governments wishing to avoid "duplication.""


Hmm. Sound familiar???

So when it came time to dig trenches to start cable TV, the municipalities granted regulated franchises to one company for exclusive use. Thus the beginning of the local cable monopoly.


IowaStateFan said:


> The courts don't/won't/can't enter the fray unless someone asks them to. That is the executive branch's (presidential) responsibility, or the States' Attorneys role - unless of course it is a civil suit but I don't think we have a civil case here. I'm not even sure there is a criminal case.


Fair point. However, since ESPN has been asking for basic tier carriage for decades, and bundling is allowed to continue as it has for a decade, I'd think there is no real "monopoly" case here, either.


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

HDMe said:


> Also confusing are the great number of people who claim to want choice, but when are given a choice they don't want it.


Ok when were we given a choice? I must have somehow missed it in the last decade 

As I said before.... continue to offer the package deals. I'm all for volume discounts but allow me to add a single channel or two to "independant" packages (no more you need to take "a" and "b" to get "C") instead of having to take entire packages.

In another response....

If the "average" cost per channel in basic is 50 cents then YES I do think that any channel that charges X times that rate should be premium. That 3x figure was just an example. I don't care if the figure is 3x or 4x or 5x but there should be some standard or definition as to what is premium and what is not.

Does that mean channels that I do want like Discovery should also be premium... sure! I'm not advocating a double standard here.

I understand that inflation causes prices to go up but I also want to option to be able to cut back "some" pay TV if my budget warrants instead of the current take it all or leave it.

I would take the family package in a second if I was allowed to add the 1-2 additional channels I want to the mix even if those add on's cost me an extra $10.

-JB


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

Greg Bimson said:


> However, since ESPN has been asking for basic tier carriage for decades, and bundling is allowed to continue as it has for a decade, I'd think there is no real "monopoly" case here, either.


ESPN crossed the line when they re-imaged themselves from a single sport channels to a larger lineup of multiple channels charging "many" times the average basic pay tv rate.

Can I subscribe to a single channel of ESPN? nope
Can I cancel all ESPN? nope

Now if this is because Dish will not offer it then no prob... I switch to another provider who will sell me what I want.

Now if this is because ESPN "forces" all distributors to take it or leave it as well as requiring that every single subscriber to pay TV take their programming then while this may not be a monopoly in the strickest sence they are opperating business practices that are in the very least anti-competative in nature.

I seem to remember Microsoft getting in a wee bit of trouble for "forced bundling" of product to distributors. Is ESPN forcing bundling of channels to thier distributors? You bet!

How is it ok for one but not both?

Microsoft came up with all sorts of excuses including "value packaging" and "customer expectations" and even "they cannot be split apart and sold separatly" but in the end Microsoft was forced to strip the add-ons for any distributor that so requested.

ESPN should be required to do the same and just like Microsoft would never do so willingly, neither will ESPN so in this case goverment intervention "may" be required to protect the best interests of the consumer. Does the government have a great track record in doing this? maybe not so I'm open to any alternative aside from business as usual.

-JB


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

jrb531 said:


> Now if this is because ESPN "forces" all distributors to take it or leave it as well as requiring that every single subscriber to pay TV take their programming then while this may not be a monopoly in the strickest sence they are opperating business practices that are in the very least anti-competative in nature.
> 
> I seem to remember Microsoft getting in a wee bit of trouble for "forced bundling" of product to distributors. Is ESPN forcing bundling of channels to thier distributors? You bet!
> 
> How is it ok for one but not both?


Let's go back to one of your other questions regarding Microsoft:


jrb531 said:


> The government stepped in when Microsoft was practicing what they considered good business practice while others said it was anti-competative. Could we not have just said "if you don't like microsoft use another OS?"


The issues were:
1) that the "bundling of IE" to Windows was anti-competitive (remember, Microsoft is both the creator and distributor of the product)
2) that Windows is the defacto "monopoly" operating system, with over 90 percent market share in home computers.

This is a much different scenario than the cable television paradigm. After all, ESPN is NOT a monopoly, so it is like comparing apples to oranges.

Also, as far as I recall, ESPN is not "forcing" bundling of channels to distributors. Distributors can actually take only ESPN original. The funny thing is that by taking only the flagship station, it costs the distributor more than if they took the entire ESPN suite. However, the pricing per subscriber is dependent upon being placed in the lowest, most widely available basic tier.


----------



## rcbridge (Oct 31, 2002)

Has anyone paid attention to AT+T lately there will soon be only 2 major players in the wired phone industry!! (not counting VOIP).

As far as a monopoly there is much competition for video services:
Dish, Direct, Cable and FIOS.

As far as the government goes (FCC) the DBS companies are alloted frequencies to operate in but they are not free or public domain.


----------



## Mike D-CO5 (Mar 12, 2003)

Greg Bimson said:


> Also, as far as I recall, ESPN is not "forcing" bundling of channels to distributors. Distributors can actually take only ESPN original. The funny thing is that by taking only the flagship station, it costs the distributor more than if they took the entire ESPN suite. However, the pricing per subscriber is dependent upon being placed in the lowest, most widely available basic tier.


 The Disney/Hearst company is the one who forces companies with forced bundeling to any cable or sat provider. They say if you want Disney channels you have to take the Espn channels . In some cases if you want the Abc local affilitate that they own , you have to take both the Disney channels and the Espn channels. (This is what Charlie tried to avoid by splitting the local channels from the lifetime channels recently. This left the Lifetime people out of the game because Dish had nothing to lose but the lifetime channels .) Oh and the espn /disney channels have to be in the lowest pack of programming available. Now excuse me but that sounds remarkabley like "forced bundeling "to me? Or legalized extortion or blackmail maybe?

This is done all over the country with all cable companies and both sat providers. If I want any of the average national cable channels I have to buy the Espn and Disney channels to get them. This highly inflates the cost of the lowest pack of programming for any cable or sat customers , which is the base for all programming packs, except the new family packs with Dish at least.

This process needs to be changed by Congress via a new law or regulation, if they want to make Ala carte a reality as the FCC chairman has said he wants to do.

I have had 6 price increases with Dish in 6 years. In 1999 I believe I first went with Aep for 69.99 and now it is 84.99 a month. That is a 15.00 increase in 7 years. At this yearly increase rate they will be 99.99 for Aep in 2012. This will eventually lead to more and more people deciding to not only cut the cable but to dump the dish as well. You can only squeeze so much blood out of a turnip as Wages have stayed stagnet for the last 6 years for the average U.S. worker.

When and If, the telecos decide to NOT play this game with the Disney/Hearst company and decide to NOT include the Espn channels in the lowest pack of programming with their new video distribution networks , will start a flood of churn for the cable and sat companies.

Add to that the ever increasing cost for gasoline and oil and you will see the demand for a change that WILL COME. The experts are predicting increases that will cause gas to go over 3.00 and up before summer. Another devasting hurricane season in 2 months and you can bet the price will go fast to 4.00 a gallon or higher. People will have to decide between heating & air conditioning their homes , running their cars , EATING or paying the ever increasing cable/sat bills. I think a lot of people will cut down to the family pack or just locals with Dish and or cut it out entirely . Especially if the gas price goes up to 5.00 a gallon.

The need for ala carte will become a big demand if all this keeps up as I have discussed. The cable /sat companies will have to decide if they want to sell ANY programming at all with Ala carte vs none at all. Whether it is theme packs or every channel sold individually remains to be seen. But I predict that Ala carte is coming........


----------



## Opynion (Mar 21, 2006)

That's right, there is more competition for video services, Dish, Cable, etc., but they all act as monopolys, and the proof of this is that none of them offer a la carte, period.
I remember when Dish used to say:

"Stop feeding the pig" (CableTv"), 

if you want TCM from Dish, you have to pay $39 a month for the AT-120 
& the local Cable-Tv offers TCM/Turner Classic Movies included in their monthly bill of $38

Whos the pig now?

We are happy with E, we just want the a la carte option to make it better (as soon as it becomes available);
with a la carte people would get the quality channels they want, 
instead of paying for a few channels they want, and for crappy channels they don't want, and still not getting all the channels they really want,
because they would have to pay for more channels they want & for more channels they don't want.

people on a budget that want channels from diferent packs, up to the AT-180 pack, could afford them on the a la carte option; 20 channels for $39 a month for the following channels would be my choice:
1.TVLAND
2.SCI-FI
3.IFC
4.FX
5.TCM
6.ENCORE-W
7.ENC-ACTION
8.SPIKE-TV
9.TNT
10.CNN
11.HEADLINE NEWS
12.ESPN DEPORTES
13.AZTECA AMERICA
14.GALAVISION
15.ENC-WESTERNS
16.ENC-MYSTERY
17.DE PELICULA CLASICO
18.HTV
19.PLAYBOY EN ESPANOL
20.HBO LATINO


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Hey, so for folks that think they can do it better and more fair... why not get together and launch your own satellite and then see what you need to do as a company to make back the money to pay for all of it!

Kind of like the "hippy" movement of the 1960s when all those "down with the man" people eventually grew up and entered the real world and became that which they had protested against.


----------



## the_bear (Oct 18, 2004)

jrb531 said:


> I seem to remember Microsoft getting in a wee bit of trouble for "forced bundling" of product to distributors.


You will have a tough time convincing anyone here that the IE un-bundle was a success. Besides, not only is the OS market currently less competitive than TV, the TV market is about to get much more competitive.


Titus2525 said:


> I receive the locals package and nothing but the locals now for 11.99 due to my bill going up to an average of 60 dollars a month after subscribing to the at 120 pack with locals and an extra receiver fee.


How noble the government's intentions when they decided to create a basic cable package with price cap and major networks. This lead to unnaturally large popularity and budgets for the major networks. National channels were forced to subsidize the locals. Look at these message boards to see all the requests for LIL. This is the result of government funneling money to local stations. Although this was not the intention of the original basic cable mandate, what a mess it made for DBS.


Mike D-CO5 said:


> .. I have had 6 price increases with Dish in 6 years. In 1999 I believe I first went with Aep for 69.99 and now it is 84.99 a month. That is a 15.00 increase in 7 years. At this yearly increase rate they will be 99.99 for Aep in 2012. This will eventually lead to more and more people deciding to not only cut the cable but to dump the dish as well...


 As you have found, pay TV cannot grow faster than disposable income forever. This current price spike will end well before 2012, that is if government does not try to interfere.


----------



## Opynion (Mar 21, 2006)

HDMe said:


> Hey, so for folks that think they can do it better and more fair... why not get together and launch your own satellite and then see what you need to do as a company to make back the money to pay for all of it!


Since a la carte is coming, there is no need for that.



HDME said:


> Kind of like the "hippy" movement of the 1960s when all those "down with the man" people eventually grew up and entered the real world and became that which they had protested against.


If channel packages were that good, 
nobody would be protesting 
and 
the FCC would not try to do something about getting a la carte.


----------



## IowaStateFan (Jan 11, 2006)

the_bear said:


> You will have a tough time convincing anyone here that the IE un-bundle was a success. Besides, not only is the OS market currently less competitive than TV, the TV market is about to get much more competitive.


You say that like you have inside information. What is going to make it more competitive? I've said before that until the suppliers are no longer distributors nothing significant is going to change. Nobody has said anything here to change my opinion on that and I don't see that happening anytime soon.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

IowaStateFan said:


> You say that like you have inside information. What is going to make it more competitive? I've said before that until the suppliers are no longer distributors nothing significant is going to change. Nobody has said anything here to change my opinion on that and I don't see that happening anytime soon.


Many of the larger programming providers do not own any distribution platforms. Take, for example:

CBS (just CBS and UPN/CW stations)
Viacom (MTV, Nickelodeon, Showtime)
NBC/Universal (USA, NBC, Telemundo_
Disney (ESPN, Disney, ABC)

These companies do not own a distribution platform. Fox just picked one up two years ago. Comcast doesn't have much, other than some sports nets and E! Entertainment.

Time Warner is the only major distributor with significant channel holdiings, as they have been this way for over a decade. So don't think that being a supplier and a distributor is commonplace.


Opynion said:


> Since a la carte is coming, there is no need for that.


A la carte isn't coming, yet, if at all.


Opynion said:


> We are happy with E, we just want the a la carte option to make it better (as soon as it becomes available);
> with a la carte people would get the quality channels they want,
> instead of paying for a few channels they want, and for crappy channels they don't want, and still not getting all the channels they really want,
> because they would have to pay for more channels they want & for more channels they don't want.


Fine. Just realize all the channels you want a la carte are subsidized because they are in packages. Channels are placed in packages for the distributor (as well as the channel provider) to make money. Channels placed in a higher tier are there to entice a larger purchase. Remove the ability to package, and the pricing for each channel will rise.

And even the FCC report stated a la carte was feasible pointed out that a la carte would barely give consumers any choice at all for the exact same money they are spending now. If FCC Commissioner Martin believes in a la carte, the substance of the report he commissioned tells me he must also believe in Cinderella and the Tooth Fairy.

The same FCC does not have any rulemaking in front of them to start a la carte. Congress is not holding hearings and addressing the issue. There isn't any pending legislation for a la carte. And we expect a Republican Congress and a Republican Executive to actually re-regulate the multi-channel industry?

Even I know these things will evolve. But nothing like you believe.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

Greg Bimson said:


> But to get a remedy, it had to go through a lawsuit for violations of the Sherman Anti-trust Act, which means it went through the courts. The remedy was a judgment that broke up AT&T. Just like it was the courts that decided Microsoft was a monopoly.


yes they went to court---and they won. But the statement that the executive branch ---which asked for the brealup---was not involved was faulty.


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

Once again we have people who continuously defend these big businesses without logic or reason other than perhaps they fear that if forced subsidies are removed those that have some need to subscribe to 10,000 channels will have to foot the full bill for that - or they are but one of many "plants" that the pay tv industry have on their payroll. Pay TV spends hundreds of millions of dollars yearly on advertising, lobbyists and donations to politicians yet not a single drop of that $$$ goes toward internet "spin control" - paranoid? some say yes some need to open their eyes.

Once again I will ask (and will be ingnored by the pro-screw the customer crowd)

1. Why do we only have three main programming packages for D*, Dish and cable? (I do not consider family a main package)

2. Why do you need to subscribe to package "a" and "b" in order to get package "c"?

3. If I subscribe to package "a" and want a single channel in package "c" why do I have to pay $20 to subscribe to "B" and "c" instead of just adding on the one channel?

I know the answer and you all do but we keep trying to sugar coat it. Let's just come right out and admit it and stop trying to justify what is being done to us.

The current system is set up for no other reason than to try and milk the consumer (us) out of the most amount of $$$ that they can. 

What special interest groups represent the consumer? What "donations" to politicians are being made on the behalf of the consumer? Why speaks for us?

I ROTFLMAO when I read such total and utter BS as...

"If you do not like being screwed then just cancel all pay tv"

"If you can do better than make your own pay TV system"

I find it hard to beleive that pay TV is somehow exempt from other businesses. In effect they have become a utility company. Most people consider phone service a required "must have" utility but 50+ years ago this was not the case.... things change! 

My example of the gas company is, IMHO, the way it should be done. The distributors (Dish, D*, cable) will show one line on your bill for distribution costs, one line for equipment rental etc... and another section of your bill will list the channels you subscribe to and what you are paying for each channel. Want to offer packages in addition to this or volumn discounts then fine but everything is on the table. Nothing is hidden.

ESPN wants to triple it's fees then so be it but then ESPN risks the possibility that a good number of people will cancel - JUST LIKE OTHER BUSINESES!

So lets stop being silly.

If you like the forced subsidies right now then come out and just say it. You are against change because you would be forced to pay your own costs. Stop trying to justify why people who only watch a half dozen channels need to pay for 20, 30 or more channels.

Stop posting studies paid for by the programmers saying silly stupid things like ESPN will cost $20 a month under ala-cart.... if ESPN cost $20 a month it would not be around very long!

How about my study (sarcasm here) saying that under ala-cart all channels would cost 1 cent and our monthly bill would be $1?

This is just as silly and bias as the programmers studies saying that the sky will fall under any changed system. What do you expect a study by big business to say? "Our study has shown that we have been screwing the consumer for years and due to this study we will be reducing our rates"

In closing I ask this last question.... (again)

If I want to subscribe to one single channel....
If I pay 100% the cost for all equipment....
If I pay 100% the cost for installation....
If I pay the same distribution fee that is charges under the distributors lowest package (IE the distributor makes their minimum profit as I understand that they have to pay to put up and maintain satalites (sp?)

Why can't I subscribe to one single channel?

Why will they not take my $$$?

If I pay $5 for that one channel and $5 for distributing that channel - why can't I get that one channel for $10 a month? The programmer is still making $$$ for that one channel and the distributor is still making $$$ off of me so why?

There is no technical reason... there is only greed and rules set up by big business to ensure that "they" make as much $$$ as possible off the backs of the consumer.

-JB


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

Greg Bimson said:


> Just realize all the channels you want a la carte are subsidized because they are in packages. Channels are placed in packages for the distributor (as well as the channel provider) to make money. Channels placed in a higher tier are there to entice a larger purchase. Remove the ability to package, and the pricing for each channel will rise.


Who said to remove all packaging?
Who is against giving breaks for volume?

Why can't both exist?

Very very few people would take all their channels ala-cart. Most, IMHO, would take the package that was closest to their viewing habits and maybe add a few ala-cart channels thus customizing what they get to "their" (not the programmers!) tastes.

I'm glad to admitted that packages are set up to make the programmers and businesses more $$$ - of course this additional $$$ comes off the backs of people who may not want what is being forced upon them.

Is this not the real issue here?

Choice means less profit so choice is bad?

What is wrong with this?

I pay Dish $75 a month for 75 channels (numbers just an example)

If I pay Dish the same $75 a month but "I" get to pick the channels (based upon the cost of the channels as I am fully aware that some channels cost more than others) then what is wrong with this?

Dish makes the same profit. The programmers that "I" pick make the same profit. I get choice.... everyone wins!

The onyl drawback is that the programmers would now have to compete based on price (like every other business!!!) and they fear this competition because competition brings in lower profits over the long term as they no longer have a free hand to raise rates without the public knowing who it is.

Right now we balme the distributors because all we see is the one bill. I wonder how many people would be happy with ESPN over the past 10 years if they knew how much our bill has gone up just for sports?

-JB


----------



## IowaStateFan (Jan 11, 2006)

Greg Bimson said:


> Just realize all the channels you want a la carte are subsidized because they are in packages. Channels are placed in packages for the distributor (as well as the channel provider) to make money. Channels placed in a higher tier are there to entice a larger purchase. Remove the ability to package, and the pricing for each channel will rise.


I understand that completely. One of the channels that's been singled out in this thread is ESPN. I am a regular ESPN viewer. I realize that I am saving money on ESPN because it is being subsidized by others. That doesn't change my support for a la carte. I'm willing to take the chance that ESPN will price me out of subscribing, because I don't believe you should be subsidizing my pay television. I certainly don't want to subsidize yours. BTW, I don't think any of us a la carte supporters are asking for the "removal of the ability to package." I am asking for a la carte to be offered as an option along with packages. If I believed it was an all or nothing proposition, I wouldn't be so enthusiastic in my support of it.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

jrb531 said:


> Once again I will ask (and will be ingnored by the pro-screw the customer crowd)
> 
> 1. Why do we only have three main programming packages for D*, Dish and cable? (I do not consider family a main package)
> 
> ...


I guess you can call me the shill.

These packages are set up so both the distributor and the programmer make money. You caught my explanation in your following post.

Before anyone complains realize that THE TIERING SYSTEM WAS CREATED BY THE CABLE AND DBS COMPANIES: AT60 is a Dish Network construct; Total Choice is DirecTV's; Cablevision has iO Gold, etc.

Who wants packaging?

Of course, the channel providers don't want a la carte, because they generally want to be distributed to a wide range of people. So they agree to be placed in these packages in exchange for a lowered, subsidized rate. The channel provider, of course, will make up that rate based upon advertising rates for a widely distributed channel.


jrb531 said:


> Right now we balme the distributors because all we see is the one bill. I wonder how many people would be happy with ESPN over the past 10 years if they knew how much our bill has gone up just for sports?


Assuming the "basic cable" bill has risen over the past 10 years by about 60 percent, and the entire ESPN suite of channels is still less than $3 a month, I'd like to know where the rest of the money the cable companies (and DBS for that matter) generated in price increases has gone.


----------



## IowaStateFan (Jan 11, 2006)

jrb531 said:


> I'm glad to admitted that packages are set up to make the programmers and businesses more $$$ - of course this additional $$$ comes off the backs of people who may not want what is being forced upon them.
> -JB


JB,

I'm on your side here, but I think your rants about big business trying to screw us are off base. These companies are trying to make a profit by satisfying the needs and wants of their customers. It can't possibly be their goal to screw us. If that's all they're doing they will quickly go out of business because you and I will not see any value in doing business with them. Are they meeting the desires of every customer? No way. Is it possible? Not even close. Have they designed packages to entice people to move up a tier or two to get their one extra channel? Absolutely! Is that unethical or immoral? Nope. " Big" and small businesses make marketing and pricing decisions everyday. Their goal is to fullfill a need or desire and turn a profit doing it. No one is "forcing" anything on you. Pay TV is a purely voluntary agreement, between you and your distributor. It is up to you to decide if the cost of the next level package is worth it for you.

Having said all of that, do I believe that pay TV is missing an opportunity here? You bet I do. They are beginning to price some of us out of the market with all of the packages. I know that I, for one, am considering dropping down to a locals only package because of the cost. I'd completely drop it, but I can't receive locals without DBS. How many people are out there that don't subscribe to pay TV because of the cost? I really don't know, but I'll bet there is a market out there for a la carte, in addition to the packages. The number of posts and the intensity of this debate go to show that something has to give.


----------



## the_bear (Oct 18, 2004)

IowaStateFan said:


> You say that like you have inside information. What is going to make it more competitive? I've said before that until the suppliers are no longer distributors nothing significant is going to change. Nobody has said anything here to change my opinion on that and I don't see that happening anytime soon.


That depends on your definition of soon. I don't have any inside information, but I probably do pay more attention to TV news than the average consumer. I don't see the elimination of the independent TV distributor, well at least not in my lifetime. Being the content creator and content distributor creates a conflict of interest that ultimately leads to reduced profits. The TV business is one of very low incremental costs. Content providers do best to sell to the maximum number of retailers. Retailers do best by selling the maximum amount of content. For example, Dish would pay more for National Geographic HD if it was not owned by the same company as DirectTV. Now we have no National Geographic HD on Dish. Discovery would charge DirectTV less for the same reason. No one likes give their competitors good deals, and competing with your customers is never good business. The only reason we see this type of activity is there are too few players in the pay TV business.

The Pay TV business is now changing. Cable and DBS too expensive, well then I'll change to Verizon. If I want ABC without ESPN, I'll put up an antenna. If I want HDNet without Discovery, I'm off to CinemaNow. If I want movies without "The Sopranos" I'm off to Netflix. If I want all of the first 56 games of March Madness, I am off to http://www.ncaasports.com/mmod. If I want NBA games I am off to Google Video. If I want PPV movies without basic programming, I am off to MovieBeam or MovieLink.
If I want "Battlestar Galactica" without FOX News, I go to iTunes. As much as I hate to say it, even illegal downloads puts downward pressure to pay TV prices. People will go to the internet if you try to get $150 out of them. Even video games cuts into pay TV sales as people play more games and watch less TV. Looking to the future pay TV prices are about to come down. That price decrease can come in the form of simple dollars or smaller bundles. It is likely we will see both. That is if the government does not prevent it.


----------



## rcbridge (Oct 31, 2002)

> Assuming the "basic cable" bill has risen over the past 10 years by about 60 percent, and the entire ESPN suite of channels is still less than $3 a month, I'd like to know where the rest of the money the cable companies (and DBS for that matter) generated in price increases has gone.


Does everyone forget that in the last 10 years DBS has launched numerous satellites (they are not cheap) new ground stations, maintenance etc.

Cable has rebuilt there infrastructure, STB's, head ends, maintenance etc...
All of these things cost money!!

Most providers will typically lose money on each subscriber for awhile and will make it up over time! If that subscriber leaves before the break even period that is just a loss! This is why they try to lock you in for a period of time.
A perfect example of this is with cell phones do you have any idea of what a Motorola Razr cost?


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

rcbridge said:


> Most providers will typically lose money on each subscriber for awhile and will make it up over time! If that subscriber leaves before the break even period that is just a loss! This is why they try to lock you in for a period of time.
> A perfect example of this is with cell phones do you have any idea of what a Motorola Razr cost?


Sure do.

And that is why the distributors are just as culpable. Programming costs aren't the only piece of the puzzle that makes costs rise. And I can't opt out of DirecTV building a new satellite or any distributor upgrading their infrastructure, so why is everyone fussing over opting-out of programming packages?

The distributors are doing simple cost/benefit analysis in order to maximize their revenues and minimize their expenses. The distributors are the ones that negotiate how the channels get packaged. Not the consumer.


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

IowaStateFan said:


> JB,
> 
> I'm on your side here, but I think your rants about big business trying to screw us are off base. These companies are trying to make a profit by satisfying the needs and wants of their customers. It can't possibly be their goal to screw us. If that's all they're doing they will quickly go out of business because you and I will not see any value in doing business with them.


Sorry about the rantiness. I do tend to get enpassioned at times 

When I say big business I mean both the distributors and programmers otherwise I will refer to one or the other. In the future I will just refer to the Pay TV industry so I do not lump every business together.

I see Pay TV as a utility to most people (not all of course LOL) that they can no longer live without. It's a shame that TV has become so essential to so many people but that is another topic for another day.

The Pay TV industry knows they have a captive audiance. They know most people are not happy with the average price pushing $75 a month for just basic type programs. Are they doing anything that other businesses do without competition? Nope which is why competition is so important and why they fear it so much.

IMHO Dish was allowed to circumvent existing contracts and such to create the Family Package in an attempt to head off ala-cart which was using the "smut card" to try and force change.

Response from Pay TV.... There.... you now have a cheap family package so get off our backs! Some will say that Dish is just responding to the needs of it's customers but they could never have done this without the ok of the programmers. Why stop at just a family pack if Dish is just responding to the wants and needs of their customers?

The entire family package came about and was set up in record time just to remove the rug from those pushing for choice using the example that some may not want certain channels due to objectionable content.

While I'm glad we have the family pack please do not think that the only reason we have it is some nobel just cause by Dish and the programmers 

If enough people want ESPN removed and placed in it's own package will Dish do that? *smiles*

-JB


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

IowaStateFan said:


> I think your rants about big business trying to screw us are off base. These companies are trying to make a profit by satisfying the needs and wants of their customers. It can't possibly be their goal to screw us.


Any business exists to create profit for its owners. Public companies have a responsibility to maximize that profit.

You cannot argue that there has never been a company that has fleeced its customers. If public evidence is to believed, Enron executives systematically manipulated California energy prices to maximize customers' bills. I wonder if you would argue that the makers of Enzyte (http://www.quackwatch.org/02ConsumerProtection/enzyte.html) have their customers' best interests at heart.

I would never suggest that mistreatment of customers is commonplace, and it definitely isn't good for a company's long-term prospects. A wise, forward-thinking company treats its customers as valued assets to be kept pleased or at least placated. But customers are never as important as owners.


----------



## IowaStateFan (Jan 11, 2006)

jrb531 said:


> I see Pay TV as a utility to most people (not all of course LOL) that they can no longer live without. It's a shame that TV has become so essential to so many people but that is another topic for another day.


I think that is part of the problem with this discussion. Too many people see pay tv as a right. Since the cost is going up and up they are looking to the government for relief.



jrb531 said:


> The Pay TV industry knows they have a captive audiance. They know most people are not happy with the average price pushing $75 a month for just basic type programs. Are they doing anything that other businesses do without competition? Nope which is why competition is so important and why they fear it so much.


I think you are partially right, we have been a captive audience. Most people wouldn't even think about eliminating pay tv. The industry knows this and has been quietly raising rates a buck or two each year. No big deal, right? Well over 10 years that brings the entry level package to $35/year - before fees. Now people are starting to complain about it. But, if bear is right, that is changing. His comments make a lot of sense:


the_bear said:


> The Pay TV business is now changing. Cable and DBS too expensive, well then I'll change to Verizon. If I want ABC without ESPN, I'll put up an antenna. If I want HDNet without Discovery, I'm off to CinemaNow. If I want movies without "The Sopranos" I'm off to Netflix. If I want all of the first 56 games of March Madness, I am off to http://www.ncaasports.com/mmod. If I want NBA games I am off to Google Video. If I want PPV movies without basic programming, I am off to MovieBeam or MovieLink.
> If I want "Battlestar Galactica" without FOX News, I go to iTunes. As much as I hate to say it, even illegal downloads puts downward pressure to pay TV prices. People will go to the internet if you try to get $150 out of them. Even video games cuts into pay TV sales as people play more games and watch less TV. Looking to the future pay TV prices are about to come down. That price decrease can come in the form of simple dollars or smaller bundles. It is likely we will see both. That is if the government does not prevent it.


Pardon me bear if I misrepresent you here, but I believe the gist of what you are saying is that new technologies are altering the way we watch TV and are fostering the competition that we all crave. With any luck it will keep the price increases down (I don't hold out much hope for price decreases).



jrb531 said:


> IMHO Dish was allowed to circumvent existing contracts and such to create the Family Package in an attempt to head off ala-cart which was using the "smut card" to try and force change.
> 
> Response from Pay TV.... There.... you now have a cheap family package so get off our backs! Some will say that Dish is just responding to the needs of it's customers but they could never have done this without the ok of the programmers. Why stop at just a family pack if Dish is just responding to the wants and needs of their customers?


Agreed. The family packs are just a way of meeting the minimum requirements to satisfy the government regulators and keep them off their backs. They are not about offering more choice.



jrb531 said:


> If enough people want ESPN removed and placed in it's own package will Dish do that? *smiles*


Probably not without a fight. Actually, most people seem to want ESPN. The fact that it is not included in family packs may be the undoing of them. Now the family pack people (and I'm not one of them - I'd rather see true a la carte) are complaining that there is not enough content in those packs. Lack of sports programming seems to be drawing the most complaints. Without a true a la carte option there will always be complaints about the way packages are laid out. Witness Fifty Caliber's thread attempting to rearrange the packages.


----------



## IowaStateFan (Jan 11, 2006)

carload said:


> But customers are never as important as owners.


I completely disagree with this. Truly successful companies have 4 stakeholders that they take care of - owners, employees, customers, and the community. IMO, none of these are any more or less important than the others. Without customers, there can be no sales. Without employees there can be no sales. Without owners, there is no capital to create the product/service. If you don't take care of the community you will be perceived as greedy and sales will fall. It can be viewed as a continuous circle and if any of the links in the circle are broken the company will not do as well as it could otherwise (they may not fail, but they could do better). A good company finds and develops a market and takes care of its employees. The employees take care of the customers, and the customers buy lots of the product or service. This rewards the owners (who've risked their capital) with nice profits.

Of course, one can identify companies that are out to screw their customers. As you pointed out Enron was one. They may have succeeded for a short while doing that, but never for the long-term. The last time I looked Enron's managers were on trial, and the owners had lost their shirts. Not much of a success in my mind.


----------



## the_bear (Oct 18, 2004)

IowaStateFan said:


> Pardon me bear if I misrepresent you here, but I believe the gist of what you are saying is that new technologies are altering the way we watch TV and are fostering the competition that we all crave. With any luck it will keep the price increases down (I don't hold out much hope for price decreases).


I understand it is already difficult to get college kids to buy big bundles of pay TV. Although, I have not seen any official research on the subject. Since college kids are always looking for research papers, I surprised we have not seen any papers yet published on the subject.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

Opynion said:


> Since a la carte is coming, there is no need for that.
> 
> If channel packages were that good,
> nobody would be protesting
> ...


You'l pay more with a la cate:

Base price: $10 to $15. $2 $5 per chanel.

This is just a guess. Cable & DBS companies have to make money.


----------



## IowaStateFan (Jan 11, 2006)

Paul Secic said:


> You'l pay more with a la cate:
> 
> Base price: $10 to $15. $2 $5 per chanel.
> 
> This is just a guess. Cable & DBS companies have to make money.


*SOME* wil pay more with a la carte. Many would save. Using your guess if I watch 5 channels:
Base price $15
Channels $25
Total $40

That's the high side. If 2 of my channels are currently in AT180 I'd pay $49.99. I'm saving $9.99 (or 20%) and getting all the channels I watch.


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

Paul Secic said:


> You'l pay more with a la cate:
> 
> Base price: $10 to $15. $2 $5 per chanel.
> 
> This is just a guess. Cable & DBS companies have to make money.


I say Base price will be 50 cents and each channel will cost 1 penny.

This is just a guess. 

Why even guess when neither you nor I have any real numbers.

Fact is that only two things can happen if we get ala-cart options:

1. Approx the same number of people subscribe to the same channels and nothing will change except we have some choice in the channels we select.

2. Some channels will experience a drop in subscribers and as such will have to react by either cutting their costs, raising prices or doing something to increase their popularity.

Now if you can provide a third option please do so but the way I see it every other business in the country has to deal with option #2.

If a channel cannot sustain itself why is it a bad thing if less popular channels cease to exist?

Can anyone name a few pay TV channels that have gone belly up in the last few years? Real channels that we all used to get but proved unpopular and went bye bye?

I don't recall any do you?

-JB


----------



## Opynion (Mar 21, 2006)

According to the report, with the a la carte option people could get 20 channels and save from 3% to 13% 
no matter what some people say, the FCC has looked into this a la carte and sooner or later they will do something about it -- with a republicans or not, remember what the republicans did to the phone company years ago, or was it Ronald Reagan?. 
The a la carte could be offered as a build a pack of 20 channels; for customers who want this option, want more channels?--get a regular package!


----------



## Opynion (Mar 21, 2006)

Titus2525 said:


> Why not have it where you have a choice of the three at packages then with your remote you


...select the channels you want and then put them in your favorite list...



Titus2525 said:


> Those channels are entered into dish's computer system via telephone
> :grin:


 There are more ways than one to stick the a la carte option into the video services, that's for sure!


----------



## rcbridge (Oct 31, 2002)

I personally would like Ala-Cart, but I am looking at it from the business side many people in this discussion don't agree with the business side (I don't really like it either) but this is how it is. For the changes some of you want if many of us chose them Dish, Direct and cable would soon be out of business!!
At a minimum we would start to loose some of the "niche" channels, I am sure we all have a few that we watch on a regular basis, (I have seen the reports on the viewership of the cable channels) and many of you would be surprised when you discover that many channels we think are widely viewed are not!! 

From that perspective be careful what you wish for!!


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

rcbridge said:


> I personally would like Ala-Cart, but I am looking at it from the business side many people in this discussion don't agree with the business side (I don't really like it either) but this is how it is. For the changes some of you want if many of us chose them Dish, Direct and cable would soon be out of business!!
> At a minimum we would start to loose some of the "niche" channels, I am sure we all have a few that we watch on a regular basis, (I have seen the reports on the viewership of the cable channels) and many of you would be surprised when you discover that many channels we think are widely viewed are not!!
> 
> From that perspective be careful what you wish for!!


As long as Dish, D* and cable act like distributors they will not go out of business. You want to require me to pick x number of channels or I'll get charged some minimal usage fee then fine but all we are asking is that "we" get to pick the channels.

Now some of the programmers may be in trouble for unpopular or expensive channels but why would the distributors care what channels we want if all they are doing is adding a distribution/rental fee to our bill?

If you only want 5 channels then expect to pay some minimal usage fee as the distributors do have to maintain the distribution system. I think people understand this.

-JB


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

jrb531 said:


> As long as Dish, D* and cable act like distributors they will not go out of business. You want to require me to pick x number of channels or I'll get charged some minimal usage fee then fine but all we are asking is that "we" get to pick the channels.
> 
> Now some of the programmers may be in trouble for unpopular or expensive channels but why would the distributors care what channels we want if all they are doing is adding a distribution/rental fee to our bill?


Again, that is a paradigm shift from the current business model.

The distributors, for fear of legislation regarding a la carte, set up packages that allowed for a family-friendly version of programming package. This must also imply that the distributors are happy with the amount of money they can make off of such a package.

If there was any true push towards a la carte, it was evidenced by the comments made by FCC Chariman Martin, and the subsequent reaction. The Family Packs were created simply to address Martin's issues with current packaging.

The feeling is that without a high "usage" fee for a la carte, the distributors will not be able to make a healthy profit margin on the a la carte subs. Look at what DirecTV is doing: they are sacrificing subscriber growth for higher Average Revenue Per Unit (ARPU). DirecTV *wants* their low end subscribers to either bump up to a higher tier, or leave. DirecTV realizes that 60 percent of their *revenues* come from the top 35 percent of their customer base. So they are concentrating on growing both the size and the revenues of the top of the customer base.

And a la carte is counter to that, considering that a la carte is only about saving the consumer money (supposedly).


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

Greg Bimson said:


> And a la carte is counter to that, considering that a la carte is only about saving the consumer money (supposedly).


I think it depends on how you look at it.

Saving money only because the current system is forcing "many" of us to subscribe to higher packages to get the channels we want.

I would say this is more about choice.

I would be perfectly happy with the exact same setup (three theirs) providing the following: (numbers not exact just for example)

Package A: Pick 24 channels from the list of "inexpensive" channels
(additional "A" channels cost $1 each) (package gets you 4 free channels vs ala cart)

Package B: Pick 12 channels from the list of "medium priced" channels
(additional "B" channels cost $2 each) (package gets you 2 free channels vs ala cart)

Package C: Pick 6 channels from the list of "expensive" channels
(additional "C" channels cost $4 each) (package gets you 1 free channel vs ala cart)

If you do not subscribe to a package you can still get individual channels in that package for the "per channel" cost.

Each package could have as many channels as you want and channels are free to move from one package to another if their content or costs change.

IMHO what is nice about such a setup is that each of the packages will cost the very same price and Dish can keep the current package system to keep about the same revenue. The only real change is that we would get to pick the channels we want.

This system allows choice as well as keeping a strong incentive for people to keep packages.

Any thoughts?

-JB

P.S. The numbers, cost and such are for example and should not be taken literally


----------



## the_bear (Oct 18, 2004)

Greg Bimson said:


> &#8230;This must also imply that the distributors are happy with the amount of money they can make off of such a package&#8230;


How true. There seems to be a misconception running through this thread that somehow a consumer level ALC mandate would help E profits. Part of the confusion is that some the ALC proposals are only at the wholesale level. The wholesale only ALC proposals still allow deep bundling discounts at the consumer level. Since the wholesale contracts are negotiated at a line item level, it would be impossible to enforce such a mandate. In another words, if E kicks ESPN out of basic. There is no way of knowing if the resulting poor ABC negotiations are in retaliation or fair play.

As you have stated, consumer level bundling helps boost E profits, but the effects are farther reaching. Even the salesman at Circuit City gets a bigger paycheck because of bundling. Bundling encourages people to watch more premium TV and therefore buy bigger TVs. While I am against an ALC mandate, I do agree with those that say it would eliminate premium TV.


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

the_bear said:


> While I am against an ALC mandate, I do agree with those that say it would eliminate premium TV.


You are assuming that people, given choice, would elect to only subscribe to the cheaper channels.

I submit that many, myself included, would gladly take less channels of higher price/quality just as much as those who would be looking for el cheapo channels.

I guess we just do not know what the public would do if given a choice which is prob why people are so afraid of it. Better to keep the status qho I guess.

How many people to this day still pay higher monthly rates by staying with cable for no other reason as they are used to cable and fear any sort of change?

-JB


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

the_bear said:


> In another words, if E kicks ESPN out of basic. There is no way of knowing if the resulting poor ABC negotiations are in retaliation or fair play.


Bingo. The pricing for each channel that the distributor pays is based upon being included in a package. Remove the package, or add the ability to get the channel a la carte, would be an entirely different price structure. This appears to be lost on jrb531, because...


jrb531 said:


> I would be perfectly happy with the exact same setup (three theirs) providing the following: (numbers not exact just for example)
> 
> Package A: Pick 24 channels from the list of "inexpensive" channels
> (additional "A" channels cost $1 each) (package gets you 4 free channels vs ala cart)
> ...


Congratulations on your example of another reason why the status quo will be maintained. All you did here is to divide channels into another packaging scheme. And there is no way this scheme can be implemented without destroying all current carriage contracts, most likely by the enactment of some kind of law. And this packaging is just a subjective as AT60, AT120, and AT180

Case in point: the wonderful report commissioned by FCC Chairman Martin. Buried in the report is that for an analog cable subscriber to move to a la carte for the exact same money as they pay today, the subscriber will only receive 10 to 14 channels for the same money as their current package.

So we go back to the original argument: since when does the consumer get to pick the content of the tiers?


----------



## rcbridge (Oct 31, 2002)

Let's take one more step back wards and look at part of the cost of a network
"Ad revenues" the number of potential eyes to look at a product will increase or decrease the cost of an ad (use the superbowl as an example).

I only bring this up because this system is a very entangled one, if I am a network and I can promise you I am available in 50million households you pay me one price, if only 5 million a different price.
This is why everyone wants in on the most basic packages!!
Again is this a good thing for the consumer NO!! but it is part of the business model.

Ala-carte will have a greater effect than most people realize, this is not me taking sides but trying to keep a greater perspective on the big picture!!

Another thing if people are allowed total freedom to pick and choose at will keeping track of the number of potential eyes becomes a hugh task!!

Again not me taking sides but just trying to present the larger picture!!


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

Greg Bimson said:


> This appears to be lost on jrb531, because...Congratulations on your example of another reason why the status quo will be maintained. All you did here is to divide channels into another packaging scheme. And there is no way this scheme can be implemented without destroying all current carriage contracts, most likely by the enactment of some kind of law. And this packaging is just a subjective as AT60, AT120, and AT180


Nothing was lost on me.... I simply refuse to accept that "Pre-picked" channels are the only way a business can make a profit.

You seem to miss the point of my suggestion.... while this would keep the packaging scheme it would allow "us" to pick what channels we are paying for. You also must have missed that you could ala-cart channels but at a much higher price. Might want to read something before you shoot it down.

As far as contract... forget the damn things. These stupid anti-competative contracts riddled with "must-carry" as well as "take my crap channels or you don't get the popular ones" are what has gotten us to this point. Funny how all these contracts were waived in a matter of days when Dish created the family pack to try and head off ala-cart when proponents were using the "smut card" to help in their case. Seems like the Pay TV industry can do darn near anything they want when it's in "their" best interest but when it might help those supporting choice then suddenly we have insurmountable roadblocks that cannot be changed no matter what.

My example was to show that the distributors could keep their same revenue stream "and" allow us the choice to pick the channels "we" want and not some form of pre-set channel packages that do nothing but maximize the profits of the programmers are the expence of competition and choice.

Look at what the programmer reps here keep trying to shovel our way to support status quo (screw the consumer):

1. We can't have choice because the distributors will lose $$$

Answer: require a minimum set of channels otherwise you pay a minimum channel fee

2. We can't have choice because it would be too difficult for the distributors to allow you to pick the channels:

Answer: allow us to select our channels online of over the phone via computer thus you have little or no human (read: expensive) interaction.

3. We can't have choice because of contract agreements

Answer: Forget the stupid anti-consumer contracts! This has to be the stupidest arguement I have ever seen against choice! Because the programmers want to continue to rape the consumer in regard to forced channels and no competition we should back down and just take it?????

4. We can't have choice because the nitch channels would go away

Answer: So what? If a channel cannot survive on it's own popularity it must act like any other business to survive.... evolve to attract new subscribers or ensure that their content is superior to the competition so that people are willing to pay for quality.

5. We can't have choice because then I will have to pay my fair share for the 10 zillion channels I cannot live without.

Answer: GOOD! - you pay for your channels and I'll pay for mine!

Shall I go on? There is a counter to every single "the sky will fall" arguement.

It's simple and I do "get" it:

The distributors need to make a profit
The programmers need to make a profit
The subscribers (us) need to have some choice aside from...

Pay TV = Yes
Pay TV = No

Right now this is our only choice.

IMHO my example above (adjusted for the correct numbers of course) would be far far far better than what we have now. The only real issue is that the programmers would have competition because we could cancel their channel if we no longer want it. I guess having this choice will cause the end of the world 

-JB


----------



## IowaStateFan (Jan 11, 2006)

Greg Bimson said:


> So we go back to the original argument: since when does the consumer get to pick the content of the tiers?


They don't. That's the point, isn't it. Some of us want to be able to pick our content. Others are very happy with the status quo and are afraid that changing it will screw up their television viewing. I agree that a la carte will change the way that contracts are negotiated. I also agree that some channels may end up going away under an a la carte system (note: system, not mandate. I'm against a government mandate here). The only reason some channels exist is because they are being subsidized by the package system. If they can't make it on their own, they need to be reprogrammed or done away with. If I lose my favorite channel I won't cry about it. There are much more important things than television.

In the end, I think the discussions in this thread will become moot. Television is changing whether we want it to or not. Technology will bring more choice and more competition in ways that we can only now imagine. Five years from now we'll all be laughing at how passionate we were about such an arcane concept as a la carte. Forget a la carte channels. We'll all have a la carte shows. Streaming networks via satellite or cable will be replaced by download on demand. For $x/mo (or $y per show) we will be able to download and watch a certain number of shows each month. Only the shows we want will be coming into our homes and we will be able to choose how much we spend on television. Companies like D*, E*, TW, and Adelphia will have to be very creative to keep customers from going to the new technologies. That's the nature of a free market - adapt or go broke.


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

Greg Bimson said:


> Case in point: the wonderful report commissioned by FCC Chairman Martin. Buried in the report is that for an analog cable subscriber to move to a la carte for the exact same money as they pay today, the subscriber will only receive 10 to 14 channels for the same money as their current package.


Sorry I just had to comment on this one. Aside from my questioning how valid these numbers are and where they come from let's assume this is correct...

If I was able to pick those 14 channels from a list of all available I would do so in a second as I suspect other would. You see I currently only watch a few channels in each package.

What some just do not get is that many people do not care what their total channel count is. They just want to watch the handfull of channels they like and are willing to pay for those.

Since I have not seen this crystal ball report I wonder if this average analog subscriber was paying for 100 channels and the report suggests they will drop from 100 to 14 channels or was this a basic 30 channel cable subscriber who would lose half their channels but be allowed to pick from a larger selection.

The devil is in the details is it not?

If Dish offers 100 channels in all three packages why is it so hard to understand that some people would rather only get 30 of them if they were allowed to pick the ones they want and save even just a few $$$'s?

I swear some people are so caught up in channel counts... well either that or they are deathly afraid of what they would have to pay for all those channels if others were not forced to subsidize them.

-JB


----------



## the_bear (Oct 18, 2004)

jrb531 said:


> You are assuming that people, given choice, would elect to only subscribe to the cheaper channels.
> 
> I submit that many, myself included, would gladly take less channels of higher price/quality just as much as those who would be looking for el cheapo channels...


I'm confused. Are you saying an ALC would lower bills for the average Joe or not?


jrb531 said:


> Nothing was lost on me.... I simply refuse to accept that "Pre-picked" channels are the only way a business can make a profit.


If E suddenly went ALC, they would have reduced profit. It is not about making some profit it is about making the most profit. This is why you see bigger choice from newcomers like Apple. They see Dish's profits as something to take.


rcbridge said:


> I only bring this up because this system is a very entangled one, if I am a network and I can promise you I am available in 50million households you pay me one price, if only 5 million a different price.
> This is why everyone wants in on the most basic packages!!


Also, look at how much word-of-mouth effects viewing. Although, I have some premium, some of my friends have only basic. They tell me about new shows they like. So, even someone with the works is more likely to watch basic programming. This leads those shows to have bigger budgets, further upping viewer count. Being in basic really packs a one-two punch. This is why I am so against the government mandating which channels are in basic. E basically has to pay-off channels to get them out of basic.


----------



## IowaStateFan (Jan 11, 2006)

rcbridge said:


> if I am a network and I can promise you I am available in 50million households you pay me one price, if only 5 million a different price.
> This is why everyone wants in on the most basic packages!!
> Again is this a good thing for the consumer NO!! but it is part of the business model.


Actually, it is good for the consumer - advertisers are subsidizing my pay tv. Fewer, available eyeballs means those eyeballs will have to pay more to get the same program.

I know, I know, I've been arguing for a la carte and this sounds like I'm against it. Here's why I don't think all of the gloom and doom from the status quo supporters will pan out. We all have a certain number of $s we are willing to spend on TV. I don't believe that will change much in an a la carte world. If I'm right, the programmers and distributors will still be going after the same number of $s. What will change is how those $s are distributed. Some channels will probably go under because they will lose both subscriptions and advertising. Those that survive will be stronger because they will get more subscription and advertising $s. They'll also have less competition, and in the case of multi-program providers their costs will come down, because they will be producing fewer programs. Everyone here thinks us a la carte supporters are trying to cut our monthly programming costs. For some that may be true, but I think you'll see if you go thru this thread that most of us are just trying to get more value from our $s. That is entirely different than just lowering our bill. What I want is better programming and programming that is geared toward my interests, not just more programming. Under the current system, the distributors add 5 new channels and raise our bill $2. Were the 5 new channels worth it to me? Maybe, but I didn't get to decide and that's my gripe.



rcbridge said:


> Another thing if people are allowed total freedom to pick and choose at will keeping track of the number of potential eyes becomes a hugh task!!


Trust me, the market will create a way to figure out how many eyeballs are tuned in and available. It's their lifeline.


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

the_bear said:


> I'm confused. Are you saying an ALC would lower bills for the average Joe or not?
> 
> If E suddenly went ALC, they would have reduced profit. It is not about making some profit it is about making the most profit. This is why you see bigger choice from newcomers like Apple. They see Dish's profits as something to take.


ALC would lower bills for some but this "could" be countered by those who may have wanted a few extra channels in higher tiers but have held off because they did not want the entire package.

I do not question that this will cause a big shakeup. The pay tv industry has been using the same business model for decades adapting new technology to "their" system.

Does anyone actually remember that the current system was set up (teirs) due to technical issues (limited scrambleing methods on the old analog boxes) instead of logic? These technical reason were removed long ago yet we still have 3 basic packages.

I suspect that the removal of the $20 for 20 that Dish once offered had much much more to do with contracts and programers who preferred forced packaging rather that what some here suggest and this is that people just did not like the $20 for 20 deal.

Raise you hand if you would take 20 for $50 today? I would in a second!

-JB


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

jrb531 said:


> As far as contract... forget the damn things. These stupid anti-competative contracts riddled with "must-carry" as well as "take my crap channels or you don't get the popular ones" are what has gotten us to this point. Funny how all these contracts were waived in a matter of days when Dish created the family pack to try and head off ala-cart when proponents were using the "smut card" to help in their case. Seems like the Pay TV industry can do darn near anything they want when it's in "their" best interest but when it might help those supporting choice then suddenly we have insurmountable roadblocks that cannot be changed no matter what.


Remember, most of the current contracts are for the lowest basic tier. Family packs aren't considered the lowest basic tier.

So you are right. The "Pay TV" industry can do darn near anything they want when it is in their best interest. Both the distributors and programmers came up with Family Packs. The point? Family Packs aren't a la carte. When push came to shove, all that is offered is another package.

So how do you expect to get a la carte without government intervention?


IowaStateFan said:


> Five years from now we'll all be laughing at how passionate we were about such an arcane concept as a la carte. Forget a la carte channels. We'll all have a la carte shows.


Maybe. When I can DVR channels, in the long run it is cheaper than a la carting shows over iTunes. We'll see.


----------



## IowaStateFan (Jan 11, 2006)

the_bear said:


> I'm confused. Are you saying an ALC would lower bills for the average Joe or not?


Probably not, but it won't lead to higher bills for the average Joe either. We all have a pay tv budget. That probably won't change much with a la carte. I'm with JRB here. For me it's not about quantity, it's about quality. I'm willing to pay for the programs that offer value to me but I don't like subsidizing others.



the_bear said:


> If E suddenly went ALC, they would have reduced profit. It is not about making some profit it is about making the most profit. This is why you see bigger choice from newcomers like Apple. They see Dish's profits as something to take.


Why would they have reduced profit? If I have x $s I'm willing to spend, why would their profits drop by offering a la carte instead of in packages? I absolutely agree with the rest of that quote. If there is money to be made, people will figure out how to do it.



the_bear said:


> Also, look at how much word-of-mouth effects viewing. Although, I have some premium, some of my friends have only basic. They tell me about new shows they like. So, even someone with the works is more likely to watch basic programming. This leads those shows to have bigger budgets, further upping viewer count. Being in basic really packs a one-two punch. This is why I am so against the government mandating which channels are in basic. E basically has to pay-off channels to get them out of basic.


I'm also against government mandating which channels are in basic. Let the market decide. I've got no problem with that.


----------



## IowaStateFan (Jan 11, 2006)

jrb531 said:


> I suspect that the removal of the $20 for 20 that Dish once offered had much much more to do with contracts and programers who preferred forced packaging rather that what some here suggest and this is that people just did not like the $20 for 20 deal.
> 
> Raise you hand if you would take 20 for $50 today? I would in a second!


Amen to that. I would too. I'd get all of the channels I want (unless, of course, the channels I want are the ones that would go away) and my bill would stay about the same. Sounds like a win win to me.


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

rcbridge said:


> Another thing if people are allowed total freedom to pick and choose at will keeping track of the number of potential eyes becomes a hugh task!!


Arbitron installs little boxes in X number of sets around the country that records what channels the person is watching and for how long. It then calls in the main computer and reports this. I don't think keeping track of what we watch is a real issue. The bean counters have been keeping track of our habits for decades. Now that the system has moved from paper diaries to computerized tracking it is easy as pie.

Advertisers are not stupid. They know full well that 50 million "subscribers" mean nothing in the age of 10 zillion channels if no one is watching which is why the new computerized Arbitron system is so important to them.

While I agree that "potential" viewers still mean something it is far more important to know who is actually watching as opposed to who may watch.

In an ala-cart system the number of subscribers would mean a "ton" more because the advertiser would actually know who "wanted" to watch that channel as opposed to the current set up in which the channel is sent without any actual direct input from the consumer.

As an advertiser which is more accurate?

1. 10 million ala-cart subscribers who "want" (and presumably watch LOL) that channel

2. 100 million subscribers who happen to get the channel just because it's part of a basic package

I see an argument for both. Ala cart is more akin to a direct mailing (if you could guarentee we open the junk mail LOL) and the current setup more akin to a billboard at an intersection - sure that billboard has a "potential" for the 1 million city residents to see it but how many actually pass by that billboard?"

-JB


----------



## IowaStateFan (Jan 11, 2006)

Greg Bimson said:


> So how do you expect to get a la carte without government intervention?


That is the rub, isn't it? Some will argue that government intervention is what's needed here. Me, I don't think so. Eventually, new technologies will help. At the rate they are going they will price enough of us out of the market to realize the they need to do something. All I know is that I am frustrated with the system we have and this thread has given me an opportunity to vent a bit. Maybe somebody in the industry will hear us and offer a la carte. I'm not holding my breath.



Greg Bimson said:


> Maybe. When I can DVR channels, in the long run it is cheaper than a la carting shows over iTunes. We'll see.


As Bear pointed out, if Apple is making too much money, others will see it as an opportunity to take a piece of their profit. I suspect you'll see volume discount type model. Pay $2 for 1, $10 for 8, $25 for 25 or something like that. Prices will come down.


----------



## Opynion (Mar 21, 2006)

Greg Bimson said:


> add the ability to get the channel a la carte, would be an entirely different price structure.


True, but only for the channels on the a la carte option, not for the bundles/packages of channels.



Greg Bimson said:


> there is no way this scheme can be implemented without destroying all current carriage contracts,


To aviod this, the actual packages should remain, a la carte would just be another option for the customers.



Greg Bimson said:


> to move to a la carte for the exact same money as they pay today, the subscriber will only receive 10 to 14 channels for the same money as their current package.


But at least the customers would have the a la carte option to watch the channels they really want, 
and if they want more channels, they should take one of the packages: AT-60 AT-120 or AT-180
just as simple as that!
I would like only 20 channels a la carte, but if I'm required to only get a dozen channels, 
that's fine with me, - I'll take this option & choose the 12 channels I like the most; 
and at least I would be getting TCM (which I don't have right now  ) for same money I'm paying for the current package I have.


----------



## Curtis0620 (Apr 22, 2002)

I get over 100 channels for $50, why would I only want 20 for $50?


----------



## IowaStateFan (Jan 11, 2006)

Opynion said:


> Greg Bimson said:
> 
> 
> > add the ability to get the channel a la carte, would be an entirely different price structure.
> ...


Nope, it wouldn't work that way. Greg's right there would have to be a whole new pricing structure. Things would change. If too many of us chose the "a la carte package" (how's that for an oxymoron :lol: ) of 20 for $50, something would have to give in the regular packages.



Opynion said:


> Greg Bimson said:
> 
> 
> > there is no way this scheme can be implemented without destroying all current carriage contracts,
> ...


Greg's right again. I'm sure the current contracts prohibit a la carte of any type. The pricing structure would be different and the contracts would have to be renegotiated.



Opynion said:


> But at least the customers would have the a la carte option to watch the channels they really want,
> and if they want more channels, they should take one of the packages: AT-60 AT-120 or AT-180
> just as simple as that!
> I would like only 20 channels a la carte, but if I'm required to only get a dozen channels,
> ...


I'm an a la carte supporter and I wish it would be this simple. It won't. Those that are afraid of a la carte are probably right - we will lose channels. TCM might even be one of the ones that gets the axe. Their library of movies could be distributed among other channels and we would see them less often. I'm sure they have value and someone will air them, but it may not be in a stand alone channel. Some people think this will be easy - just turn it on and give us the choice. No, there will be a shakeup if a la carte comes to pass and that's why some don't want a la carte. Personally, I think it would be for the better. In the end I believe we'd get more choice instead of 4 channels showing the same reruns. The producers will be forced to create shows that will sell, and make their channel unique otherwise it will lose money.


----------



## IowaStateFan (Jan 11, 2006)

Curtis0620 said:


> I get over 100 channels for $50, why would I only want 20 for $50?


How many of the 100 do you watch? Are you getting every channel you'd like, or are there channels in the next pack you want? Are there channels coming in that offend you? Instead of getting 90 channels you don't want, and missing out on the 3 or 4 in the next level packs you do want, you could choose a smaller pack, but get everything you watch.


----------



## Curtis0620 (Apr 22, 2002)

IowaStateFan said:


> How many of the 100 do you watch? Are you getting every channel you'd like, or are there channels in the next pack you want? Are there channels coming in that offend you? Instead of getting 90 channels you don't want, and missing out on the 3 or 4 in the next level packs you do want, you could choose a smaller pack, but get everything you watch.


And would have to pay more for less. No thank you. The providers will have to maintain a certain average revenue per subscriber or they would go out of business.


----------



## IowaStateFan (Jan 11, 2006)

Curtis0620 said:


> And would have to pay more for less. No thank you. The providers will have to maintain a certain average revenue per subscriber or they would go out of business.


I'd argue I'm paying the same for more. I currently subscribe to AT120, but there are channels that I don't ever watch. They are of no value to me. I'd like the Discovery suite in AT180, but I'm not willing to pay for the AT180 package. So while I may get fewer channels, the ones I'm losing have no value, but I gain channels I want. To me that's a win, and the providers are getting the same revenue from me that they got before.


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

Curtis0620 said:


> I get over 100 channels for $50, why would I only want 20 for $50?


I don't get 100 channels for $50. Well I guess if you count all those music channels, shopping channels and other filler stuff 

If I was able to pick 20 channels from all the channels listed in tiers 1-3 I would do so in a spil second!

-JB


----------



## the_bear (Oct 18, 2004)

IowaStateFan said:


> Probably not, but it won't lead to higher bills for the average Joe either. We all have a pay tv budget.


If you use a TV budget, watch sports and educational programming, then you don't represent the average consumer. Sports and education are the most expensive themes in TV, so I agree your bill would NOT go down under ALC.

I have Dish and a roof-top antenna. My viewing habits are the other extreme. I watch approximately 12 free and 3 pay TV shows a month. My Dish bill is over $60. That means I pay over $20 per show. Apparently, I am not guiding the invisible hand like a good consumer.


----------



## BobaBird (Mar 31, 2002)

the_bear said:


> While I am against an ALC mandate, I do agree with those that say it would eliminate premium TV.


Are you referring to the premium channels that started out as and remain ALC options? While I can afford a higher subscription I'm reluctant to spend more than I already do. If I was able to save enough with ALC basic TV I could add HBO for a little more rather than a lot more. HBO could be getting my business today but I'm too close to my spending limit due to inflexible bundling and the DVR fee.

Or maybe you meant that in the more generic sense of "pay TV?"  If the potential savings is really only 3-13%, would that not at least be partly made up from new customers who never subscribed because they couldn't pick just a few channels?


----------



## Opynion (Mar 21, 2006)

IowaStateFan said:


> The pricing structure would be different and the contracts would have to be renegotiated.


I really don't worry about the details, as long as we get the a la cart option, that's what counts. 



IowaStateFan said:


> TCM might even be one of the ones that gets the axe. Their library of movies could be distributed among other channels and we would see them less often. I'm sure they have value and someone will air them, but it may not be in a stand alone channel.
> The producers will be forced to create shows that will sell, and make their channel unique otherwise it will lose money.


I understand your point on this, specially if you don't like classic movies,  :lol: but TCM is a unique channel & and will remain as a stand alone channel, and some of those movies can also be seen in AMC, but with commercials and, that's a turn off, the beauty about TCM, is the absence of commercials while the classic movie is on.
many people in many diferent web sites forums agree that TCM is the best channel for classic movies.
Since TCM channel belongs to Time-Warner, it could be added to the Cinemax pack, just as Flix is on Showtime. 
... 20 Channels for $50?
I would (in half a second), if I could include one HBO channel, one Starz channel, and one Showtime channel among those 20


----------



## the_bear (Oct 18, 2004)

BobaBird said:


> Or maybe you meant that in the more generic sense of "pay TV?"  If the potential savings is really only 3-13%, would that not at least be partly made up from new customers who never subscribed because they couldn't pick just a few channels?


I was thinking of ESPN and Discovery which are highly concentrated on a single theme. These two channels would need to have their programming restructures to appeal to the average Joe. When the industry did their own research, they decided more people would downgrade than upgrade under ALC, which is why the have not already offered it.


----------



## BobaBird (Mar 31, 2002)

I don't see how either channel would benefit by watering down whatever it is that makes so many people like them, though I do think Discovery could stand to consolidate a few channels.

The prediction of more people downgrading under ALC is easy to believe as the current system is designed to nudge people into upgrades. That has been so successful that many channels have been added and people have gone along, all the way to the point they're not willing to pay much if any more. I think these two points, combined with the growth in population since the advent of Pay TV, open at least the possibility of restructuring how Pay TV is sold.


----------



## IowaStateFan (Jan 11, 2006)

Opynion said:


> I understand your point on this, specially if you don't like classic movies,  :lol: but TCM is a unique channel & and will remain as a stand alone channel


Your probably right that TCM would survive. I don't watch it, but I'm sure plenty of people do. (Actually I'm surprised my wife doesn't watch it, she's a movie nut). I was just using it as an example of "be careful what you wish for". You like TCM, but would you still support a la carte if it was one of the channels that disappeared? I believe I'm being fair here. If I lost any of my favorites because of a la carte it would be okay with me. Are you okay with that?


----------



## IowaStateFan (Jan 11, 2006)

the_bear said:


> If you use a TV budget, watch sports and educational programming, then you don't represent the average consumer. Sports and education are the most expensive themes in TV, so I agree your bill would NOT go down under ALC.


Hey Bear, you've been paying pretty close attention  . Yeah, that's about all I watch. I could even give up the networks except for the sports programming. I did watch one episode of American Idol about a month ago, but only 'cause my kids and I were surfing thru the channels and they thought it looked cool. Besides that, I can't remember the last network show I watched. Maybe that's why I'm okay with a la carte. I don't find a whole lot that on my 100+ channels that interests me, and yes I do have a budget. Could I afford to spend $100+ on television? Yeah, I could but it just doesn't seem worth it to me. I've got other things to spend my $s and my time on.

The point I was trying to make on the budget thing is that we've all been spending whatever we're comfortable with on television. I really don't believe that very many people would actually reduce their spending if they had an a la carte option. I think they'd just choose different channels than they get now for the same $s. Of course, some would, but I think that those lost $s would be made up with new people coming into the pay tv market. That's purely speculation on my part, so please don't try to ask me to prove it. It's just that I don't think all the gloom and doom that the status quo supporters are predicting would take place. Many people are happy with the current packages. If a la carte comes to pass, I hope it doesn't eliminate packages. If I believed that would happen, I'd be against a la carte too. I agree that for most people packages add value. Even in my C-Band days I had a package because I didn't want to be bothered trying to decide which channels I wanted. The few extra $s didn't matter that much and occasionally I watched one of those "freebies" that I wouldn't have ordered a la carte.


----------



## Opynion (Mar 21, 2006)

IowaStateFan said:


> Your probably right that TCM would survive. I don't watch it, but I'm sure plenty of people do. (Actually I'm surprised my wife doesn't watch it, she's a movie nut). I was just using it as an example of "be careful what you wish for". You like TCM, but would you still support a la carte if it was one of the channels that disappeared? I believe I'm being fair here. If I lost any of my favorites because of a la carte it would be okay with me. Are you okay with that?


It would not be okay with me, but I would still support a la cart


----------



## the_bear (Oct 18, 2004)

BobaBird said:


> I don't see how either channel would benefit by watering down whatever it is that makes so many people like them, though I do think Discovery could stand to consolidate a few channels...


It boils down to how much do you have to pay people to watch watered downed content. There are many "History of National Parks" viewers that would gladly watch "Law & Order" reruns instead if you pay them $10 a month. Like in the restaurant buffet example listed earlier, buffet customers go straight to the shrimp and lobster. This results in restaurant buffet's serving a lot more shrimp and lobster than their a la carte counter parts.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Hate to do this... but at least one person in this thread isn't being consistent... he'll know who he is.

Doesn't want to pay for what he doesn't watch... only watches a couple of channels... BUT wants Dish to give him free stuff (like HBO/MAX free previews).

This seems to be typical of lots in the American public... want something for nothing, and don't want to pay for what they ask for.

Just saying.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Titus2525 said:


> Yes I used only watched a handful of at120 channels when I had them and thought that paying 60 dollars after the fees was excessive. I apologize for any misunderstanding or hard feeling I might have caused. I have since removed all of my posts and probably will never post again because some topics such as free view policies and a la carte are deem forbodden and greeted with such hostility.


I'm sorry if you feel unwelcome. I can only speak for myself, and that was never my intent.

I was seeking to understand the apparent inconsistency between the folks who repeatedly say they only want to pay for what they watch, and don't want to pay for extra channels... but at the same time seem to be demanding that Dish give them free channels to watch.

That doesn't make sense to me... demanding free stuff to watch while saying you only want to pay for what you watch.


----------



## Slamminc11 (Jan 28, 2005)

Titus2525 said:


> Yes I used only watched a handful of at120 channels when I had them and thought that paying 60 dollars after the fees was excessive. I apologize for any misunderstanding or hard feeling I might have caused. I have since removed all of my posts and probably will never post again because some topics such as free view policies and a la carte are deem forbodden and greeted with such hostility.


Let's see, I think I have some cheese around here somewhere to go with that whine!


----------



## Opynion (Mar 21, 2006)

HDMe said:


> I was seeking to understand the apparent inconsistency between the folks who repeatedly say they only want to pay for what they watch, and don't want to pay for extra channels...


That's just like you said, an 
"apparent" inconsistency, nothing else.


----------

