# Check this out!



## Guest (Mar 1, 2002)

64.70.133.30/bulletin.htm

I agree with this BS take it or leave it. Worthless channels will never go away when 60 million people are subsidizing them every month. Yeah, this will also kill the neverending price increases too. I shouldn't have to pay for **** that I'm morally against and people who don't like sports shouldn't be paying for it against their wishes.
What do you think?


----------



## Guest (Mar 1, 2002)

Well I'm in US for about 4 yrs now, I'm from Europe. I think in first place there are still parents to control what Kids are watching. Parents should know what's out there and try to decide what their kids should watch. It seems to me kind of hypocritical here in US. Nowhere on cable TV you can see naked people (even in late night hours and what I really get kick out of is even pixelating nipples if there are see through clothes, anybody says pathetic), however what you can see etc. on MTV (during bright light) is sometimes much worse than showing a bit of nudity. I agree, that there is bunch of crap on some channels I never watch and don't want to even see, but I'm realistic and see that it wouldn't be much cheaper to pay for less channels. I assume that the service provider has to have some threshold when it is profitable for him to be operational. But than on other side, maybe it would be good idea to have subscribers to decide what channels they want to subscribe too. Of course that might be more expensive than current bundled packages. Even if nothing will change, if you concerned about what you or your kids are watching, just get equipment which let's you block some channels or using parental locks and make yourself your own programming choice and piece of mind that you not the one watching commercials of those channels you don't like ;-)

PS When our boy get's older and figures out how to switch channels, MTV is going under parental lock ;-), So far the best channel for kids seems to be KQED.


----------



## Guest (Mar 1, 2002)

Yeah, I block some stuff out. My point is paying for stuff I disagree with, instead of blocking it out.


----------



## Guest (Mar 1, 2002)

Well that's the problem, less channels you get, more expensive they will be. That's what I think. You either get quantity ($ down) or quality ($ up). ;-)


----------



## Guest (Mar 1, 2002)

Most likely true. However, don't you or people who oppose my view are being selfish for them wanting me to fund your/their viewing habbits? I wouldn't want somebody to pay for my football if they were really against it regardless if my bill went up. Usually one-size fits all approach has been a disater in most cases around the world. At least with my political views.


----------



## Guest (Mar 2, 2002)

I am generally against the channel providers bundling carriage by force, especially those OTA networks which require Dish and DirecTV to carry their cable channles in order to provide LIL.

However, as far as not paying your money to make programs you are morally opposed to, consider this:

Even if you paid only for the channels that had content you approve of, the conglomerates simply take your money and pool it with others to make the "trash" you don't like. There is no way around it. Time-Warner, Disney, Universal, etc. all have braod markets. To think that money received from "G" rated shows and movies will only go to make other "G" rated shows is wisghful thinking. Only when the public no longer buys the sex and violence will the studios stop making them.


----------



## Guest (Mar 2, 2002)

I probably take several views on it. These views apply to cable systems as well as DBS. Your milage will vary, and I welcome.

The main problem is the carriage contracts. Most of us would prefer ala carte programming, thus choosing only the channels we really want. However, the contracts that the multichannel providers sign with the program providers require that they carry it in a certain tier level, may require the carriage of other channels, and even where the channel is located. Thus, ESPN is forced to be carried at upwards of $2 per subscriber, even though a portion of the subscribers have no interest in the channel.

As for the content of the channels, remember, it's a cross between parents setting (and enforcing) the limits and the kids pushing the limits. Once the kids are grown, they will perhaps take their programming choices to heart.

Admittedly, there is a lot of programming that plain sucks or that many people don't consider worthwhile. (_ South Park_ comes to mind.) There are also a lot of channels which contain good programming. The sad part is that Neilson ratings only measure how popular a program is, not really how good (or bad) it is.


----------



## Guest (Mar 2, 2002)

"Even if you paid only for the channels that had content you approve of, the conglomerates simply take your money and pool it with others to make the "trash" you don't like. There is no way around it. Time-Warner, Disney, Universal, etc. all have braod markets. To think that money received from "G" rated shows and movies will only go to make other "G" rated shows is wisghful thinking. Only when the public no longer buys the sex and violence will the studios stop making them."

True Rich, however, if given a choice, a channel like MTV may have been DOA IMO, instead of being subsidized by the entire country. Especially around here. This damn community is old because there's never been jobs here and it's mostly retired people. So the majortiy of the people here have never watched it while paying for it for over a decade. Your point may be valid looking at today, but it in hindsight, the smut may have been rejected at the time they pushed it if we had a choice and the content providers would have to behave and be more responible or risk losing money if their channel failed. The way the things are now and the way they have been, they can shove it down our throat and our only other option is no TV. Nobody should be forced into the situation of having no TV IMO.


----------



## Guest (Mar 3, 2002)

I think that people who want us all to pay for the ridiculous accounting and record keeping required for true a la carte are the selfish ones. Does anyone really think their bill would go down?


----------



## Guest (Mar 3, 2002)

but Rage does have a point in that why should providers force the cable and dbs companies to carry a startup channel in order to get access to a popular channel. While I think his example of MTV is faulty (because MTV was a popular channel from the start) any kind of FORCED tie-in sales should be disallowed. Even diregarding the use of public property (spectrum), tie-in sales are generally biewed as unfari business practice. Ask IBM who had to unbundle their software from the hardware in the old mainfram days. Ask Microsoft who got into trouble by forcing computer manufactures to buy Internet Explorer bundled with Windows and who now must pur spme added separation between operating systems products and appliactions software. Then when you add public franchises to the picture, it becomes emminently unfair to the public. 

Consider this. Ticketmaster now is the agent for reserving campsites in many of our National Parks and National forests. What if you couldn't get one of these resrvations unless you bought a ticket to some rap concert (I use the term concert loosely). I know I would be incensed over such a tie-in and complain to the feds over such practice. 

Yes, I understand that bundling keeps the cost down. I myslef have just about every English-speaking non-porn channel that Dish offers and I like the price for these bundles. But make the bundling optional or have smaller bundles which subs can pick and choose to their liking. Canad's EVU does this quite nicely.


----------



## Guest (Mar 5, 2002)

"I think that people who want us all to pay for the ridiculous accounting and record keeping required for true a la carte are the selfish ones. Does anyone really think their bill would go down? "

If they used an automated ordering system for choosing your channel package, it would be cheaper, and the CSR's would be freed up to handle problem cases. The record keeping wouldn't be any more expensive either, since computers are fairly cheap. My sprint cell phone bill would be more complicated.

Samples of voice director:
"please enter the first three letters of the program.."
"You now have '17' channels in your package, which will
cost '23.75' per month."

Hell, I could set it up, and I've never done it before.


----------



## Guest (Mar 5, 2002)

I think ala-carte would be awesome. I don't know if it is realistic from a business standpoint for D* or E* to offer it. Of the 150 stations that I receive on Total Choice Plus, I probably watch or listen to about 40 on a regular basis (MTV is one of them - sorry to admit - wife loves un-"Real World). Paying for MuchMusic or TNN for me kinda irks me as I don't think I have watch more than about 10 minutes combined between the two. 

Just my take.


----------



## Guest (Mar 5, 2002)

Of course the rights fees to all channels are not the same. So it would be confusing array of so many channels at this price, so many at that. 

If it were that easy it probably would be offered.


BTW DISH used to have a limited version of this. It turned out to be unprofitable and unpopular. 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## Guest (Mar 6, 2002)

"If it were that easy it probably would be offered."

It is my understanding that there is a technical limit in the authorization string which prevents every channel from having a unique authorization code. Thus many chnnels must be grouped or "tiered" because of this technical limitation. 

But as I said, it does bother me that certain channels are held "hostage" in order to force customers to pay for unwanted channels. Rage is correct in stating that this practice goes against the spirit of anti-trust law.


----------



## Guest (Mar 7, 2002)

If you want something closer to a-la-carte ordering,
get ExpressVu or StarChoice thru a broker, etc.
That's what I'm thinking of doing.


----------



## Guest (Mar 7, 2002)

What a great discussion. If I may weigh in, please understand these are only my thoughts offered with full respect of others opinions:

It's been said that half the cost of a long distance phone call is the expense of billing and tracking. Add to that all the confusion about how the distance was calculated and it was a mess. That's why long distance companies have opted for consumer nationwide pricing plans so that all interstate calls are the same per minute charge regardless of distance.

As a former CSR in another industry, I would just cringe at the thought of offering several hundred channels ala carte, what a customer service nightmare. And most people still don't have PC's and even fewer have internet access, particularly rural subs. And an automated phone system, oh my GOSH, sitting and pressing buttons ad nauseum to try to add each channel -- I still like to talk to a human being sometimes.

Dish's ala carte plan, and this was a few years ago, was $15 for 10 channels -- that's $1.50 per channel. Even if I only watch 16 channels out of the AT50, it's still cheaper to buy the tier. Sure some people may want a channel that's only in the higher tier plan, but at the end of the day, most folks get a better deal with a package deal. Face it you buy the huge drum of Coke at 7-11 because it's only a nickel more than the 16 oz. cup....

Anyway, I don't like paying for all the PPV preview, advertising at night, etc. but what are we gonna do?


----------

