# a la carte ...



## agreer (Apr 7, 2006)

ibglowin said:


> No, It doesn't. You would have to have AT250 which is the normal tier package that contains Vs as well as the HD addon package.


BRING ON ALA_CARTE...Congress needs to stop cashing Comcast/D*/E*'s cheques and do something for consumers...I can go to a news stand and get the magazine I want without buying 249 that I do not, why should digital media streams (which is all sat tv is) be any different?

Even considering that though, the price with HD would still be under $90/Mo. so Dish wins...


----------



## FogCutter (Nov 6, 2006)

agreer said:


> BRING ON ALA_CARTE...Congress needs to stop cashing Comcast/D*/E*'s cheques and do something for consumers...I can go to a news stand and get the magazine I want without buying 249 that I do not, why should digital media streams (which is all sat tv is) be any different?


Agreer,

You know, I'll bet that once we get ala carte we'll be paying nearly as much as we are now for fewer channels. Instead of a bundle of 100 channels for $30 a month, we'll get to choose only the ones we want for $5 a month per channel, or something ridiculous.


----------



## agreer (Apr 7, 2006)

FogCutter said:


> Agreer,
> 
> You know, I'll bet that once we get ala carte we'll be paying nearly as much as we are now for fewer channels. Instead of a bundle of 100 channels for $30 a month, we'll get to choose only the ones we want for $5 a month per channel, or something ridiculous.


For AT 250 it is $0.20/ch...lets say that ALA-CARTE triples it -- the average channel would cost $0.60 (average...not exact per channel, ESPN will cost a lot more than say Nick GAS) but even still, I could buy the ~10-15 channels that I want and pay like $15-20/Mo... Why not let me get ESPN, NFLN, Discovery HD, CNN, Vs Com and a handfull of others for $20? maybe as an alternative to the family pack, have a "single guy who doesnt wand all of the damn bull****" pack


----------



## FogCutter (Nov 6, 2006)

You touched on another way they can zap us -- different channels at different prices. E! @ 0.20 a month, ESPN or anything else anyone cares about @ $5.00 a month. I'm with you, decent ala carte at fair prices makes perfect sense. The devil is in the details.

A lot of the cost of providing service is in the infrastructure, not the content. I am sure someone will want one channel @ $0.60 a month. Dish can't process a payment for that much, let alone provide service.

If enough people go to really low monthly payments, picking only a couple of channels, they will have to get their nickel somewhere else. 

And they are holding all of the cards. Receiver costs could go to $20 a month for example. They could introduce access fees, pump the price of equipment, etc., etc.

I think some cable companies that have tried ala carte have a minimum level of service required, say $10-20 a month, with extra channels @ $1-2 a month each. That was a lot of years ago, not sure anyone is doing it now. As I remember, the cost savings were trivial, and the customer got a lot less content, but the got only what they wanted. 

Be interesting to see where it all lands.


----------



## agreer (Apr 7, 2006)

FogCutter said:


> You touched on another way they can zap us -- different channels at different prices. E! @ 0.20 a month, ESPN or anything else anyone cares about @ $5.00 a month. I'm with you, decent ala carte at fair prices makes perfect sense. The devil is in the details.
> 
> A lot of the cost of providing service is in the infrastructure, not the content. I am sure someone will want one channel @ $0.60 a month. Dish can't process a payment for that much, let alone provide service.
> 
> ...


Well, where are their profits now? I am not saying give us the channels at cost...but on a $50 pack, dish pays what? $45 in programming fees to the content people? so have the bacse price of $x/mo for infrastructure and then pay for the channels sepreately...if it is indeed the content/channel owners and not the carriers screwing us, this would work well, all I know is pay TV is a screw job...$50 to get tons of AD POLUTED channels just gulls me


----------



## nataraj (Feb 25, 2006)

FogCutter said:


> Agreer,
> 
> You know, I'll bet that once we get ala carte we'll be paying nearly as much as we are now for fewer channels. Instead of a bundle of 100 channels for $30 a month, we'll get to choose only the ones we want for $5 a month per channel, or something ridiculous.


No. That is NOT how it will work. Some of us will pay more and others will pay less. Currently we are in a kind of "socialist" system - with people like me who watch fewer channels subsidizing people who watch more.

Yes, some channels will cost more (like ESPN) and some less. I won't be subscribing to ESPN ... but I do subscribe to international channels which are $15 each now.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Hate to burst the a la carte bubble... but there is no way you would ever see channels at 60 cents per channel via a la carte. Expect probably $2.00 minimum, and I may be low on that estimate.

Also expect some minimal fee just to have an a la carte account in the first place... and also expect lots of channels to go by the wayside, and then only those channels with high viewership will remain... and then they can charge more because they are the only game in town... and then we will be right back where we started, paying the same money but for less channels.


----------



## nataraj (Feb 25, 2006)

HDMe said:


> Hate to burst the a la carte bubble... but there is no way you would ever see channels at 60 cents per channel via a la carte. Expect probably $2.00 minimum, and I may be low on that estimate.
> 
> Also expect some minimal fee just to have an a la carte account in the first place... and also expect lots of channels to go by the wayside, and then only those channels with high viewership will remain... and then they can charge more because they are the only game in town... and then we will be right back where we started, paying the same money but for less channels.


Thanks for the list. Beleive me, I'm scared 

If a channel has too few viewers it deserves to go away. I don't mind subsidizing some of them, but I should know which ones they are and should see a clear reason for the subsidy. I don't see why I should subsidize someone else's TV viewing, esp if they can afford to pay for it, while people die all over the world for lack of basic food or madicine.

Edit : Ofcourse this is quite OT in this thread, so lets take this discussion to a different thread.


----------



## FogCutter (Nov 6, 2006)

I've lost track of how serious they are about forcing ala carte programming. I know congress was muttering about it, but that doesn't mean we'll ever see it.

Anybody know where this stands? 

I still bet it won't be as great as some expect. Instead of $30 for 75 channels we'll pay $25 for 15 channels when everything is totaled. 


A bit of a Pyrrhic victory.

Oh, about commercials. I read that E* pays a different rate on commercial programming based on the % of DVRs in the subscriber base. Hmmmm. Advertisers are noticing that their messages are being skipped. 

Here's another thought: No subscriptions at all, and everything is pay per view. Truly the fairest system, we only pay for what we watch, when we watch it. Electronic billing is cheap enough these days. 

The ultimate ala carte.


----------



## aloishus27 (Aug 8, 2006)

I don't know if anyone remembers, but E* offered a la carte programming when my family first became a customer 10 years ago. I think it was $9 or so fro a handful of channels and a dollar for each additional. I never bought into it so I never noticed that it was gone until i saw all the chatter about it in this thread.

Whatever did happen to E*'s old a la carte package?


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

It's gone.


----------



## agreer (Apr 7, 2006)

KEEP THE PACKs...why does everyone seem to talk like ala carte would kill packs...It would be no differant than MccDonalds...I can go in and get whatever I want, sure I could get a junbo bigmac value meal, but I could also just buy a hamburger

If McDonalds ran like cable TV, you could get a hamburger stand-alone, but to get a burger with cheese, you have to get a gigantic combo with an enormous sandwich for 3-4x the cost 

Why not let me get a base package and then buy upper channels ala carte...lets say I get at100, why not let me add VS for $2-3/Mo? would a deal like that kill TV? if so, **** TV...I have torrents to fill the gaps left by iTunes and an Apple TV would pay for its self in 3 months of cable bills


----------



## allargon (May 3, 2007)

Sorry, but a-la-carte will cost more--period. Remember, shopping networks PAY Dish for your eyeballs. I never watch them. However, I appreciate them lowering my bill.

Back to the original topic...more RSN's are always good. More HD locals (including all PBS channels and the CW) would be better. Also TMC HD would be nice, since I subscribe to the standard def version!


----------



## agreer (Apr 7, 2006)

nataraj said:


> Edit : Ofcourse this is quite OT in this thread, so lets take this discussion to a different thread.


Will do...sorry


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Fixed.


----------



## nataraj (Feb 25, 2006)

Thanks James.

My feeling is that ultimately, the idea of a "channel" is obsolete. What we need is just VOD and may be PPV for high valued shows / games. Already several players are looking at YouTube for your TV ... and its not far away. We just need it all in HD !

With DVR and IP switched TV, I beleive channels will become less and less important. Channels will go the way of AOL - and until then a la carte will be nice.


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

VOD is not practical for satellite transmission.

Each distinct receiver needs its own channel, or you set it up for a show to repeat on multiple channels every 15 minutes or so.

Requires mongo bandwidth with pequito return.

A la Carte is not likely because contractual delivery of most channels is bundled by the provider. Dish and Direct would love to drop Underwater Basket Weaving but it is part of a bundle from the provider to get other more popular channels.

We don't need the US Congress to meddle (read as SCREW UP) in this any more than they already are. Let the market run it's course. Unwatched channels will eventually die, it may be a long and painful death, but they will die.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

The McDonald's happy meal example is bad for a couple of reasons...

1. Customers have spoken at McDonald's and a sizable portion of them want to buy just the burgers while others want to buy the meals... so McDonald's can't convert exclusively to one or the other because they would lose out.

2. McDonald's makes MUCH more off of a drink or an order of fries than they do a burger... so they actually want you to buy the meal too... they "discount" the meal combo because they can afford to do it, and will make more profit if you spend a little more for the combo than just for the burger.. so if they could, they would love to convert to the whole meal pricing scheme.

Consumers have spoken in cable/satellite... and that vote was "more is better". We see DirecTV advertising they will have "more soon"... and we have people all the time threatening to switch if their provider doesn't add more channels like the other guy. We also have been moving away from C-band and other options that did have more a la carte... Consumers wanted what Dish offered in a package more than what they could get via C-band a la carte.

So... Dish and DirecTV and cable are just giving folks what they want while at the same time giving themselves what they want to sell.


----------



## nataraj (Feb 25, 2006)

Jim5506 said:


> VOD is not practical for satellite transmission.


Yes, eventually Sats have no business in TV. Personally won't shed a tear when they die.



> A la Carte is not likely because contractual delivery of most channels is bundled by the provider. Dish and Direct would love to drop Underwater Basket Weaving but it is part of a bundle from the provider to get other more popular channels.


Providers should listen to us - the customers who are keeping them in business. They better not dictate to us.



> We don't need the US Congress to meddle (read as SCREW UP) in this any more than they already are. Let the market run it's course. Unwatched channels will eventually die, it may be a long and painful death, but they will die.


Market can get completely screwed up - as it has now. I'm not someone for whom ideology is more important than life. Since the markets have become a cartel, I want the congress to break the cartel. But I do prefer that "providers" become more consumer friendly by themselves ... and no I don't want to wait for 3 more decades for that to "slowly" happen.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

nataraj said:


> Yes, eventually Sats have no business in TV. Personally won't shed a tear when they die.


It is going to be a while until internet and other delivery methods _catch up_ to the potential of satellite. In urban areas there are issues with LOS for satellite. In rural areas there are issues provisioning everything else. Satellites dead? Nahhh. Not in our lifetime.



> Providers should listen to us - the customers who are keeping them in business. They better not dictate to us.


Or else what? One of the strengths of packagers is that they gather together channels that vary in popularity. Perhaps none of the channels would be subscribed to individually by 25% of the population. But something in that package will appeal to 90% of the population. Packagers make it hard for you to buy the one channel you want.

The providers have to deal with the packagers. A strong provider may be able to break the will of a packager, especially weak packagers. But a packager with the right mix of channels has a lot of pull in the industry. If ABC/Disney introduces a new channel and tells providers to add it or lose the rights to the ESPNs and other ABC channels they have a decent chance of forcing that channel on the air.

If that new channel is one that you like then you would probably side with the packager and against the satellite provider who doesn't want to be bullied. If it is a channel you don't like then you'll probably side with the satellite provider.

A completely unbiased decision is difficult ... one has to separate the question of whether or not it is a good channel and write generic policy. Then accept the consequences when a new excellent channel comes along and the policy puts the channel in the wrong column.

If under a la carte people end up paying less it will be because they are getting far less content. Not a 50% reduction in content gives you 50% off of your bill, more like dropping 50% of your channels reduces your bill 25% (or less). In addition, those that do choose "discount packages" such as the AT packages will end up paying more for their packages since there will be less people subscribing to their package. Group discounts work best when the groups are large ... any reduction in size of group can lead in a reduction in the discount.

They system we have may not be perfect but it works.


----------



## IowaStateFan (Jan 11, 2006)

James Long said:


> It is going to be a while until internet and other delivery methods _catch up_ to the potential of satellite. In urban areas there are issues with LOS for satellite. In rural areas there are issues provisioning everything else. Satellites dead? Nahhh. Not in our lifetime.
> 
> Or else what? One of the strengths of packagers is that they gather together channels that vary in popularity. Perhaps none of the channels would be subscribed to individually by 25% of the population. But something in that package will appeal to 90% of the population. Packagers make it hard for you to buy the one channel you want.
> 
> ...


Great analysis James. While I would love to see a la carte, I'd be willing to be that it won't happen - unless Uncle Sam interferes (and that would be MUCH worse than what we have now). Under an a la carte system, some would benefit but most would lose out. Think of it this way: The system we have now is generating $X in revenue. There is no way that the program providers and distributors are going to voluntarily let that number decline. If I can save $10/mo by eliminating some of the programming I'm getting, that $10 is going to have to come from someplace else. Some of it might come from cost cutting by eliminating the lesser viewed programming (the viewers of that programming lose) but most will come from the people that want to subscribe to more channels (they lose). Philosophically, I don't have a problem with that. I don't watch a lot of TV and I don't feel that I should subsidize those of you that do. However, I suspect that my viewing habits are in the minority and that means that the screaming about the price increases will drown out people like me. HDME is right - the consumers have spoken and much to my dismay they want lots of programming at the lowest cost possible. The current system provides that.


----------

