Something Dish, Direct, etc don't want you to know...

The programmers know that the individual customer will pay more, but the overall revenue per channel would decrease significantly because subscribers wouldn't have as many channels. With the current system, the channels know how much revenue they get and don't have to focus their efforts at gaining subscribers.

A-la-carte means each channel would have to ramp up its advertising, which would force the price of each channel up significantly.

If EVERY individual customer paid more, there would be more revenue total. There is just no other way to slice it.

Some customers would pay more, others less. Some channels would get more revenue, others (especially niche and sports channels) would get less.

Personally, I wish we could have a more Canadian system. Group the channels by genre. Sports in one pack, news in another, kids with their own pack, and so on.
 
A la carte can work. It has been shown from the C band world. Now if you save any money or not depends on your viewing habits. If you watch very few channels you will probably save money. A la carte will also force some networks out. But, before people scream it is likely that they will consolodate programming with other channels so that they offer better value. Instead of having 3 channels with a couple hours of orginal programming a week, and the rest infomercials and reruns, you get one channel with 10 hours of original programming.

A la carte would of course have to have a minimum charge. It would have to be something like $20/month. The provider could for example say that includes up to $5 in programming. Then you would pick which channels you want, and any thing that goes beyond your initial allotment would add to your bill. But, do not think that channels would be 5 cents - 50 cents. More like $1-$5/month (current premiums probably similarly priced to now) per channel. One could quickly run up a higher bill if you watch more than just a few channels, especially if you are a sports fan and have to pay $5+ per channel, ESPN channels could be a $10 package, RSN $5+, etc. Sports fans would probably be hurt the worst.

Of course a la carte is not going to happen unless the government forces it. No way the channels will give up the current lucrative deal they have now. Now the strategy is to have a lot of channels and force the unpopular ones on a provider by leveraging the popular ones, then raise fees on a regular basis. If you wanted to start an a la carte DBS/cable service no one would sell you their programming.
 
A la carte can work. It has been shown from the C band world. Now if you save any money or not depends on your viewing habits. If you watch very few channels you will probably save money. A la carte will also force some networks out. But, before people scream it is likely that they will consolodate programming with other channels so that they offer better value. Instead of having 3 channels with a couple hours of orginal programming a week, and the rest infomercials and reruns, you get one channel with 10 hours of original programming.

A la carte would of course have to have a minimum charge. It would have to be something like $20/month. The provider could for example say that includes up to $5 in programming. Then you would pick which channels you want, and any thing that goes beyond your initial allotment would add to your bill. But, do not think that channels would be 5 cents - 50 cents. More like $1-$5/month (current premiums probably similarly priced to now) per channel. One could quickly run up a higher bill if you watch more than just a few channels, especially if you are a sports fan and have to pay $5+ per channel, ESPN channels could be a $10 package, RSN $5+, etc. Sports fans would probably be hurt the worst.

Of course a la carte is not going to happen unless the government forces it. No way the channels will give up the current lucrative deal they have now. Now the strategy is to have a lot of channels and force the unpopular ones on a provider by leveraging the popular ones, then raise fees on a regular basis. If you wanted to start an a la carte DBS/cable service no one would sell you their programming.
Agreed, a la carte can work.
 
The reason you can't get an ESPN-less package is because Disney owns ESPN. And a metric ton of ABC affiliates. And The Disney Channel. And ABC Family. And and and.

Dish gets those channels for free or nearly free, but only because they carry ESPN. If you wanted something like Disney XD without ESPN, you'd be paying way more than you pay for ESPN--and Disney will never offer that deal anyway. Also, many channels are able to make the finances work because they can go to advertisers and say "we have x number of homes". If they lose a large proportion of those homes, they lose ad revenue and then they have to increase their per-customer rates. A lot.

Everyone wants a la carte, but when they see what it does to channels that aren't ESPN or MTV, they'll change their tune.
 
I am disappointed by the naivete displayed here. There is little question that basic tier channels, like ESPN, are subsidized by subscribers who do not watch them. None of us know how many subscribers would opt-out of such channels if a full la carte system was put in place, so it's difficult to ascertain the level of 'subsidization'. But an a la carte system does not mean everyone would have to pay more, nor even the sum total of subscriber fees would increase. The point is they would be fairer, a point not lost on the anti-a la carte folks here who would no longer have the benefit of saps like me lowering their monthly bills.

If by magic the major sports networks woke up in an a la carte system, they would have fewer subscribers. If they wanted to maintain their identical levels of service, they could adjust their per-subscriber rates to compensate. However they would finally be subject to true capitalism, meaning they would probably have to allocate funds for customer retention. So their rates would likely rise by more than the ratio of the before/after customers. If their rates rose so much that even more subscribers opted-out, the networks would for the first time have to deal with supply and demand forces that most other businesses are already accustomed to in an open market. This could force the networks to curtail their currently enormous war chests they use for absurd bidding wars for sports leagues and events. Leagues, teams and athletes would correspondingly be forced to accept what the true market was willing to bear. Similarly advertisers would not be bound to the anti-competitive practices of the networks and would pay lower rates. This would eventually reach an equilibrium, although some networks might go out of business, while others would merge.

On the distribution side, carriers such as DN would allocate costs to the subscribers. I'm sure they already know what it costs to service each subscriber, and they know what it costs to distribute any given channel. These are truly separate costs, and in a truly competitive environment (imagine that), no distributor will stay in the hunt by wrapping them together. If the sports networks take up 30% (made up) of the DN transponder space, DN could allocate 30% of their distribution costs (satellites, ground stations, distribution salaries, etc.) to the sports subscribers. They probably already do this for the international channels, which happen to be very pricey. Heavy channel subscribers would bear the brunt of DN's costs. That's only fair because if it takes a full bird to downlink sports programming, the sports fans should pay for it.

Thus people who want a lot of channels would pay considerably more and those with lesser appetites would pay less. It's fair to say that if I dropped from 200 channels to 20 on an a la carte system, I would not see a 10X reduction in my monthly bill, however if I stuck with all 200 channels, I would probably not see my fees go up by 10X either. But at least I would be paying for what I watched. Some of the specialty channels I like might become too expensive for their value to me. I might miss them, but there is no channel I cannot live without. In fact I could live fine without any of them - there is plenty to do in life and never enough time.

A la carte systems can work, even if they are not always fully implemented. Satellite distribution in Europe offers a lot more choices, and heavy channel consumers pay through the nose. The monthly rates for Premier League games are considerable, but so are the extravagant salaries paid to the players and the crazy transfer fees paid by the teams. This is one system where real economics are already coming into play. If the fans, leagues, teams and athletes cannot make it work, they will go out of business and their self-generated demand will flag. As a non-fan, I could care less.

At the moment there is little pressure for such change in the US. But the handwriting is beginning to appear. Do a little ratings research and you will find ESPN and the other major sports networks are losing market share, and especially where it hurts the most - young people. Apparently the up and coming generations have less interest and are comfortable choosing from a wider range of distribution options, including the Internet where they find a lot for free and select what they are willing to pay for. Yes, some ISPs will hit you for exceeding caps, but the caps are rising along with download rates. I pay a little more for an uncapped business line, but it's chump change. There will come a time when the last mile data rates are high enough they will make streaming video seem a negligible load. For some that day is already here. If the the cable/DBS companies, sports networks, leagues, teams and athletes don't figure this out, they will be subjected to much of the same upheaval currently being experienced in the music industry.
 
People love to focus on the fact that ESPN costs $5 per sub, and how that works out to something like 1/6 of most providers' lowest tier. What you don't see is that there are a LOT of channels that you aren't paying for at all. When you get ESPN for $5, Disney is very likely throwing in small channels like Disney XD for free. If it had to stand on its own, that channel may not make it. You would end up with much less choice when it comes to available channels.
 
We'd end up with 20 channels to choose from, unless you want to watch Revision3 or other poorly produced Internet networks.
 
Dish gets those channels for free or nearly free, but only because they carry ESPN. If you wanted something like Disney XD without ESPN, you'd be paying way more than you pay for ESPN--and Disney will never offer that deal anyway.

You can get Disney XD without ESPN on C band. So I guess Disney does break stuff up.
 
You can get Disney XD without ESPN on C band. So I guess Disney does break stuff up.

First off, I was just using that as an example. Since programmers and distributors don't release the details of their contracts, it's impossible to say which channels exactly are bundled in such a fashion. However, distributors often use this type of bundling as an example of why a la carte won't work. I mean, look at the current ABC Family HD/ESPN U HD tussle on DISH.

Secondly, you can't take the packages made available to C-Band subs and expect it to work the same way with millions of cable and satellite subscribers. The economics are completely different when you scale up from a few thousand to hundreds of millions.
 
Ala carte on cband was the shiznit. Then bundling started and channels switched to powervu and prices skyrocketed for the remaining few. But, in the 90's when we really did have "true" ala carte and the lowest prices among any other provider. Cband ruled. Now it's just cable on a stik without a contract. Same high prices, bundled or if you do want alacarte it's marked up 2000% from the wholesale rate and not to mention SD only.
 
C band still has it's benefits. No rain fade, better SD picture than any other provider, no contracts, no credit check, high tier channels for less cost, etc etc. It is a nice add on to a very basic pizza pkg and can cost you less for both together then paying pizza for all those channels, some pizza don't even offer. Plus what I like most is I can watch it in a monsoon :D
 
The programming choices with C-Band are horrible. Can you still subscribe to ESPN? What about YES and SNY?

Nope, not anymore! Like i said, it no longer resembles it's former self. I remember subbing to the travel or weather channel for like 25 cents a month. :D I'm sure all the programming available was sold for, at or very close to the wholesale rates that cable companys paid.
Bet the programmers are glad that Genie is back in the bottle.:eek:
 
C band still has it's benefits. No rain fade, better SD picture than any other provider, no contracts, no credit check, high tier channels for less cost, etc etc. It is a nice add on to a very basic pizza pkg and can cost you less for both together then paying pizza for all those channels, some pizza don't even offer. Plus what I like most is I can watch it in a monsoon :D

Ya, you don't need to check somebody's credit when there providing there own equipment and paying up front for programming. And, not to mention it's impossible to rack up a bunch PPV charges as there is no PPV available.Also, I think the cable cartel hated the cband model from the beginning as federal law forced the programmers to provide the same channels to backyard dish owners as they did to the cable companys at the same wholesale rates. Unfortunatly once things went digital. I heard that law no longer applied or did it? But, anyways now a cable company owns what's left of the business.:eek:
 

DVR VIP 722 Question (Do I Have a Problem)???

Why get a usb wfii adapter on a 722/k w built in homeplug?

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)

Latest posts