Ala Carte programming

[harshness]

but add the costo of HBO of the average cable sub or satelite sub. to balance the last 37.97.

The average cost for cable and satellite most likely includes HBO.

 

[joed32]

How do they know what the cost for streaming HBO will be?

 

[Aridon]

Educated guess. It's not going to be less than what the cable companies charge.

 

[harshness]

Educated guess. It's not going to be less than what the cable companies charge.

The bigger issue may be they won't stream. Just as CBS isn't going to stream NFL, HBO might not stream boxing and that would be a big downer for some.

Does WWE carry PPV events as part of the basic package?

 

[fhsucade07]

This is a topic that has been beat to death. It is an interesting one no doubt and I may be different than others but I believe we are ever so close to seeing it happen. I think the prime argument made by many is that it will be cheaper and if you only want a handful of channels it may be. My barber has a Dish Commercial account and told me just the other day that a handful of learning channels was $14, Big 10 and Pac-12 was $14 / piece and ESPN was over $20 not to mention a starter pack at $20 something.

I don't know about most but for me I'd add up so quickly that $70 month for the Top 200 would be a bargain. The channels are strategically placed so that if you like like something in "Learning A" you'd most certainly likely want "Learning B" as well. As another poster said it makes it difficult for a new channel to launch with what could be largely unproven content. The absolute best part is that it will drive competition in the form of better quality programming. And I'm doubtful most will get one channel a la carte but rather a small tier bundled together.

I thought of having my package converted to a commercial pack at one point but rather quickly saw it wouldn't be cost affective at least for me. Not an attack or anything like that - it will undoubtedly result in a cheaper package for some folks (most likely non sports fans). And then the argument of "30 channels for $45 or $50 bucks as opposed to 100 channels" when I can eliminate the garbage may play a role as well but I'd get most of those anyways as they pay to be on.

 

[NGeorge]

I would be more inclined to buy the "cost of programming going up" argument if basic cable was commercial free... I happily pay my ~$25 for HBO and Showtime because since I've had them I haven't had to go to the video store (which used to be a weekly exercise 10 years ago), and now that they have everything they offer on demand, I haven't even had to think about a video store. Add to that, they have some great original programming... I feel like I'm getting my money's worth. They pay the rights and production fees, I pay them a monthly fee and it feels fair -- the price doesn't go up very often, and when it does, it keeps up with inflation.

First off, regarding sports -- I'm surprised that no one has mentioned how much GREED the conferences have. This is a good part of the reason why the TV bill keeps going up. The conferences aren't just content to strike their TV deals with the major networks, they want their OWN networks, and they want to demand high prices for them... For example the Pac12 -- I'm happy that DirecTV has been holding out. What ever happened to *paying for it with the advertising*? If you can't sell enough advertising to support the rights fees, then the leagues/conferences are asking too much. If the sport doesn't have enough audience to support it, that's when you do PPV. I'd LOVE to see this get to a breaking point where one of the major networks (cable and OTA) says "kiss my ass" to the say then NFL for example -- and then when they shop it around everyone else does too. Either the NFL would cave right before the first game, or no one would see football -- all the providers make the case of "did you want your TV bill to go up another $5 this year?" and the league looks like the bad guy, which is where the anger should be directed. As far as these regional conference channels, I'm surprised ANY of them have been picked up -- the providers need to take a hard stance with them and say "it's the sports tier or nothing"... If it's "nothing" then there is no audience for the advertising that they do sell. This hasn't happened because there's ALWAYS someone who will cave... and it needs to stop.

As for basic cable, it's again a case of *if you can't sell it, should it be on the air*? If they can't sell something, then obviously it means it's a bit too niche to be on basic cable... If they are providing such amazing programming that costs more than they can make back from advertising, put it up as a "mini premium" for $2-3 a month -- but drop the commercials. AMC might be able to do this... that's about the only one I can think of right now...

I've ALWAYS thought that the TV bill should be made up of 70% the actual cost of providing the service (satellites, billing, staff, equipment/backhaul to get signals etc), 20% rights fees for the most popular programming that actually drive people to subscribing to the services (ESPN would fit in here -- but maybe $.50-1 /sub MAX) and 10% pure profit... no expectation that "everyone gets paid" who provides content. You get paid a fairly token amount for carriage of your content if it's consistently highly rated, and it is determined that the benefits of providing decent content outweigh the negatives of not carrying it -- as in, it draws people to the service... in fact, it would seem that the program providers should be willing to give the channels to the providers in exchange for carriage on the lowest tiers -- more potential viewers, HIGHER RATES for advertising.

Somehow I have a feeling that it started out this way years ago, but the system got screwed up somewhere along the line -- to the point where the networks now use the viewing public to fight their battles -- and that at least one of the providers, wanting to be competitive, will ALWAYS pick up the crap... rather than uniting and telling the Pac12 for example "You mean you weren't able to get these games on ESPN or Fox? Obviously the major networks felt that the viewership wouldn't be enough to provide a return via advertising revenue... we'll go ahead and do you a favor and carry it in our basic package without charging you -- you go ahead and sell the advertising... in a couple years if the ratings are as amazing as you say they will be, come back and we'll see if we can sweeten the deal a little bit next time"...

The fact that our bills have increased 30-40% over what inflation says they should be, plus all the new taxes and fees says something...

N

 

[marquitos306]

C-band was ala-carte. It was easy, inexpensive, and worked just fine. The notion that ala-carte will cost as much or more than what is available now just doesn't hold water. You can bet the farm, though, that a significant number of (garbage) channels would disappear. I suspect there would be an upward nudge in quality as well as long term network viability would switch back to pleasing the end user as opposed to cable and satellite providers.

I had a C band and my programming was a la care and I was very happy.

 

[dishcomm]

I apologize that we do not have that option. Most places you go have packages already put together. Placement and package requirements are based on the contracts we have with the channel owners. I can definetly put in a request for you that this be an option but I cannot guarantee that it will be.

And lack of that option must end.
We as consumers should have the CHOICE to choose either an a la carte option or a package option.

 

[dishcomm]

That's where I think it'll fail. If all these providers put a cap on then people will be forced to pay TV.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That isn't logical. Why would Verizon sell a la carte programming over the internet then throttle the internet to their customers?

 

[dishcomm]

Think about it, If Direct, Dish, Comcast and others ditched the HD Fee, equipment lease fee, whole home DVR Fee then less people would ditch paid tv service. It's not only channels that people don't watch but all those fees. I think Ala Carte will end up costing the same or close to what people are paying.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Those fees are like airline baggage fees. The satellite and cable companies collect money for doing nothing, Fees are pure profit.
Thus, not going anywhere

 

[dishcomm]

Most the costs and fees come from two sources. Company overhead to cover basic operating costs(techs, equipment, maintenance, call centers, training, salaries etc), and a lot of the fees for pckages pay for the contracted channels. Dish did offer the "Dish-Picks" for some time, but did stop due to the networks demand. Think about Viacom. I pretty much watch spike and Comedy Central. Hate MtV and BET. I have to have both. Viacom gets paid for both, whether I watch or not. With picks, I could have CC and Spike. That's a lot of lost revenue for their other [23] channels. They are going to force requested channels on higher pckages, knowing you want them, to get paid for their lower unrequested channels. Disney does the same thing. I have no kids, yet to get the single ESPN channel I want, I have to have 30 kids channels(exaggeration), and they still get their money. So this is not necessarily something against the transmission companies such as Dish and DTV. This is largely to due with just meeting costs and doing what a good business should do. Make money.
As far as saying "government should force them to not be able to do contracts", that's just dumb. I'm contracted to pay for my car on a monthly plan, till paid off, because of a contract I signed. I do not have $20k to give a dealership on the spot. If you want no commitment in your rural area, get dish, pay the fees for the equipment purchase MSRP, and go month to month with them. You will get no promotions, no benefits, and you have pckages ranging from $19.99 up to $134.99. As mentioned in another thread, TV is a luxury. If you want more then OTA, then you py for it on their conditions or you don't get it. I want a Ferrari, but I can only afford a Chevy. Not even a 'Vette. So, no sympathy or empathy here, and that argument is moot.
Lastly, if TV were to go fully ala carte as requested, do you think those programmers are going to give up their revenue to pay their actors/directors/producers and high life styles? They will raise their rates on single channels to offset their overhead. Right now, I beleive ESPN is $5 per sub. Go solely ala carte and you may py $30 for a ESPN package monthly. Same with Disney, Viacom channels, and all those other companies. Thanks to pay TV, the cord cutters are getting the better deal, but when the green weenie comes knocking, they will make sure to keep their profits. The cable providers such as Comcast and TWC and Cox are all starting to limit data caps. Now think about that on two levels. Gamers playing online, can easily use 300/400gb of data a month. Your typical HD movie is 2-4 GB(and 4k is coming out will be larger), so reaching 750/1000gbs of usuage a month in a normal household of husband and wife between the ages of 18-34(key demographic), you will be throttled. No tv or gaming. If they pass the buck to the customer and allow higher threshholds, you are now going to see Internet only accounts at $150-200 per month to keep their revenue alive. When you cut cost in one place(in ridiculously large numbers of people per capita), tou still pay it elsewhere. And then you will be here complaining about how much internet cost, and why there aren't more options in the boonies. It is a ridiculous argument to make. It is a luxury, treat it as such, and if you do not like it, move on. Watch paint dry for all I care. That's only $20 for a can of paint.

A rather fatalisitc point of view, don't you think?
First, you can throw out all the outrageous numbers for programming and internet access you like. Ultimately providers will only be able to charge what the marketplace can absorb.
The current system is broken. Consumers are demanding more choices. They either will receive those choices or they will drop out. Nobody wins.
In my view, you have thrown a blanket over consumers implying all of us want champaigne on a beer budget.
You should take a consensus. You'll find most consumers will buy what they want at a fair and reasonable price.
BTW, the one thing that will have to happen is all those actors, directors and producers of less popular or seldom viewed channels will just have to find other ways to make a living.

 

[joed32]

C-band was ala-carte. It was easy, inexpensive, and worked just fine. The notion that ala-carte will cost as much or more than what is available now just doesn't hold water. You can bet the farm, though, that a significant number of (garbage) channels would disappear. I suspect there would be an upward nudge in quality as well as long term network viability would switch back to pleasing the end user as opposed to cable and satellite providers.

My experience with C-Band was that it was always cheaper to pay for a package that included the channels that you wanted than it was to purchase them separately. I had C-Band for years and always found this to be true.

 

[harshness]

And lack of that option must end.
We as consumers should have the CHOICE to choose either an a la carte option or a package option.

You're barking up the wrong tree going after the carriers.

As andreab points out, the contracts that the programmers draw up are what determines the bundling and no amount of complaining about the carriers is going to fix the Disney problem. C-band people whined about packaging and look where it got them.

 

[jeslevine]

Since we only watch about 10 out of 200 channels, I am obviously attracted by the ala carte approach.

 

[ChadT41]

Would you be willing to pay the same price you are now, for those ten channels though?

 

[jeslevine]

Would you be willing to pay the same price you are now, for those ten channels though?

No, but I would be willing to pay a higher price for individual ala carte channels, then the whole price for 200 channels, 90% which I don't watch.

 

[pdiddy]

No, but I would be willing to pay a higher price for individual ala carte channels, then the whole price for 200 channels, 90% which I don't watch.

My point is,if 200 channels cost say $39.00,but I only want 8 channels the cost should go down accordingly.Let's see adollar amount of what each channel cost per month,if bought ala carte.There is so much garbage everybody is stuck with in each package, it is enough to make you gag.They ought to pay us for all the commercials we turn the volume off to.

 

[ChadT41]

You wouldn't be paying what the cost is now. Here, I'll be you an example. Dish just and the issue with CBS. CBS wants $2 per subscriber. You can now get CBS without a cable subscription online, for $6. That's just one channel, a local even. Imagine what the others would be. Especially if they weren't pulling in the revenue anymore from the channels they force into pckages to increase their revenue even more.

 

[joed32]

That's about right, at that rate you would pay $24 per month just for the 4 major networks. Probably a little less for A&E, TCM, etc. You would get past that $39.00 well before you got to 10 channels.

 

[lparsons21]

those rates are what CBS hopes people will be willing to pay, I've seen nothing yet that indicates they are getting significant takers. And that's the problem with the discussion of ala carte. Lots of assumptions about how much each channel would cost with little support to show it to be true. So while I would think the channels would set some pie-in-the-sky price at first should it happen, it would quickly be followed by reductions in cost or disappearance of the channel.