I want less channels..At the most I could use a channel package with 30 -40 channels ..That's all I watch.....
I think most of you are making this far too complicated.
Federal lawsuit on Bundled Channels
- Thread starter Bulldog
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 69
- Views 7K
I think most of you are making this far too complicated.
You make a funny but true addition to exactly what I pointed out. A la carte programming is a good thing. The only trick is how to alter the business model and make it work so that everybody wins.
Think this thru with me. I'm trying to come up with a solution to this. How do the premium channels like HBO and Showtime do it? They have no advertising, yet they manage to stay afloat and keep producing several of their own original shows, which costs mega bucks. The only way they can do this is with subscriber dollars. Why can't the rest of the channels employ the same business model?
at $25 per month per sub there would be no one insane enough to sub to that channel.....
I will not accept the speculative notuion that the loss of QVC , the tennis channel and Sitv would cause ESPN to charge $30 per month...
I honestly don't know the answer to this but how many hours of programing does HBO provide per month? Whenever I look at their listings every show is repeated numerous times per month.
I would bet that they show less than 1/4 of what Discovery Science or National Geographic or SciFi show each month. And if you look to the broadcast networks, they each must do 10 times the programing as all of the HBO channels rolled into one.
Does anybody know the actual numbers and what price per hour that would work out to?
I admit there is no getting away from the fact that what hours they do produce are usually very good but anyone who saw "Broken Trail" knows that the broadcast networks aren't that bad anymore either.
Dishcomm,
Under Ala carte pricing a 30-40 Channel package would likely cost about 60-70 bucks.
Bundling sounds much better to me. If you don't want to see a bunch of Channels then set a favorite list or lock your system and Lock all the channels you don't want to see.
John
Someone was footing that bill. Oh yeah, it was the programmers. The signals were being uplinked for distribution to cable companies and commercial users (like bars).
The majority of the infrastructure was there when DBS started. Just new satellites and related hardware. I think the same model would work. Split the hardware providers and the programming, then allowing others to resell/bundle as they wish. DirectTV sort of took that route with multiple hardware developers, but locked up the programming. Echostar current has both locked in the US, though they do let someone else re-bundle the programming in Canada. That's proof the model can work.
Quit treating/thinking about it all like cable, and come up with a new paradigm. Hell, per show pricing might be the way. Say 5 cents for most shows, or "subscribe" to a show for yearly price. Some shows would be more, some less based on normal pricing factors (note price != cost, study economic).
But lets see some options instead of the same old cable method. Ala cartre, multiple bundles, per show all could have their place depending on an individual's viewing habits.
I personally have a problem with being forced to subsidize a channel in order to get one I like. If nothing else how about a bundled system where you could DEDUCT a channel. For instance if the cost of a channel is fifty cents a month and its in my package, at least let me dump it if I don't like it (or more importantly, don't want to support it) and save at least HALF of that fifty cents. That way there is some subsidy for the niche channels but people could still vote with their wallets.
And while we're correcting the free market let's picket the grocery stores for making us buy two 8 bun packages to get buns for the 10 hot dogs they make you buy!.
And I'm really sick of the newspaper having 50+ pages when I just want the weather and who won the games last night and maybe science and TV news.
No justice, no peace!
And I'm really sick of the newspaper having 50+ pages when I just want the weather and who won the games last night and maybe science and TV news.
No justice, no peace!
Buzz......Sorry, hunger has obviously clouded your thinking. This is not one of the dozens of threads on Sci-Fi-HD, try again.
NightRyder
Maybe ala carte would force the crap channels out and force these companies to provide better programming to make them want to pay for the channels. Maybe it will also cause some of the less popular channels to shut down and free up some space for HD and other quality content.
I'm no MBA, but I think it's pretty easy. With the proliferation of DVRs out there today, you make one channel with a robust programming lineup, with all programming around a central theme.
No need for Food Network, DIY, and HGTV, just one home improvement channel that combines all of the original programming from each network, appropriate syndicated/partner programming (This Old House, etc.), and treat it the same as the "Big 4" OTA networks.
Time Warner only needs one cable net, as would A&E, Fox, ABC/Disney, etc. If you look at the programming lineups on most of these channels, you are likely to see 30 minutes to 1 hour of new programming per day, at the most. The rest is either multiple-time repeats of their originals, or syndicated/old network shows that have been around forever.
If this system were implemented, your SOAPNET would probably go poof. I would ditch SOAPNET in an instant as I've never watched the channel. 90% of the country might do the same. Then the advertising model falls apart and the channel goes away.
I'm no fan of bundling, but I blame the program developers, not the distributors. Dish wanted no part of NickToons, but Viacom rammed it down their throats in order to get CBS renewed.
It will take a law banning the practice before anything will change...
VIP-722: Broadband "Phone Home" - Not Working; Tech Advised Update May Be Needed
- geekboy2000
- Replies: 10
