A la Carte?

[dishcomm]

I would be strongly against a la carte (don't see such option in the poll).

1. A la carte means paying more money for less channels, since fewer viewers would have to pick up the tap.

2. There are channels that I don't watch too often and wouldn't select a la carte but do watch from time to time. (Like the History channel last night!)

3. A la carte would favor established popular channels and would kill any new and niche channels.

I wouldn't mind theme packs though.

DUmping niche channels is what a la carte is all about. These nonsense channels are being subsidized by conumers while being held over a barrel.
Let those who want niche channels pay for them. Problem solved.
QUite frankly the majority of viewers would rather pay a higher per channel price so that they don;t have to deal with a guide full of stuff they don't want.
I think the idea of "theme packs" would work best.
This way niche viewers would at least have choices to see and pay for what they wish.
The subsidizing has to stop, though.

 

[navychop]

I believe the most heavily subsidized are the sports channels. Expensive, for every sub, even though probably most subs don't watch. Remember, not everybody follows sports closely.

 

[dishcomm]

I believe the most heavily subsidized are the sports channels. Expensive, for every sub, even though probably most subs don't watch. Remember, not everybody follows sports closely.

How do you maintain that belief in the face of ESPN being in over 100 million tv households.
Look, no matter how hard certain people wish( especially those who need a plathora of children's prgramming to replace their inability to entertain their kids) sports programming is an intergral part of pay tv and isn't going anywhere. Always has been, always will.
Looking at tv ratings, the facts do not agree with yout premise that " most subs probably don't watch"....
We thought there was a major howl of protest when Lifetime Nets and Dish had their dispute.....Watch what would happen if ESPN disappeared.....Ploughshares into pitchforks...No question about it.

 

[navychop]

"Being in" and "being watched" are two different things. ESPN may be there because it's part of a pack that includes other items wanted. I'm always amazed at how sports fans think "everybody" is a fan. I recall some study that found, very roughly, about a third of the population (adult population?) followed sports closely, a third casually, and a third not at all.

Yep, pulling sports would cause a major outcry. But I never watch, and I keep hearing it costs me maybe $4 or so a month to subsidize other people watching it. So in an a la Carte scenario, how many would choose to NOT sub to sports? It's not just the non sports programming that would increase in price, which is my point.

 

[whatchel1]

Me me

"Being in" and "being watched" are two different things. ESPN may be there because it's part of a pack that includes other items wanted. I'm always amazed at how sports fans think "everybody" is a fan. I recall some study that found, very roughly, about a third of the population (adult population?) followed sports closely, a third casually, and a third not at all.

Yep, pulling sports would cause a major outcry. But I never watch, and I keep hearing it costs me maybe $4 or so a month to subsidize other people watching it. So in an a la Carte scenario, how many would choose to NOT sub to sports? It's not just the non sports programming that would increase in price, which is my point.

I would be 1 of those people cause I don't give a RAT's A about dat what's it called again? Oh yeah spurts.

 

[Bob Haller]

me neither sports went from being a sport to a bunch of millionaire owners fielding a bunch of millionaire exhibionists pretending to play in stadiums paid for by taxpayers.......

the only sport left is how much can we get from the people watching....

 

[MikeD-C05]

NEVER ever watch sports and would truly love it if I could drop ALL of them and save some $$$$$$$$$. ESPN exhorts every sub in the country out of money, by forcing carriage of their channels in the lowest pack you can sub ,whether satellite or cable customer. Do you ever wonder why DISH did away with the Family pack for new subs? I am betting that Directv will follow suit and drop their family pack too. They drive the price increases every time they come up for renewal. THEME packs for sports , family, education & news, Variety etc would be the way to go . IF you want sports YOU pay for it. IF you don't want sports you don't have to.

 

[dishcomm]

"Being in" and "being watched" are two different things. ESPN may be there because it's part of a pack that includes other items wanted. I'm always amazed at how sports fans think "everybody" is a fan. I recall some study that found, very roughly, about a third of the population (adult population?) followed sports closely, a third casually, and a third not at all.

Yep, pulling sports would cause a major outcry. But I never watch, and I keep hearing it costs me maybe $4 or so a month to subsidize other people watching it. So in an a la Carte scenario, how many would choose to NOT sub to sports? It's not just the non sports programming that would increase in price, which is my point.

.....Ok, I se you've decided to sharpen the old Chicago Cutlery filet knife to do some serious hair splitting.
And I see with this quote "But I never watch" you appear to have an anti-sports agenda.
You post well, but don't have a lot of facts to back up your assertions.
Ratings don't lie. You don't watch sports? You're in the minority then.
BTW I never said nor did I imply "everybody is a fan".....The fact that you think "ESPN is just there" kind of leaves me scratching my head. ESPN is THE most expensive service on a per sub basis of any pay tv service. One would think if it were as unpopular as you say( remember you stated "most probably don't watch"), then why would the providers not play hardball with Disney on rates?. The answer is simple. No cable or satellite service provider would dare even THINK of excluding The ESPN"s from their lineups. Such a move would have serious adverse effects on that company's bottom line.
So while you don't like sports and probably would not lose a wink of sleep if they disappeared from pay tv, the fact of the matter is , non-sports fans will have to deal with the fact that these services are here to stay. And if it comes to the point where a pay tv subscription is a bad investment for them because they think they are subsidizing other viewers, then those individuals have the choice to go OTA and drop all pay tv..
As I previously stated, I think "theme packs" are the best idea going.
Oh. One more thing...About that study you mentioned. What it found is that 2/3's of those queried stated they were at least a casual sports fan......
Look, I have no issue with those who wish to watch tv in their own niche. However there are only so mamy providers to choose from.
Perhaps in the near future some sort of internet based tv will become available so that we all have other choices. This may clear up this a la carte vs no way a la catre thing.
Good evening to you.

 

[dishcomm]

me neither sports went from being a sport to a bunch of millionaire owners fielding a bunch of millionaire exhibionists pretending to play in stadiums paid for by taxpayers.......

the only sport left is how much can we get from the people watching....

No college sports?

 

[dishcomm]

NEVER ever watch sports and would truly love it if I could drop ALL of them and save some $$$$$$$$$. ESPN exhorts every sub in the country out of money, by forcing carriage of their channels in the lowest pack you can sub ,whether satellite or cable customer. Do you ever wonder why DISH did away with the Family pack for new subs? I am betting that Directv will follow suit and drop their family pack too. They drive the price increases every time they come up for renewal. THEME packs for sports , family, education & news, Variety etc would be the way to go . IF you want sports YOU pay for it. IF you don't want sports you don't have to.

Theme packs... I agree. Also agree with
paying for what one watches. That MUST apply to niche channel viewers as well.
There seems to be an attack on sports programming here among a few posters who have an agenda. So be it.
I remember the cascade of complaints and whining about Dish dropping the VOOM services.
That was a classic case of this issue. A group of seldomly viewed niche channels were dropped because they simply took up more satellite space then their return value. Bottom line stuff.

 

[Bob Haller]

No college sports?

even college sports are making big bucks in unique ways. besides the players are just millionaires in training

futher many kids suffer long term from playing football in high school.

thats a form of child abuse the kids arent old enough to understand the risk they are taking.......

 

[MikeD-C05]

Theme packs... I agree. Also agree with
paying for what one watches. That MUST apply to niche channel viewers as well.
There seems to be an attack on sports programming here among a few posters who have an agenda. So be it.
I remember the cascade of complaints and whining about Dish dropping the VOOM services.
That was a classic case of this issue. A group of seldomly viewed niche channels were dropped because they simply took up more satellite space then their return value. Bottom line stuff.

I agree with niche channel paying more if you want it . But there is no other basic cable channels that I know of that charge up to $4.00 per subscriber and force carriage bundling like ESPN does. If you want Disney , you have to take Espn. IF you want Disney and Espn you have to take ABC. And if you forgot the whole thing with DISH and Disney/Espn/Abc Family - dropping their hd feeds from DISH , because they want to be paid twice for their hd & sd feeds. Once again this company of channels is trying to extort more money from all subs. It isn't just sports I don't like, it is ANY company who keeps trying to force me to pay more for the same programming every year. They are going to force themselves right out of business. Internet tv will bring some ala carte choices, I predict. Google tv will help a lot of DISH subs see their choices in regards to internet content much better ,when it comes out.

 

[dishcomm]

even college sports are making big bucks in unique ways. besides the players are just millionaires in training

futher many kids suffer long term from playing football in high school.

thats a form of child abuse the kids arent old enough to understand the risk they are taking.......

Please spare me the "oh my God we cannot possibly have competition" PC nonsense..
Yes, let's ban competitive sports. In fatc let's ban ALL competition. Someone may get their feelings dented.
OH and while we're at it, since you appear ot have a thing about people that earn high salaries, why don't we just ban all forms of profit and get rid of capitalism and the entrpereneurial spirit. We will place our precious little cupcakes in Lexan bubbles and keep them from all risk. .....WTF....Look, spare me a response as well. Cuz I am not reading any more of your nonsense.

 

[dishcomm]

I agree with niche channel paying more if you want it . But there is no other basic cable channels that I know of that charge up to $4.00 per subscriber and force carriage bundling like ESPN does. If you want Disney , you have to take Espn. IF you want Disney and Espn you have to take ABC. And if you forgot the whole thing with DISH and Disney/Espn/Abc Family - dropping their hd feeds from DISH , because they want to be paid twice for their hd & sd feeds. Once again this company of channels is trying to extort more money from all subs. It isn't just sports I don't like, it is ANY company who keeps trying to force me to pay more for the same programming every year. They are going to force themselves right out of business. Internet tv will bring some ala carte choices, I predict. Google tv will help a lot of DISH subs see their choices in regards to internet content much better ,when it comes out.

ABC is a network. Must carry. Ok, your argument is flailing a bit You have already made your point very clear. You don't like sports. You watch other stuff and based on your responses I believe you are a niche channel viewer. Hence the mention of the $4 per sub fee for ESPN.
I'm not interested in nor does this discussion have anything to do with the HD channels. To my knowledge was apparently wirtten into a contract. So be it. Do I think it's right for this "double dipping" Hell no. Can I do something about it? Yep, I refuse to buy HD programming until it costs me ZERO extra to get it. Lifetime HD from Dish is a step in the right direction. However as long as Disney continues to fleece cusomers, forget it. Screw them.
Programming and production costs rise each year. Rate increases are a cold hard fact of life. If pay tv becomes a budget buster for some, they need to reduce their channel purchases or eliminate pay tv altogether. Pay tv is NOT an entitlement.
If enough of us say "no more' perhaps the compnaies in question will get this message that we are not going to continue paying higher rates.
Let's face it , pay tv is expensive. And as it becomes more of a luxury, fewer of us will have the means to buy it. It's that simple.
WHen a product becomes in less demand due a higher than accpetable price, demand decreases and therefore prices will follow.
With internet based tv on it's way, the current business model for pay tv will change. For the consumer, it will represent another choice. Competition in the marketplace always results in lower cost to the consumer.

 

[Dishman Dan]

Just Jumped In!

I did not read all of this thread but it caught my attention!

Back in 2000 I had Dish Network and they did offer a la carte option for a while back then. I watched the "big" $29 package for a couple of months and figured what channels I liked and watched. When I went to activate the a la carte, it was not offered anymore! It was, if I remember right, like 10 channels for $15 which was still better than a supersized package that I did not want. With todays technology it seems like this would not be too much to ask for.

I think that there should be more package options available too. If you want movies you get movies, if you want sports you get sports, etc. Back then you could subscribe to just a movie package (On DirecTv) without having a basic $49 package as a base price and then adding the movies on top of that.

 

[TalonDancer]

.....Ok, I se you've decided to sharpen the old Chicago Cutlery filet knife to do some serious hair splitting.
And I see with this quote "But I never watch" you appear to have an anti-sports agenda. ....

And it is equally obvious that you have a pro-sports and anti "niche" channel agenda.

The beauty of a la carte is that the chips could fall where they may. Sports fans could have and pay for what they want to watch and "niche" fans could have and pay for what they want to watch. And neither one would be subsidizing the other.

FWIW I'd be happy to be able to drop ALL dedicated sports channels and apply that part of my subscriber fees to supporting the non-sports channels. In fact, I'd be happy to pay a little extra just to tell the programmers and providers how serious I am about supporting the channels I DO want to watch.

Talon Dancer

 

[Greg Bimson]

The beauty of a la carte is that the chips could fall where they may. Sports fans could have and pay for what they want to watch and "niche" fans could have and pay for what they want to watch. And neither one would be subsidizing the other.

That's strange. I'm a DirecTV customer, and I pay a monthly fee for Total Choice Plus.

What am I subsidizing?

Just because I may not watch all of the channels in the package doesn't mean I'm subsidizing anyone.

It seems to me people are worrying about something they have no control over.

 

[TalonDancer]

That's strange. I'm a DirecTV customer, and I pay a monthly fee for Total Choice Plus.

What am I subsidizing?

Just because I may not watch all of the channels in the package doesn't mean I'm subsidizing anyone.

It seems to me people are worrying about something they have no control over.

Then I suggest you sign up for DirecTV's Premier package ASAP.

Seriously the assumption about 'subsidies' is that this is essentially a zero sum game -- IOW the programmers expect a certain return on their investment independent of the number of subscribers. So as the number of subs to a particular channel decreases, the cost/remaining sub to that channel increases. Obviously this is not precisely true. But it is close. And probably explains the 'package' business model of lumping low interest channels in with higher interest channels at each package level.

Talon Dancer

 

[MikeD-C05]

And it is equally obvious that you have a pro-sports and anti "niche" channel agenda.

The beauty of a la carte is that the chips could fall where they may. Sports fans could have and pay for what they want to watch and "niche" fans could have and pay for what they want to watch. And neither one would be subsidizing the other.

FWIW I'd be happy to be able to drop ALL dedicated sports channels and apply that part of my subscriber fees to supporting the non-sports channels. In fact, I'd be happy to pay a little extra just to tell the programmers and providers how serious I am about supporting the channels I DO want to watch.

Talon Dancer

My sentiments exactly. :up:up:up

 

[MikeD-C05]

ABC is a network. Must carry. Ok, your argument is flailing a bit You have already made your point very clear. You don't like sports. You watch other stuff and based on your responses I believe you are a niche channel viewer. Hence the mention of the $4 per sub fee for ESPN.
I'm not interested in nor does this discussion have anything to do with the HD channels. To my knowledge was apparently wirtten into a contract. So be it. Do I think it's right for this "double dipping" Hell no. Can I do something about it? Yep, I refuse to buy HD programming until it costs me ZERO extra to get it. Lifetime HD from Dish is a step in the right direction. However as long as Disney continues to fleece cusomers, forget it. Screw them.
Programming and production costs rise each year. Rate increases are a cold hard fact of life. If pay tv becomes a budget buster for some, they need to reduce their channel purchases or eliminate pay tv altogether. Pay tv is NOT an entitlement.
If enough of us say "no more' perhaps the compnaies in question will get this message that we are not going to continue paying higher rates.
Let's face it , pay tv is expensive. And as it becomes more of a luxury, fewer of us will have the means to buy it. It's that simple.
WHen a product becomes in less demand due a higher than accpetable price, demand decreases and therefore prices will follow.
With internet based tv on it's way, the current business model for pay tv will change. For the consumer, it will represent another choice. Competition in the marketplace always results in lower cost to the consumer.

IT is obvious you have an anti -niche and pro sports agenda bias. The best part of ala carte would be you could have your sports and I could have my niche channels too, if we both want to pay for it. AS for ABC it is must carry and it is also forced in bundling for companies who have to bargain in rates for Espn/Abc/Disney. They are all one programming pack and they force higher rates on EVERYONE because of the forced bundling. IF you want Espn you have to take Disney and ABC too. This is something that DISH has tried to get changed in congress but the idea hasn't taken hold ,yet.

Whether you want to talk about HD or not this same company is trying to extort more money out of existing subs forcing double payment for HD feeds that you already pay for SD feeds. A dangerous precedent that if allowed to exist will be copied by all companies forcing our bills to double and the whole cable/sat model to fail . People will NOT pay double for the channels in hd and sd. THe $10.00 fee was easier to understand when HD was new and often was called a tech fee at Directv. But HD is the norm now and a separate fee can't be justified any longer.

Even Craig Moffett a senor analyst in an article at Multi channel news is saying that the media industry is "intractably addicted to price increases" and where will the money come to pay for them. He says that the price of programming and retransmission consent have helped boost the cost of expanded basic to a cost of $60.00" at a time when the average family at the bottom quintile spends just $50.00 on all media".


As for competition in the market place , if you mean that then ala-carte is true competition. IF you charge to much for your channels people will stop subscribing to them forcing lower prices for the rest of us . IF you charge to much in the market place you sell less and people go elsewhere. Real capitalistic free market competition is the goal of ala-carte. I think you are afraid without the rest of us being forced to pay for Espn and other sports channels in our basic programming , you would see your rate for sports ala -carte skyrocket and thus your pro sports agenda is revealed in all of your comments.