A la Carte?

[Greg Bimson]

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

Why? I'm happy with the package I have.

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.

And I don't have a problem with that.

My problem is with the issue that somehow one believes they get to dictate how the money they spend is used by said company. Last I saw, most of us here subscribe to a package of channels offered by a multichannel provider. People are supposed to weigh the pros and cons of the offering; buying a package then complaining about it only strengthens the resolve of both the multichannel provider and the distributor.

Real capitalistic free market competition is the goal of ala-carte.

We already have "real capitalistic free market competition". The multichannel providers (cable and satellite companies) have a real stake in this as well. They created packaging so that they can be guaranteed a certain dollar amount to provide you service. So it is only fair that the programmers negotiate the best placement of their programming for their packages.

Instead, people are worried about what their multichannel provider does with their money. Once you give them your money, it is no longer yours, so why worry?

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.

I realize this isn't directed at me, but I do have to respond...

This doesn't appear to be an argument for a la carte. This appears to be an argument against sports programming in basic packages. If this was about a la carte, "basic programming" is not an argument since there wouldn't be basic programming in an a la carte environment.

 

[pabeader]

do you subscribe to QVC? No. Do you receive QVC? Most likely. Who pays for it? You.

 

[mike123abc]

do you subscribe to QVC? No. Do you receive QVC? Most likely. Who pays for it? You.

Actually you only pay for it if you want by buying something from them. Shopping channels pay to be carried.

 

[Greg Bimson]

I don't pay QVC. Never paid money to them my entire life, as I've never bought anything from them.

 

[TalonDancer]

.....
My problem is with the issue that somehow one believes they get to dictate how the money they spend is used by said company. Last I saw, most of us here subscribe to a package of channels offered by a multichannel provider. People are supposed to weigh the pros and cons of the offering; buying a package then complaining about it only strengthens the resolve of both the multichannel provider and the distributor.We already have "real capitalistic free market competition". The multichannel providers (cable and satellite companies) have a real stake in this as well. They created packaging so that they can be guaranteed a certain dollar amount to provide you service. So it is only fair that the programmers negotiate the best placement of their programming for their packages.

Instead, people are worried about what their multichannel provider does with their money. Once you give them your money, it is no longer yours, so why worry?.......

Have another drink of Kool Aid. Or maybe you are a direct descendant of Voltaire's fictional hero Candide who famously asserted that the world we live in is, by definition, "the best of all possible worlds"; so it is folly to worry about it or try to improve it. Or loosely applied to the topic of this thread -- The Sat TV business model we have now is the best of all possible business models; so why would anyone suggest an alternative.

AFAIK this thread is a poll/discussion of one such alternative business model - a la Carte.

Talon Dancer

 

[Greg Bimson]

Have another drink of Kool Aid. Or maybe you are a direct descendant of Voltaire's fictional hero Candide who famously asserted that the world we live in is, by definition, "the best of all possible worlds"; so it is folly to worry about it or try to improve it. Or loosely applied to the topic of this thread -- The Sat TV business model we have now is the best of all possible business models; so why would anyone suggest an alternative.

AFAIK this thread is a poll/discussion of one such alternative business model - a la Carte.

This is the world we live in...

Of course there is folly in trying to get "subscription TV Utopia", as most leave out the facts that directly impact their position.

I can fully admit that sports is one of the driving factors in some of the cost of subscription TV, with the caveat that it is also the most-watched programming on subscription TV. People don't realize that many people might not want to pay for their programming, and watch their channels go the way of the dodo.

Intervention. The only way to get true a la carte is through intervention. The requirement would have to make it illegal for both distributors and programmers to package their programming.

So suggest an alternative to the above that is palpable to the programmers and distributors. I guarantee you won't find one that doesn't require government intervention.

And all of this is because some people want companies to provide services to them in a fashion the consumer dictates.

The world we live in might not be, "the best of all possible worlds". But it is the starting point to get from point A (packaging) to point B (a la carte). And no one is making a cogent argument to entice any of the companies to get from A to B. If I'm likened to Candide, that's more rooted in reality than the Don Quixote's in this thread.

 

[multnomah]

I'd like to be pro-al a carte, because I think it's coming whether we like it or not. Trouble is, I don't know how it's going to work, and I haven't seen any evidence that anyone else does either, not even Charlie.

What makes me uncomfortable is my strong suspicion that we will be offered 'packages', not channels, and the probability that we will have no voice in what goes into the packages. Obviously the content providers will choose the combination that nets them the most profit. I don't share the confidence some of you have in 'free market competition' because that implies each channel would compete against every other channel, and unless that proves more profitable than packaging, it won't happen ("capitalistic free market competition" is an oxymoron).

I can see a future in which a dozen packages each cost $25 or $50, and I have one favorite channel on each of the 12. I think the content providers would like to put all of us in that situation. It would hurt DISH, but it would be extremely profitable for whichever content provider emerged on top.

I am impressed with the SD TV I have seen on Netflix, but their HD TV needs many times more bandwidth. I will believe in HD over the Internet when I see it.

Convince me I'm wrong and make my day.

 

[pabeader]

Actually you only pay for it if you want by buying something from them. Shopping channels pay to be carried.

QVC might have been a bad example. I should have said (insert usless bandwidth waster here)

 

[mike123abc]

Here is an example of a la carte on Cband Programming Center | 4DTV Programming

Note they have the pick 10 channels pack for $18.79/month or $16.93/month if you want to pay 3 months at a time.

The sports pack is 16.99/month

Here is another company with mini packs DishSupplies Home - CHOICE LAYOUT

It will probably take a new law to ever provide choices. Who knows what would be passed. I think that true a la carte will probably never happen.

 

[dishcomm]

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

Ok...let us stipulate that we're not in the third grade.
Now, you know nothing. I am NOT anti niche. Never said so. Never implied.
The issue here is those who are intersted in seldomly viewed services are in the minority. That upsets them because they feel ignored or even trampled by the rest of us. So be it.
Wah wah wah doesn't solve anything.
I thought we had reached a consensus with the idea of "theme packs"..Sheesh.
"Baliff, call the next case"...
No, I didn't like your resonse and do not need one form you. I'm out..Should you feel the need ot have the last word, be my guest.
I have unsubscribed from the thread.
Good day.

 

[TalonDancer]

...
I can fully admit that sports is one of the driving factors in some of the cost of subscription TV, with the caveat that it is also the most-watched programming on subscription TV. People don't realize that many people might not want to pay for their programming, and watch their channels go the way of the dodo......

Hmmm... Sounds you're describing subsidies to me

....
Intervention. The only way to get true a la carte is through intervention. The requirement would have to make it illegal for both distributors and programmers to package their programming.

So suggest an alternative to the above that is palpable to the programmers and distributors. I guarantee you won't find one that doesn't require government intervention.

And all of this is because some people want companies to provide services to them in a fashion the consumer dictates.

The world we live in might not be, "the best of all possible worlds". But it is the starting point to get from point A (packaging) to point B (a la carte). And no one is making a cogent argument to entice any of the companies to get from A to B. If I'm likened to Candide, that's more rooted in reality than the Don Quixote's in this thread.

FWIW I agree that it is unlikely that we will see more choices in Sat TV offerings unless the government forces more competition between the programmers. But I'll take the Don Quixote position for a moment and suggest that consumers COULD cause this change to happen without any government intervention. All it would take is a large number of Sat/Cable TV subscribers to drop back to OTA (or Locals Only) and make it clear they won't be back/ugrade until they have more choices. The one thing the programmers understand is $$$$

But as I have already posted in this and other similar threads, I don't see this as likely to happen. Sat/Cable TV subscribers are behaving like the frog in the pan of hot water where it gets hotter gradually. At first it feels good, then it becomes uncomfortable, and before they know it the water is boiling.

Talon Dancer

 

[dishcomm]

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.

I'm not anti niche. In fact I watch some niche stuff. However I rarely watch. That menas if those channels became part of another package, I wouldn't miss them.
None of us should be paying extra so others can have what they want. I am a firm believer in user fees. Use it, pay for it. Dont use it , don't pay for it. Simple. Sort of like toll roads.

ABC is even on what cable companies term "lifeline" service. With that there are no pay services to speak of. Just your locals and a couple local access and public tv channles. No Dis, no ESPN....Basic basic.
So how you make the leap to " it's packaged" is a mystery.
" 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".
MIke, calm down....In the above paragraph you repeated what I stated. You worded it differently to argue a point I am not arguing. I agree with oyu on the free market aspect.
And no, I fear nothing. I told you earlier that I think we should all pay for what we want and not pay for what we do not want. Where this "you're afraid" stuff comes from is an idea you created.
I'll state this one mor time and very clearly......I would like to see either a la carte or theme packs. I would be ........read carefully....willing to pay more for the stuff I want at the exclusion of stuff I do not want. Ok, there. Are we clear? Crystal?
As far as thge HD thing is concerned. I mad emyslef very clear on that issue. I don't sub to HD because of the Disney/ Dish dispute an because I am not going to get rid of two perfectly good working CRT tv's just to have HD. It is of little interst to me. And based on the compliants about HD and the fact that the novelty wears off, it has little value to me. ]
Now, before you shoot back with a comment that I am anti HD, NO....I am not. I CHOOSE to not have it because I don't need it.

 

[Ghpr13]

I'd like to be pro-al a carte, because I think it's coming whether we like it or not. Trouble is, I don't know how it's going to work, and I haven't seen any evidence that anyone else does either, not even Charlie.

What makes me uncomfortable is my strong suspicion that we will be offered 'packages', not channels, and the probability that we will have no voice in what goes into the packages. Obviously the content providers will choose the combination that nets them the most profit. I don't share the confidence some of you have in 'free market competition' because that implies each channel would compete against every other channel, and unless that proves more profitable than packaging, it won't happen ("capitalistic free market competition" is an oxymoron).

I can see a future in which a dozen packages each cost $25 or $50, and I have one favorite channel on each of the 12. I think the content providers would like to put all of us in that situation. It would hurt DISH, but it would be extremely profitable for whichever content provider emerged on top.

I am impressed with the SD TV I have seen on Netflix, but their HD TV needs many times more bandwidth. I will believe in HD over the Internet when I see it.

Convince me I'm wrong and make my day.

As much as I would like to see a la carte, this would be one of my fears if they went to "theme" packages instead of true a la carte. I can see where say 6 to 10 kids channels would be one package, general family stuff, another package, and so on, where getting a variety of channels for a family could end up costing more then the current way.

Ghpr13

 

[MikeD-C05]

I'm not anti niche. In fact I watch some niche stuff. However I rarely watch. That menas if those channels became part of another package, I wouldn't miss them.
None of us should be paying extra so others can have what they want. I am a firm believer in user fees. Use it, pay for it. Dont use it , don't pay for it. Simple. Sort of like toll roads.

ABC is even on what cable companies term "lifeline" service. With that there are no pay services to speak of. Just your locals and a couple local access and public tv channles. No Dis, no ESPN....Basic basic.
So how you make the leap to " it's packaged" is a mystery.
" 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".
MIke, calm down....In the above paragraph you repeated what I stated. You worded it differently to argue a point I am not arguing. I agree with oyu on the free market aspect.
And no, I fear nothing. I told you earlier that I think we should all pay for what we want and not pay for what we do not want. Where this "you're afraid" stuff comes from is an idea you created.
I'll state this one mor time and very clearly......I would like to see either a la carte or theme packs. I would be ........read carefully....willing to pay more for the stuff I want at the exclusion of stuff I do not want. Ok, there. Are we clear? Crystal?
As far as thge HD thing is concerned. I mad emyslef very clear on that issue. I don't sub to HD because of the Disney/ Dish dispute an because I am not going to get rid of two perfectly good working CRT tv's just to have HD. It is of little interst to me. And based on the compliants about HD and the fact that the novelty wears off, it has little value to me. ]
Now, before you shoot back with a comment that I am anti HD, NO....I am not. I CHOOSE to not have it because I don't need it.

Fair enough . I just get tired of PRO sports people who think that sports are the only reason we watch cable/satellite tv.

I will try one more time to explain to you want I meant about ABC. First of all Disney/ Espn- Owns Abc ,at least the network itself. All three are bundled in pricing packs for cable and satellite companies to buy. If you want just Disney , you have to take Abc and Espn channels as well. They don't allow you to break them apart. Although some contracts are negotiated and end at different times. For instance Disney /Espn News and Abc family are all up in the Hd lawsuit against DISH -thus no hd feeds of these channels. I think the contracts for Espn and Espn 2 are good till 2013 for DISH. But make no mistake they are bundled for sale to DISH and they can't take one without taking the others. Yearly price increases are making these channels go up each year and this is what causes the cable/satellite companies to have to hike your bill to pay for it.

As for ABC being must carry , that applies to must carry locals and are not what I was referring to. Yes I know if you carry one network you have to carry all of them in a market. But once again ,it wasn't what I was talking about.

To me ala carte is the way to show true capitalistic free market forces . First of all if your station doesn't get many viewers or subscribers , your channel goes away. IF you don't have the best damn programming with wide range of appeal to many people , your channel goes away. IF the truth be known , I am afraid many sports fans would be sad to know, just how many subs would drop the sports channels if they could save some $$$$.

 

[Greg Bimson]

I can fully admit that sports is one of the driving factors in some of the cost of subscription TV, with the caveat that it is also the most-watched programming on subscription TV. People don't realize that many people might not want to pay for their programming, and watch their channels go the way of the dodo......

Hmmm... Sounds you're describing subsidies to me

A subsidy is usually a form of financial assistance. These networks are receiving money from cable and satellite distributors based upon contracts they've signed; no "financial assistance" necessary.

I cannot buy Choice Plus on Dish Network nor AT120 on DirecTV. They are packaged offerings of their respective companies. The programmers negotiate for their placement in these offerings; consumers purchase based upon those offerings. DirecTV doesn't offer a Dish Network package, so why is it all the programmers fault when these cable and satellite companies make their own packaging decisions?

Again (and this isn't directed at TalonDancer) if anyone wants to see ESPN in a package other than the lowest, basic package, simply come up with an idea that generates more money for ESPN than the current scheme. Otherwise, Disney will not wilfully move ESPN out of basic. Which of course, means most are suggestig a "subsidy" from the government in the form of a mandate moving ESPN out of basic channel packages.

After all, the cable and satellite companies signed contracts which put ESPN into their most-viewed packages.

If you want just Disney , you have to take Abc and Espn channels as well. They don't allow you to break them apart.

Then why are there three different carriage contracts with three wildly different start dates?

The fact is ESPN and the ABC owned-and-operated stations are pretty much tied together, while the Disney suite and ABC Family are negotiated separately.

The reality is that many say they want a la carte, but what they actually want is the ability to pick a package and then get rid of channels they don't want from that package and expect their bill to decrease. I'm sorry, that's not a la carte. And that will never happen. EVER.

 

[pabeader]

to pick on the last paragraph of your post. i surly hope that nobody that frequents this site would think that a la carte would cost less. and i wouldn't say never...

 

[TheKrell]

i surly hope that nobody that frequents this site would think that a la carte would cost less.

I would. There is no point in paying more (for a la carte) for fewer channels, and I would hope that nobody would be stupid enough to do that. What I would do is pay more per channel, possibly much more per channel, for far fewer channels thereby lowering my bill. The providers know this; that is precisely why they hate a la carte. They are squeezing more money from us by bundling.

 

[pabeader]

unless you are trying to make a point. i WOULD pay more just for that reason!!

 

[TheKrell]

unless you are trying to make a point. i WOULD pay more just for that reason!!

I think the number of subs who would pay more total for fewer channels is vanishingly small. So your point will be lost on the providers. They will, nevertheless, be happy to take your excess cash.

 

[Scherrman]

Why can't we just be happy with what we have now? All of us here are the reason's why programming has gone up. Everyone talks on here about all the things they want and what channels Dish needs to add. "I want this, and I want that" Sounds like a bunch of little kids. You can't expect to have everything and not pay for it. A la Carte is not going to fix this either. You will still continue to pay what you think is too much for TV no matter what.

We really are turning into a HUGE nation of complainers. When will we be happy with what we have? When does it stop?