Please--if a la carte were the case we'd pay more for even fewer channels than we have now.
Glad Scott explained his position. Hopefully Dish and Fox (and maybe Disney) will kiss and make up in a week or two. :up
A Note to FOX
- Thread starter Scott Greczkowski
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 64
- Views 16K
Please--if a la carte were the case we'd pay more for even fewer channels than we have now.
Glad Scott explained his position. Hopefully Dish and Fox (and maybe Disney) will kiss and make up in a week or two. :up
Really, what makes you think that?
Would there be less channels? Maybe. Those channels that are less popular might die. Higher cost? I don't think so. You are paying for channels you don't watch, yes? If you dropped those channels, your bill would not go up, but down. The networks would not necessarily be dealing with DISH NETWORK or the other carriers, but you. If they [the networks] are trying to rape TV subscribers, who is going to let them, you?
Currently, I am in the Top 200 package w/ HBO and Showtime after downgrading from the everything pak in January. Out of those 200, I might watch 30. The Top 200 does not include all channels I would like, and if I want them I would need to spend another $30-$40 just to add the dozen or so channels I would like to get back.
So, you think that if I picked out the 40-50 channels I do watch, channels that I bet the majority would also want, that I would pay a premium for that? I don't think so, Tim!
I am not willing to settle, but you obviously are - which is why everyone pays for channels they don't want. I suppose when you order a steak in a restaurant, and get pasta, you pay for that pasta and leave the restaurant without eating it?
Would there be less channels? Maybe. Those channels that are less popular might die. Higher cost? I don't think so. You are paying for channels you don't watch, yes? If you dropped those channels, your bill would not go up, but down. The networks would not necessarily be dealing with DISH NETWORK or the other carriers, but you. If they [the networks] are trying to rape TV subscribers, who is going to let them, you?
Currently, I am in the Top 200 package w/ HBO and Showtime after downgrading from the everything pak in January. Out of those 200, I might watch 30. The Top 200 does not include all channels I would like, and if I want them I would need to spend another $30-$40 just to add the dozen or so channels I would like to get back.
So, you think that if I picked out the 40-50 channels I do watch, channels that I bet the majority would also want, that I would pay a premium for that? I don't think so, Tim!
I am not willing to settle, but you obviously are - which is why everyone pays for channels they don't want. I suppose when you order a steak in a restaurant, and get pasta, you pay for that pasta and leave the restaurant without eating it?
Please--if a la carte were the case we'd pay more for even fewer channels than we have now.
Glad Scott explained his position. Hopefully Dish and Fox (and maybe Disney) will kiss and make up in a week or two. :up
Last edited:
A-la-cart prices were very reasonable when compared to package pricing back in the analog C-band hayday. There's really no reason to think it would be different now.
Right now, we have to pay for 120 (or more) channels to get the 4 or 5 that we want. If we could just buy the 4 or 5 that we want, there's no way that it would cost as much as the 120 or more channels... and most of us would never miss the rest.
If we could do a-la-cart, there's a lot of crap channels that would (an should) die off. These channels are artificially propped up in packages. That's money that you pay for channels you don't watch or want. Many times, these outfits use your money to do things you don't support, or defeat things that you do support. How's that feel?
As far as the Google ads... Fox can't expect a site to allow them to dominate the ad space if no one clicks on them. It's not like Fox pays Sat Guys to put 'em up... they pay Google. Google only pays Sat Guys for the clicks. No clicks... no motivation to let them gobble up the ad space. It's really just about the math.
Cheers
You don't think it would be different ? That's laughable... Today the networks will NOT allow a provider to have just (1) channel. Unless the gov't gets involved and makes the rules so that the customer benefits .... Haha ! Haha ! Haha ! Hold on while I stop laughing... Imagine that, the gov't doing something good for the people vs big-business !! Haha ! Haha ! Haha ! I'm sorry, I don't think I'll be able to stop laughing...
I have AEP right now. Outside of HBO/SHO there only only 5 channels in 250 that I watch on any regular basis (Syfy, USA, FX, Nat Geo, HGTV). Add a possible 10 more that I watch every now and then (news, discovery channels, etc). I would definitely save money if I could just pay for 5 or so TV channels. I would probably go for 10, outside of that I would not miss the bill.
I would bet most people are less than 10 channels (outside of locals) in regular viewing.
I am waiting for all this dust to settle and will see what Dish is doing with packages and equipment next year. I doubt I will remain AEP, the only reason I had AEP is really the savings it used to offer, and I had credits.
The only way a la carte would happen is if enough people got unhappy with their bills that congress finally was able to overcome the big company lobbists. But, given the current political climate, cable TV rates and a la carte are pretty far down on the list.
I would bet most people are less than 10 channels (outside of locals) in regular viewing.
I am waiting for all this dust to settle and will see what Dish is doing with packages and equipment next year. I doubt I will remain AEP, the only reason I had AEP is really the savings it used to offer, and I had credits.
The only way a la carte would happen is if enough people got unhappy with their bills that congress finally was able to overcome the big company lobbists. But, given the current political climate, cable TV rates and a la carte are pretty far down on the list.
Please--if a la carte were the case we'd pay more for even fewer channels than we have now.
Glad Scott explained his position. Hopefully Dish and Fox (and maybe Disney) will kiss and make up in a week or two. :up
Yes, But, they would be the channels we want and NOT a bunch of channels we don't want.
This whole mess reminds me of how the record companies became so greedy they gradually killed their golden goose.
Force consumers to buy an entire albumn of songs just to get 1 good song that they really want.
When technology, the internet, made it possible to just buy that 1 song the record companies howled, sued, cajoled, and threatened.
But in the end, the technology provides an end run around them.
That's what is coming to TV services too; They just want to delay that day as long as possible.
I do not have any subscription services. Checking the listings, there are only 3 or 4 I would want in the largest packages that I do not get FTA. I do not have a problem with what you want, you can pay for it - if you want it.
And if you care about it, I can only get 3 OTA stations here, and the strongest one happens to be the FOX station - and it is 125 miles from here.
I guess I do not understand the problem, Charlie has not changed. I like FOX. The network I would subscribe to - if I could get it - is the HOTEL network. But that comment is not on topic, sorry.
POP
And if you care about it, I can only get 3 OTA stations here, and the strongest one happens to be the FOX station - and it is 125 miles from here.
I guess I do not understand the problem, Charlie has not changed. I like FOX. The network I would subscribe to - if I could get it - is the HOTEL network. But that comment is not on topic, sorry.
POP
The trouble with that statement is what I said in my last post - people are too willing to settle. Sitting around in front of a computer monitor downloading porn is so much more important than standing up for something you believe in.
Furthermore, government does noting because people don't make them. Politicians want to keep their jobs - and you let them. Be an activist - advocate for something.
The networks... who cares what they want. The networks Need viewers, and in an A La Carte world they would not have any viewers if the consumer was forced to take bundled channels or, if the price was not right. Nobody is forced to pay for TV, but if you choose to pay for it, you should not be forced to pay for channels you could care less about.
Also, there is not much choice to begin with. If you live in an area that does not have cable, then your choices are DirecTV and Dish Network - and they are not that much different. If you have access to cable, you might not have a choice between cable companies. So, all-in-all, we are getting screwed. As Anony55 said, things have changed since Analog c-band. What is different is you have less choice because the networks, and carriers, changed their business model to benefit them, not the subscriber.
Last edited:
Not that it's there yet, but let's not turn this into a political thread. Remember the rules.
Thanks for your understanding.
Thanks for your understanding.
It would all just depend on "how" a-la-cart came about. There are 2 ways I could see it happening (and neither are very likely). 1, the feds take the heavy-handed appoach and step in & make it happen or 2, the customers demand it & bail in mass if they don't get it.
If a-la-cart was a result of #2, then yes, the pricing structure (not levels) would very likely be similar to the C-band days. Unfortunately, pay TV is like a drug that far too many are addicted to... so they'd never cut the cord. #2 won't happen because of us, not them.
In any event, I'm glad you got a good chuckle. Everyone deserves to laugh now and then.
Cheers
I don't know of a practical or feasible way for "us" to make it happen though. If there's a way, let me/us know ! I'm not anti-a-la-carte by any means. I just don't see it working a) the way too many people think it will, i.e. paying $.25/mo for a channel or b) without the gov't getting involved. And rest assured, I really don't want more gov't involvement...
Face it, where can "we" bail too ? E* raises rates year after year. D* raises rates year after year. It goes without saying that the cablecos raise rates...
People don't "bail". Well, very, very few actually do and if they're just switching to another provider who'll raise rates, what's the gain ? Unless people switch to OTA, it won't make an impact.
They're Back
And it says "Get the Facts from Fox". NO - It should be "Get the SPIN from Fox"
Exactly. The only "bail to" destination is one that most won't go to. OTA, FTA, & Netflix is good enough for some of us... but not enough to make a dent. That's why the likelyhood of it happening isn't very high.
It's hard to blame Grandma for wanting to see her favorite show... or Grandpa for his favorite game. They've got us hooked, and now they are reaping the benefits. That seems to be the reality of it... for now anyway.
But if the numbers fall far enough, you never know, Dish might bring back the $24.99 Family Pack.
Cheers
I don't know of a practical or feasible way for "us" to make it happen though. If there's a way, let me/us know ! I'm not anti-a-la-carte by any means. I just don't see it working a) the way too many people think it will, i.e. paying $.25/mo for a channel or b) without the gov't getting involved. And rest assured, I really don't want more gov't involvement...
Face it, where can "we" bail too ? E* raises rates year after year. D* raises rates year after year. It goes without saying that the cablecos raise rates...
What do you think you are paying per month now?
IMHO, paying $1-$1.50 per channel is not totally unreasonable. I just want to choose the channels.
I just checked and out of the 200 channels in the top 200 + the channels in the HD package, I watch about 50. $50/month is a good price. I could create a nice package for $100-$120/month including movie channels.
If you took the top 200 package, which is $54.99/month, and used the 50 channel example above, you would be paying about $1.10 per channel. A Forbes article suggests that FX charges $.42 per sub per month.
[Looks like Cablevision subs might be in the same boat as Dish subs]
Last edited:
Has anyone seen this?
"Please know that DISH Network continues to negotiate with FOX. FOX is trying to scare viewers by threatening to take away the World Series and other local FOX TV programming, a tactic they've been using in ads. DISH Network has yet to receive a proposal from FOX that would equal anything but an overly excessive rate increase. The two sides are continuing to negotiate and we are hopeful we can reach a fair deal.
On Oct. 1, FOX Networks blocked its regional sports channels from DISH Network satellite TV customers and is demanding an outrageous rate increase in order to restore the programming, depriving millions of viewers their regional sports.
Last week, public interest groups, including the American Television Alliance, Independent Telephone & Telecommunications Alliance and the Sports Fans Coalition, have publicly voiced their support for DISH Network and are imploring FOX to consider what is best for consumers. The groups strongly urge FOX to discontinue its practice of blocking access to programming while negotiations continue after contracts expire."
"Please know that DISH Network continues to negotiate with FOX. FOX is trying to scare viewers by threatening to take away the World Series and other local FOX TV programming, a tactic they've been using in ads. DISH Network has yet to receive a proposal from FOX that would equal anything but an overly excessive rate increase. The two sides are continuing to negotiate and we are hopeful we can reach a fair deal.
On Oct. 1, FOX Networks blocked its regional sports channels from DISH Network satellite TV customers and is demanding an outrageous rate increase in order to restore the programming, depriving millions of viewers their regional sports.
Last week, public interest groups, including the American Television Alliance, Independent Telephone & Telecommunications Alliance and the Sports Fans Coalition, have publicly voiced their support for DISH Network and are imploring FOX to consider what is best for consumers. The groups strongly urge FOX to discontinue its practice of blocking access to programming while negotiations continue after contracts expire."
You I have contacted Google as they are getting around the block now...
If you see them then click on them.
Most people don't think they'll pay that much. They take today's offerings, i.e. AT120 for $40/mo and do the math ... $.33 per channel or AT200 for $55/mo ... $.27 per channel.
The way it works today is any channel in AT120, for example, has millions of potential viewers. They negotiate their rates based on potential viewers too, not actual ones. If a la carte existed, the provider will tell the network "x customers subscribed to your channel this month" and pay them accordingly. Rest assured, channel's profits will change dramatically !
Its completely unreasonable to pay that for FOX which is available off air for free. Its even more unreasonable when that $1 or so is for them to be forced on every Dish subscriber. Thats not a la carte pricing. I promise you that if we ever do get a la carte TV service the per channel pricing will go way way up.
Similar threads
