cable/satelite alacart setback
- Thread starter Juan
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 28
- Views 4K
Ala carte would be a nightmare.
Program providers are charged varying amounts for each program they resell to their customers. Let say program A charges .50 per subscriber per month (PSPM) Program B charges .15. These numbers are all based on channel ratings and other industry factors. If a program provider had to offer the programming Ala carte, they would not charge the same rate for each channel. Now lets say there is a channel that is charging .20 PSPM. Since it is so close to the .15 PSPM channel, the provider will simply charge the customer the same for each channel. They will charge the consumer as if both channels cost them .20 PSPM. The consumer will pay more for those channels. Even in an Ala carte format, consumers will more for the programming they want. The increased cost in billing alone would be enormous.
Then there is the programming companies. CNN is not for sale to any program provider Ala carte. They must also take CNN/HN, and TBS. Viacom keeps their programming in bundles as well. They would have to be forced to sell the programming Ala carte to the program providers. That changes cross channel marketing strategies and potentially lowers advertising revenue.
The networks would also have to be made available Ala carte. If a consumer does not watch CBS and only wants ABC, FOX and NBC, do you think CBS is going to be happy? They would fight tooth and nail to be seen in that household.
For cable you could only do this set top boxes on each TV. Everyone would have to have new equipment.
Ala carte is not the answer for consumers. The answer is choice in selecting the program provider that offers the best packaging, quality and services to meet your needs.
If you leave Cable for satellite over price, tell them. If you leave satellite for cable over PQ, then tell them that.
Program providers are charged varying amounts for each program they resell to their customers. Let say program A charges .50 per subscriber per month (PSPM) Program B charges .15. These numbers are all based on channel ratings and other industry factors. If a program provider had to offer the programming Ala carte, they would not charge the same rate for each channel. Now lets say there is a channel that is charging .20 PSPM. Since it is so close to the .15 PSPM channel, the provider will simply charge the customer the same for each channel. They will charge the consumer as if both channels cost them .20 PSPM. The consumer will pay more for those channels. Even in an Ala carte format, consumers will more for the programming they want. The increased cost in billing alone would be enormous.
Then there is the programming companies. CNN is not for sale to any program provider Ala carte. They must also take CNN/HN, and TBS. Viacom keeps their programming in bundles as well. They would have to be forced to sell the programming Ala carte to the program providers. That changes cross channel marketing strategies and potentially lowers advertising revenue.
The networks would also have to be made available Ala carte. If a consumer does not watch CBS and only wants ABC, FOX and NBC, do you think CBS is going to be happy? They would fight tooth and nail to be seen in that household.
For cable you could only do this set top boxes on each TV. Everyone would have to have new equipment.
Ala carte is not the answer for consumers. The answer is choice in selecting the program provider that offers the best packaging, quality and services to meet your needs.
If you leave Cable for satellite over price, tell them. If you leave satellite for cable over PQ, then tell them that.
I would love to see more satellite TV channels available ala carte. The technology is not a problem with satellite. Who cares if there are different prices for different
channels offered? When I go to the grocery store, I don't expect to pay exactly the same price for each item I purchase! If we believe in free markets, then let the market dictate what each channel is worth. Consumers would have the flexibility of deciding which channels they want--or don't want--to purchase.
Bundles or packages could be offered at a discount, and many customers would choose them.
If you had honest-to-goodness competition between two or more satellite providers, there would be some pressure to not overcharge for channels relative to what they pay for them.
Market pressure would force companies like CNN to make their programming available ala carte--If you could buy Fox News and CNBC ala carte, many consumers would not buy CNN unless it was also available ala carte. In order to remain competitive, CNN would have to change their stance.
Of course, many of the lesser channels that are now forced to be included by companies like CNN might well not be able to survive under the ala carte scenario. This would not necessarily be a bad thing, IMO. We could stand to sacrifice the number of channels to improve the quality of what is offered.
Who gets that charged up about a package of 100 channels of which you only watch 10-12? Even if the total cost was only a buck or two less, I would rather
pick just the 10-12.
They won't be $1 apiece.
The infrastructure must still be paid for. Somehow, some way, we will only pay more, and lose channels in the process.
TANSTAAFL
The infrastructure must still be paid for. Somehow, some way, we will only pay more, and lose channels in the process.
TANSTAAFL
Last edited:
This would NOT be a problem for their system. All they would have to do is have consumers go online to order the programming or make a programming change. If the person does not have the internet then they can pickup a brochure of the number next to the channels that they want and enter those in on the phone system. Dish could still apply a fee for changing the channels that you have as it would cost them to keep their systems going and perhaps a minimal fee that they would charge as a company to get access to their service.
If we had ala carte we would see those channels try to offer better programming. The quality would get better. When IPTV happens we will be more likely to see ala carte than now as you could order those channels directly off of the company instead of a middle man like Dish/Direct/cable. Those companies would make more money but still be cheaper than the middle man. A program could allow you to access the channels from all of those different sites (like a media player system). This is probably as close to ala carte as you will get as they will probably offer all the channels that they offer for one set price per month and perhaps offer more than you can get now and on demand functions and enhancements.
If we had ala carte we would see those channels try to offer better programming. The quality would get better. When IPTV happens we will be more likely to see ala carte than now as you could order those channels directly off of the company instead of a middle man like Dish/Direct/cable. Those companies would make more money but still be cheaper than the middle man. A program could allow you to access the channels from all of those different sites (like a media player system). This is probably as close to ala carte as you will get as they will probably offer all the channels that they offer for one set price per month and perhaps offer more than you can get now and on demand functions and enhancements.
I kind of like what StarChoice does...a combination of programming packs, program groups, and a fair number of al a carte options. I just think it is very unfair for someone to pay ESPN programming rates when they don't even watch sports.
If they had ala carte or theme packages I would still have D* I canned them because I was paying 60 bucks a month and not watching 3/4 of the channels and we mostly watch networks anyway...and thats what I told them when I cancelled. We used to have ala carte on the big dish before D* & E* and all the packages (you could get a package if you wanted one) and to be truthful programming was better. When there was only 1 or 2 HBO's it was better, now you get 5 or 6 HBO's and its not worth it (I use HBO as an example but all the pay services with the possible exception of Starz are the same).
I think Starz has the best movies myself and I tell customers this. I am told that Showtime has a lot of repeats (been told that for years). I know all are going to have repeats if you watch them long enough. Best thing to do is just record a bunch of stuff from the movie package on a DVR then cancel it once your done recording a bunch of movies then order the movie package again when you need to get more movies.
Both providers have a very reasonable "family pack" just for this circumstance.
I think Ala Carte is lame because as stated, you pay more for less due to the infrastructure. I would like to see a provider put to a democracy, however, as we all witnessed VoOm feel like a brick as a provider. I just think that may par it down to one shopping channel.
The Family Pack is a poor example. It doesn't include many of the most popular channels.
What is needed is a selection of "mini-packs". For instance. News Pack with CNN/HNN/FNC/CNBC/MSNBC/CourTV/Bloomberg; Knowledge Pack with TLC/Disc/Disc Themes/PBS/PBS Themes/Nat'l Geo/Etc; Sports Pack with Espn/ESPN2/etc. You get the picture.
I guaranfriggintee that if sports were available separately, you'd see a huge dip in subs receiving ESPN and the like. And Disney wouldn't like that. If children's channels were available separately, you'd see a dip in those subs too. Again, Disney unhappy. That is the reason you won't see it. It makes the most sense, and is the most fair to the consumer. But, the providers will do their darnedest to prevent it, barring an act of Congress.
What is needed is a selection of "mini-packs". For instance. News Pack with CNN/HNN/FNC/CNBC/MSNBC/CourTV/Bloomberg; Knowledge Pack with TLC/Disc/Disc Themes/PBS/PBS Themes/Nat'l Geo/Etc; Sports Pack with Espn/ESPN2/etc. You get the picture.
I guaranfriggintee that if sports were available separately, you'd see a huge dip in subs receiving ESPN and the like. And Disney wouldn't like that. If children's channels were available separately, you'd see a dip in those subs too. Again, Disney unhappy. That is the reason you won't see it. It makes the most sense, and is the most fair to the consumer. But, the providers will do their darnedest to prevent it, barring an act of Congress.
I agree with you GaryPen. There need to be several mini-packs like they did in Canada although I hear that they do not have as many mini-packs in Canada like they used to. When they used to have AT40 for $19.99 that was great but now that it is $29.99 its not quite as good of a value. The Family Pack is good for someone on a budget and I imagine that was the best that they could do since many channels in AT60 (soon AT100) require it to be in the basic package so they were limited to what could be put in Family Pack.
Perhaps there will be a company startup IPTV service online at a reduced cost and perhaps some channels for free using online advertisement to pay for those costs. I can see that happening. AOL has a service to get some shows on demand for free.
Perhaps there will be a company startup IPTV service online at a reduced cost and perhaps some channels for free using online advertisement to pay for those costs. I can see that happening. AOL has a service to get some shows on demand for free.
The hidden cost of ala carte would be the increased calls to the call centers. Can you imagine the confusion people would have? Using the internet would be only one small (very small) method of activation. People will call. That means a HUGE increase in call center cost. You guys may not realize the cost of call center operation, but it is very costly.
Good point. That rep in India that I always talk to, I'm sure they're paying him at least $1.00/hour.
In every one of your posts on this topic, your logic is flawed. In this case, there would be no more calls than usual, or a very minimal increase. It can be done online. (Unless you have Dish, where you can only add, and they make you call to downgrade AND charge you $5. So, it's their fault you have to call.)
Mini-packs are the best thing that could happen to cable and dbs for the consumer. Yes, the per-channel cost would be higher than now. But, the total subscription cost would go down for many, stay the same for many, and go up for only a few.
Will it be a little more difficult for the providers? Possibly. I don't care. That's their job, to provide what the consumers want, not what they want the consumers to have.
News Pack (CNN, HNN, FNC, MSNBC, CNBC, etc)
Knowledge Pack (TLC, Disc, NGC, Sci, Military, Animal, etc)
Lifestyle Pack (Food, DIY, HGTV, Lime, etc)
Entertainment Pack (probably have multiple tiers due to number of channels in this category)
Movie Pack (non-premium)
Kids Pack (Nick, Diz, Cartoon, Sprout, etc)
Sports Pack (Maybe have multiple tiers)
Locals Pack (local OTA plus RSNs)
HD Pack (as they do now)
Porn Pack (as they do now)
Various Int'l Packs (as they have now)
Various Premium Packs (as they do now)
Piece of cake, technically. Consumers would love it. Providers would hate it.
I for one would love to have an ala cart choice. There's alot of channels I don't even watch, needless for me to even have them.
The religious and shopping channels would go, they may be fine for some but not all.
Give the people a choice in what they want to watch.
The religious and shopping channels would go, they may be fine for some but not all.
Give the people a choice in what they want to watch.
You base your position on your belief that people would rather go online. You probably hang around tech savvy people. From your perspective, I can see why you would see things the way you do.
I deal with consumers all day regarding Dish Network, DirecTV, WildBlue and Hughes. Trust me, most people do not use the internet for more than email and basic information. It is true that more and more people are using the Internet, but the average person has no desire to have to go online to select programming. They would rather call, and they will call. In groves.
The more options and choices you give consumers the more confused they become. The general population of this country are idiots when it comes to computers and using the Internet.
Each system operator has a min profit they must yield from each customer. They know which percentage of their customer base will take the minimum package, and which will take the premium deal. They base their pricing on that knowledge.
ANYTHING that leads to reduction in customer cost, translates into lower profits.
Besides, the programmers would never allow it. When a programmer sets a price to a program provider (Satellite or CATV) that price is based on the number of subscribers who will see that channel. That subscriber number is vital to selling advertising space on those channels. If a consumer says, I do not want any sports, then ESPN looses one potential viewer. You add that up to hundreds of thousands and guess what? They now have to charge the provider more because the number of potential viewers is less.
It would be a mess.
Last edited:
You may be correct about people's proclivity to use the phone instead of online. However, this would only be for the initial introduction of the new packages. Hell. Dish must go through a similar increase in calls 3 times a year, the way they are always changing crap and adding new fees and introducing hardware that doesn't work right.
You are quite correct in that the programmers won't allow it. No argument there. In fact, that is the main reason we won't see this system, unless the gov't intercedes, or the consumers lead a largescale paradigm shift.
You are quite correct in that the programmers won't allow it. No argument there. In fact, that is the main reason we won't see this system, unless the gov't intercedes, or the consumers lead a largescale paradigm shift.
