I think you're assuming too much. Yes, it's a safe assumption that under a la carte, everyone would pay for fewer channels. HOWEVER, I think you're making a huge jump in saying the total cost would be less. It might for some folks, but I'm guessing as a general rule, most people will pay about the same as they're paying now.
What percentage of the American population know how it operates ? It would be a fraction of a percent....
Not out of spite per se. Like I said, it helped the argument. In general though, I try not to give money to people/companies I dislike. I don't shop at certain big box stores, etc. I try to make statements, however small, with how I spend my money.
You guys should both listen to my argument, which is of course very persuasive.If channel providers thought they could make the same money providing fewer channels, don't you think they'd jump at the chance? Of course they would. They would be even happier to get you to pay more, so the argument is even stronger in that case.
The channel providers are the experts; it's their fiduciary duty to extract the maximum amount from our wallets every chance they get. The fact that all providers fight tooth and nail to keep the present bundled regime going for as long as possible means that at least these channel providers think they'll be making less, and possibly much less, if they had to sell channels a la carte. I side with the channel providers' expertise and have to believe that the cost would be less. Not the same, and not more, but less.
DO NOT SWALLOW THE CHANNEL PROVIDER LIES on this topic. They will continue fleecing us for as long as they possibly can.
So your argument is that we don't have a la carte now is because channel providers think the best way they can make the most money is through bundling? Therefore any other way of providing content must mean making less money? Do I have that right?It would be a huge "jump" if I were just guessing as you seem to be. But we don't have to guess. We have the facts of the channel providers' behavior to tell us which is true. (See my argument above.) They really really believe that they are getting the most out of their properties by bundling lots of nearly worthless channels; that's why they do it; that's why we don't have a la carte already.
The future of tv ... could it be ... a provider not making money off of the channels but making money off of the features (DVR, HD, additional receivers, etc) plus an access fee and no more negotiation with the companies letting them set the price for their mini packs?
Yes. The best way to make money is get a large number of people to pay you a little. Own a "must-have" channel (A) that people will want to subscribe to no matter what, and then buy or launch additional semi-useful channels (B) that very few would pay for outright and make it a required part of the flagship channel carriage (or at least a minimum tier package level). That's guaranteed subscription revenue for channels (B) from everyone who wants channel (A).So your argument is that we don't have a la carte now is because channel providers think the best way they can make the most money is through bundling? Therefore any other way of providing content must mean making less money? Do I have that right?
OK. So if all of a sudden there's mandatory a la carte (which some here have proposed), what do you think the program providers will do? Take a loss? Or up their charge for channel (A)?Yes. The best way to make money is get a large number of people to pay you a little. Own a "must-have" channel (A) that people will want to subscribe to no matter what, and then buy or launch additional semi-useful channels (B) that very few would pay for outright and make it a required part of the flagship channel carriage (or at least a minimum tier package level). That's guaranteed subscription revenue for channels (B) from everyone who wants channel (A).
They will bank on the majority of people still staying with bundles, charge exorbitant carriage rates for ala carte, but then at least market forces will normalize the ala carte prices over time. If no one buys channel (B), it may die and the content from channel B would get moved over to channel A.OK. So if all of a sudden there's mandatory a la carte (which some here have proposed), what do you think the program providers will do? Take a loss? Or up their charge for channel (A)?
So your argument is that we don't have a la carte now is because channel providers think the best way they can make the most money is through bundling? Therefore any other way of providing content must mean making less money? Do I have that right?
OK. So if all of a sudden there's mandatory a la carte (which some here have proposed), what do you think the program providers will do? Take a loss? Or up their charge for channel (A)?
Really? When did this happen?H2 want from 250 to 200 and I now save 10 dollars a month
I doubt Dish really wants to lose any channels that are popular with their customers. That said, can we please stop calling CNN, MSNBC, and FOX news channels? It is insulting to news.
Am I reading that chart correctly? That the total cost for ALL channels is $45? Yet Dish et al charge $75 up to $150 for their packages? And we bitch about what the program providers are charging?
Start a business and buy widgets for, let's say, $1. To make a profit, your starting selling price will probably be $1.50, maybe even $2.00. If you sell them for $1.10/each, you won't be in business long.Am I reading that chart correctly? That the total cost for ALL channels is $45? Yet Dish et al charge $75 up to $150 for their packages? And we bitch about what the program providers are charging?
Each company owns a set of channels that we would call mini packs. If they offer their own streaming service then that is what they would offer. The providers could offer each company's set of channels and when they want a price increase let the customers choose with their wallets for that company's set of channels.
So your argument is that we don't have a la carte now is because channel providers think the best way they can make the most money is through bundling? Therefore any other way of providing content must mean making less money? Do I have that right?
Has ANY cable/satco even suggested an a la carte model to a channel provider? How do you know it's not the cable/satcos fighting a la carte? CBS is charging $6/month for their online streaming. Isn't it a safe assumption that's what they'd charge (at least) if they were going a la carte? If that's what CBS is charging, what do you think NBC, ABC, and FOX is going to charge? That's just for the "main" network programming. What do you think ESPN will charge?
I'm not a "super" user like some here. I have a 612 and a 211. I pay around $100/month when you include all the various taxes and fees. Let's say there's 20 channels I "want". If they AVERAGE $3/month, that's $60. Now throw in Dish's fees ($20-25 dollars?), you're up to $80. Add some taxes and other government fees in, and I'm paying $85-90. Woo hoo! I'm saving $15-20. But now I'm getting only 20 channels.
"Fine," you say "they can still offer the same bundles". They might. But will it be for the same cost?
You might be right, everyone may pay less under an a la carte system. But you could be wrong also. Then what? We're paying the same (or more) for less channels.
The current bundles would increase though, I understand most people now days aren't very cultured and only watch certain channels not even attempting watching others but for a family that does the current system works really well.Because virtually all of us are paying for channels we don't watch. So in an a la carte regime, we would pay for far fewer channels, and the total cost would be less even though the cost/channel would be more.
There is also no reason I can see to end the current system, so those of you who are happy with your current bundle should be able to keep it. IMHO.
And on the other (smaller) end of the spectrum, some people are cultured and discerning enough that most of the drivel being pushed nowadays is uninteresting and banal.The current bundles would increase though, I understand most people now days aren't very cultured and only watch certain channels not even attempting watching others but for a family that does the current system works really well.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?