Dish HD vs Disney (DISH sort of won...)

[Scherrman]

So those packages exist for those who do not want sports. The problem is they don't carry the other channels most people want. You can never win.

 

[HDRoberts]

Cox tries those packs around here. BBCAmerica is of course stuck in a package with Lifetime, Bravo, Oxygen. They will get you either way, it just comes down to strategic placement within the packs.

And if that cost $5, I'd be OK with that (though I'd put those other in a womens pack). The biggest bang for out buck is still separating out sports.

 

[HDRoberts]

I would love to see Dish and DirecTV work together to get some leverage been then you'd have the argument of them creating a monopoly.

More people in aggregate still have some form of cable. Plus, hard to see the justice department getting upset about companies working together in a pro-consumer move (then again, lobbyist dollars buys a lot of idiocy).

 

[HDRoberts]

I actually think they can survive to a certain extent on their own. I never said they couldn't. The reason they are on the backs of everyone is because of the networks that own them. I don't think blaming sports and athletes is the right thing here, you need to be placing blame on the owners of the networks since they are the ones making the deciscions and shelling out the money.

Oh, everyone shares blame. They just pass the buck. Networks demand more money because sports broadcast contracts are high. Is that because they are bidding high, or leagues demand more because contracts are so huge?

But the bottom line is, everyone says sports is king. But the market has never decided. No one knows the real cost of sports. Like I said, there are some things on some channels I watch, but if I could save a penny by dropping those channels, I would. Sure, lots of people watch sports. But how many would give up Monday Night Football to save $6/month? The market hasn't spoken yet. But the bottom line is, if they are confident of their ratings, they should have no fears of going a la carte for sports.

 

[HDRoberts]

So those packages exist for those who do not want sports. The problem is they don't carry the other channels most people want. You can never win.

No, they don't. I can't get Fios. The Smart Pack has no HD and hardly qualifies as a modern programming pack. It exists solely to give something for people that want to drop dish in a financial crisis to go for. Dish doesn't even advertise it.

 

[Scherrman]

Oh, everyone shares blame. They just pass the buck. Networks demand more money because sports broadcast contracts are high. Is that because they are bidding high, or leagues demand more because contracts are so huge?

But the bottom line is, everyone says sports is king. But the market has never decided. No one knows the real cost of sports. Like I said, there are some things on some channels I watch, but if I could save a penny by dropping those channels, I would. Sure, lots of people watch sports. But how many would give up Monday Night Football to save $6/month? The market hasn't spoken yet. But the bottom line is, if they are confident of their ratings, they should have no fears of going a la carte for sports.

I'd like to see it happen as well. I'm curious what would actually happen. I am one that would pay for the sports, I do now with the multi sports package. Sports accounts for at least half of what my wife and I watch so it's worth the cost to me. It would be awesome for everyone to be able to watch only what they want to watch and save some money but I just don't know how it will happen.

 

[osu1991]

And if that cost $5, I'd be OK with that (though I'd put those other in a womens pack). The biggest bang for out buck is still separating out sports.

The packs were $7 or $8, last time they tried to get me try out their service. The problem is they're not going to go into a women's pack, what you and every consumer thinks is logical is not how they are going to package it. BBC America will get put in a pack of channels that is completely opposite of what it's core programming is. Bravo or some channel women want will get put in a pack with Spike or something male oriented etc..

Maybe they should try out offering packages by media conglomerate. Put all the Viacom channels in a pack, all the Scripps channels in a pack, all the Disney channels (which is about half the channels out there now) in a pack etc..

 

[dare2be]

Maybe they should try out offering packages by media conglomerate. Put all the Viacom channels in a pack, all the Scripps channels in a pack, all the Disney channels (which is about half the channels out there now) in a pack etc..

I've thought about that before. At least we consumers would have a better idea over which companies are doing the worst of the coal raking.

 

[mike123abc]

VZ has an interesting idea for FIOS that they are trying to negotiate. Essentially carry every channel but only pay providers if someone watches their channel more than 5 minutes a month. So, if you never watch ESPN VZ never pays Disney a monthly fee for ESPN for your household. It is not as transparent to the consumer as a la carte would be, but an interesting idea that will of course never happen.

http://online.wsj.com/article_email...AxMTAzMDEwNzExNDcyWj.html#articleTabs=article

Under existing arrangements, distributors like cable and satellite operators pay a monthly, per-subscriber fee to carry channels based on the number of homes in which they agree to make the channels available, regardless of how many people watch those channels.

"We are paying for a customer who never goes to the channel," Mr. Denson said.

Instead, Verizon would like to offer broad distribution of a "significant number of channels," including independent networks and smaller outlets. But each channel would be paid solely according to how many subscribers tuned in each month for a "unique view," or a minimum of five minutes, Mr. Denson said. Viewership would be measured by Verizon's set-top box data, not Nielsen ratings.

"If you are willing to give a channel five minutes of your time, the cash register would ring in favor of the programmer," Mr. Denson said. For smaller and independent channels that often aren't widely distributed, he said, this model would provide much broader exposure.

 

[Yespage]

5 minutes seems awfully low. Why not a half hour?

Besides, what does this gain? The company would want a higher rate for this compromise of sorts.

 

[Scherrman]

VZ has an interesting idea for FIOS that they are trying to negotiate. Essentially carry every channel but only pay providers if someone watches their channel more than 5 minutes a month. So, if you never watch ESPN VZ never pays Disney a monthly fee for ESPN for your household. It is not as transparent to the consumer as a la carte would be, but an interesting idea that will of course never happen.

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424127887324392804578362943263175884-lMyQjAxMTAzMDEwNzExNDcyWj.html#articleTabs%3Darticle

That sounds like a great idea but I can't imagine Disney agreeing to do it.

 

[dare2be]

VZ has an interesting idea for FIOS that they are trying to negotiate. Essentially carry every channel but only pay providers if someone watches their channel more than 5 minutes a month. So, if you never watch ESPN VZ never pays Disney a monthly fee for ESPN for your household. It is not as transparent to the consumer as a la carte would be, but an interesting idea that will of course never happen.

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424127887324392804578362943263175884-lMyQjAxMTAzMDEwNzExNDcyWj.html#articleTabs%3Darticle

Gee, that sounds like the start of metered usage billing. I wonder where I heard of that idea before?

 

[HDRoberts]

VZ has an interesting idea for FIOS that they are trying to negotiate. Essentially carry every channel but only pay providers if someone watches their channel more than 5 minutes a month. So, if you never watch ESPN VZ never pays Disney a monthly fee for ESPN for your household. It is not as transparent to the consumer as a la carte would be, but an interesting idea that will of course never happen.

http://online.wsj.com/article_email...AxMTAzMDEwNzExNDcyWj.html#articleTabs=article

Sounds good until you read this:

The proposal, if implemented, wouldn't reduce FiOS subscribers' cable bills, Mr. Denson said.

So Verizon gets to save the big bucks, consumers still foot the full bill.

 

[mike123abc]

Sounds good until you read this:



So Verizon gets to save the big bucks, consumers still foot the full bill.

Well the idea was that they could add a ton of new channels without having to raise the customer bill since they would have a limited programming cost increase.

 

[Tampa8]

Gee, that sounds like the start of metered usage billing. I wonder where I heard of that idea before?

Dare2be metered TV usage.

 

[cave1376]

If metered usage was available, could I put big magnets on the cable or receiver to slow down the meter?

 

[Darrell S]

If metered usage was available, could I put big magnets on the cable or receiver to slow down the meter?

No hacking talk in this forum.:

 

[Yespage]

If metered usage was available, could I put big magnets on the cable or receiver to slow down the meter?

I suppose it could be possible to splice a digital sieve onto the coax that would capture all of the zeros, which would cut your usage in half. The catch would be that all your screen would show would be a number one and that'd be a real pisser.

 

[HDRoberts]

Well the idea was that they could add a ton of new channels without having to raise the customer bill since they would have a limited programming cost increase.

But if you actually watched those channels, bills would have to go up.

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

If Verizon has their way I feel sorry for those that fall asleep watching TV each night.