Federal lawsuit on Bundled Channels

I would like to see Theme Packs you can choose from similiar to ExpressVu from Canada offers. You get to pick so many packs for X amount of dollars and then you can add more if you like for more money. Cable and DBS providers could offer Sports Packs, Childrens (Nick and Disney), Lifestyle (like HGTV), Movies (non-premium like AMC), Music (VH1), Action (like SciFi or USA), Women (Lifetime), Variety (Comedy Central or A&E), Religous, News and Information, & Educational (like Discovery). Of course premium packs would remain as they are now.

Within each pack they could break it down further. An example would be Sports Pack #1 could have the ESPN suite and then Sports Pack #2 would include more niche channels like Speed, Gol, Golf, & Tennis. You could then purchase either #1 or #2 or both.

Could that work in the USA?
 
I would like to see Theme Packs you can choose from similiar to ExpressVu from Canada offers.
-snip-

Could that work in the USA?

I'm sure not because a swarm of lawyers for the big content providers would scream "restraint of trade" if they couldn't bundle their products.

(swiped from another of my own posts)
Quantity will aways win over quality. That's why breakfast cereal companies make dozens of brands. The more brands, the more feet of shelf space. The more feet of shelf space the more likely the random hand will grab a box made by company X.

The more channels X entertainment makes the more likely the viewer will stumble across one of their channels and stay just long enough to see one of their paid spots.

It's all marketing and statistics. Nick, NickToons, MTV, MTV2, etc; you buy time on this bunch and you will sell more pimple cream. And x entertainment will never let charlie or D* or TWC or Cox customers cherry pick the one good channel and skip the crap. No one writing the checks gives a sh** whether 7 out of 8 channels are crap or not. Charlie gives the whole bunch to any customer interested or he gets nothing to carry.
 
If you fail to cover those extra costs with a large enough package fee by paying for programming ala carte, how can you characterize "ala carte" fees as penalty?

Because there are penalities for not subbing to Higher programming today with DISH. ANd I don't expect that to change even if Ala carte is allowed. THey might say all channels are available for a price, but unless they outlaw companies for penalizing you for not bundleing we will still pay out the ass for programming and get less channels to boot.

If you want to escape the dvr fees today you either have one dvr and do the dvr advantage pack or you sub to AEP for a much higher price. DISH has you boxed in this way to push you to the higher programming costs to escape the extra fees for not doing so. DISH used to charge no dvr fees and you only had an additional receiver fee of 4.99 per extra receiver after the first. Now they have invented a fee for everything. The hd access fee of 6.00 per hd receiver if you don't sub to the $20.00 hd pack, the dvr fee at 5.98 PER dvr Receiver, the no phone line access fee of 5.00, the additional receiver fee of now 5.00 for sd and 6.00 for hd receiver. THese are all fees TODAY . I don't see them going away even if we do ala carte so my point still stands . We won't save anymore money with Ala carte unless the FCC makes it illegal for cable/sat providers to hit you with extra fees for not bundeling.
 
Because there are penalities for not subbing to Higher programming today with DISH. ANd I don't expect that to change even if Ala carte is allowed. THey might say all channels are available for a price, but unless they outlaw companies for penalizing you for not bundleing we will still pay out the ass for programming and get less channels to boot.

If you want to escape the dvr fees today you either have one dvr and do the dvr advantage pack or you sub to AEP for a much higher price. DISH has you boxed in this way to push you to the higher programming costs to escape the extra fees for not doing so. DISH used to charge no dvr fees and you only had an additional receiver fee of 4.99 per extra receiver after the first. Now they have invented a fee for everything. The hd access fee of 6.00 per hd receiver if you don't sub to the $20.00 hd pack, the dvr fee at 5.98 PER dvr Receiver, the no phone line access fee of 5.00, the additional receiver fee of now 5.00 for sd and 6.00 for hd receiver. THese are all fees TODAY . I don't see them going away even if we do ala carte so my point still stands . We won't save anymore money with Ala carte unless the FCC makes it illegal for cable/sat providers to hit you with extra fees for not bundeling.

I agree. And I don't see any grounds for the lawsuit. What makes anyone think ESPN has to sell their channels separately? Unless the FCC mandates it, and I think that may even fail in court, I'm not sure I even agree for the Government to regulate more and more. Remember - you may not get what you think you will from legistlation. You may get choice, but I'll bet anything no matter what you buy - packages or individual channels it will end up costing more than it does now. Just one of the many justifacations everyone will use is that it will take more time by CSR'S to set-up accounts and with the many possible changes will cost the providers money ongoing. Can you imagine buying a channel this month, trying another in month and dropping the first one, and on and on ..............
 
The advertising industry has been ripping off businesses and consumers for ages. It all a shell game. The billions of dollars charged for ads are based on "fairytale numbers". Just because a channel is in a package has little to do with it's "real number" of viewers. The corporations that are getting rich from these scams do not want to do business with "real numbers".
However, all that said. I believe that if bundled packages and ala carte were offered to customers that the majority would still buy packages. And that ala carte would actually make these corporations even more money, but because they are afraid, they won't embrace it.
 
The entire system is at fault. From the programmers to the advertisers to the broadcasters. All the pieces of the puzzle are required to make it work. You can't change one without changing everything. I agree that costs with a la carte would most likely go thru the roof. For example, I did a commercial install a year or so ago for a subway restaurant in town. They have different packages for commercial customers vs. residential. The commercial package did not include ESPN which the customer wanted. Guess how much just ESPN costs per month - $400. Yep that's right, $400 for one channel on one tv. Now keep in mind that it was a commercial account so it costs more to begin with. Now scale that down to a residential account, and we could be talking about some channels being $5 to $10 each maybe even more. Sports channels would be particularly high due to the royalties that have to be paid to professional and college teams just to display their logos on the screen, let alone televise one of their games. So let's say that a person subs to 30 channels that they like. Each of these channels goes for $3 bucks. ( I get that number from when DISH used to offer distant networks. Each seperate network like ABC, NBC, FOX, etc. was about $3.00 per channel) That's $90 right there as an average. Again that doesn't count sports networks. Imagine how much Big 10 would cost a la carte. Most people would have to take out a loan to afford it.

For a la carte to work, then the entire system of advertising on tv would have to change, and dramatically so. Until then, a la carte programming will cost MORE than packaging and is actually bad for everybody, not just the channels themselves, but also for we the customers.
 
Instead of having to purchase all the channels in a package, we should be able to select each individual's company's set of channels. For example, MTV Networks wants an x amount for their channels. If we think its too high we dont purchase their channels but someone else's that may have a better deal. That should be able to be easily done. If we could do it like they do in Canada and have family, sports, news packages then that would not be bad either.

When IPTV takes hold even more in the future then the companies themselves may want to sell directly to the consumer. That would increase their profit per customer while reducing the cost for the consumer and it cuts out the middleman. If there was a common software program (and/or hardware) that would be used for everyone to make their channels available on then people could purchase those channels directly from the companies on a computer or small satellite dish. Dish Network could lease space to the companies for their channel(s). Free programming could be made available from those home shopping channels that would pay to have their channels put up there. The simplest way for ala carte is IPTV.
 
YOu may be right. I see that Passions the NBC soap that went exclusive last month on DIRECTV is now selling subscriptions on the internet for 19.95 a month. So 4 shows a week or 16 episodes a month equals $1.24 a show. You can watch the soap anywhere in the world for that price and the episodes are online for up to 8 weeks. THis is the first example I can see where iptv would work. Iptv for all shows would definately rely on ala carte. THis could be the way we get ala carte. Sat/cable companies would offer iptv access and you could get iptv from them and pay for bundled deals with them for basic cable shows and you could use iptv for all shows you want but don't necessarily want to pay full price monthly for. Both sides would win then. You would have bundled with the sat/cable providers and iptv for ala carte.
 
There was a time when ala carte existed back in the ole' C-Band days. It didn't work. Why? Because after a customer realized that it cost just as much to get 10-15 channels as it did to get around 100 it became a no brainer.

Why will it cost more ala carte? go back and read post #4 by mdwatt.

You say it didn't work, but I say it did work, at least for me it worked great & saved me a bundle of money, AT A FRACTION OF THE COST OF DBS. I remember when I retired the BUD and how SHOCKED I was at the cost of programming from E*DBS. Everything I purchased from C-band was a la carte. I could put together a pretty nice package for $200-$300 a year with C-band. The same programming on DBS was twice that amount.

You might say, "why did you change over?" To me it was a trade off. The DBS was virtually maintenance free. With the BUD, I was always having to replace & maintain something. I probably looked like an idiot during a snowstorm out sweeping off my 10 footer:D

I don't mind the tier system, as long as I could add single channels above & beyond the tier
 
You say it didn't work, but I say it did work, at least for me it worked great & saved me a bundle of money, AT A FRACTION OF THE COST OF DBS. I remember when I retired the BUD and how SHOCKED I was at the cost of programming from E*DBS. Everything I purchased from C-band was a la carte. I could put together a pretty nice package for $200-$300 a year with C-band. The same programming on DBS was twice that amount.

You might say, "why did you change over?" To me it was a trade off. The DBS was virtually maintenance free. With the BUD, I was always having to replace & maintain something. I probably looked like an idiot during a snowstorm out sweeping off my 10 footer:D

I don't mind the tier system, as long as I could add single channels above & beyond the tier

I totally agree with you. Consumers are being screwed left and right by programmers. The only choice a consumer has is to either pay for all channels in a package or get nothing. The broadcasting lobby is very powerful and has a lot of money to support their lobbying efforts. Not only do they get advertising revenue but they also get carriage fees for the privilege of having their programming carried by DBS and cable. Providers have two options, either meet their demands or not carry the channel. I pay well over a C note each month for a huge amount of channels that I never watch. If I can pick and choose the channels I want to pay for, who cares if I lose all the others because I don't watch them anyway. C band pricing worked, even with ala carte pricing and, it was still cheaper than cable and DBS. We should be afforded that option.
 
I know that there are lots of shows available for download for a fee from/for apple/ipod or whatever they call it. We could pay per view every episode of every show we want to watch that we would not want to have to pay extra for in the next package up or hope for ala carte with iptv or a combination of both. If a show has a good enough rating then they would probably end up making it only available by ppv instead of being able to watch it with a monthly iptv fee to that channel/pakage.
 
I totally agree with you. Consumers are being screwed left and right by programmers. The only choice a consumer has is to either pay for all channels in a package or get nothing. The broadcasting lobby is very powerful and has a lot of money to support their lobbying efforts. Not only do they get advertising revenue but they also get carriage fees for the privilege of having their programming carried by DBS and cable. Providers have two options, either meet their demands or not carry the channel. I pay well over a C note each month for a huge amount of channels that I never watch. If I can pick and choose the channels I want to pay for, who cares if I lose all the others because I don't watch them anyway. C band pricing worked, even with ala carte pricing and, it was still cheaper than cable and DBS. We should be afforded that option.




Your line of thinking makes sense. Now the trick is to get the rest of the country on board, including the programmers and broadcasters. Let me know how that works out for ya! :D
 
I am betting that people would not choose ala carte channels if they were offered at a cost that would make the content providers the same amount of money as they would make from the ad revenue that would be lost from not accepting the additional channels. I wonder how many people would chose to pay $25 per month for Nickelodeon as opposed to paying $20 for a package of programming that includes Nickelodeon and a bunch of other channels that generate ad revenue for the content provider?



Nickelodeon would be one of the most expensive a la carte channels. Have you ever actually watched it and seen how many commercials they have? Out of a half hour program, almost half of it is commercials geared towards toys, cereal and clothes.
 
YOu may be right. I see that Passions the NBC soap that went exclusive last month on DIRECTV is now selling subscriptions on the internet for 19.95 a month. So 4 shows a week or 16 episodes a month equals $1.24 a show.

NBC Universal is having a tiff with iTunes and they want to prove they don't need no stinking iTunes.

"As TV networks hype their new fall lineups online, iTunes could wind up getting left in the dust. To start with, Apple's ongoing pricing spat with NBC means the Peacock channel's new shows are not available on iTunes' $1.99-per-episode video download service. But J.B. Perrette, president of digital distribution for NBC Universal, does not sound particularly freaked out. "We'd love to figure out something with Apple, but frankly we have a lot of other alternatives," Perrette says."

The major point of contention: Bundling

"NBC has two priorities: First, it wants to control pricing and packaging, charging less for oldies and more for premium bundles. And second, the network is pressuring Apple to impose stricter copyright protection."


Looks like NBC thinks bundling is the way to go but Apple doesn't buy it.

_
 
Nickelodeon would be one of the most expensive a la carte channels. Have you ever actually watched it and seen how many commercials they have? Out of a half hour program, almost half of it is commercials geared towards toys, cereal and clothes.

The large number of ads would lower the subscription price, since more adds= more revenue.



I remember many options for programming with C-band, which I think was key. There were choices of who you bought you programming from, and they each set their own packages, as well as ala-carte offerings. So 2 providers might have a $20 package, but with different channels in the packages. You could choose the package that most fit you needs, and add any extras you needed for $1 or 2/month. Quarterly, bi-annual and annual rates were nice too. Even then I had channels I didn't want, but not nearly as many. And it was easy to check out a new channel for a month or two, and you weren't penalized for dropping it later.


The c-band model would work. It worked well until DBS put most BUDs out of service.

I switched because I moved and DBS was cheaper. New place did not have a BUD, nor could I install one. Even if I could have, it would have required a very tall pole/tower to clear the trees in the neighbors yards. DBS barely cleared for 1 satellite. I doubt I could have got a clear shot for Dish500 there.


Currently I have a nice clear shot, but not permission to set a ground pole that would be hard to remove later, i.e no concrete. A BUD is more expensive, but when I first switched, you bought the equipment, and the best you got was a free install kit (or $50 off a pro-install). New subscribers got a discount through the retailer of ~$250, but it was still over $200 for the hardware (and that was a model 3000 reciever!)


When I moved to DBS, I though it was cable with a better line up, and that's about what it's worked out to be. 2 or three tiers of programming, and little to no middle ground. Look at the limited ala-carte offering from either DBS company. Analog cable here didn't even have stereo transmission of premium services! Digital service wasn't even though of yet (still no DSL either).
 
100% correct. If the same level of competition was with DBS as is with C-band, prices would be at least cut in half. IMHO

Lack of competition was what drove cable rates so high with such poor service. Had to love the exclusive contract the local governments gave the operators. Only competition with DBS has brought cable rates to a slow down, and service up. Does anyone really think digital cable would exist otherwise(or not cost $500/month with analog service at $150/mo)?

Look at local/long distance rates/services since the split up of MaBell. Who would have imagined 5 cent (or less) /minute for both interstate log distance call in the 80s, let alone the same rate for instate long distance. I'm really concerned with the current reforming of Ma-Bell under the AT&T umbrella.
 
100% correct. If the same level of competition was with DBS as is with C-band, prices would be at least cut in half. IMHO

Apples and Oranges. C-band's primary purpose was never direct delivery into the home. The direct to home market was just a ancillary use of an existing resource. The companies selling programming weren't footing the bill for satellites, uplink centers or any kind of support infrastructure. Not trying to defend bundling, but C-band and DBS were/are completely different animals. Competition may have played some small roll in lower C-band programming prices, but the biggest factor has to be significantly lower overhead.

NightRyder
 
Last edited:
Looks like NBC thinks bundling is the way to go but Apple doesn't buy it._

Only time will tell, but I certainly don't buy it. I want to get the shows I want, and nothing extra. I for one really enjoy the Apple iTunes store model, and appreciate that I can purchase just the shows and just the episodes I want, when I want them.

As for cable/satellite bundling, I would like to have the bundle options similar to BEV in Canada. I want sports, I get the sports pack. I want movies, I get the movie pack, I want family programming, etc. You get a group of 10-15 channels for somewhere between 5-15 dollars or so a month per package. Start with the locals, which are required, and build your package from there.

It's ridiculous that if I want National Geographic Channel, I need the top programming tier on E*, yet with UVerse, it's in the family pack. Something needs to change here, and hopefully sooner than later.
 
This is NOT directly the fault of DISH Network or DirecTV. This is the fault of the entire system as a whole. As well all know, all TV channels make money by selling advertising space. That's how they can afford to make new shows, buy the rights to rebroadcast movies, and pay their people - from the actors to the janitors. Without advertising there is no more TV, period. Most of your packages from basic all the way to premium have certain channels that have a limited viewing base. These may include channels such as the food channel, military channel, and HGTV, the list oculd go on and on. The programmers that broadcast these channels decide how much to charge advertisers by how many viewers are able to watch them. The more capable viewers, the more valuable a slot on their channel is for someone to advertise on. Notice I didn't say actually watch, but rather have the ability to watch. Meaning that the Food channel says, ok, I have 6 million people who are subscribed to a cable or satellite package that has my channel, so as an advertiser I'm going to charge you X hundred grand for a 30 second spot. Those numbers will vary depending on the number of capable viewers. That doesn't mean that all 6 million people see that spot, only that it's available to be viewed. It's the same with a newspaper. Individuals and businesses pay an amount to advertise in a newspaper regardless of how many subscribers the newspaper has. 10 thousand people buy the newspaper, but only half of that number actually see the ad. It's the basics of advertising. Now consider this - if a channel like that is not included in basic packages and is offered a la carte, then that same spot on that same channel just became worth less money because not enough people have the ability to view it to make it worth the advertisers' while to pay for it. So, the advertisers send their business elsewhere, and the niche channel now doesn't have enough money to even keep the lights on, let alone create new programming or even keep what it has, thereby reducing interest in it's viewers, which would in turn reduce the number of available channels to even HAVE a la carte. It's a two headed monster wielding a double edged sword. On one had, customers would win because they could chose only the channels they want to see, and save money while doing it. On the other hand, in doing so they would be starving the very same channels that they subscribe to, or don't subscribe to, which would then take channels away from someone else.


The FCC came up with the same idea here a couple years ago and took it to the cable and sat providers, and after a good bit of research, they found exactly what I just said here - the system as it currently is won't allow for a la carte programming. The only question is.....how to change it. It won't be easy. And it would most certainly end up with a lot of powerful people in high places losing a lot of money. And if Maxwell Blecher shakes this tree long enough I don't think he'll like what falls on his head. He may as well drink a gallon of gas then go piss on a brush fire.
While you make saleint points I have but one gripe. Why should I as a pay TV sunsciber be forced to subsidize services that so few watch?..I consioder this bundling thing to be a form of welfare.
Sorry but i don't care if the baby channel poops the bed.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)