HIGHER PRICES COMING PEOPLE

[TheKrell]

The total cost for all cable and satellite customers would be the same with a la carte pricing - it has to be. The same number of employees have to be supported to provide the same channels and programming.

Who said anything about the "same channels and programming?" The whole point of a la carte is to be able to pay a fair price for a (probably much) smaller number of channels. I agree that some number of channels might be uneconomical and go off the air. But without trying this, we will never know how it shakes out. For all we know, 100 new niche channels might spring into being. But I for one would like to be making that decision with my pocketbook, and not have people like Bob Iger making all those decisions for me. He has enough of my money already.

 

[JonE]

If the market can't support RFD-TV without it latching on to a package and existing vicariously through other strong networks, then let them go out of business. The market will then have a bunch of new channels popup that people actually WANT to watch and pay for.

 

[andyin137]

I will never pay 150 a month for basic Tv ,If my Bill ever gets to that point back to antena and 2 channels.There is so much else to do in life than watch TV.It might be a good thing if the rates get that high,many,many people will opt to cancel service and where will these companies be then.

 

[edge10]

If the market can't support RFD-TV without it latching on to a package and existing vicariously through other strong networks, then let them go out of business. The market will then have a bunch of new channels popup that people actually WANT to watch and pay for.

Sounds like the free market to me.

 

[STL]

College is even worse, all the good players go to the professional leagues early. That makes it unwatchable. I could go into a whole other rant about college sports funding versus the rest of academics but I'll save that.

Unwatchable? Talk about a hyperbole...we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

[STL]

I will never pay 150 a month for basic Tv ,If my Bill ever gets to that point back to antena and 2 channels.

Wow, your threshold is about three times what mine is!

 

[gdarwin]

I will never pay 150 a month for basic Tv ,If my Bill ever gets to that point back to antena and 2 channels.There is so much else to do in life than watch TV.It might be a good thing if the rates get that high,many,many people will opt to cancel service and where will these companies be then.

Don't know what you consider basic TV. I'm almost here to get my HD TV....

 

[CubsWin]

I think a big part of the problem is the specialty channels that continue to pop up and they all want a piece of the pie. Rather than having one cable network that shows a variety of quality programming throughout the day, we have multiple specialty networks that each show a little bit of quality programming and a whole lot of junk. In the end, we're getting the same amount of quality programming, but we're paying for all that extra "junk". I'm a fisherman myself, but does anyone really need The Sportsman's Channel and World Fishing Network? The same applies to sports networks. It used to be that I only needed a couple local channels to watch my favorite college team play, but now if I want to see every game I need CBS, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPN Classic, and Big Ten Network. Oh by the way, if they can't fit it onto one of those channels I still need to go online and watch the game on ESPN 360.

 

[IronManCC]

I think a big part of the problem is the specialty channels that continue to pop up and they all want a piece of the pie. Rather than having one cable network that shows a variety of quality programming throughout the day, we have multiple specialty networks that each show a little bit of quality programming and a whole lot of junk. In the end, we're getting the same amount of quality programming, but we're paying for all that extra "junk". I'm a fisherman myself, but does anyone really need The Sportsman's Channel and World Fishing Network? The same applies to sports networks. It used to be that I only needed a couple local channels to watch my favorite college team play, but now if I want to see every game I need CBS, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPN Classic, and Big Ten Network. Oh by the way, if they can't fit it onto one of those channels I still need to go online and watch the game on ESPN 360.

The issue I have is that my "locals" really don't have much that interest me any more (...a few shows here & there, plus news & weather) - Most of the shows I watch are on "other" channels, like USA, BBC America, Sci-Fi (or Sy-Fy), etc.; so I'd really never think of going back to an antenna and OTA programming.

 

[Greg Bimson]

The whole point of a la carte is to be able to pay a fair price for a (probably much) smaller number of channels. I agree that some number of channels might be uneconomical and go off the air. But without trying this, we will never know how it shakes out.

Never know how it shakes out? Are you kidding me?

First problem is the definition of "fair price". Right now ESPN gets about $4.50 per month per subscriber simply because it is in the base package, available to everyone. Of course, since all multichannel providers are bundling it into their base package, that makes it the current "fair price", no matter how unfair you may think it is.

If there weren't packages, then what does the "fair price" to the end user become? And the warning here is simply watching "marginal" channels go under faster than the Titanic...

For all we know, 100 new niche channels might spring into being.

And that is the extreme definition of hope. How much money did it cost NewsCorp to launch FOX here in the US? And then later, Fox News Channel? And somehow, 100's of new niche channels may spring with wonderful programming, yet there isn't much "wonderful" programming spread across our current variety of niche channels?

But I for one would like to be making that decision with my pocketbook, and not have people like Bob Iger making all those decisions for me. He has enough of my money already.

You can vote with your wallet, now. It amazes me that people forget that simple fact. Of course many would rather complain than sacrifice...

If the market can't support RFD-TV without it latching on to a package and existing vicariously through other strong networks, then let them go out of business. The market will then have a bunch of new channels popup that people actually WANT to watch and pay for.

Another dreamer.

Look, I'll make it simple. Show me the channels you watch, and I'll show you the very large chunk that will be bankrupted by this plan.

And I still haven't addressed what this "plan", if that's what it is called, will do to the multichannel companies. That $17 monthly you'd pay for your second ViP722 you'd definitely have to start paying for your first ViP722, as there aren't packages nor commitments in a la carte...

Just because you want to "cheapen" your monthly bill doesn't mean the changes you champion will actually work. It may double your bill and destroy the very channels you want to watch.

 

[TheKrell]

Gee Greg, it's only TV...

You can vote with your wallet, now. It amazes me that people forget that simple fact. Of course many would rather complain than sacrifice...

The point of this thread is that consumers have a weak hand to play in this game. We don't pay for content directly; we don't get to pick and choose our content at all. We have only the most coarse tools, e.g. to drop 50 or 100 channels as a bundle, or to cancel our sat or cable service entirely.

What I would like to do is "sacrifice" channels that are too expensive (such as ESPN) and keep those that are not (such as Disney). Do you suppose that either channel would go out of business if we had that choice? I don't think so. But if we had a la carte, after a shakeout, we would see what I think would be a fair price for those channels. Let me define a fair price. It's not what we're paying now for a bundle! It's the price that each consumer agrees to pay for each channel individually.

The providers hold up the distributors for outrageous and I think unfair package deals. If they thought they could make more money a la carte, they would offer their channels a la carte tomorrow. Has any provider anywhere offered to unbundle their packages? I haven't heard of it.

 

[damjr]

Gee Greg, it's only TV...


The providers hold up the distributors for outrageous and I think unfair package deals. If they thought they could make more money a la carte, they would offer their channels a la carte tomorrow. Has any provider anywhere offered to unbundle their packages? I haven't heard of it.

You are correct about the providers holding up the distributors. Providers hold channels hostage by forcing distributors to take packages. This is why our costs keep going up.

This is just one reason why we haven't heard of any provider offering to unbundle.
Another thing that could be holding back alacarte is the logistics of managing individual packages. Just think what it will take for distributors to implement this type of program. They would have to completely replace their software programs and this costs millions to do.

 

[Greg Bimson]

See? Now both of you are making a valid point regarding providers.

I hardly discussed what the multichannel provider would have to do, but think about it: removal of "bundling" and installation of a la carte. Remove "bundling" completely, and remove the bulk of how the multichannel provider makes money.

People forget, or simply ignore that Disney/ABC or Discovery or Scripps (as in the original article) want to start jacking up rates 8 to 10 percent yearly, and scream outrage. Fine. They have shareholders to protect.

Guess what? So do the multichannel providers. And they also jack up rates 8 to 10 percent yearly. So if a $40 package needs to pay out $20 to the programmers, an 8 to 10 percent increase would then be $22. And then the multichannel providers then increase their rates by their 8 to 10 percent, and the $40 package is now $44. The programmers make their measely cents increase, while the providers get an additional $2 more after costs.

There is plenty of blame to spread around. They all make their money for their shareholders. And no one is voting with their wallet.

 

[mike123abc]

Never know how it shakes out? Are you kidding me?

First problem is the definition of "fair price". Right now ESPN gets about $4.50 per month per subscriber simply because it is in the base package, available to everyone. Of course, since all multichannel providers are bundling it into their base package, that makes it the current "fair price", no matter how unfair you may think it is.

Of course if ESPN was paid for individually you would seem them work to keep the price down to get more subs. Which means they would pay less for sport contracts since they would have less money. Which means that leagues would get less money and then players and owners would make less.

I would speculate that ESPN would lose 1/2 their subs if it were a la carte. I doubt that they would be able to keep even 1/2 if they doubled the price to make it up. The market would force changes in prices for programming.

I also suspect bundling by programming providers in an a la carte market. ESPN could be $3 by itself or $5 for all the ESPN channels. Again similar to the HBO model.

Quite frankly I would save a lot of money if I paid $1-$5/channel (or small packs like discovery, espn, disney, etc.). It would be like C-band used to be. So, if Dish were $15/month for service then add channels a lot of people would save a lot of money. But, yes it would drastically change the business model of some channels.

A lot of channels would go free to build audience.

HBO/SHO/Universal (Syfy/USA)/Disney/Discovery/News packages would pretty much cover my house. Assuming $15/premiums, $5 for the others and $15 for base Dish service, I could see a bill of $50 covering all the channels I watch (with free OTA).

 

[Stargazer]

If we see Ala Carte, it may encourage even more competition among the channels. We could see even better content. People would have more a choice based upon price/content which gives us more power to decide which channels deserves are business instead of giving those companies business that we do not want to pay for.

 

[IronManCC]

If we see Ala Carte, it may encourage even more competition among the channels. We could see even better content. People would have more a choice based upon price/content which gives us more power to decide which channels deserves are business instead of giving those companies business that we do not want to pay for.

A la carte is fine if you only want a couple of channels; but almost without fail, package deals are always cheaper than buying individual items, and I don't care if you're talking channels on Dish, options on a vehicle, food at a restaurant or whatever. And, of course, the ultimate question is, would a completely a la carte business model even work? Dish, D*, C*, or any company, for that matter, are in business to make a profit, not to give us something for next to nothing.

Also, sometimes the only way a company can afford to offer you one thing is to package it with others and reduce the cost. Maybe going completely a la carte would result in each channel costing about $5 - This might be fine for someone who only wants 5-10 channels; but I don't think the vast majority of viewers want to be limited to that. Heck, If I were to pick 20 channels, that would result in a $100 monthly bill - Not very feasible.....

 

[MikeD-C05]

Allow both ala carte and bundled packages like we already have today. Then see what happens. I am betting that ala carte wins hands down.

 

[IronManCC]

Allow both ala carte and bundled packages like we already have today. Then see what happens. I am betting that ala carte wins hands down.

Of course, then the main question would be, is Dish even geared-up, both financially & technically, to handle every subscriber picking & choosing individual channels like that. I really doubt it, and I think it would be an absolute nightmare to try to manage. It's easy to say, "Just do it!", but you always have to look at the big picture and possible repercussions. Loss of available channels, channels going out of business, etc. And, in the end, if it's not fianancially viable to the companies, it's not gonna happen.

 

[Greg Bimson]

Allow both ala carte and bundled packages like we already have today. Then see what happens. I am betting that ala carte wins hands down.

Okay. Now we are getting somewhere.

So AT120, 200 and 250 exist as-is.

The problem is the assumption that the current pricing for channels in packages would be the a la carte price. It would be true a la carte: each channel has separate pricing, and that pricing would have to include uplift so that Dish Network can make money on the deal. Whether it is an additional flat-fee to activate an account, a large uplift on each individual channel or a combination of the two, the profitability to both Dish Network and the programmers must also be accounted for.

And the one thought that should make everyone cringe: many are assuming you can reduce your bills. Does anyone honestly believe that Dish Network wants to reduce their revenue (because customers will attempt to reduce bills) and increase their expenditure implementing a way to manage cafeteria-style pricing?

 

[edge10]

Okay. Now we are getting somewhere.

...

And the one thought that should make everyone cringe: many are assuming you can reduce your bills. Does anyone honestly believe that Dish Network wants to reduce their revenue (because customers will attempt to reduce bills) and increase their expenditure implementing a way to manage cafeteria-style pricing?

Dish would be happy to reduce our bills, if they were able to reduce their outlays by an even greater amount. If they didn't have to pay the big bucks to ESPN for me, they would be willing to pass along some of the savings.