The quality programming would not be lost by a la carte. It would just be consentrated on fewer channels that want your business. Not spread out over a bunch of channels so they have something to justify carriage and a charge to every consumer.
How to keep channels from charging as much as they want ??
- Thread starter kstuart
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 43
- Views 4K
-
WELCOME TO THE NEW SERVER!
If you are seeing this you are on our new server WELCOME HOME!
While the new server is online Scott is still working on the backend including the cachine. But the site is usable while the work is being completes!
Thank you for your patience and again WELCOME HOME!
CLICK THE X IN THE TOP RIGHT CORNER OF THE BOX TO DISMISS THIS MESSAGE
... what niche channels? All I see are channels that started off with unique programming but have switched to mainly reality TV shows. IE what the hell do Ice Road Truckers or Swamp People have to do with history? Or Bravo which started off covering performing arts etc, now shows reality TV about makeovers and crap. And the Country Music Television stations lineup tonight is a rerun of Are You Smarter than a Fifth Grader, a Dukes of a Hazard episode, and Police Academy. I guess the theme song for Dukes of a Hazard is a country song so its relevant to country music
+1 :up
... what niche channels? All I see are channels that started off with unique programming but have switched to mainly reality TV shows. IE what the hell do Ice Road Truckers or Swamp People have to do with history? Or Bravo which started off covering performing arts etc, now shows reality TV about makeovers and crap. And the Country Music Television stations lineup tonight is a rerun of Are You Smarter than a Fifth Grader, a Dukes of a Hazard episode, and Police Academy. I guess the theme song for Dukes of a Hazard is a country song so its relevant to country music
They do this to fill up time so they can create new channels. If they filled the prime time up with real shows, they would only have one channels worth rather than putting 1-3 good shows per week per channel and having 5 channels.
Why is it one way or the other?
Why can't channels have a "package" price that includes it with a number of other channels, and a separate, higher, "a la carte" price? For example, TBS might go for $0.20 per sub per month with a certain pack, but $2 a month per sub if a person wants out outside of a pack.
Why can't channels have a "package" price that includes it with a number of other channels, and a separate, higher, "a la carte" price? For example, TBS might go for $0.20 per sub per month with a certain pack, but $2 a month per sub if a person wants out outside of a pack.
I don't know if there ever will be ala-carte or not, but online will eventually pressure content providers to rethink their pricing.
I am almost at the point of going all VOD. I think in a couple more years, it will probably be a very reasonable way to go.
Before you comment, consider how it works now.
I record a number of series on my DVR. Over the course of a season, I record and watch all of the shows for that season.
There are a number of "online" sources like Netflix / Apple / Amazon VOD so competetion will continue to drive better pricing.
Amazon VOD offers shows for about $1.99 per show. ($1.89 if you subscribe to the whole season)
Since I pay Dish $108 a month, that's $1296 a year in TV costs. That works out to about 685 shows a year or about 57 shows a month. That gives you 15 shows a week or 2 a day.
And that assumes that you are watching everything over VOD. If you setup OTA, that would add more content to your choices and you would only have to VOD shows from premium channels like TLC.
The only thing really missing is the channels like CNN or the Weather Channel. ( And maybe sports, I don't know. I don't watch that. )
Like I said, may not work perfectly now. But I think it is something that will soon change how content providers deal with people like Dish.
I am almost at the point of going all VOD. I think in a couple more years, it will probably be a very reasonable way to go.
Before you comment, consider how it works now.
I record a number of series on my DVR. Over the course of a season, I record and watch all of the shows for that season.
There are a number of "online" sources like Netflix / Apple / Amazon VOD so competetion will continue to drive better pricing.
Amazon VOD offers shows for about $1.99 per show. ($1.89 if you subscribe to the whole season)
Since I pay Dish $108 a month, that's $1296 a year in TV costs. That works out to about 685 shows a year or about 57 shows a month. That gives you 15 shows a week or 2 a day.
And that assumes that you are watching everything over VOD. If you setup OTA, that would add more content to your choices and you would only have to VOD shows from premium channels like TLC.
The only thing really missing is the channels like CNN or the Weather Channel. ( And maybe sports, I don't know. I don't watch that. )
Like I said, may not work perfectly now. But I think it is something that will soon change how content providers deal with people like Dish.
The real reason for providers asking for increase in fees is that they are losing ad revenues and have to make up the shortfall through fees.
In today's market their are better ways to spread your message.
For instance the Nissan leaf is a Hugh success because of their ad campaign through apples ios device. The leaf has already sold out their first run of 20,000 units and are near selling out their second run.
As ad revenue for tv programs decreas the providers have no choice but to make up the difference through fees they charge providers or try to find another way of getting revenue.
In today's market their are better ways to spread your message.
For instance the Nissan leaf is a Hugh success because of their ad campaign through apples ios device. The leaf has already sold out their first run of 20,000 units and are near selling out their second run.
As ad revenue for tv programs decreas the providers have no choice but to make up the difference through fees they charge providers or try to find another way of getting revenue.
If you can't get enough news, or the weather report on the internet... somethings wrong with you.
Theres not much in the way of (legal) sports streaming out there. Pretty much just ESPN3, which I can't even access on QWEST anyway.
Sports, and mostly just football and college bball, is pretty much the only reason I keep a pay TV service; I feel kind of held hostage by it. Everything else I'd be perfectly happy with streaming services, network television which I pull in over the air, and waiting for Blu-ray's and DVD from netflix (which I prefer to do for cable TV shows anyway).
So really with FSN about to be dropped I'm paying DISH to watch NFL Network, NFL RZ, and ESPN 1 and 2, and very rarely CBS-college sports.
I really only have time to watch the nightly news (local), but what I generally meant was that there are some channels that broadcast real time and not available on DVD / VOD.
$108 (ouch)/month = 1296/year=~ $25/week ... assuming you can get HD episodes for $2 (they are more $$ on many services)... that's 12.5 shows (40 minutes without commercials) of TV/week you'd get... 71 minutes of TV per day... and that's just for 1 person.. take a family of 4.. no way that pricing model holds up... 18 minutes of TV/person/day (at $108/month) (assuming no one watches each other's shows)...
we'd all be a lot healthier.. that's for sure
Apple with the new iTV, which many networks say is far too cheap (99 cents/episode), is still too expensive by a factor of at least 2.
They don't take that stand, so that Scott's website doesn't blow up the world with "I'm leaving Dish because they dropped _________" threads.
$108 (ouch)/month = 1296/year=~ $25/week ... assuming you can get HD episodes for $2 (they are more $$ on many services)... that's 12.5 shows (40 minutes without commercials) of TV/week you'd get... 71 minutes of TV per day... and that's just for 1 person.. take a family of 4.. no way that pricing model holds up... 18 minutes of TV/person/day (at $108/month) (assuming no one watches each other's shows)...
we'd all be a lot healthier.. that's for sure
Apple with the new iTV, which many networks say is far too cheap (99 cents/episode), is still too expensive by a factor of at least 2.
True, but my family does have over lap and the ~2 shows a day is only for non-ota shows. Probably half of what a lot of people watch could come from OTA.
Agreed... altho we would need better OTA -> DVR options... I think the a la carte world will focus on streaming (I think we may bypass channel ALC and go directly to per-show ALC)... they will want you to have no storage.. so you can't watch more than once without paying
Agreed... altho we would need better OTA -> DVR options... I think the a la carte world will focus on streaming (I think we may bypass channel ALC and go directly to per-show ALC)... they will want you to have no storage.. so you can't watch more than once without paying
I was reading EnGadget yesterday. They did reviews of the new apple TV and Roku players.
I thought the Hulu Plus was interesting. For $9.99 a month, you get streaming access to most shows on the "networks". CBS is still lagging, but I don't see how they can afford to not join up eventually.
I really think that sometime in the next few years, people like Verizon and Comcast will primarily sell internet connectivity.
If you want phone, you get a box (VOIP) and plug that in.
If you want TV, you get a box (Roku,etc) and plug that in.
If you want movies, you get a box (Apple) and plug that in.
Of course, the TV and movies will be easier since a lot of TVs have the services built in now. I would think that TVs will start putting webcams on them like monitors and people will just use skype instead of the phone itself.
At any rate, I think that direct delivery of "TV" content will soon be a thing of the past.
provide channel packages, such as a science package that has all the science related channels like national geo, food, tlc, animal planet, etc...
since the largest expense comes from sports channels, they shouldn't be forcefully bundled into every package when some of us don't watch sports, or simply want the channels to be competitive and not charge whatever they want. $4 a month for espn when the discovery channel costs 25 cents or less?
Basically everyone who doesn't like sport subsidizes sports fans by not having ala carte. How about we can choose 30 channels for 30 dollars.... we have to take 30 channels, but the channels that end up costing even more then movie channels, like ESPN, can be treated as premium channels with their own price structure. Basically take any channel that charges more then a buck a month and make it a premium tier, since very few channels charge more then that. Or rather make it so that you can choose any 30 channels, you must take 30, but they are sorted by price so that you can pick and choose exactly which 30 and what price you will pay based on what those channels charge the provider.
right now the american HD bronze comes pretty close to what I want for less money ironically when you factor in the expensive price of ESPN. The only thing it's really missing is animal planet. I'd be willing to swap ESPN for Animal Planet and Planet Green.. those two probably cost a lot less then what ESPN charges.. everybody wins. Then when ESPN decides to lower the price of their flagship channel back to reality we can talk more.
since the largest expense comes from sports channels, they shouldn't be forcefully bundled into every package when some of us don't watch sports, or simply want the channels to be competitive and not charge whatever they want. $4 a month for espn when the discovery channel costs 25 cents or less?
Basically everyone who doesn't like sport subsidizes sports fans by not having ala carte. How about we can choose 30 channels for 30 dollars.... we have to take 30 channels, but the channels that end up costing even more then movie channels, like ESPN, can be treated as premium channels with their own price structure. Basically take any channel that charges more then a buck a month and make it a premium tier, since very few channels charge more then that. Or rather make it so that you can choose any 30 channels, you must take 30, but they are sorted by price so that you can pick and choose exactly which 30 and what price you will pay based on what those channels charge the provider.
right now the american HD bronze comes pretty close to what I want for less money ironically when you factor in the expensive price of ESPN. The only thing it's really missing is animal planet. I'd be willing to swap ESPN for Animal Planet and Planet Green.. those two probably cost a lot less then what ESPN charges.. everybody wins.
Then when ESPN decides to lower the price of their flagship channel back to reality we can talk more.
Last edited:
And I would like to believe that those people can figure out how Dish network can offer cheaper programming prices,then again it may take them after they switch to another provider and their special deal ends for them to think"What the heck did I do that for"?.
I vote for a la carte. With the way thing are now one of my favortie channels is gone and I'm paying for a sh*t load of channels I don't watch.
Every so often the government gets a burr up its behind about the merits of competition in the TV channel delivery industry. This was a real boon for Dish and Direct back in the day. However, things have changed a lot since then. Now with content owners charging whatever they want, the service providers either pony up or decide not to carry the channel in the often deluded hope that the network will cave. Occasionally, the service provider wins a minor victory in that the increase isn't as large as was originally demanded. The providers that pony up get help from the money-gouging network blowing their horn about provider XYZ is whom you should switch your service to because it carries their beloved network.
Eventually, providers fall in line and carry the channel at an increased cost. It then passes on that cost to the consumer. If they refuse to carry the popular channel, they lose customers. The only winner in any of this is the owner of the popular network, which makes more money from service providers and from advertising
This limits competition amongst cable/sat companies. The provider with the most customers has a better bargaining position with the networks. I am likely oversimplifying things here, but it seems the best solution would be for the service providers to unite and fight the networks on these increases. Of course, then congress would take action against the service providers for conspiring to fix prices. At least this would bring the problem and its root causes into the public spotlight.
Eventually, providers fall in line and carry the channel at an increased cost. It then passes on that cost to the consumer. If they refuse to carry the popular channel, they lose customers. The only winner in any of this is the owner of the popular network, which makes more money from service providers and from advertising
This limits competition amongst cable/sat companies. The provider with the most customers has a better bargaining position with the networks. I am likely oversimplifying things here, but it seems the best solution would be for the service providers to unite and fight the networks on these increases. Of course, then congress would take action against the service providers for conspiring to fix prices. At least this would bring the problem and its root causes into the public spotlight.
The cable and sat companies should all just stick together. E*, D*, Time Warner, etc..., just get together, come up with a price that they are going to pay for a channel, and set it at that. They could start putting the squeeze on the networks.
I know this will never happen. It is like asking cats and dogs to team up, but it would work.
I have the top 200 package, and with extra receivers, and some other fee's, it is around $85 per month. It seems like not that long ago, when we just had cable, that $85 per month seemed really expensive, but would have at least bought you most of the premium channels. I can remember back then, saying "we can't afford $85 per month for T.V.", so we did without the premiums. Now, sadly, $85 is a pretty normal bill, for middle of the road programming.
I know this will never happen. It is like asking cats and dogs to team up, but it would work.
I have the top 200 package, and with extra receivers, and some other fee's, it is around $85 per month.
It seems like not that long ago, when we just had cable, that $85 per month seemed really expensive, but would have at least bought you most of the premium channels. I can remember back then, saying "we can't afford $85 per month for T.V.", so we did without the premiums. Now, sadly, $85 is a pretty normal bill, for middle of the road programming.
