John McCain Wants Pay Channels Sold Individually, Not In Bundles

[mike123abc]

And I'm sure there are people who say one ESPN is plenty, why have more? My point is there are different opinions on programs. As far as H2, I actually turned it on yesterday because it was showing 'Modern Marvels' (which I enjoy) and History had something I didn't like.

More than one ESPN, Discovery, History, etc does not bother me at all. If a la carte worked like HBO, buying the ESPN package would include all the ESPNs, buying the Discovery Channel package would be all the Discovery channels, etc.

What bothers me is bundling beyond the channel group. For example having to get Disney Channel, ABC Family, A&E, History, Bio, Lifetime, etc. to get ESPN since Disney owns or part owns all these different channel groups.

 

[Teehar]

And I'm sure there are people who say one ESPN is plenty, why have more? My point is there are different opinions on programs. As far as H2, I actually turned it on yesterday because it was showing 'Modern Marvels' (which I enjoy) and History had something I didn't like.

As far as infomercials, you do understand the channels get paid to carry those. So if you were in charge of a channel does it makes sense to get paid to carry a 30 minute commercial, or have to pay (and then try to sell commercials when few people are watching) to fill the time slot?

I would love to get to a true ala carte system, but is it fair to force satcos/cablecos to provide ala carte to their customers, when they don't have the same option from the networks? On a related note, do we really want government intruding in how a company does business (except for safety and a few other rare instances)?

When it comes to sports that is different.There are teams from coast to coast,not to mention all the different sports,multiple channels are a necessity for that.

So you tuned in H2 to watch Modern Marvels,which was originally a show on History.You just proved my point.

And to the infomercials,oh yes I'm well aware they get paid to carry them.So lets see,we customers pay for those channels,plus they get paid for every advertising break,plus the 30 minute or all night infomercials.Sounds pretty fair to me. By not having a la carte,we have no choice which channels we want to watch,so we get stuck with a bunch of infomercial a thon channels.Can you see my point yet?

 

[sam_gordon]

More than one ESPN, Discovery, History, etc does not bother me at all. If a la carte worked like HBO, buying the ESPN package would include all the ESPNs, buying the Discovery Channel package would be all the Discovery channels, etc.

What bothers me is bundling beyond the channel group. For example having to get Disney Channel, ABC Family, A&E, History, Bio, Lifetime, etc. to get ESPN since Disney owns or part owns all these different channel groups.

When it comes to sports that is different.There are teams from coast to coast,not to mention all the different sports,multiple channels are a necessity for that.

So you tuned in H2 to watch Modern Marvels,which was originally a show on History.You just proved my point.

And to the infomercials,oh yes I'm well aware they get paid to carry them.So lets see,we customers pay for those channels,plus they get paid for every advertising break,plus the 30 minute or all night infomercials.Sounds pretty fair to me. By not having a la carte,we have no choice which channels we want to watch,so we get stuck with a bunch of infomercial a thon channels.Can you see my point yet?

I get both your points. However, I think you're missing mine. Yes, ESPN has enough sporting events to fill multiple channels. I get it and am glad of it. However, others would be more than happy to see ESPN (and the associated costs) go away.

I like the idea of ala carte. I would prefer it. ESPECIALLY if you could add/change channels as needed online. HOWEVER, I don't think the government should be forcing businesses to operate a certain way. What happened to "letting the market decide"? There are two markets... consumer to cable/satcos & cable/satcos to networks.

 

[dishcomm]

And I'm sure there are people who say one ESPN is plenty, why have more? My point is there are different opinions on programs. As far as H2, I actually turned it on yesterday because it was showing 'Modern Marvels' (which I enjoy) and History had something I didn't like.

As far as infomercials, you do understand the channels get paid to carry those. So if you were in charge of a channel does it makes sense to get paid to carry a 30 minute commercial, or have to pay (and then try to sell commercials when few people are watching) to fill the time slot?

I would love to get to a true ala carte system, but is it fair to force satcos/cablecos to provide ala carte to their customers, when they don't have the same option from the networks? On a related note, do we really want government intruding in how a company does business (except for safety and a few other rare instances)?

Yes it is. Because the pay TV lobbyists who lurk in the halls of the Capitol, have seen to it that the deck is stacked in favor of the pay TV business owners and the programmers.

 

[dare2be]

What happened to "letting the market decide"? There are two markets... consumer to cable/satcos & cable/satcos to networks.

Would you still "let the market decide" if that market is a sham and a racket, bordering on monopoly?...which has gotten much worse since the market was deregulated back in 1996.

 

[Claude Greiner]

The nice thing about Alacarte is that it will allow the providers to make packages that exclude channels such as ESPN to make them more affordable to their customer.

What this is going to do is force ESPN and other sports networks into a bankrupsy, which will allow them to renegotiate with the teams which will ultimatly cut into players saleries. To be honest, I could care less of those guys saleries are cut because they are way over paid to begin with.

 

[dishcomm]

The nice thing about Alacarte is that it will allow the providers to make packages that exclude channels such as ESPN to make them more affordable to their customer.

What this is going to do is force ESPN and other sports networks into a bankrupsy, which will allow them to renegotiate with the teams which will ultimatly cut into players saleries. To be honest, I could care less of those guys saleries are cut because they are way over paid to begin with.

Part of the reason ESPN is so popular and in no less the part of some very smart people, ESPN when a small company was able to position itself on the basic tier of just about every pay Tv provider across the nation. At a very low rate.
Once ESPN began to grow and gain contracts from more mainstream sports leagues, it became a MUST HAVE. Even after ESPN was able to charge more for their service, the company insisted it remain a basic tier channel. As with any sports programming outlet, most of those are on higher tiers.
One of the reasons why for example YES is not a part of Dish's lineup, is because the Yankees management insisted the channel be on a basic tier. Dish said no dice, the cat fight ended, and Yankee fans that were Dish subs were left out in the cold. They had NO CHOICE.
The concept of the consumer having NO CHOICE is flat out wrong. It's un-American.
My thinking has always been, if I want something, I should be able to have it as long as I am willing to pay for it.
For some invisible bureaucrat to tell us that "you will do it this way or you get nothing" is ludicrous.

 

[mike123abc]

I like the idea of ala carte. I would prefer it. ESPECIALLY if you could add/change channels as needed online. HOWEVER, I don't think the government should be forcing businesses to operate a certain way. What happened to "letting the market decide"? There are two markets... consumer to cable/satcos & cable/satcos to networks.

The problem is that there is not a free market in the TV business. You do not have a choice to watch a sporting event on ESPN or multiple competitors, it is exclusive content. Your cable company cannot say ESPN costs too much for our customers, we are going to get the same sports coverage from company X at a lower rate.

One can argue that the rest of pay TV is somewhat competitive. There are a lot of news channels, children's entertainment, etc., but under the current system 6 companies essentially control most of the content, and since they know that customers will demand all their channels they can force the bundling. You might demand ESPN, your neighbor Fox News, since you both demand this content your cable company has to negotiate with both Disney and Fox for these channels and to get them Disney and Fox force all their other channels into the package.

 

[sam_gordon]

Would you still "let the market decide" if that market is a sham and a racket, bordering on monopoly?...which has gotten much worse since the market was deregulated back in 1996.

And you forced to participate in this "sham and racket" how?

The problem is that there is not a free market in the TV business. You do not have a choice to watch a sporting event on ESPN or multiple competitors, it is exclusive content. Your cable company cannot say ESPN costs too much for our customers, we are going to get the same sports coverage from company X at a lower rate.

One can argue that the rest of pay TV is somewhat competitive. There are a lot of news channels, children's entertainment, etc., but under the current system 6 companies essentially control most of the content, and since they know that customers will demand all their channels they can force the bundling. You might demand ESPN, your neighbor Fox News, since you both demand this content your cable company has to negotiate with both Disney and Fox for these channels and to get them Disney and Fox force all their other channels into the package.

I disagree. EVERY network gets exclusivity for their sports packages. Why do you think "the only place to watch the Olympics" is on NBC? Or "the only place to watch March Madness" is CBS (and it's affiliated networks now)? The Indy 500 is on ABC, right? It's no different than watching 'The Walking Dead' on AMC. Is there another channel you can watch it on?

And customers DO have options... two satellite providers, at least one cable provider (I'm sure larger markets have more providers), plus OTA & streaming, to say nothing about not watching TV at all.

Last but not least, Mike you made my point... "customers will demand all their channels". It IS 'supply and demand'. Just because you think something should be cheaper doesn't mean (IMO) the government should be involved. I want a Toyota Prius. I can only get (a new) one from Toyota. They cost a lot of money. Waaa! Toyota has a monopoly on Prius'. Mr. Lawmaker, can you pass a law so a Prius doesn't cost $25,000?

 

[dare2be]

sam, your fallacy is unbearable.

To simplify it in your terms, the way the TV market is now, to buy that Prius you also have to buy the Yaris at twice its price.

 

[sam_gordon]

sam, your fallacy is unbearable.

To simplify it in your terms, the way the TV market is now, to buy that Prius you also have to buy the Yaris at twice its price first.

And what do you think would happen if enough people don't buy a Prius (or buy subscription TV)? The providers either need to cut costs or find another way to entice customers. I'd like to think if any provider went to a true ala carte (which I REALLY hope they do), they'd get subscribers flocking to them in droves. I just don't think the government should be involved. IMO, if government is going to get involved in how some business can sell/price their commodity, it should be gas prices.

 

[madmadworld]

when you hear "Must See TV " it isn't
just cancel it's not like it is gas and electricity a utility you have to have. if the government gets into this it will not save anyone that $5.50.
everyone will pay same or more. see Obamacare we will pay more get less. a bunch of rich dudes will walk out of a room or into one have a presser telling us what a great job they did and we will look at our bill and say WHAT !
where's my $5.50.wait and see

 

[dare2be]

Don't worry, the McCain proposal has no teeth to it. It's just lip service in prep for another election cycle. The content provider monopoly will continue.

 

[dishcomm]

And you forced to participate in this "sham and racket" how?


I disagree. EVERY network gets exclusivity for their sports packages. Why do you think "the only place to watch the Olympics" is on NBC? Or "the only place to watch March Madness" is CBS (and it's affiliated networks now)? The Indy 500 is on ABC, right? It's no different than watching 'The Walking Dead' on AMC. Is there another channel you can watch it on?

And customers DO have options... two satellite providers, at least one cable provider (I'm sure larger markets have more providers), plus OTA & streaming, to say nothing about not watching TV at all.

Last but not least, Mike you made my point... "customers will demand all their channels". It IS 'supply and demand'. Just because you think something should be cheaper doesn't mean (IMO) the government should be involved. I want a Toyota Prius. I can only get (a new) one from Toyota. They cost a lot of money. Waaa! Toyota has a monopoly on Prius'. Mr. Lawmaker, can you pass a law so a Prius doesn't cost $25,000?

Wow...One can watch the Olympics on Directv's multi screen service. They can watch highlights on line..One buy a Prius at any used car dealer that sells them.
HULU and Roku make watching tv outside the reaches of the pay providers.
Let one thing be perfectly clear. The government is ALREADY involved. The lobbyists hired by the pay TV lobby have cajoled, wined, dined and flooded political campaign coffers with cash to get votes on stuff the programmers and providers want.
There is no lobbying firm representing the consumers.
If the government was not involved there would be no need for legislation to offer the consumer a choice. He would already have that choice.
I submit that all those who support the status quo are either so fearful of change they would gladly see their rates continue to skyrocket or they are niche channel viewers who fear the loss of the seldom viewed service.
The bottom lie is the current system is merely a welfare system funded by the customers.
Why the hell should anyone subsidize another person's viewing preferences?

So please, do not be so naive as to claim the government is not involved.

 

[Teehar]

Wow...One can watch the Olympics on Directv's multi screen service. They can watch highlights on line..One buy a Prius at any used car dealer that sells them.
HULU and Roku make watching tv outside the reaches of the pay providers.
Let one thing be perfectly clear. The government is ALREADY involved. The lobbyists hired by the pay TV lobby have cajoled, wined, dined and flooded political campaign coffers with cash to get votes on stuff the programmers and providers want.
There is no lobbying firm representing the consumers.
If the government was not involved there would be no need for legislation to offer the consumer a choice. He would already have that choice.
I submit that all those who support the status quo are either so fearful of change they would gladly see their rates continue to skyrocket or they are niche channel viewers who fear the loss of the seldom viewed service.
The bottom lie is the current system is merely a welfare system funded by the customers.
Why the hell should anyone subsidize another person's viewing preferences?

So please, do not be so naive as to claim the government is not involved.

Exactly.

 

[osu1991]

Wow...One can watch the Olympics on Directv's multi screen service. They can watch highlights on line..One buy a Prius at any used car dealer that sells them.
HULU and Roku make watching tv outside the reaches of the pay providers.
Let one thing be perfectly clear. The government is ALREADY involved. The lobbyists hired by the pay TV lobby have cajoled, wined, dined and flooded political campaign coffers with cash to get votes on stuff the programmers and providers want.
There is no lobbying firm representing the consumers.
If the government was not involved there would be no need for legislation to offer the consumer a choice. He would already have that choice.
I submit that all those who support the status quo are either so fearful of change they would gladly see their rates continue to skyrocket or they are niche channel viewers who fear the loss of the seldom viewed service.
The bottom lie is the current system is merely a welfare system funded by the customers.
Why the hell should anyone subsidize another person's viewing preferences?

So please, do not be so naive as to claim the government is not involved.

:

Posted Using The New SatelliteGuys Reader App!

 

[madmadworld]

Wow...One can watch the Olympics on Directv's multi screen service. They can watch highlights on line..One buy a Prius at any used car dealer that sells them.
HULU and Roku make watching tv outside the reaches of the pay providers.
Let one thing be perfectly clear. The government is ALREADY involved. The lobbyists hired by the pay TV lobby have cajoled, wined, dined and flooded political campaign coffers with cash to get votes on stuff the programmers and providers want.
There is no lobbying firm representing the consumers.
If the government was not involved there would be no need for legislation to offer the consumer a choice. He would already have that choice.
I submit that all those who support the status quo are either so fearful of change they would gladly see their rates continue to skyrocket or they are niche channel viewers who fear the loss of the seldom viewed service.
The bottom lie is the current system is merely a welfare system funded by the customers.
Why the hell should anyone subsidize another person's viewing preferences?

So please, do not be so naive as to claim the government is not involved.

So please, do not be so naive as to claim that this not a new can of worms, of government involvement.
who is really being naive here ?
more government involvement always cost me $$$ in the long run imo

 

[dishcomm]

So please, do not be so naive as to claim that this not a new can of worms, of government involvement.
who is really being naive here ?
more government involvement always cost me $$$ in the long run imo

No..The claim was 'government involvement'. The OP implied the government is not involved to date.
You asked 'who is being naive here?"..Answer, you and all who agree with your point of view.
How is a la carte as an additional CHOICE, not a mandate, going to cost YOU money?

 

[madmadworld]

No..The claim was 'government involvement'. The OP implied the government is not involved to date.
You asked 'who is being naive here?"..Answer, you and all who agree with your point of view.
How is a la carte as an additional CHOICE, not a mandate, going to cost YOU money?

what your not reading other posters views or are you so young and have no knowledge of government ?

 

[Tyralak]

To be honest, I could care less of those guys saleries are cut because they are way over paid to begin with.

*Couldn't care less.