So you want ala carte

[ttomni6]

To start, I prefer bundling. Both my wife and I have found interesting programs on stations we would not have purchased ala carte.

So, for those of you who maniacally propose ala carte programming as the panacea for high prices service - what are the stations you would ONLY purchase ala carte?

If there is a concensus, perhaps DISH could make a "bundled" package of user favorites.

And oh yeah, sports rules!

Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys

 

[Slamminc11]

You realize that it really isn't Dish's choice, no matter what the consensus is here, yeah!?!?

 

[ttomni6]

You realize that it really isn't Dish's choice, no matter what the consensus is here, yeah!?!?

Correct. However, so many of the posts here rehash how ala carte is the only way to go. Also, posts suggest all sports be eliminated from the bundled packages.

That's not going to happen.

Likewise, lots of folks are saying that they can get by with Roku, Netflix and other Internet services. Well, if you follow the business websites, the ISP's are saying they will increase bandwidth usage charges. As a result, user costs will be about the same or more.

So, my intent with this post is to delve into the complaints about bundling and try to find out what folks are wanting to watch and buy. In the end, I believe we will find that ala carte is not the panacea everyone thinks it is.

In addition, what ala carte choices would be made that are not already satisfied by the current AT*** packages?
Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys

 

[KAB]

Correct. However, so many of the posts here rehash how ala carte is the only way to go. Also, posts suggest all sports be eliminated from the bundled packages.

That's not going to happen.

And what new ground are you expecting to break? And/or, the point would be what?

 

[ttomni6]

And what new ground are you expecting to break? And/or, the point would be what?

Ok, so close this post.

I honestly thought it would be interesting to hear what ala carte channels people would choose instead of just b***ching and moaning that they don't have that choice.

So please, continue many of the other meaningless arguments rather than provide a concrete example of what you are seeking.

Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys

 

[MikeD-C05]

Needless to say ,but I will again, that the current satellite/cable model is not working anymore for a lot of subs. All of the pay tv industry are losing subs now each quarter. They aren't just boomeranging between one company or the other for better new customer deals anymore. They are actually cutting the cord, or shaving the existing cord that they are attached to. Not only that but the older generation of cable/satellite subs are dieing out each day and the newer generation will never sub to traditional pay tv model at all. THey will be mobile phone /I-pad /lap top viewers who watch what they want , when they want , where they want and will pay for what they watch as they watch it . Channel providers like ESPN,Disney,CBS etc, who keep asking for double for each sub in revenue, continue to squeeze not only the tv companies but the viewers as well. Something has to change or the tv industry as it is today will die out within this decade. To keep doing the same thing each day and expect a different outcome is the very definition of insanity. A lot of people just aren't crazy enough to keep participating in it any longer. That is all I will say on the subject of ala cart in this thread.

 

[Timpanogos]

You hit the nail on the head completely. The handwriting is on the wall for the content relayers, such as Dish and Cable TV.

 

[TNGTony]

Once again the argument is presented as bundles OR a la carte when what customers have always wanted is the OPTION of a la carte. There is a gigantic difference. I don't understand why people continue overlook this little tid-bit. I am FOR a la carte. I am NOT against bundling.

 

[Teehar]

Ok, so close this post.

I honestly thought it would be interesting to hear what ala carte channels people would choose instead of just b***ching and moaning that they don't have that choice.

So please, continue many of the other meaningless arguments rather than provide a concrete example of what you are seeking.

Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys

I'll tell you what I'm seeking,and what I feel most others are as well.I would like to see a la carte happen but,the bundled packages can still be offered.It gives we the consumer the choice,instead of the providers choice.

If by some slim chance I miss something I might be interested in,there is always Netflix,Hulu,and on demand.As it is now,I feel pretty confident that I haven't missed anything in the AT250 package,and there are way,way,more shows that I skip than I watch.So if you like bundles,good for you,enjoy it.Myself I would prefer to at least have the added option of a la carte.

Dang it!I hate it when I submit a post,only to see that someone beat me to the same point.

 

[ttomni6]

But see, none of you are actually saying what you want. You are only saying how the current system does not meet your needs or wants.

Be specific.

Other than the ad nauseum argument of I don't want to pay for sports - what will you pay for?

This is why I'm tired of following most of everyone's comments. It's always complaining instead of offering real ideas.

Ok, if the current model is unsustainable, what do you propose. Yes, technology is changing the face of cable/satellite/pay TV. Give some concrete examples of improvement.

I honestly believe changing the current model will increase costs for the variety of programming choices I currently enjoy. AT 250 and multi sport for both myself and my parents. I also have STARZ, HBO and SHO.

Based on my experience with publicly traded companies, I do not expect radical changes to the current model to result in decreased costs.

Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys

 

[Teehar]

But see, none of you are actually saying what you want. You are only saying how the current system does not meet your needs or wants.

Be specific.

Other than the ad nauseum argument of I don't want to pay for sports - what will you pay for?

This is why I'm tired of following most of everyone's comments. It's always complaining instead of offering real ideas.

Ok, if the current model is unsustainable, what do you propose. Yes, technology is changing the face of cable/satellite/pay TV. Give some concrete examples of improvement.

I honestly believe changing the current model will increase costs for the variety of programming choices I currently enjoy. AT 250 and multi sport for both myself and my parents. I also have STARZ, HBO and SHO.

Based on my experience with publicly traded companies, I do not expect radical changes to the current model to result in decreased costs.

Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys

You must have missed the Kevin Spacey video posted earlier today.

http://www.satelliteguys.us/threads/318519-TV-networks-take-note-from-Kevin-Spacey…

He sums it up better than I can.

Concrete examples of improvement at least in my case.
Less reality crap
Shows that are available in their entirety,commercial free.Just as House of Cards is on Netflix
Less of all the sonic babbling on all these news channels
A weather channel that actually shows weather

I could go on and on.

 

[TheKrell]

There are also themed bundles that makes a whole lot of sense, such as Children or Family or News or Sports. So I agree with TNGTony; I'm not against bundles in general. I would be for sensible themed bundles. But the current bundles are infuriating and force us all to pay for many (most?) channels we don't want and will never watch.

But that, like unbundling completely (a la carte) almost certainly won't happen without legislation. The channel providers are making too much money the way it is. That is why they fight a la carte tooth and nail, and raise all sorts of BS arguments such as it costing more than bundles (blatant obvious lie) or killing niche channels (already happened).

 

[TheKrell]

Other than the ad nauseum argument of I don't want to pay for sports - what will you pay for?

Hey it's a great argument because (1) sports channels cost so much and (2) I don't want to pay for them because I never watch them. It's high time my bill went down for a change.

I'd pay for educational channels such as Discover and History, some kids channels for my 9yo, maybe news, and whatever my wife thinks to add. Oh and BB@home I'm already paying for.

 

[Photog_7]

OK. I'll take the bait. Here's all I want:
The broadcast networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, PBS), Fox News, TNT, USA, KTV. All in HD.
I'd gladly pay $15 a month for those 9 channels. Surely they would make money on that.

 

[thomasjk]

Another waste of time. This probably the 100th thread about this issue.

 

[dhashd]

I canceled Dish after their latest price increase because it became way to expensive for all the garbage and the repeats filled with ads 90% of the time.
I told them that I will return to Dish when they will offer me a la carte channels. Until then they and all the other pay TV providers can send me all the junk mail that they want, I'm doing just fine with OTA + Netflix.
This is my list: History, Discovery, Science, Bio, HDNet Movies, HGTV, Food Network, DYI, Soccer channels (I don't care about the other sports, that means that I won't buy the ESPN channels), Fox News, one HBO channel, one Showtime channel, one Starz channel.

 

[dare2be]

I'd like the option to purchase AT200 and then ala carte one channel from AT250 at say, 2.00 per channel. AT200 + NBCSN

 

[inazsully]

I'll take my locals OTA for free. Then I'd pay for ESPN's (package), FSNAZ, The new FOX Sports channels, USA, TNT, SYFY, TBS, TMC, NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, Disc, A&E, EPIX 1,2,3, Golf Channel, HGTV, Food Network, AMC, probably 2 or 3 I can't think of right now. Round it up to 25 pay channels. I'd also pay say $10mo for a solid HBO 3D channel.

 

[frank c.]

My local Hawaii channels,tvland,discovery,science,hgtv,diy,axys,gsn,foxnews,tlc,hist,metv,trutv,gac,bio,a&e.

Posted Using The New SatelliteGuys Reader App!