You're right. We would probably lose channels like HGTV and Discovery. My point still stands that the price of each individual channel would rise if less people were paying for them though. Then you would be paying the same or maybe even more money and channels like HGTV and Discovery wouldn't exist anymore. How is that better than what we have now? I don't want to pay the same price for less channels. Even though I don't watch it all the time it's nice to know Discovery is there if I want to flip on Shark Week or something.
STATIONS NOT WANTED - MAKE THEM TOTALLY OPTIONAL ADD ON
- Thread starter chicagonettech
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 71
- Views 8K
-
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
You're right. We would probably lose channels like HGTV and Discovery. My point still stands that the price of each individual channel would rise if less people were paying for them though. Then you would be paying the same or maybe even more money and channels like HGTV and Discovery wouldn't exist anymore. How is that better than what we have now? I don't want to pay the same price for less channels. Even though I don't watch it all the time it's nice to know Discovery is there if I want to flip on Shark Week or something.
I think everyone is getting the idea. Since everyone has different viewing preferences the only way to offer these channels to everyone at the lowest cost is to do exactly what they're doind now. There's a reason for the model they are using now. In my case, my family likes to watch a large variety of channels. My son watch the Disney channels. My wife watches ESPN, BTN, HGTV, DIY, MTV, E!, Discovery, History and movie channels. I like to watch ESPN, NFL Net, HGTV, History, Discovery, Comedy Central, Food, Cooking, G4, TBS, BTN, HDNET and any channel I come across with something interesting on it.
As you can see we watch a variety of channels and I pay a lot already to be able to watch whatever I want. I can't imagine what I'd have to pay do get those channels with a la carte. I know I'd be able to give up some channels to lower my cost but why would I do that when I can have every channel for a cost I'm willing to pay now.
As you can see we watch a variety of channels and I pay a lot already to be able to watch whatever I want. I can't imagine what I'd have to pay do get those channels with a la carte. I know I'd be able to give up some channels to lower my cost but why would I do that when I can have every channel for a cost I'm willing to pay now.
I still want a guy package
locals
all the national sports channels
your regional sports network
channels like A&E, History, TruTV, Discovery, AMC, BBC.....channels like that
what would not be in there?
religious
shopping
any man hater network like Lifetime, OWN, Lifetime Movie, WE, etc
oh wait....the ultra mans package gets you OWN in there.....along with a gun that can plug into the receiver so you can shoot Oprah (ala Duck Hunt)
locals
all the national sports channels
your regional sports network
channels like A&E, History, TruTV, Discovery, AMC, BBC.....channels like that
what would not be in there?
religious
shopping
any man hater network like Lifetime, OWN, Lifetime Movie, WE, etc
oh wait....the ultra mans package gets you OWN in there.....along with a gun that can plug into the receiver so you can shoot Oprah (ala Duck Hunt)
I just hope that DISH does lead in the industry next time Espn extorts more money and say NO and it's either ala cart premium pack for you or we drop you entirely. I will support them 1000% if Charlie does this. BUT, I want to see my programming pack drop, by the amount Espn costs before their latest FEE increase. IF DISH caves again to ESPN on their fee increase , we can all expect our programming packs to double in costs or $5.00 - $8.00 increase .
If you want pirce drops then you can expect some major package restructuring. I'm not sure you'll like it either. You want to pay less, you'll get less.
I think it IS true in most instances that if you added up the costs for each channel, the sports channels would indeed be a major part of your bill.
Sometimes I do find it funny to watch our own sports section to see members cheer when their team signs some big name player to some monster contract and then months later are upset at the cost of their satellite, cable etc...
Someone has to pay for these things... can you guess who?
Sad but true.
Sometimes I do find it funny to watch our own sports section to see members cheer when their team signs some big name player to some monster contract and then months later are upset at the cost of their satellite, cable etc...
Someone has to pay for these things... can you guess who?
Sad but true.
Very good point. How many times have you heard someone say "I don't care how much he wants, pay the man." They also seem to be the first to complain about how much they have to pay to watch that person play.
Players contracts atre getting outrageous and we end up paying it no mattter where you watch it..Great points Scott and Scherrman 
Did you guys hear the list of stadiums with the highest average ticket prices. The Jets and Patriots have the highest. I saw that Chicago has the second highest beer prices at $8.50. Pretty crazy how much money it takes to go to a game now.
MikeD-C05 said:
Where do you get these numbers? ESPN doesn't even cost $5.00 currently but you are expect them to ask for a $5.00 to $8.00 INCREASE? People are speculating about how absurd of a rate increase they will ask for when they haven't even asked for one yet.
People can expect a $12 rate increase next time the BBC contract is negotiated. See what I did there? If you can throw out numbers with no basis in reality so can I.
With a la carte, that is almost certainly true.
With a la carte, that is almost certainly false. Nobody really knows how channels and costs would shake out. The costs/channel will almost certainly go up. But the aggregate cost of paying for only those channels you want better be a lot less. If content owners believed, as you do, that a la carte would get them the same income with fewer channels, then they wouldn't oppose it. Since they oppose it tooth and nail, we must conclude that content owners know darn well that their income would go down substantially in an a la carte regime.
There are many DISH customers who do want sports included. Just take a look at the number of views on the Satellite Guys threads about dropping the Big Ten Network or carrying PAC12 compared with almost all the other threads.
I agree with many of the previous posts on this thread. Going ala carte would probably end up costing more in the long run for many folks. I say this because I started making a list of what I would put on my ala carte list.
I would want all the sports channels and locals. My wife wants all the lady channels. We both like having movie channels and the DIY type home channels. It all adds up after awhile.
One of the previous posters also mentioned having choice and being able to tune into something like Discovery channel for shark week. He wouldn't normally watch that channel but having the choice is good.
As a personal example, if we were going ala carte, I would never have thought of adding the military channel. But there have been a few shows on that channel that have been really captivating (as an aside, catch the show about the 1983 US/Soviet nuclear war scare if you haven't done so. I found it extremely captivating. It was interesting to discover how close we came and how that single event changed Ronald Reagan's entire attitude.)
We all have our own faves and dislikes. Like it or not, this is the nature of the beast. In the long run, it's kinda like what a civilized society is supposed to be like. We may not like everything about it, but it exists for the common good.
I agree with many of the previous posts on this thread. Going ala carte would probably end up costing more in the long run for many folks. I say this because I started making a list of what I would put on my ala carte list.
I would want all the sports channels and locals. My wife wants all the lady channels. We both like having movie channels and the DIY type home channels. It all adds up after awhile.
One of the previous posters also mentioned having choice and being able to tune into something like Discovery channel for shark week. He wouldn't normally watch that channel but having the choice is good.
As a personal example, if we were going ala carte, I would never have thought of adding the military channel. But there have been a few shows on that channel that have been really captivating (as an aside, catch the show about the 1983 US/Soviet nuclear war scare if you haven't done so. I found it extremely captivating. It was interesting to discover how close we came and how that single event changed Ronald Reagan's entire attitude.)
We all have our own faves and dislikes. Like it or not, this is the nature of the beast. In the long run, it's kinda like what a civilized society is supposed to be like. We may not like everything about it, but it exists for the common good.
I understand how it can make sense for someone like Disney to want to bundle different kinds of programming. It lets them cross promote and sell more advertising. It also lets them spread the production costs of expensive programming like ESPN across their cheap to make offerings. I don’t see for the industry as a whole, how it makes sense for viewer A to subsidize what viewer B sees and B subsidize C and so on. Ultimately this is a pie of fixed size.
Competition would in the end drive ala carte prices down imo.People may not care to pay say .35 for HGTV but if they raise the rate to say .70c I bet the number of subs would significantly decrease.Always more than one way to look at things.At the very least ala carte could be tried if it fails go back to the bundles.The way it is now all any of us can do is speculate that it would or wouldn't work.
| Channel | Cost/channel |
| ESPN/ESPN-HD | $4.69 |
| ESPN2 | $0.62 |
| ESPN Classic | $0.19 |
| ESPNU | $0.18 |
If those numbers are to be believable... And if they are accurate, show me a cable or satellite provider that is allowed to offer ESPN without ESPN2. The two together put you over $5/month.
I used to be a big baseball fan (until the players went on strike around '94), so today, the only way we go to a game, whether it's the Cincinnati Reds or the Dayton Dragons (Class A team for the Reds), is if we get free tickets. And then, I make we EAT before we go !! We'll still end up buying sodas, peanuts, dippin' dots, etc though...
Being in Ohio you're in one of the cheapest markets for professional football. Browns had the lowest average ticket price.
I really enjoyed the way it used to be on C-band.
Once a year I would take a look at all of the channels, pick and choose which ones I wanted to pay for, call up my provider, and pay for them.
I was really shocked at the prices of DBS when I scuttled the BUD and went mini.
The great thing about the c-band business model, is that you could choose a package, or completely ala cart...your choice.
Once a year I would take a look at all of the channels, pick and choose which ones I wanted to pay for, call up my provider, and pay for them.
I was really shocked at the prices of DBS when I scuttled the BUD and went mini.
The great thing about the c-band business model, is that you could choose a package, or completely ala cart...your choice.
