Will this impact Satellite TV

FKy.Guy

SatelliteGuys Pro
Original poster
Feb 1, 2004
220
0
Union,Ky.
If this has already been posted in another thread I apolgize for the repeat,but saw this write up in the USA Today {today}.

FCC: Let users set cable TV lineups
By Paul Davidson, USA TODAY
In a sharp reversal, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission said Tuesday that the agency now thinks cable companies should stop forcing people to subscribe to bundles of channels and give them the option of choosing individual channels. (Related items: TVs turn into vending machines for programs | A la carte cable could be a tough sell)
Kevin Martin, FCC chairman since March 16, asserted that a la carte pricing could both allow parents to block offensive programming and lower their surging cable bills. His stance might push Congress to require cable and satellite companies to offer the option.

Martin said that a 2004 FCC report — which concluded most consumers would face higher cable and satellite bills under a mandatory a la carte system — "presented incorrect and incomplete analysis."

A new FCC report near completion "concludes that purchasing cable programming in a more a la carte manner in fact could be economically feasible and in consumers' best interest," Martin said at a Senate forum on indecency.

The news comes as Congress debates tough new indecency legislation that would drastically boost fines. The cable industry calls legislation unnecessary because set-top boxes let parents filter out channels with offensive content. Consumer advocates call that technology ineffective because subscribers must still pay for unwanted channels.

Under a la carte, consumers would have to subscribe to a basic tier that includes broadcast stations and channels such as CNN. Beyond that, they'd pay only for channels they want. Thus, parents could reject racy channels such as MTV or Comedy Central.

The 2004 FCC report found that the average cable household, which watches 17 channels out of 88 available, would see its bill rise 14% to 30%, assuming it ordered 17 channels. Only subscribers who pay for fewer than nine channels beyond the basic tier would save under a la carte, the study said.

Martin said the report mistakenly included the cost of the broadcast channels in the basic tier to arrive at the average price for additional channels. Omitting that cost would increase the number of channels consumers could order without a price hike, he said.

Kyle McSlarrow, head of National Cable & Telecommunications Association, called the a la carte mandate a "very dangerous idea." He said it would violate cable companies' free-speech rights. And research firm Legg Mason says it's unlikely Congress would pass an a la carte mandate because it would imperil cable channels that depend on widespread carriage by cable systems for advertising revenue.

"I would prefer to try and work out a voluntary ratings system and blocking and try and find some way to meet the demands of the family community without getting to mandates," said Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, head of the Commerce Committee.


See this link as well ................

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2005-11-29-alacarte-sell_x.htm

Just wondering what your varied opinions may be on this subject :confused:
 
I think it would be a real disaster. If channels were a la carte, the most popular channels such as ESPN, USA and TNT would be subscribed to by most everyone. However more specialized channels and those related to the arts and sciences such as Discovery, Bravo, Turner Classic Movies, C-SPAN and the like, which have a lower pool of regular viewers, would take a hit and many would not survive. Even if they don't have as big a viewership as the "big boys" they deserve to survive and prosperand we deserve the chance to watch them.

Those groups behind this are only interested in controling what we all see and what we all see had better only be what they want us to see. I' wonder what would happen if they tried this with newspapers. Let's see, I only want the front page, sports section and the comics, so don't deliver anything else. Yeah, sure.
 
So, the next logical step is? Maybe we will be charged for each show we watch. After all, why pay for programs you don't want, even if it is on the same channel? Same logic. Of course, we'll still be provided with all the commercials and political "messages" we can stomach.
 
I think that its a bad idea all around..

And I doubt that this would apply to DBS services too.. at least at first.. go figure.
 
markfp-1 said:
I think it would be a real disaster. If channels were a la carte, the most popular channels such as ESPN, USA and TNT would be subscribed to by most everyone. However more specialized channels and those related to the arts and sciences such as Discovery, Bravo, Turner Classic Movies, C-SPAN and the like, which have a lower pool of regular viewers, would take a hit and many would not survive. Even if they don't have as big a viewership as the "big boys" they deserve to survive and prosperand we deserve the chance to watch them.
Maybe if it were more apparent what the "popular" channels cost they wouldn't be so popular. I would drop ESPN and the MTV/Viacom stuff in a heartbeat if it would save me even part of what they are charging per-subscriber and having it forced into the package. However, I see your point about the less popular stuff having trouble surviving. Perhaps a better solution would be the traditional "package" with the opportunity to opt-out on an alacarte basis up to a maximum savings. Example, I get the Dish AT180 and drop ESPN for a savings of say $5 but I only save a nickel if I drop Discovery Science.

markfp-1 said:
Those groups behind this are only interested in controling what we all see and what we all see had better only be what they want us to see. I' wonder what would happen if they tried this with newspapers. Let's see, I only want the front page, sports section and the comics, so don't deliver anything else. Yeah, sure.
Newspapers are a physical product not digital so the comparison really doesn't apply.
 
markfp-1 said:
I think it would be a real disaster. If channels were a la carte, the most popular channels such as ESPN, USA and TNT would be subscribed to by most everyone. However more specialized channels and those related to the arts and sciences such as Discovery, Bravo, Turner Classic Movies, C-SPAN and the like, which have a lower pool of regular viewers, would take a hit and many would not survive. Even if they don't have as big a viewership as the "big boys" they deserve to survive and prosperand we deserve the chance to watch them.

it works fine in Canada...they have themes and some channels you can get by itself.

I'd like to pay for a 2nd set of locals (from the next DMA) if I could. Heck with ESPN & Viacom :)
 
But let's face it. This is again the few tring to push what they want on the rest of us. I personally don't want anyone telling me what I can and can not watch. That is what these people are looking to do.

I say if they don't want to watch it they can turn off the TV. What gives them the right to make it so I can't watch what I want to watch. Who gave them the right to say what is good for me. If I wanna see Janet's boop then thats my right. They don't have the right to say I can't watch it. This is a step in that direction, and everyone should put a stop to it.

I am not picking on the people that feel the need to keep things decent. They have their right not to watch it. THis talk is a move towards censorship, that is not what I want.
 
How is it telling you what you can watch, when you can choose exactly what you want? What about being forced to pay for stuff I didn't want?

I guess the only real solution would be technology based... give every subscriber the ability to watch absolutely every channel the provider offers, and the set-top box would report back each month which channels were watched (not necessarily which programs, dates and times, for privacy concerns), so the viewer's bill could fluctuate from month to month. i.e. My box gets everything, but if I don't watch ESPN this month I'm not charged for it.
 
I think it would be great. This is the way DBS does commercial accounts and the way c-band or Starchoice works. I only watch 5 channels anyhow. However, it would mean that DBS could not afford to provide free installation unless they charged an "access fee" and then bill you by channel. I really dont think they should make it a law though. Competition show be the driving factor. If one major MSO started this, then all the others would be forced to follow suit.
 
One of the things i like about c-band is the choice to pick and choose just what channels i want to watch. The major reason i am quit using DBS and instead set up a c band dish is because i was forced to pay for a lot of channels i did not want to watch just so i could get the few i did want to watch.
 
C-band is a different beast... You are just using the signal that is already there, which is destined for cable and satellite providers. You arent their bread-and-butter cash flow, just some icing on the cake...

Cable is very different.. a good portion of the price is for the infrastructure. It costs money to get a wire to your house and keep it in good condition. constant maintenance, payroll for the people to do that maintenance, hardware to replace failed components..

Now if everyone can pick up their favorite 10 channels, now we have to block out all the rest. that also costs money in hardware and manhours.. Where is the money going to come from for that? from the subscriber.


Starchoice does not function this way exactly.. they have two base packages (one limited, one not) and then "theme" packages to add on, packs of 6-10 channels for $5, or you can get one channel for anywhere from $.99 to $3.50 a month (which is quite bloated for one channel, IMHO)

Now, lets take an example of my cable company. We have 57 Analog channels in two tiers.. (26 for limited basic, 31 for expanded basic) I am going to assume that those are exempt from the deal, since a bunch of single channel traps are excessive, and will bear an unnecessary burden on the provider and subscriber (imagine one of 30 traps dying, and trying to figure out which one) ... needless to say, a logistical nightmare.

Premium Channels are already on an "Al-la-carte" basis, so those are also exempt..

The high definition channels are already free on our service, with the exception of HBO HD, which is free, if you subscribe to HBO already, so this is a moot point.

That leaves us the Digital Basic channels.. 48 in total.. which only cost $18 for the whole lot. Lets say that it costs $2.50 a channel per month.. and you want Just the Discovery channels (which there are 6 of), thats $15 right there.... Sure, your saving $3/mo, but loosing 42 channels!

How about for $0.99 a channel.. thats 18 channels versus 48 channels.. whos saving money now? Certianly not you.

The price wont drop below that, as then it wouldnt be economical for the carrier to carry it.

All in all.. bad idea all around.
 
Perhaps a better plan would be for Sat & Cable providers to offer packages based on number of stations. Example: Have a 10, 20, 30 or more channel packages. The customer would choose a 10 pack, select his 10 channels for $10. (Just an example)

That would be about the only way this would work as I see it.
 
The problem with that is, different channels cost different amounts to the carrier.. some channels are as little as $.25/sub.. most are more, some are much much more..

some are only sold to us in packs, like the Discoverys, or ESPNs.. what if someone wanted Discovery Kids, but not Discovery Home? Are we just supposed to eat the cost of it?
 
But the cable industry is already regulated up the wazzoo...

FCC mandates that calls be answered within xx seconds (something like 60 seconds), also mandates that installs must cost less then $xx (do you really think that it really costs $17 to install cable to your house?) or that installs must be done with x days.

It also regulates costs to the subscriber (but I dont know the details of that)

There is a very fine line between being competitive, generating a profit, and keeping within FCC regulations. Cable companies are always striving to find that fine line as it is, until this monkey wrench gets thrown in...

I just cant wait for satellite and telco providers to follow the same regulations..
 
I think its a great idea, I subscribe to the at60 on dishnetwork and there are only 15 - 17 channels that I watch with any regularity outside of the locals. I don't want or need mtv because they never show any music video's, I don't need the sports channels because sports to me is just an excuse for grown men to wear tight fitting clothes and touch each other in most of them. I don't need all the national news channels, I don't need all the shopping channels, and I don't need all the religous channels. How many of the channels that are currently out there do people really watch? Ofcourse sports, educational, children, family, news, and movies are a big draw and the leaders will get more on ala carte and ofcourse the lesser channels such as A & E will get hurt by not being as requested but if they arent channels that would have a big draw then its because they are lack luster in thethey'refering of quality content. Why should we as consumers be forced to pay for product that we don't want, is it our responsibility to provide financial aid support to a company that we don't want to do business with just to get to do business with companies we really want to get product from? I say the answer is no and if I can pick and choose the channels I want to pay for and not throw away money at channels that I don't want to then thats what I will heartily support.

And if you think lesser viewed channels wont make it then tell that to sky angel, the package of sky angel packages that you find on dishnetwork isnt found on any other provider that I know of and I have maybe 1 install for sky angel service every 2 years but its still there alive and well.
 
The problem is, those 15-17 channels will probably cost you the same to watch as AT60 does..

Lets figure $1.49/channel (which is pretty low, but lets use it as an example) 17 channels would be $25.25.. How much is AT60? $26.99 or something like that?

Skyangel gets away with it because they have no infrastructure.. they just pay licensing to dish. also, try to go A-la-carte with them.. they only have about 30 channels in total anyways.. say you only want 3 of them.. they will die quickly if that was to happen.
 
Are premium movie channels really exempt? They are sold as a package too with multiple channels not just one. I wonder if they would have to offer to sell those channels individually. Just look at the Showtime package. They are not all Showtime channels.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)

Latest posts