Will this impact Satellite TV

[Texanmutt]

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.

There is an easy way to deal with the problems you outlined. Charge an access fee. The access fee would cover the cost of infrastructure, then the price of the channel would cover the MSO's cost of the subscription. Charging people for installation (and not doing it for free) could also reduce some costs. Most people only watch 5-10 channels anyhow. They still should have package deals so that if you still wanted to buy an over priced package, you can. How much of the money for a package does an mso have to pay to the provider. Probably almost half. Imagine an access fee of $15 dollars and then an appropriate price for each channel. If things were done this way then E* would not haved to have dropped OLN. They could just charge more for that one channel and not f**k everyone else that doesnt watch it.

 

[Texanmutt]

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?

How is this a problem ? FTG accounts operate in this fashion already. If a hotel wants ESPN then they pay $3.50 per room for it. If they want to offer a comcast sports or a fox sports regional channels, then they only pay $0.99 for it. The customers price would depend on the MSO's cost per subscriber.

 

[Stargazer]

I imagine everyone would get the shopping channels and perhaps additional advertisement content in the future included with whatever channels that they would order and those free public access channels as well.

I would expect a larger access fee or larger fee for the basic packages to be charged if ala carte would occur to offset some losses that they may have. We already see a $5 access fee if you do not order a basic package. If you order a package you would get a discount based upon the package that you order.

For those companies that have several channels they would probably offer to sell you one of their channels that they have for a large price such as $5 for example then sell each additional channel for a penny or ten cents more per month that way it would be a no brainer to order them. That is what they would have to do if they could not get away with giving the rest of the channels away for free when you order one (unless they implemented a rebate program). The companies may even charge more if you order less channels to discourage that to prevent advertisement revenue from being affected.

 

[SRW1000]

The problem is, those 15-17 channels will probably cost you the same to watch as AT60 does..

Your argument works if all the channels you want are included in AT60. But if some of those 15-16 channels are only available in the AT180, the cost is now 17 channels at $25.25 versus $47.99. Even at an average of $2.00 per channel, there would be a savings of $10.00 per month.

I just look at it as another choice for the consumers. There's no reason the providers couldn't continue the tiered packages they carry now, and also offer ala carte as an option. It would be interesting to see what the actual pricing would be, and how it would be affected by competition between providers.

Scott

 

[Sarang]

I'm interested in A La Carte. One of my big complaints is all the duplicate feeds they have, E and W of some. You have Disney Channel E and W, Nick E and W, Sho E and W, HBO and HBO 2 E and W. Personally I'd LOVE to lose either one of those West Coast HBO feeds for the extra HBO channel, HBO Zone, that Dish doesn't carry. Also it would be nice if Dish dropped MAX W to squeeze in an extra MAX channel. Honestly Dish could also drop both West feeds of TMC and TMCXTA. With this A La Carte as much as people are complaining I'd drop a TON of channels so I wouldn't be worrying. TLC is worthless to me, it use to be good in the old days but I don't know if $0.10 a month would even be worth it to me since they don't even air those pseudo documentaries or whatever on hauntings as well as interesting History stuff and PLEASE don't mention the History Channel, I don't want a Pseudo Historical movie that plays liberties with facts about a person and embellishes here or there, I want a channel that offers the documentaries or similarly styled ones that TLC offered. I would keep "The Travel Channel" since it's got some good shows, IFC and TCM are givens as well. I'd almost consider dropping Nickelodeon since it's almost totally worthless to me except for a FEW shows that air on Nick At Nite since it's all Nicktoons and seemingly CRAPPY one's during the day. Honestly I don't see why people can't recognize all the worthless channels stuck around. As for ESPN, no way. ESPN2 yes just for the Karate and other cool stuff. Discovery Health is a given for some of it's programming.
I'd also take Trio if Dish carried it.
Btw to the people that would complain about Dish getting rid of the duplicate feeds I think they're kinda stupid now that PVR's are around. JMO here.

 

[Stargazer]

Maybe we will see some of those west coast feeds dropped as the SD content is replaced with HD content due to HD taking up so much more space than SD. Eventually all the premiums will be HD only and those will be the first that will require the upgrade to receive them in my opinion.

 

[mdovell]

I agree swith this in concept but the trouble is it should have been done decades ago.

I think that we might still have some packages of smaller channels simply because of the way things are.

Most people I think watch 20 or less channels...I think the ones that will get hit hard would be the foreign languages ones as well as the religious ones...

There's plenty I'd lob off at teh drop of a hat...We get around 4 or so religious ones, 3 or so nickelodeons etc.

The real sad thing though would be that these minor ones might not have the resources now or the demand to go to HD for quite some time. HD for ESPN is no problem but it would be quite some time before say Oxygen and G4 go to HD...

 

[Stargazer]

As DVR's become more popular there will be less of a need for the west coast feeds. The bandwidth is needed for other stations. I wonder if many stations will be put up in HD-Lite or ED mode to save on bandwidth? They could do this to give all channels equal treatment as some may get mad if someone else gets a higher definition than them first for a while. This also leaves more room to give all stations an enhanced definition. They may also choose to enhance the higher priced packages first starting with the premium movie channels and PPV then AT180 then AT120 and so on (those channels in that package that are not in the one below it).

 

[Sarang]

I agree swith this in concept but the trouble is it should have been done decades ago.
I think that we might still have some packages of smaller channels simply because of the way things are.
Most people I think watch 20 or less channels...I think the ones that will get hit hard would be the foreign languages ones as well as the religious ones...
There's plenty I'd lob off at teh drop of a hat...We get around 4 or so religious ones, 3 or so nickelodeons etc.
The real sad thing though would be that these minor ones might not have the resources now or the demand to go to HD for quite some time. HD for ESPN is no problem but it would be quite some time before say Oxygen and G4 go to HD...

I'm sorry but WHO cares about G4?! They call themselves a "Video Games" channel but won't even devote ONE show to imports so I say they forfeit that right somewhat since they're not truly catering to the entire gaming community. I also think it's pathetic considering with all the airtime and all the other NON-gaming shows they're using to fill the schedule they could easily take a chance and do it.
The only valid reason I could see for them doing HD is when they're showing trailers otherwise the Prom Kings and Male bimbos COUGHfoundedbyE!COUGH on that channel don't deserve it.

 

[Stargazer]

It would have been odd to see G4 go HD before any of the video games would have.

 

[Stargazer]

It would have been odd to see G4 go HD before any of the video games would have.

 

[Stargazer]

I guess I just caught a glitch by accident lol. Scott, did you forget to put in the software feature that prevents duplicate posts?

 

[dishcomm]

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.

I say let the marketplace decide which services should survive.....c-Band programmers such as Programmers Clearing House offered a la carte services...
Charlie(E*) has been pushing for a la carte for years....
These little niche channels that few view are taking up valuable Xsponder space.
TV services should not be propped up by welfare state rules that force subscibers to pay fr them......Nope, free markets should decide who succeeds and who fails..

 

[dishcomm]

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..

Whoa!!!!!!!!!! I am pretty sure the cable industry has been de regulated.....Yes it still has to answer to the FCC but a s far as 'public utility' type regulations..no....Cable can do what they want..For example Time warner here in the Charlotte ,C area just announced a 2%increase..Third increase this year..That cite an increase in the NC tax on cable subscriptions...

 

[dishcomm]

There is an easy way to deal with the problems you outlined. Charge an access fee. The access fee would cover the cost of infrastructure, then the price of the channel would cover the MSO's cost of the subscription. Charging people for installation (and not doing it for free) could also reduce some costs. Most people only watch 5-10 channels anyhow. They still should have package deals so that if you still wanted to buy an over priced package, you can. How much of the money for a package does an mso have to pay to the provider. Probably almost half. Imagine an access fee of $15 dollars and then an appropriate price for each channel. If things were done this way then E* would not haved to have dropped OLN. They could just charge more for that one channel and not f**k everyone else that doesnt watch it.

Ah yes..I would certainly like tohave te abilty ot charge custs for installation of extras..Right now because cable can pay their techs crap wages and offer nearly whoile house wiring for free, DN has to watch that and not charge either..SO I don't get paid for wall fishes ,pole mts etc...As DNSC sub contractor that is...On our retail deals we DO charger the custr for the custom stuff...I would lke to see the customers have to bear some financial responsibility here...

 

[Texanmutt]

Ah yes..I would certainly like tohave te abilty ot charge custs for installation of extras..Right now because cable can pay their techs crap wages and offer nearly whoile house wiring for free, DN has to watch that and not charge either..SO I don't get paid for wall fishes ,pole mts etc...As DNSC sub contractor that is...On our retail deals we DO charger the custr for the custom stuff...I would lke to see the customers have to bear some financial responsibility here...

Cable companies dont wire the house for cheap. Not at $20 per house wrap, $50 per wall fish and $40-$50 for installation.

 

[Doctor Bob]

Don't complicate things too much... the only reason for all of this, is simply that one group wants to control what another group is doing... Nothing more and nothing less... The Government (The FCC in this case) really doesn't want any part of the BS... They are being forced, by the different groups, to look into the "Squabble" :haha The Providers will find a way to make more money off of "You and I"... RONTGLMAO.... And guess what!!! Nobody give a damn what you watch, as long as you pay for it.... RONTGLMAO... Every time one group gets mad, the Providers make more money... What a Wonderful Circle this is eh!!!