would you subscribe to a programming package where you picked every channel?

[mini1]

Thank you for your vote in this poll! Tell us your thoghts on why you voted the way you did in this poll. Do you think this kind of service will ever happen, or is it just too far fetched because of the deals required for pay TV services to broadcast grouped channels to the subscriber? know of any pay TV provider somewhere else in the world trying this out with a few channels and subscribers? post it below. As always, please post anything interesting related to this topic below.

 

[Stargazer]

I think when it comes down to it you may see at least half the people go ahead and take the packages so they have all the channels available. I like the fact that I have them all even though I do not view all of them. I would like to have a package where I could pick and choose but not if it meant me paying more per channel and costing almost as much and having less channels.

It would be good for those on a budget or was set on just a dozen channels. If we could pick and choose the channels they would still have the downgrade fees/change of service fees and people would be trying to change their service a lot more often in which could result in a rise in downgrade fees/change of service fees.

 

[silversurfer]

This is the one thing that keeps my Dad from switching from C-Band to D*. With C-Band he only subscribes to what he wants to watch and it costs him very little..

 

[Mr Tony]

I have ExpressVu and they have "themes", so if you don't want sports, dont choose it. They have packages, but you can choose specific themes. Heck, some channels can be ordered alacarte.

 

[rjallen]

I am generally in favor of choice but I don't think it will happen unless FTC or Congress steps in. Seems the large media conglomerates push all their products as packages on the cable/sat providers- See Dish vs Viacom latest talks. This requires the providers to take channels that would not necessarily stand on their own along with more general interest product.

Our children are grown and gone.- We do not need numerous MTV clones now part of our "package". Nor do we need Nick and the like. But other households would find these channels to be of great interest. I like sports others not- Perhaps we could see, one day, something like a Chinese Resturant Family Meal Menu- You know "pick any 5 dishes" .

If all channels were allowed to be sold on their own merit, my hunch is there would be some that failed to garner a large viewership and would quickly disappear.

Rick

 

[rcbridge]

If total ala carte was offered I am very sure the cost per channel would be prohibitive.
But I would like to have it as an option!!

 

[Cyclone]

You seem to have the misunderstanding that the Cable or Satellite company can actually offer this. Media companies such as Viacom and Disney negotiate their channels into packages.

ie) if you want ESPN, you had better carry ESPNEWs and ESPN Classic also or else Disney won't let you have ESPN.

Because of this, Disney gets $3 per subscriber per month (estimate) for ESPN. Multiply that by the 60m Comcast, 25m dbs, and other customers and you'll see what Disney doesn't want that to change.

Ala carte channel lineups will never happen.

 

[jsanders]

You seem to have the misunderstanding that the Cable or Satellite company can actually offer this. Media companies such as Viacom and Disney negotiate their channels into packages.

ie) if you want ESPN, you had better carry ESPNEWs and ESPN Classic also or else Disney won't let you have ESPN.

Ala carte channel lineups will never happen.

Okay Cyclone, I don't want ESPN, ESPNEWs, or ESPN Classic. I suspect that sport's fans won't mind having all of those, and non sports fans won't want them. So, what is the problem? Maybe not have it ala carte via a single channel, but ala carte via themes. Do you want the cartoon channels? Add them. Leaning channels (HGTV, TLC, History, etc..). Group them according to media provider. There isn't that much problem here....

 

[M Law]

You bet I would!

It's about time that we should all push for selecting individual channels rather than having to pick from bulk packages.

One reason is that it would cause a shake out in channels, with many falling to the wayside. This is not a bad thing. Our programming options are so extensive that we have diluted the quality of that programming. The money to make those programs is a limited pool, and only goes so far. If it is spread thin, the quality drops. Cut the number of junk channels down, and the quality goes up on the remaining programming.

One argument that is often made in favor of bulk packages is cost. The reasoning goes that if you cut the number of channels down, the cost per channel goes up. This is not necessarily so. What you will get is a variation in the cost of channels. Popular channels will go at a higher premium than those that don't garner the numbers. Again, not necessarily a bad thing. Very possibly it would average out. I wouldn't mind the networks being offered this way as national HD feeds. I personally would pay a premium for that. Additionally, the propping up of weak channels does not work in our favor, and by being bundled with more popular channels, providers are able to keep up the cost of their bundles when in all likelihood the same channels taken individually would cost the same or less.

I for one could do without all the junk channels that eat bandwidth, add to the overall costs, make it look like you are getting more channels than you really are (delete the ones you don't want from any package you take and it will slim the package by probably 40%), and choke the guides with channel after channel of junk. Who really wants any of that?

 

[Stargazer]

Having packages does create a lot more channels in that they force some or all the channels to get added once the contract is up or they will up the rates on the channels they have or not offer the channel at all. Perhaps this is why some of the mtv/vh1 suite channels among others are not being offered yet, because the contract has not renewed. Perhaps that is why the vh1 negotiations were failing, because of those suite channels that they probably want included.

Subscribers should see some of these channel additions when we see the increase of prices but we have not seen some of the channel additions in which would have been a reflection of some of those price increases.

 

[John Corn]

I can't see that happening, but yes i love to.

 

[jerryez]

C-band subscribers have always had this option.

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

Yes I would, however I must admit my channel selection would probably consist of no more then 25 channels.

Ultimately DBS Satellite as we know it is nothing more then CableTV from the Sky.

Man sometimes I miss my C Band dish!

 

[boba]

The old "C" band was good for ala carte but if you will notice more and more channels are disappearing. If you go to "C" band digital you find the same story is true you must buy in packages. It would be cheaper and more satisfying to buy only what you want BUT IT ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN.

 

[BobMurdoch]

Think about the fact that you probably don't watch 75% of the channels you get. The companies will NOT let you drop all of those as they would be no longer viable (but don't forget that even though you never watch Lifetime, SoapNet, or Style, your neighbor never watches ESPN, FoxSports, or Spike. No one ever wants to support the channels they DON'T want, but everyone wants everyone ELSE to support the channels they DO want for themselves).

Bottom line, the current system isn't going anywhere for a while.

 

[dlsnyder]

One of the driving forces behind the increasing number of themed niche channels is probably increased ad revenue for the programmers. If Viacom produces a children's show for Nickelodeon they can only show it so many times on that one channel before people stop tuning in. If they spread it around, maybe run a block of Nickelodeon programming on CBS on Saturday mornings, or better yet start a new channel like Nicktoons, they can recycle their programming almost endlessly picking up people who might not have tuned in to Nickelodeon for the first run along the way. The more channels they operate then the more ad revenue they can take in per program airing. The problem with that model is that eventually the market starts to get saturated. Ad revenue per channel goes down because the total TV ad revenue pie gets sliced into diminishingly smaller pieces. At some point there isn't going to be enough ad revenue for a channel to survive even if it is artificially propped up through strong-arm tactics such as mandatory bundling with other services. IMHO that is probably what killed Discovery People. With all that in mind a-la-carte is probably never going to happen. What MIGHT happen is a whole new model to replace the current one. It is slowly gaining momentum and may be the only thing to increase profitibility in the new era of DVRs that can zap through commercials. VOD may be the wave of the future, which may be a problem for those of us who prefer satellite. Watch what you want when you want for as long as you want. Create your own commercial free "Hello Larry" marathon if you want, as long as you are willing to pay for it.

 

[Stargazer]

If they want increased ad revenue with the extra niche channels then they should not force them down our throat for an extra charge. I think if they cannot make enough money off of the advertisement then some of these channels should not have an extra charge.

Didn't I hear about some FTA channels becoming available in the future on 105 with another satellite provider where some of the channels would make enough off of advertisement to not have to charge for their channels while others you could purchase on an ala carte basis directly from the station? Or are all of them going to be ala carte? If you purchase directly from the stations then they could make just as much if not more money and you would still end up paying less since Dish Network, DirecTv, or cable would no longer be the middle man.

 

[BobMurdoch]

VOD may be the wave of the future, which may be a problem for those of us who prefer satellite. Watch what you want when you want for as long as you want. Create your own commercial free "Hello Larry" marathon if you want, as long as you are willing to pay for it.

Meanwhile according to Video Business magazine VOD and PPV only provided 1.9% of the revenue for movies released last year. Laserdisc only had 4% and they killed that market to help DVD take off.

Cable's REAL advantages currently:
1. Cable Modems (DSL is slower and not available in all areas)
2. Local HDTV, where offered. I don't see Joe Six Pack scaling his roof to put an 8 ft. antenna on his roof if he is 50 miles away.
3. No additional receiver charges.
4. Local Weather Channel feed.

Cable's Other Assumed Advantages that the Average Joe Doesn't Really Care About:

5. VOD. Blockbuster and Netflix aren't quaking in their boots yet.
6. Phone service. Yawn, who cares if I send more than one check out a month, especially since their prices aren't that great in comparison when looking at the packages most telephone consumers have.
7. FREE Cable Boxes. Who cares? Where is the PVR. And why is there only a Digital Coax conector for the Dolby Digital. Don't you know that most low end to midrange A/V receivers only have TOSLink (the one Digital Coax connecion is usually locked for DVD only).
8. Local News Channels and Ads. Puhleez. It is so great not to have to suffer through the chintzy local ads. Comcast 8 and NewsChannel 12 aren't making me change from MSNBC or CNN.
9. No long term commitments. Yeah, well for better picture quality, sound, PVRs, and price increases that average LESS than the rate of inflation when averaged over five years, I'll stick with DBS for the two years anyway.

 

[dbronstein]

Cable's REAL advantages currently:
1. Cable Modems (DSL is slower and not available in all areas)

The only advantage is the bundling discount. I know quite a few people (including myself) who have satellite and cable modems. Depending on what you what, satellite is still a better deal sometimes even with the cable discount.

2. Local HDTV, where offered. I don't see Joe Six Pack scaling his roof to put an 8 ft. antenna on his roof if he is 50 miles away.

This is what's going to kill satellite if they can't figure it out. Most people want to get all their channels from the same source, whether it's cable or satellite. They don't want to have a separate antenna for OTA.

3. No additional receiver charges.

Depends on what you are getting. I only have Dish on one TV so I don't care about the mirror fee. Plus if you want additional digital cable boxes, you do have ot pay for them.

4. Local Weather Channel feed.

I don't know anyone (aside from the people here) who give a crap about this.

5. VOD. Blockbuster and Netflix aren't quaking in their boots yet.

Right now it's a non-factor. When it gets widely rolled out, we'll see.

6. Phone service. Yawn, who cares if I send more than one check out a month, especially since their prices aren't that great in comparison when looking at the packages most telephone consumers have.

It depends on the cost. In some places it's very competitive with the local phone company. But I don't see it as a factor in deciding between satellite or cable.

7. FREE Cable Boxes. Who cares? Where is the PVR. And why is there only a Digital Coax conector for the Dolby Digital. Don't you know that most low end to midrange A/V receivers only have TOSLink (the one Digital Coax connecion is usually locked for DVD only).

The DVRs are already out on some systems.

8. Local News Channels and Ads. Puhleez. It is so great not to have to suffer through the chintzy local ads. Comcast 8 and NewsChannel 12 aren't making me change from MSNBC or CNN.

I don't know anyone who cares about this.

9. No long term commitments. Yeah, well for better picture quality, sound, PVRs, and price increases that average LESS than the rate of inflation when averaged over five years, I'll stick with DBS for the two years anyway.

I'm confused here because I see so many people bitching about Dish's lousy PQ on this board than others. But as for the commitment issue itself, the impression I get is people are willing to do a one-year commitment without a second thought, so I don't see that as an issue.

Dennis

 

[Stargazer]

HDTV is going to HURT dbs BIT TIME until dbs finds a solution for this. The only way this will go against cable is if their prices cannot be competetive with dbs due to cost of HD.

Broadband internet that cable offers is also going to hurt dbs as well if dbs cannot offer a cheap reliable broadband service with low upfront cost. Even if that happens their ping is not good enough.

In regards to the long-term commitments, people should not get a satellite if they do not plan on keeping it. There could be a satisfaction guarantee given and Dish could at least make the install charge for these customers not backchargable so the retailer is not out if the customer decides he does not want the system. One month should be good for the satisfaction guarantee, after that a commitment for one year. Have hardware returned if service is not kept for one year and have it apply towards the penalty that would be charged to help reduce the penalty, plus give the customer a pro-rated penalty. Problem is it comes out of the retailer's pockets if this was implemented and the retailer would feel as if it should be done to further help them with the backcharges. There has to be a compromise somehow.

Cost may be the ultimate determining factor even if the service has some disadvantages because money talks.