Yet another Al la carte thread. Sorry!

[rharkins]

If you have a moment, take a look at this Wikipedia article on 'tying':

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tying_(commerce)

Some key paragraphs in this really struck home:

"Some kinds of tying, especially by contract, have historically been regarded as anti-competitive practices. The basic idea is that consumers are harmed by being forced to buy an undesired good (the tied good) in order to purchase a good they actually want (the tying good), and so would prefer that the goods be sold separately."

and

"Certain tying arrangements are illegal in the United States under both the Sherman Antitrust Act, and Section 3 of the Clayton Act. A tying arrangement is defined as "an agreement by a party to sell one product but only on the condition that the buyer also purchases a different (or tied) product, or at least agrees he will not purchase the product from any other supplier."

Can you tell me again why I have to buy the most expensive channels (sports) which I NEVER watch, in order to watch the few I do?

 

[Tampa8]

If you have a moment, take a look at this Wikipedia article on 'tying':

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tying_(commerce)

Some key paragraphs in this really struck home:

"Some kinds of tying, especially by contract, have historically been regarded as anti-competitive practices. The basic idea is that consumers are harmed by being forced to buy an undesired good (the tied good) in order to purchase a good they actually want (the tying good), and so would prefer that the goods be sold separately."

and

"Certain tying arrangements are illegal in the United States under both the Sherman Antitrust Act, and Section 3 of the Clayton Act. A tying arrangement is defined as "an agreement by a party to sell one product but only on the condition that the buyer also purchases a different (or tied) product, or at least agrees he will not purchase the product from any other supplier."

Can you tell me again why I have to buy the most expensive channels (sports) which I NEVER watch, in order to watch the few I do?

Sure. You are choosing to ignore "Certain tying arrangements"

You also are forgetting for the majority of people, packages save them money, not cost more. Euro News A La carte, an SD station is $4 a month. If you could even get some of the popular channels for that cost, just 10 of them would be $40 a month. No Thanks.

You also are forgetting, as being done by Dish at this time, they can not afford to keep customers who do not order some kind of package. So for instance, the locals A La Carte are no more, you must have a minimum package. The cost of getting you those channels is not cheap, so even if Dish allowed you to order, say three or four channels, I'm betting heavily they would have to have an access fee, and that would negate what you think you might save.

Now, saying all that, sports in particular at some point may have to become separate. But don't confuse that with A La Carte, it isn't. It would be an add on to a package that you are already getting. It would make the package less, but that is different than your question of A La Carte... Not only that, Dish at that point may be forced into having a separate cost based on your DMA. The NY DMA would have be way more than some other DMA's because of the number of RSN's, and their asking price. (YES and MSG)
For ESPN, I doubt seriously they would become a A La Care channel in any event unless they really were asking sky high prices out of line with other cable channels. Going that argument, why pay for any theme you don't like - not just sports (ESPN) if you don't watch anything to do with History or reality channels etc....

 

[harshness]

It isn't anti-competitive if competitors aren't somehow prevented from doing deals.

It isn't tying if the product is offered as a bundle. The business world is filled with examples where the combo is cheaper than the sum price of its components.

I don't see either of these arguments as particularly compelling towards the cause of a la carte.

 

[KAB]

And the simplest, yet voluntarily overlooked reason is that al la carte would probably end up costing everyone more in the long run. People think it would cost a proportional part of whatever package it is presently is, which would be a gross underestimation. The fewer you have, the more each one would cost.

 

[jerryez]

But a package of 60 channels cost more when you only watch maybe six of them. C Band use to sell ala cart and I purchased 10 channels for $1 each. Much cheaper than the packages that they offered. Go thru your package list and count the channels that you really watch.

 

[yaz96]

But a package of 60 channels cost more when you only watch maybe six of them. C Band use to sell ala cart and I purchased 10 channels for $1 each. Much cheaper than the packages that they offered. Go thru your package list and count the channels that you really watch.

And then multiply by $5-$10, which is what they would probably charge for each.

 

[Hall]

People think it would cost a proportional part of whatever package it is presently is, which would be a gross underestimation.

That's my opinion too.... People think they can take AT120, for example, for $44.99, and simply do the math and pick and choose the channels they want for $.37/ea. That's laughable !! As you say, the fewer, the more $. By the same token, take AT200 and do the math... $.29 per channel. Hmmm

I do wish people could pick and choose, just as a trial. I think channels like ESPN would get a rude awakening.

 

[Peter Parker]

We can argue points like this for ever but threads ona mesage board won't change anything. If you really feel thee is a case here perhaps you should contact an attorney and/or your state AG office.

 

[harshness]

C Band use to sell ala cart and I purchased 10 channels for $1 each.

Fast forward to today's C-band where a la carte channels sell for $5/month each and there are only a handful of them available.

Your argument is invalid because your assumption is invalid.

The real deals for C-band programming come from rolling your own bundles and even at that, they are sometimes more expensive than other carrier's fixed bundles; considerably more if you consider the cost of equipment.

 

[TheKrell]

I agree with the OP.

And there is pretty clear evidence that the total cost of a few channels a la carte would be less than the bundled cost of the hundreds of channels we don't watch. The evidence is that the channel providers have forever been fighting tooth and nail to keep their present business model. This is because they make more money this way. There is nothing preventing them from selling a la carte right now if they thought it would make them more money.

Case CLOSED. There is no way any of the Big Boys will ever unbundle their channels unless forced to do so by law. It would be nice if the law were already on the books, but despite the OP, I doubt that it is.

 

[Peter Parker]

The channel providers are fighting tooth and nail because it gets their ads at least the opportunity to be seen by more eyeballs. yes that is indeed them making more money but not purely from the fees from the TV providers (and indirectly us).

I do agree with the rest of your post though they like this model and would be unlikely to modify it unless forced to. If, like the OP you think it is contrary to current laaw go ahead and do something about that. If you feel more laws or regs are needed then contact your elected reps or the regulatory agencies involved.

 

[navychop]

Link to proper response.

 

[CK SatGuy]

Look guys, we all wish that every single channel that's on there was available a la carte, but we all know that may never happen (at least in our lifetime). The best thing that we can do right now is to figure out what channels each of us watch the most, find out what package those channels are in, and compare the prices of those packages (and any fees) for each provider that's available so each of us can get the best deal for the short-term and long-term.

 

[Yespage]

I think a la carte bundles would be nice. But that really isn't happening. The business model seems to be becoming less channel based and more individual program based (iTunes, DVD box sets).

 

[Blindowl1234]

I happened to stumble across this thread tonight and figured I'd donate my two cents....Alacarte is something we'd love to see, but it probably won't ever happen. A recent conversation with my two grown kids showed me the future of the tv viewer as we know it today....none. My son who is 30 said he couldn't tell me the last time he watched a tv show on a tv set...Netflix, watching a network show online etc.. seems to be what many are looking for...Basically I see the younger generation not willing to pay $75-100 a month for 200 channels of mostly stuff they'll never watch. Just my opinion but in 10 years at best, if cable and dish don't change the way they sell and package their product they may not have that customer to sell it too. Financially alacarte maybe a disaster, but if its what people are wanting, some provider will find a way to meet that need.
Seems the way we watch things on the tv as we know it today and the days of going the bookstore are numbered....Blind

 

[stardust3]

I feel the need to pipe in also. I'm about as al la carte as you can get. Have dish america bronze on a 722 with ota, roku with pandora, netflix, an assortment of private channels & of course my favorite warez site for movies that I play through roku. As the old saying goes, don't put all your eggs in 1 basket. Take control of your own entertainment, it is possible @ this point. Be creative.

 

[harshness]

And there is pretty clear evidence that the total cost of a few channels a la carte would be less than the bundled cost of the hundreds of channels we don't watch. The evidence is that the channel providers have forever been fighting tooth and nail to keep their present business model. This is because they make more money this way. There is nothing preventing them from selling a la carte right now if they thought it would make them more money.

This is not "pretty clear evidence" of anything. It is an attempt at binding things together that may or may not be bound.

Pretty clear evidence would come from an existing instance where the supposition is true. Your challenge is to dig up current evidence (as opposed to a loosely cobbled "proof by contradiction") that this is the case.

 

[whatchel1]

I don't pay for any premium channels any more. I get Starz for free but if there is something that is going to be on HBO or Showtime; I download it. I then play it back over my Panny 42" plasma via HDMI off my quad core PC w/ a 1Gb video card.

 

[pendragon]

For the past few years I've been on the same wavelength as Blindow's concern - if the satellite/cable suppliers don't adapt to change, the Internet will cannibalize them. A lot of video streaming is already available there for free, and one can be quite selective when it comes to paying only for programming one wants.

For the moment I find the quality of video/audio streamed over the Internet to be of miserable quality, but my kids generally could care less and they are the future. After all they have no problem listening to MP3s, while those are torture to me. Regardless, Dish Network and DirecTV have been continuously eroding their HD quality over the past few years, so it's reasonably likely their quality will be overtaken with increasing Internet speeds.

Channel bundling and packages work because they are mutually beneficial to both the DBS/cable and programming providers. They are also beneficial to TV addicts who watch a lot of channels because their monthly subscriptions are effectively subsidized by those who watch only a few channels. I'm in the latter camp and find the $100/month I pay to Dish to be a poor value. My family never watches more than ten channels, and usually less than five, but because of Dish's bundling strategy, we have to pay for nearly 300. I should calculate what we pay per hour of watched TV on Dish, but it would only further infuriate me.

I believe limited cable/DBS competition in the US has led to the practical suspension of classical supply and demand, by preventing a la carte options to the consumer. I don't know if there are sufficient anti-trust provisions on the books to deal with this, but as our various governments in the US have been partly responsible for the manner in which cable and DBS operate, I believe there needs to be some form of intervention in the consumers' interest.

A la carte is not a pipe dream. I have seen far better options along these lines in Europe, and I assume these exist elsewhere in the world. There is no doubt that if you want everything that is available, you will pay more in Europe. However if you are selective, the costs are less. This seems the way it should be.

We have been subscribing to Shaw Direct (Canada) for the past year, and while it isn't cheap, I believe we're getting a lot more value, partly because we make a lot more choices. There are more channels we watch than on Dish, most of the money we pay is toward specific packages we're interested in (rather than the basic package) and the HD quality is better for the channels we like. If a group of channels doesn't get watched or is of low quality, we have no qualms with bidding it farewell.

If Dish doesn't start moving in a different direction, we will join the exodus of DBS/cable subscriber drain that has already started. This cannot be good news for DBS/cable companies as many of their costs are fixed, as opposed to incremental. For those of you who think you get a great deal with giant channel packages, I'm wondering how you will feel as the DBS/cable providers increase their prices to compensate for the loss of subscribers. Give it a few years.

 

[navychop]

Have you noticed how more and more ISPs are introducing FAPs?

TANSTAAFL