No, it wouldn't. Initially, maybe, but supply and demand would level off prices that would be palatable to all. When some channels are charging too much ala carte, they won't get subscribed to, and the channel owners would have to adjust their prices accordingly.
56% of viewers would drop ESPN
- Thread starter sam_gordon
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 241
- Views 15K
Aren't commercials supposed to cover the cost of TV programs? There's plenty of those nowadays. OTA is still free. Broadcasters are now getting paid by commercials and us.
And infomercials...In the current bundling model, a single conglomerate channel owner can take the content of 2 channels, spread it over 12 of their owned channels, fill the rest of the space with infomercials, and charge 3x in subscription fees than they would get from just 2 channels.
Well, mostly to the right.
You must be thinking of Disney, that is the fantasy land stuff with Sophie the First and what not.
It is! But there are limited DVR options (SlingTV).
God bless America. We have a weather channel that doesn't show weather, a history channel that doesn't show history, a channel that shows completely made up nature documentaries (and I think Smithsonian may be guilty of that too, but at least hippos and lions do exist), news channels that don't really report the news, and expensive sports channels that show lots of poker. Hundreds of channels and nothing on? We wish... there is stuff on and it is awful, but the LCD seems to dig it, so... *sigh*
What the heck does that mean, "we already have several news channels." We aren't talking about adding more. Further, you are not correct, Fox News is NOT in the lowest essential package. You happen to be in the minority about Fox News, as you would be about TNT, USA, etc. They are the most watched channels, not having them in packages would be totally counterproductive.
Your premise is wrong. No one who wants Satellite or Cable is going to want complete A La Carte, to think so means you don't understand it. The very thing you are railing against is what keeps a channel no watches like MSNBC on DISH. If you watch MSNBC, you likely won't be because there is not a chance they will exist when people have to choose to buy it. Fox News will still be there. CNN? Questionable. Then you will be here complaining DISH only carries Fox News.
If people think fees are high now, just wait till you see what channels would cost, including fees if everything was A La Carte, at least for those channels still existing.
Why do I have to join a store's loyalty program to get the cheaper price on an item? That's the way it is. Period. You might be fine paying the same amount (or more) and getting fewer channels. I'm not. I have kids ranging in age from 10-17 so there's different channels there, and I flip though and end up watching what looks interesting at the time. Give me more choices any day over fewer choices and more cost.
How is it any different? It's not. It's being required to pay for something to get something else.
Put it all in tiers and let the people decide what tiers to pay for. Have a kids tier, a news tier, a sports tier, and so forth. Mandatory paying for a bogus "news" channel is not any different than mandatory paying for a sports channel,.
Then let the people who want to watch them pay for it. I have no issue with letting the people who watch the sports pay for it either.
I am not discussing MSNBC or CNN. I don't want those either.
So start your own MVPD and run things the way you want. I'm sure we can all come up with ways Dish (and other MVPDs) can operate so it would be beneficial to us. But Dish, like any business, is going to do what's best for THEM.
That's bogus. It was off the air for a short time. Many people are under contract and just can't "change." I disagree. Most disputes are short term and any one who changes is fooling themselves.
The bottom line is ala carte is not going to happen for any channel. Why? Because the only way to do this is for a provider to drop ESPN altogether and no one has yet. No one wants to be that provider that drops ESPN. ESPN contracts provide for high penetration percentages meaning 9.7% out of every 10 subs must have it (or some number like that) or the whole system won't be able to get it. Plus there is cross selling between other DIsney owned channels.
Is Fox doing anything different? Fox packages its channels together. Fox got itself upside down with FS1 because FS1 is no ESPN and thus providers are simply not willing to pay for it. But it tried to cross sell FS1 with Fox News, etc with Dish and that got the channel pulled.
In the end ala carte is not happening.
So? That also means that a good % of folks do not lead an exciting life if they sit around and watch garbage TV all day. The issue is not with the folks sitting and watching. It's with the folks cancelling their service altogether rather than pay for high costs.
So folks that want Fox News are not cancelling because of ESPN. They are paying those costs. The issue is folks cancelling because they do not watch any channel enough to justify to themselves the cost. It's those folks that the pay TV industry has to figure out how to bring back into the circle. ESPN is going to still be on the majority of systems. Fox News is going to still be on the majority of systems. The rest of the channels not owned by Disney or Fox? They are the ones who need to worry about getting displaced.
I don't need to because despite your rhetoric, ESPN is not going anywhere, and neither is Fox News. Both will remain on the vast majority of systems.
You are the one who should start your own system - emotional arguments don't make good business decisions.
Since we're discussing a la carte and paying for channels we don't watch, I have a question. I've got about a thousand music channels on my package which I never listen to. Does DISH pay for these music channels? I can understand why DISH offers a variety of television programming in their packages, people have different tastes in what they watch. However, it seems to me that anyone who wants to listen to music has many other options instead of turning on their TV.
Just curious about that.
Just curious about that.
You'll be surprised. The current business model is near its breaking point. The bubble will burst and providers/content owners will have to change their thinking.
Since we're discussing a la carte and paying for channels we don't watch, I have a question. I've got about a thousand music channels on my package which I never listen to. Does DISH pay for these music channels? I can understand why DISH offers a variety of television programming in their packages, people have different tastes in what they watch. However, it seems to me that anyone who wants to listen to music has many other options instead of turning on their TV.
Just curious about that.
I'd have to say that the music channels are much more popular than you think. I know there are a lot of options for listening to music but people really enjoy Sirius music and some of the other music stations. They may not be channels that people would switch providers over but they do offer something customers like.
If you are saying there should be separate packages for same themed channels, that to some degree could and may be done at some point, it was done early on in Satellite, and in Canada. But it's a crap shoot if you would save any appreciable money. Say you wouldn't get the news package, save the cost. The problem is that package will cost peanuts to a sports package, and because less people will be paying for the sports package channels, getting those channels will cost even more. That's why to me the answer is to generally get sports out of the regular packages, yes it may cost more for it but those costs are out of line with the other channels, even the premiums now, and I like sports.
I'm not dismissing a form of choice, but it works more in favor of those not tied to many particular channels, or only want a few channels. Keep in mind, DISH already has a form of that, the Welcome pack and Smart (Family) pack, and has the Top 120 which saves some. Maybe moving much of sports to the sports pack and pricing it accordingly is a start. It's possible those people would be cord cutting anyway at some point. It's someone like me who wants the channels, wants to sit down, scroll through the guide or just watch my recorded programs without going from service to service to watch them.
My wife loves having siriusxm the house. Having it now, I would have to pay the $8 a month for an added radio because she really does use it. In our case I could legitimately add $8 to my cost to use another provider.
My wife uses it often. I use it occasionally. It's nice to listen to when doing chores around the house. I know lot of people like to have it on in the background during parties. My parents have their receiver hooked up to wireless speakers and listen to it all the time out in the garage or on the patio. It's really nice over Christmas time since I don't have any Christmas songs downloaded on any devices.
