None of this matters: "They" have us coming and going. No question that a la carte is MORE expensive. In fact, even the SlingTV is NOT a la carte. It is a traditional package with a few add-ons. Say SlingTV offered each channel it now offers as part of the basic package for $5 per month, that would easily surpass the current $20 per month subscription price, and ESPN would be something like $20 per month. What we are seeing is simply smaller less expensive packages, and this seems to be Sony TV's model, as well, and Apple's. Unless one only wants one or two channels, packaging actually makes the best economic sense for consumers, but its the incremental increase for the packages every few years that drives us crazy, and all the content moving to the web is just changing the tech of delivery. The future there is exactly the ugly system we have with cable and sat.
Al A Carte is in the future...
- Thread starter KaptainRandom
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 98
- Views 9K
That's how I have seen it from the begining. That's because programming still costs what it does, online, offline, in the clouds, whatever the carriers still have to pay the same cost for the programming. You hit it about smaller packages, that and maybe combining different channels is about the only way to make the cost less but not necessarily more for your money or less per channel or program. If a company is only online they do have less costs than running a satellite or cable company so theoretically they could charge something less though there is still considerable overhead to making that much video reliably available 24hrs.
I don't think the "Netflix" companies are going to last or at least not as presently constituted if online becomes the primary way to get TV programming. (Or even if it is just popular) Programmers need DISH or Comcast etc.. to get their programming to us, they don't need Netflix or anyone to do it online if they can make more without them. CBS and others are on that road.
I don't think the "Netflix" companies are going to last or at least not as presently constituted if online becomes the primary way to get TV programming. (Or even if it is just popular) Programmers need DISH or Comcast etc.. to get their programming to us, they don't need Netflix or anyone to do it online if they can make more without them. CBS and others are on that road.
Most ISPs cannot support a large percentage of customers streaming HDTV, and they won't for many years. The model of broadcasting everything from a single source and recording locally, i.e., satellite/cable-DVR is far more efficient than on demand steaming. On demand is a valuable niche product, but we are a long way from viability for everyone. Just wait and see how good Netflix is during prime time with net neutrality fully in effect.
Programming still costs what it does because the current system allows it. It IS all about the skyrocketing costs of programming, but the overhead costs are peanuts vs. the licensing costs of the content, which does not have any supply and demand market price controls with the current bundling system. End the forced bundling and allow an ala carte market decide what is a fair price for the programming. Only then would content owners/bidders be more cost-conscious in bidding for or buying the content.
Last edited:
Exactly. These shows wouldn't exist if people didn't watch them. Even I got caught up watching Jersey Shore once in a while when it use to be on. In college I enjoyed watching the Real World too.
Brother, 
Haha. Two terrible shows. I stick with the primetime shows, wrestling, and documentaries. With the kids moving in, I guess I should brush up on some Disney.
Exactly. Many of the "folks" who recently clamored for government imposed net neutrality will soon find out what it really means, followed by the same crowd yelling for the government to "do something". Ironically, that "do something" will be prioritized allocation for services like Netflix.
And probably Google, since they apparently were involved in "crafting" the 300 some odd page internet regulation document nobody's seen yet.
My example is a blend from current DISH base package (Welcome Pack) and A la carta format from Canada.
In Canada, due to population 11% comparing from USA, also the penetration, SAT service have less of 2M (900K Shaw) of subscriber vs 13M from DISH / 19M Directv. The same is true for Cellular company, There no Unlimited plan for $50.00 per month?
No one asked the real burning question of this thread:
Who exactly is Al A. Carte? (see thread title)
Who exactly is Al A. Carte? (see thread title)
I understand that it's just that is not anywhere near what selecting your own channels would/will cost. Sometimes these threads have posts of why people will save so much based on unrealistic costs. We all would certainly like much lower prices!
Haven’t we all seen the list of what our channels actually cost to provide?
It’s easy to look at it and say “I never watch BTV or sports, I want Cartoon Network, the Science Channel, the cooking channels, SyFy, etc, and my locals. That should cost $40 a month and they’re charging me $75”.
But of course, you can’t GET what you want without going with America’s Everything Pack.
The satellite providers are raking the heck out of us to offer bargain basement introductory prices to the newbies, and profiting by lying to the networks that pay to be included that we all want to watch their junk.
We’re about to have Fiber Optic installed, and the provider says they’re thinking about carrying TV later on.
With Apple TV, Hulu, etc, people will just get disgusted and leave the TV broadcasters as Fiber Optic spreads, unless they get smart and start offering A La Carte themselves.
By the way, are there any C Band providers left? Last I checked there was one reasonable package at $40 a month.
If one provider, A New service, offered a Basic Package, that including, Channel (only the base) from Turner/AMC/FOX/NBC/Scribb/Discovery/A&E, That package are great for me. No Disney/ESPN that increases the cost or Viacom (Is worth?). [Any one guess the price] Additional channel from the network above, or other will be sales by package. (I select the movie package that including REELZ).
FS Arizona just signed a deal worth over $1 Billion to keep the DBacks for another 15 years. It's said the new deal is worth 3x the current rate. Going to the whole idea of supply and demand...is the demand for live sports really that great? If so, who was FS Arizona bidding against to drive the price to 3X what they were previously paying. This, for the team who finished in last place last year. Just one example of the programming costs that are simply agreed to by the RSNs then passed on to the cable/sat operators then on to us.
I also find it odd that, for most games, there are more promo ads per hour than on any other network.
http://www.azcentral.com/story/spor...ved-to-be-worth-more-than-1-billion/23651245/
I also find it odd that, for most games, there are more promo ads per hour than on any other network.
http://www.azcentral.com/story/spor...ved-to-be-worth-more-than-1-billion/23651245/
