Because they can. If they actually had to succumb to real viewer demand, they wouldn't be so free-spending.
Al A Carte is in the future...
- Thread starter KaptainRandom
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 98
- Views 9K
Cox TV Economy has most of that for $38.99 a month before equipment, fees and taxes
No sports channels and its missing a few of the more popular channels like USA, TBS, HGTV, TLC but it has most of the top cable channels
http://www.cox.com/residential/tv/prices.cox
http://www.cox.com/residential/tv/channel-lineup.cox
My Telco offers Fiber To The Door, with a pretty good channel line-up, but with all of the stupid fees, it's not really a good deal.
Satellite companies are raking in the money?? Dish alone made $13+ Billion dollars in revenue, but only a Net Income in the $200+ million range. I wouldn't call that raking in the money. Profitable currently, yes, but if they were raking in the money, do you think that number would be significantly higher?
Also, let's say those are the only channels you want. The do you think the networks would take a loss on what they make total in their bundles, and bankrupt channels they make money off of via bundle, to allow ala carte? Remember, Dish, and I beleive DTV both offered ala carte packages a few years ago, and the channel owners are the ones that got pissed off. They lost income. And the forced bundles became a thing.
Let's use an example. With forced bundling, and requiring channels in specific packages, compnies like Fox was able to hold Fox News hostage, and try to make more money off a completely unrelated channel. It was unsuccessful because companies like Dish stand up, but I think your fear and anger of the TV industry may be applying blinders to the actual business model, and success.
I see the current model of forced bundling for tv channels ending or being severely limited in the next 5 years. Because more and more people are cutting the cord. The only thing keeping cord cutting and ala cart channels from going full mainstream, is that their is not broadband internet everywhere in the country yet. For most places like this satellite and or cable is still raking it in. But sooner or later ,they too will get broadband in those areas and there really won't be any reason for them to stay with satellite or cable either. Either way I agree Ala cart is the future and it is nearer than many of us think.
What if the channel owners start charging the companies like Netflix for their content, and force them to do a different model of bundling, followed by the cable, and fiber companies that offer a TV service as well drastically reducing the usuage amount to prevent excessive downloads. That would kill the entire delivery system.
That is what net neutrality is supposed to prevent and why the FCC is now classifying the internet to be regulated as a utility like the phone, electricity , and water. Charging companies like Netflix more for their carriage and speeds is a violation of the new rules and the FCC would step in and correct.
Net neutrality was about slowing down for specific sites. This would be setting clear cut data caps. Companies have had them in place for years. Wildblue, HughesNet are the most common. Comcast, Cox, TWC have them but they are not very regulated.
YES. I posted about this, it is a common misconception of what net neutrality will mean. I believe everyone needs to be prepared for (much?) higher bills because the cable companies will rely more on data caps to get what they would have by charging companies for speed access. And there will probably be more reliance on tiers of service, more affordable will equal higher data caps. Add new taxes and or fees imposed by the Government.
The current business model for program bundling will remain in place until it begins to fail.
I currently see nothing in the future that will change the business model.
Streaming services have promise, but they have not run up against data limits and speed limits that will actually come from so-called "net neutrality".
If you thing streaming is a panacea for high cable/satellite bills, I have a bridge in Arizona to sell you, that is if you can see it with your rose-colored glasses on.
I currently see nothing in the future that will change the business model.
Streaming services have promise, but they have not run up against data limits and speed limits that will actually come from so-called "net neutrality".
If you thing streaming is a panacea for high cable/satellite bills, I have a bridge in Arizona to sell you, that is if you can see it with your rose-colored glasses on.
I don't think that many people here understand what net neutrality is about , and I really don't want to go into detail discussing it,because as usual, it has been politicized so much now that every one believes what they want to believe just like right/left political parties.
Uh, no.
While some of the streaming providers would have paid “bribes” to the ISP’s to get preferential treatment, that would have come at the cost of slowing down everybody else.
And once you monetize bandwidth, parasites would be jumping in to charge you for content specific access.
Imagine this, it’s not much of a stretch.
Right now, you pay for Cable TV by getting a bundle you can’t pick and choose from.
THEN you start adding Premium content.
HBO, etc. And every time they withhold something you want, you have to pay more to get it back.
So, imagine how that would apply to the Internet once bandwidth was monetized.
You’d have your access, for a fee.
But you’d pay MORE if you wanted to download videos at speeds faster than molasses in January.
After all, you’re bidding against NetFlix for that Bandwidth, and they have deep pockets.
And you might end up seeing content broken up by type.
$5.99 a month to get fast downloads from YouTube.
$5.99 a month to get your news from sites with video streaming.
$5.99 a month to do video chat.
$5.99 a month to SSH into your workplace computers.
In short, what we get now for a Flat Fee, we’d end up paying for.
That’s why the Net Neutrality decision was so vital. It preserves the Internet as it is, free and open no matter who you are.
Your argument is that the Cable companies will be frustrated that they lost the opportunity rip people off, and I won’t deny they were drooling at the prospect.
But with the Internet regulated as a public utility, such efforts will be stifled.
If they start capping downloads, competition will enter into the equation and people will go shopping elsewhere.
“Add new taxes and or fees imposed by the Government"
Oh, good, fearmongering. We needed more of that.
It reminds me of the mythical “email tax” that the Postal Service was supposedly going to charge... fifteen years ago?
If the Government adds taxes or fees... and I don’t know why they would... people can VOTE and get the attention of their Representatives.
It’s the Corporations we can’t deal with; once they get a “local monopoly” on the cable line, consumers have little recourse.
For example, ComCast service stops 1/2 mile from my house and it’s been that way for years.
There’s another seven houses in that half mile, but they won’t extend the cable.
We were stuck in dialup up until this March when the Power Company is going to install Fiber Optic.
I was wondering how the Co-Op would license a TV package. The basic service is 20/10 for $49.99 a month.
Obviously your Telco found a vendor, do you know who it’s through?
Here's the link to my Telco. Package pricing isn't too bad, but then the extras start adding up. I checked out the service in a local office, and the PQ was substandard, IMO.
http://skybesttv.com/residential-packages
There are 2 ways to do away with something, TAX it and REGULATE it.
The big boys were for net neutrality because it could help eliminate their competition.
The big boys were for net neutrality because it could help eliminate their competition.
Not "fearmongering" (sic) at all.
The Net Neutrality Order states that the FCC has referred the question of assessing state and federal taxes on broadband to the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service and has "requested a recommended decision by April 7, 2015"
You may not know why they would want add taxes, but it looks like the progressives on the FCC do.
I'd say you are wrong on most all of that but specifically;
There will be taxes, it does NOT say there will not be, BOTH State and Federal taxes will be looked at with a report at a later date.
Slowing down a service like Netflix did not and would not slow down other services, that is a fact. Maybe you didn't know they were already doing it. They can block services (Many years ago Verizon did this) without affecting other services.
I have seen no mention of charging the consumer more for specific services, it was always charging the service such as Netflix. But an argument can be made, isn't that exactly what should happen?? I don't use Netflix why should my bill include their cost? Isn't that A La Carte?
And what I am saying is what already exists and will continue to do so, just more expensively. There will continue to be tiers, the lower tiers cost less with less speed and/or higher caps. The higher tiers will become much more expensive as more and more people want to stream with higher speeds and lower caps.
You say we get it for a flat fee now, yes (in tiers) and that flat fee is about to go up alot. If Netflix was charged the fee (as presently) and I don't use Netflix I do not pay more. If I don't stream Amazon either I save there too. But in the best of all worlds for the internet providers they charge more to everyone. I don't any internet providers crying over this.
I'm not saying any of the systems are great for consumers, but this all leads to higher and higher costs no matter the system. But now the Government gets some of the pie.
You are correct about other types of ways to charge us could and probably would happen without some regulation. And I stated I am not totally against the new act. But it also may be that other ways could be better.
Last edited:
