Ala Carte? No Thanks!

[Scott Greczkowski]

Many folks are opening their Dish Network or DirecTV bills this month and are noticing that their rates have gone up once again. A number of ...

CLICK HERE FOR THE REST...

Catch new editions of "The Satellite Dish" at MultiChannel.COM!

 

[JH1949]

Has any satellite or cable service ever offered a series of specialy packages that could be individually ordered, something like AlaCarte.

I would not order these:
ESPN Pack
Disney Pack - ABC Family, Disney, Toon Disney
A&E Pack - A&E, Hist, Hist Intl
TNT Pack - TNT, TBS

But if I could, I would order ONLY these and it might cost less than AT100:
Discovery Pack
NBC Pack - UHD, USA, SciFi, MSNBC, CNBC

 

[voomvoom]

I want Ala Carte!!!!!!!

 

[stogie5150]

I just don't understand why a company won't offer Alacarte just to see if it would work, ALONG with the packages they currently offer.

On second thought, its real easy to see why. They make too much money pushing all the crap in the packages!

If I weren't such a feverant capitalist I would ask that legislation be passed....

 

[charper1]

Alacarte was offered for years with C-band. Many channels likely couldn't survive or offer the programs they can today. Say ESPN and many of its programs; they can buy the rights to things because of the money they make across the board; but if only sports enthusiasts paid, they would either make far less money and cut off the programming OR they would hike the per subscriber rates thought the roof to maintain a level of income to continue to pay for the expected programming.

In the end you would likely end up paying around the same per month for you far less number of handpicked channels and the choice and variety of today.

For the short term end customers would have lower bills, but over time many. many channels would cease to exist. Packaging of channels ends up being the best option in the long run.

 

[dlsnyder]

Here's what's in my crystal ball...

Once high-speed internet is the norm in every household in America, VOD direct from the content producers will be the most popular form of distribution. Eliminating the middleman (cable and satellite providers) will provide greater returns to content producers and more choice for consumers. A la carte will be a mute point. Channels as we now know them will become a thing of the past, replaced by webpage storefronts with teaser trailers for VOD content, some free (advertising supported) and some PPV. No need for a DVR anymore in that model either.

 

[darrencp22]

I wouldnt mind ala-carte to add a single channel in another package. But once you get beyond that the ripple effect is bad for the consumer at large.

 

[darrencp22]

Here's what's in my crystal ball...

Once high-speed internet is the norm in every household in America, VOD direct from the content producers will be the most popular form of distribution. Eliminating the middleman (cable and satellite providers) will provide greater returns to content producers and more choice for consumers. A la carte will be a mute point. Channels as we now know them will become a thing of the past, replaced by webpage storefronts with teaser trailers for VOD content, some free (advertising supported) and some PPV. No need for a DVR anymore in that model either.

everyone says this.. .but the future is content in HD. And I just dont see the high-speed providers allowing VOD through IP to be the norm without price increases / and or bandwidth restrictions. You've already begun to see this in some places in the country.

 

[charper1]

everyone says this.. .but the future is content in HD. And I just dont see the high-speed providers allowing VOD through IP to be the norm without price increases / and or bandwidth restrictions. You've already begun to see this in some places in the country.

Agreed! ISPs DO NOT want to take on this burden unless its THEIR offering (which will remain small and very regional) and it will likely come at severe restrictions on use and high $$$ as compared to today's ISP cost.

 

[riffjim4069]

I have to disagree with Scott on this issue...ala carte is ala smarte! Additionally, I also feel that satellite providers, like DirecTV and Dish Network, do an outstanding job by keeping subscription rates reasonable. I just wish they could offer many more programming options to include offering groups of relations programming and some ala carte options. Anway, the article tends tends in insinuate that ala carte supporters are the biggest price increase whiners...even when the price increases are modest. I don't feel this is true at all...heck, would pay just as much for HD and the channels we actually watch just as long as no monies were paid the el stinko channels: Spike, Sci-Fi, Speed, BET, etc. (my opinion)

 

[jegrant]

Even the Canadian system of a la carte would do, it would at least be an improvement over what we have now. I agree, keep all the existing packages, just make a la carte offerings available for those who want them.
Looking at BEV and SC - if Dish Network could offer something similar, I think the market would be very interested.

 

[Stargazer]

Here's what's in my crystal ball...

Once high-speed internet is the norm in every household in America, VOD direct from the content producers will be the most popular form of distribution. Eliminating the middleman (cable and satellite providers) will provide greater returns to content producers and more choice for consumers. A la carte will be a mute point. Channels as we now know them will become a thing of the past, replaced by webpage storefronts with teaser trailers for VOD content, some free (advertising supported) and some PPV. No need for a DVR anymore in that model either.

I agree with this. I think On Demand content will be the waive of the future and that the bandwidth technology issues will get better and better as time goes on. We already have already seen on these message boards about satellite broadband service that is going to be much much faster in download speeds and most of what we do online involves downloading. That means that everyone in the country will have access to the bandwidth needed to accomplish this. That would be great for VOD content. I also think the middle man will be cut out such as Dish Network, DirecTv, perhaps even cable.

 

[mike123abc]

The only way it would work is if a system like:

19.99 minimum billing with $5 worth of packs included

Then you paid for each package. The satellite/cable company needs a minimum amount each month from each sub for overhead.

 

[riffjim4069]

Ala carte is ala smarte! (aka I have a brain and can think for myself)

What ever happened to the days when advertisers paid the programmers and we had free TV? From where I stand, almost all of the cable favorite channels are chock full of commercials and we're now paying cable and satellite providers for a gazillion channels we don't watch and don't want. It's the programmers who have the public duped into thinking we need hundreds of channels of crap that only a handful of people will ever watch, just so they can play reruns of horrible network shows that went off air back in the '70s, along with 12-hours of infomercials and commercials each day.

In this day and age why are my choices limited to the 100 ounce Big Gulp, 200 ounce Huge Gulp, and 250 ounce Mega Gulp...when all I want is a simple 12 ounce drink? Can you imagine going into a restaurant and being charged for every entree on the menu? Hell, I don't like scrapple (typical cable filler channel) so why should I pay for scrapple? Heck, the mere though of scrapple being placed on my table is enough to trigger the old gag reflex. And people wonder why we're a fat, lazy, super-sized society.

To be honest, I would prefer that 100% of my entertainment dollar go toward paying the channels/programmers I actually watch, and not one cent toward the fluff channels that waste value bandwidth. If these channels can't find enough paying customers (without being bundled and shoved down our throats) then let them shuttle operations since their is no business model should support a money pit. Ala carte would have solved the cable's bandwidth problems long ago, and we would have a lot more HD since half of these fodder channels disappeared. Personally, I do not buy the "in the public interest/variety/quality programming" argument spouted by the programmers. Good programming will always find an audience. Stop making me pay for CRAP TV...and stop making me pay for scrapple!

Personally, I think D* and E* offer a tremendous value with their programming packs. In fact, I am amazed they can still make a profit after paying all their marketing, installation, operations and maintenance, and programming costs. Again, enjoy the mega channels packs if that's why you want...but give up more flexible programming options! A la carte is what the people want...time...after time...after time...after time. Yes, we do know what we want! And yes, we do know what is best for us!

You gotta love OTA and the upcoming TR-50 DVR.

FCC says A La Carte TV channels will save customers money
FCC: Let users set cable TV lineups

 

[JohnL]

The only way it would work is if a system like:

19.99 minimum billing with $5 worth of packs included

Then you paid for each package. The satellite/cable company needs a minimum amount each month from each sub for overhead.

Mike,

Bingo, in the end, average revenue per sub has to be about 55-65 dollars. Companies exist to make a profit and since DBS/Cable needs average revenue of 55-65 per sub, you would see rates basically at the same rate but for vastly less channels. Ala Carte would also have a secondary issue, that of losing many of the Niche channels that a lot of subscribers want.

The Ala Carte proponents suggest that retransmission fees are the reason for high rates. The biggest expenses for DBS/Cable are the capitalization costs of the their infrastructure and employee costs, not the incremental retransmission fees. These structured costs will not change, hence the reason ala carte prices wouldn't be much less than the Bundling model used now, add in that many Niche channels disappear as well and ala carte is not the panacea many would expect.

John

 

[riffjim4069]

Mike,

Bingo, in the end, average revenue per sub has to be about 55-65 dollars. Companies exist to make a profit and since DBS/Cable needs average revenue of 55-65 per sub, you would see rates basically at the same rate but for vastly less channels. Ala Carte would also have a secondary issue, that of losing many of the Niche channels that a lot of subscribers want.

The Ala Carte proponents suggest that retransmission fees are the reason for high rates. The biggest expenses for DBS/Cable are the capitalization costs of the their infrastructure and employee costs, not the incremental retransmission fees. These structured costs will not change, hence the reason ala carte prices wouldn't be much less than the Bundling model used now, add in that many Niche channels disappear as well and ala carte is not the panacea many would expect.

John

I don't disagree with anything you mentioned, except getting rid of "many niche channels" would be a good thing. If the channels can't stand on their own legs, they shouldn't be in business.

 

[Greg Bimson]

I'll toss this out there. DirecTV held an investor call within the past two weeks. Did you know that of their revenues, only 40 percent goes to programmers? And two years ago, it was 39.2 percent?

In other words, if DirecTV raises rates by $3 a package, it appears just over $1 goes to programming and just under $2 goes to DirecTV, to spend on other infrastructure or (gasp) profit.

That is the main reason I am against a la carte. My "niche channel" may be your must-see TV. And if half of the channels go belly up, then what exactly has been accomplished?

Or go the other direction with this. Imagine Dish Network is able to start offering some kind of a la carte. When everyone is attempting to reduce their bills by choosing a la carte, that will also reduce Dish Network's revenues, as almost all subscribers would pay less than they are now.

 

[JohnL]

I don't disagree with anything you mentioned, except getting rid of "many niche channels" would be a good thing. If the channels can't stand on their own legs, they shouldn't be in business.

Riffjim,

Okay, but isn't the reason cable exists in the first place is that we DO Want NICHE channels, but only OUR Niche Channels. All but maybe 5-10 Cable Networks could exist by themselves.


John

 

[damjr]

There are many great points being brought here both for and against.

The fact of the matter is, a la carte will cost the consumer more in the long run. How and where?

Firsy off lets look at one avanue that hasn't been brought up............FREE HARDWARE.
If a la carte existed and consumers started picking smaller packages at lower monthly costs, do you think that the program suppliers ( DTV, Echo, & cable)
will be able to subsidize the hardware costs with less revenue coming in?
Trust me, it can't and won't happen. Then all you a la carte fans will start screaming about paying for your boxes, higher DVR fees, etc.....

Next, as we all know, advertising is what keeps the big wheels turning. If a la carte happens and consumers start watching less channels, the cost of advertising will have to go up to make up for the fewer viewers being touched. The down side to this is that advertisers will not be willing to fork out their $$$$ to touch fewer viewers and then the programer will have to look elsewhere to recoup their expenses. Where do you think that will be?

Just some food for thought and my $.02

 

[lesstilt]

I think the best way for ala carte to work would be in conjunction with the current channel packaging. For example, I subscribe to AT200, but there are 2 channels in AT250 that I would like to get. $10/mo is too much for two channels, but I'd pay $2 or $3 extra a month for them. Granted, the flip side would be those who DO pay $10/mo for those 2 channels.