I suppose new channels could start out offering theirs for free for customers to try them out?One argument against ala carte programming that I have always agreed with and DO NOT see an answer to is this, how would new channels ever get off the ground. Just for an example take Bravo channel. If I had my personal pick of channels and I was 'fat and happy" with them and along comes this channel called "Bravo" I WOULD NEVER get off my fat ass and add that channel to my "ala carte" package. (Now I love Bravo channel). My point being it would be very difficult if not impossible for a new channel to start up once people were settled in with their "ala carte" package. I am actually not against picking your own channel package, this is just an argument that I have heard against it and I don't see an answer to it.
Most any of the receivers you see advertised on Amazon, eBay or through online retailers are outright purchases. Only DIRECTV cut off purchasing for non-employees/non-MDU types.I didn't know that you could still buy a DISH recvr, they are the ones that started all this Lease stuff in the first place and in '06, D* followed suit.
Trying to fake people out works for a while but in the end, they'll get their pound of flesh.Think about it, If Direct, Dish, Comcast and others ditched the HD Fee, equipment lease fee, whole home DVR Fee then less people would ditch paid tv service.
The point is how the company act in favor of the end-user customer. For example in the last situation w/Disney-ABC negotiation. It would have been a good opportunity to make ESPN suite channel in extension of each America Top Package. [ For example; AT125 $49.99 or AT125 plus for $64.00 (Including, All ESPN, RSN, FS2, Other sport channels)] [AT250 $59.99 or AT250 plus for $74.99 (Including, All ESPN, RSN, FS2, Other sport channels)]. Situation like AMC offered all channel in all AT package but also a la carte for non AT customers.I apologize that we do not have that option. Most places you go have packages already put together. Placement and package requirements are based on the contracts we have with the channel owners. I can definetly put in a request for you that this be an option but I cannot guarantee that it will be.
One point is that the providers need or "create the power" to make a great decision. For example, liberty (yes, the remanent of TCI) a cable tv in Puerto Rico does not including for months ago all channel from Viacom, the decision was make for various point, including the fact that Viacom will be offered their channel via internet (a indirect competition). Now with this example Viacom will be offered their channel in near-a-la-carte mode but with a cable provider NO?The flaw in your plan, is a lot of the channels are negotiated to try and get ala carte. The channel providers will not let it happen. They want more money
The flaw in your plan, is a lot of the channels are negotiated to try and get ala carte. The channel providers will not let it happen. They want more money
So you pay $6 per month for CBS ala carte, but most provider charge less then $6 for all the locals. This is a good example of what to receive if ala carte becomes a major thing.
Fully ala carte is not a viable, but as a option is great, for example if Dish still have DishPick $15.00 for 10 channel + $9.99 for access/local/PI/Shopping fees there a good option for me:Lastly, if TV were to go fully ala carte as requested, do you think those programmers are going to give up their revenue to pay their actors/directors/producers and high life styles? They will raise their rates on single channels to offset their overhead. Right now, I beleive ESPN is $5 per sub. Go solely ala carte and you may py $30 for a ESPN package monthly. Same with Disney, Viacom channels, and all those other companies. Thanks to pay TV, the cord cutters are getting the better deal, but when the green weenie comes knocking, they will make sure to keep their profits. The cable providers such as Comcast and TWC and Cox are all starting to limit data caps. Now think about that on two levels. Gamers playing online, can easily use 300/400gb of data a month. Your typical HD movie is 2-4 GB(and 4k is coming out will be larger), so reaching 750/1000gbs of usuage a month in a normal household of husband and wife between the ages of 18-34(key demographic), you will be throttled. No tv or gaming. If they pass the buck to the customer and allow higher threshholds, you are now going to see Internet only accounts at $150-200 per month to keep their revenue alive. When you cut cost in one place(in ridiculously large numbers of people per capita), tou still pay it elsewhere. And then you will be here complaining about how much internet cost, and why there aren't more options in the boonies. It is a ridiculous argument to make. It is a luxury, treat it as such, and if you do not like it, move on. Watch paint dry for all I care. That's only $20 for a can of paint.
Associated Press ran an article today on the subject of a la carte and how it doesn't represent big savings over conventional pay tv bundles.
http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/495d344a0d10421e9baa8ee77029cfbd/Article_2014-10-20-APFN-US--Cable-A La Carte-Glance/id-18dc58c993e14dc5b6498009e9846981
Of course this assumes that you don't have to pay for basic cable that will set you back upwards of $30 just to get your local channels.