Lucky you - you'll be able to get away from that SEC crap.
Deliverance comes to mind.
Big Ten Channel Active
- Thread starter JAG72
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 60
- Views 8K
- Status
Deliverance comes to mind.
Please remind me of the Big Ten's record vs. the SEC last year in the bowl games. Congrats on beating us in both sports btw.
A la carte...
Al a no! You would actually pay more. If you want the breakdown of how that works, I would be glad to do it for you.
Maybe this year your coach wont poop his pants again, then maybe he wont be so chicken s**t to play Pitt.
There is nothing you can show me since you're not understanding the problem. You are focusing on price and not the real issue at the heart of the matter. The real issue is that customers are paying for programming they do not want, programming they do not support, and programming they may even find objectionable. Why should a customer pay to support my watching ESPN when they don't watch sports and may even find boxing and football objectionable? And why should I pay to support someone watching the MAMBLA Lifestyle Channel or the Terrorist Network when the thought of a portion of my monthly subscription going toward supporting Man-Boy Love and terrorism is reprehensible?
There is a lot of programming that a subscriber may find offensive because it glorifies violence and disrespects women by treating them in a demeaning fashion, for example. Sure, the customer can simply "lock the channel" and perhaps remove it from their guide, but why should they be paying to support this channnel in the first place? It is not fair and it is not what the majority of American's want.
In our case we subscribe to Dish Network's AT250, but we only watch 15-20 channels...and three of those are "must have" which are only available in the AT250 programming pack. Personally, I am willing to pay just as much, if not more, for programming we actually watch. Like a large number of Americans, I am not willing to pay one cent towards programming I do not watch, do not want, and do not support in any form or fashion.
While the mega-programming packs may be most cost efficient, they are certainly not the only choices that should be offered to consumers. Personally, I really like the programming tiers, programming packs, and a la carte options being offered by StarChoice satellite service in Canada. I am not against the mega-programming packs, but consumers need to have a lot more programming pack and a la carte options available to them.
Now, I'll be more than happy if you can show me how funds from my AT250 subscription are not going to support Sci-Fi, FX, BET, and two hundred other channels I don't want?
There is nothing you can show me since you're not understanding the problem. You are focusing on price and not the real issue at the heart of the matter. The real issue is that customers are paying for programming they do not want, programming they do not support, and programming they may even find objectionable. Why should a customer pay to support my watching ESPN when they don't watch sports and may even find boxing and football objectionable? And why should I pay to support someone watching the MAMBLA Lifestyle Channel or the Terrorist Network when the thought of a portion of my monthly subscription going toward supporting Man-Boy Love and terrorism is reprehensible?
There is a lot of programming that a subscriber may find offensive because it glorifies violence and disrespects women by treating them in a demeaning fashion, for example. Sure, the customer can simply "lock the channel" and perhaps remove it from their guide, but why should they be paying to support this channnel in the first place? It is not fair and it is not what the majority of American's want.
In our case we subscribe to Dish Network's AT250, but we only watch 15-20 channels...and three of those are "must have" which are only available in the AT250 programming pack. Personally, I am willing to pay just as much, if not more, for programming we actually watch. Like a large number of Americans, I am not willing to pay one cent towards programming I do not watch, do not want, and do not support in any form or fashion.
While the mega-programming packs may be most cost efficient, they are certainly not the only choices that should be offered to consumers. Personally, I really like the programming tiers, programming packs, and a la carte options being offered by StarChoice satellite service in Canada. I am not against the mega-programming packs, but consumers need to have a lot more programming pack and a la carte options available to them.
Now, I'll be more than happy if you can show me how funds from my AT250 subscription are not going to support Sci-Fi, FX, BET, and two hundred other channels I don't want?
We may get asked to not carry on this conversation here, but I will go with it until asked to do so.
I agree wholeheartedly about paying for content you may find objectional. The only reason It costs $15 a month if you want the Playboy channel is because there are alot of people who would complain if that channel was offered in a regular package on any cable or satellite service.
What's wrong with al-a-cart is this. Right now as it stands Fox News is one of the most costly channels for any service to offer its customers. Espn falls in right after that. The last I had heard Fox News charges $.42 per subscriber for D* or any service to carry it. So D* ponie's up $.42 per its 16 million subscribers. So D* pays Fox News $6,720,000 a year to broadcast their channel on their satellite service. Let's say only 3 million of D* viewers actually tune into Fox News at all on a regular basis. (I imagine that number is not far off). So the other 13 million subscribers would never pay for Fox News in their Al-a-cart service if given the opportunity. So now if Al-a-cart is offered only 3 million customers pay $.42 for Fox News Channel. Now Fox News is only recieving $1.2 million from D* for carrying their channels as opposed to the $7.6 million they do currently. Now if that happens for all channels on all cable and satellite providers, that means the owners of these channels are losing millions of dollars because only a few million people actually watch their channels anyway. (USA Network is the most watched cable channel with an average of 5 million viewers a week).
So where are these companies going to make up for their losses on providing their channels to cable and satellite subscribers? They won't jack the price up for its advertisers, that would send them packing too. What would happen is to make up that extra $6.4 million Fox News would lose they would make their channel cost to the customer $2.23 per customer. Now if all your channels cost anywhere from $1.50 to $2.25 per channel, you add that up between how many channels you watch even on a non-regular basis. For me and the average consumer it is usually $20 or more than they pay for their current cable or satellite bill.
You can actually look at a channel like the Playboy channel as an al-acart-channel already. Because so much of the majority of people do not watch it, it is not worth bundling it into any package. So because the numbers are less than 40,000 people who subscribe to it, they need to charge $15.00 a month. It takes a lot of money to run a studio, and studio costs do not vary much channel to channel. So it costs roughly the same amount of money to be a cable channel whether you are Playboy, Fox News, ESPN, or Nikolodeon.
And that my friends is why Al-a-cart is not a good decision, and why the cable and satellite company's are fighting it. Because it is for us the consumers, not their own pocket book. They will make money either way.
Free Enterprise is what works, not the governments involvement.
Last edited:
I agree with everything you said. Right now people are under the impression that if everything went a la carte tomorrow we would all have the 15 channels we want and only pay $10 per month.
Not going to happen.
As a E* subscriber, I thought I'd come on over to the other side and see what I missed last night. Not too much discussion here about the actual programming.
Any word on what the actual product was like. Good studio production? Hosts? Picture quality? Commercial support? Anything at all? Maybe there was another thread that I just missed.
I'm considering making the jump soon. Just curious to see what the channel offered on its maiden voyage.
Any word on what the actual product was like. Good studio production? Hosts? Picture quality? Commercial support? Anything at all? Maybe there was another thread that I just missed.
I'm considering making the jump soon. Just curious to see what the channel offered on its maiden voyage.
I would let you know how it is Madtown but I wont be home watching the Buckeyes this weekend. I was just invited to go to the game instead. None of the other programming really interests me right now. Just give me football and basketball. The rest of the programming really doesn't matter.
My opinion of the Big Ten Channel thus far is nothing that blows your socks off. It reminds me 100% of my local RSN.
For example:
My local RSN is Fox Sports Detroit. They do a special show all week long called "Spartan Sport Zone", and "Wolverine Sport Zone". The style of reporting and the type of stories the Big Ten Network does is the same as those programs I watch. Compared to ESPN it is B-list reporters, B-list stories.. just like your RSN. The difference is you get to see the stories and reporting on all the Big Ten schools instead of just your own.
The only reason anyone who is not a die-hard fan of the Big Ten or a school in the conference would watch is because there is a live game with a match-up they want to watch, or their team is playing a Big Ten team when the network is broadcasting the game.
Me being a Michigan State fan, and casual Big Ten spectator, will be watching a lot of this channel.
For example:
My local RSN is Fox Sports Detroit. They do a special show all week long called "Spartan Sport Zone", and "Wolverine Sport Zone". The style of reporting and the type of stories the Big Ten Network does is the same as those programs I watch. Compared to ESPN it is B-list reporters, B-list stories.. just like your RSN. The difference is you get to see the stories and reporting on all the Big Ten schools instead of just your own.
The only reason anyone who is not a die-hard fan of the Big Ten or a school in the conference would watch is because there is a live game with a match-up they want to watch, or their team is playing a Big Ten team when the network is broadcasting the game.
Me being a Michigan State fan, and casual Big Ten spectator, will be watching a lot of this channel.
great post and let me add that the nice channels (the Discovery channels, National Geo, etc.) who have a very small, but very loyal following won't survive in an ala carte world.
Please remind me of the conference that has their own network and the one that doesn't?
Everyone important cares (me) about the BTN.
Al a carte is al a smart! Let's all pay for programming we wish to receive...and nothing more!
A a carte was brought up several years back and I would like it and hate it.
Yes I watch my select number of channels and not a ton of others, but IF they offered ala carte, the cost of each channel would sky rocket.
I use to be able to order ala carte when I still had my C-Band set up...
As for your thoughts on ESPN, it is an essensial channel for alot of people, like me, just as CNN is and Fox are for others. ect.
Jimbo
- Status
Similar threads
