Then how can anyone possibly presume their overall price will be cheaper. Use the channels I mentioned in my post: What will it cost me under an a la carte system ?
CNN and HLN gone/ Dish-Turner Dispute - Now Back 11/21
- Thread starter A_Noland
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 1K
- Views 116K
- Status
People who nothing about how the TV industry might think that. I've had a few customers that have thought that before and complain to me why Dish doesn't do it. Most people just don't know how this business works and that's OK, not everyone is suppose to know.
I think every channel would increase at least $1 if they had to be offered by themselves, and that would be the minimum. I think the ESPN channels would go up a couple bucks because they have so much overhead. I wouldn't be surprised if we would have to pay $8-$10 just for ESPN.
If the cost of entertainment including what the studios make and what the entertainers and everyone in between makes and the cost of distribution is a fairly constant number, why would I expect my bill to go down drastically if I only subscribed to the channels I actually watch? (Of course in my house there are 5 sets of eyeballs so 4 people would be very disappointed.) The bottom line is the cost of TV has gotten exorbitant and this is why we have packages and monthly billing and autopay. Remember the days when Dish would let you pay your yearly bill upfront? They don't do that anymore. Perhaps because of the sticker shock of realizing how much you are actually paying each year for TV. It's similar to the government deducting your taxes from every paycheck instead of sending you a bill on April 15 and saying pay up within 30 days. If they did that there would have been a rebellion long ago.
I don't expect my bill would change drastically, if I only paid for the channels I watched. However, at least then my money would go only to the channels I watch. For instance, given the option, I would not choose to buy any cable news channels, so none of my money would end up in their pockets like it does now. The argument that our money would no longer go to certain channels was a selling point when I convinced my wife to switch to the Welcome Pack. Of course, I am still paying for MSNBC, so it was not a complete victory.
So you decide on how to do things out of spite? I feel like doing that sometimes but usually don't act on it.
The future of tv ... could it be ... a provider not making money off of the channels but making money off of the features (DVR, HD, additional receivers, etc) plus an access fee and no more negotiation with the companies letting them set the price for their mini packs?
What percentage of the American population know how it operates ? It would be a fraction of a percent....
Well... I see no reason to exclude existing bundles in an a la carte regime. That way you can continue paying for your bundle if you so choose, and I can pick and choose.
Because virtually all of us are paying for channels we don't watch. So in an a la carte regime, we would pay for far fewer channels, and the total cost would be less even though the cost/channel would be more.
There is also no reason I can see to end the current system, so those of you who are happy with your current bundle should be able to keep it. IMHO.
Last edited:
People vote with their wallets. As long as people continue to pay nothing will change.
I realize that equipment costs money, so that has a cost. The channels at a low selection would also have a more notable price. But if I can choose five or so non-premium channels for a notably lower cost (saving $40 is nice), then I'm paying for exactly what I want to watch and nothing more.
Because I can't get access to a lot of TCM films or legal EPL coverage without it.
And if prices go too high this February (for me and my services, past $100 a month), I may just have to say goodbye period and live without the EPL and use the savings and buy DVDs and blu-rays. I understand the problem and sports media companies are paying too much money for rights and then we get stuck with the higher bill. It is getting out of hand.
But as we are seeing, millenials aren't paying and alternative streaming methods are being developed. Granted, the prices up to now, that have been advertised are not too impressive.
Not out of spite per se. Like I said, it helped the argument. In general though, I try not to give money to people/companies I dislike. I don't shop at certain big box stores, etc. I try to make statements, however small, with how I spend my money.
Each company owns a set of channels that we would call mini packs. If they offer their own streaming service then that is what they would offer. The providers could offer each company's set of channels and when they want a price increase let the customers choose with their wallets for that company's set of channels.
But we are paying for the whole group. I don't want to pay Turner for CNN, HLN. I want Cartoon Network and TCM. It'd go from the bundling of channels to a corporation bundling of channels, with little change.
This may be true. But if YOU don't like the price of the Turner bundle, then YOU could decide not to pay it - it takes your TV provider out of the equation. Right now we have forced bundling. In the ideal setup the consumer would be given the choice whether to buy a bundle or buy individually. The impact on cable bills - and company revenue - would vary. If you're a heavy sports consumer, your bill would probably go up. Channels like ESPN - which are already among the most expensive part of the bundle would still be very popular, but with fewer subscribers (maybe 50-70% of subscribers instead of the current 90-100%?) the remaining subscribers would be asked to pay more and would probably do it. Right now I think cable companies are paying about $5.00 per subscriber per month for ESPN. I would guess that the price for ESPN alone would jump to about $9.00 per month for their main channel alone, and maybe $12 per month for an ESPN bundle. On the other side of the equation, a channel like HGTV probably costs cable companies less than $1.00 per month under the current setup. Ala Carte, the price would likely be higher - but maybe not a lot higher ($2.00 per month or $4.00 bundled with Food Network/DIY/Cooking Channel???).
We subscribe to magazines this way, and despite the decline in publishing, there are still hundreds to choose from - at very attractive prices. I don't see why this wouldn't work for TV.
I think you're assuming too much. Yes, it's a safe assumption that under a la carte, everyone would pay for fewer channels. HOWEVER, I think you're making a huge jump in saying the total cost would be less. It might for some folks, but I'm guessing as a general rule, most people will pay about the same as they're paying now.
I've mentioned in the past I think sat/cablecos should have their customers pick their bundles of channel. Turner is forcing Dish to pay for CNN, HLN, CN, etc? Then give me the option to pay for that bundle at the same cost Turner is charging Dish. Dish charges me an "equipment fee" (which they do now), then pass along the programming and programming costs.
But we proles will likely want a channel here, a channel there, and before you know it, you have to sub to four corporate bundles and you are saving $10 a month and getting less. In order to get NBCSN, would I need to pay for every Universal channel? a la carte is a la carte. What is developing doesn't appear to be much better.
Only because of the ads. If television were like ads, it'd be like watching ABC Family or AMC (see Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone over the period of 4 hours) for every channel.
- Status
