I don't know if those numbers are accurate. However, I think it would all work out in the wash. Then crappy channels that nobody wants would go down in price. If people were choosing their channels a la carte, they may choose not to select a certain channel based on its excessive price. There would be competing channels that would have to be price competitive - i.e. people may have chosen cnnsi over espn if there was a significant difference in price. It would be a way to encourage channels to continue to include good programming or risk losing money and going out of business. No question in my mind that the consumer would benefit in such a system. The cable and satellite providers and networks would be the ones that would be hurt here.
Help For The Hd Crowd???
- Thread starter dragon002
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 40
- Views 5K
- Status
JustBob said:
I read it on this forum last year. It was announced that Fox News and ESPN had jumped their rates up to the subscribers, that is why we saw price changes in our packages on all carriers.
I will see if I can find a source.
I had no Idea this would stir such a ruckass!
cohenri said:
I think the crappy or cheaper networks/channels would go under due to not having the income that they get with charging providers on a per sub basis.
...This particularly comes into play because of the subscription fee system in cable. Unlike the broadcast networks, cable channels acquire part of their revenue from subscribers. This is based on a subscriber fee negotiated between each cable channel and the cable providers. These fees are normally set up under long-term contracts of five to ten years. The most popular cable entertainment networks (such as Nickelodeon and TNT) charge roughly 50 cents to $1 per subscriber per month.2 CNN's subscriber fee has remained stable, at around 33 to 37 cents, since 1997.
Fox News and MSNBC rates have been much lower, roughly 17 cents per subscriber for Fox News and 13 cents at MSNBC. Both of the newer cable networks have seen steady increases in their average fee per subscriber since they went on the air. This suggests new contracts negotiated with higher subscriber fees.
http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/narrative_cabletv_economics.asp?cat=4&media=5
This does not list all networks of course, (I think that will be hard to find), however you can see that what I was saying holds true!
Looks like the rates are higher than I thought for Nickolodeon and CNN, and I know I heard Fox news is 34 cents... so that makes the alacart option look to cost even more to the subscriber than what I predicted before.
Fox News and MSNBC rates have been much lower, roughly 17 cents per subscriber for Fox News and 13 cents at MSNBC. Both of the newer cable networks have seen steady increases in their average fee per subscriber since they went on the air. This suggests new contracts negotiated with higher subscriber fees.
http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/narrative_cabletv_economics.asp?cat=4&media=5
This does not list all networks of course, (I think that will be hard to find), however you can see that what I was saying holds true!
Looks like the rates are higher than I thought for Nickolodeon and CNN, and I know I heard Fox news is 34 cents... so that makes the alacart option look to cost even more to the subscriber than what I predicted before.
A-la-carte would not mean ever channel would be sold alone. Some weaker channels owned by the same company usually get grouped together. Anyone familiar with the BUD knows a-la-carte works well with greats costs. BUD is only dying because of the one satellite at once and cost of hardware startup (lack of further R&D). Those rates we see now are with the markup thanks to being sold to DBS, and then DBS has their markup. What we need is a hybrid of BUD and DBS; and I think those days are right around the corner.
charper1 said:
Sure... weaker channels would be grouped together, however Nickelodeon owns Nick, Nick Toons, TV Land, MTV, MTV2, VH1, VH1 Classic, and Comedy Central. If Nick alone costs upwards of one dollar now, how much will they charge if a-la-carte goes through? Each of those will probably double. The same goes for the rest.
joedekock said:
The Big Ugly Dish; C / Ku band; like the one cable and DBS gets their signals to redistribute.
charper1 said:
so making someone go deeper into debt by maxing out all their credit cards at 2am in the morning, because they "just gotta have that new dewhicky that does 500 things" but will never be used by them is in the publics intrest?
Questioner said:
No catching up here. Having cable here means:
1. Grainy pictures.
2. Missing local RSNs.
3. Less channels than satellite.
4. Intermittent periods without any signal.
If that is catching up. I don't want to catch up to cable.
Although I agree DBS is better than most cable systems and that they are in a much better position to offer better services now and in the future, but I think all providers can experience the above; in my experience DBS has just been fewer incidences however.
joedekock said:...This particularly comes into play because of the subscription fee system in cable. Unlike the broadcast networks, cable channels acquire part of their revenue from subscribers. This is based on a subscriber fee negotiated between each cable channel and the cable providers. These fees are normally set up under long-term contracts of five to ten years. The most popular cable entertainment networks (such as Nickelodeon and TNT) charge roughly 50 cents to $1 per subscriber per month.2 CNN's subscriber fee has remained stable, at around 33 to 37 cents, since 1997.
Fox News and MSNBC rates have been much lower, roughly 17 cents per subscriber for Fox News and 13 cents at MSNBC. Both of the newer cable networks have seen steady increases in their average fee per subscriber since they went on the air. This suggests new contracts negotiated with higher subscriber fees.
http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/narrative_cabletv_economics.asp?cat=4&media=5
This does not list all networks of course, (I think that will be hard to find), however you can see that what I was saying holds true!
Looks like the rates are higher than I thought for Nickolodeon and CNN, and I know I heard Fox news is 34 cents... so that makes the alacart option look to cost even more to the subscriber than what I predicted before.
I still don't understand why channels have to keep raising their rates that they charge the carriers (cable and DBS). I thought they got most of their money through advertising revenue. If they're getting paid just for having a channel, then what's their incentive to produce good shows? With advertising revenue, the money they make is directly related to how many people watch the show. Plus if they lowered cable and DBS bills, perhaps more people would opt for higher tier packages and watch more TV. I know the simple answer for why they do this is "because they can". It just doesn't make sense to me.
-JustBob
The cable channels also draw revenue from advertising. If ESPN has 20 million potential eyeballs while charging lets say $1.00 a subscriber without a la carte that guarantees 20 million bucks a month in subscriber revenues plus the advertising fees. If they go a la carte and the subscriber base drops to 10 million it doesn't automatically mean they'll double the fee to 2 bucks a month. Their adevertising revenue will drop significantly with each lost eyeball. These channels would have to keep their subscriber costs low in order to keep subscribers on board and keep the advertiser fees higher.
Right now they have us hostage because they can demand more from the provider which just passes on the cost to us without the risk of losing inividual subscribers who would have to give up all of their channels to avoid a rate increase with one channel. With a la carte, every time they raise their rates they have the potential to lose subscribers and then advertising revenues.
This would get us back to a more capitalist type system with a supply and demand equation instead of big brother and the MSO setting the prices andgiving us no choice.
Right now they have us hostage because they can demand more from the provider which just passes on the cost to us without the risk of losing inividual subscribers who would have to give up all of their channels to avoid a rate increase with one channel. With a la carte, every time they raise their rates they have the potential to lose subscribers and then advertising revenues.
This would get us back to a more capitalist type system with a supply and demand equation instead of big brother and the MSO setting the prices andgiving us no choice.
Unless I am mistaken, Viacom owns the "Nik" family of channels along with the others you mentioned, as well as CBS and a few French networks and film studios. If I were you, I might want to invest in Viacom and count it as good income that can create dividends to cover the added expense of rate hikes. It's all cyclical.joedekock said:
JustBob said:
I am not totally sure... but if you think of Fox news, people want to advertise there. So they are doing very well on advertising revenue, but Fox News has a lot of equipment, and highly paid staff, and don't forget, this is a business. The idea is to make money first, not provide an Alternative News service and hope to break even. They would not be able to pull in guys like Hannity, Colmes, O' Reilly, or Shepard Smith with a philosophy like that.
Gen Custer said:
Well said! I am for an a-la-carte service if there is a way to keep the prices low, or lower than what they are now.
However, with congress pushing for the a-la-carte service, (I don't know where it exactly stands), they are forcing the providers and cable channel networks to do some quick thinking. Because as of now, there is no way to keep that cost down. Like you said as a result of list subscribers to the channels, that also means that there is lost advertising revenue to the networks. This is why I am guessing nothing will be done for a long time yet, because congress cannot force networks and providers to belly up. That is something they will lose in the supreme court.
As I said before, I want an A-la-carte service, because I don't watch MTV, Logo, CNN, MSNBC, and do not want them in my home. I don't want to support them either. And with an al-acarte service, we will get more "true" numbers as to the number of people who really watch a particular network. Right now MTV claims that they have an average of 12 million viewers on certain nights, but it does not show up in the Nielson media numbers. There are a lot of other claims as well that do not make any sense. And I would be supporting the networks I choose. Kind of like HBO or any movie channel. You have to subscribe to it. If they can find a way to do that with the networks, and keep the costs down, and still let advertisers show commercials on their channel, I think it will work.
RIRWIN1983 said:
I had to black out those channels, because Billy Mays (the oxy clean guy!!) Can sell me ANYTHING!!!
- Status
