If Apple can pull off an iTunes subscription service (rumored to be $30/mo) , I think that'll be the proper kick in the pants this industry badly needs...I may keep E* for international channels as there is no doubt they have no equal there but as far as all other programming goes, I'll be using AppleTV/Netflix if I dont have to pay the ridiculous prices we are paying now...
HIGHER PRICES COMING PEOPLE
- Thread starter damjr
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 81
- Views 10K
OK so here's the million dollar question for you all.
Let's say alacarte was available. Would you, your family members, friends, coworkers, etc......... be willing to pay up wards of $300 for a 1 room system?
I guarantee this will happen with alacarte. With less revenue coming in on programming the days of free hardware and installation will be history.
Remember what it cost for a 1 room D* or E* system when they first launched?
You had lower programming costs with less channels, but you paid $800 for a 1 room system with no installation.
I think there should be an alacarte option with a hardware purchase and if you want free, free, free.................well sign a 2 year agreement and pay for the packages available today.
Let's say alacarte was available. Would you, your family members, friends, coworkers, etc......... be willing to pay up wards of $300 for a 1 room system?
I guarantee this will happen with alacarte. With less revenue coming in on programming the days of free hardware and installation will be history.
Remember what it cost for a 1 room D* or E* system when they first launched?
You had lower programming costs with less channels, but you paid $800 for a 1 room system with no installation.
I think there should be an alacarte option with a hardware purchase and if you want free, free, free.................well sign a 2 year agreement and pay for the packages available today.
What would happen is that the equipment/provider fee would be separate from the channel fee. You would pay perhaps $15/month for service, plus then extra box fees/month. Then you would add your programming costs to it. Essentially this is what it is now. You just do not have a choice of channel selection, you have to pick one of the predefined packages. Dish family delivering what they do for $25/month shows how it is done.
I think a la carte would be too popular, and that is why providers do not want it. They would be forced to offer fewer higher quality channels to get people to buy them. They would not be able to force carriage of off channels they happen to own. Most households could probably pick 10 channels and be pretty happy.
I'm not talking about 10 channels for ten bucks, if they wanted a free install they would still have to pay for a decent pkg.
If you had a alcarte system where the customer could choose 40 channels for $40, or
60 channels for $50 the satellite provider could still make enough to give us a good deal on in equippment. Have the customers pick their channels online, and charge them a small fee when ever they changed channel line up. This could all be done via a computer. Premium channels and ppv wouldn't change, they still would make money on them.
Interesting concept: only pay for what you want and seem to think that you need. The big money people will start writing lobbyist checks again and the idea will fail. But wait, if we throw out all the incumbents it will send a strong message to someone... or not.
So, even with the new digital TV signals giving us much better picture & sound via an OTA antenna, does anyone out there want to REALLY drop Dish, D*, cable, etc. and go back to only getting a few channels, and losing all of those GREAT cable/satellite channels we're grown oh-so-used-to? I doubt it....
Actually, yes. I canceled on the day the NEW HD was introduced, I am on 3-4 network channels now, and will be getting Apple TV at the first of the month. Mostly for video podcasts, and the limited programming I was watching on Dish. (Basically, Discovery channel and a select few others). I got 200 channels on Dish that I never watched, even without ANY premium movie packages, I was still paying close to $90 a month. Since I pretty much quit following sports, I won't miss any of the events that have been moved to pay TV, they actually did the rest of us a favor when they did that, that means we won't have to miss any programming to appease the sports zombies. Let them raise prices $200 a month for all I care, they bought their ticket, I say let em' crash!
I would say you're the exception the the rule - In the big scheme of things, so you and 10,000 other subscribers drop out (...or, heck, even 100,000), it really won't matter to whatever service provider you're with.
I guess I can plead guilty to not having a CLUE about Apple TV; but I know there are a LOT of shows I enjoy that are not on "local channels", so not having access to them would be a REAL bummer. I suppose for many of those shows I could just wait for each season's DVDs to come out and then buy them, probably saving some money....
The biggest thing keeping me from "cutting the cord" and just going OTA with a HTPC is the college sports programming (ESPNs and Fox Sports) that I currently enjoy. I actually switched (last year) to E* from D* to get less channels -- because I wanted to pay less. It was the HD-only TurboHD packages that lured me to make the switch.
I would say you're the exception the the rule - In the big scheme of things, so you and 10,000 other subscribers drop out (...or, heck, even 100,000), it really won't matter to whatever service provider you're with.
I guess I can plead guilty to not having a CLUE about Apple TV; but I know there are a LOT of shows I enjoy that are not on "local channels", so not having access to them would be a REAL bummer. I suppose for many of those shows I could just wait for each season's DVDs to come out and then buy them, probably saving some money....
I had the same concerns you did, but I had a look at the programming available, matched what shows I watched to what they had, saw all of them, plus a few that I missed due to waiting for Dish to get that channel in HD which didn't come SOON enough.
Irregardless of whom it might be the quote stands true. What? You want a miracle worker?
I’m no legal expert but I think the opposite is actually true and that there have been lawsuits filed by the providers against the programmers when they discover another provider got a lower retransmission rate than they did.
All I’m saying is that let the providers negotiate with the programmers as a group to arrive at a fair and equitable fee for their programming. This certainly makes more sense to negotiate the retransmission fee one time rather than having to do it for each provider.
I do not disagree as I'm not into professional sports much (except for NASCAR and the TDF). You must have missed in my original post, even though you quoted it, that I said college sports programming.
College is even worse, all the good players go to the professional leagues early. That makes it unwatchable. I could go into a whole other rant about college sports funding versus the rest of academics but I'll save that.
On the surface, a la carte is the best solution for the subscriber but is unlikely to happen. The system in place now spreads the channel package costs over all subscribers and we all pay for several channel we don't watch. Broadcasters would lose advertising revenue when the true viewer figures became lower as subs dropped channels and subscriber revenues would drop by 50% or more as these channels are dropped by subs.
In the end, we would probably pay twice as much per channel and pay as much or more as we now pay for a full package. They will always find a way to maintain or increase their revenue levels and of course we are the main source of that revenue.
In the end, we would probably pay twice as much per channel and pay as much or more as we now pay for a full package. They will always find a way to maintain or increase their revenue levels and of course we are the main source of that revenue.
Which is why we need ala freaking cart!
I don't want ESPN 1 - ? and I sure as anything don't want to pay for it.
Hear hear! I don't buy the spurious speculation that my costs would be higher for a la cart pricing. No, the providers have set it up this way precisely because it maximizes their revenues. If they believed we would pay (on average) as much, or even more with a la cart, then they wouldn't fight it tooth and nail.
Last edited:
The total cost for all cable and satellite customers would be the same with a la carte pricing - it has to be. The same number of employees have to be supported to provide the same channels and programming.
So, only the allocation of cost would change.
Certain viewers who spend all their time watching CNN and the networks would find their monthly bill would be much less.
Viewers who watch ESPN and RSNs would find their bill would be much higher.
Viewers who watch niche channels like RFD-TV would find their bills skyrocket, and those channels would quickly go out of business.
