If Dish drops AMC, will you drop dish??
- Thread starter empiretc
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 423
- Views 51K
Let's be serious. A&E and Bio (don't need both), the suite of Discovery Networks (channels should go back to playing the content matched to the channel's name), ESPN (really doesn't need to have all channels live 24/7, could live with ESPN and ESPN U live 24/7, really annoying to see Sports Center on two channels at the same time), Don't get me started on MTV (European model much better - actually have themed channels, not just rap and POP on four separate channels), History Channel (only need one), Disney (how many channels are needed to watch Phineas and Ferb?), and so on. The ones that have it right, Turner.
Totally agree on this. Like AMC Networks having both IFC and Sundance. All that programming could fit on one channel.
a la carte programming I hope not I like watching tv . do you think that we will only pay 5 cents a channel ? no it cost money to produce and money to deliver it to you it would be the most expensive way to get tv look at what it cost for only 4 amc programs we will be paying 100 a month for 20 channels
Is that, or was that, the case on C-Band or the other big dishes? There was more value to tv channels years ago. More channels means more useless programming. Like 99% of reality tv. It also means more repeated programming, like I can't believe I'm saying this, but Married With Children being on 5 or 6 different channels. And a lot of the two combined. Please no more Hoarders or Dog Whisperor.
Last edited:
A la carte may be a dead horse at present, but the reason is so that the content providers can take more of your money. The idea of a la carte is a great one. The reasons it's a dead horse are "absolutely horrible". Think about this. Who is against a la carte? (Hint: it's not Dish.)
Who is against it? Educated customers, that's who. People who understand that it would cost them more, that they would receive fewer channels, and what they label as their favorite would likely die or be diminished significantly. It is a horrible idea. There is a reason why it didn't work before and will not work in the future.
That is not the case at all. People who are "cutting the cord" are essentially going into an a la carte, on demand, model.
There is a reason we now have HBOgo, showtime anytime, etc....
Once again I have to mention that ALLOWING a la carte (forcing channel owners to allow it) does NOT mean that packages have to go away. I can go to the grocery store and buy a Lays Snack Pack OR I can buy just the potato chips. If I buy the snack pack it may cost a LITTLE less than if I bought them separately, but if I only want the potato chips, and not the nacho cheese, cool ranch Doritos, Cheetos and other crap included in the pack, I SAVE MONEY. Those that want all the other selections get their package price. The same model would hold true for the channels. To say anything else is hyperbole. And the so-called educated customer against a la carte has been educated by the propaganda of the channel owners, not market forces.
False. That is not the same as service provider a la carte. That is entirely different.
For the record. In order to have HBO Go, you have to subscribe to HBO through a participating cable or satellite company. It is not available directly from HBO.
Wrong again. Losing customers to an idiotic a la carte idea would have a direct impact on those customers who which to stay with a package system. The only propoganda being spewed is by those few pushing a la carte.
- Prices would rise.
- The number of available channels would plummet.
- Revenues for content and service providers would shrink significantly and impact the quality of their product substantially.
Why are we going through this yet again? It's happened before and failed miserably. It won't be happening again.
Aware of that, but things are going to change. The NFL is currently working on a standalone ST/NflRedzone package delivered via the web.
then again, we may just get another conglomerate for web streaming television, and offer the same types of packages as every other provider.
Last edited:
We are going though it again because some partaking in this discussion insist that allowing customer choice is a bad thing and continue to spew the party line that not having a choice is better. BTW WHEN was a la carte ever available on a regular basis. And whom did it fail?
No, what you (and others) are suggesting would limit customer choice...not expand it.
That is one of the most hyperbolic statements I have ever read.
Allowing people to choose= less choice. Got it.
And you didn't answer my question. When was a la carte ever available to customers through cable or satellite?
Allowing people to choose= less choice. Got it.
And you didn't answer my question. When was a la carte ever available to customers through cable or satellite?
BTW Dish Network did have Dish Pix/ 10 channels for $15 from a limited menu of channels. Disney and Viamom channels were excluded because the parent companies refused to participate. The option went away not because it wasn't popular or because Dish wanted it to go away. It was the channel providers who pulled their channels from the options.
That is one of the most hyperbolic statements I have ever read.
Allowing people to choose= less choice. Got it.
And you didn't answer my question. When was a la carte ever available to customers through cable or satellite?
You could use a healthy dose of common sense. It would go a long way. You wouldn't be offering more choice. You would be offering an alternative that offers less in return. It would limit customer choice because:
- Prices would rise.
- The number of available channels would plummet.
- Revenues for content and service providers would shrink significantly and impact the quality of their product substantially.
The answer to your question is always the same: C-Band
CBand was NEVER a main stream choice and it went away due to the economics of satellite bandwidth among other things.
Look. I see you are entrenched in an indefensible position and will continue to spew the corporate line.
But next time you go to a grocery store and buy a bag of potato chips. Think to yourself: If I bought potato chips in a package with tortilla chips in a flavor I dislike, pretzels I won't eat, cheese puffs I don't like and Peanut snack I'm allergic to I will save money on the unit price of the potato chips and I am giving more choice to everyone else by not allowing anyone just to buy potato chips a la carte even though I am spending 3 or 4 times as much as I otherwise would have!
Look. I see you are entrenched in an indefensible position and will continue to spew the corporate line.
But next time you go to a grocery store and buy a bag of potato chips. Think to yourself: If I bought potato chips in a package with tortilla chips in a flavor I dislike, pretzels I won't eat, cheese puffs I don't like and Peanut snack I'm allergic to I will save money on the unit price of the potato chips and I am giving more choice to everyone else by not allowing anyone just to buy potato chips a la carte even though I am spending 3 or 4 times as much as I otherwise would have!
Similar threads
