John McCain Wants Pay Channels Sold Individually, Not In Bundles
- Thread starter dfergie
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 205
- Views 22K
What I see here not only encourages a free market for tv programming, it creates one.
Explain why 'it doesn't sing'..Or do you object to the status quo based on the desire to exist in a comfort zone?
but if all channels cost $15 .. how would that work out ?
say you like only 8 = $120 plus all the add on's
less choice of stuff to watch
hope so
I think the system would work since companies like Viacom could find out that they cannot charge $15 for the channels they offer (like MTV). They would have to pull content together and package it is a price range closer to $5. Which is probably more than they get per sub now, but of course with a la carte they would have fewer subs.
The real loser in this would be channels like ESPN.
The real loser in this would be channels like ESPN.
I don't think it will even happen, but I'd just be happy with decoupling sports programming from the other types of programming. Sports channels are several times more expensive than other cable network channels. I think if the ESPNs had to survive on their own they would be in the same league, price wise, as HBO. Remember. Way back when cable first reached consumers, the premium channels were meant to be a la carte. Now we have several tiers of premium channels plus the wanna-be channels that are bundled in mini-packs.
I can also see conglomerates splitting up their programming even more in order to get more people to subscribe to more than one or two stations from their network. Instead of having a single channel that might have 2 or 3 popular programs, we might see THREE channels each with one or two popular shows. That is going to lead to even more repetition in programming.
The pocketbook is the only thing these networks understand. The prices will start to come down when consumers leave in droves for OTA + Streaming.
I can also see conglomerates splitting up their programming even more in order to get more people to subscribe to more than one or two stations from their network. Instead of having a single channel that might have 2 or 3 popular programs, we might see THREE channels each with one or two popular shows. That is going to lead to even more repetition in programming.
The pocketbook is the only thing these networks understand. The prices will start to come down when consumers leave in droves for OTA + Streaming.
My concern is that allowing the government to direct the policies of a private company is not in the best interest of the country. IF some provider wanted to try doing exactly the same thing I would like to see it.
But compelling a company to expend funds to offer a product that their best research indicates will not produce a profit is just the wrong way to go. Next thing that could happen is the government will force you to use seat belts or buy health insurance.
Could be a good idea...but forcing it is not the proper role of government. Likewise there is no place for government subsidies to help pay for it.
Having said that.............I am looking around for a way to replace commercial TV. The ads are just too distracting and repetitious. The early draw for cable & satellite service was the lack of commercials. Them days be gone. Got a way to get the a la carte thing done.........I'd sign up if the money was close or less than now.
Joe
So McCain wants bipartisan programming,,,,,sweet!!!!!!!
Posted Using The New SatelliteGuys Reader App!
Posted Using The New SatelliteGuys Reader App!
Make a la carte an option along side the channel packages. You can pick a channel package or a la carte. Or even make it so you pick a low priced channel package and add one two a la carte channels.
how is that ?
the non sports watchers are always gripping about the $5.00 - 5.50 ESPN gets. is that $5.00 - 5.50 worth all the stress ?
if half of the subscribers dropped ESPN even. and the other half of sports watcher dropped the 50- 100 channels they don't watch. the sports watchers would pay double. and the non sports watchers would pay double for their 50- 100 channels . nothing changes.
When I had C-Band choosing a package that had the channels that I wanted was always cheaper than buying them individually. It is true that a lot of channels would disappear because they wouldn't get enough subs, not necessarily a bad thing unless some of them happen to be channels that you like.
With C-Band the channels sold their programming cheap because it was just extra money added on to what they received from cable and C-Band users were a very small percentage of viewers. They would have to charge a lot more for main line cable and sat customers to pay for their operation. I'm not totally against it but it would make TV a whole different experience than what we have now.
With C-Band the channels sold their programming cheap because it was just extra money added on to what they received from cable and C-Band users were a very small percentage of viewers. They would have to charge a lot more for main line cable and sat customers to pay for their operation. I'm not totally against it but it would make TV a whole different experience than what we have now.
Look, I am the LAST person to agree with government meddling in the affairs of private business, but sometimes it is necessary.
I do not view this as forcing programmers/producers to do anything. I see this as the legislation reminding the programmers that they have a duty to act in the public interest and to offer consumers the choice to bundle or not bundle.
Yes, ESPN would probably be around $10 per month. Yes, there would be a number of niche channels that would either find a way to be subsidized or hit the scrap heap. So what.
I look at it this way....If I go to the grocery store to buy cereal, do they make me buy milk as well? No. Then why is it I want financial news from CNBC I have to buy MSNBC which I NEVER watch...
Or, why should a family that wants just a basic package and has no interest in sports but wants channels that are packaged in the typical low rung level of programming have to spend 5 bucks a month on ESPN?
Yep, the scare mongers are saying the cost to watch tv will skyrocket. They scream about jobs being lost from the demise of these little niche channels...Right. Ok.. Well I believe the marketplace should decide what it wants. And if it takes government actiopn to open up the marketplace to choice, so be it. Right now we have a closed market. We have no choices. Except to cut the cord.
This was going to come to a head. Montly pay tv bills are out of control. Programmers and providers have been able to increase prices with near impunity. And for what? They claim costs are rising on their end. Really? Show me!...Show me where the cost to put a tv channel on a satellite out in space has tripled in the last 10 years.
Maybe these producers are paying their people too much. maybe they spend too much on frills like sticky note pads and limos for the boss and his staff.
And how long ago was that? I had a BUD from about '92 to 2002 and also paid ala carte. Prices were much cheaper for programming then regardless of how they were structured. How many channels did your $75 get you?
There's another thread on this going on in the general cable forum. http://www.satelliteguys.us/threads...Pay-Channels-Sold-Individually-Not-In-Bundles
I'll just repeat that for once, I actually agree with John McCain on an issue.
I'll just repeat that for once, I actually agree with John McCain on an issue.
Because if half the households drop ESPN, ESPN then has to jump to $10/month to break even. Then more and more households drop as the price has to go higher and higher, or they take a cut in profit for the short term while the current contracts are in place, then do not bid as high for the future contracts, essentially working its way back to cutting player salaries.
You are so right! When I go to the grocery store, I see the price of tide and the price of bleach vs the price of tide with bleach in one package and I don't see why anyone would ever want to buy just bleach or just tide! Grocery stores should just get rid of the individually packaged items.
Everything should be bundled. Heck, when you buy oil for your car, it should be bundled with a ring job and head gaskets because you know when you add a quart of oil to the car, it's because you are burning oil and need a ring job anyway. It's so much cheaper when you bundle. No one should be able to just buy the quart of oil.
must know little about sports people pay $80- 5,000.00 to go to just 1 game in the NBA alone. we won't drop ESPN because it cost $10 a month.
who would pay those amounts to see the Filming of ANY other TV show ?
