The problem is that our nation is pro sport crazy and the vast majority of homes have at least one male (often more) who HAVE to have their sports and that means ESPN. Yes, ESPN certainly want to be on the absolute lowest tier (and is for just about all MVPD's) like all the other channels. If ESPN goes dark on an MVPD, it is curtains for that provider, and that is why it is by far the most expensive channel for the providers. I would love a package without ESPN as it would result in a big discount over the current lowest package offered by just about anyone out there, but that's like canceling turkey on Thanksgiving for this country. It aint EVER gonna happen, unless we a free to pick and choose what we subscribe to via on-line services. However, now the likes of Netflix are slowly falling into the same trap of the cable and sat providers such as Netflix paying millions for Mad Men, and this is just the beginning as competition heats up. It aint gonna be $8 per month very long once the spending spree really gets under way. Oh, and add the cost of going over your ISP's data caps or the necessity of the ISP's more expensive bandwidth (some in the $50 plus per month range) to make streaming an enhanced experience for HD or even SD without hiccups. Now what is ones full monthly cost for content that they were purchasing from cable or sat, and the cost will increase for ISP and online content monthly membership fees. We'll be right back where we started in just a few years.
Something Dish, Direct, etc don't want you to know...
- Thread starter brad1138
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 54
- Views 11K
It isn't that big of a mystery. I got that info from my boss and good friend who sees all the prices for every channel at the commercial level (I can see them also, they aren't secret). I never questioned him more than that. I think that the figure of $15-$20 (I said nearly $20 for dramatic effect) was derived from the fact that ESPN costs more than HBO or Showtime etc.. at the commercial/wholesale level. Premium channels go for $13-$16 a month (retail) so $15-$20 is a good ballpark for something a bit more expensive than $13-$16. I'll have to double check that that was the logic he used, but I don't have a real problem it.
It may not be quite $20, but it isn't $5 either, looks like $10+ is a bit more accurate, still a big chunk of your bill. I would like to see a package without it for $10 or so less a month. Maybe the top 120 without FSN or ESPN for $30 or $35/month
Also, Yes I know they have other bills to pay, that is irrelevant in this discussion. We are trying to assess the retail cost of a channel from the cost.
That mouse in reality is a dirty rat.That damn mouse is one greedy little bastard.
According to the chart from the link mentioned by KAB, my bill should be $10.59/month based on the channels I watch... And I added up channels, as in, watched one or more shows during a month from that channel. ESPN & Fox ARE ridiculous compared to the others--especially if you don't watch them.
If you were wondering why they don't offer 'complete' al-carte' option? Because it's about 600% cheaper compared to packages!
If you were wondering why they don't offer 'complete' al-carte' option? Because it's about 600% cheaper compared to packages!
i wonder if any mods will move this to a section that is perfect for this topic since it talks about channels that are twice the price then the others (i.e. ESPN) and pay TV provider forces us to take that channel as well for others and put the price on our bills.
anyway on the subject itself, as a NASCAR Fan, i would keep paying (that is if i was the one in my household paying, but I'm not someone else is. i just repersent that household of mine in the talking on here.) for the ESPN networks due to the NASCAR coverage itself, same for TNT if Time Warner is doing the same as ESPN, and News Corporation did the same with FOX, FX and Speed. and i'm in a part of the country where Disney doesn't own the local ABC station.
anyway on the subject itself, as a NASCAR Fan, i would keep paying (that is if i was the one in my household paying, but I'm not someone else is. i just repersent that household of mine in the talking on here.) for the ESPN networks due to the NASCAR coverage itself, same for TNT if Time Warner is doing the same as ESPN, and News Corporation did the same with FOX, FX and Speed. and i'm in a part of the country where Disney doesn't own the local ABC station.
I'm not trying to pick on you, but if you got the "numbers from your boss" then you think the you could just relay the numbers instead of inflating them. I can't tell if you are making things up or what. We do have some sources referenced that show actual numbers. You have not provided a source other than saying your boss, and the numbers keep changing.
Yes it would be nice to have a package without them, but we have some already and what would be included in that package?
The knowledge isn't that hard to find and I still don't see where the providers 'don't want you to know it'. Many providers in other areas don't have a problem showing what their costs are and marking things up to make a profit in providing a service or product. I deal with that sort of thing every week at work and as long as it is fair and reasonable, many don't have a problem with it.
Yes it would be nice to have a package without them, but we have some already and what would be included in that package?
The knowledge isn't that hard to find and I still don't see where the providers 'don't want you to know it'. Many providers in other areas don't have a problem showing what their costs are and marking things up to make a profit in providing a service or product. I deal with that sort of thing every week at work and as long as it is fair and reasonable, many don't have a problem with it.
This is why I am in favor of E*, D*, fiber and cable companies having an ala carte programming option. With ala carte, the networks would know what they are worth.
How about the premium channels, HBO, STARZ, SHOWTIME, exc. is their a price list available for these channels?
How about the premium channels, HBO, STARZ, SHOWTIME, exc. is their a price list available for these channels?
This has been gone over hundreds of times before. The networks are the boss, not Dish. They will not give Dish or anyone else a la carte options, as it would mean way less revenue for them. Want it to happen, write your congressmen (and deal with those on this board that want no government involvement).
Second, satellites cost hundreds of millions of dollars each to build and launch. Uplink facilities are expensive. They also have to regain money for installation and receiving equipment. Just because a channel costs $0.10, does not mean Dish only pays that to bring it to you, nor will the programmer let them sell that one channel for that a la carte.
Second, satellites cost hundreds of millions of dollars each to build and launch. Uplink facilities are expensive. They also have to regain money for installation and receiving equipment. Just because a channel costs $0.10, does not mean Dish only pays that to bring it to you, nor will the programmer let them sell that one channel for that a la carte.
They basically know what they are worth which is why they bundle the also rans with desired channels at higher prices. If you want the desired channel, you also take these others whether you want them or not. I don't see the content providers ever agreeing to a la carte.
If you don't believe what people are saying on this forum about the average cost of ESPN look at the article in Wikipedia. It states that the average cost of ESPN to cable companies is $4.08 per month per subscriber.
Also for those wanting AlaCarte offerings don't hold your breath. A bill was introduced in Congress in 2007 to requires this. It has been in committee since 2008. Do you really think many Congressmen and Senators want to get on the wrong side of CNN, Fox, NBC, CBS, ABC etc?
Jim
Also for those wanting AlaCarte offerings don't hold your breath. A bill was introduced in Congress in 2007 to requires this. It has been in committee since 2008. Do you really think many Congressmen and Senators want to get on the wrong side of CNN, Fox, NBC, CBS, ABC etc?
Jim
The economic ignorance in our society is amazing.
If you add up all of the wholesale COST of these channels it means nothing in relation to how much they cost retail. I don't know how much of any providers costs are programming, but I'd guess it is less than half.
These figures are only usable for comparison purposes, not for real world prices, because they are only one component of a carrier's expenses.
Dish/DirecTV/Comcast/everybody has to pay salaries, debt retirement, hardware of all types, building lease/construction, investor royalties and on and on.
If you were able to get channels selectable a-la-carte, the carriers are still going to have to find money for these expenses from somewhere and somewhere is still YOU.
You may get channels a-la-caret, but the access fees or some other fees will have to make up the difference. you may get your ESPN channel ONLY for $16, but that is the least of your worries, then the carrier will add their miscellaneous expenses in and that one channel will cost you more like $35 or $40, because with a-la-carte the carriers expenses remain fixed, except maybe for programming and it will be passed on %400 to you.
So you end up paying 400% for your programs plus the carriers expenses, I dare say it would be MORE expensive with a-la-carte than it is now, and you only have you few select channels to watch, no more thumbing through the wasteland and finding a 1 in a 1000 gem occasionally.
The reason programming is paid for the way it is is that this is the best way to do it for variety and cost per value.
If you add up all of the wholesale COST of these channels it means nothing in relation to how much they cost retail. I don't know how much of any providers costs are programming, but I'd guess it is less than half.
These figures are only usable for comparison purposes, not for real world prices, because they are only one component of a carrier's expenses.
Dish/DirecTV/Comcast/everybody has to pay salaries, debt retirement, hardware of all types, building lease/construction, investor royalties and on and on.
If you were able to get channels selectable a-la-carte, the carriers are still going to have to find money for these expenses from somewhere and somewhere is still YOU.
You may get channels a-la-caret, but the access fees or some other fees will have to make up the difference. you may get your ESPN channel ONLY for $16, but that is the least of your worries, then the carrier will add their miscellaneous expenses in and that one channel will cost you more like $35 or $40, because with a-la-carte the carriers expenses remain fixed, except maybe for programming and it will be passed on %400 to you.
So you end up paying 400% for your programs plus the carriers expenses, I dare say it would be MORE expensive with a-la-carte than it is now, and you only have you few select channels to watch, no more thumbing through the wasteland and finding a 1 in a 1000 gem occasionally.
The reason programming is paid for the way it is is that this is the best way to do it for variety and cost per value.
I don't think he's the only person here with that grasp... but it doesn't mean we all can't still have hopes for something better. In reality, being complacent cows does nothing be lead you through a boring life and in the end to the slaughterhouse ... "oh what? that's why we're in here... and I thought it was for more hay."
EXACTLY !! A-LA-Carte is not the answer. You WILL PAY more this way rather than bundled packages.
ESPN is opne of the highest priced channels out there at $4 per subscriber. Now add in the costs for all the Fox chs., Disney, Discoveries, etc...... and TAH DAH you have the rediculous prices we're all paying today. Just wait and see what happens when all the Networks demand more for their channels.
It's the greed of the programmers jacking up our monthly bills and it will not stop until someone steps in and says ENOUGH!!!
Pure al la carte isn't possible as it would cost prohibitive. Now it may be possible to do it if you buy a certain level package then can add the channels for say a dollar a piece (ESPN would be an exception since it is so over priced).
The business model for video providers under ala carte would probably end up being similar for gas and electric utilities in that there would be a line item on your bill for the distribution network.
Also I doubt there would be many channels that only charge a dollar that you would want. Currently All American Direct charges $3.49 for each network affiliate you want in SD. (Small discount if you take all four or all if you take all the networks from both coasts ).
It some ways this model would be a win for the broadband distributors. They would no longer be the villan when Fox, ESPN jacked up their rates. Consumers could decide and drop channels with what they thought were outrageous rate increases.
Jim
Also I doubt there would be many channels that only charge a dollar that you would want. Currently All American Direct charges $3.49 for each network affiliate you want in SD. (Small discount if you take all four or all if you take all the networks from both coasts ).
It some ways this model would be a win for the broadband distributors. They would no longer be the villan when Fox, ESPN jacked up their rates. Consumers could decide and drop channels with what they thought were outrageous rate increases.
Jim
I don't think this is true. Some would pay more, others less. If the programmers thought your statement true for all, they would be happy to allow a la carte.
The programmers know that the individual customer will pay more, but the overall revenue per channel would decrease significantly because subscribers wouldn't have as many channels. With the current system, the channels know how much revenue they get and don't have to focus their efforts at gaining subscribers.
A-la-carte means each channel would have to ramp up its advertising, which would force the price of each channel up significantly.
A-la-carte means each channel would have to ramp up its advertising, which would force the price of each channel up significantly.
Similar threads
- Article
