would you subscribe to a programming package where you picked every channel?

[Tyralak]

Thank you for your vote in this poll! Tell us your thoghts on why you voted the way you did in this poll. Do you think this kind of service will ever happen, or is it just too far fetched because of the deals required for pay TV services to broadcast grouped channels to the subscriber? know of any pay TV provider somewhere else in the world trying this out with a few channels and subscribers? post it below. As always, please post anything interesting related to this topic below.

It already does. It's called C-Band.

 

[Tyralak]

Think about the fact that you probably don't watch 75% of the channels you get. The companies will NOT let you drop all of those as they would be no longer viable (but don't forget that even though you never watch Lifetime, SoapNet, or Style, your neighbor never watches ESPN, FoxSports, or Spike. No one ever wants to support the channels they DON'T want, but everyone wants everyone ELSE to support the channels they DO want for themselves).

Bottom line, the current system isn't going anywhere for a while.

I wouldn't mind a little "trash TV" myself. B-Mania is a cool channel. Before my local Neighborhood Nazis (aka homeowner association) goose-stepped up to me and demanded I take my C-Band down, I could get B-Mania free to air on T7-800. www.bmania.tv I hope E* or D* would pick it up. It's a cool channel. When "The Horror Channel" debuts later this year, that one will be cool too. There's a distinct lack of B fare on TV these days. This needs to be remedied.

 

[Tyralak]

If they want increased ad revenue with the extra niche channels then they should not force them down our throat for an extra charge. I think if they cannot make enough money off of the advertisement then some of these channels should not have an extra charge.

Didn't I hear about some FTA channels becoming available in the future on 105 with another satellite provider where some of the channels would make enough off of advertisement to not have to charge for their channels while others you could purchase on an ala carte basis directly from the station? Or are all of them going to be ala carte? If you purchase directly from the stations then they could make just as much if not more money and you would still end up paying less since Dish Network, DirecTv, or cable would no longer be the middle man.

That would be sweet! :shocked Would you need to get a DVB FTA reciever and a 30" dish to get them?

 

[Tyralak]

HDTV is going to HURT dbs BIT TIME until dbs finds a solution for this. The only way this will go against cable is if their prices cannot be competetive with dbs due to cost of HD.

Yep. Being that many cable companies offer HDTV for an additional $3 per month, and you don't have to buy the HD reciever, that will hurt DBS bad.

Broadband internet that cable offers is also going to hurt dbs as well if dbs cannot offer a cheap reliable broadband service with low upfront cost. Even if that happens their ping is not good enough.

No matter what you do, you still have that pesky speed of light problem. The ping will always be high when you have to send the signal 22,500 miles up AND down, then have the information return the same way. That's a 90,000 mile round trip. There isn't much of a way around it.

 

[GB42]

I would think this would be a no brainer but to each his own.
HECK YES I would LOVE to be able to pick all my channels and I would be willing to pay A LITTLE more.

 

[Stargazer]

Perhaps the new way of transmitting signals using balloons as I had seen posted where it would not have nearly as far to travel as it would to a satellite would be a good solution.

 

[mike123abc]

It would be a very popular package even if they charged between $0.50 and $3 per channel. $1 could be for cheap ones, $3 for expensive ones like ESPN.

Of course it would kill the industry. I watch about 10 channels, and of that probably only 5 on any type of regular basis. I would love to have a $5-$10 pack.

Even if it was composed of small packages with program groups like the discovery set, the history channel set, the espn pack, the nickolodean group, etc that would range $5-$10, it would be a great deal.

The would probably have to put in a $20 minimum or something just to pay for billing overheat. Imagine either AT60 or your choice of 20 channels the same price!

 

[dbronstein]

It would be a very popular package even if they charged between $0.50 and $3 per channel. $1 could be for cheap ones, $3 for expensive ones like ESPN.

But it would never be that cheap. Since they wouldn't getting the revenue from the current subs who don't want the channels, they would have to make it up by charging a lot more to the people who do want the channels.

Do the math - if only 20% of the people who currently sub to a certain channel would actually get it a la carte, that means they would charge 5x as much for it. You probably wouldn't end up saving much money, if any, and you would end up getting fewer channels.

Dennis

 

[Stargazer]

Dish probably would have a minimal amount of channels that you would have to choose like they did with DishPix. If you had to pay 5x for each channel then you would have to have less than one fifth the number of channels to save any money. For example, to save money over what the AT60 costs you would have to get less than 12 channels unless you take the ones that cost Dish less to save any money. With the AT120 package the audio channels DO NOT count as they are not that expensive. Only the video channels could be counted. Rounding off numbers 120-30audio=90/5=18. With AT180-50audio=130/5=26. This is not counting locals. This would be an average since some may cost more than others.