Poll: How long do you think it will take till Cable offers Ala Cart channels like Canada does? :) - AVS Forum
View Poll Results: How long do you think it will take till Cable offers Ala Cart channels like Canada does?
Soon as we are heading in the same direction Canada was until they were forced 3 3.85%
It will happen but it may still be awhile 14 17.95%
They are probably already talking about considering it as an option 2 2.56%
No chance. It will be a cold day in hell before US companies give in 59 75.64%
Voters: 78. You may not vote on this poll

Forum Jump: 
 1Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 70 Old 02-19-2013, 12:08 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
jh20001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 17
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
The question is as simple as that.

How long do you think it will take till Cable offers Ala Cart channels like Canada does?

I just dumped Cox here in the Valley because of the prices continuing to climb and I was paying $70 for basic extended cable (no digital boxes, no fancy channel or movie packages....just the first 70 something channels pretty much). I don't watch a lot of TV so I said "enough". Cox tried everything they could....not to keep me at what I had....no...their only solutions were to offer me additional TV options instead which only raised the price. I told them to call me when they offer Ala Cart like Canada does, and I will come back for the 5-10 channels I need smile.gif
BrianTisky likes this.
jh20001 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 70 Old 02-19-2013, 07:39 AM
Senior Member
 
borntocoast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 282
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 18
It's going to take a Revolution (which I think isn't far off). I rebelled six years ago this past January, and now watch most my programming via DVD. The Media Industry (Especially Pay-TV) can't continue the way they have, they're already in a death spiral. One cannot continue to raise prices while lower the quality of what they produce (In the case of Pay-TV it's "Reality" Shows and Rampant Advertising) without paying the consequences. I've seen countless businesses (some of which were once household names) go under because they did the same thing, and their customers either got their product from another source or substituted it with something differant. A House divided against itself CANNOT STAND. mad.gif
borntocoast is offline  
post #3 of 70 Old 02-19-2013, 08:58 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
jh20001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 17
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
So true. The US needs to stand up for itself and fight back in large numbers to show it's support for true *change* (pun intended). It's going to require though that the government step in and force the TV providers t provide such ala cart options. It's the only way Canada was able to pull it off as their companies also claimed it was impossible until their government said you have "this long" to figure it out. Go figure, it was figured out quite fast and with little change to their setup (really when you think about it, providing TV to a household kind of resembles variables in a table of data showing what should or shouldn't be shared in their package).

Sadly though the corporations have so much influence on our government, it is next to impossible anymore for us to improve on such life qualities since they almost always lean towards what benefits the major corporations...not the people. Then on top of that the uneducated people will fight against it saying the government shouldn't have the power to tell companies what they can and can not do, yatta yatta....not realizing that the government isn't stepping in trying to dictate how a company runs in general...but simply trying to state that a company cannot be allowed to defraud american citizens for profit (ie, forcing you to pay extra for channels such as spanish and filipino channels...when you don't understand either of the two languages and have no option of removing those channels from your package......NOW, let's talk about those de-evolved and brain rotting reality TV shows and everything else....).

It would require everyone to stand up and do something. Break open MS Word (or whatever platform you prefer) and write a letter to your state politicians. It doesn't cost that much to send a letter. Also email it to them via their website stating you just want to make sure it gets to them in one form or another (but don't *just* do emails as it's too easily lost in spam or junk folders). Written mail is still one of the most effective things out there since the USPS doesn't have a junk folder wink.gif

Stand up and fight and the more people who do, the most chance we have at the government at least trying. If anything it might cause the companies to sweat and consider offering the options before they get thrown too far into the spotlight.

Don't raise prices because and force channels into general packages. If someone wants a channel....it should be THEIR decision, not the companies. If a channel isn't doing so good, don't take it out on the subscribers....admit defeat and let the channel go. That's what they used to...if THAT channel didn't get enough viewers, it was up to THAT channel to figure out how to survive or be shut down. Now they simply don't care...they just play whatever the hell they want despite the level of junk it is.
jh20001 is offline  
post #4 of 70 Old 02-19-2013, 09:26 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Beerstalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Peoria, IL
Posts: 1,978
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 23
I don't think it will happen at all, at least not with the current kind of setup we have now. Something like it might happen if we start seeing more things appw/websites like HBO GO, Hulu, etc but instead you can subscribe directly to each channel online. But as far as getting TV over satellite or cable I don't see it happening, and from the last I read I'm not sure I would want it to. Last I heard it was not working out very well in Canada and most people were actually seeing their cable bills get higher if they wanted to keep all the channels they watched without the others.
Beerstalker is offline  
post #5 of 70 Old 02-19-2013, 10:24 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
jh20001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 17
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
That's because Canada's companies are like any others. They will find what ever way possible to make YOU pay for their loss or revenge. They still are probably finding ways of working out the cost of the other channels into the mix somehow only in that manner...you aren't seeing the channels. In that case I will be on OTA for a VERY long time until (or "if") corporations stop defrauding people.



*please stand by..lol...I have an reply pending below but this "admin needs to approve your every post" thing is a little annoying and discouraging after I spend so much time typing biggrin.gif
jh20001 is offline  
post #6 of 70 Old 02-19-2013, 11:47 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Beerstalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Peoria, IL
Posts: 1,978
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 23
What would you expect them to do, just give up and shut down?

Think about this, if channel A has 30 million subscibers and they get $1 a month from each subscriber that means they make $30 million dollars a month. They use that number to budget for their shows, hardware costs, transmission fees, etc. Now all the sudden they have to offer that channel ala cart and they are only getting 10 million subscribers. They then have to make the decision to either raise their cost to $3/month per subscriber, or cancel shows, lay people off, etc. None of which is preferred, but the most likely is they are going to try to just raise their subscription cost to $3/month to try to make up the difference. Then more people stop getting the channel because they think it costs too much, so the channel has to charge even more, or start cutting costs.

Sure some channels will probably be able to get away with it somewhat. But many others will most likely be driven to either cut costs so much that they are a shell of their former selves, or they shut down completely.

Even ESPN, will probably end up having to make severe cuts. Get rid of ESPn classic altogether (one of my guesses), cut way back on their online programming, maybe shut down other channels, etc. Because I don't think even ESPN could get away with suddenly charging $20-30 a month like they would most likely have to if they went ala-cart.
Beerstalker is offline  
post #7 of 70 Old 02-19-2013, 11:55 AM
Senior Member
 
jadziedzic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Nashua, NH
Posts: 285
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beerstalker View Post

What would you expect them to do, just give up and shut down?
That's exactly what I'd expect *any* business to do that sells a product for which there is insufficient demand. Why should I have to pay *anything* toward ESPN when I never watch sports? That would like me asking you to kick in a dollar or three for the "pinball channel", or the "paintball channel", or ...
jadziedzic is online now  
post #8 of 70 Old 02-19-2013, 02:36 PM
Senior Member
 
borntocoast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 282
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 18
I see the whole Media Industry collapsing like a House of Cards in the not-so-distant future. for the last 15 years not only have prices done nothing but climb, but the quality of what you pay for has done nothing but head south due to rampant advertising, the proliferation of "unscripted" programming and so-called "niche" channels abandoning their original formats among other things. mad.gif I've seen legions of businesses, some of which used to be household names go down this very path and they no longer exist! People see they are no longer getting the same value for what they pay for, and they either:

A. Seek that product from another source. (I did this six years ago)

B. Substitute that product with something else.

Remember, a House divided against itself cannot stand!
borntocoast is offline  
post #9 of 70 Old 02-19-2013, 02:46 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
jh20001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 17
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beerstalker View Post

What would you expect them to do, just give up and shut down?

Think about this, if channel A has 30 million subscibers and they get $1 a month from each subscriber that means they make $30 million dollars a month. They use that number to budget for their shows, hardware costs, transmission fees, etc. Now all the sudden they have to offer that channel ala cart and they are only getting 10 million subscribers. They then have to make the decision to either raise their cost to $3/month per subscriber, or cancel shows, lay people off, etc. None of which is preferred, but the most likely is they are going to try to just raise their subscription cost to $3/month to try to make up the difference. Then more people stop getting the channel because they think it costs too much, so the channel has to charge even more, or start cutting costs.

Sure some channels will probably be able to get away with it somewhat. But many others will most likely be driven to either cut costs so much that they are a shell of their former selves, or they shut down completely.

Even ESPN, will probably end up having to make severe cuts. Get rid of ESPn classic altogether (one of my guesses), cut way back on their online programming, maybe shut down other channels, etc. Because I don't think even ESPN could get away with suddenly charging $20-30 a month like they would most likely have to if they went ala-cart.

Yes but they aren't being paid a true earning as not ALL of those 30 million subscribers are actually watching the channel. They are just stuck paying for it because it's part of their package. So essentially, they are paying for all these big budget shows (or small budget shows), even if they could care less to watch or prefer to stay far away. Anyone who has a cable subscription...is paying for spanish channels. I don't know about you but I don't speak spanish. It's not that I don't like spanish....I simply just don't speak it therefore those channels are useless to me. So switching it to Ala Cart would show TRUE subscriber numbers and interest....vs inflated stats filled with discrepancies and fallacies. So in the end if only 10 million people subscribe to them ala cart....that should have been the budget they operated with to begin with. I am not working my arse off in this world to pay for everyone else's failures. It's the same thing as bailing out a company that is only going to continue to fail. It's pointless....I am not going to bail anyone out. If their station is horrible, then they should be paid like they are horrible, and not get a free ride so that they can continue to be horrible. They may not even know they are horrible until we stop paying. Hello reality.

This kind of change isn't just between us the providers though. This would also become a negotiation between the provider and the station. Sure ESPN could tell Cox Communications that since they are no longer in packages they are getting less subscribers therefore want to increase their cost to balance. Cox then could simply reply saying well, since you are getting less subscribers, you are no longer WORTH the demanded cost. The channels wouldn't have much of a fight as the numbers would be more accurate than ever.

So ESPN, Fox Sports...don't watch them (I did watch Versus once in awhile though). Spanish channels, lifetime channels, home shopping network channels, hallmark channels. Filipino channels, disney channels, nick channels, MTV channels (since they don't play a bit of music any longer), fishing channels, Reality TV channels...I could go on and on and on.....I don't watch them. Therefore there is NO reason why I should be FORCED to pay for them, to support them or for some of them...even slightly encourage them. Either they have to budget/depend on the true numbers that watch them...or they need to close shop and move on to something else if that isn't enough.

As long as TV stations aren't pressured as much as they were used to...to provide quality content...they will only continue to grow worse and worse. The concepts of "Idiocracy" (movie) are right around the corner.
aeromorris likes this.
jh20001 is offline  
post #10 of 70 Old 02-19-2013, 03:17 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Spiky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Mpls, MN
Posts: 1,894
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 26
No chance. And whether a few of us agree or not, that is what the average American wants. Just look at the thread here, started a couple years ago, about 'I don't have cable'. We tried to have a discussion for people tired of paying cable companies for almost nothing, and it was taken over by others that claim we have to have cable and we're morons for dropping it. People don't care, why should the companies which are feeding them?
Spiky is offline  
post #11 of 70 Old 02-19-2013, 05:42 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Steve Mehs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 3,478
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Hopefully NEVER! The whole idea of a la carte makes me want to vomit! It’s a purely idiotic idea. If you want real a la carte, why not break it down by individual shows, not by channels. Because if someone is going to be a crybaby whining about how they pay for MTV or ESPN and never watch it, I’ll take it to the next level and cry about how why I shouldn’t be ‘forced’ to buy a whole channel of DIY Network, when all I watch is Man Caves.

Let’s see how great a la carte is. I watch upwards of 60 shows on a regular basis. That doesn’t include live sports or news. Using the iTunes pricing of $3 per episode and $3.50 per episode for shows on the premiums.
I watch 19 shows between Fox and CBS. Typically network shows are 23 episodes per season. 19 shows * 23 episodes * $2.99/episode= over $1300 a year. Premium cable series are typically 10 episodes per season. I watch 15 shows between HBO, Showtime, Cinemax and Starz. 15 shows * 10 episodes * $3.49/episode that’s another $520 a year. That leaves about 25 shows on regular cable network. 25 shows * 13 episodes * $2.99/episode that’s $970.

$2800 a year for a la carte TV. I pay $3,000 a year for cable and that includes 50MB broadband, digital phone, two whole house DVRs and just about every channel. I probably tune into 100 channels a month. And that $2800/year does not include any live NFL, NHL, MLB, NASCAR, NLL, NCAA Football or UFC action

Time Warner Cable – Signature Home Premium View w/Epix, Sports Pass, HD Pass, Spanish Tier, Cisco Explorer 8642HDC, Cisco Explorer 8742HDC Both Running ODN 7.2.0_11
DirecTV – Premier, HD Extra Pack, NFL ST Max, NHL CI, MLB EI, Whole House DVR, HR34-700 Running 0807, HR24-200 Running 0802

Steve Mehs is offline  
post #12 of 70 Old 02-19-2013, 07:31 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
jh20001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 17
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Mehs View Post

Hopefully NEVER! The whole idea of a la carte makes me want to vomit! It’s a purely idiotic idea. If you want real a la carte, why not break it down by individual shows, not by channels. Because if someone is going to be a crybaby whining about how they pay for MTV or ESPN and never watch it, I’ll take it to the next level and cry about how why I shouldn’t be ‘forced’ to buy a whole channel of DIY Network, when all I watch is Man Caves.

Let’s see how great a la carte is. I watch upwards of 60 shows on a regular basis. That doesn’t include live sports or news. Using the iTunes pricing of $3 per episode and $3.50 per episode for shows on the premiums.
I watch 19 shows between Fox and CBS. Typically network shows are 23 episodes per season. 19 shows * 23 episodes * $2.99/episode= over $1300 a year. Premium cable series are typically 10 episodes per season. I watch 15 shows between HBO, Showtime, Cinemax and Starz. 15 shows * 10 episodes * $3.49/episode that’s another $520 a year. That leaves about 25 shows on regular cable network. 25 shows * 13 episodes * $2.99/episode that’s $970.

$2800 a year for a la carte TV. I pay $3,000 a year for cable and that includes 50MB broadband, digital phone, two whole house DVRs and just about every channel. I probably tune into 100 channels a month. And that $2800/year does not include any live NFL, NHL, MLB, NASCAR, NLL, NCAA Football or UFC action

Breaking it down by shows wouldn't make any sense. Save that for Amazon downloads when people watch an average of 1-3 (single) shows a month. Your throwing such prices around (using prices others have used as examples for whole channels) is just extreme and borderline trolling. It's hard to argue if you fly to far to the right or left. TV is supposed to be the affordable access to broadcast video as it's counter supported by commercials. Now the commercials are only icing on the cake for them and packages are no longer "affordable" but more like a luxury now. So for them its profit on top of profit on top of profit while they all argue about who should get more profit profit profit and then make even more profit. There has to be compromise somewhere and it has to be reasonable. A fair system, is a profitable system as it will destroy the competition that chooses to screw people over vs join the cause. Until this happens, the system will only grow more unstable each day until it collapses on itself.


Another example. What if they broke it down by category if individual channels is too "extreme" for you, helping to more accurately match the channels to the user. Categories like Drama, Comedy, Action, News, Investing, Horror, Reality TV, Cooking, Education, Fishing, Sports, SPANISH (lol...I won't stop complaining about this). Charge them out at $5/category with each category containing 5+ channels. I myself would only pick 2-3 and be happy with what I have.

In the end.....no matter what they do, one of the BIGGEST competitors is over the air TV, and unlike their other competitors...the price doesn't change, and with a price of FREE....it kind of makes it hard to compete if you ask for TOO MUCH.
jh20001 is offline  
post #13 of 70 Old 02-19-2013, 07:48 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Charles R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 10,137
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Mehs View Post

$2800 a year for a la carte TV.

 

If pay-TV wasn't subsidizing the majority of their expense your actual cost would be multiple times more expensive. And if anyone thinks pay-TV providers are making a killing... their other services are much more profitable.

Charles R is offline  
post #14 of 70 Old 02-19-2013, 09:25 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Jedi Master's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Macon, GA
Posts: 1,627
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by borntocoast View Post

I see the whole Media Industry collapsing like a House of Cards in the not-so-distant future. for the last 15 years not only have prices done nothing but climb, but the quality of what you pay for has done nothing but head south due to rampant advertising, the proliferation of "unscripted" programming and so-called "niche" channels abandoning their original formats among other things. mad.gif I've seen legions of businesses, some of which used to be household names go down this very path and they no longer exist! People see they are no longer getting the same value for what they pay for, and they either:

A. Seek that product from another source. (I did this six years ago)

B. Substitute that product with something else.

Remember, a House divided against itself cannot stand!

Seconded.

I agree with everything JH20001 had to say. Very well said. I cut the cord in Nov. 2008 because of every reason he talked about.

Broadcast TV - a vital national public resource
Jedi Master is offline  
post #15 of 70 Old 02-20-2013, 11:48 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Church AV Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: High Desert, California
Posts: 4,610
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 46 Post(s)
Liked: 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Mehs View Post

Hopefully NEVER! The whole idea of a la carte makes me want to vomit! It’s a purely idiotic idea. If you want real a la carte, why not break it down by individual shows, not by channels. Because if someone is going to be a crybaby whining about how they pay for MTV or ESPN and never watch it, I’ll take it to the next level and cry about how why I shouldn’t be ‘forced’ to buy a whole channel of DIY Network, when all I watch is Man Caves.

Let’s see how great a la carte is. I watch upwards of 60 shows on a regular basis. That doesn’t include live sports or news. Using the iTunes pricing of $3 per episode and $3.50 per episode for shows on the premiums.
I watch 19 shows between Fox and CBS. Typically network shows are 23 episodes per season. 19 shows * 23 episodes * $2.99/episode= over $1300 a year. Premium cable series are typically 10 episodes per season. I watch 15 shows between HBO, Showtime, Cinemax and Starz. 15 shows * 10 episodes * $3.49/episode that’s another $520 a year. That leaves about 25 shows on regular cable network. 25 shows * 13 episodes * $2.99/episode that’s $970.

$2800 a year for a la carte TV. I pay $3,000 a year for cable and that includes 50MB broadband, digital phone, two whole house DVRs and just about every channel. I probably tune into 100 channels a month. And that $2800/year does not include any live NFL, NHL, MLB, NASCAR, NLL, NCAA Football or UFC action

I am glad that someone else besides me has this opinion. I fear that a la carte programming will make television too expensive for almost anybody. It only looks good on the surface.

Luke

Evil is charming and beautiful. It makes you doubt yourself. It asks for one small compromise after another until it whittles you down, and it functions best when no one believes in it.-JOA
Church AV Guy is offline  
post #16 of 70 Old 02-21-2013, 02:25 AM
Senior Member
 
WackyPacks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 476
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 27
Don't know why you keep complaining about all the Filipino basic cable channels since I do not know if even one exists. For Spanish, I know there is Galavision. Any other ones are likely OTA or from big media companies. Big media companies demand a lesser price hike for its popular channels if the providers include one of their less popular channels in a particular tier. So many times, you are not specifically paying for a specific channel. Most channels are owned by some big media company. Anyway sometimes the lesser independent channels don't even ask for money. And I am fairly certain that pay tv providers get a portion of the sales on items sold on shopping channels.
WackyPacks is offline  
post #17 of 70 Old 02-21-2013, 04:29 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: In the ATL
Posts: 4,371
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spiky View Post

Just look at the thread here, started a couple years ago, about 'I don't have cable'. We tried to have a discussion for people tired of paying cable companies for almost nothing, and it was taken over by others that claim we have to have cable and we're morons for dropping it.

Some nice revisionist history going on there - it was more like 'man this is great I don't have to pay for TV because it's all trash anyway, and those people are suckers for paying'.

That's why it blew up in the first place, not because the people paying told the people that weren't that they were morons. Pretty much the exact opposite of what you claim.
slowbiscuit is offline  
post #18 of 70 Old 02-21-2013, 07:10 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Nayan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Melbourne, FL
Posts: 2,438
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 54 Post(s)
Liked: 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by WackyPacks View Post

Don't know why you keep complaining about all the Filipino basic cable channels since I do not know if even one exists. For Spanish, I know there is Galavision. Any other ones are likely OTA or from big media companies. Big media companies demand a lesser price hike for its popular channels if the providers include one of their less popular channels in a particular tier. So many times, you are not specifically paying for a specific channel. Most channels are owned by some big media company. Anyway sometimes the lesser independent channels don't even ask for money. And I am fairly certain that pay tv providers get a portion of the sales on items sold on shopping channels.

This. Take a look at how many channels Sinclair owns, CBS owns, Scripps owns, etc. We're not even talking about the bigger guys like Disney or Discovery. Ala-cart channels will never happen at a reasonable price, if it ever happens at all. HBO has said many times it will not shift away from cable and make itself available via streaming or other stand-alone methods. I highly doubt any of the other big guys would either.

And Slowbiscuit is right. We have been called 'sheeple' for paying for cable. But I did not spend big money on my HT to watch shows like Gunsmoke, Adam-12 and Andy Griffith in SD, which is mostly what OTA is and what's been touted as a great alternative. It's not.

I'm a 'hooker' and a knitter. I guess that makes me bi-stitchual :). Crap I say
Nayan is offline  
post #19 of 70 Old 02-21-2013, 07:17 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
jh20001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 17
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nayan View Post

This. Take a look at how many channels Sinclair owns, CBS owns, Scripps owns, etc. We're not even talking about the bigger guys like Disney or Discovery. Ala-cart channels will never happen at a reasonable price, if it ever happens at all. HBO has said many times it will not shift away from cable and make itself available via streaming or other stand-alone methods. I highly doubt any of the other big guys would either.

And Slowbiscuit is right. We have been called 'sheeple' for paying for cable. But I did not spend big money on my HT to watch shows like Gunsmoke, Adam-12 and Andy Griffith in SD, which is mostly what OTA is and what's been touted as a great alternative. It's not.

You are assuming people even pay attention to the few channels that play that crap. I only watch the basic local chanels, CW and a few others. The rest you fill in with Netflix and/or Hulu and you have so much more selection when it comes to bang for buck. Hell, through a Roku box in the mix and you have even more. Don't like the old movies shows? It's not like EVERY single channel plays them. Download the crackle app and now you have TONS of movies for free...no monthly charges you can watch. The options are endless, while not raping your wallet.
jh20001 is offline  
post #20 of 70 Old 02-21-2013, 08:25 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Nayan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Melbourne, FL
Posts: 2,438
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 54 Post(s)
Liked: 162
I have a Roku and only use it for Netflix. Crackle, well I've seen many of the movies they offer on there and don't really care to see them. I only watch three shows on the big four, most everything else I watch is cable. If you don't like paying for it, then don't. For me it's worthwhile to have.

I'm a 'hooker' and a knitter. I guess that makes me bi-stitchual :). Crap I say
Nayan is offline  
post #21 of 70 Old 02-21-2013, 08:29 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tighr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Temecula, CA
Posts: 3,239
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Mehs View Post

Let’s see how great a la carte is. I watch upwards of 60 shows on a regular basis. That doesn’t include live sports or news. Using the iTunes pricing of $3 per episode and $3.50 per episode for shows on the premiums.
I watch 19 shows between Fox and CBS. Typically network shows are 23 episodes per season. 19 shows * 23 episodes * $2.99/episode= over $1300 a year. Premium cable series are typically 10 episodes per season. I watch 15 shows between HBO, Showtime, Cinemax and Starz. 15 shows * 10 episodes * $3.49/episode that’s another $520 a year. That leaves about 25 shows on regular cable network. 25 shows * 13 episodes * $2.99/episode that’s $970.
Wow, that's a lot of TV.

If we assume the network shows are about split 50/50 as half-hour or hour long, and same with the cable shows, and assume all the premium shows are hour long, you're looking at about 328+244+150 = 722 hours of television per year. That's about 2 hours a day, every day, 365 days a year, or a solid 30 days straight of watching television. Not including any movies or sports. If you're paying $3000 a year for cable, you are definitely getting your money's worth.

Me? I don't watch NEARLY that much television, so I would also be getting my money's worth by not paying a cable company to dictate to me what I can and cannot watch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beerstalker View Post

Even ESPN, will probably end up having to make severe cuts. Get rid of ESPn classic altogether (one of my guesses), cut way back on their online programming, maybe shut down other channels, etc. Because I don't think even ESPN could get away with suddenly charging $20-30 a month like they would most likely have to if they went ala-cart.

As I stated in the Cord Cutter's thread, I would be willing to pay ESPN $15-$20/mo for unrestricted access to their content and programming. Ala carte. But I just need their live games and such; I don't particularly care to watch ESPN Classic with baseball games from 30 years ago or other such nonsense.

~Tighr: Not helping the situation since 1983

tighr is offline  
post #22 of 70 Old 02-21-2013, 08:49 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
NetworkTV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 15,612
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 167 Post(s)
Liked: 442
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nayan View Post

I have a Roku and only use it for Netflix. Crackle, well I've seen many of the movies they offer on there and don't really care to see them. I only watch three shows on the big four, most everything else I watch is cable. If you don't like paying for it, then don't. For me it's worthwhile to have.
That's where I'm at. Right now, I watch more shows on cable than on OTA channels.

The channel that gets the most attention from me right now is AMC. The problem is, they only get about 3 million people for each show at the high end. That's not enough viewers to support the shows they make. Everyone who has AMC on their system pays $.50 or what ever a month to support my ability to watch those shows. On the other side of the coin, I pay for ESPN, MTV, E!, TruTV, GSN and a whole lot of other channels that I don't watch, but that's the price I pay for getting the support for shows on FX, TNT, USA, BBCA and AMC that I do watch. I also like being able to watch classic movies on channels like HDNet Movies and Turner Classic Movies.

Would I like to not have to pay for ESPN? Sure, but who's really going to get bumped in an Ala Carte world? ESPN has far more viewers on average than several of the channels I do watch. I'm also certain they could find some way to get their revenue in other ways. My fear is people simply won't care enough about a show like Southland or The Americans to actually actively pay for the true cost of it.

Sure, it's easy to say "let them die" when it comes to some of the junk channels out there we all love to hate, but those junk channels are the very ones that will likely survive while those creating content that rivals what is going out OTA will resort to the same cheap knock-off crap and re-runs of broadcast content in order to make money. We're already seeing it with Networks like Bravo where the only remaining show of any quality is Inside the Actors Studio - and even that has become more of a publicity venue for people who have active projects.

We're seeing this everywhere, not just with TV: people want professionally produced content, but they don't want to pay for it. That's why games have shifted toward $2 apps that consist of "Cut the Rope" and hidden picture adventures. We don't want to pay the cost of developing the next Syphon Filter or Assassins Creed or whatever fully immersive storyline games might come down the pike. We're happy watching cats fall into fish tanks on YouTube when we can't find copyrighted stuff before the takedown notice occurs. We happy playing Farmville and Temple Run instead of the next FPS game. We also all somehow think that the entire movie industry can survive on $8 a month Netflix subscriptions. The music industry might be able to run on I-Tunes purchases, but it sure won't run on Pandora listeners.

I don't want to see the day where I don't have the option to watch professionally produced content. Indy stuff is a nice companion, but sometimes I want something more.

I fear we're moving to a future where the cheapest thing is the only option - then the high prices will start all over once all the other choices go away and the cloud has the means to give or take away at any moment.
NetworkTV is offline  
post #23 of 70 Old 02-21-2013, 08:58 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
NetworkTV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 15,612
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 167 Post(s)
Liked: 442
Quote:
Originally Posted by tighr View Post

Wow, that's a lot of TV.

If we assume the network shows are about split 50/50 as half-hour or hour long, and same with the cable shows, and assume all the premium shows are hour long, you're looking at about 328+244+150 = 722 hours of television per year. That's about 2 hours a day, every day, 365 days a year, or a solid 30 days straight of watching television. Not including any movies or sports. If you're paying $3000 a year for cable, you are definitely getting your money's worth.
TV doesn't work that way.

I can say I watch at least 20 shows - throughout the year. That's maybe 8 shows in the fall, another 8 in the Spring and about 4 in the the summer on cable. That really quates to just over an hour a night if I divide it up over a week, though most of the shows I watch are on Sundays, Wednesdays or Thursdays with one or two more on other days. That's not a lot of TV a night.
Quote:
Me? I don't watch NEARLY that much television, so I would also be getting my money's worth by not paying a cable company to dictate to me what I can and cannot watch.
As I stated in the Cord Cutter's thread, I would be willing to pay ESPN $15-$20/mo for unrestricted access to their content and programming. Ala carte. But I just need their live games and such; I don't particularly care to watch ESPN Classic with baseball games from 30 years ago or other such nonsense.
You might pay that much for ESPN, but few others will.

I mean, just for ESPN content and nothing else? What about anything else you watch? By the time you add in maybe 3 other shows on three other channels, you're potentially talking over $30 a month. That's getting up toward basic package territory where you'd get ESPN, ESPN2 (along with the streaming) and at least a dozen other name brand channels, like TNT or FX.

I just think people severely underestimate just how much they might miss and how much they'll pay to simply want to turn on the TV and have the stuff be there.
NetworkTV is offline  
post #24 of 70 Old 02-21-2013, 12:41 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tighr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Temecula, CA
Posts: 3,239
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

TV doesn't work that way.

I can say I watch at least 20 shows - throughout the year. That's maybe 8 shows in the fall, another 8 in the Spring and about 4 in the the summer on cable. That really quates to just over an hour a night if I divide it up over a week, though most of the shows I watch are on Sundays, Wednesdays or Thursdays with one or two more on other days. That's not a lot of TV a night.

Uh, yeah. I was talking raw numbers. Of course I know that the shows he watches comes in spurts and sputters. The core fact remains the same: If he is watching 60 shows in a calendar year, you are watching over 700 HOURS OF TELEVISION. 700 hours = 2 hours a day, every day; or 30 solid days a year. That's 14 hours a week. That's 60 hours a month. I don't care how he splits them up, that is a ton of TV consumed, and as I mentioned that is before movies and sports are even part of the equation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

You might pay that much for ESPN, but few others will.

I mean, just for ESPN content and nothing else? What about anything else you watch? By the time you add in maybe 3 other shows on three other channels, you're potentially talking over $30 a month. That's getting up toward basic package territory where you'd get ESPN, ESPN2 (along with the streaming) and at least a dozen other name brand channels, like TNT or FX.

I just think people severely underestimate just how much they might miss and how much they'll pay to simply want to turn on the TV and have the stuff be there.

Right, but as I mentioned, I've already cut the cord. I'm already missing out on all those channels because I'm not paying for them. I would ONLY be interested in paying for ESPN. I don't care about TNT or FX.

Sure, If I wanted ESPN, ESPN2, TNT, FX, Comedy Central, and whatever other channels come on basic cable these days, then yes. I would pay for basic cable. But I don't; I just want ESPN, so I don't pay for those other channels either.

And as I mentioned in the other thread, there is simply ZERO basic cable package that I can obtain that provides me ESPN or any other network in high definition for less than $80. That is my price floor. I can't get lower than $80 for HD. I'll stick with my free OTA antenna.

~Tighr: Not helping the situation since 1983

tighr is offline  
post #25 of 70 Old 02-21-2013, 01:09 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
NetworkTV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 15,612
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 167 Post(s)
Liked: 442
Quote:
Originally Posted by tighr View Post

Uh, yeah. I was talking raw numbers. Of course I know that the shows he watches comes in spurts and sputters. The core fact remains the same: If he is watching 60 shows in a calendar year, you are watching over 700 HOURS OF TELEVISION. 700 hours = 2 hours a day, every day; or 30 solid days a year. That's 14 hours a week. That's 60 hours a month. I don't care how he splits them up, that is a ton of TV consumed, and as I mentioned that is before movies and sports are even part of the equation.
I'll agree that his numbers are high. Most of us simply don't watch anywhere close to that.

Granted, studies have shown people watch TV an average of 6 hours a day, but I don't think most people watch that manyshows.

What I mean is, what we would pay to watch on an individual basis is far different that what is simply on when the TV is on when we're home. In other words, what do we watch when we sit down and don't really do anything else but watch. Having the TV on while cooking dinner is far different than sitting and watching TV while doing nothing more than potentially puttering about on the internet.
Quote:
Right, but as I mentioned, I've already cut the cord. I'm already missing out on all those channels because I'm not paying for them. I would ONLY be interested in paying for ESPN. I don't care about TNT or FX.

Sure, If I wanted ESPN, ESPN2, TNT, FX, Comedy Central, and whatever other channels come on basic cable these days, then yes. I would pay for basic cable. But I don't; I just want ESPN, so I don't pay for those other channels either.

And as I mentioned in the other thread, there is simply ZERO basic cable package that I can obtain that provides me ESPN or any other network in high definition for less than $80. That is my price floor. I can't get lower than $80 for HD. I'll stick with my free OTA antenna.
Right, but that's only you.

There is almost no one else that would pay as high as $20 a month just to access ESPN content - even if it was full access.

What matters is what the majority would do, and you're not it. You won't ever get what you're asking for.

On the other hand, most people might be happy with smaller packages that include tighter groupings of channels for less money. Others might want a "pick 'X' number of channels for 'X' price" model, assuming the price was still less than the full banquet.

I think the latter is about is close as we may ever get, but I think most will find the fees associated with such a system will make a package seem like more of a bargain. I guarantee the cable companies will add on fees like a "choice access fee" or a "custom content delivery fee" and insist you have to have a box you pay $10 or $15 a month for. You'll also probably have to pick a minimum number of channels.

So where will those fees go? Likely exactly where they go now. I'd be willing to bet the content companies will only allow their channels to be broken up if they still get paid for those customers they currently do now. The system will merely give the appearance of not paying for channels you don't watch. Plus, you'll likely be paying something like $2.50 for Bravo (which get's around $.05 a sub now) so part of that can offset the cost of ESPN so someone else that picks them in their grouping doesn't paying $10 for them.

Very likely, you won't just be paying for channels you don't watch - you'll be paying for channels you don't even get.
NetworkTV is offline  
post #26 of 70 Old 02-21-2013, 04:50 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mr. wally's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: land of the pumas
Posts: 3,815
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 48
well the cost of carrying all these channels is significantly driving up the cost providers must charge to their subs.

saw an article yesterday about dish quarterly report, and i don't remember if it was charlie or not, but the dish spokesperson
stated the carrying costs were only going to go up and they have to pass these through which is really starting to stifle new subs.

something has to give here as all the networks like amc want and deserve top dollar, but how many people can afford to pay $1200-$1500 a year for
all these cable channels?

i think things are only going to get worse in terms of subscriber options, unless you're willing to be one of those streaming only no cable households

neflixis our nemesis
mr. wally is offline  
post #27 of 70 Old 02-24-2013, 09:33 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
NetworkTV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 15,612
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 167 Post(s)
Liked: 442
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. wally View Post

well the cost of carrying all these channels is significantly driving up the cost providers must charge to their subs.
At the same time, though, I'm not sure that limiting those channels is going to result in less cost to the customer. It seems more likely people will simply pay the same amount and get less for their money.

If I'm paying the cost of a large pizza, I want the large pizza, even if I only plan to eat half of it. I paid for the pizza. It's mine to do with as I please.

BTW: I feel the same way about pennies: I've had cashiers not give me back a penny or so change back after a purchase. Now, I get that most people don't want the pennies. I really don't need them. However, they're my pennies. If I want to toss them in the "share a penny" tray or into the MS jug or let them rattle around in my washing machine when I leave them in my pocket, that's up to me.
NetworkTV is offline  
post #28 of 70 Old 02-25-2013, 01:40 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Jedi Master's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Macon, GA
Posts: 1,627
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post


We're seeing this everywhere, not just with TV: people want professionally produced content, but they don't want to pay for it. That's why games have shifted toward $2 apps that consist of "Cut the Rope" and hidden picture adventures. We don't want to pay the cost of developing the next Syphon Filter or Assassins Creed or whatever fully immersive storyline games might come down the pike. We're happy watching cats fall into fish tanks on YouTube when we can't find copyrighted stuff before the takedown notice occurs. We happy playing Farmville and Temple Run instead of the next FPS game.

People who cut the cord are tired of paying for the crap they don't want not the stuff they do. I have an Xbox 360 and I have no problem paying for great games like Red Dead Redemption, NCAA 12, The Force Unleashed I & II and The Call of Duty games. I don't work hard to support crap that should go off the air.

AMC is a horrible channel. They show the same movies over and over and saturate them with commercials. Most of them can be bought on DVD for $5. Plus they have that blasted The Walking Dead text in the lower left corner of the screen all the time.

Broadcast TV - a vital national public resource
Jedi Master is offline  
post #29 of 70 Old 02-25-2013, 02:04 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Jedi Master's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Macon, GA
Posts: 1,627
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Thanks to OTA HD and my huge DVD collection I have watched:

6 hours of TV Thursday
3 hours of TV Friday
7 hours of TV Saturday
3 hours of TV Sunday, and Also played Red Dead Redemption on the Xbox 360 for 3 hours.

No pay TV needed here.

Broadcast TV - a vital national public resource
Jedi Master is offline  
post #30 of 70 Old 02-25-2013, 05:45 AM
Super Moderator
 
DrDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 12,742
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 95 Post(s)
Liked: 282
unnecessary posts removed.

The one thing I don't see mentioned in the equation is advertising dollars. Even top-rated cable shows will suffer a viewership hit in an a la carte world, forcing ad rates down, costing the 'nets MUCH more than the loss of subscriber fees. Thing is, this would happen across all cable channels resulting in not only a thinning of the herd, but sky-high subscriber rates for the remaining channels. As mentioned above, we'd end up paying much more for fewer channels. Lesser networks would be swallowed up by the stronger ones until only 3 or 4 cable network conglomerates remain. And that kind of conglomeration has worked out SO well in other areas, such as radio and oil. It's the very thing most of us complain about.

But it won't happen for that very reason. The companies most affected by this control the very airwaves elected officials need. And if you think Congress is going to step in and cut off its own tongue, you've got another think coming.

Walking the fine line between jaw-dropping and a plain ol' yawn.
DrDon is online now  
Reply HDTV Programming

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off