Vote for most useless Directv Channels?

[mitchelljd]

I know there are some Directv channels which annoy you and even though you may think they have no appeal to you, they appeal to someone? they are still harmful and take up valuable bandwidth which lets fewer other channels get carried, or makes your picture quality suffer.

so, my choices for being nuked are:

WIZE (221): Carries nothing but infomercials
DTV (222): Carries nothing but infomercials
CRTV (243): Carries nothing but infomercials
IRTV (268): Carries nothing but infomercials
ION (305): 66% infomercials and then 8 hours of regular reruns or old movies
JTV (313) - How many channels on jewelry sales do we need? there must be 3-4 of them?
CRTV (314): Carries nothing but infomercials
AOR (315) Carries nothing but infomercials
BUY (318) Carries nothing but infomercials
CSTR (319) Carries nothing but infomercials

I would also say that channels 365-378 has about 12 religious channels which could easily be consolidated into fewer. I dislike how i am forced to subscribe to these channels i don't want and my subscription fees support religious stuff. whether or not they have good messages, i just don't want to have to pay for them. let it be optional.

ok, any thoughts? just felt like adding a topic some peeps may chime in about

[Guesst925XTU]

Aside from an occasional soccer game or NASCAR race I don't watch sports, neither does anyone in my household so all those RSNs and ESPNs would be the first to go! That would cut a good $20 per month off my bill!

I'd also drop FOX News and FOX Business in a heartbeat. CNN, MSNBC, CSPAN along with the news programs on LinkTV & BBC America are all I need.

[Brian Hanasky]

I would dump nearly all of the "fringe" shopping channels. I can see maybe 1 or 2 to please people but there are too many now.

The infomercial channels are the same way. Probably could dump a bunch of them. Ditto for the religious channels a handfull is enough.

The above would be to please the people who say that these are important channels and D* should dump all the sports channels. It's like compromising on pizza toppings...give a little and get a little.


If I wasn't trying to please everybody I would love option to dump all channels I find useless and subtract $ off of my bill each month. Mabye 50 cents a channel or something. This is like ordering my own pizza and getting the toppings I want and only what I want.

[mshaw2715]

any channel that is constant infomercials would be on my list to get rid of.

[Sirshagg]

I could easilly do without:
All shopping channels
All religious channels
All non-english language channels
All XM channels
All MTV / VH1 channels
All PPV channels
All but 1-2 SD channels
Most sports channels

[Brian Hanasky]

It seems that most of us would like to get rid of some or a lot of channels.

How much money would you associate with each channel?

[Sirshagg]

It seems that most of us would like to get rid of some or a lot of channels.

How much money would you associate with each channel?

Well, they would have to pay me a significant amount of money to watch the first three I listed

[Doug Brott]

If I wasn't trying to please everybody I would love option to dump all channels I find useless and subtract $ off of my bill each month. Mabye 50 cents a channel or something. This is like ordering my own pizza and getting the toppings I want and only what I want.

You do realize that many of these channels actually pay DIRECTV to be carried. So if they were dropped, your bill would likely be higher.

[demonstimpy]

Agreed on these:

All shopping channels
All religious channels
All PPV channels



I could easilly do without:
All shopping channels
All religious channels
All non-english language channels
All XM channels
All MTV / VH1 channels
All PPV channels
All but 1-2 SD channels
Most sports channels

[dcowboy7]

I'd also drop FOX News and FOX Business in a heartbeat. CNN, MSNBC, CSPAN along with the news programs on LinkTV & BBC America are all I need.

i know who your voting for. :lol:


Mod Edit: Folks, this is not the place for a political discussion - Stuart

[Stuart Sweet]

Folks, that's what favorites lists are for. The channels you all speak of are SD-only, and so aren't taking up huge amounts of bandwidth (especially the audio-only ones).

Clearly these channels appeal to someone. Everyone has different likes or dislikes. If you consider the number of DIRECTV subscribers (18 million give or take) that means there are more DIRECTV subs than there are citizens of the Netherlands. In fact, if DIRECTVland were a country it would be the 58th largest of the 221 listed by Wikipedia.

That's a lot of different people with a lot of different ideas about what's entertaining.

For the record, my favorites lists contain zero religious channels, one shopping channel (Mrs. Shadow, senior, likes it when she visits) zero non-English channels and all the PPVs are in their own favorites list. But I would defend your ability to watch all that stuff to the best of my ability. You are entitled to like what you like and ignore what you don't.

[tftc22]

You do realize that many of these channels actually pay DIRECTV to be carried. So if they were dropped, your bill would likely be higher.Also, you could say part of the money from these channels is helping to finance the launch of new satellites so they may actually be increasing bandwidth (yeah I know that's a bit of a stretch:D ). There must be some demand for these infomercial channels or they'd all just go bankrupt. As far as bandwidth, I would guess that Directv will eventually switch even the SD channels over to MPEG4. (Of course, that won't happen anytime soon since equipment upgrades would be so great).

But personally I just ignore the infomercial channels like I assume most people do. Although I find it fascinating that infomercial channels are perceived as junk channels and "regular" shopping channels are perceived as content. (Yes the shopping channel format even tricks me to some degree.)

[Old Tv Watcher]

Folks, that's what favorites lists are for. The channels you all speak of are SD-only, and so aren't taking up huge amounts of bandwidth (especially the audio-only ones).

Clearly these channels appeal to someone. Everyone has different likes or dislikes. If you consider the number of DIRECTV subscribers (18 million give or take) that means there are more DIRECTV subs than there are citizens of the Netherlands. In fact, if DIRECTVland were a country it would be the 58th largest of the 221 listed by Wikipedia.

That's a lot of different people with a lot of different ideas about what's entertaining.

For the record, my favorites lists contain zero religious channels, one shopping channel (Mrs. Shadow, senior, likes it when she visits) zero non-English channels and all the PPVs are in their own favorites list. But I would defend your ability to watch all that stuff to the best of my ability. You are entitled to like what you like and ignore what you don't.
I agree. If you don't like them don't watch them.

[smokes20]

You do realize that many of these channels actually pay DIRECTV to be carried. So if they were dropped, your bill would likely be higher.

Exactly, I would much rather have channels that support my habit to watch the channels in my favorites list, than to pay an increased fee to watch my favorites.

As for the oodles of shopping channels, you would be surprised how many people do watch and order from them. I don't, but again, they allow Directv to charge us less.

HSN, QVC and ShopNBC have a following that would rival the NFL channels. Many wives, GF and others are watching those shopping channels while we die hard NFL fans are watching our games.

[Elephanthead]

Many people love to shop from home, and don't know what the internet is, so they get infomercials. Everyone needs a pocket fisherman now and then.

[DCSholtis]

Also that old dude on Coin Country is a hoot to watch. :D

[GregLee]

Clearly these channels appeal to someone.
Why is that clear?

[Stuart Sweet]

Because, Mr. Lee, they are still in business. If they had no appeal then their ongoing survival would be threatened by their lack of capital.

[LOCODUDE]

Why is that clear?

Because it's not...... dark? :D

[techdimwit]

1. Shopping channels
2. PPV channels
3. Religious (don't hate 'em, just don't watch 'em.)
4. Anything with infomercials
5. RFD (I mean, what is THAT?)
6. XM (What is the point?)
7. tru.tv (I seriously despise those "World's Worst Driver" shows.)

I'd also drop FOX News and FOX Business in a heartbeat. CNN, MSNBC, CSPAN along with the news programs on LinkTV & BBC America are all I need.

Some of us enjoy more than one viewpoint. However, I agree on BBC America - we just need it in HD.

[reggie]

I think they work because most people to not create a favorites list. Some don't even use the guide and surf the old fashion way. Occasionally, people get hooked and watch a short time. I have these channels excluded from my favorites, but I still get hooked by the random Shamwow commercial. :blush:

[P Smith]

We need to push the A LA CARTE bill into Congress !

[dan8379]

6. XM (What is the point?)




If you like music, there's a huge point. There's been tons of times when there's nothing good on TV and I'll turn it on XM and enjoy good music. I don't ALWAYS have to be watching TV....

[dgsiiinc]

1. Shopping channels
2. PPV channels
3. Religious (don't hate 'em, just don't watch 'em.)
4. Anything with infomercials
5. RFD (I mean, what is THAT?)
6. XM (What is the point?)
7. tru.tv (I seriously despise those "World's Worst Driver" shows.)



Some of us enjoy more than one viewpoint. However, I agree on BBC America - we just need it in HD.


I agree with all but five and six. The XM stations are a big hit in my house, and RFD TV has some great shows. My old TiVo recorded a couple of episodes of the campfire cooking show as TiVo Suggestions. It was entertaining and came in handy a month ago when a big storm caused a three week power outage at my house (I had to get all new wiring due to a combination of factors involving a lightning strike, a 200 year old oak tree and a truck with a full tank of gas. Just imagine the worst and add a little more bad.).

The Big Joe Polka show on RFD is a sight to behold, too. Just watch it some time. Don't forget your adult beverages. You'll need them.

[GregLee]

Because, Mr. Lee, they are still in business. If they had no appeal then their ongoing survival would be threatened by their lack of capital.
How would that reasoning apply to channel 349 NTAX?

[LarryFlowers]

This thread was wide open for trouble!!

Everyone has channels they think are a waste of bandwidth... and everyone's opinion is going to be different.

Face it, a lot of those "useless" channels are a source of income to DirecTV. One of the best things about my DirecTV receivers is the favorites lists, I have customized mine down to just the channels I want to see which amounts to 348 channels. I never even see the others.

[DarinC]

So many useless channels... how does one choose?

[smokes20]

This thread was wide open for trouble!!

Everyone has channels they think are a waste of bandwidth... and everyone's opinion is going to be different.

Face it, a lot of those "useless" channels are a source of income to DirecTV. One of the best things about my DirecTV receivers is the favorites lists, I have customized mine down to just the channels I want to see which amounts to 348 channels. I never even see the others.

Well, Directv is making a bundle off of me. I have TCPlus HD, Starz/Showtime 3month special and only have 165 channels in my favorites. That includes SD/HD duplicates and Hotpass.

One of my SD receivers, for the kids, only has PG-13 rated channels. No premiums either.

[inazsully]

Just give us a few HD only package options.

[Dolly]

So many useless channels... how does one choose?
+1 !rolling You certainly got that one right :)

[Ken S]

It's clear from this discussion that the only channels that DirecTV should broadcast are the ones that *I* deem worthwhile.

[miller24]

Speed and Versus are huge wastes of space!

[n3ntj]

If I could, I would instantly dump:

1. ANY shopping channel (jewelry or other)
2. Logo
3. Kids channels (-290s)
4. All non-English channels (this is AMERICA - learn the language!)
5. All PPV
6. Any channel with infomercials more than 50% of their total programming
7. NBA League Pass and NASCAR channels
8. Religious channels (I also don't watch' em)

[Doug Brott]

We need to push the A LA CARTE bill into Congress !

So you're advocating a higher price than we are paying now?

[SPACEMAKER]

Speed and Versus are huge wastes of space!

Yeah.....I'm going to have to go ahead and sort of...disagree.

[Doug Brott]

It's clear from this discussion that the only channels that DirecTV should broadcast are the ones that *I* deem worthwhile.

Which if you think about it, is exactly why there are so many channels :) .. *I* are a bunch of different people with different ideas on what to watch.

[SPACEMAKER]

This thread is perfect example of why I love having my very own favorites list.

[Ken S]

Which if you think about it, is exactly why there are so many channels :) .. *I* are a bunch of different people with different ideas on what to watch.

Man...you've caught me again.

[Sirshagg]

If you like music, there's a huge point. There's been tons of times when there's nothing good on TV and I'll turn it on XM and enjoy good music. I don't ALWAYS have to be watching TV....

I get my music from the radio not the tv.

[Sirshagg]

Speed and Versus are huge wastes of space!

Hold on just a minute there. Versus is one of justa few sports channels that must stay due to the hockey coverage.

[mitchelljd]

I could easilly do without:
All shopping channels
All religious channels
All non-english language channels
All XM channels
All MTV / VH1 channels
All PPV channels
All but 1-2 SD channels
Most sports channels

Hey i love the PPV channels! they really are good to have.
the sports channels are mainly in the sports package, ESPN basic would be good to keep, but the rest of the should be the Tier 2 package. Same with MTV, which largely stinks these days. Where is the music?

[mitchelljd]

If I could, I would instantly dump:

1. ANY shopping channel (jewelry or other)
2. Logo
3. Kids channels (-290s)
4. All non-English channels (this is AMERICA - learn the language!)
5. All PPV
6. Any channel with infomercials more than 50% of their total programming
7. NBA League Pass and NASCAR channels
8. Religious channels (I also don't watch' em)

I am with you, but Logo? Lesbians are hot ... give it a shot, lesbians are hot. Just kidding, i've never watched it, hardly basic cable stuff.

[dcowboy7]

I'd also drop FOX News and FOX Business in a heartbeat. CNN, MSNBC, CSPAN along with the news programs on LinkTV & BBC America are all I need.

i would keep fox and drop the lefty liberals of msnbc & cnn.

[Sirshagg]

i would keep fox and drop the lefty liberals of msnbc & cnn.

I say drop em all.

[Sirshagg]

I am with you, but Logo? Lesbians are hot ... give it a shot, lesbians are hot. Just kidding, i've never watched it, hardly basic cable stuff.

Hold on one second - what channel is THIS!

[donjuan2007]

All non-English channels (this is AMERICA - learn the language)

This is not AMERICA, this is North america, not if you said this a America learn the language, there more countrys that speak spanish, so my friend, I will said This is America learn the language.




I am with you, but Logo? Lesbians are hot ... give it a shot, lesbians are hot. Just kidding, i've never watched it, hardly basic cable stuff.

[hdtvfan0001]

I vote for all of the shopping channels and anything SD. :D

[GregLee]

All non-English channels (this is AMERICA - learn the language)

This is not AMERICA, this is North america, not if you said this a America learn the language, there more countrys that speak spanish, so my friend, I will said This is America learn the language.
We can tell you're just putting us on, and I just want you to know we get the joke. You have "learn the language" in an incoherent sentence fragment, missing verb "are" after "there", "countrys" misspelled, wrong verb tense "said" after "will", and missing quotation marks after "said". Very amusing.

[Doug Brott]

http://www.dbstalk.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=14759&stc=1&d=1217428188

Guys .. America doesn't have a national language .. and let's not go down that road here please.

[Sirshagg]

My biggest issue with the non-english channels is that only knowing english I don't understand them. probably says more about me than anything else.

[houskamp]

my personal fav list is 45 channels long.. everything I watch is on those.. but I have to have the "+" package to see those 45....

[dcowboy7]

I have customized mine down to just the channels I want to see which amounts to 348 channels.

348 ? bout time u go thru the whole program guide the show is over already.

[Dusty]

So you're advocating a higher price than we are paying now?

That sounds like Earl.

[Brian Hanasky]

Yeah.....I'm going to have to go ahead and sort of...disagree.

we like the same kind of pizza

[Doug Brott]

That sounds like Earl.

Earl is a wise man, so I thank you. :)

[P Smith]

So you're advocating a higher price than we are paying now?
I'm advocating freedom of choice actually, plus there wasn't any real business math what really reflect the 'higher price' for such turn.
I would say also, always will be enough ppl who will sign for packages and I predict they are will be majority.
So, a coexistence a-la-carte and packages could have future, IMO.

[smokes20]

we like the same kind of pizza

Me too, Speed that half pepperoni and cheese to me please ;) I like mine Smokin', especially on Sundays. :D

[SPACEMAKER]

i would keep fox and drop the lefty liberals of msnbc & cnn.

Falafel.

[SPACEMAKER]

Me too, Speed that half pepperoni and cheese to me please ;) I like mine Smokin', especially on Sundays. :D


I almost didn't recognize you with that fancy avatar of yours.:D

After the Vegas race next year (that's when my photog friend has media passes)I'll email you a nice new desktop featuring the 14 car.:)

[Doug Brott]

I'm advocating freedom of choice actually, plus there wasn't any real business math what really reflect the 'higher price' for such turn.
I would say also, always will be enough ppl who will sign for packages and I predict they are will be majority.
So, a coexistence a-la-carte and packages could have future, IMO.

Fair enough .. except it would stand to reason that if DIRECTV didn't have the extra revenue coming in our prices would be higher ..

[ub1934]

I know there are some Directv channels which annoy you and even though you may think they have no appeal to you, they appeal to someone? they are still harmful and take up valuable bandwidth which lets fewer other channels get carried, or makes your picture quality suffer.

so, my choices for being nuked are:

WIZE (221): Carries nothing but infomercials
DTV (222): Carries nothing but infomercials
CRTV (243): Carries nothing but infomercials
IRTV (268): Carries nothing but infomercials
ION (305): 66% infomercials and then 8 hours of regular reruns or old movies
JTV (313) - How many channels on jewelry sales do we need? there must be 3-4 of them?
CRTV (314): Carries nothing but infomercials
AOR (315) Carries nothing but infomercials
BUY (318) Carries nothing but infomercials
CSTR (319) Carries nothing but infomercials

I would also say that channels 365-378 has about 12 religious channels which could easily be consolidated into fewer. I dislike how i am forced to subscribe to these channels i don't want and my subscription fees support religious stuff. whether or not they have good messages, i just don't want to have to pay for them. let it be optional.

ok, any thoughts? just felt like adding a topic some peeps may chime in about
Good choice ;)

[techdimwit]

The Big Joe Polka show on RFD is a sight to behold, too. Just watch it some time. Don't forget your adult beverages. You'll need them.

Now that sounds kind of entertaining. I used to love watching the show where people danced at the White Horse Saloon in Nashville. I think it was on the old TNN. I'll check out the polka show. Are the Schmenge's ever there? :lol:

Hey smokes20, sweet avatar. Are you going to become smokes14?

Thanks to y'all, I've set up a couple of favorites lists. And yes, I've been using the idiotic "All Channels" thing which is hopeless.

[Tom Robertson]

I'm advocating freedom of choice actually, plus there wasn't any real business math what really reflect the 'higher price' for such turn.
I would say also, always will be enough ppl who will sign for packages and I predict they are will be majority.
So, a coexistence a-la-carte and packages could have future, IMO.

Ala carte has failed in the BUD world, why do we wish to experiment with that again?

Ala carte in the BUD world was more costly, why do we wish to ignore history, only to repeat it again?

Ala carte has higher administrative costs. Now you have to track all those individual selections. Higher administrative costs means higher costs passed on to P Smith. (Unfortunately, me too.)

Tell me again why this is a good idea?

Cheers,
Tom

[Tom Robertson]

Since there isn't a poll attached to this thread, I'm sorely tempted to add one of my own:

How much more are you willing to pay per month to be rid of these channels? $1, $3, 5$, $8, $10? (Note, I have no clue what it might really be.) That is where the answer lies.

Me, I'm willing for DIRECTV to add another 12 shopping channels. I can ignore 24 as easily as 12. :)

Cheers,
Tom

[houskamp]

Since there isn't a poll attached to this thread, I'm sorely tempted to add one of my own:

How much more are you willing to pay per month to be rid of these channels? $1, $3, 5$, $8, $10? (Note, I have no clue what it might really be.) That is where the answer lies.

Me, I'm willing for DIRECTV to add another 12 shopping channels. I can ignore 24 as easily as 12. :)

Cheers,
Tom
just please group them together :)
I go from the locals and skip to 241+ now..

[dcowboy7]

i like the ala carte like sirius xm is gonna do:

1. pick 50 channels for 6.99
2. pick 100 channels for 14.99

[VaJim]

You do realize that many of these channels actually pay DIRECTV to be carried. So if they were dropped, your bill would likely be higher.

...I agree...as much as I skip over them, life without them could become more expensive.:eek2:

[Stuart Sweet]

Gentlemen and ladies, after reading this thread it's clear that it's made a few ventures into political territory. I ask, please let's not go there.

[dcowboy7]

stuart is awake now.

[smokes20]

Now that sounds kind of entertaining. I used to love watching the show where people danced at the White Horse Saloon in Nashville. I think it was on the old TNN. I'll check out the polka show. Are the Schmenge's ever there? :lol:

Hey smokes20, sweet avatar. Are you going to become smokes14?

Thanks to y'all, I've set up a couple of favorites lists. And yes, I've been using the idiotic "All Channels" thing which is hopeless.

Can't change my user name, but I certainly will work it into my profile after the Skins season is over. Now I will have to get my house keys remade after I find a Smokin' 14. Guess HD won't be carrying one .........

I almost didn't recognize you with that fancy avatar of yours.:D

After the Vegas race next year (that's when my photog friend has media passes)I'll email you a nice new desktop featuring the 14 car.:)

Ahhhh, can't wait. I will miss seeing my orange 20, but gladly will accept my red and black 14 :grin:

[DodgerKing]

Aside from an occasional soccer game or NASCAR race I don't watch sports, neither does anyone in my household so all those RSNs and ESPNs would be the first to go! That would cut a good $20 per month off my bill!

I'd also drop FOX News and FOX Business in a heartbeat. CNN, MSNBC, CSPAN along with the news programs on LinkTV & BBC America are all I need.

You would drop the most highly rated news station? No matter what you think of the station, that would be a very stupid business decision.

[dlt4]

Folks, that's what favorites lists are for. The channels you all speak of are SD-only, and so aren't taking up huge amounts of bandwidth (especially the audio-only ones).

Clearly these channels appeal to someone. Everyone has different likes or dislikes. If you consider the number of DIRECTV subscribers (18 million give or take) that means there are more DIRECTV subs than there are citizens of the Netherlands. In fact, if DIRECTVland were a country it would be the 58th largest of the 221 listed by Wikipedia.

That's a lot of different people with a lot of different ideas about what's entertaining.

For the record, my favorites lists contain zero religious channels, one shopping channel (Mrs. Shadow, senior, likes it when she visits) zero non-English channels and all the PPVs are in their own favorites list. But I would defend your ability to watch all that stuff to the best of my ability. You are entitled to like what you like and ignore what you don't.

Well said. This is an endless debate that ends up accomplishing nothing. Set your Favs and forget it! :D

[raott]

...I agree...as much as I skip over them, life without them could become more expensive.:eek2:


No, your bill wouldn't go up, D*'s profit would go down. The market determines your monthly bill, not their costs. They have some very smart people determining exactly the price point that maximizes revenue.

If they are not charging you as much as possible (ie supply curve meeting demand curve) simply because they are somehow "making up" lost revenue with channels that pay to be on, they are doing their shareholders a disservice.

[Tom Robertson]

No, your bill wouldn't go up, D*'s profit would go down. The market determines your monthly bill, not their costs. They have some very smart people determining exactly the price point that maximizes revenue.

If they are not charging you as much as possible (ie supply curve meeting demand curve) simply because they are somehow "making up" lost revenue with channels that pay to be on, they are doing their shareholders a disservice.Nice theory weedhopper, but all the carriers who get reimbursements would raise their rates if they all dropped the paying channels.

Or if this were a DIRECTV only thing, they would have to split the difference somehow. Wall Street would be very upset if DIRECTV's margins were lower than everyone else.

All in all, I can't see anyone really finding a good reason to make things worse just to be able to skip a few channels. :)

Cheers,
Tom

[pbg]

Nice theory weedhopper,

Cheers,
Tom

Nice MAD Magazine reference.....Very old-school indeed .....

[raott]

Nice theory weedhopper, but all the carriers who get reimbursements would raise their rates if they all dropped the paying channels.

Or if this were a DIRECTV only thing, they would have to split the difference somehow. Wall Street would be very upset if DIRECTV's margins were lower than everyone else.

All in all, I can't see anyone really finding a good reason to make things worse just to be able to skip a few channels. :)

Cheers,
Tom

I don't doubt that if all providers did this it may change things (ie shift the curves) but that isn't what the discussion was.

Otherwise, its pure math and basic economics. D* is priced where they are maximing revenue right now - if they are not, they are doing their shareholders a disservice.

Revenue is MAX where supply curve meets demand, raise rates beyond that and total revenue goes down NOT up.

Wall street would be upset if they were at a price point where they were not maximizing revenue.

[Ken S]

Yes, if there was ala carte the price of watching TV would go up to $300 a month and everyone would be forced to pay it. There's no such thing as competition and none of these companies ever have voluntary churn so everyone would just stay and pay whatever we're told to pay.

We also know that the satellite/cable industry has almost never raised prices and is not at all profitable because their primary focus is only on providing TV to everyone at the lowest possible prices.

I was a BUD owner and used ala carte and it didn't seem like a failure to me. I got what I want at a price I was willing to pay. BUD did fail, but anyone that owned one knows why that technology wasn't going to be a widespread success and it had nothing to do with the way the programming was sold. Unless being able to buy your programming from many different competitive providers for the same equipment is a bad thing.

[wilbur_the_goose]

I still don't understand why we have wall-to-wall religion (it's all the same brand or religion, too), but we STILL don't have CSPAN-3.

[DarinC]

I still don't understand why we have wall-to-wall religion (it's all the same brand or religion, too), but we STILL don't have CSPAN-3.

Or maybe you do, but you just don't want to believe it. ;)

[n3ntj]

All non-English channels (this is AMERICA - learn the language)

This is not AMERICA, this is North america, not if you said this a America learn the language, there more countrys that speak spanish, so my friend, I will said This is America learn the language.

I have no idea what you are trying to say above.

Who cares if there are more countries in the world that speak spanish than speak English? In the USA, we speak English.

[Tom Robertson]

Yes, if there was ala carte the price of watching TV would go up to $300 a month and everyone would be forced to pay it. There's no such thing as competition and none of these companies ever have voluntary churn so everyone would just stay and pay whatever we're told to pay.

We also know that the satellite/cable industry has almost never raised prices and is not at all profitable because their primary focus is only on providing TV to everyone at the lowest possible prices.

I was a BUD owner and used ala carte and it didn't seem like a failure to me. I got what I want at a price I was willing to pay. BUD did fail, but anyone that owned one knows why that technology wasn't going to be a widespread success and it had nothing to do with the way the programming was sold. Unless being able to buy your programming from many different competitive providers for the same equipment is a bad thing.
My feeling is ala carte died even while BUD was still on its upswing. I was always looking for packages to simplify my purchases and maximize my channels. Now I have them. :)

Would ala carte have a niche? Yes. Would it be viable? Hard to predict in my estimation. If all we had was ala carte, I expect bills would go up a bunch and channels available would go down. With a mixture of ala carte and bundles, bills would go up but likely less.

Remember, right now we pay less than a nickel a month for some channels. There ain't no way a channel would ala carte at a price that low.

Cheers,
Tom

[Tom Robertson]

I don't doubt that if all providers did this it may change things (ie shift the curves) but that isn't what the discussion was.

Otherwise, its pure math and basic economics. D* is priced where they are maximing revenue right now - if they are not, they are doing their shareholders a disservice.

Revenue is MAX where supply curve meets demand, raise rates beyond that and total revenue goes down NOT up.

Wall street would be upset if they were at a price point where they were not maximizing revenue.

Remember that maximizing the top line is not just setting a price point in a vacuum. That top line price is based on existing market conditions, competition, ability to ascribe value to your brand, etc.

For instance a watch costs $5. You can find them all over the place. But many people will spend $30, $50, $100, $1,000, even more for a watch. That is not a maximum price point--that is using emotions so sucker more money from your customers. :)

Titanium was one of the few, purely emotional plays in the satellite/cable industry. A true branding experience. (And it worked too.) :)

cheers,
Tom

[Azdeadwood]

My list is similar to Sirshagg: I find the following totally useless :
All shopping channels
All religious channels
All XM channels
All Video Music channels
All PPV channels
All SD channels except PBS and History International. Of course I would like them to be in HD.

[Ken S]

My feeling is ala carte died even while BUD was still on its upswing. I was always looking for packages to simplify my purchases and maximize my channels. Now I have them. :)

Would ala carte have a niche? Yes. Would it be viable? Hard to predict in my estimation. If all we had was ala carte, I expect bills would go up a bunch and channels available would go down. With a mixture of ala carte and bundles, bills would go up but likely less.

Remember, right now we pay less than a nickel a month for some channels. There ain't no way a channel would ala carte at a price that low.

Cheers,
Tom

Tom,

There's another factor that many just seem to discount. Besides being able to buy and pay for just what you want it would also allow you to NOT buy and pay for what you don't want in your home.

I think you're right that many people would just go with packages and they could be priced at lower rates. I would also expect that even ala carte wouldn't be pure ala carte...it would be like it is/was with BUDs...You buy the ESPN package not ESPN 1, 2, etc.

But...all that being said...I do not believe that overall prices would go up. People will only spend so much on TV the channels and distributors would have to figure out what they can to survive in that world.

All that being said...we may get ala carte one way or the other. It sure seems as though a lot of programming providers have started to go direct with their product over the internet on a show by show basis even :).

Anyway, all of this could be solved if, as I said earlier, the only channels allowed were the ones I want. :)

[raott]

Remember that maximizing the top line is not just setting a price point in a vacuum. That top line price is based on existing market conditions, competition, ability to ascribe value to your brand, etc.



I don't disagree with that at all, some providers can charge a premium because of better offerings - ie more Hi-Def, less competition etc. Not everyones supply/demand curves are the same, even within the same industry.

But none of that changes the fact that a provider charges the price that maximizes revenue for them - no more and no less - because a move in either price direction results in overall lost revenue.

The implication that I responded to was, if D* didn't have these channels, prices would go up. The post indicated a belief that these channels were resulting in lower monthly bills (basically subsidizing lower bills) for customers. That is just plain wrong. Like I said, D*'s monthly price is already set at a point that maximizes revenue for them.

They are not charging less than they could (thus losing revenue) because they are somehow making it up with these pay-to-broadcast channels.

The additional revenue generated by the inclusion of the pay to broadcast channels goes right to profit, it has absolutely nothing to do with the subscription price you and I pay.

[smiddy]

I can not think of a single useless channel. I think someone somewhere find any of the channels useful sometimes and in that same vein I think it is good thing that DirecTV looks after everyone's interests with certain amounts of niched areas. DirecTV is maximizing its customer base by being as diverse as possible.

[Citation4444]

i would keep fox and drop the lefty liberals of msnbc & cnn.
I agree wholeheartedly, especially about MSNBC.

[Tom Robertson]

Remember--let us not stray into political leanings...

[DarinC]

Agree 100% smiddy. I took it more as a what is useless to US individually. For me, ESPN is useless, and I won't even start on Fox News ;) . Apparently others disagree. :)

[inkahauts]

Hold on just a minute there. Versus is one of justa few sports channels that must stay due to the hockey coverage.

And some college football and the tour de france....

[Sirshagg]

And some college football and the tour de france....

Nope, just hockey. :)

[wilbur_the_goose]

I'm a CNN fan, but CNN Headline News is absolutely useless. It's the National Enquirer of TV news channels.

[Ken S]

Verus has to keep hockey they need something to make the Tour de France ratings look good.

[merchione]

I wish D* had some way to only bill us for the channels we watch 30% of the time....Im sure that could be done.

[Tom Robertson]

I wish D* had some way to only bill us for the channels we watch 30% of the time....Im sure that could be done.
Sure they could--but are you willing to pay for the overhead it would cost DIRECTV to bill that way?

And what makes you think you'd be paying less anyway? Raott's point is we're paying what the market will bear no matter what model of billing is used.

Cheers,
Tom

[fluffybear]

Shopping and Religious Channels would be first to go

quickly followed by all Spanish channels
90% of the RSNs
Hunting Channel
Communist News Network (CNN)
MSNBC
CNBC World
CNBC
ESPN Alternates
Baby First
XM

[Sharkie_Fan]

I think there's two pieces of the puzzle that are being overlooked to some extent.

First off... if a la carte programming comes to pass, what do the providers do with their pricing? Is ESPN giving a 'discounted' rate, knowing that 90% of DirecTV providers are going to get the channel in a package? If that number gets cut in half, are they going to want more money per subscriber because their market coverage has dropped significantly?

Second... Raott.. as you pointed out, DirecTV is doing what they can to maximize profits. That DOESN"T mean that they're charging the most they can PER CHANNEL. It means that they've developed a package which encompases most of the channels that a person would want, combined with some that they won't, and set that at a price point which maximizes their profits, based on what the market will bear.

If a la carte programming were available, DirecTV is going to price each channel in a manner to maximize their profits. Which means some channels may very well be more than we expect, because the market will bear it.

I don't doubt for a second that we're paying a lower price in a package than we would a la carte. Raott has pointed out several times that DirecTV's pricing is based on maximizing profit. Delivering a bunch of channels in one easy package serves to do that. If they have to deliver a single channel, or a small handfull of channels, they're going to price those to maximize their profits based on those small number of channels.... which is likely to increase the price of those channels, IMO.

[Jon J]

I could easilly do without:
All shopping channels
All religious channels
All non-english language channels
All XM channels
All MTV / VH1 channels
All PPV channels
All but 1-2 SD channels
Most sports channels

:righton:

[Tom Robertson]

Sharkie_Fan,

Well said. Adding a couple more thoughts to your good reminders:
1) DIRECTV will only be adding a margin--the channels will set the base price.
2) As a corollary to your ESPN example, for many channels today, as part of a package, can be far less than 25 cents per month per sub. (Some are below a nickel, I believe.) We all know that no channel will be less than $1 per month on an Ala Carte Plan unless part of a bundle. And if we're back to bundling... ;)

Cheers,
Tom

[fluffybear]

Wife just said in addition to the channels I listed, she would vote to remove:

Adult Channels
Current
CSPAN 1 and 2
Any channel which shows Paid Programming more then 4 hours a day

[jcoulter]

Aren't some of the smaller channels part of a deal?
As in "Big media conglomerate" says to D* if you want (insert big channel here) you have to also show this other channel of ours?

[Tom Robertson]

Aren't some of the smaller channels part of a deal?
As in "Big media conglomerate" says to D* if you want (insert big channel here) you have to also show this other channel of ours?

Absolutely. And some of them aren't so small either.

[donjuan2007]

Depends what state you live in, There is no national language in the USA.

I have no idea what you are trying to say above.

Who cares if there are more countries in the world that speak spanish than speak English? In the USA, we speak English.

[Tom Robertson]

Ok, this isn't national language week, nor is a purely political topic such as the national language generally allowed.

So, let us repair ourselves back to the original topic. :)

Thanks,
Tom

[curt8403]

I know there are some Directv channels which annoy you and even though you may think they have no appeal to you, they appeal to someone? they are still harmful and take up valuable bandwidth which lets fewer other channels get carried, or makes your picture quality suffer.

so, my choices for being nuked are:

WIZE (221): Carries nothing but infomercials
DTV (222): Carries nothing but infomercials
CRTV (243): Carries nothing but infomercials
IRTV (268): Carries nothing but infomercials
ION (305): 66% infomercials and then 8 hours of regular reruns or old movies
JTV (313) - How many channels on jewelry sales do we need? there must be 3-4 of them?
CRTV (314): Carries nothing but infomercials
AOR (315) Carries nothing but infomercials
BUY (318) Carries nothing but infomercials
CSTR (319) Carries nothing but infomercials

I would also say that channels 365-378 has about 12 religious channels which could easily be consolidated into fewer. I dislike how i am forced to subscribe to these channels i don't want and my subscription fees support religious stuff. whether or not they have good messages, i just don't want to have to pay for them. let it be optional.

ok, any thoughts? just felt like adding a topic some peeps may chime in about


those channels are pay dirt. they are carried because they pay directv to carry them.

[Tom Servo]

I really don't care what DirecTV carries as far as the "channels I don't care about".

My issue is picture quality, specifically the SD channels. As much as I'd love to only watch everything in HD MPEG-4, a lot of my favs are still SD. And the PQ is about awful.

With that in mind, if I had to pick channels to remove, I'd pick... Every local channel.

That's right - I think locals in all these markets are a massive waste of bandwidth. Especially considering how many urban and suburban viewers could easily get their locals with rabbit ears or a small attic antenna.

It's unfortunate that the DNS rules are as messed up as they are though, that people like me who (now) live in a ruralish setting can't get anything OTA but can't get DNS service because I'm "technically" in every station's grade B zone.

I'd much rather get distant network service; how can my locals claim lost revenue when I can't watch them anyway? ;)

Instead, DirecTV is forced to compete by uplink the same three to six channels in every. single. market.

I remember when D started adding locals - that was the last day of good SD PQ.

[bruinfever]

I'd also drop FOX News and FOX Business in a heartbeat. CNN, MSNBC, CSPAN along with the news programs on LinkTV & BBC America are all I need.

I think we get the fact that you don't like Fox. But how would it make sense from DirecTV's perspective to drop Fox News when they have higher ratings most of the time than CNN and MSNBC combined? If you measure uselss channels by number of viewers that you should drop MSNBC is a heartbeat...

[Ext 721]

I'd like to see a few of these myriad christian religious stations supplanted by one jewish channel, one muslim channel, one buddhist channel, one atheist channel Et-cetera.

That would be truly fascinating.

[Ext 721]

I have no idea what you are trying to say above.

Who cares if there are more countries in the world that speak spanish than speak English? In the USA, we speak English.

I am quite American and I love the option of Spanish programming. Not only are some Spanish programs wickedly funny, but they build my language skills. If I go on vacation in Cancun or Madrid,I want to be able to go off the "tourist trap" beaten path.

You should consider learning another language. It builds up the mind in ways nothing else can. If you have some religious, moral, or philosophical ban against other spoken languages, learn ASL-American Sign Language.

Truly, you will learn to think better.

[apexmi]

You do realize that many of these channels actually pay DIRECTV to be carried. So if they were dropped, your bill would likely be higher.

Agreed Doug. I believe most of the shopping networks pay for carriage thus subsidizing our costs

[crawdad62]

I say bring them on. As long as there's enough bandwidth to carry them and channels don't suffer PQ then I want as many as possible. Do I watch many of them? No. But I'm sure someone somewhere watches them. That's the beauty of the custom guide. I set the channels I watch and don't have to be bothered by all the others.

[Tom Robertson]

I say bring them on. As long as there's enough bandwidth to carry them and channels don't suffer PQ then I want as many as possible. Do I watch many of them? No. But I'm sure someone somewhere watches them. That's the beauty of the custom guide. I set the channels I watch and don't have to be bothered by all the others.

(Sh... you're making too much sense here... ) :)

[Jon D]

Because, Mr. Lee, they are still in business. If they had no appeal then their ongoing survival would be threatened by their lack of capital.

With PBS being the exception to that rule.

[Jon D]

I say bring them on. As long as there's enough bandwidth to carry them and channels don't suffer PQ then I want as many as possible. Do I watch many of them? No. But I'm sure someone somewhere watches them. That's the beauty of the custom guide. I set the channels I watch and don't have to be bothered by all the others.

Yeah. Especially if the channels I don't watch make the channels I do watch cheaper.

[txtommy]

I don't propose doing away with any channels since none of them would be carried if Directv hadn't already determined there sufficient viewer's to support them all.

I have removed the following from my Favorites List since I never watch any of them:
All religious
All shopping
All PPV
All Football
All Nascar
All Basketball
All foreign language

I expect that there are at least a few individuals who would not be at all happy if Directv adopted my favorites list as the only channels available. :D

[stlcardsblues]

I would eliminate the 24 hour John and Kate plus 8 and 24 hour baby story channel. That sound you just heard was my wife smacking me.

Seriously, we cannot eliminate the XM channels as they are the only channels left which play music (since MTV and VH1 don't).

[stlcardsblues]

I have removed the following from my Favorites List since I never watch any of them:
All religious
All shopping
All PPV
All Football
All Nascar
All Basketball
All foreign language>>>>>>>

We should remove WGN, there's nothing of quality on that. :)

[mshaw2715]

These channels would only add to the garbage channels I don't need. :bang
I'd like to see a few of these myriad christian religious stations supplanted by one jewish channel, one muslim channel, one buddhist channel, one atheist channel Et-cetera.

That would be truly fascinating.

[GutBomb]

this is AMERICA - learn the language!
Foreign language channels also exist to keep people connected to the culture they left behind to come here and better themselves and their family. Are those shows supposed to be translated into english because we are in america? or are you saying these people should just reject and forget where they come from now that they are in america?

I have no problem with removing foreign channels from my favourites list. I do the same thing. But to say they should be dropped BECAUSE the viewers of them should learn english is one of the most ignorant things I've read on this site in many years.

[mreposter]

Funny, the last time I went to the news stand to pick up a copy of Car and Driver, they didn't force me to buy Time, Sports Illustrated and Good Housekeeping as part of a "bundle."

What this marketplace needs is a healthy dose of competition.

[ThomasM]

We need to push the A LA CARTE bill into Congress !

HAH! I'm waiting to see how this fantastic "ala carte" system is going to work on Sirius/XM. I'll bet it's going to be a fiasco with higher rates for what you used to get for less money as part of a package.

I'll bet subscription TV won't be "ala carte" for a long, long time.

[ThomasM]

Now that we have the wonderful "movies now" pushed to our DVR's (whether we like it or not), we no longer need the PPV channels, right? What? You mean there actually are folks that DON'T have DirecTV DVR's? ;)

[Tom Servo]

I don't have any DVRs - S-VHS VCR tapes last longer and look as good as any SD TiVO I've seen. :p

I'm all for reducing the PPV load, both SD and HD. $3.99 for a SD PPV? That's a friggin' ripoff, who really pays for that? It seems like they cut back on the all-day tickets too. Now they're even limiting how much time the movie can sit on the DVR? That's crazy.

$4.99 per HD PPV is also too high. For $5 I could drive to Blockbuster and rent the DVD.

[Ext 721]

Supplant (v) 2. to replace (one thing) by something else.

[Ext 721]

Funny, the last time I went to the news stand to pick up a copy of Car and Driver, they didn't force me to buy Time, Sports Illustrated and Good Housekeeping as part of a "bundle."

What this marketplace needs is a healthy dose of competition.

Aye, but last time I subscribed to a newspaper, they didn't give me the option to remove the sections I don't want delivered to save money.

They did, however offer free delivery by mail of the advertising section and classifieds.

[ChrisPC]

I don't have any DVRs - S-VHS VCR tapes last longer and look as good as any SD TiVO I've seen. :p

You're definitely from Mississippi. No offense; I was born and raised there. :)

[flipptyfloppity]

HAH! I'm waiting to see how this fantastic "ala carte" system is going to work on Sirius/XM. I'll bet it's going to be a fiasco with higher rates for what you used to get for less money as part of a package.

I'll bet subscription TV won't be "ala carte" for a long, long time.

Yes, I agree you would pay more for the same packages you get right now. But I don't want the same packages I have right now.

If I wanted 7 ESPNs, I would have to pay more. But instead, I would only get 2 ESPNs.

Many people don't look at the big picture. They see a 45 channel package and then start pricing 45 individual channels. If a la carte existed, at least 1/3rd of those channels wouldn't get enough subscribers to get by and so would fold. And their content, since most of it is independently produced anyway, would migrate to the remaining 30 channels. I think it would be a lot more reduction than this actually.

Anyway, you wouldn't find yourself having to subscribe to 700 channels (my package has actually over 700) to get the same amount of useful content you're getting today.

VOD is going to blow the concept of packages and even channels right out of the water. You can think of it as having 100,000 channels if you want, but the biggest change actually will be the unviability of making channels like we currently have where most are 80% fluff.

[Sharkie_Fan]

Many people don't look at the big picture. They see a 45 channel package and then start pricing 45 individual channels. If a la carte existed, at least 1/3rd of those channels wouldn't get enough subscribers to get by and so would fold. And their content, since most of it is independently produced anyway, would migrate to the remaining 30 channels. I think it would be a lot more reduction than this actually.

I have to disagree with you here. Some truly independent channels might fold. But if ESPN isn't getting the subscribers they need to keep ESPNews running, I think they're going to charge more for ESPN to subsidize ESPNews. 2 channels = double the advertising. Instead of a 2$ ESPN, you'll get a $4 ESPN, and then pay on top of that if you choose to get ESPNews.

Second problem with your idea. Even if the consolidation happened exactly like you are proposing and you ended up with 30 'useful' channels.

30 channels at even $2 a pop is $60 per month. Plus $6 for DVR, plus $9.99 for HD access. That's $76.00 .... or, $4 more than I pay for my 45 channel package!

And if all the channels were priced at only $2 a piece, I'll fall out of my chair in shock. If I had to guess, you're probably looking at between $2 and $5 a piece.

A la Carte makes sense, IMHO, in only 2 instances. One is if a person only wants locals plus 3 or 4 other channels, say ESPN, their RSN, TNT, and TBS. Great deal for them.

The second would be to add onto an existing package. For instance, I might consider switching to the Family pack and adding 3 or 4 channels to it, if it saved me $10-$15 a month! I don't watch ALL of the channels in my package, but I would lose a few 'important' ones if I 'downgraded' right now. If I could add those important ones back in, while losing some of the fluff, that'd be a good use of a la carte programming, to me.

If you want to watch any variety comparable to what you can currently get with the packages, you're going to end up paying more, even if the consolidation of channels were to occur just like you propose it might.

[Tom Servo]

You're definitely from Mississippi. No offense; I was born and raised there. :)

Sir, I'll have you know I am from Alabama but forced to live in Mississippi. (How many people just thought, "...there's a difference?") :lol:

No offense taken at all, BTW. :)


30 channels at even $2 a pop is $60 per month. Plus $6 for DVR, plus $9.99 for HD access. That's $76.00 .... or, $4 more than I pay for my 45 channel package!

And if all the channels were priced at only $2 a piece, I'll fall out of my chair in shock. If I had to guess, you're probably looking at between $2 and $5 a piece.


Seems like I heard somewhere that ESPN gets $4-5 per subscriber as it is now from DirecTV. (Can't find a link tho.)

You know that Logo isn't getting those kind of numbers, neither is VH-1. In fact, niche channels like Logo or VH-1 Classic probably are part of package deals and their worth is only pennies per sub. So the cost difference might be significant.

The problem I have with ala carte though is the channels I find useless for the most part are the ones that cost little to nothing for D* to carry. I doubt if I were able to drop Hallmark, DIY and The Tennis Channel that they'd knock anything at all off my bill.

[Matt9876]

I would drop everything thats not in HD!

I give Dish a lot of credit for having a low cost HD only service.:)


P.S. Will always stick with DirecTV cause the quality of HD is much better.

[paulh]

Ever try to watch a normal TV channel between 2-6 AM? (standard sat/cable channels like Disc, TBS...)
I think there should be a law requiring any channel that has more than 2 hours of paid programming per week should be free to all viewers.

[smokes20]

Ever try to watch a normal TV channel between 2-6 AM? (standard sat/cable channels like Disc, TBS...)
I think there should be a law requiring any channel that has more than 2 hours of paid programming per week should be free to all viewers.

Be thankful those channels do find informercials to help pay their expenses so they can pay Directv, so we can watch the programs they have. :)

It is what it is and no amount of crying here will change it. Or if it does, be prepared to pay an extreme amount for the program channels you do want to view. By the way, if that happens, you can pay my bill too since you want this. Let me know :)

[Draconis]

You do realize that many of these channels actually pay DIRECTV to be carried. So if they were dropped, your bill would likely be higher.
That’s the annoying part, I do recognize that DirecTV is getting paid to broadcast the shopping networks and I want to keep my bill down.

That does not mean that I’m not going to remove all the Infomercial/Shopping/Religious channels from my favorites list though…

We need to push the A LA CARTE bill into Congress !
How much do you want to bet that the Infomercial/Shopping channels would stay even if that passes? After all, you are not paying for them...

[looney2ns]

Get rid of any channel remotely related to sports.

[mreposter]

Offering a la cart doesn't mean service providers have to drop their existing bundles. Directv could continue to offer the same packages we have today *and* per-channel pricing.

They could even create new mini-bundles. For instance, you could buy just ESPN-1 for say $5 a month or get the whole ESPN family of channels for $10/month.

If you look at the companies that own most networks, there are only 5 or 6 of them. ABC/Disney/ESPN, NBC/Universal (SciFi, Bravo, Oxygen, Weather, etc), Time Warner/CNN, Fox, etc. They could easily offer bundles of their channels.

So, it would be easy for customers to pick and choose the bundles and individual channels that best fit them.

[Sharkie_Fan]

Offering a la cart doesn't mean service providers have to drop their existing bundles. Directv could continue to offer the same packages we have today *and* per-channel pricing.

They could even create new mini-bundles. For instance, you could buy just ESPN-1 for say $5 a month or get the whole ESPN family of channels for $10/month.

If you look at the companies that own most networks, there are only 5 or 6 of them. ABC/Disney/ESPN, NBC/Universal (SciFi, Bravo, Oxygen, Weather, etc), Time Warner/CNN, Fox, etc. They could easily offer bundles of their channels.

So, it would be easy for customers to pick and choose the bundles and individual channels that best fit them.

I agree with you 100%, and I think that's the scenario in which a la carte programming DOES make some sense... the ability to add a channel, or small bundle of channels, to a lesser package in order to find the place where value & content are maximized.

I don't think that complete a la carte would work for the bulk of programming, but having options a la carte to add on to existing bundles would be nice.

[Ken S]

Interesting article. It appears that even some cable companies believe ala carte would save money.

Surfing for a better deal
By JOHN MOLSEED, Courier Staff Writer
CEDAR FALLS --- Believe it or not, cable television companies and their customers share common ground.

Here's the whole story...http://www.wcfcourier.com/articles/2008/08/03/business/local/10508658.txt

[Ken S]

I agree with you 100%, and I think that's the scenario in which a la carte programming DOES make some sense... the ability to add a channel, or small bundle of channels, to a lesser package in order to find the place where value & content are maximized.

I don't think that complete a la carte would work for the bulk of programming, but having options a la carte to add on to existing bundles would be nice.

Sharkie, every study I've see says the average TV viewer watches somewhere between 15 and 20 channels.

[dcowboy7]

Sharkie, every study I've see says the average TV viewer watches somewhere between 15 and 20 channels.

wow thats low....guess im above avg. :D

[Tom Robertson]

I'd love to say I used to only watch 9 channels, but starting last September that list grew to almost 100... ;)

How many do I watch is a most complex concept. Now that we have all the premium movies channels and more in HD, we watch fewer SD "cable" channels. Before then, I'd surf more of the locals and SD channels for interesting shows.

I know I've missed some interesting things on Discovery, TLC, and NatGeo, but get to watch many more movies :)

Cheers,
Tom

[Sharkie_Fan]

Sharkie, every study I've see says the average TV viewer watches somewhere between 15 and 20 channels.

Not doubting what you've seen.... but I have a hard time believing that. I have series links on more channels than that! I've never even hit 40 series links!

On top of that, I have probably another 20-25 that i watch at least once a week! And if you asked me, I'd say I'm an average viewer. :)

Even if I'm above average, though, the widespread success of a la carte all boils down to how much they're going to charge per channel.

I found a post on a blog site claiming the following current rates:
ESPN $3.26 per subscriber
FSN $1.92 per subscriber
TNT $.91 per subscriber
Disney $.83 per subscriber
NFL $.70 per subscriber.

Based on those numbers (which may or may not be accurate), I could see a scenario where the popular channels cost $5-6 bucks and it goes down from there. If that's the case, it doesn't take many channels before you've reached a point where a package would be cheaper (especially when you figure that you've got $10 for HD, $5 for locals, $5 for DVR. That's $20 and you don'teven have a single channel yet!).

I'm not opposed to a la carte, I just don't think that it's going to save as many people as much money as they think. Dropping the shopping networks and religious channels isn't going to cut your bill in half. Dropping channels that pay DirecTV for carriage isn't going to save you anything, in fact....

[Inches]

We need to push the A LA CARTE bill into Congress !Why? They have enough to do which is not getting done. Besides they are on vacation.

[Ken S]

Just as a FYI...here's a study on it by Nielsen...

- In 2006, the average U.S. home received 104.2 channels, an increase of almost eight channels since 2005 and a record level.

- As the number of channels available to a household increases, so does the number of channels tuned. In 2006, the average household tuned to 15.7, or 15.1% of the 104.2 channels available for at least 10 minutes per week.

http://www.nielsenmedia.com/nc/portal/site/Public/menuitem.55dc65b4a7d5adff3f65936147a062a0/?vgnextoid=48839bc66a961110VgnVCM100000ac0a260aRCR D

[Ken S]

Not doubting what you've seen.... but I have a hard time believing that. I have series links on more channels than that! I've never even hit 40 series links!

On top of that, I have probably another 20-25 that i watch at least once a week! And if you asked me, I'd say I'm an average viewer. :)

Even if I'm above average, though, the widespread success of a la carte all boils down to how much they're going to charge per channel.

I found a post on a blog site claiming the following current rates:
ESPN $3.26 per subscriber
FSN $1.92 per subscriber
TNT $.91 per subscriber
Disney $.83 per subscriber
NFL $.70 per subscriber.

Based on those numbers (which may or may not be accurate), I could see a scenario where the popular channels cost $5-6 bucks and it goes down from there. If that's the case, it doesn't take many channels before you've reached a point where a package would be cheaper (especially when you figure that you've got $10 for HD, $5 for locals, $5 for DVR. That's $20 and you don'teven have a single channel yet!).

I'm not opposed to a la carte, I just don't think that it's going to save as many people as much money as they think. Dropping the shopping networks and religious channels isn't going to cut your bill in half. Dropping channels that pay DirecTV for carriage isn't going to save you anything, in fact....

Start dropping the channels paying for sports and the prices come down pretty quick. I think you would see people getting packages and adding on the few channels they want.

[Sharkie_Fan]

Start dropping the channels paying for sports and the prices come down pretty quick. I think you would see people getting packages and adding on the few channels they want.

Absolutely it could save 'non sports fans' some money. Especially if a la carte were here and ESPN was $6.00 or more!

For the rest of us, though.... probably not doing to help our pocket books out too much!

ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNews, Versus, Golf, NHL, CSN Bay Area are all 'must have' channels in my lineup.... so straight up a la carte is not something that I think would save me very much money. Maybe it would, depeneding on the prices, but my gut says that it wouldn't save me much at all...

[DarinC]

A la carte would most certainly increase pricing for the vast majority of customers. Each channel would appear to have fewer potential viewers, which would reduce advertising value. People like ESPN sell their channels in packages to increase their potential for advertising revenue. Even if most people watch the main channel, the other channels are still available to viewers, and have a certain amount of advertising value. If those channels were to disappear, the advertising value of the main channel wouldn't likely increase to the sum of the what the value was of all the other channels that disappeared. If the other channels remained, but had fewer subscribers, their advertising value would go down.

The same can be applied to other "packages" that consist of channels that are less alike. When a network has several "niche" channels, they sell them as a bundle to the various distributors. If the niche goes away, they may not be able to re-direct those advertising dollars to another channel, because the niche nature of those channels may appeal to advertisers targeting that niche. In the absence of all the niche channels, they may find other advertising streams, like internet, print, etc., more appealing.

This doesn't have as much to do with DirecTV, Dish, or Comcast, as it does with the actual content providers. You can bet if there is a threat of their advertising value goes down due to less marketability of their advertising slots, they will charge more for their channels in an a la carte environment to make up for it. It doesn't matter if DirecTV offers both packages and a la carte... if there are fewer potential eyeballs, they risk lower advertising revenue, and will compensate with higher prices to DirecTV, and others.

Quality of content has gone down enough as it is. Personally, I think this would continue the trend even further of programming for the lowest common denominator.

[dcowboy7]

Just as a FYI...here's a study on it by Nielsen...

- In 2006, the average U.S. home received 104.2 channels, an increase of almost eight channels since 2005 and a record level.

- As the number of channels available to a household increases, so does the number of channels tuned. In 2006, the average household tuned to 15.7, or 15.1% of the 104.2 channels available for at least 10 minutes per week.

http://www.nielsenmedia.com/nc/portal/site/Public/menuitem.55dc65b4a7d5adff3f65936147a062a0/?vgnextoid=48839bc66a961110VgnVCM100000ac0a260aRCR D

i wonder what % of those homes dont have sat/cable....id like to see how much higher the avg # of tuned channels would be if u only included houses with sat/cable.

[Sharkie_Fan]

i wonder what % of those homes dont have sat/cable....id like to see how much higher the avg # of tuned channels would be if u only included houses with sat/cable.

It said 47% of homes get more than 100 channels....

To me, the data suggests that people with more than 100 channels are watching somewhere in the neighborhood of 25-30, and people with fewer channels are watching between 5-10.

You're correct that the % of homes with no satellite or cable are going to bring the average down.... so assuming those homes have 5-10 channels, I'm speculating that the larger homes have 25-30, on average....

I know you can't nail down actual numbers from a general statement like the Neilsen report, but I think you can formulate a somewhat informed guess.

To me, that says that for the homes with higher number of channels, a la carte may or may not work... For those homes, it all depends on the pricing of the channels, and what your 25-30 channels are... For homes with less than 100 channels, a la carte would be a viable option because it allows them to add just a few more channels than they currently have in order to diversify what they watch....

[Ken S]

It said 47% of homes get more than 100 channels....

To me, the data suggests that people with more than 100 channels are watching somewhere in the neighborhood of 25-30, and people with fewer channels are watching between 5-10.

You're correct that the % of homes with no satellite or cable are going to bring the average down.... so assuming those homes have 5-10 channels, I'm speculating that the larger homes have 25-30, on average....

I know you can't nail down actual numbers from a general statement like the Neilsen report, but I think you can formulate a somewhat informed guess.

To me, that says that for the homes with higher number of channels, a la carte may or may not work... For those homes, it all depends on the pricing of the channels, and what your 25-30 channels are... For homes with less than 100 channels, a la carte would be a viable option because it allows them to add just a few more channels than they currently have in order to diversify what they watch....

You need to read the whole report....80% of homes get more than 60 channels. While the greater variety did lead to more being watched...it's not a whole lot more. Later in the report they also state that about 85% of the country is now getting cable or satellite TV. Even lifeline cable gets more than 20 channels.

-------

Number of Channels Available

In 2006, the average home received 104.2 channels, an increase of almost eight channels since 2005. The percentage of homes receiving 100+ channels rose from 42% in 2005 to 47% in 2006, with 33% receiving between 60 and 99 channels, down 4% since 2005. Nielsen found that the average television household in the U.S. receives more than 17 broadcast TV channels, while 58% of all homes can receive 15 or more, and 36% receive 20 or more.

As the number of channels available to a household increased, so did the number of channels tuned, although the percentage of available channels actually viewed decreased. In 2006, the average household tuned to 15.7 (or 15.1%) of the 104.2 channels available. This compares to 2000, when the average home viewed 22.1% of the available channels (13.6 channels viewed out of 61.4 available channels).

[Sharkie_Fan]

You need to read the whole report....80% of homes get more than 60 channels. While the greater variety did lead to more being watched...it's not a whole lot more. Later in the report they also state that about 85% of the country is now getting cable or satellite TV. Even lifeline cable gets more than 20 channels.

-------

Number of Channels Available

In 2006, the average home received 104.2 channels, an increase of almost eight channels since 2005. The percentage of homes receiving 100+ channels rose from 42% in 2005 to 47% in 2006, with 33% receiving between 60 and 99 channels, down 4% since 2005. Nielsen found that the average television household in the U.S. receives more than 17 broadcast TV channels, while 58% of all homes can receive 15 or more, and 36% receive 20 or more.

As the number of channels available to a household increased, so did the number of channels tuned, although the percentage of available channels actually viewed decreased. In 2006, the average household tuned to 15.7 (or 15.1%) of the 104.2 channels available. This compares to 2000, when the average home viewed 22.1% of the available channels (13.6 channels viewed out of 61.4 available channels).

I did miss the second part of that (the 60-99 channel homes), but it doesn't change the thinking all that much.

Say the 47% with 100 or more channels are only watching 20-30, because there is a group with 60-99 channels who are watching 10-20, and there's 20% of the population watching less than 10 because they have no satellite or cable... that'd still get you to that 16 channel average.

The point remains the same... for those who are watching an above average number of channels - especially if they're heavy on the sports - a straight up a la carte offering probably doesn't save them anything because they're going to want a majority of the most 'popular' channels (and by popular, we mean expensive!)

Those who are average, it'd be a tossup, depending on what channels you watch.

Those below average, probably come out ahead a la carte.

[dcowboy7]

still seems low....im thinkin people cant calculate 10 minutes which wouldnt surprise me at all....kinda like arbitron diaries look dumb compared to ppm ratings.

[Sharkie_Fan]

Another thought on that nielsen report just came to me, and I don't see it addressed in the report.

It says that they count a channel as watched if it was tuned in for 10 minutes or more per week.

How do they handle households with DVRS? Are they counting live tuning, or does watching programming recorded on that channel count as being 'tuned in'? I assume it's the latter. Either way....

We watch basically in the primetime viewing hours (6-9 on weeknights, and probably roughly the same on weekends, maybe 5-9 or 6-10....) A good deal of our shows are on network TV, and if we didn't have a DVR, we probably wouldn't watch more than 4 or 5 channels....

I would bet that households with DVRs view more channels than those without...

[DarinC]

I would bet that households with DVRs view more channels than those without...

I think you could make a case for that either way. Sure, a DVR lets you use your TV time more efficiently... that might mean watching more in the same time, or watching the same in less time. But I think someone with a DVR is going to "channel surf" less than someone without, because a DVR person is not going to watch as much live TV. They are going to program in what they specifically want to watch (which means what they already know about), and may be less likely to just stumble upon something previously uknown to them that looked interesting when they were surfing.

[dhines]

our bickering beings

:new_cussi

[paulh]

Be thankful those channels do find informercials to help pay their expenses so they can pay Directv, so we can watch the programs they have. :)

It is what it is and no amount of crying here will change it. Or if it does, be prepared to pay an extreme amount for the program channels you do want to view. By the way, if that happens, you can pay my bill too since you want this. Let me know :)
I understand the 100% informercial and shopping at home stations. I am talking about "real" stations like TLC, Discovery, TBS.
5 years ago, more/most of those stations provided, at least, reruns of their unique programming 24x7 AND my D* bil was much lower. The more paid programming they show, the more I have to pay!

Paid programming exists in the cheapest slots the (paid programming producers) can buy. I doubt any station offering paid programming gets more in 30 minutes than they get selling real commercials in a normal 30 minute show. The ad sales people are too lazy, thus jacking up my programming costs.

[paulh]

Another thought on that nielsen report just came to me, and I don't see it addressed in the report.

It says that they count a channel as watched if it was tuned in for 10 minutes or more per week.

How do they handle households with DVRS? Are they counting live tuning, or does watching programming recorded on that channel count as being 'tuned in'? I assume it's the latter. Either way....

We watch basically in the primetime viewing hours (6-9 on weeknights, and probably roughly the same on weekends, maybe 5-9 or 6-10....) A good deal of our shows are on network TV, and if we didn't have a DVR, we probably wouldn't watch more than 4 or 5 channels....

I would bet that households with DVRs view more channels than those without...

I know they said for the first several years of HDTV that HD viewers counted for zilch, zero, nada... in the Nielson's old counting methodology. Thus most networks only implemented much HD at the request of "forward thinking" executives as there was no "true business demand" for HD programming, which infuriated most high spending first adopters that advertisers allowed this to happen.
I believe they do better at counting the new tech viewers, with newer data capturing devices. And, although it does not make its way into the official Nielsons, Tivo has long provided general viewing (and reviewing) habits in something like 10 second increments...

[mreposter]

A la carte programming could put lesser viewed channels at risk. But I think it would also cause tremendous headaches for the most expensive channels - namely the sports programmers.

Channels like ESPN have a large and vocal fan base that demand the programming no matter what the cost. One way the cost is mitigated is by spreading it over all subscribers. But what would happen if say 25% of subscribers dropped it as part of an a la carte option? That $3.60 cost mentioned earlier would rise to $4.80. And that's just the raw cost to Directv. They would likely need to charge $7-10 a month for ESPN. And those who wanted the full-boat of sports programming could see their bills rise $20-30 a month.

Dropping channels like RFD and Chiller probably wouldn't affect your bill at all, but dropping all the sports channels and things like CNN and TBS could have a big impact.

[Sharkie_Fan]

our bickering beings

:new_cussi

Nah... no bickering.

I think the idea of getting rid of "unwanted" channels, in an a la carte system, is a compelling one.... I think you can make a really good argument both for and against a la carte, and what it would do to the overall price structure of 'pay tv'....

As a consumer, I'd love to be able to pick and choose my channels and save myself a few bucks by getting rid of things like MTV and the shopping channels and so on.

As a business owner, I realize that discounts come with volume... and I have my doubts that DirecTV (or any other provider) could operate under an "affordable" a la carte system. I think that the originators are going to charge more for the content, and the provider - be it DIrecTV or Dish or Cable - is going to pass along those charges, and their markup on top of it.... and so I have trouble embracing a scenario where a la carte makes sense.

Ken's link to Nielsen is definitely food for thought. If the AVERAGE is 16 channels tuned in per week, there are a bunch of people watching less than that. Obviously if you only want 5 channels, it doesn't make sense to pay for 100, and an a la carte system would work for those people.

But, there's still the issue of what the content providers do in the face of that kind of potential drop in viewership.

So... no bickering needed.... ;) Even though KenS and I are on different sides of the fence on this one, it would seem, we can have a good old fashioned grown up conversation about it.... at least for a while. I promise not to start calling names and throwing tantrums until NEXT week... :D

[mreposter]

What frustrates me about the current system is that it encourages channel proliferation and puts tremendous power in the hands of the largest programming providers. For example, Disney used leverage with channels like Dis and ESPN to force ABC Family into the main tiers of most distributors like D*.

An example of needless channel proliferation is the recent launch of the NFL Network. Do we really need a dedicated channel for this? Not so long ago, you could watch most NFL games on the over the air networks. Today, you have to pay for dozens of channels to get this. Now we have sports leagues launching their own channels and many teams having their own. And since sports is so popular with a vocal group of viewers, they can easily demand exorbitant fees for this programming. When will this all end?

The big media conglomerates have every right to create whatever channels they want,(the Basketweaving Network!, the Left-handed Podiatry Channel!) just don't force us to pay for these channels if we don't want them.

[Tom Servo]

the Left-handed Podiatry Channel!

I'd watch if it were in HD. :dance:

[Ken S]

Sharkie,

Don't forget the earlier article where a number of cable companies also are pushing to be able to purchase the channels ala carte and sell them that way. Why is it only the major distribs (and content owners of course) want to keep things the way they are?

In many ways this may not matter. It may not be all that long before we're watching/purchasing all of our programming over the web and potentially on a show-by-show basis. The content owners are going to be very tempted to not split the revenue with the distribution companies as the technology evolves. We all know what seems to happen to the middle-man.

Oh...it's not a fence we're on different sides of...just a net. Keep whacking the ball back...


Nah... no bickering.

I think the idea of getting rid of "unwanted" channels, in an a la carte system, is a compelling one.... I think you can make a really good argument both for and against a la carte, and what it would do to the overall price structure of 'pay tv'....

As a consumer, I'd love to be able to pick and choose my channels and save myself a few bucks by getting rid of things like MTV and the shopping channels and so on.

As a business owner, I realize that discounts come with volume... and I have my doubts that DirecTV (or any other provider) could operate under an "affordable" a la carte system. I think that the originators are going to charge more for the content, and the provider - be it DIrecTV or Dish or Cable - is going to pass along those charges, and their markup on top of it.... and so I have trouble embracing a scenario where a la carte makes sense.

Ken's link to Nielsen is definitely food for thought. If the AVERAGE is 16 channels tuned in per week, there are a bunch of people watching less than that. Obviously if you only want 5 channels, it doesn't make sense to pay for 100, and an a la carte system would work for those people.

But, there's still the issue of what the content providers do in the face of that kind of potential drop in viewership.

So... no bickering needed.... ;) Even though KenS and I are on different sides of the fence on this one, it would seem, we can have a good old fashioned grown up conversation about it.... at least for a while. I promise not to start calling names and throwing tantrums until NEXT week... :D

[Tom Robertson]

What frustrates me about the current system is that it encourages channel proliferation and puts tremendous power in the hands of the largest programming providers. For example, Disney used leverage with channels like Dis and ESPN to force ABC Family into the main tiers of most distributors like D*.

An example of needless channel proliferation is the recent launch of the NFL Network. Do we really need a dedicated channel for this? Not so long ago, you could watch most NFL games on the over the air networks. Today, you have to pay for dozens of channels to get this. Now we have sports leagues launching their own channels and many teams having their own. And since sports is so popular with a vocal group of viewers, they can easily demand exorbitant fees for this programming. When will this all end?

The big media conglomerates have every right to create whatever channels they want,(the Basketweaving Network!, the Left-handed Podiatry Channel!) just don't force us to pay for these channels if we don't want them.
At what point could you get more than 4 NFL games of the 13-16 games per week via OTA? :)

Ok, I get you don't want that channel. But I do. ;)

Cheers,
Tom

[Sharkie_Fan]

Sharkie,

Don't forget the earlier article where a number of cable companies also are pushing to be able to purchase the channels ala carte and sell them that way. Why is it only the major distribs (and content owners of course) want to keep things the way they are?

In many ways this may not matter. It may not be all that long before we're watching/purchasing all of our programming over the web and potentially on a show-by-show basis. The content owners are going to be very tempted to not split the revenue with the distribution companies as the technology evolves. We all know what seems to happen to the middle-man.

Oh...it's not a fence we're on different sides of...just a net. Keep whacking the ball back...

Oh, we all know why the content owners and distributors don't want to offer a la carte.... It's all about the money. I don't deny that. We've got that common ground we can start from, I think! :D Packages are easier to deliver for the distributors, and they allow the content owners to maximize their viewership. The owners might give the distributors 'a break' on the price per subscriber knowing that they'll have a ton of viewers, and viewers make the advertising slots more valuable. Give a little to get a lot more back.

If things go a la carte, then viewership will drop, which means advertising dollars drop, and the content owners are going to want to still get their piece of the pie and are going to want to charge more.

How much more is anyone's guess. I'd guess a channel like ESPN could charge darn near anything it wanted because people will pay it... How much more than the current per channel prices would the market bear? That depends upon how many channels a person wants... too many and the savings becomes inconsequential...

As a consumer, I'd love any way to save money each month. Especially with a struggling economy, and gas prices through the roof. If I could save $20 a month on my DirecTV bill, without giving up TVs or 'must have' channels, I'd do it in a second. We all would. I just have my doubts that a la carte is going to do that.

And it's not that a la carte is necessarily a bad thing. On paper, I think it makes sense. Pay only for what you watch. But, lets face it, the corporations involved in getting the content to us are going to want their piece of the pie no matter how the content is being delivered. Revenues are sure to drop in an a la carte system. I'm just not convinced that prices would do the same.

To me a la carte won't work... not because it's a bad plan, but because the people providing that content to us are looking out for #1, and if faced with a system where the only people paying for their channel are the ones actually watching the channel...They're going to put their prices as close to the ceiling as they possibly can.

[DarinC]

And it's not that a la carte is necessarily a bad thing. On paper, I think it makes sense. Pay only for what you watch.

I think that's how many people view it. They aren't considering the economics of the entire process, and rather applying a simple "if I get less, it should cost less" rationale to it. They are overlooking the fact that advertising significantly subsidizes the cost of the content they watch. They also forget that much of the overhead is fixed, regardless of how many viewers their are. It's very easy to implement an a la carte system that allows us to subscribe only to those channels we're interested in. Having that reduced channel count equate to a lower monthly bill is another thing all together.

People tend to point to VOD as an example of why and how a la carte can come into existence. They overlook the fact that it's current form is essentially funded by the networks, which exist financially on the old model. In a truly VOD model, I would expect the per-episode costs to be significantly higher than what we're accustomed to with linear broadcasting, and/or to have embedded advertising that is not skip-able (like web content).

[Ken S]

You skipped one part of my post. According to the article coming out of that cable company convention (can't recall the name) there appear to be many cable companies that want to move to ala carte.

There's another piece that just gets brushed over...ESPN, or any program provider, can't charge whatever it wants...they'll have to find a price point their customers will agree to...and also understand if they price too high they could face competition from others. At one time CNN was a "must-have" and now they're one of several cable news channels.

I agree things would change...some people would choose to pay more, some would pay less. Some channels would probably go away for lack of viewers/ad dollars...others might start-up and thrive in a marketplace where they don't have to fight against the big guys for bandwidth. Would anyone lament the loss of ESPN Classic...woops it's not really "Classic" anymore because they deemed the rights fees to the old games too expensive and now basically show drivel.

I also think most people wouldn't go with full ala carte...that's too much work. They would buy a small package and add-on the channels they want.

I also agree with you that the content owners and major distributors will fight this tooth and nail. They're making way too much the way it is to do something else...but the fact that the guys collecting the money think this system is best for them should tell you where they think pricing would eventually go. You can't tell me that DirecTV wouldn't prefer their ARPU to be $110/month.

As I said earlier...this will all shake-out over time....as the music industry has started to finally realize if you don't sell your product in the method that your customers prefer they'll find other ways to get it.

Oh, and I do agree with DarinC (BTW, the Jan Brady pic always makes me laugh).I think the days of skipping commercials are drawing to an end. The DVR is a neat device...but eventually all that content is going to be sitting on a server(s) and not 50,000,000 individual hard drives.

Oh, we all know why the content owners and distributors don't want to offer a la carte.... It's all about the money. I don't deny that. We've got that common ground we can start from, I think! :D Packages are easier to deliver for the distributors, and they allow the content owners to maximize their viewership. The owners might give the distributors 'a break' on the price per subscriber knowing that they'll have a ton of viewers, and viewers make the advertising slots more valuable. Give a little to get a lot more back.

If things go a la carte, then viewership will drop, which means advertising dollars drop, and the content owners are going to want to still get their piece of the pie and are going to want to charge more.

How much more is anyone's guess. I'd guess a channel like ESPN could charge darn near anything it wanted because people will pay it... How much more than the current per channel prices would the market bear? That depends upon how many channels a person wants... too many and the savings becomes inconsequential...

As a consumer, I'd love any way to save money each month. Especially with a struggling economy, and gas prices through the roof. If I could save $20 a month on my DirecTV bill, without giving up TVs or 'must have' channels, I'd do it in a second. We all would. I just have my doubts that a la carte is going to do that.

And it's not that a la carte is necessarily a bad thing. On paper, I think it makes sense. Pay only for what you watch. But, lets face it, the corporations involved in getting the content to us are going to want their piece of the pie no matter how the content is being delivered. Revenues are sure to drop in an a la carte system. I'm just not convinced that prices would do the same.

To me a la carte won't work... not because it's a bad plan, but because the people providing that content to us are looking out for #1, and if faced with a system where the only people paying for their channel are the ones actually watching the channel...They're going to put their prices as close to the ceiling as they possibly can.

[Sharkie_Fan]

You skipped one part of my post. According to the article coming out of that cable company convention (can't recall the name) there appear to be many cable companies that want to move to ala carte.

There's another piece that just gets brushed over...ESPN, or any program provider, can't charge whatever it wants...they'll have to find a price point their customers will agree to...and also understand if they price too high they could face competition from others. At one time CNN was a "must-have" and now they're one of several cable news channels.


Admittedly, I didn't read the article about cable companies... BUT... it wouldn't surprise me in the least to hear that smaller cable companies want to go to a la carte. You know the bigger ones are going to fight it because of the dollars involved. You also know that there is a huge consumer base that wants a la carte programming. If those smaller companies could get on the a la carte wagon just a step ahead of the big ones, they're likely to bring in some new customers.

Plus, there may be a matter of affording the big contracts with a bunch of channels bundled together. With a la carte, they'd pay only for the channels they wanted to offer.

With Satellite, on the other hand, there are 2 distributors and they're BIG, with tons of dollars involved....

And, your comment about ESPN & how much they can charge.... I mentioned that. ;) They'll go as high as the market will bear. The viability of a la carte, IMHO, to great extent depends upon what the market will bear for individual channels.

The prices would be tempered, to some degree, by the lower viewership. ESPN (or whatever content provider) isn't going to risk going TOO high for fear of losing MORE viewership. They're going to push the envelope, but they're going to push it conservatively, which is good for consumers.

As far as TV via the internet and programs stored on the server and the like... I think we've got some time to argue about a la carte programming before that starts happening. ;)

[Ken S]

As far as TV via the internet and programs stored on the server and the like... I think we've got some time to argue about a la carte programming before that starts happening. ;)

We do...but it's less time than you think. The "DVR" Cablevision just won it's lawsuit over shows that the technology is already possible. How long will it take? I dunno. I do know there were a bunch of people at AOL that didn't think broadband would get here nearly as fast as it did (oops!).

That crazy dumb internet pipe that is being plugged into everyone's home and broadcast all over the place just doesn't seem to care what data it's carrying. :)

It'll be fun to watch it unfold and will probably cause more than a few ulcers in the board rooms of the major content distributors....especially the ones that don't own an internet pipe.

[mreposter]

At what point could you get more than 4 NFL games of the 13-16 games per week via OTA? :)

Ok, I get you don't want that channel. But I do. ;)

Cheers,
Tom


A long time ago CBS and NBC both showed 2 games each sunday for a total of four games. These days it's frequenty only 2 or 3 games. Plus, with cable bringing in nearby towns, the choice of Sunday day games was often different, adding 2 or 3 more choices. Add in ABC Monday night football and you have about half the games on free broadcast TV.

I don't have a beef with NFL network per-say, I just don't like paying for something that used to be free.

[Tom Robertson]

A long time ago CBS and NBC both showed 2 games each sunday for a total of four games. These days it's frequenty only 2 or 3 games. Plus, with cable bringing in nearby towns, the choice of Sunday day games was often different, adding 2 or 3 more choices. Add in ABC Monday night football and you have about half the games on free broadcast TV.

I don't have a beef with NFL network per-say, I just don't like paying for something that used to be free.

My problem is that 4 games a week was never "most games".

BTW, every game is still potentially free--somewhere. Usually the local team's stations pay for the rights to air the games locally that would be on a pay channel, including NFL network. (I qualify that statement in that I don't know if all 32 teams make such arrangements, but they can. And I also know the blackout rules often prevent a local team being seen if the team doesn't sell out but the away team can still see it free.) :)

And I also remember a time when I really could watch most of the games for free--if you don't count the chunk of change I dropped into a BUD satellite system. :)

Cheers,
Tom

[Sharkie_Fan]

We do...but it's less time than you think. The "DVR" Cablevision just won it's lawsuit over shows that the technology is already possible. How long will it take? I dunno. I do know there were a bunch of people at AOL that didn't think broadband would get here nearly as fast as it did (oops!).

That crazy dumb internet pipe that is being plugged into everyone's home and broadcast all over the place just doesn't seem to care what data it's carrying. :)

It'll be fun to watch it unfold and will probably cause more than a few ulcers in the board rooms of the major content distributors....especially the ones that don't own an internet pipe.

I think the thing that may slow the transition to TV via the internet is that internet connections can vary so drastically in speed and quality. Add to that the fact that if we're downloading all our TV via that pipe, there'll be some more stress on it...

At least short term, there are going to be people who need a more 'traditional' delivery of their programming because they dont' have a connection that will support it. My DSL is really good at times, and can be spotty at other times... I'd be reluctant to switch to internet delivered programming until I have an internt connection that's as reliable as my current satellite setup....

You're probably right, though, that it'll happen faster than we think.