Pick Your Channels

[transplant]

:) I would like to see the following in 2006. Charlie give everyone a choice of the channnels you wish to subscribe to. He could price the channels chosen by you as those you watch according to what Charlie is charged to carry them. Then you wouldn't have to subscribe to a bunch of junk channels that you don't even watch just to get the ones that you do watch. I don't see why that would be so difficult for him to do

[chaddux]

He could price the channels chosen by you as those you watch according to what Charlie is charged to carry them.

Apparently, DISH Network is supposed to become a charity organization. If you pay only what DISH Network is charged to carry them, they don't make a profit. That's not going to happen. If you think it will, you are delusional.

[transplant]

You don't get the drift my friend Chaddux. The price Charlie would charge would be based on the price Charlie pays. By that I mean he would approximate the number of subscribers wanting a particular channel and then divide his expense by that number. Of course he would not charge same amount he pays. That is only common sense. I assume you have some of latter.

[buckyp]

You don't get the drift my friend Chaddux. The price Charlie would charge would be based on the price Charlie pays. By that I mean he would approximate the number of subscribers wanting a particular channel and then divide his expense by that number. Of course he would not charge same amount he pays. That is only common sense. I assume you have some of latter.

I guess I dont get your math. If he divides his expenses by the number of subscribers, then he nets ZERO. I won't work for nothing, and while he has a lot of money already, I don't think he will work for nothing.

[James Long]

:welcome_s transplant
"What Charlie pays *plus* markup"?

I expect a new 'core' package to be coming out that will be more 'family friendly' to allow people to subscribe to a set of 'safe' channels but I do NOT expect full a la carte.

JL

[chaddux]

You don't get the drift my friend Chaddux. The price Charlie would charge would be based on the price Charlie pays. By that I mean he would approximate the number of subscribers wanting a particular channel and then divide his expense by that number. Of course he would not charge same amount he pays. That is only common sense. I assume you have some of latter.

Obviously, you don't have any common sense. That's exactly what you said in your first post but you just used a bunch of extra words. Using your math, DISH Network still makes ZERO PROFIT. If subscribers pay exactly what DISH Network pays, that equals zero profit! What JL said would be correct but that is NOT what you said.

[CCarncross]

I'm still not sure this ala carte channel thing is going to be good for anyone in the long run. It hasnt been thought through very well, and I'm afraid its going to make the situation worse. I see about half the channels going bye-bye, and it will affect most subscribers because everyone will lose certain channels they want. Currently, E*, and D*, and pretty much all providers pay for groups of channels from many companies, and agree to carry their other channels as part of the agreement, and they would end up charging more for the channels individually. Bottom line, people *think* they can save money with this, but it may end up costing a good percentage of the subscribers more, and not saving most any money at all...Look at the wish list requests, I want this channel added, I want that channel added, they dont say I'm willing to pay more to just get teh channels I want to see....which could very well happen.....

[Stewart Vernon]

I expect a new 'core' package to be coming out that will be more 'family friendly' to allow people to subscribe to a set of 'safe' channels but I do NOT expect full a la carte.

I like the idea of a Family-friendly package. I'm no prude, but there are times when I find myself not wanting to watch some things... and definately if there are family or mixed company visiting, I would like to not be surprised in the middle of the show with family non-friendly content even if I would be ok watching it myself.

[lakebum431]

Obviously, you don't have any common sense. That's exactly what you said in your first post but you just used a bunch of extra words. Using your math, DISH Network still makes ZERO PROFIT. If subscribers pay exactly what DISH Network pays, that equals zero profit! What JL said would be correct but that is NOT what you said.

Why do you insist on being so rude to everyone? If you disagree that is perfectly fine. State your opinion and tell the OP why you don't like his idea. But there is no reason to be rude. I see this time and time again with your posts. Why the chip on your shoulder?

[chaddux]

Why do you insist on being so rude to everyone? If you disagree that is perfectly fine. State your opinion and tell the OP why you don't like his idea. But there is no reason to be rude. I see this time and time again with your posts. Why the chip on your shoulder?

If you had read the OP's post, you'd know what I said what I said. The OP was the one being rude. I simply replied. The OP said in his post:

"That is only common sense. I assume you have some of latter."

I simply replied using some of his own words. It's not a disagreement. It's the fact that his math is just simply wrong. If subscribers pay cost with no markup (which is what the OP is suggesting), DISH Network makes no profit. Period.

[BobaBird]

Then let's look at his words, taking out a bunch of extras.

Post #1: "He could price the channels ... according to what Charlie is charged ..."

"According to," not "at." I think we all know that some channels charge more to be carried than others, even if we don't know the exact figures. Transplant suggests that this could follow through to retail prices which would be based on each individual channel's cost rather than some flat amount per channel. He did not say Charlie should sell at cost.

Post #3: "The price Charlie would charge would be based on the price Charlie pays."

"Be based on," not "be." This would be a little clearer if it said the price would be based on the cost but it's not that big a stretch to see the meaning.

"By that I mean he would approximate the number of subscribers wanting a particular channel and then divide his expense by that number."

This might have been worded a bit better, but taken in context with the sentences immediately before and after, this is just a proposed method of establishing a wholesale expense per a la carte subscriber.

"Of course he would not charge same amount he pays."

How does this statement suggest "no markup?" How does (based on the price) - (the price) = ZERO? The only case where that math works is when "based on" means "same as."

buckyp, in your math, how did you come up with "nets ZERO" when the only elements in your equation are expenses and subscribers? Not to mention coming up with a result of zero after division.

No, he did not explicitly use the words "markup," wholesale," "retail," or "profit" in either post. All he has done is suggest that the "per interested subscriber" (as opposed to all AT60 subscribers) cost be computed to be used as the basis for establishing a retail price.

The debate over a la carte pricing usually revolves around its merits as a business model. I think I want it but worry about the warnings of those who say we will lose a lot of niche channels that add variety and may not save much money anyway.

Sorry for the rocky welcome there transplant. Stick around, it does get better.

[CCarncross]

I like the idea of a Family-friendly package. I'm no prude, but there are times when I find myself not wanting to watch some things... and definately if there are family or mixed company visiting, I would like to not be surprised in the middle of the show with family non-friendly content even if I would be ok watching it myself.

Thats exactly what vchips and locks and limits are for...all people need to do is use them....

:D

[ClaudeR]

BobaBird - Thanks for chiming in, this thread was definitely in the wrong direction. I like the alacarte concept, but I also fear paying more than expected to get my half dozen channels. (I agree every item is based on cost where cost includes actual cost plus materials handling fees, administrative fees, labor costs, and profit)

[FTA Michael]

Ahem. What Dish charges its customers has as much to do with the money it pays for each channel as what McDonalds charges has to do with the price of beef. There's a small relationship, but the real driving force for pricing is the marketplace -- competition, price points, and finding what menu will produce the most profit.

To our rude OP, "The price Charlie would charge would be based on the price Charlie pays," just isn't how it works. For example, Dish's fixed costs are a larger expense than the per-subscriber fees paid to content providers. Dish's stable of offerings is designed to maximize profit, and dreaming of an alternate system is an academic exercise at best.

[James Long]

E* manages to charge $5 per month for an account with no AT60 or similar level package (Great Wall or Dish Latino). E* manages to charge $5 per month for each additional receiver on an account. It could be argued that maintaining an account and receivers in E*'s database is worth about $5 per receiver to E*.

So what is stopping E* from having a $5 base plus $x per a la carte channel package? The billing system.

The authorization system already treats most channels in the system as individuals. E* could turn off CNN and turn on FNC in the authorization system and the receivers would happily comply. But the back office system at E* isn't designed to handle AT channels as individual channels. (There are a few AT channels that are individual, such as Bloomberg, but not many.) To allow for complete a la carte the backoffice systems would have to be upgraded ... a dozen basic options would easily become two hundred. And an accurate bill would have to list each individual channel turned on for each individual subscriber.

That level of management costs money. It is much cheaper for E* to manage channels in large groups - turning on 50-70 at a time in the back office software instead of dealing with individual channels.

Of course the average consumer looks at "60 channels for $30" and thinks they can cut their bill by choosing channels at $2 each. The slightly more informed consumer realises that many of those channels are free (shopping and PIs) and some of those channels cost E* more than others (ESPN). So they guess maybe $1.50 per channel for the regular channels and maybe $5-10 for the ESPNs and think they can get a deal. Not so much.

We can have an a la carte system where people pay $30 per month for 30 channels or we can stick with packages where $30 gives you 70-80 channels (some junk) and $40 gives you 160-170 channels (some music). In the end, the consumer wins without a la carte.

JL

[kstevens]

:welcome_s transplant
"What Charlie pays *plus* markup"?

I expect a new 'core' package to be coming out that will be more 'family friendly' to allow people to subscribe to a set of 'safe' channels but I do NOT expect full a la carte.

JL

You may not expect it but this is the way Congress and the FCC are currently leaning. A lot of the content providers are looking at these "Family Packs" in hopes it will appease them.


Ken

[Stewart Vernon]

Thats exactly what vchips and locks and limits are for...all people need to do is use them....

:D

Not really... The V-chip and locks and limit are a blanket block either for an entire channel or for an entire program that is "rated" beyond the level you select to block. I find the ratings system to be haphazard and lacking, and not always reflective of the actual content.

So it would be nice, for instance, to just have a bunch of channels that you know are all designed around family programming and all you have to do is decide if you like the show, not whether it will be questionable material.

I'm not for censorship, and I watch objectionable stuff too... but I like for folks to have the choice when they can, and sometimes I want family programming too... like I really don't want to watch Zombies eating people when I'm having dinner... and I don't watch the really scary stuff at night just before bed... so there are times when even I want more family-oriented TV to watch. Some folks want that all the time.

And channels like ABCFamily many times actually aren't, in my opinion, showing family programming... so even the name of the channel can be questionable!

[Chris Freeland]

Comcast and Time Warner cable have already announced Family friendly tiers they are starting in 06. With these new tiers, not only are you getting channels that show mostly G and some PG type programing, Comcast and TW are also charging less for these tiers compared to expanded basic and normal digital cable because they have also left out the expensive sports channels like ESPN and the RSN's. For example, Comcast is charging only $14.95/mo for their Family tier plus limited basic, here in Chattanooga that comes to $7 - 9/mo depending on neighborhood and then add $6.95 for each required digital box, if you get 1 box this would add up to $29 -31/mo for 30 -40 channels, compared to $46.50/mo for 67 Preferred basic channels or $61.45/mo if you add the 45 or so channel Digital Plus. So those family's willing to go with out the expensive sports channels and do not want to subsidies channels with questionable content for their family can save $15 - 30/mo with this new Family friendly tier. It will be interesting to see what kind of Family friendly tier that E* comes out with.

[TNGTony]

So what is stopping E* from having a $5 base plus $x per a la carte channel package? The billing system.

Has everyone forgotten about why the Dish Pix Package had to be dropped? It was at the insistance of the program providers. Everyone and their brother INSIST on being made available on the most basic tier of programming. An a la carte tier is impossible when you have ABC/Disney/ESPN isnisting that if some one wants ESPN, they have to get Disney, Toon Disney, ABC Family, ESPN Classic, ESPNews, ESPN2. And Viacomm inisiting if some one wants Nickelodeon, they have to get Nick GAS, Nick Toons, Spike, Comedy Cental, BET, TV Land.

For those that do not remember, Dish Pix was an a la carte package. It cost $15 a month and you chose 10 channels from a menu. The menu kept getting smaller and smaller until it just wasn't work the trouble. The package was eventually discontinued to new subscribers in 2000 I think.

See ya
Tony

[Chris Freeland]

Has everyone forgotten about why the Dish Pix Package had to be dropped? It was at the insistance of the program providers. Everyone and their brother INSIST on being made available on the most basic tier of programming. An a la carte tier is impossible when you have ABC/Disney/ESPN isnisting that if some one wants ESPN, they have to get Disney, Toon Disney, ABC Family, ESPN Classic, ESPNews, ESPN2. And Viacomm inisiting if some one wants Nickelodeon, they have to get Nick GAS, Nick Toons, Spike, Comedy Cental, BET, TV Land.

For those that do not remember, Dish Pix was an a la carte package. It cost $15 a month and you chose 10 channels from a menu. The menu kept getting smaller and smaller until it just wasn't work the trouble. The package was eventually discontinued to new subscribers in 2000 I think.

See ya
Tony

Yes I remember that package, in fact in the very beginning of E*, DishPix was even cheaper at $10/mo for 10 channels and you did not even have to pay a $5/mo access fee or get any thing else. When E* first started if you did not want to pay $19.99/mo for AT40 and just wanted Premiums for example, you just payed $13.99/mo for each premium compared to $10/mo each if you added them to DishPix or AT40.

[Geronimo]

I would agrgee. The only technical impediment is the billing system but E* is likely constrained by deals made with the major providers.

[FTA Michael]

I used to help develop billing/service software that was very similar to what E* must use, so I feel very confident in saying that the cost to upgrade the database to handle channel-by-channel a la carte would be relatively trivial. If it took a $1 million to accomplish, that would be less than 10 cents per sub for one month. And I seriously doubt that the upgrade would cost $1 million.

Consider all the options available now, including all the international channels. The database must be expandable to handle new channels and choices when they become available. Adding another 100 choices for individual channels is not as hard as it might sound, considering that the existing system must be already set up to grow when needed.

Just think about how amazing the system is already. Zip code by zip code, Dish knows which sports shows to black out, which local channels are available. Receiver by receiver, Dish knows which channels are subscribed, which are merely available, which are invisible. And Dish relays all that information to each receiver, identified individually, by bouncing instructions off the satellites.

As far as paying for the channels, it could work as it does now; additions could be free via the web and subtractions/swaps could cost $5 to pay for 10 minutes of CSR time.

But it's all academic now. Content providers won't unbundle channels unless the government forces them to, and that doesn't appear likely any time soon.

[CCarncross]

HDMe, how do you expect a family tier programming package to work any different than only having certain channels in the package? At least with vchips and locks and limits type setups, you get to choose what channels you watch, with a tier of programming, someone else is choosing which channels are appropriate for you....Theres no reason to block programming on Cartoon Network during the day, but it could not be part of teh family tier after say 9 pm or so, I know at 11pm it shows whats called Adult Swim, not family programming...so does Cartoon Network belong in teh family tier? Or do they include it in the family tier, but it goes dark when objectionable programming comes on? If its gonna go dark why not just use the vchip or locks and limits, you end up with the exact same scenario either way...

[greatwhitenorth]

The scariest thought I've heard in a long time..."I can't be bothered with deciding what's appropriate for me and my family, I want the government to decide..."

Make your own "Family Tier" with the locks on your reciever or cable box. You've already got the power....

[James Long]

Some people don't want to pay for the channels they have locked out.

JL

[HarbingerGA]

greatwhitenorth says... The scariest thought I've heard in a long time..."I can't be bothered with deciding what's appropriate for me and my family, I want the government to decide..."
James Long says... Some people don't want to pay for the channels they have locked out.

The issue is not in having the government choosing your channels; it is the fact that the government is having to step in because (for all practical purposes) the industry is choosing your channels. The average customer can probably accept, even if he doesn't like, paying for channels he doesn't watch. However, that same customer may resent paying for channels that he finds objectionable.

IMHO, the average American prefers some friction between government and business because it at least gives them the feeling that neither side is getting to screw them over completely.

[CCarncross]

James, the point several are trying to make is, sure they could set it up so technically they arent paying for those channels, but they will pay more for fewer channels. Thats assinine when 5 minutes in front of their tv can fix the problem now instead of waiting for some screwed up govt mandated bandaid. Especially based on the premise that a lot of the people will say it was done wrong after the fact and then want another bandaid, etc.., etc...we see this type of thing everyday in society, and we never seem to learn....

[James Long]

James, the point several are trying to make is, ...I understand the point - do you understand just how ticked people can get that they are FORCED to pay for something they don't even want available to watch. Yes, they will end up paying more via a la carte but their conscience will be clear.

JL

[transplant]

I seem to have started a very interesting debate. I may not have worded my original forula for Charlie to use but I didn't mean to cut Charlie short on profits. It seem to me a lot of the junk on the packages could be omitted from the packages like having ten shopping channels which I don't watch. Also all these foreign language channels are something I have no interest in since I speak only English. In order to get some of the more interesting channels, i.e., Hallmark, Science channel, NatGeographic etc you have to get the higher tier 180. I am sure Charlie could put together a package that would not have umpteen kiddie channels for us old folks who no longer want to watch cartoons.

[Stewart Vernon]

HDMe, how do you expect a family tier programming package to work any different than only having certain channels in the package? At least with vchips and locks and limits type setups, you get to choose what channels you watch, with a tier of programming, someone else is choosing which channels are appropriate for you....Theres no reason to block programming on Cartoon Network during the day, but it could not be part of teh family tier after say 9 pm or so, I know at 11pm it shows whats called Adult Swim, not family programming...so does Cartoon Network belong in teh family tier? Or do they include it in the family tier, but it goes dark when objectionable programming comes on? If its gonna go dark why not just use the vchip or locks and limits, you end up with the exact same scenario either way...

The problem, as I said before, with the v-chip... Some programs don't even carry a rating if they don't know how to rate it, like old movies pre-rating systems... and the v-chip will usually block these by default even if they are family programming.

Another problem is that the ratings system is not that detailed either... there are often wide difference gaps between one PG movie and another. Take, for instance, the G-rated Disney Hunchback of Notre Dame that had some mild scenes of sexuality in them regarding the evil guy's desire for the maiden of the story... how that movie is a G-rated movie, compared to the Rudolph Christmas special is a head-scratcher.

I'm not for censorship... and I like watching a variety of stuff... but it would also be nice if I knew tuning to ABCFamily, for instance, would always be family programming... but some days they have shown Cruel Intentions... and while I have watched that movie, and wasn't offended by it... I would not classify it as family programming!

I agree people should decide for themselves... and parents should screen for their kids... but sometimes the movie studios "cheat" the system to not get a more restrictive rating and you are surprised in a movie by a scene that wasn't advertised, but isn't appropriate for the mixed company or children in your presence.

To me the acid test for family programming... is if you would feel comfortable watching with your sister (or brother) or 10-12 year old child or mother in the room... then it is probably ok. Keeping in mind that if your family uses four-letter curse words every five minutes, then your family is not "family" in the traditional sense of the family-programming phrase.

IF they could come up with a Family tier of channels that only contained channels that carried 24-hr a day family programming... then I think this would be good.

For me, however, I would like to watch other programming sometimes... and I do intelligently choose things before watching with other people if I have a doubt about the content... and I have learned over time to watch out for the few things that do bother me to watch... I would just also like to know that there are some channels out there I can tune to at any time without thinking.

This is like... if someone paid for the Playboy channel, and they were showing Toy Story... but it was the Disney Toy Story, people would be disappointed in what they saw no doubt! ;) Just asking for some channels that do the same in reverse and actually have family stuff on when it looks like they should.

You wouldn't, for instance, expect to tune into the 700 Club and see a Jerry Springer type of dialog happening.

[FTA Michael]

I understand the point - do you understand just how ticked people can get that they are FORCED to pay for something they don't even want available to watch. Yes, they will end up paying more via a la carte but their conscience will be clear.And that's why I think reverse a la carte could work. Allow subscribers to opt out of a channel they actively oppose in exchange for the per-sub fee that Dish (or whoever) pays the content provider. Worked up about Fox News? Fill out a form, it gets switched off, you save 35 cents a month or whatever. Hate Comedy Central? Same routine, maybe it's 27 cents a month.

If you made the opt-out process just a little difficult (paper form to mail in? notarized?), the vast majority of viewers wouldn't bother. The only folks who would use the option would be the offended viewers and nuts like us who spend as much time talking about satellite TV as watching it. :D

Reverse a la carte would be the easiest way to satisfy offended viewers with a minimal impact on the industry. But it's all academic and won't happen any time soon, so we're all just ... what's that line from Blazing Saddles? :)

[chaddux]

And that's why I think reverse a la carte could work. Allow subscribers to opt out of a channel they actively oppose in exchange for the per-sub fee that Dish (or whoever) pays the content provider. Worked up about Fox News? Fill out a form, it gets switched off, you save 35 cents a month or whatever. Hate Comedy Central? Same routine, maybe it's 27 cents a month.

If you made the opt-out process just a little difficult (paper form to mail in? notarized?), the vast majority of viewers wouldn't bother. The only folks who would use the option would be the offended viewers and nuts like us who spend as much time talking about satellite TV as watching it. :D

Reverse a la carte would be the easiest way to satisfy offended viewers with a minimal impact on the industry. But it's all academic and won't happen any time soon, so we're all just ... what's that line from Blazing Saddles? :)

That's a really intriguing idea. That would probably be good for the television providers like DISH. If only the per-subscriber charge is deducted, the provider would still get the profit mark-up since it wouldn't be deducted. They get their profit; the subscriber gets rid of a channel they don't want and saves some money. I would definitely go for that idea.

Of course, if the per-subscriber charge isn't a flat rate, then the price of a channel would go up each time a person drops it. Do content providers like ESPN and A&E and the others charge per-subscriber (like 30 cents per subscriber per month) or just a lump sum amount regardless of how many subscribers there are (like $50,000 per month)?

[James Long]

And that's why I think reverse a la carte could work. Allow subscribers to opt out of a channel they actively oppose in exchange for the per-sub fee that Dish (or whoever) pays the content provider. Worked up about Fox News? Fill out a form, it gets switched off, you save 35 cents a month or whatever. Hate Comedy Central? Same routine, maybe it's 27 cents a month.Unfortunately I doubt it would save anyone any cents per month for dropping channels. They'll probably charge you a fee for channel blocking. :D

JL

[jessshaun]

Frankly, I would gladly pay MORE to get rid of channels I don't want on my TV. Heck... I would pay more to be able to choose my channels.

But I would be willing to settle for the "family package" that is supposedly being worked on. :-)

[chaddux]

Frankly, I would gladly pay MORE to get rid of channels I don't want on my TV.

Now, that is just plain silly. Why would you pay more to drop channels? Just pay the same price and BLOCK THE CHANNELS ON YOUR RECEIVERS. It's the same difference and you aren't paying more.

[jrb531]

I'm still not sure this ala carte channel thing is going to be good for anyone in the long run. It hasnt been thought through very well, and I'm afraid its going to make the situation worse. I see about half the channels going bye-bye, and it will affect most subscribers because everyone will lose certain channels they want. Currently, E*, and D*, and pretty much all providers pay for groups of channels from many companies, and agree to carry their other channels as part of the agreement, and they would end up charging more for the channels individually. Bottom line, people *think* they can save money with this, but it may end up costing a good percentage of the subscribers more, and not saving most any money at all...Look at the wish list requests, I want this channel added, I want that channel added, they dont say I'm willing to pay more to just get teh channels I want to see....which could very well happen.....

And the sky can fall also.

At this point we are all guessing but I'm willing to take a chance if it will allow be some.... heck "any" say in what channels I pay for.

Put ESPN in a premium pack and I would be happy LOL.

-JB

[jrb531]

Now, that is just plain silly. Why would you pay more to drop channels? Just pay the same price and BLOCK THE CHANNELS ON YOUR RECEIVERS. It's the same difference and you aren't paying more.

Maybe because some people would like to send a message.

You see it's not always about $$$. 1 cent or $100 is the same if you object to the content.

If I could save 50 cents by cancelling all ESPN then I would as long as it would send a message that I do not support sppiled athletes and the spiraling costs that have ruined sports today.

Can't afford to take the family to a game, can't watch it for free on TV and even if I do elect to pay for it I still have to deal with commercials.

Same goes for what some people consider offensive programming. They do not want to pay for it or support it. Sure they can block it for they are still paying for something they do not beleive in.

-JB

[robert koerner]

I heard a rumor that marginal revenue and marginal cost influence price (elementary economics).

The rumor also mentions that cost accounting, as well as financial statements, are an art.

Since the average consumer can’t do cost accounting, let alone understand elementary economics, in spite of “knowing” what something costs, they do not know what it “costs” a business.

I’m ready for “on-demand” programming.
I don’t watch anything other than what I’ve recorded, or rented.

Bob

[greatwhitenorth]

Since the average consumer can’t do cost accounting, let alone understand elementary economics, in spite of “knowing” what something costs, they do not know what it “costs” a business.


Bob
Average consumer? Heck, we have CEO's in this country who can't figure it out:lol:

[CCarncross]

The CEO's dont need to be able to figure it out, they just have to have a good CFO and accounting staff smart enough to figure it out.

[juan ellitinez]

Thats exactly what vchips and locks and limits are for...all people need to do is use them....

:D maybe people are tiredof paying for channels they dont watch!!!

[CCarncross]

SO if they will end up paying more for fewer channels, are they really paying for channels they dont watch? Just watch, these exact same people complaining about this, will complain when they have to pay more for the selections. In fact, in general, those people complaining now, are always complaining about something to do with their service, so it doesnt matter what changes get made, they will NEVER BE HAPPY....

[Fifty Caliber]

The scariest thought I've heard in a long time..."I can't be bothered with deciding what's appropriate for me and my family, I want the government to decide..."

Make your own "Family Tier" with the locks on your reciever or cable box. You've already got the power....

Yes but some people are too lazy or stupid to do this. That's why they are whining about "Family" tiers.

[jrb531]

E* manages to charge $5 per month for an account with no AT60 or similar level package (Great Wall or Dish Latino). E* manages to charge $5 per month for each additional receiver on an account. It could be argued that maintaining an account and receivers in E*'s database is worth about $5 per receiver to E*.

So what is stopping E* from having a $5 base plus $x per a la carte channel package? The billing system.

The authorization system already treats most channels in the system as individuals. E* could turn off CNN and turn on FNC in the authorization system and the receivers would happily comply. But the back office system at E* isn't designed to handle AT channels as individual channels. (There are a few AT channels that are individual, such as Bloomberg, but not many.) To allow for complete a la carte the backoffice systems would have to be upgraded ... a dozen basic options would easily become two hundred. And an accurate bill would have to list each individual channel turned on for each individual subscriber.

That level of management costs money. It is much cheaper for E* to manage channels in large groups - turning on 50-70 at a time in the back office software instead of dealing with individual channels.

Of course the average consumer looks at "60 channels for $30" and thinks they can cut their bill by choosing channels at $2 each. The slightly more informed consumer realises that many of those channels are free (shopping and PIs) and some of those channels cost E* more than others (ESPN). So they guess maybe $1.50 per channel for the regular channels and maybe $5-10 for the ESPNs and think they can get a deal. Not so much.

We can have an a la carte system where people pay $30 per month for 30 channels or we can stick with packages where $30 gives you 70-80 channels (some junk) and $40 gives you 160-170 channels (some music). In the end, the consumer wins without a la carte.

JL

Then do it online. Let me pick from a list online and place my order. They seem to have a similar system set up for ordering Dish. :)

-JB

[IowaStateFan]

Yes but some people are too lazy or stupid to do this. That's why they are whining about "Family" tiers.
Some maybe, but MOST do not want their $s going to support programming they find objectionable. Why can't you get that into your head?

[Greg Bimson]

Some maybe, but MOST do not want their $s going to support programming they find objectionable. Why can't you get that into your head?Objectionable programming?

Like what?

MTV?

ESPN?

The money generated by these channels goes directly into the bottom line of Viacom and Disney, respectively. If you support any properties of these groups, you are supporting their corporation.

Likewise, the largest of the multichannel vendors make money off of "objectionable material", namely the Adult PPV. If you are a customer of theirs, you are supporting programming you find objectionable.

Everyone with the theory they don't want their money to fund objectionable programming has their head buried squarely in the sand.

[IowaStateFan]

The money generated by these channels goes directly into the bottom line of Viacom and Disney, respectively. If you support any properties of these groups, you are supporting their corporation.

Everyone with the theory they don't want their money to fund objectionable programming has their head buried squarely in the sand.
First, I'm not a supporter of family tier (I'd rather have a true a la carte) but I do understand the concerns of those that want better control of the content coming into their homes (and who gets their hard earned $s). I'm also upset that fifty caliber won't even admit that there are other legitimate reasons for wanting a family tier other than being lazy or stupid. I'm certainly not lazy or stupid. I use parental controls and I supervise what my kids watch. According to you I've got my head in the sand (though I have to disagree :) ), and I certainly don't believe that makes me stupid.

Now, what you say about money generated by these corps is true. If I support any program from Disney or Viacom it goes to the corporations bottom line. However, that doesn't mean that money generated by the Disney Channel somehow supports ESPN over any length of time. Disney treats them as separate entities, and expects them both to be profitable. If ESPN isn't profitable, Disney will have to revamp it to make it profitable, or pull it. Now since I can't subscribe to The Disney Channel without also subscribing to ESPN, I am subsidizing ESPN and helping to keep it on the air. What many consumers are asking for is the ability to vote with their wallet, and tell the providers which programs and channels they want to support. If it turns out that ESPN (or any other "objectionable") program or channel can be profitable, then I'm all for it being provided. That doesn't mean I want to support it with my $'s.

BTW, in case you couldn't tell by my username, I am a sports fan and do not find ESPN objectionable. It's probably the one channel that is on more than any other in my home :D . I'm just using it as an example since you (and many others) brought it up.

[Greg Bimson]

Now, what you say about money generated by these corps is true. If I support any program from Disney or Viacom it goes to the corporations bottom line. However, that doesn't mean that money generated by the Disney Channel somehow supports ESPN over any length of time.How do you know? Disney bought what is now known as ABC Family. The money had to come from somewhere. So revenues generated by other properties actually went to purchase ABC Family.

Fox News Channel was started by giving cable operators money per subscriber; the News Corporation basically subsidized the channel, through revenues of their other properties. Therefore, the channel itself was a money loser out of the gate, and now it commands a premium. However, if it wasn't for News Corporation's other properties, the channel would have never got off the ground, even if they are separate companies within the News Corporation umbrella...

Which pales in comparision to the current packaging. You buy a package of channels from a company, such as a Comcast, DirecTV, Time Warner, or Dish Network. They are the ones that procure programming. Your money is no longer your money once you give it to another corporation. It doesn't matter if your money goes to Larry Flynt or Hugh Heffner or Mickey Mouse. After all, the distributor decides how they want to spend the money their customers generated.

There are no businesses where I get to decide how that business can spend the money I give them. It is absolutely foolhardy to believe by being able to pick and choose channels that the companies will not divert it to objectionable programming.

[rcbridge]

From the early conversation nothing was said about the cost of the infrastructure
on top of the programming cost that has to be recovered over time. If the take rate per sub is below a certain amount you lose money, it is a business!!

For those who find a lot of questionable channels offered, you can block them or just pull the plug and read a book or go outside!!
No one forces you to subscribe!

[Greg Bimson]

But to those of you that want a la carte, at least Disney has thrown a bone...

Disney Channel, East and West (sorry, you cannot unbundle it) can be obtained from Dish Network for a measly $9.99 per month. And that is just two channels.

[Paul Secic]

:) I would like to see the following in 2006. Charlie give everyone a choice of the channnels you wish to subscribe to. He could price the channels chosen by you as those you watch according to what Charlie is charged to carry them. Then you wouldn't have to subscribe to a bunch of junk channels that you don't even watch just to get the ones that you do watch. I don't see why that would be so difficult for him to do
It's not happening pal. Dish would go broke in months!

[IowaStateFan]

How do you know? Disney bought what is now known as ABC Family. The money had to come from somewhere. So revenues generated by other properties actually went to purchase ABC Family..

I am a corporate accountant. While I'm not privy to the television industry's books, I do understand corporate accounting and how businesses make decisions. Please note that I said "that doesn't mean that money generated by the Disney Channel somehow supports ESPN over any length of time." The money to purchase ABC Family did come from somewhere, but without looking at Disney's annual report I couldn't tell you where. Perhaps bank loans, stock sales, exchanging Disney stock for ABC Family, bonds, cash generated by the Disney Channel or some mix of the above. In the end that is irrelevent. If ABC Family can't support itself, Disney would axe it. If enough people quit subscribing because they didn't like the content, the content would change or it would go off the air. Disney and its investors are not going to keep pumping money indefinately into a money losing property.

Fox News Channel was started by giving cable operators money per subscriber; the News Corporation basically subsidized the channel, through revenues of their other properties. Therefore, the channel itself was a money loser out of the gate, and now it commands a premium. However, if it wasn't for News Corporation's other properties, the channel would have never got off the ground, even if they are separate companies within the News Corporation umbrella....
Sure FNC was a money loser out of the gate, but News Corp saw a potential money maker and subsidized it for the short run - not the long-term. And again, I don't know how it was funded. For all I know, it may have been outside investors who understood and valued Rupert Murdoch's business savy and not from his current operations. As I said before, that is irrelevent. My point is that if there was no profit to be made, Murdoch wouldn't have spent a penny on it.

Which pales in comparision to the current packaging. You buy a package of channels from a company, such as a Comcast, DirecTV, Time Warner, or Dish Network. They are the ones that procure programming. Your money is no longer your money once you give it to another corporation. It doesn't matter if your money goes to Larry Flynt or Hugh Heffner or Mickey Mouse. After all, the distributor decides how they want to spend the money their customers generated.

There are no businesses where I get to decide how that business can spend the money I give them. It is absolutely foolhardy to believe by being able to pick and choose channels that the companies will not divert it to objectionable programming.
I understand your point, and that is why I rarely make my purchasing decisions based on moral grounds. Most companies offer more than one product or service, and some of them may be objectionable. It's true that once the company has my money it's up to them to decide how to use it in the best interest of their stakeholders. I'm sure that every content provider will invest in producing programming that someone will find objectionable. That is there right. What I object to is being forced to subscribe to such a channel in order to get the programming I do support. Again, if enough consumers voted with their pocket book, some of the objectionable stuff might not exist, or perhaps most of the so called "wholesome" channels would go away because they wouldn't get any support.

[IowaStateFan]

For those who find a lot of questionable channels offered, you can block them or just pull the plug and read a book or go outside!!
No one forces you to subscribe!
That is very true. I do block some things. As to not subscribing: the problem is that it is an "all or nothing" choice right now. I'd just like to have something inbetween.

[Fifty Caliber]

I don't know how anyone who does not purchase international or adult programing can say they are supporting it. As a matter of fact, these same people are being supported by the profits generated from adult programing. E* turns a large profit from adult programing which then allows them to carry channels like C-Span and TCM which I am sure generate little if anything in advertising revenue.

[Chris Freeland]

I don't know how anyone who does not purchase international or adult programing can say they are supporting it. As a matter of fact, these same people are being supported by the profits generated from adult programing. E* turns a large profit from adult programing which then allows them to carry channels like C-Span and TCM which I am sure generate little if anything in advertising revenue.

E* was carrying C-Span, TCM and others long before they had adult programing. E* can make a profit without adult programing, they just make more with it. Just because someone subs to E* does not mean they are supporting adult programing.

I too like the bigger programing packages, before I moved I had AT180, locals and Supers, now I have the Comcast Digital tier and will likely return to AT180 once I move again. I believe in giving people as many choices as possible however, and I have no problem with the DishFamily tier. Total "a la carte" will not likely ever be an option and may not work if it was, if people can have a tier that can save them some money and if they feel better because they do not feel they are supporting a bunch of channels that they do not watch, then more power too them.

[Stewart Vernon]

E* was carrying C-Span, TCM and others long before they had adult programing. E* can make a profit without adult programing, they just make more with it. Just because someone subs to E* does not mean they are supporting adult programing.

So, then why were all those commercials running in the US a while back saying that if you bought drugs then you were supporting terrorists? Since the money trail was traced along a path that led from drug dealers to terrorist supporters?

It is kind of like being a vegetarian or a "vegetarian".

A true vegetarian would only eat vegetables (no meat and no dairy and nothing that in any way came from an animal)... while the "vegetarian" may eat dairy products that come from an animal without harming it.

Technically not buying Adult PPV means you didn't support the Adult channel... but if there's even one penny of your bill payment that goes to a common source then on some level you have supported it.

Pay for internet, but don't visit adult sites? Well, you're still on some small level supporting those sites even if you never visit. The money is all connected somewhere.

IT really all depends on how nit-picky you want to get.

[IowaStateFan]

So, then why were all those commercials running in the US a while back saying that if you bought drugs then you were supporting terrorists? Since the money trail was traced along a path that led from drug dealers to terrorist supporters? ...... Pay for internet, but don't visit adult sites? Well, you're still on some small level supporting those sites even if you never visit. The money is all connected somewhere.

IT really all depends on how nit-picky you want to get.
This is crazy. Are you suggesting that if I buy collectibles from you, and you buy meat from your neighborhood butcher who in turn buys illegal drugs, that you and I are then supporting terrorism??? Give me a break :nono2:! Each of us can choose how to spend the money we have. Once it's left our hands we no longer control it nor are we responsible for its subsequent uses. Similarly, I am not supporting adult programming just because I'm a Dishnetwork subscriber. I am, however, supporting risque trash on MTV and E! (my opinion) by being a Dishnetwork subscriber because my money is going directly to them. If you want to subscribe to that it's fine by me, but I'd rather not. Telling me to just block it using parental controls just doesn't cut it, IMO. I don't want to even pay for it!

[Geronimo]

You don't get the drift my friend Chaddux. The price Charlie would charge would be based on the price Charlie pays. By that I mean he would approximate the number of subscribers wanting a particular channel and then divide his expense by that number. Of course he would not charge same amount he pays. That is only common sense. I assume you have some of latter.


I think that most of us understand what you mean. There is after all a difference between a price that IS the cost that Echostar pays and a price that IS BASED ON the price that Echostar pays.

Having said that I agree with JL and others that we are unlikely to see a la carte pricing like this.

[Stewart Vernon]

This is crazy. Are you suggesting that if I buy collectibles from you, and you buy meat from your neighborhood butcher who in turn buys illegal drugs, that you and I are then supporting terrorism??? Give me a break :nono2:! Each of us can choose how to spend the money we have. Once it's left our hands we no longer control it nor are we responsible for its subsequent uses. Similarly, I am not supporting adult programming just because I'm a Dishnetwork subscriber. I am, however, supporting risque trash on MTV and E! (my opinion) by being a Dishnetwork subscriber because my money is going directly to them. If you want to subscribe to that it's fine by me, but I'd rather not. Telling me to just block it using parental controls just doesn't cut it, IMO. I don't want to even pay for it!

I didn't say *I* believed it... Just saying that some people do! Although, your example of supporting MTV because you pay Dish (but don't watch the channel) and Dish in turn pays MTV is very much like your example of the butcher and the drug dealer. Think about it :)

Take, for instance Michael Jackson... When he was going through his child-molestation accusation trial, there were many fans of his music that destroyed their copies of his records and stopped buying his music because they didn't want to support his lifestyle if he was guilty.

Some folks didn't go to Lakers games when Kobe was going through his trial for similar reasons.

Depending on the issue at hand and how serious people are about their beliefs... some folks do believe that even a tenuous connection is still a connection.

I, for instance, would feel funny taking money from someone IF I knew their money came directly from some violent crime... but if I was a homeless man living on the street, I expect I would be less concerned about the source of the money if it let me buy some food or a place to stay for the night.

Not saying I draw the line so technically... but I know there are people who do... and sometimes I understand why, even if I don't completely agree.

[IowaStateFan]

I didn't say *I* believed it... Just saying that some people do! Although, your example of supporting MTV because you pay Dish (but don't watch the channel) and Dish in turn pays MTV is very much like your example of the butcher and the drug dealer. Think about it :)
I thought somebody might pick up on that. While it is true that my cash goes to Dish who then distributes it, the amount they distribute is directly related to the number of subscribers. If I could choose to exclude MTV from my subscription, then Dish has one less MTV subscriber and would pay less to Viacom. Therefore, there is a direct connection between my subscription and the money the Viacom receives as opposed to the indirect connection between me and the drug dealer in the butcher example.

Depending on the issue at hand and how serious people are about their beliefs... some folks do believe that even a tenuous connection is still a connection.

Not saying I draw the line so technically... but I know there are people who do... and sometimes I understand why, even if I don't completely agree.
I'm the same. For me the line is a direct connection vs. indirect. As I said before, once the money leaves my hands, I have no control over it, but I can choose who I directly support. The reason I jumped into this fray was that there are some people posting here that think because some of us don't want to pay for content that we find objectionable we are too stupid or lazy to use parental controls. That just plain offends me. I have intentionally purchased programming for me that was innappropriate for my kids. I know how to use parental controls and will use them in the future. I just want to have more say in which programming gets my $, before it ever gets into my house.

[Greg Bimson]

I didn't say *I* believed it... Just saying that some people do! Although, your example of supporting MTV because you pay Dish (but don't watch the channel) and Dish in turn pays MTV is very much like your example of the butcher and the drug dealer. Think about it I thought somebody might pick up on that. While it is true that my cash goes to Dish who then distributes it, the amount they distribute is directly related to the number of subscribers.So what? That is NOT a direct transaction. There may be some relation, but there is a relation to a butcher buying drugs from a terrorist. Just because you are allowed to see part of the cost structure doesn't change the fact that this is an indirect relationship.If I could choose to exclude MTV from my subscription, then Dish has one less MTV subscriber and would pay less to Viacom. Therefore, there is a direct connection between my subscription and the money the Viacom receives as opposed to the indirect connection between me and the drug dealer in the butcher example.But you've never had that choice. MTV has been in a basic package from day one. And MTV's customers are distribution companies, not end users.

Of course, there is a flow of money that directly correlates to the amount your distributor has to pay the programming supplier, but since you buy in packages created by the distributor, there is no control on your part:I just want to have more say in which programming gets my $, before it ever gets into my house.And then, like most of us have said, vote with your wallet. In order to change the business paradigm, you must make some tough choices. If you really want change, drop the packages. And many must do so en masse to force the distributors to tell their programming suppliers they need to do business another way.

[IowaStateFan]

Of course, there is a flow of money that directly correlates to the amount your distributor has to pay the programming supplier, but since you buy in packages created by the distributor, there is no control on your part:And then, like most of us have said, vote with your wallet. In order to change the business paradigm, you must make some tough choices. If you really want change, drop the packages. And many must do so en masse to force the distributors to tell their programming suppliers they need to do business another way.
You're arguing the same thing I am. I think I've made a very similar post elsewhere. I have also said people should vote with their wallets. The problem is that our choice is currently between some package or no pay tv. There is nothing inbetween. I have chosen the smallest package I can that includes my "must have" channels. What I was trying to say is that I would like to be able to exclude channels that I find objectionable in order to send a message to the content providers. I realize that I cannot do this today. That doesn't invalidate my argument that I am directly supporting channels that I find objectionable.

[Greg Bimson]

What I was trying to say is that I would like to be able to exclude channels that I find objectionable in order to send a message to the content providers. I realize that I cannot do this today. That doesn't invalidate my argument that I am directly supporting channels that I find objectionable.Then you need to send a message to the distributor that packages these channels in this way. For years we hear that "it isn't our fault, the channel companies make us deliver programming this way". Then, all of a sudden, once FCC Chairman Martin threatens to even think about a la carte, the same distribution companies find a way to create different packages.

And, you aren't directly supporting channels you find objectionable. You are directly supporting the distributor in bringing the objectionable material to the basic packages. The problem here is that is a design of the free market. And I am quite surprised that many conservatives are desiring more regulations.

[Paul Secic]

The problem, as I said before, with the v-chip... Some programs don't even carry a rating if they don't know how to rate it, like old movies pre-rating systems... and the v-chip will usually block these by default even if they are family programming.

Another problem is that the ratings system is not that detailed either... there are often wide difference gaps between one PG movie and another. Take, for instance, the G-rated Disney Hunchback of Notre Dame that had some mild scenes of sexuality in them regarding the evil guy's desire for the maiden of the story... how that movie is a G-rated movie, compared to the Rudolph Christmas special is a head-scratcher.

I'm not for censorship... and I like watching a variety of stuff... but it would also be nice if I knew tuning to ABCFamily, for instance, would always be family programming... but some days they have shown Cruel Intentions... and while I have watched that movie, and wasn't offended by it... I would not classify it as family programming!

I agree people should decide for themselves... and parents should screen for their kids... but sometimes the movie studios "cheat" the system to not get a more restrictive rating and you are surprised in a movie by a scene that wasn't advertised, but isn't appropriate for the mixed company or children in your presence.

To me the acid test for family programming... is if you would feel comfortable watching with your sister (or brother) or 10-12 year old child or mother in the room... then it is probably ok. Keeping in mind that if your family uses four-letter curse words every five minutes, then your family is not "family" in the traditional sense of the family-programming phrase.

IF they could come up with a Family tier of channels that only contained channels that carried 24-hr a day family programming... then I think this would be good.

For me, however, I would like to watch other programming sometimes... and I do intelligently choose things before watching with other people if I have a doubt about the content... and I have learned over time to watch out for the few things that do bother me to watch... I would just also like to know that there are some channels out there I can tune to at any time without thinking.

This is like... if someone paid for the Playboy channel, and they were showing Toy Story... but it was the Disney Toy Story, people would be disappointed in what they saw no doubt! ;) Just asking for some channels that do the same in reverse and actually have family stuff on when it looks like they should.

You wouldn't, for instance, expect to tune into the 700 Club and see a Jerry Springer type of dialog happening.

I've seen lots of adult ads on TV LAND and Lifetime and on local stations such as Women's warming gel. I'm wondering how this will be addressed.

[IowaStateFan]

And, you aren't directly supporting channels you find objectionable. You are directly supporting the distributor in bringing the objectionable material to the basic packages. The problem here is that is a design of the free market. And I am quite surprised that many conservatives are desiring more regulations.
Perhaps we are arguing symantics here. To be quite honest I'm not really that offended by the stuff I subscribe to, but I understand why some would be. I also agree with you on the free market issue, but I have been waffling about whether or not we need more regulations. I don't believe that the current market is truly free, but at the same time pay tv is not a necessity. We are all free to subscribe or not at the prices being offered. As long as we are subscribing in the numbers necessary for everyone to benefit, there is really no reason for anything to change. If we really want change we should, as you say, "vote with our wallets." Government intervention - even with good intentions - usually makes things worse.

[Greg Bimson]

If we really want change we should, as you say, "vote with our wallets." Government intervention - even with good intentions - usually makes things worse.Then we are on the same page.

For the most part, I believe those that are offended by some programming are also looking for a cheap way out. I suspect that pricing has more to do with any given issue than "offensiveness". It's funny how the religious broadcasters have an issue with unbundling because they'd be afraid they'd be left out. So, they'd rather ply their wares alongside the likes of MTV or Spike because the alternative would probably be no carriage at all.

[WHNB]

Highlights of yesterday's USAToday article on a la carte:

ESPN costs $2-$3 per month per cable subscriber, but only 30% of subscribers regularly watch it. The remaining 70% of subscribers subsidize it.

USAToday Poll: 53% of Americans would not purchase a sports programming package that contained ESPN if they had the choice.

Dish Network CEO Charlie Ergen is quoted as saying that he'd offer a la carte "in a heartbeat" if the content providers allowed it.

Charles Dolan, chairman of cable system/content provider Cablevision, publicly favors a la carte, saying it would be better for the consumer than bundling.

Internet downloads of network shows for $1.99 and 99 cents are setting the stage for a la carte in the near future.

Read the full article at:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/2006-03-01-ala-carte-cable_x.htm

[Michael P]

Quote:
Originally Posted by transplant
You don't get the drift my friend Chaddux. The price Charlie would charge would be based on the price Charlie pays. By that I mean he would approximate the number of subscribers wanting a particular channel and then divide his expense by that number. Of course he would not charge same amount he pays. That is only common sense. I assume you have some of latter.

I think that most of us understand what you mean. There is after all a difference between a price that IS the cost that Echostar pays and a price that IS BASED ON the price that Echostar pays.

Having said that I agree with JL and others that we are unlikely to see a la carte pricing like this.I think what Transplant was saying is this:
Break up all the "AT" channels into groups based on what they cost E*,
then choose what you want "one form column A, 2 from column B", that way the one AT-180 channel you really want is available without taking the rest that you will never watch.

The new family pack is doing just that! It's the pack for those who don't want MTV or ESPN.

[IowaStateFan]

Dish Network CEO Charlie Ergen is quoted as saying that he'd offer a la carte "in a heartbeat" if the content providers allowed it.

Read the full article at:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/2006-03-01-ala-carte-cable_x.htm
Charlie is just like all of the other players that are both distributors and content providers. He say's he wants a la carte, but then bundles voom with the old HD pack because now that he has ownership interest he needs to get the voom subscriptions up. What a crock of ____!

[IowaStateFan]

I think what Transplant was saying is this:
Break up all the "AT" channels into groups based on what they cost E*,
then choose what you want "one form column A, 2 from column B", that way the one AT-180 channel you really want is available without taking the rest that you will never watch.

The new family pack is doing just that! It's the pack for those who don't want MTV or ESPN.
No it's not! I want ESPN but not MTV. Which pack provides that for me! Give me a la carte.

[Michael P]

Have you seen how Bell ExpressVu in Canada does their packs? Your minimum are the "locals" which are actually "regionals" all regions (i.e. you get every time zone for every national OTA network plus some regional OTA networks). You add to that "Sports" "Family" "U.S. Networks" etc. mix & match the packs that interest you.

[Stewart Vernon]

The reason I jumped into this fray was that there are some people posting here that think because some of us don't want to pay for content that we find objectionable we are too stupid or lazy to use parental controls. That just plain offends me. I have intentionally purchased programming for me that was innappropriate for my kids. I know how to use parental controls and will use them in the future. I just want to have more say in which programming gets my $, before it ever gets into my house.

I agree with this line of thinking, and I've posted in the past support for the Family plan concept. To me that is a different argument than the a la carte argument.

The traditional "a la carte argument" is about would I save money getting just what I want rather than being "forced" to pay for channels I don't want to watch.

The Family plan is more about people who find some programs and/or channels offensive and do not want them in their home and don't want to pay for them based on religious or moral or otherwise content objections.

To me, while similar arguments, they have a difference. The Family plan folks aren't necessarily expecting to save money but rather are more concerned about getting onlt acceptable programming in their homes. I'm sure they'd like to save money too, but the content is more the argument for them.

And I understand it. Sometimes I want something wholesome to watch, even though I watch other stuff too... and it can be tough sometimes sifting through everything to find something that qualifies as family-friendly.

[Stewart Vernon]

Highlights of yesterday's USAToday article on a la carte:

ESPN costs $2-$3 per month per cable subscriber, but only 30% of subscribers regularly watch it. The remaining 70% of subscribers subsidize it.

USAToday Poll: 53% of Americans would not purchase a sports programming package that contained ESPN if they had the choice.

Am I the only one noticing and wondering about the fuzzy math above?

70% of people don't watch ESPN but only 53% would choose not to pay for it? Huh? That means there are 17% of the people that want to pay for it and never watch it!

Methinks there is some mischief at work from the folks that wrote the article...

[bhenge]

70% of people don't watch ESPN but only 53% would choose not to pay for it? Huh? That means there are 17% of the people that want to pay for it and never watch it!

Methinks there is some mischief at work from the folks that wrote the article...

I think it means that 17% find something else in the "Sports Package" that makes it worth buying and they just become part of the 70% that don't watch ESPN but subsidize it. If ESPN was a standalone a-la-carte option, that 17% probably would not buy it.

[IowaStateFan]

Am I the only one noticing and wondering about the fuzzy math above?

70% of people don't watch ESPN but only 53% would choose not to pay for it? Huh? That means there are 17% of the people that want to pay for it and never watch it!

Methinks there is some mischief at work from the folks that wrote the article...
The key word in the quote is that 30% "regularly" watch ESPN. That could mean that the other 17% believe that they'd watch it enough to justify paying for it. Or there could be some mischief at work :rolleyes: .

[Stewart Vernon]

The key word in the quote is that 30% "regularly" watch ESPN. That could mean that the other 17% believe that they'd watch it enough to justify paying for it. Or there could be some mischief at work :rolleyes: .

Could be... I like several sports (as I often mention) but I'm not sure I would say I "regularly" watch ESPN, at least not any moreso than I regularly watch any other channel.

I regularly watch specific shows on ESPN and other channels... but there isn't any channel that I watch much more than another I don't think if I added up all the hours.

[sikma]

Well....that was a waist of my time reading 70+ posts that never did answer the original posters questions. I suggest closing the thread and someone could start a new thread about how impossible it will be to ever offer a la carte programming.

[UTFAN]

I'm still not sure this ala carte channel thing is going to be good for anyone in the long run. It hasnt been thought through very well, and I'm afraid its going to make the situation worse. I see about half the channels going bye-bye, and it will affect most subscribers because everyone will lose certain channels they want. Currently, E*, and D*, and pretty much all providers pay for groups of channels from many companies, and agree to carry their other channels as part of the agreement, and they would end up charging more for the channels individually. Bottom line, people *think* they can save money with this, but it may end up costing a good percentage of the subscribers more, and not saving most any money at all...Look at the wish list requests, I want this channel added, I want that channel added, they dont say I'm willing to pay more to just get teh channels I want to see....which could very well happen.....

The government will be involved in setting it up. You know, the folks who brought us the tax code....

[Stewart Vernon]

Well....that was a waist of my time reading 70+ posts that never did answer the original posters questions. I suggest closing the thread and someone could start a new thread about how impossible it will be to ever offer a la carte programming.

This was a waste of my time to read this post! :)

A la carte has been discussed to death, as I'm sure it will continue to be in the future.

What answer were you looking for? The original poster posted a suggestion not a question.

[the_bear]

The government will be involved in setting it up. You know, the folks who brought us the tax code....I just got back from vacation in Hawaii, where the government has added price caps on gasoline. Similar to DBS service, there are many complaints that unregulated prices are too high. Let’s see how those gas caps “help” customers when suppliers stop selling to an unprofitable market.