Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General DISH™ Discussion' started by Paul Secic, Mar 20, 2013.
And they are doing this because it benefits the consumer.
Verizon is also pressing for paying the content provider based on actual viewers instead of the potential viewers to reduce their cost to run the programming.
Don't think of this as A La Carte. Think of it as more and more pressure for something to change to the present structure. What is anyone's guess.
Things are changing. Netflix has more subscribers than Comcast. Younger folk are content to watch on their mobile devices rather than a big screen. Cable doesn't like it when they start lose subscribers, even though the numbers are small at this point. Business models are being forced to change and big corporations don't like that.
Cable should go after the stations...for their lousy programming. And their screen clutter also. Something needs to change to make cable/sat desirable again. It just isn't worth it paying the high price for commercials, snipes, and the same thing over and over and over again all day long every month (like USA -> NCIS)
Well, netflix and blockbuster offering to mail you the latest releases has really put the pay channels in perspective for me. Turns out HBO, Cinemax, etc. are very overpriced for what you get from them.
A shakeout in the cable channel market would be a very good thing. I totally agree that there are too many channels with very few or no original or unique content and reruns/infomercials all night and all weekend...I never watch them and would be happy to see them off my bill. Plus a couple cable channels getting the boot would make the remaining channels sit up and pay attention and maybe work a little harder to generate viewers.... Nothing like one company going belly up to make the others clean up their act.
From the article:
This presents a significantly different version of what I had always envisioned as a shift to à la carte. I really don't want to lose access to channels based on what my immediate neighbors watch. So just how big a pool is Verizon thinking about? As it is I think NBC lost touch with viewers because those in decision-making positions talked to each other and their friends in downtown Manhattan and Beverly Hills about what their immediate families watched.
Netflix has the entire world to work with. Comcast has only areas it serves. Sure many Comcast subscribers also subscribe to Netflix giving them options to do things like paying for a more expensive package or subscribing to HBO.
Not really. They'll put up with it for convenience, but there are many movies and even TV shows that are materially better on a larger HD screen, including some that cannot even be appreciated properly on a little screen (think Lawrence of Arabia or Avatar or even "Lost").
That's true. But I think Americans need to think twice about letting three cable companies - Comcast, Fios, and Viacom are cable companies plus Comcast and Viacom are media companies with significant content TV channels - set the agenda because the spin is already being repeated in the press.
For example in this article:
That's a rate of 0.5 million a year. There are 114.2 million television households in the United States. At 0.5 million a year, few posting here will be alive the day 30% of TV households get their television solely from the Internet. I'm still very suspicious of communications and media corporation advocacy regarding decisions that will impact on me.
I still advocate eliminating what we have now - the cable/satellite companies creating mixed packages. Let them function like an ISP providing television signals, competing based on price, reliability, and equipment. Make them compete for the only service they actually provide.
Let me buy channels from Comcast/NBCU, Disney/ABC, News Corp, Viacom, CBS, Time Warner (Turner), etc. Make them compete to attract customers based on content and price while watching carefully for unlawful price fixing violations between them and within organizations.
Let Disney, not Comcast or Dish Network, decide at what pricing point they can offer ABC and the Disney Channel to families without forcing those homes to buy ESPN for another $15 a month. And at what price point they can afford to offer individual shows via the internet through services like Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, etc.
How, then, will impulse streaming from smart phones by 17-year-olds really affect market prices and content offerings? Will we cease to see advertising supported channels?
There's three kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies, and statistics. - Mark Twain
If you look at the adoption of HDTV over its first five years of existence, I think you'd find the numbers to support the conclusion that HDTV will never amount to anything, and that the average household will probably never own one, let alone pay for the extreme costs of service for 3-4 channels.
If you look at the adoption of DVRs over the first five years, you'd reach a similar conclusion.
The fact of the matter is, the absolute rate is never fixed. It is a trend, and a growing one. As more people leave cable behind, it will become easier to leave cable behind for everyone else. Why? Because programming providers (especially those who depend on advertising revenues) will make sure their programming can reach that audience once it reaches a critical mass. We already see the catalogs at Netflix and Amazon Prime growing dramatically.
Cable and satellite know the writing is on the wall. They're trying to adjust and adapt, but are trapped in a business model that was created in an era where competition was next to impossible.
Quote: Younger folk are content to watch on their mobile devices rather than a big screen.
Quote: Not really. They'll put up with it for convenience, but there are many movies and even TV shows that are materially better on a larger HD screen, including some that cannot even be appreciated properly on a little screen (think Lawrence of Arabia or Avatar or even "Lost").
Yes, really. As one that sometimes watches Netflix on an iPad sometimes instead of the large screen TV that I have, the experience is not that different. An iPad 12 inches from your face presents a similar size image as a larger TV 12 feet away.
Now if you are referring to the IMAX experience, that is a different story.
I just watch a few channels but pay for channels I don't watch. When my HBO-STARZ half price deal is over STARZ is over.