1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Welcome to the new DBSTalk community platform. We have recently migrated to a community platform called Xenfono and hope you will find this change to your liking. There are some differences, but for the most part, if you just post and read, that will all be the same. If you have questions, please post them in the Forum Support area. Thanks!

Directv Comes Out Against Alacart!!

Discussion in 'DIRECTV General Discussion' started by juan ellitinez, Feb 26, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. juan ellitinez

    juan ellitinez Icon/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    1,980
    0
    Jan 31, 2003
  2. carl6

    carl6 Moderator DBSTalk Club

    12,389
    905
    Nov 15, 2005
    Seattle, WA
    While I, like probably the overwhelming majority of users, only watch a small number of different channels and feel like it would be good if all I had to do was subscribe to that small number (and thus save cost), I think the reality is that Alacart would result in the demise of a lot of the nich channels that are out there. People do watch them, but with alacart, not enough people would watch to make them economically viable.

    So, the current model gives me the choice of all those channels, and I can simply choose to not watch the ones I don't care for. You can do the same. And we both end up watching a different group of channels due to our individual tastes. With alacart, we would both lose, as some of the channels in each of our preferred groupings would probably go away due to lack of a wider interest.

    I seriously doubt that alacart programming would actually result in lower cost to anyone. I wish it did, but I don't think that is a realistic expectation.

    Carl
     
  3. Earl Bonovich

    Earl Bonovich Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    30,092
    3
    Nov 15, 2005
    My personal opinion...

    Al-Acart is a BAD idea...

    Why? Who would have signed up for TNT when it first came out? Or USA? or even Sci-Fi? Those networks started small to become what they have today.

    If Al-Acart goes that route, some channels that could become great channels.. may never happen.

    I am all for not having 10 Shopping networks on my TV, and 10 music "video" channels... but all in all... Those channels are not the one's driving our bills up.

    It is the ESPN's, CNN's , Disney's of the world that are jacking the prices up.

    DirecTV is in a much better position the cable co's to implement Al-Acart, as for 10 years they have used the Access card logic to limit what channels you can see and not see...

    But the complexity behind it......
    What would really happen... Is that DirecTV and other providers, would have to basically create a webpage... that specifically states what each channel would cost to have....

    And I don't think the ESPN's and others like that would like you to know that they are charging $4 a month for their "channels" where other networks are only "charging" $0.50


    Al-Acart IMHO, is going to do nothing but DRIVE up the prices... as cable-co's will find the loop hole that they will charge you a small fee each time you change your programming package.

    Or they will dictate that you MUST go to the digital plans (which already cost more) and have a box at every TV.... basically... be carefull what you wish for.

    My parent's and grandparent's generation though braking up "Ma-Bell" would result in lower prices.... That worked out didn't it... they are almost back to being one big company again.
     
  4. SCDishMan2006

    SCDishMan2006 AllStar

    68
    0
    Feb 2, 2006

    Bah. A la carte is a fabulous idea. There would no doubt still be packages of channels available for those who wanted it.

    But, where I see A La Carte becoming a fabulous option is for somebody like me. I hate ESPN, I don't watch Disney and I don't care for any of the religious channels, shopping channels or babysitting channels (kids programming.) Why should I have to pay for it?
     
  5. Smthkd

    Smthkd Icon

    928
    1
    Sep 1, 2004
    I disagree! Thats why many cable subs are getting screwd over with high prices as we speak!
     
  6. Chris Freeland

    Chris Freeland Hall Of Fame

    1,660
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    Here we go again. :lol:
     
  7. CCarncross

    CCarncross Hall Of Fame

    7,058
    60
    Jul 19, 2005
    Jackson
    you already dont pay for religious or shopping channels.....since they mostly fall under PI channels....
     
  8. Wolffpack

    Wolffpack Banned User

    4,642
    0
    Jul 29, 2003
    You pay for those in bandwidth. To me, that = paying for those channels.
     
  9. djwww98

    djwww98 Godfather

    294
    0
    Jan 11, 2006
    Company "D" makes X dollars from Y customers. How much they charge is determined by a combination of supply and demand, what the market will bare, and what they need to make as a return on their investment. Everybody thinks they would pay less ala-cart but Company "D" would have to adjust their ala-cart prices so that they still made X dollars from Y customers. In the end, capitalism would adjust the playing field so the "average" customer would still be paying the "average" amount. Dealing with each customer has a set price, so they might start charging a base fee, like most utilities, so if you only wanted a few channels, you would still have a $5 or $10 base fee, then a few dollars per channel on top of that. Just an example of how, in the end, not much savings would be reallized from people who think they would save a lot. People who are worried about this are probably paying $50 bucks a month right now, give or take. And thinking they would save what...5 or 10 bucks a month? People in this country take so much for granted. "Why should I pay for stuff I don't watch?" It's what everybody pays that has allowed this technology to exist and advance to the point it is today. It's like bitching about your taxes paying for a road that you don't drive on very often. Everybody being able to get around benefits everybody in the long run.
     
  10. Chris Freeland

    Chris Freeland Hall Of Fame

    1,660
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    Even if you could get just the channels you wanted, these other channels would still be their using up bandwidth. Their are people who like one or more of the religious or shopping channels, I guess you just want channels that you like to take up bandwidth and to hell with what someone else mite like.
     
  11. Link

    Link Hall Of Fame

    1,802
    4
    Feb 1, 2004
    They don't need a la carte necessarily just more packages to choose from. I know several people that have gone with Dish's new family package because they don't watch much beyond their local networks. By having the family package it gives them kids programming and some additional channels that is more affordable than paying $50 a month for a lot of channels they never watch.

    At least Dish does now have 4 different packages to choose from. Directv only has 3 with the launch of their family pack in April. Cable systems usually just offer basic local channels, expanded basic, and digital basic channels.
     
  12. Bobman

    Bobman Hall Of Fame

    1,528
    0
    Jan 3, 2006
    They need a no frills very basic only package for under $20.
     
  13. Red Dwarf

    Red Dwarf Legend

    131
    0
    Aug 25, 2002
    In Canada Bell Expressvu would have groups of channels to select, which I think would work well. It's not a perfect a la carte, but would give people a custom package. If they aren't a sports nut don't get the sports package etc. Perhaps when people see the amount an "ESPN" costs and a bunch of people drop the channel due to cost, maybe they would lower their price.
     
  14. Chris Freeland

    Chris Freeland Hall Of Fame

    1,660
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    The only problem with this is that not everyone that watches sports from time to time is a sports nut and may want some but not all of the channels in an "all sports tier", the same goes for an "all movie tier", an "all kids tier", an "all educational tier" etc. I know I watch sports some, mainly my favorite pro and college football and basketball teams and many times only the last quarter and I may watch some of the play off games, but I do not consider my self a sports nut and would not likely buy an all sports tier. I do however want the more popular sports channels like ESPN and ESPN News in a package that also includes educational, family, movie and variety channels too, this is why when I had E*, I had AT180 and now have Comcast Digital Plus for their wide selection of channels in all categorize (more so in E*AT180).

    For me and my family, I like the big variety packages and the ability to cruise the guide, and yes their are probably only a dozen or so channels that I watch on a regular bases but from time to time I will find a show on a channel that I rarely if ever watch, plus my wife and daughter each have a dozen or so favorite channels that they watch on a regular bases, some of these overlap with each others favorite's and my favorite's and some do not, for me and my family "a la carte" or small theme tiers would not work.

    I would not mind if the satellite, cable and phone company's offered an "a la carte" or specialty tier option for those that wanted it if it could truly be done without costing me more money for less channels and with no or little government intervention.
     
  15. durl

    durl Hall Of Fame

    1,743
    0
    Mar 27, 2003
    BINGO!

    This seems like the logical choice to me. I can still see how this might not solve the problem completely. A customer may want only one channel from a certain package, or the large number of choices might overwhelm a typical consumer, particularly a newbie. Still, the idea is very intriguing.
     
  16. newsposter

    newsposter Hall Of Fame

    1,429
    1
    Nov 12, 2003
    Without regards to corporate structure....didn't it work out? Wasn't long distance like 25-50 cents a minute and we had to lease phones at X per month? Even if we go back to one big AT&T, I can't see that prices/lease structures would ever return to the past. People may not be happy about leasing directivos but i'm pretty sure there would be a revolution if we all had to go back to leasing our phones.

    I definitely dont know all the ins and outs of telcos, just that I'm positive I couldn't have 2 phone lines with all the services I want for 40 a month if it was 1975 :) (oh and 3 cents a minute with my BJs phone card for LD).
     
  17. Earl Bonovich

    Earl Bonovich Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    30,092
    3
    Nov 15, 2005
    A discussion for another day, another thread.

    I apologise for bringing inot the discussion.
     
  18. CCarncross

    CCarncross Hall Of Fame

    7,058
    60
    Jul 19, 2005
    Jackson
    Unless those channels disappear from teh satelittes, the bandwidth will still be used....very poor analogy you used there.....
     
  19. newsposter

    newsposter Hall Of Fame

    1,429
    1
    Nov 12, 2003
    darn, i'm always seeking to expand my knowledgebase :)
     
  20. Greg Bimson

    Greg Bimson Hall Of Fame

    3,918
    0
    May 5, 2003
    Regarding the telco breakup, realize this was the cause of a lawsuit that broke up a monopoly. This comparasion is apples and oranges, because AT&T owned everything regarding phones 30 years ago, while today there are multiple content owners and distributors for the multichannel television market.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page