1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Intel to Offer A La Cart?

Discussion in 'DIRECTV Programming' started by ssm06, Jan 2, 2013.

  1. tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD

    No, realism. It is not a company line when we point out that the NFL contracts run 10 years.

    Even in your posts, you say things along the lines of let's just assume it happens, then what. We are saying it isn't going to happen because of REAL market pressures.

    That is where your argument goes out the window. Let's just assume a la carte happens, then what. But that wipes away all the reasons WHY a la carte will not work.


    It is the free market that gave you bundling. How is THAT not a free market pressure?

    I am so tired of this nonsense. We have what we have because it works. It is only people who look at one portion only (their bills) who think that a la carte will work. It will not solely because NO ONE IS WILLING TO ATTEMPT IT. And they are not willing to attempt it because THERE IS NO MONEY IN IT.

    THAT is capitalism.
     
  2. pdxBeav

    pdxBeav Godfather

    448
    35
    Jul 5, 2007
    It's not that there isn't any money in it. It's because there's MORE money in it under the current system. And everyone agrees it's not going to happen anytime soon. I'm not sure why you think otherwise. That isn't what's being debated. The only thing being debated is whether "it" would work in an a la carte system, however unrealistically we got there.
     
  3. Hoosier205

    Hoosier205 Active Member

    6,659
    14
    Sep 3, 2007
    Why? When it wouldn't be good for any party involved...why?
     
  4. pdxBeav

    pdxBeav Godfather

    448
    35
    Jul 5, 2007
    We are now going in circles. ;)

    I already told you your conclusions are based on false assumptions.
     
  5. Hoosier205

    Hoosier205 Active Member

    6,659
    14
    Sep 3, 2007
    So you're still avoiding the questions. Got it.
     
  6. pdxBeav

    pdxBeav Godfather

    448
    35
    Jul 5, 2007
    Haha. :D

    I already said before that it would work for all parties involved and be especially good for consumers. There would be much more competition which would drive innovation. The simple idea of competition driving innovation has worked for hundreds of years and it'll continue to work for hundreds of years. And like I've also said before there's nothing magical about the TV industry.
     
  7. unixguru

    unixguru Godfather

    787
    33
    Jul 9, 2007
    Oh please :nono2:. In the private sector it all boils down to supply and demand.

    Regardless of the wording, with TV it still comes down to being heavily tilted toward the supplier.

    It's bad. Period.
     
  8. Hoosier205

    Hoosier205 Active Member

    6,659
    14
    Sep 3, 2007
    Please elaborate on how substantial reductions in revenue will benefit consumers.
     
  9. Hoosier205

    Hoosier205 Active Member

    6,659
    14
    Sep 3, 2007
    Your entire argument was based on the idea of an economic system we do not have.

    ...which is how we got the current pay TV model. :)
     
  10. pdxBeav

    pdxBeav Godfather

    448
    35
    Jul 5, 2007
    There would still be a ton of money that consumers would be willing to pay for TV programming. Smart people will figure out how to create/produce content to get that money, even with a la carte. And I'll only pay for the networks I want. I'm not sure why this is such a difficult concept to comprehend.
     
  11. pdxBeav

    pdxBeav Godfather

    448
    35
    Jul 5, 2007
    Sort of off topic, but do you think they should get rid of the sports leagues' antitrust exemption?
     
  12. unixguru

    unixguru Godfather

    787
    33
    Jul 9, 2007
    There have been 2 models. OTA and cable/sat. No other model has been tried.

    Why would the industry want to try another model? The one they have is paradise. They have consumers locked right where they want them. Just enough smoke-and-mirrors fake competition to keep the legal wolves away. It's a license to print money.

    Supply and demand only works when monopolies don't exist. As I've said many times - this industry is a de facto monopoly.

    Their time is coming. They think they are safe. So did Microsoft.
     
  13. Diana C

    Diana C Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    2,117
    293
    Mar 30, 2007
    New Jersey
    How is the television industry "outside normal free market pressures"???

    If you feel the product is priced unfairly, DON'T BUY IT! However, the seller has the right to package his product as he chooses, in a way that maximizes his profit. That IS the free market. One of things I learned early in my economic clases in college (back in the stone age) was that a free market does not guarantee the lowest price for a product or service, it guarantees the HIGHEST. No vendor will lower his price unless compelled (by regulation or market pressure) to do so. Prices for everything are always the most the market will bear. There is no market pressure that compels a content provider to lower his prices or to unbundle his product, although he is free to do so if he chooses. That IS the free market in action.

    OTA are in the lowest bundle because virtually no one doesn't want them. I remember when satellite TV delivered NO OTA locals to anyone. It was the #1 reason people gave for staying with cable. When they started to provide locals, they did list them seperately, but subscribers complained, so they became a part of every tier.

    As for why the locals are still broadcast OTA, there are still many people without cable or satellite. Plus, many people with multi-channel service choose to get their locals OTA because they think they are of higher quality that way.

    You may not care about less money going into sports content, but less money would go into ALL content not just sports. Or are you suggesting that ONLY sports be ala carte?

    I find it interesting that many of the same people who complain about government interference in the free market advocate ala carte pricing - since the ONLY way it will happen is if the goverment mandates it.

    Finally, if you only "watch maybe 1 series a season on TNT/USA" why not drop satellite all together? You can get all the movies and TV shows you want on Hulu and Netflix for less than 20% of what you pay for Premier.
     
  14. unixguru

    unixguru Godfather

    787
    33
    Jul 9, 2007
    Absolutely. All special perks must end.
     
  15. Diana C

    Diana C Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    2,117
    293
    Mar 30, 2007
    New Jersey
    How?? If they have less money, they need to spend less on production. That means more low budget shows (like "reality" TV series) and less high budget shows (like Monday Mornings or The Newsroom).

    Explain how that's an improvement?

    You can't just say "they'll find a new model", you have to present a reasonable hypothesis of what that model might be.
     
  16. pdxBeav

    pdxBeav Godfather

    448
    35
    Jul 5, 2007
    One example would be to become more efficient in all aspects of the business. Find ways to do things cheaper. Get more out of a dollar. These things happen all the time in all businesses. The ones who can't do this go out of business because someone else can.
     
  17. Hoosier205

    Hoosier205 Active Member

    6,659
    14
    Sep 3, 2007
    ...what? The current model is a package based pay TV model. The other model is a la carte. It was tried and it did not succeed. Consumers chose the current model.

    How is it fake competition?

    So the content producers (film and television), the content distributors, and the service providers...all of them...are a monopoly? Wow!
     
  18. Diana C

    Diana C Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    2,117
    293
    Mar 30, 2007
    New Jersey
    It all boils down to supply and demand in TV too. There was no demand for UPN, so it failed. There is almost no demand for live Opera on TV so you see almost none. There IS a huge demand for sports, so you see lots of that. There IS a demand for movies, so you see lots of that too.

    If no one watched MTV, advertisers wouldn't buy time on it, and MTV Networks would change it's programming. That IS supply and demand. Just because YOU don't watch something doesn't mean that others aren't watching.
     
  19. Diana C

    Diana C Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    2,117
    293
    Mar 30, 2007
    New Jersey
    Been there, done that. That is what gave us "Undercover Boss" and "The Biggest Loser" and "Big Brother" and "The Great Race" and every other reality show on TV. Advertising revenue is eroding, partly because the audience is becoming more dispersed across more channels (meaning every channel get fewer viewers per show, and hence less ad revenue) and partly because of the spread of advertising skipping via DVRs (advertisers now discount audience share numbers by about 20% to account for commercial skipping). I don't know what makes you think there is a lot of "wasted" money in TV production and distribution.

    You do make a good point though, about the lowering of costs being a market pressure. If it were possible to produce high quality programming at lower cost SOMEONE WOULD BE DOING IT! That is how the market works, lacking artifical price supports from governement regulations. Since there are no regulations preventing a low cost content provider from entering the market, one has to assume that costs are already as low as they can be.
     
  20. pdxBeav

    pdxBeav Godfather

    448
    35
    Jul 5, 2007
    A la carte on C-Band did succeed. You keep pushing this falsehood which simply isn't true.
     

Share This Page