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. unixguru

    unixguru Godfather

    787
    33
    Jul 9, 2007
    In a word, Apple.

    Name a similar alternative to TV today.

    When I say HBO I mean HBO bundle. I'm fine with small specific bundles like that. When I think a la cart I think the ability pick and choose mini-bundles like that.

    No loss. If they can't make it on their own then suffer like any other business.
     
  2. Tom Robertson

    Tom Robertson Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    21,331
    247
    Nov 15, 2005
    Current channel distribution is not a monopoly at any level, except perhaps one. Syfy channel is only provided by one provider. You could say they have a monopoly on their content--just like you could say Nestle is the only one to make Nestle chocolate.

    But there are several people making chocolate. And there are several people making content (with a lot of overlap.)

    So channels price their content as bundles (not a monopoly yet) and sell their bundle at roughly the same price to every distributor. Still not a monopoly and not collusion.

    Then the distributors have to distribute the content to everyone. Just as in your supermarket example, the costs run about the same (in large number aggregates.) You'll find that some areas have less expensive cable costs and others have much higher--because of the market area. No collusion is necessary to explain this.

    No monopoly, no collusion. Just normal market factors.

    Peace,
    Tom
     
  3. Tom Robertson

    Tom Robertson Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    21,331
    247
    Nov 15, 2005
    You have to pay for the overhead to supply the HBO Bundle. When you walk into the store, each item pays for a part of the store, the transportation, the storage, and the shelf the item uses.

    HBO is not priced in quanta that can pay the transmission overhead. Supermarkets know that each trip you'll buy different things and overtime you'll pay for the overhead. Satellite and Cable are based on a model that have fixed costs bringing content to you whether you use it or not. So when you use any, you need to pay for the overhead.

    Then you can add extras on top. Completely different purchase model.

    Peace,
    Tom
     
  4. Laxguy

    Laxguy Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense.

    15,339
    576
    Dec 2, 2010
    Winters,...
    (Tom R said)....

    Agreed. And the supermarket analogy just doesn't hold water; I ran it up a flagpole and no one saluted; it's a salty dog tale (not tail) and while it's not all wet, it has too many exceptions to work. :D
     
  5. Hoosier205

    Hoosier205 Active Member

    6,659
    14
    Sep 3, 2007
    I don't know why...when that is NOT a la carte.
     
  6. pdxBeav

    pdxBeav Godfather

    448
    35
    Jul 5, 2007
    The NFL does have an anti-trust exemption. It covers baseball, football, basketball and hockey broadcasts. It's a well-known exemption.
     
  7. pdxBeav

    pdxBeav Godfather

    448
    35
    Jul 5, 2007
    I had it too. Worked great for me. I subscribed to a basic package and then augmented it with a few select channels which I couldn't get unless I subscribed to a much larger package. Saved me money.
     
  8. Hoosier205

    Hoosier205 Active Member

    6,659
    14
    Sep 3, 2007
  9. pdxBeav

    pdxBeav Godfather

    448
    35
    Jul 5, 2007
    Yep. We've magically reached an age of no more innovation. ;)
     
  10. Hoosier205

    Hoosier205 Active Member

    6,659
    14
    Sep 3, 2007
  11. pdxBeav

    pdxBeav Godfather

    448
    35
    Jul 5, 2007
    Someone stated the NFL doesn't have an antitrust exemption. That's incorrect. And we are talking about broadcasting so no need to be more specific. He was wrong, period. Real world. Real facts.
     
  12. Hoosier205

    Hoosier205 Active Member

    6,659
    14
    Sep 3, 2007
    They do not have a full exemption. They have a limited and narrow partial exemption. It's not as clear cut as you wish to portray it as. Regardless, it's OT anyway (as you mentioned) and really has nothing to so with the discussion.
     
  13. Araxen

    Araxen Icon

    792
    6
    Dec 18, 2005
    Eventually it will hit a point where the price increases isn't sustainable anymore. That time is coming very soon. People are getting sick of paying sky high cable/sat bills. The poor Internet infrastructure in this country is the only keeping the cable/sat tv industry from becoming a dying breed like the Newspaper and the music industry.
     
  14. unixguru

    unixguru Godfather

    787
    33
    Jul 9, 2007
    Redefining the language too :nono2:

    Merriam-Webster: a la carte:
    according to a menu or list that prices items separately
    Merriam-Webster: item:
    a distinct part in an enumeration, account, or series
    I recently purchased a box in a supermarket that contained multiple slices of gyro meat, multiple pitas, and tzatziki sauce. According to your thinking it's not an item and therefore I'm not buying it a la carte.
     
  15. Hoosier205

    Hoosier205 Active Member

    6,659
    14
    Sep 3, 2007
    You fail to understand the very definition you have posted. :)
     
  16. unixguru

    unixguru Godfather

    787
    33
    Jul 9, 2007
    That's the smoke and mirrors the system leverages. By themselves nothing is a monopoly. Taken as a whole, it is a monopoly.

    If it weren't a monopoly ESPN (or any other channel) wouldn't be able to demand that each service provider has to include their channel, and pay their ransom, for every subscriber.

    There is absolutely no reason why TV services can't do a la carte (not necessarily to individual channel granularity) and still get their base infrastructure costs paid for. I have cable internet but not cable TV. I pay a cable "access" charge every month. If I had cable TV then that access charge is included in the TV subscription.

    TV services could just as easily have an access charge and then discount it in tiers as the total value of the purchased a la carte (again, could be a la carte of mini-bundles of related interests) increases. As soon as the subscribed services reaches a certain threshold the access charge is gone. They already do this with the first receiver. It shows up on every bill as a charge and then a credit.

    Current model is only this way because the industry wants it.

    Because every service provider operates in the same way it is effectively a monopoly. You have 2 choices: pay one of them or don't buy TV service at all.

    It's a model with increasingly ridiculous costs to consumers and it's going to burst at some point.
     
  17. Hoosier205

    Hoosier205 Active Member

    6,659
    14
    Sep 3, 2007
    You are now misrepresenting the meaning of a la carte AND monopoly.
     
  18. unixguru

    unixguru Godfather

    787
    33
    Jul 9, 2007
    Your flagpole is of dubious value.

    If you were serious about debunking the analogy you would point out exact flaws. And then we would all see the imaginary limitations. The fact that they have a contract with some distributor that requires something just shows the collusion.

    This is what businesses do when they can't justify something. Wave hands and blow smoke.
     
  19. Laxguy

    Laxguy Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense.

    15,339
    576
    Dec 2, 2010
    Winters,...
    Nothing is going to burst. Change will be evolutionary, not revolutionary.

    Your definition of a monopoly is far too wide and indiscriminate; thus it's inaccurate.

    Finally, again, don't mix groceries and other markets with the TV biz......:eek2:
     

Share This Page