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

Will the HD PAK slow down the migration to HD?

Discussion in 'General DISH™ Discussion' started by d1od1o, May 25, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Nick

    Nick Retired, part-time PITA DBSTalk Club

    21,838
    186
    Apr 23, 2002
    The...
    I doubt it. In the first place, you couldn't get 80% of this bunch to agree on lunch, much less giving up their grasp on the electronic teat. But, even if you could, the effect would hardly be noticed by the suits at E* and D*. Not even a blip on the corporate radar.
     
  2. waltinvt

    waltinvt Godfather

    368
    0
    Feb 9, 2004
    I agree it could probably never happen but disagree that it wouldn't get noticed if it did.

    I think anything that resembled "solidarity" among satellite customers would get noticed real quick. That's something they've never had to contend with.

    Just dreaming but I wonder what we're talking for numbers if you total all the numbers of sat customers on this list + SatGuys + AVS ?
     
  3. jrb531

    jrb531 Icon

    916
    0
    May 28, 2004
    While the people that read these forums are not the majority they are the vocal minority that could spread this until it got noticed.

    IMHO this will never happen because we are our own worst enemy. For the most part we are the nuts who get off on having a zillion channels whether we watch them all or not. We benefit from forcing others to "subsidize" our channels. It's the average joe who only wants a few channels, who does not read this board that would be helped by either ala-cart or "theme" packages that made sense.

    The FCC (read politicians) will not get involved unless there is something in it for them.

    How to fix it? I'm afraid that big business will not police themselves unless they are forced to either by bad press or the FCC or both.

    But as long as us nuts who need 10 zillion channels are served by having the masses forced to pay for our channels then nothing will change.

    If you ask anyone on the street the following question:

    Should people who do not watch sports be forced to pay for mulitple sports channels?

    IMHO the overwhelming majority would say no.

    Now ask this question:

    Should people who do not watch sports be forced to pay for multiple sports channels even if this will double or triple the cost for those who do want sports?

    IMHO now the excuses come out...

    um um sure because... um um we all get them cheaper.... yeah that's the ticket.... cheaper if everyone pays.... volume discount :) yeah yeah it all evens out...

    You are forced to pay for expensive sports that you do not want and I pay for your el-cheapo reality rerun old movie channels.

    See.... it's all fair :)

    -JB
     
  4. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,575
    374
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    Aside from extra overhead that it might cost them to maintain such specialized accounts... I think perhaps Dish could be persuaded to accept $20 for a single channel... but how many people would do that?

    Think about it... People are complaining about paying $9.99 for a package that contains 5 HD channels, why would they think a $20 single-channel package would be a good deal?

    No sane customer would actually want to pay $20 for one single channel, even if the company would do it.

    I've said in other threads when this comes up... You can't go to McDonalds and order 1 or 2 fries... you have to pay $1 and get a whole order of fries... even if you only want a few fries. Why can't the evil fast food chains let you buy just the amount of fries you want, say 10 cents worth of fries?

    Answer... they aren't evil... there is a certain quantity below which is doesn't make sense for them to sell, because they can't make profit at that level... and even though there might be a few people who would buy it that way, their business model would crumble if they tried to sell fries by the fry... or they'd have to charge an astronomical amount for that single fry.

    Just like what would happen with a la carte.

    To reverse your logic for a second... IF a la carte is so great, and people want it so badly, and it would be the best thing for all customers... why isn't that the model that developed? Why did a la carte programming go away with time? Why did packages develop in the first place?
     
  5. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,575
    374
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    In reality, it is probably the other way around... if the sports channels weren't there either the "el cheapo" channels would cost more OR they would go away entirely.

    Channels like Sci-Fi and USA would NEVER have gotten off the ground with a la carte pricing, because they would have cost so much to add as a start-up... Remember back when HBO was just one channel of HBO and it still cost $15 per month?

    Now there are like a dozen HBOs and the price is actually less than $15 per month for the package of HBO channels...

    but can you imagine Sci-Fi or the Cartoon Network or Comedy Central going for $15 per month as a premium channel?

    Wouldn't happen.
     
  6. jrb531

    jrb531 Icon

    916
    0
    May 28, 2004
    A few things....

    The "french fry" example does not hold because you have a package of "like" things - fries. I would assume that if you like one fry you might like them all :)

    You example would be better if they packages things in "themes" then it would be correct. If you like "one" sports channel, chances are you would like the all.

    The entire concept of offering ala-cart is not to try and eliminate packages. It's more so that "if" I only wanted one channel of the next "tier" of programming I would not have to pay for the entire 15 or 20 chennels. I could take, for example, the cheap package and then pay for the one "extra" channel that I want and be happy.

    We have to understand that the entire setup as it stands is designed to try and "force" us to have to take more more more by mixing up the packages in such a way as to put just enough "must have" channels in each one.

    The idea that anyone would want just one channel and pay $20 a month was, of course, an extreme. There are many people would would take maybe 5-6 channels if they had the choice and the cost was within reason. At this stage of the game most people who would subscribe to cable/dish have already done so. There may be a few people would might bite if they were able to pick a handful of channels but not enough for cable/dish to worry about it. The really battle is between cable and dish and in the long run, unless cable can invent and convince people that they need services other than one-way pay tv dish will win. There is no way cable can compete with a system that, aside from in home boxes which are the same for both cable/dish, costs dish the same for one customer or one billion customers.

    Cable is pressing on fast to find a "must have" application that is two-way in design that they can do and dish cannot due to the nature of the setup. If cable can find such an application the dish is dead in the water.... in the long long run.

    The "one-cable" does everything seems to be the future and dish will never be able to compete with that unless they go with some form of hybrid system (read: wires) which will raise their costs higher than cable as they would then have to maintain two types of systems. A dish only system will never work enmass for two-way due to the huge bandwidth required for a "one-cable" solution for Pay TV, Internet, Phone, Movies on Demand and eventually video phones.... yes the 21st centure is here LOL.

    The eventual solution will be fiber direct to your home and my bet is the phone companies the eventual winners but for now (and back to topic LOL) unless something happens to break the logjam in rgard to pay tv providers having the "real" say in cable/dish prices we are all held hostage to ever rising prices and more and more channels of deluted crap programming.

    Never forget that you can only watch one thing at a time and with the mass appeal of the PVR there is little reason to have 10 HBO channels showing the same time staggered programmers when you can just record what you want to see and watch at your leasure.

    If I could pay for just one channel of HBO and save $1 I would do it. My two PVR's would tape everything I wanted.... of course to battle this HBO would just show certain shows on diff HBO channels thus defeating this but then they would be forced to show a much much larger assortment of programs.

    When will people figure it out that 100 channels of HBO does not mean more shows :)

    -JB
     
  7. tonyp56

    tonyp56 Godfather

    363
    0
    Apr 25, 2004
    HD is like anything else in this world. Take taxes for instance, I don't know what its like in the rest of the country, but here when they raise taxes they say it's for new roads, or new gyms etc. but after that new road or new gym is finished and payed for the tax doesn't go back down. Most of the things that they tell us is ".5% increase over five years to pay for $200,000 road repair" but they never take that .5% increase off. HD like anything else will remain very expensive, even after it has been payed for, the days of $20 a month for about 60 channels is OVER. Just like the days of $1.00 per gallon of gas ($0.77 when I first started driving) is over,( it will NEVER be that cheap again) pay-TV like wise will never be cheap again. Sorry, but get used to it, it is the new norm.
     
  8. jrb531

    jrb531 Icon

    916
    0
    May 28, 2004
    IMHO if Pay TV continues it's current rise there will be a revolt. Already people are leaning towards just renting movies or going back to over the air due to the ever rising costs. The average cost is in the $60 range for most people and well over $100 if you add the pay movie channels. While I would miss the few channels I do watch on a regualr basis I could live without them.

    If the situation degenerates and pay tv starts losing customers (you can only grow at a rapid pace so long before saturation sets in and then you have to scramble to find a nitch) you will see original ways to try and keep/retain customers. As the average bill tops $1000 a year for TV people will start to rebel more and more.

    You are very correct that we often are told that an increase is temporary only to have it made permanent. Look at the toll road system. It was supposed to be paid until the bonds were paid off. Seems like they are never paid off LOL.

    -JB
     
  9. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,575
    374
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    Devil's advocate argument...

    Say you make $15 per hour... and are paid for a 40 hour work-week (8 hours per day)... and you get paid holidays and a couple of weeks of vacation.

    Now... are you working hard start-to-finish 8 hours every day? Or are there times when you are less busy than others... and maybe breaks... and even times when you goof off?

    Suppose your employer says "hey, why am I paying you for 8 hours a day, when you are really only giving me 5 hours of solid work?"

    Would you like it if your boss decided to lower your salary? Employers who pay strictly by the hour, as opposed to a salary, generally only pay for their employees actual work time... and maybe then the boss should monitor you all day to make sure he is only paying for time you are working as hard as you can.

    See where I'm going here?

    When the shoe is on the other foot... we all want to be paid our salary, even if we are goofing off sometimes... but then we want other folks not to do the same thing to us (like only paying for channels we want to watch).
     
  10. jrb531

    jrb531 Icon

    916
    0
    May 28, 2004
    But if the employee starts to go overboard and work less and less they will eventually get fired or in trouble.

    Right now these companies are adding channel after channel, raising prices without fail and, IMHO, going far overboard. There is nothing to stop them as long as they have the power to tell cable/dish to either accept whatever they ask for or they will withhold "all" their channels.

    I understand what you are saying. A middle ground needs to be reached here. My solution is to keep packages but make them "themed" but I'm open to any suggestions on how to give us some.... heck ANY say in what we are forced to pay for.

    Of course the pay tv providers want us to have ZERO say in anything as that will hurt their bottom line.

    -JB
     
  11. tonyp56

    tonyp56 Godfather

    363
    0
    Apr 25, 2004
    I agree with your points, but only to a certain degree. The reason why I don't agree totally is because of this; Gas is now at least hovering right around $2 per gallon (some areas less, some areas more) but people are still buying those ten miles per gallon SUV's, and spending over a $100 a week on gas alone, but you don't see any mass rebeling on the part of those consumers, do you? I think people will continue to spend the money on pay-tv, especially when HD becomes more and more common. I keep hearing people say that eventually people will just go to OTA, but you can't get HBO, Showtime, and even ESPN (for some) OTA, yes I could live without satellite TV (I did most of my life) but I do like having those channels. And, the way things are going in this world I am sure that the broadcasters will find a way to make us pay for OTA too, so that option may not even be a option.
     
  12. jrb531

    jrb531 Icon

    916
    0
    May 28, 2004
    True or false people "perceive" that the gas prices rise and fall based on factors outside the immediate control of the local companies who deliver our gas. (Rem I said perceive LOL) IN other words their is price gouging but "more" on behalf of the counties pumping the oil)

    And the price of gas does affect things a ton. While people "have" to gas up the ole car to get to work many are driving less, buying smaller cars and some even switching to public transporatation if that is an option.

    Now here with the situation with the pay channels the perception is that local big business is driving the price increases. ESPN is rising, for example, because they are gobbling up all the sports broadcasting contracts and "outbidding" what the networks can afford or are willing to pay. They can do this because "they" can just pass on these costs to us with us having ZERO say in the matter.... after all we are not allowed to cancel ESPN because ESPN has "forced" Cable/Dish to include ESPN with the lowest tier of programming so we cannot even cancel a higher tier to protest these costs.

    The say goes for these pay TV companies adding more channels or just raising prices for the heck of it. What can we do if we not longer feel that the prices are in line? With everything else we can "cut back" but we cannot cut back pay TV because of the way they have structures it. Each package has a handfull of "must have" channels and the rest are crap for most people. It's done on purpose, done to make us spend more than what we want and they know we can't do a darn thing about it aside from cancelling all pay TV.

    The gas example would work more "if" pay TV costs were rising to cover High Def or if they had to launch a new set of sats into orbit yadda yadda.... in other words something seemingly out of the control of Cable/Dish - we don't like it but we have to live with it and adjust.

    What we really have here is greed.... big business thinks they can do anything they want and so far they have. I cannot think of a better set up than the one we have not that will maximize the profits of the pay TV companies.

    And we can do nothing at all to stop it but eventually the bubble will burst and people will rise up and "demand" that these companies are held accountable.

    A good start would be for Cable/Dish to post a real price list for every channel in every package. Let the public see who/what is causing the price of pay TV to rise. Like a broken record... we can only watch one thing at a time (well most of us LOL) and with PVR's we do not need the same crap show multiple times a week on separate channels if we can record what we want. If this keeps up maybe every show will have it own channel....

    "All Brady Bunch All The Time" Channel
    "All Buffy All The Time" Channel

    ROTFL

    -JB
     
  13. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,575
    374
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    Just out of curiosity... IF you could make a package containing only the channels you watch... what would those channels be?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page