Jump to content


Welcome to DBSTalk


Sign In 

Create Account
Welcome to DBSTalk. Our community covers all aspects of video delivery solutions including: Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Cable Television, and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). We also have forums to discuss popular television programs, home theater equipment, and internet streaming service providers. Members of our community include experts who can help you solve technical problems, industry professionals, company representatives, and novices who are here to learn.

Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!
  • Reply to existing topics or start a discussion of your own
  • Subscribe to topics and forums and get email updates
  • Send private personal messages (PM) to other forum members
  • Customize your profile page and make new friends
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Photo
- - - - -

Intel to Offer A La Cart?


  • Please log in to reply
458 replies to this topic

#1 OFFLINE   ssm06

ssm06

    Cool Member

  • Registered
  • 20 posts
Joined: Dec 15, 2005

Posted 02 January 2013 - 08:58 AM

Reports indicate Intel may offer a set top box with a la cart programming.
http://www.businessi...el-cable-2013-1

...Ads Help To Support This SIte...

#2 OFFLINE   texasbrit

texasbrit

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 4,083 posts
Joined: Aug 09, 2006

Posted 02 January 2013 - 09:18 AM

Reports indicate Intel may offer a set top box with a la cart programming.
http://www.businessi...el-cable-2013-1


Intel does not control whether a la carte is going to be available. The content providers package the channels to sell to the cable/sat companies and that is unlikely to change because intel want it to. Also as has been pointed out, a la carte might easily make the price of a single channel very high.
Any of the cable/sat companies could offer a la carte if their channel providers would agree.

The posted article points out some of these issues.

#3 OFFLINE   dpeters11

dpeters11

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 12,746 posts
  • LocationCincinnati
Joined: May 30, 2007

Posted 02 January 2013 - 09:29 AM

We recently had someone that says they only want 5-6 channels from DirecTV. A la carte would probably work for them, but most people that want it would find it isn't a real money saver.

#4 OFFLINE   pfp

pfp

    Whatever

  • Registered
  • 1,552 posts
Joined: Apr 28, 2009

Posted 02 January 2013 - 10:09 AM

I hope they pull it off. I for one would be happy to have the option to pay for individual channels. I realize that the price for those channels might be seem high but then I would be able to decide if the content they provided was worth the cost.
I do, I offer a complete and utter retraction. The imputation was totally without basis in fact, and was in no way fair comment, and was motivated purely by malice, and I deeply regret any distress that my comments may have caused you, or your family, and I hereby undertake not to repeat any such slander at any time in the future.

#5 OFFLINE   Hoosier205

Hoosier205

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 6,596 posts
Joined: Sep 03, 2007

Posted 02 January 2013 - 11:11 AM

I hope they pull it off. I for one would be happy to have the option to pay for individual channels. I realize that the price for those channels might be seem high but then I would be able to decide if the content they provided was worth the cost.


It's also likely that the channels you want would no longer exist in an a la carte world.
DTV = Digital Television

#6 OFFLINE   pfp

pfp

    Whatever

  • Registered
  • 1,552 posts
Joined: Apr 28, 2009

Posted 02 January 2013 - 11:28 AM

It's also likely that the channels you want would no longer exist in an a la carte world.


I agree that many channels would go away and quite frankly many of them should. I also suspect that some good programming from the channels that disappear would return on the channels that are left.
I do, I offer a complete and utter retraction. The imputation was totally without basis in fact, and was in no way fair comment, and was motivated purely by malice, and I deeply regret any distress that my comments may have caused you, or your family, and I hereby undertake not to repeat any such slander at any time in the future.

#7 OFFLINE   Satelliteracer

Satelliteracer

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 3,035 posts
Joined: Dec 06, 2006

Posted 02 January 2013 - 11:34 AM

Reports indicate Intel may offer a set top box with a la cart programming.
http://www.businessi...el-cable-2013-1


Good luck to Intel on this. Count me as one that believes it won't happen for any number of reasons.


http://allthingsd.co...ak-tvs-bundles/
DIRECTV employee

All comments are my own. Unless specifically stated, my views do NOT represent the views of DIRECTV

#8 OFFLINE   Hoosier205

Hoosier205

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 6,596 posts
Joined: Sep 03, 2007

Posted 02 January 2013 - 11:56 AM

I agree that many channels would go away and quite frankly many of them should. I also suspect that some good programming from the channels that disappear would return on the channels that are left.


Revenues used for production would tank. It hasn't worked and it won't work. I have no idea why it even gets discussed. It defies logic.
DTV = Digital Television

#9 OFFLINE   pfp

pfp

    Whatever

  • Registered
  • 1,552 posts
Joined: Apr 28, 2009

Posted 02 January 2013 - 12:21 PM

Good luck to Intel on this. Count me as one that believes it won't happen for any number of reasons.


http://allthingsd.co...ak-tvs-bundles/


I suspect they do have a steep uphill battle to deliver unbundled packages but I also find it unlikely that cable/telco companies will allow their TV revenue stream to be cut by a 3rd party through the use of their broadband service.
I do, I offer a complete and utter retraction. The imputation was totally without basis in fact, and was in no way fair comment, and was motivated purely by malice, and I deeply regret any distress that my comments may have caused you, or your family, and I hereby undertake not to repeat any such slander at any time in the future.

#10 OFFLINE   pfp

pfp

    Whatever

  • Registered
  • 1,552 posts
Joined: Apr 28, 2009

Posted 02 January 2013 - 12:24 PM

Revenues used for production would tank. It hasn't worked and it won't work. I have no idea why it even gets discussed. It defies logic.


It hasn't worked? When was it tried?
It gets discussed because consumers get fed up with paying good money for channels they don't care about with no option to opt-out.
I do, I offer a complete and utter retraction. The imputation was totally without basis in fact, and was in no way fair comment, and was motivated purely by malice, and I deeply regret any distress that my comments may have caused you, or your family, and I hereby undertake not to repeat any such slander at any time in the future.

#11 OFFLINE   pdxBeav

pdxBeav

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 412 posts
Joined: Jul 05, 2007

Posted 02 January 2013 - 12:29 PM

I agree that many channels would go away and quite frankly many of them should. I also suspect that some good programming from the channels that disappear would return on the channels that are left.


This is exactly right. Instead of having a thousand Discovery channels each with their own niche programs, you would have one or two Discovery channels which would carry all the successful programs.

Everyone who says a la carte won't work is assuming that the existing business models would remain static. This isn't the case. The programmers would adapt to it and make it work. As long as there's $$$ to be made it will work. And there's definitely $$$ to be made even in an a la carte world.

#12 OFFLINE   hilmar2k

hilmar2k

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 5,251 posts
Joined: Mar 18, 2007

Posted 02 January 2013 - 12:34 PM

This is exactly right. Instead of having a thousand Discovery channels each with their own niche programs, you would have one or two Discovery channels which would carry all the successful programs.

Everyone who says a la carte won't work is assuming that the existing business models would remain static. This isn't the case. The programmers would adapt to it and make it work. As long as there's $$$ to be made it will work. And there's definitely $$$ to be made even in an a la carte world.


How many hours of unique programming do most networks provide? There is a lot of consolidation to be done, for sure. I am in agreement that there are way too many channels. With the continued proliferation of the DVR, there is no need to run every Pawn Stars episode 10 times per week.

#13 ONLINE   tonyd79

tonyd79

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 12,487 posts
  • LocationColumbia, MD
Joined: Jul 24, 2006

Posted 02 January 2013 - 12:41 PM

This is exactly right. Instead of having a thousand Discovery channels each with their own niche programs, you would have one or two Discovery channels which would carry all the successful programs.

Everyone who says a la carte won't work is assuming that the existing business models would remain static. This isn't the case. The programmers would adapt to it and make it work. As long as there's $$$ to be made it will work. And there's definitely $$$ to be made even in an a la carte world.


Yes. Because when discovery tries to sell a channel for X dollars, they won't try to sell a bundle so it looks like you get more.

A la carte failed with BUDs.
LR: HR34-700, H24-200, Fios DVR, BD350 Blu Ray, Roku Netflix Player, Chromecast, Sony 65w850 TV
BR: HR21-200, Viso 32LX, DB350 Blu Ray
Dish: Slimline, SWM8
Other: genieGo

#14 OFFLINE   pdxBeav

pdxBeav

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 412 posts
Joined: Jul 05, 2007

Posted 02 January 2013 - 12:42 PM

How many hours of unique programming do most networks provide? There is a lot of consolidation to be done, for sure. I am in agreement that there are way too many channels. With the continued proliferation of the DVR, there is no need to run every Pawn Stars episode 10 times per week.


Or 10 times per day. :lol:

#15 OFFLINE   pdxBeav

pdxBeav

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 412 posts
Joined: Jul 05, 2007

Posted 02 January 2013 - 12:46 PM

If a la carte is such a bad idea then they should move to the other extreme and have one and only one package which includes all premium channels and all sports packages. According to the anti-a la carte group this would result in lower per channel costs so there should be no arguments against this. ;)

#16 OFFLINE   pdxBeav

pdxBeav

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 412 posts
Joined: Jul 05, 2007

Posted 02 January 2013 - 12:48 PM

A la carte failed with BUDs.


How did it fail with BUDs? My programming costs were far lower with a BUD than any cable or DBS package at the time.

#17 ONLINE   tonyd79

tonyd79

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 12,487 posts
  • LocationColumbia, MD
Joined: Jul 24, 2006

Posted 02 January 2013 - 02:28 PM

How did it fail with BUDs? My programming costs were far lower with a BUD than any cable or DBS package at the time.


They went bundle. A la carte is per channel. Bundles are not a la carte.

And your costs were probably lower because of the lack of needed infrastructure to support you as you saw the same signal as cable companies than on a la carte. Not to mention that way back, there was a lot of open stuff (like networks and sports) that are not open today.
LR: HR34-700, H24-200, Fios DVR, BD350 Blu Ray, Roku Netflix Player, Chromecast, Sony 65w850 TV
BR: HR21-200, Viso 32LX, DB350 Blu Ray
Dish: Slimline, SWM8
Other: genieGo

#18 ONLINE   tonyd79

tonyd79

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 12,487 posts
  • LocationColumbia, MD
Joined: Jul 24, 2006

Posted 02 January 2013 - 02:29 PM

If a la carte is such a bad idea then they should move to the other extreme and have one and only one package which includes all premium channels and all sports packages. According to the anti-a la carte group this would result in lower per channel costs so there should be no arguments against this. ;)


Yes. Because we all think in extremes.
LR: HR34-700, H24-200, Fios DVR, BD350 Blu Ray, Roku Netflix Player, Chromecast, Sony 65w850 TV
BR: HR21-200, Viso 32LX, DB350 Blu Ray
Dish: Slimline, SWM8
Other: genieGo

#19 OFFLINE   Satelliteracer

Satelliteracer

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 3,035 posts
Joined: Dec 06, 2006

Posted 02 January 2013 - 02:59 PM

This is exactly right. Instead of having a thousand Discovery channels each with their own niche programs, you would have one or two Discovery channels which would carry all the successful programs.

Everyone who says a la carte won't work is assuming that the existing business models would remain static. This isn't the case. The programmers would adapt to it and make it work. As long as there's $$$ to be made it will work. And there's definitely $$$ to be made even in an a la carte world.


Actually, this is exactly wrong. Think about how a show comes into existence...the planning, testing, piloting, etc. You're looking at it through a post show successful launch. Now back up to prior to shows launching and how they come about. You will have many fewer new shows, much less of the riskier ones because there will no incentive to create them.
DIRECTV employee

All comments are my own. Unless specifically stated, my views do NOT represent the views of DIRECTV

#20 OFFLINE   pdxBeav

pdxBeav

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 412 posts
Joined: Jul 05, 2007

Posted 02 January 2013 - 03:29 PM

They went bundle. A la carte is per channel. Bundles are not a la carte.

And your costs were probably lower because of the lack of needed infrastructure to support you as you saw the same signal as cable companies than on a la carte. Not to mention that way back, there was a lot of open stuff (like networks and sports) that are not open today.


They only moved away from a la carte when BUD was on it's last leg. It was successful for most of it's existence. Once the BUD numbers dropped down to a few hundred thousand subs the programmers saw them as more of an annoyance and eventually stopped offering their service to them.




spam firewall