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

#261 OFFLINE   unixguru

unixguru

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 570 posts
Joined: Jul 09, 2007

Posted 15 February 2013 - 06:48 PM

And what happened with Microsoft? They still bundle Internet Explorer, which is used as the standard browser by over 80% of all PC users. Virtually no other options exist for word processing, spreadsheet and presentation graphics. Yeah, those lawsuits did a lot of good. :rolleyes:


In a word, Apple.

Name a similar alternative to TV today.

Excuse me, but movie channels ARE bundled. You can't buy JUST HBO East from DirecTV, you have to take the whole HBO bundle.


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.

If you're a sports fan, you can't just buy ESPN, you have to pay for AMC, TMC and FXM as well. You may not believe it, but there ARE lots of people who would be quite happy buying ONLY sports specific channels...all of them are providing additional revenue to AMC, TNT, and all the other channels in the respective tiers.

Trust me, MTV Networks doesn't care if AMC Networks' channels are in the same bundle they are...they just care about getting to as many households as possible. They want to be in the most POPULAR tier...period.


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

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

#262 OFFLINE   Tom Robertson

Tom Robertson

    Lifetime Achiever

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 20,250 posts
Joined: Nov 15, 2005

Posted 15 February 2013 - 06:52 PM

Unless the seller gets into antitrust territory. It's collusion to maintain a de facto monopoly which exercises rampant tying. It's just as illegal here as it was for Microsoft.



I just don't agree that sports feeds money to other content. By that reasoning movie channels contribute to sports content and everyone would have bundled movie channels. Why is a la cart ok for some channels and not others?

If sports are a big $ chunk then yes, put all the sports in a mini-bundle.



It isn't far off at these prices.

Hulu/Netflix and most others don't meet my requirements as they are not full HD quality. The only one I've seen that is full HD is Vudu. There is no good OTA/Vudu DVR available yet.

I'm probably going to eventually go to OTA and Vudu only.

It would like to keep some of the other stuff we watch but it's a question of value. That garbage doesn't add up to the high costs of sat or cable.


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

Go Packers!

My real treasures: 5 Grandchildren - S, D, M, M, C ; Now 5! Great-Grandtibbers - B, H, J, A, and M (Born 7/31/2011)


#263 OFFLINE   Tom Robertson

Tom Robertson

    Lifetime Achiever

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 20,250 posts
Joined: Nov 15, 2005

Posted 15 February 2013 - 06:58 PM

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.


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

Go Packers!

My real treasures: 5 Grandchildren - S, D, M, M, C ; Now 5! Great-Grandtibbers - B, H, J, A, and M (Born 7/31/2011)


#264 OFFLINE   Laxguy

Laxguy

    Fortuna! Fameux des Halles

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 11,967 posts
  • LocationWinters, California
Joined: Dec 02, 2010

Posted 15 February 2013 - 07:14 PM

No monopoly, no collusion. Just normal market factors.

(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
"Laxguy" means a guy who loves lacrosse.

#265 OFFLINE   Hoosier205

Hoosier205

    Hall Of Fame

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

Posted 15 February 2013 - 07:30 PM

When I think a la cart I think the ability pick and choose mini-bundles like that.


I don't know why...when that is NOT a la carte.
DTV = Digital Television

#266 OFFLINE   pdxBeav

pdxBeav

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 412 posts
Joined: Jul 05, 2007

Posted 15 February 2013 - 08:54 PM

The only league that has anti trust exemption is baseball.

Real world. Real facts.

The NFL actually LOST a major anti trust case to the USFL but the jury messed up the award so it wound up being only $3.

Every time football, basketball or hockey goes into a work stoppage, the unions decertify so they can file anti trust against the league.

Anti trust is NOT the problem.


The NFL does have an anti-trust exemption. It covers baseball, football, basketball and hockey broadcasts. It's a well-known exemption.

#267 OFFLINE   pdxBeav

pdxBeav

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 412 posts
Joined: Jul 05, 2007

Posted 15 February 2013 - 08:55 PM

Ala carte failed on C-band. I had it, then bundles, then nearly single provider bundle. It was so much easier and generally cheaper.

Then I moved and picked up DIRECTV. (They finally had NFL Sunday Ticket.)

Ala carte failed, it was way too big of a hassle.

Peace,
Tom


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.

#268 OFFLINE   Hoosier205

Hoosier205

    Hall Of Fame

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

Posted 15 February 2013 - 08:56 PM

The NFL does have an anti-trust exemption. It covers baseball, football, basketball and hockey broadcasts. It's a well-known exemption.


http://www.washingto...0011304394.html
DTV = Digital Television

#269 OFFLINE   pdxBeav

pdxBeav

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 412 posts
Joined: Jul 05, 2007

Posted 15 February 2013 - 09:03 PM

This reminds me of the manager of a friend who one time asked her to schedule her innovations and breakthroughs.

Yes. Cheapen art. Because it is a widget.

Sigh.


Yep. We've magically reached an age of no more innovation. ;)

#270 OFFLINE   pdxBeav

pdxBeav

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 412 posts
Joined: Jul 05, 2007

Posted 15 February 2013 - 09:05 PM

http://www.washingto...0011304394.html


http://www.law.corne...t/15/chapter-32

http://www.politico...._exemption.html

#271 OFFLINE   Hoosier205

Hoosier205

    Hall Of Fame

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

Posted 15 February 2013 - 09:21 PM

http://www.law.corne...t/15/chapter-32

http://www.politico...._exemption.html


Let's be more specific then. Only MLB has a full antitrust exemption. Other leagues only have a limited exemption that applies to broadcasting.

In your initial post, you did not specify that. You did however in a later post, to be fair.
DTV = Digital Television

#272 OFFLINE   pdxBeav

pdxBeav

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 412 posts
Joined: Jul 05, 2007

Posted 15 February 2013 - 09:27 PM

Let's be more specific then. Only MLB has a full antitrust exemption. Other leagues only have a limited exemption that applies to broadcasting.


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.

#273 OFFLINE   Hoosier205

Hoosier205

    Hall Of Fame

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

Posted 15 February 2013 - 09:30 PM

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.


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.
DTV = Digital Television

#274 OFFLINE   Araxen

Araxen

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 781 posts
Joined: Dec 17, 2005

Posted 15 February 2013 - 11:09 PM

If the networks don't offer as much money then the NFL would have no choice but to accept less money. What would happen if during the next round of TV contract negotiations all networks offer less money? The answer is that the NFL would accept the highest offer even if it was less than the current deal.

And before you say "But the networks won't offer less.", I know that it won't happen anytime soon. I'm just saying that IF they did the NFL would have to accept less money, and they would.


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.
If it ain't in HD, it ain't worth watching!
PSN: Araxen - Xbox: Gamertag: Araxen II - Steam: Araxen - WiiU: Araxen

#275 OFFLINE   unixguru

unixguru

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 570 posts
Joined: Jul 09, 2007

Posted 16 February 2013 - 08:28 AM

I don't know why...when that is NOT a la carte.


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.

#276 OFFLINE   Hoosier205

Hoosier205

    Hall Of Fame

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

Posted 16 February 2013 - 08:40 AM

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.


You fail to understand the very definition you have posted. :)
DTV = Digital Television

#277 OFFLINE   unixguru

unixguru

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 570 posts
Joined: Jul 09, 2007

Posted 16 February 2013 - 08:42 AM

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.


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.

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.


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.

#278 OFFLINE   Hoosier205

Hoosier205

    Hall Of Fame

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

Posted 16 February 2013 - 08:48 AM

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.


You are now misrepresenting the meaning of a la carte AND monopoly.
DTV = Digital Television

#279 OFFLINE   unixguru

unixguru

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 570 posts
Joined: Jul 09, 2007

Posted 16 February 2013 - 08:49 AM

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


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.

#280 OFFLINE   Laxguy

Laxguy

    Fortuna! Fameux des Halles

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 11,967 posts
  • LocationWinters, California
Joined: Dec 02, 2010

Posted 16 February 2013 - 08:54 AM

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:
"Laxguy" means a guy who loves lacrosse.




spam firewall