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

#126 OFFLINE   unixguru

unixguru

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 648 posts
Joined: Jul 09, 2007

Posted 11 January 2013 - 04:41 PM

Sure. they tried. Couldn't make enough money to make them abandon the existing model. Ther'es no overwhelming need or demand for this, and it's not proving to be all that profitable. Businesses need both of those things to shift paradigms. All you have now is a small number or people kavetching yet still paying for the current model.


I also find it interesting that you point to the internet as the pipe. I find a great potential for hypocrasy there. On one hand - you want to pay for only what you consume when it comes to video distribution, but how many Internet video a la carte advocates would apply that same pricing model to their data consumption?

And Sirius XM is extremely successful. It's got over 20MM subscribers, which is comparable to Netflix. it's also more profitable, while delivering slightly less revenue. I bring up Netflix because it's the largest most prominent player in the cord cutting a la carte on demand movement. You've shown no data to support your assertion that broadcast is dying.

Your model is far too complicated, and requires too much planning and pre-work to watch television. It might work for you, but it's not going to work the the legions of average people that just want to watch Jay Leno for 30 minutes before falling asleep. Or what about when i just want something on in the background - call it the news - that i don't have to pay close attention to.

And it certainly won't work for Sports, which are DVR proof and have to be watched live.


People are increasingly unhappy with the cost of the current model. If that continues - and real alternatives become available...

I measure dying by looking at the future based on trends. Growth in broadcast has been slowing for some time, is sputtering now with some quarters in decline, and will eventually move towards only declines. It's the kind of thing that causes future investment in the model to pause more and more. The industry can continue to spin it all they like.

That is not to say that all broadcasting will cease in the near future. The transition will happen but it won't be as fast as music was.

Does anyone doubt that OTA has been in decline for some time? Sure, there are still significant numbers of people using it. They drove many away with the forced hardware upgrade during the transition to digital. I suspect the biggest value of OTA now, to the broadcasters, is that it requires no extra investment to supply the area cable systems with their feed.

Of course there are many people that still watch live stuff. But what is the trend? Given the industry (and these forums) it seems that many people have moved to DVRs and only watch live for certain kinds of programs like sports. As others have said - Sports isn't DVR proof. Being a few minutes behind live has significant value. If absolute live is important then people shouldn't be using satellite since it's delayed several seconds behind OTA. :D

Trend is not in favor of broadcast.

As for data costs... aren't most the complaints about a la carte about wireless? Never gotten anywhere close to the wired threshold in our house. But if my data volume and bandwidth needs rise I will gladly pay more for the service. I can buy a lot of data capacity for what satellite costs. You think my local data provider will have any complaints taking my money and upgrading their pipes? I happen to use cable for data - to them they are just stealing a DTV customer and they won't care if I get programming via traditional cable or over the internet.

...Ads Help To Support This Site...

#127 OFFLINE   tulanejosh

tulanejosh

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 426 posts
Joined: May 23, 2008

Posted 11 January 2013 - 07:07 PM

Still not a single shred of concrete data to back up your assertions.

#128 OFFLINE   tonyd79

tonyd79

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 12,910 posts
  • LocationColumbia, MD
Joined: Jul 24, 2006

Posted 11 January 2013 - 07:28 PM

When a product had reached saturation, it is not possible to trend up. Growth by its very nature slows.

By trends, electric power delivery to households is on the wane because they aren't adding as many as they did years ago.
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

#129 OFFLINE   unixguru

unixguru

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 648 posts
Joined: Jul 09, 2007

Posted 12 January 2013 - 08:48 AM

Still not a single shred of concrete data to back up your assertions.


Google?

2 seconds shows this from almost a year ago: Young People Are Watching, but Less Often on TV.

#130 OFFLINE   unixguru

unixguru

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 648 posts
Joined: Jul 09, 2007

Posted 12 January 2013 - 09:21 AM

When a product had reached saturation, it is not possible to trend up. Growth by its very nature slows.

By trends, electric power delivery to households is on the wane because they aren't adding as many as they did years ago.


I see little relationship to this industry. Power is a great anti-example. Total monopoly. Tied to population. Evolution of consumption devices reduces demand. Yet it's still 100% a la carte - you pay, to the penny, for exactly what you use. Ain't regulation a bi...

A business person with a saturated market that is a near monopoly is going to continue to push to increase revenues. Raise prices, and in this industry, increase ads (more channels and over programs). They will continue to do that until they are losing more than they are gaining. We are well into that trend.

#131 OFFLINE   HinterXGames

HinterXGames

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 313 posts
Joined: Dec 20, 2012

Posted 12 January 2013 - 09:29 AM

I don't see Al la Carte ever happening, simply because I don't think Networks will ever allow it and they control the pricing/structure, because they control the content. TV comapnies have to through the same bundle woes with networks as customers. DTV could tell Disney they only want their main Disney channel and Disney would say no, to get it you have to take A, B, C, E and D.

#132 OFFLINE   Hoosier205

Hoosier205

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 6,617 posts
Joined: Sep 03, 2007

Posted 12 January 2013 - 09:34 AM

A la carte won't happen because it doesn't work and it hasn't work. People who claim to want it, don't understand what impact it would have.
DTV = Digital Television

#133 OFFLINE   pdxBeav

pdxBeav

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 447 posts
Joined: Jul 05, 2007

Posted 12 January 2013 - 09:40 AM

People who claim a la carte can't work don't understand that industries evolve and business models can change over time.

There's a reason why the programmers fight tooth and nail against a la carte. And it isn't because they're looking out for the consumer. ;)

#134 OFFLINE   Hoosier205

Hoosier205

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 6,617 posts
Joined: Sep 03, 2007

Posted 12 January 2013 - 09:44 AM

People who claim a la carte can't work don't understand that industries evolve and business models can change over time.

There's a reason why the programmers fight tooth and nail against a la carte. And it isn't because they're looking out for the consumer. ;)


^^^^Example A^^^^

It would drastically reduce channels, dramatically drive up cost, and gut revenues for production.
DTV = Digital Television

#135 OFFLINE   unixguru

unixguru

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 648 posts
Joined: Jul 09, 2007

Posted 12 January 2013 - 10:00 AM

I don't see Al la Carte ever happening, simply because I don't think Networks will ever allow it and they control the pricing/structure, because they control the content.


They will certainly fight it to the death.

What is content? Who creates it? Does it have to be owned by broadcast networks? How many networks have their own production studio?

I believe most content is created by independent production studios and then sold to networks.

My wife recently told me that the series Hunted, which is on Cinemax (and BBC), was being dropped by BBC but that Cinemax was going to continue it. Looking at the detail of that link shows there are 3 production companies - one of them is BBC. Cinemax is not one of them.

Dexter, Game of Thrones, True Blood, Strike Back, Homeland, Fringe, Grimm, NCIS all have multiple production companies. I stopped looking for more but I haven't found a single program that is produced only by a production studio owned by a distributor.

It's no different than music artists vs record labels.

A viable distribution alternative will have no problem getting content.

#136 OFFLINE   unixguru

unixguru

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 648 posts
Joined: Jul 09, 2007

Posted 12 January 2013 - 10:11 AM

It would drastically reduce channels, dramatically drive up cost, and gut revenues for production.


Music industry:

  • drastically reduce songs - nope
  • dramatically drive up cost - nope
  • gut revenues for production - reduced, maybe
Classic FUD.

#137 OFFLINE   Hoosier205

Hoosier205

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 6,617 posts
Joined: Sep 03, 2007

Posted 12 January 2013 - 10:17 AM

Music industry:


[*]drastically reduce songs - nope
[*]dramatically drive up cost - nope
[*]gut revenues for production - reduced, maybe

Classic FUD.


Completely different industry and distribution model. [mod edit, inappropriate content removed]

Edited by Tom Robertson, 12 January 2013 - 01:16 PM.

DTV = Digital Television

#138 OFFLINE   maartena

maartena

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 2,826 posts
Joined: Nov 01, 2010

Posted 12 January 2013 - 11:28 AM

People who claim a la carte can't work don't understand that industries evolve and business models can change over time.

There's a reason why the programmers fight tooth and nail against a la carte. And it isn't because they're looking out for the consumer. ;)


The reason is money.

If a-la-carte could make them MORE money, it would work. But would consumers really want to pay MORE money to have LESS channels?
[Disclaimer] The definition of "soon" is based solely on DirecTV's interpretation of the word, and all similarities with dictionary definitions of the word "soon" are purely coincidental and should not be interpreted as a time frame that will come to pass within a reasonable amount of time.

I am the Stig.

#139 OFFLINE   Tubaman-Z

Tubaman-Z

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 511 posts
Joined: Jul 30, 2007

Posted 12 January 2013 - 02:08 PM

Interesting, and related article (albeit from 2010): http://www.mediapost...l#axzz2HnFxxeRF

Quote from the article:

"In 2008, the last year for which Nielsen reported the data, the average U.S. household had 130.1 TV channels available to it, but on average, "tuned" only 17.8 of them, according to Nielsen's definition of channel tuning."

Kevin

My top 5 wishlist: 1) Free MRV HR to HR 2) Fix Channels I Receive so that it is accurate 3) > 50 SeriesLink 4) Usage of both internal and external drives concurrently 5) Support for other video providers as DoD (i.e. Hulu, CBS)   

DirecTV HR21-200, 2008 (DirecTV anniversary gift)
DirecTV HR20-100 (2TB eSATA), 2007
DirecTV since 1995

<><


#140 OFFLINE   tulanejosh

tulanejosh

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 426 posts
Joined: May 23, 2008

Posted 12 January 2013 - 02:26 PM

Google?

2 seconds shows this from almost a year ago: Young People Are Watching, but Less Often on TV.


What young people do today has a way of changing when they have jobs and kids. Predicting trends based of what 16 - 24 year olds do right this second is silly. When I was that age I watched very little tv - I was out doing things. And I wasn't alone in that. By that articles rationale TV should have died off when people of my generation gained a greater degree of social control. But it didn't die - because people change their behaviors as they get older.

Edited by tulanejosh, 12 January 2013 - 02:44 PM.


#141 OFFLINE   tulanejosh

tulanejosh

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 426 posts
Joined: May 23, 2008

Posted 12 January 2013 - 02:27 PM

Google?

2 seconds shows this from almost a year ago: Young People Are Watching, but Less Often on TV.


And not my responsibility to google it. Your re one making the argument and not backing it up. I've backed my claims up with revenue and subscriber statistics. It's not too much to ask you to do more than say "it's just the trends, man".

#142 OFFLINE   tulanejosh

tulanejosh

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 426 posts
Joined: May 23, 2008

Posted 12 January 2013 - 02:41 PM

They will certainly fight it to the death.

What is content? Who creates it? Does it have to be owned by broadcast networks? How many networks have their own production studio?

I believe most content is created by independent production studios and then sold to networks.

My wife recently told me that the series Hunted, which is on Cinemax (and BBC), was being dropped by BBC but that Cinemax was going to continue it. Looking at the detail of that link shows there are 3 production companies - one of them is BBC. Cinemax is not one of them.

Dexter, Game of Thrones, True Blood, Strike Back, Homeland, Fringe, Grimm, NCIS all have multiple production companies. I stopped looking for more but I haven't found a single program that is produced only by a production studio owned by a distributor.

It's no different than music artists vs record labels.

A viable distribution alternative will have no problem getting content.


Depends on your perspective whether digital distribution of music is viable. Many artists claim they make very little from the sale of their music digitally. So basically you want what's good for you.

#143 OFFLINE   Hoosier205

Hoosier205

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 6,617 posts
Joined: Sep 03, 2007

Posted 12 January 2013 - 02:49 PM

...comparing completely different industries and distribution models that have no bearing on a la carte for television service providers. It's apples to Buicks.
DTV = Digital Television

#144 OFFLINE   tonyd79

tonyd79

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 12,910 posts
  • LocationColumbia, MD
Joined: Jul 24, 2006

Posted 12 January 2013 - 04:05 PM

Music industry:


[*]drastically reduce songs - nope
[*]dramatically drive up cost - nope
[*]gut revenues for production - reduced, maybe

Classic FUD.


I see. You reject the electricity comparison as not the same model but you go to a model that was always a la carte. Yup.
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

#145 OFFLINE   tulanejosh

tulanejosh

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 426 posts
Joined: May 23, 2008

Posted 12 January 2013 - 06:12 PM

I'm not trying to be recalcitrant here toward anyone but I'm just not seeing the "why" for a la carte or paradigm shifts. The best argument I've seen is that some customers are tired of paying for channels they don't watch. Ok I get it. But a la carte is not going to be cheaper because that would involve the companies and contractors involved in the production and distribution of video to take less money and I just don't see that happening. Business models can change but they do so for reasons that make more money not less.

#146 OFFLINE   Satelliteracer

Satelliteracer

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 3,042 posts
Joined: Dec 06, 2006

Posted 12 January 2013 - 07:21 PM

Music industry:

  • drastically reduce songs - nope
  • dramatically drive up cost - nope
  • gut revenues for production - reduced, maybe
Classic FUD.


The economics of the music industry and the television are so radically different it doesn't pass the smell test. There is no "creativity" in cost to create an album. You use a studio, you lay tracks, you cut the album. Much different than video where a series can cost more than $50 million dollars to create. Movies, sometimes in excess of $150 million. The cost of music albums has not gone up appreciably.

Sorry, just not even close to a good example.

By the way, ever wonder why it's cheaper to go to Best Buy and purchase the entire CD album yet that same album on iTUNES costs more. Hmm. :) Despite there being no case to create, no CD to create, etc...yet it's still cheaper than the digital download.

Edited by Satelliteracer, 12 January 2013 - 07:35 PM.

DIRECTV employee

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

#147 OFFLINE   tonyd79

tonyd79

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 12,910 posts
  • LocationColumbia, MD
Joined: Jul 24, 2006

Posted 12 January 2013 - 07:27 PM

The economics of the music industry and the television are so radically different it doesn't pass the smell test. There is no "creativity" in cost to create an album. You use a studio, you lay tracks, you cut the album. Much different than video where a series can cost more than $50 million dollars to create. Movies, sometimes in excess of $150 million. The cost of music albums has not gone up appreciably.

Sorry, just not even close to a good example.

By the way, ever wonder why it's cheaper to go to Best Buy and purchase a CD that costs LESS than that same album on iTUNES. Hmm. :)


Ooooh. I know. One is a la carte and the other is bundled.
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

#148 OFFLINE   pdxBeav

pdxBeav

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 447 posts
Joined: Jul 05, 2007

Posted 12 January 2013 - 07:30 PM

I'm not trying to be recalcitrant here toward anyone but I'm just not seeing the "why" for a la carte or paradigm shifts. The best argument I've seen is that some customers are tired of paying for channels they don't watch. Ok I get it. But a la carte is not going to be cheaper because that would involve the companies and contractors involved in the production and distribution of video to take less money and I just don't see that happening. Business models can change but they do so for reasons that make more money not less.


Of course they're not going to do it voluntarily. The reason the programmers don't want a la carte is to protect their revenue stream. The only way it'll happen is when the costs become so high that consumers finally say enough is enough. Just like with anything else. Obviously we are not at that point yet, but give it time. It might be two years or twenty years.

As has been discussed here before the best (from a consumer point of view) way would probably be to have the ability to pick from mini-bundles like all ESPN channels or all Scripps channels, etc. It makes no sense for millions of people to help pay for athletes' mega salaries when they don't care at all about sports. The sports channels are the poster child for this problem. Let the people who want the sports channels pay for them. I understand the argument of having everyone subsidize some type of programming, but no valid argument exists for this subsidy to apply to the sports channels.

#149 OFFLINE   Satelliteracer

Satelliteracer

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 3,042 posts
Joined: Dec 06, 2006

Posted 12 January 2013 - 07:37 PM

Of course they're not going to do it voluntarily. The reason the programmers don't want a la carte is to protect their revenue stream. The only way it'll happen is when the costs become so high that consumers finally say enough is enough. Just like with anything else. Obviously we are not at that point yet, but give it time. It might be two years or twenty years.

As has been discussed here before the best (from a consumer point of view) way would probably be to have the ability to pick from mini-bundles like all ESPN channels or all Scripps channels, etc. It makes no sense for millions of people to help pay for athletes' mega salaries when they don't care at all about sports. The sports channels are the poster child for this problem. Let the people who want the sports channels pay for them. I understand the argument of having everyone subsidize some type of programming, but no valid argument exists for this subsidy to apply to the sports channels.



If a la carte made sense from a financial perspective, it would be done. It's really that simple. People want unique content, good series, good movies, etc and that costs money. There are many losers that don't make it past pilot or after series one, yet those shows cost a lot of money to make.

I honestly think some people think every show is a hit and guaranteed. If that were the case, it would be much easier argument to make, but of course that isn't the case. Content creation costs a TON of money, fortunately or unfortunately, it is simply reality.

The sports option you are suggesting would be great, but I don't see that happening. They have tremendous leverage even if only 40% of the people are watching those channels. If a provider doesn't have ESPN, they are going to lose massive numbers of subscribers. Because of the leverage of ESPN, they are going to demand 85% to 90% penetration, so the mini-bundle idea is dead before it gets off the ground.
DIRECTV employee

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

#150 OFFLINE   pdxBeav

pdxBeav

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 447 posts
Joined: Jul 05, 2007

Posted 12 January 2013 - 07:49 PM

If a la carte made sense from a financial perspective, it would be done. It's really that simple. People want unique content, good series, good movies, etc and that costs money. There are many losers that don't make it past pilot or after series one, yet those shows cost a lot of money to make.

I honestly think some people think every show is a hit and guaranteed. If that were the case, it would be much easier argument to make, but of course that isn't the case. Content creation costs a TON of money, fortunately or unfortunately, it is simply reality.

The sports option you are suggesting would be great, but I don't see that happening. They have tremendous leverage even if only 40% of the people are watching those channels. If a provider doesn't have ESPN, they are going to lose massive numbers of subscribers. Because of the leverage of ESPN, they are going to demand 85% to 90% penetration, so the mini-bundle idea is dead before it gets off the ground.


I mostly agree with all your points. The only way it's going to happen is when enough people stop paying for it.




Protected By... spam firewall...And...