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
- - - - -

Thoughts on the De-Bundling Lawsuits.


  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 OFFLINE   SayWhat?

SayWhat?

    Know Nothing

  • Registered
  • 5,648 posts
Joined: Jun 06, 2009

Posted 27 February 2013 - 10:29 AM

Lots of stories all over the web about the carriers piling on to a new lawsuit against Viacom over bundling. I haven't seen a full list of the 14 channels supposedly in dispute, but of the ones I've seen listed, this could be a problem.

It seems the carriers don't want to carry the 'lesser' channels at all, rather than breaking them out of packages and offering them to those that do want them. For example, I'd gladly give up VH1 and all the MTVs if I could have VH1Classics which they seem to want to drop.

Not sure which way this suit will go, but I don't see it good for we the viewers either way based on what I'm reading.
Help stamp out Twits and Twitterers!

HD, SchmacHD!! Just be glad you've got a picture at all.

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

#2 OFFLINE   fluffybear

fluffybear

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 7,221 posts
  • LocationPeachtree City, GA.
Joined: Jun 19, 2004

Posted 27 February 2013 - 12:58 PM

Wall Street Journal

Proud DirecTV customer since July, 1994

My Q4 2014 Set-Up


#3 OFFLINE   phrelin

phrelin

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 13,523 posts
  • LocationNorthern California Redwoods
Joined: Jan 18, 2007

Posted 27 February 2013 - 02:08 PM

I see the issue in terms of my views on Disney/ESPN/ABC. But my guess is that Cablevision decided to take on Viacom because, as mentioned in this LA Times article, "...Viacom is seen by distributors as being the most aggressive programmer when it comes to bundling." I also think they chose it because Viacom does not own any O&O local broadcast stations. It always seemed odd to me that the Redstone family which owns Viacom split CBS and Showtime off as a separate entity.

I personally don't like bundling in the context of packages as they are now offered by all carriers. Assuming we can't a la carte, my preference would be a variation on a la carte where each of the content corporations could create their own offerings to sell through the carriers in the same way we buy HBO, Showtime, and Starz.

Let the satellite and cable companies charges us a service fee like an ISP and rent or sell us hardware. Then the content companies would have to compete for our money.

"In a hundred years there'll be a whole new set of people."
"Always poke the bears. They sleep too much for their own good."

"If you're good enough, they'll talk about you." - Tom Harmon
A GEEZER who remembers watching TV in 1951 and was an Echostar customer from 1988 to 2008, now a Dish Network customer.
My AV Setup
My Slingbox Pro HD Experience
My Blog: The Redwood Guardian


#4 OFFLINE   lwilli201

lwilli201

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 2,988 posts
Joined: Dec 22, 2006

Posted 27 February 2013 - 03:56 PM

This article may be of interest:

http://www.theatlant...e-bundle/62532/
1-HR21-100, 2-HR21-700, 1 w/eSATA, all networked, unsupported MRV. AT9 Dish(110 & 119 disabled) and SWM8.

#5 OFFLINE   SayWhat?

SayWhat?

    Know Nothing

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered
  • 5,648 posts
Joined: Jun 06, 2009

Posted 27 February 2013 - 04:02 PM

I personally don't like bundling in the context of packages as they are now offered by all carriers.


My problem with this suit is that it seems like one site wants to force everything whether we want it or not, and the other side wants to limit what we get based on what they think is worthwhile.

Neither side seems to be concerned with our opinions
Help stamp out Twits and Twitterers!

HD, SchmacHD!! Just be glad you've got a picture at all.

#6 OFFLINE   TomCat

TomCat

    Broadcast Engineer

  • Registered
  • 3,638 posts
Joined: Aug 31, 2002

Posted 02 March 2013 - 08:34 PM

Its an oligarchy, not a democracy. Were it a democracy, we could all choose exactly which channels we want to subscribe to, and which not to. Or even which shows, which then becomes the VOD/PPV model. Democracy is not a right here, or even a privilege. It is what it is.

A la carte sounds like a wonderful idea on the surface, but the end result is we would all be paying the same price for less channels, which would decimate the video entertainment industry in the same way Napster and iTunes have decimated radio and the music industry. It would also disenfranchise new flavors of this entertainment medium from ever having a chance to emerge, and limit the range of media available to the viewers which would keep their horizons hide-bound. That is the exact opposite of "flourish".

Channels like Flix and Sundance subsidize TMC and Showtime, and there are examples for NBCU, Viacom, FOX, Time-Warner, and many others. Those channels would just curl up and die without all of the FX's and Comedy Central's to protect them. But susidization is often a good thing; it keeps universities from becoming nothing more than commercial products beholden to the will of consumers, and it allows a company like DTV to give us high-tech DVRs at costs much less than the prohibitive cost we would be paying without subsidization. Without it, your DVR would cost you about $900. So would your phone. Dumbing down that cost is possible, but only at the price of removing features and reliability.

Maybe it doesn't matter to those who don't watch these lesser channels anyway, but that raises the cost of the channels you do watch which wipes out any savings to the consumer, and puts lots and lots of folks in my industry out of work (so yes, I have a personal investment in how this plays out). I don't like the idea of being forced to take a package deal for 150 channels when I only watch about 15 of them any more than anyone else does, but the reality of realizing a la carte would decimate the status quo and gain us really nothing at a crippling loss to the industry, which means less choices in the end for all of us.

What we have is not a perfect system, but it works, and tinkering with it can only make things worse for everybody.

Edited by TomCat, 02 March 2013 - 08:47 PM.

It's usually safe to talk honestly and openly with people because they typically are not really listening anyway.




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