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

Directv Comes Out Against Alacart!!


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
28 replies to this topic

#1 OFFLINE   juan ellitinez

juan ellitinez

    Icon/Supporter

  • Gold Members
  • 1,980 posts
Joined: Jan 31, 2003

Posted 26 February 2006 - 09:59 AM

http://www.foxnews.c...,186010,00.html


Rupert Murdoch, a titan of TV, has a simple answer: "I think it kills the whole business model."



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

#2 OFFLINE   carl6

carl6

    Hall Of Fame

  • Moderators
  • 11,240 posts
  • LocationSeattle, WA
Joined: Nov 15, 2005

Posted 26 February 2006 - 10:42 AM

While I, like probably the overwhelming majority of users, only watch a small number of different channels and feel like it would be good if all I had to do was subscribe to that small number (and thus save cost), I think the reality is that Alacart would result in the demise of a lot of the nich channels that are out there. People do watch them, but with alacart, not enough people would watch to make them economically viable.

So, the current model gives me the choice of all those channels, and I can simply choose to not watch the ones I don't care for. You can do the same. And we both end up watching a different group of channels due to our individual tastes. With alacart, we would both lose, as some of the channels in each of our preferred groupings would probably go away due to lack of a wider interest.

I seriously doubt that alacart programming would actually result in lower cost to anyone. I wish it did, but I don't think that is a realistic expectation.

Carl

#3 OFFLINE   Earl Bonovich

Earl Bonovich

    Lifetime Achiever

  • Registered
  • 30,092 posts
Joined: Nov 15, 2005

Posted 26 February 2006 - 11:29 AM

My personal opinion...

Al-Acart is a BAD idea...

Why? Who would have signed up for TNT when it first came out? Or USA? or even Sci-Fi? Those networks started small to become what they have today.

If Al-Acart goes that route, some channels that could become great channels.. may never happen.

I am all for not having 10 Shopping networks on my TV, and 10 music "video" channels... but all in all... Those channels are not the one's driving our bills up.

It is the ESPN's, CNN's , Disney's of the world that are jacking the prices up.

DirecTV is in a much better position the cable co's to implement Al-Acart, as for 10 years they have used the Access card logic to limit what channels you can see and not see...

But the complexity behind it......
What would really happen... Is that DirecTV and other providers, would have to basically create a webpage... that specifically states what each channel would cost to have....

And I don't think the ESPN's and others like that would like you to know that they are charging $4 a month for their "channels" where other networks are only "charging" $0.50


Al-Acart IMHO, is going to do nothing but DRIVE up the prices... as cable-co's will find the loop hole that they will charge you a small fee each time you change your programming package.

Or they will dictate that you MUST go to the digital plans (which already cost more) and have a box at every TV.... basically... be carefull what you wish for.

My parent's and grandparent's generation though braking up "Ma-Bell" would result in lower prices.... That worked out didn't it... they are almost back to being one big company again.
Earl - Gotta Love Karma

DIRECTV employee since April 2008.
All comments are my own. Unless specifically stated, my views do NOT represent the views of DIRECTV

#4 OFFLINE   SCDishMan2006

SCDishMan2006

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 68 posts
Joined: Feb 02, 2006

Posted 26 February 2006 - 04:17 PM

http://www.foxnews.c...,186010,00.html


Rupert Murdoch, a titan of TV, has a simple answer: "I think it kills the whole business model."



Bah. A la carte is a fabulous idea. There would no doubt still be packages of channels available for those who wanted it.

But, where I see A La Carte becoming a fabulous option is for somebody like me. I hate ESPN, I don't watch Disney and I don't care for any of the religious channels, shopping channels or babysitting channels (kids programming.) Why should I have to pay for it?

#5 OFFLINE   Smthkd

Smthkd

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 925 posts
Joined: Sep 01, 2004

Posted 26 February 2006 - 04:30 PM

I disagree! Thats why many cable subs are getting screwd over with high prices as we speak!

#6 OFFLINE   Chris Freeland

Chris Freeland

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,660 posts
Joined: Mar 23, 2002

Posted 26 February 2006 - 06:46 PM

Here we go again. :lol:

#7 OFFLINE   CCarncross

CCarncross

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 7,058 posts
  • LocationJackson
Joined: Jul 19, 2005

Posted 26 February 2006 - 07:05 PM

Bah. A la carte is a fabulous idea. There would no doubt still be packages of channels available for those who wanted it.

But, where I see A La Carte becoming a fabulous option is for somebody like me. I hate ESPN, I don't watch Disney and I don't care for any of the religious channels, shopping channels or babysitting channels (kids programming.) Why should I have to pay for it?


you already dont pay for religious or shopping channels.....since they mostly fall under PI channels....

#8 OFFLINE   Wolffpack

Wolffpack

    Banned User

  • Banned User
  • 4,642 posts
Joined: Jul 29, 2003

Posted 26 February 2006 - 07:23 PM

you already dont pay for religious or shopping channels.....since they mostly fall under PI channels....

You pay for those in bandwidth. To me, that = paying for those channels.

#9 OFFLINE   djwww98

djwww98

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 289 posts
Joined: Jan 11, 2006

Posted 27 February 2006 - 04:13 AM

Company "D" makes X dollars from Y customers. How much they charge is determined by a combination of supply and demand, what the market will bare, and what they need to make as a return on their investment. Everybody thinks they would pay less ala-cart but Company "D" would have to adjust their ala-cart prices so that they still made X dollars from Y customers. In the end, capitalism would adjust the playing field so the "average" customer would still be paying the "average" amount. Dealing with each customer has a set price, so they might start charging a base fee, like most utilities, so if you only wanted a few channels, you would still have a $5 or $10 base fee, then a few dollars per channel on top of that. Just an example of how, in the end, not much savings would be reallized from people who think they would save a lot. People who are worried about this are probably paying $50 bucks a month right now, give or take. And thinking they would save what...5 or 10 bucks a month? People in this country take so much for granted. "Why should I pay for stuff I don't watch?" It's what everybody pays that has allowed this technology to exist and advance to the point it is today. It's like bitching about your taxes paying for a road that you don't drive on very often. Everybody being able to get around benefits everybody in the long run.

#10 OFFLINE   Chris Freeland

Chris Freeland

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,660 posts
Joined: Mar 23, 2002

Posted 27 February 2006 - 07:13 AM

You pay for those in bandwidth. To me, that = paying for those channels.


Even if you could get just the channels you wanted, these other channels would still be their using up bandwidth. Their are people who like one or more of the religious or shopping channels, I guess you just want channels that you like to take up bandwidth and to hell with what someone else mite like.

#11 OFFLINE   Link

Link

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,744 posts
Joined: Feb 01, 2004

Posted 27 February 2006 - 07:23 AM

They don't need a la carte necessarily just more packages to choose from. I know several people that have gone with Dish's new family package because they don't watch much beyond their local networks. By having the family package it gives them kids programming and some additional channels that is more affordable than paying $50 a month for a lot of channels they never watch.

At least Dish does now have 4 different packages to choose from. Directv only has 3 with the launch of their family pack in April. Cable systems usually just offer basic local channels, expanded basic, and digital basic channels.

#12 OFFLINE   Bobman

Bobman

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,528 posts
Joined: Jan 03, 2006

Posted 27 February 2006 - 07:31 AM

They need a no frills very basic only package for under $20.

#13 OFFLINE   Red Dwarf

Red Dwarf

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 131 posts
Joined: Aug 25, 2002

Posted 27 February 2006 - 07:48 AM

In Canada Bell Expressvu would have groups of channels to select, which I think would work well. It's not a perfect a la carte, but would give people a custom package. If they aren't a sports nut don't get the sports package etc. Perhaps when people see the amount an "ESPN" costs and a bunch of people drop the channel due to cost, maybe they would lower their price.

#14 OFFLINE   Chris Freeland

Chris Freeland

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,660 posts
Joined: Mar 23, 2002

Posted 27 February 2006 - 08:28 AM

In Canada Bell Expressvu would have groups of channels to select, which I think would work well. It's not a perfect a la carte, but would give people a custom package. If they aren't a sports nut don't get the sports package etc. Perhaps when people see the amount an "ESPN" costs and a bunch of people drop the channel due to cost, maybe they would lower their price.


The only problem with this is that not everyone that watches sports from time to time is a sports nut and may want some but not all of the channels in an "all sports tier", the same goes for an "all movie tier", an "all kids tier", an "all educational tier" etc. I know I watch sports some, mainly my favorite pro and college football and basketball teams and many times only the last quarter and I may watch some of the play off games, but I do not consider my self a sports nut and would not likely buy an all sports tier. I do however want the more popular sports channels like ESPN and ESPN News in a package that also includes educational, family, movie and variety channels too, this is why when I had E*, I had AT180 and now have Comcast Digital Plus for their wide selection of channels in all categorize (more so in E*AT180).

For me and my family, I like the big variety packages and the ability to cruise the guide, and yes their are probably only a dozen or so channels that I watch on a regular bases but from time to time I will find a show on a channel that I rarely if ever watch, plus my wife and daughter each have a dozen or so favorite channels that they watch on a regular bases, some of these overlap with each others favorite's and my favorite's and some do not, for me and my family "a la carte" or small theme tiers would not work.

I would not mind if the satellite, cable and phone company's offered an "a la carte" or specialty tier option for those that wanted it if it could truly be done without costing me more money for less channels and with no or little government intervention.

#15 OFFLINE   durl

durl

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,743 posts
Joined: Mar 27, 2003

Posted 27 February 2006 - 09:01 AM

They don't need a la carte necessarily just more packages to choose from. I know several people that have gone with Dish's new family package because they don't watch much beyond their local networks. By having the family package it gives them kids programming and some additional channels that is more affordable than paying $50 a month for a lot of channels they never watch.

At least Dish does now have 4 different packages to choose from. Directv only has 3 with the launch of their family pack in April. Cable systems usually just offer basic local channels, expanded basic, and digital basic channels.


BINGO!

This seems like the logical choice to me. I can still see how this might not solve the problem completely. A customer may want only one channel from a certain package, or the large number of choices might overwhelm a typical consumer, particularly a newbie. Still, the idea is very intriguing.

#16 OFFLINE   newsposter

newsposter

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,429 posts
Joined: Nov 12, 2003

Posted 27 February 2006 - 10:05 AM

My parent's and grandparent's generation though braking up "Ma-Bell" would result in lower prices.... That worked out didn't it... they are almost back to being one big company again.


Without regards to corporate structure....didn't it work out? Wasn't long distance like 25-50 cents a minute and we had to lease phones at X per month? Even if we go back to one big AT&T, I can't see that prices/lease structures would ever return to the past. People may not be happy about leasing directivos but i'm pretty sure there would be a revolution if we all had to go back to leasing our phones.

I definitely dont know all the ins and outs of telcos, just that I'm positive I couldn't have 2 phone lines with all the services I want for 40 a month if it was 1975 :) (oh and 3 cents a minute with my BJs phone card for LD).

#17 OFFLINE   Earl Bonovich

Earl Bonovich

    Lifetime Achiever

  • Registered
  • 30,092 posts
Joined: Nov 15, 2005

Posted 27 February 2006 - 10:19 AM

A discussion for another day, another thread.

I apologise for bringing inot the discussion.
Earl - Gotta Love Karma

DIRECTV employee since April 2008.
All comments are my own. Unless specifically stated, my views do NOT represent the views of DIRECTV

#18 OFFLINE   CCarncross

CCarncross

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 7,058 posts
  • LocationJackson
Joined: Jul 19, 2005

Posted 27 February 2006 - 11:47 AM

You pay for those in bandwidth. To me, that = paying for those channels.


Unless those channels disappear from teh satelittes, the bandwidth will still be used....very poor analogy you used there.....

#19 OFFLINE   newsposter

newsposter

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,429 posts
Joined: Nov 12, 2003

Posted 27 February 2006 - 01:40 PM

A discussion for another day, another thread.

I apologise for bringing inot the discussion.


darn, i'm always seeking to expand my knowledgebase :)

#20 OFFLINE   Greg Bimson

Greg Bimson

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 3,918 posts
Joined: May 05, 2003

Posted 27 February 2006 - 01:51 PM

Regarding the telco breakup, realize this was the cause of a lawsuit that broke up a monopoly. This comparasion is apples and oranges, because AT&T owned everything regarding phones 30 years ago, while today there are multiple content owners and distributors for the multichannel television market.




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