DBSTalk Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

Directv Comes Out Against Alacart!!

2K views 28 replies 18 participants last post by  CCarncross 
#1 ·
#2 ·
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 ·
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.
 
#4 ·
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 ·
I disagree! Thats why many cable subs are getting screwd over with high prices as we speak!
 
#7 ·
SCDishMan2006 said:
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....
 
#9 ·
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 *****ing 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 ·
Wolffpack said:
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 ·
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.
 
#13 ·
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 ·
Red Dwarf said:
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 ·
Link said:
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 ·
Earl Bonovich said:
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).
 
#20 ·
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.
 
#22 ·
when i was with dish, i had wwor, alacarte, it had a lot of the old sitcoms i like
to watch, cost,$1.50/mo as far as the rest of this discussion,
my opion is, 2- shopping channels, 2 -religion channels, and if i want to listen to
music, i turn on the stereo. there are a lot of good cheep channels out there
that is full of good programming, but dtv elects NOT to bring them on line.:nono2:
 
#23 ·
djwww98 said:
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.
I guess I don't think I'm anything like the average viewer. I pay $100/mo because I have all the premium movie channels, HD and DVR. Except for ch. 70-79, I never watch anything below ch. 500. If I could have all the premiums and zero basic channels, I'd be really happy and I gotta believe I would save...well the price of basic service. Ok, maybe I wouldn't save the full $41/mo but ~$25 would be nice. I do feel pretty ripped off since there is only 1 channel in the initial Total Choice package that I ever watch but I am required to purchase that package before I can get - and pay more for - what I do watch. So to me it seems like I'm already paying ala carte...with a $41 access fee.

The one problem I see with ala carte though isn't so much which channels would survive and which wouldn't, but how could you start up a new channel in an ala carte world? You would need 5 million subscribers on day 1 to be viable.
 
#24 ·
straymutt said:
I guess I don't think I'm anything like the average viewer. I pay $100/mo because I have all the premium movie channels, HD and DVR. Except for ch. 70-79, I never watch anything below ch. 500. If I could have all the premiums and zero basic channels, I'd be really happy and I gotta believe I would save...well the price of basic service. Ok, maybe I wouldn't save the full $41/mo but ~$25 would be nice. I do feel pretty ripped off since there is only 1 channel in the initial Total Choice package that I ever watch but I am required to purchase that package before I can get - and pay more for - what I do watch. So to me it seems like I'm already paying ala carte...with a $41 access fee.
You used to be able to do this at D* back in the early days of DBS when the premium's were sold by USSB. You still can with E* if you own your equipment, all 4 premium movie packs for $37.99 + $6 access fee and no basic channels, if you want HD, the HD Basic pack can be added for $29.99. I am not sure, but you may be able to delete the access fee if you get the HD Basics, so it might be $37.99 + $29.99 = $67.98.
 
#26 ·
newsposter said:
Isn't/wasn't C Band mostly ala carte? It's been 10 years since I've had it and only got the free stuff when I did have it :)
It was, but it still didnt do very well....c-band was all about people getting stuff that was in teh clear, when they had to start paying for subs to channels, alot of skinflints moved away from it....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top