Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'DIRECTV General Discussion' started by Athlon646464, Jun 12, 2013.
And you base that on what? How do you know what the prices would be?
It doesn't matter what the prices are. I know how much I'm willing to pay. If it's too high then I won't pay it and I won't get the channel.
I understand that each channel would cost more under a la carte, but that doesn't necessarily mean they will get the same amount of revenue. That's the only point I was trying to make.
DirecTV seems to be leaning toward government interference in their supplier's business. I pose the question whether they would be supportive of government interference in their business (DirecTV being a supplier to consumers).
Your claim, your burden of proof.
Before going a la carte ESPN will look at their profits. If they can make more money charging every DirecTV subscriber $5 (before DirecTV's markup) than charging less subscribers more they simply will not offer their channels a la carte. They are not run by fools.
That problem can be handled by having minimum subscription lengths or fees for removing channels within X number of days. With digital rights management programmers could also cut off the ability to replay recordings after the channel is dropped.
Exactly, that's why they don't want any changes to the current system. They are very smart and know how to market their products very well.
All comes down to something is going to change... Prices are getting ridiculous and I think most people are getting to the point that the prices are just plain not worth the programming. Some people can't pay more but even people that can pay more are going to say enough is enough.
The day I can subscribe to a streaming version of Showtime is the day I stop paying for traditional pay-TV service - which I have been paying every month for the last 30 years or so.
DirecTV and the content providers are getting very close to flesh as they 'shear the sheep'. Once they hit flesh it's all over!
Peronsally I'm a huge fan of going to the movies again since the quality of 3D IMAX and 4K theaters is available to me....it has created a great move going experience again. Unitl I can acheive that good a picture and sound at home, I'll continue to go to movies I want to see. I usually go to a Sat. or Sun matinee, smaller crowds and a few dollars cheaper ticket prices, it a win-win. On a side note, my HT is no slouch either.
+1. You already see this if trying to remove a premium package in the first 30 days with D*.
And this is why you aren't seeing showtime and others giving away their programming for free, but requiring a subscription to a pay provider in the first place. A few do but its generally for short times and I suspect that will disappear within 3 years, except for maybe ota stations.
Actually, you are making my point for me. Hollywood for years made prices of vcr tapes of their movies cost prohibitive to people buying them for fear it'd hurt their movie ticket attendance. As cable (read HBO really changed the entire landscape) started airing things as well, they have slowly manipulated the markets, by making things faster available to own and easier ($), but overall at a higher cost than before (Movie tickets and subscriptions to hbo are higher and higher, and today, blu rays cost what vcr tapes did and more unless its on sale or an older movie they've already made their money on, and today they are also selling tv series, which they didn't really used to do in such large quantity, plus they also get massive money from hulu, netflix, etc for stuff that they never had before) , and increasing the price of movie theater tickets at the same time. Its the exact same thing and streaming is just another medium that they will do the same thing with. They will increase its costs as needed to balance any profits the new medium may pull away from other sources.
They probably hope for the most part that it replaces blu ray sales to a certain extent so that hey can actualy charge a little more for it and yet have even less costs since they dont have to pay to make all the discs, and the costs of the infrastructre to stream all this is more of a one time charge and some of it is actually taken care fo by internet providers, who will charge their own fees and get their own money. Why do you think comcast bought nbc and nbc was happy to do it? Soon you will see more and more pricing based on usage and maybe even type of usage. Could you imagine if they start charging a separate rate for streaming of movies etc vs, simply surfing google for a restaurant. I wouldn't put it past them.
And good grief, if a la cart hit for say fox, you would end up paying for a bunch of channels a higher price for each since overall they'd need to keep the same profit lines, and each channel would have less people so less subs paying, and less money from ads for less viewers, OR, or one channel with all programming at a price significantly more than equal to what the individual channels would cost, because you'd be paying for all the programs, plus all the lost ad revenue that the loss of the other channels would cause. And I'd expect the costs of their movies an tv series to increase for blu ray sales as well, to keep everything in balance. They dont care if only a few peopel can buy instead of everyone, so long as they keep their proifit margins. They just dont care about everyone having access in the first place.
The real solution, is for all sports leagues to stop getting so much money for their broadcast rights. That would help fix a lot of all these issues, and why i think a hybrid system where most sports are spun off may be coming sooner rather than latter.
I don't want it for free - I'd pay double just to be rid of the wasted 500+ channels and $150 a month for basic service + Showtime...
No business likes to be regulated. But regulation is necessary for balance. Lack of sufficient regulation has a history of being bad for the population in general - even to the point of people dying because of it.
It's the governments job to ensure a competitive market, to prevent monopolies or oligopolies. If an industry requires a monopoly due to the nature of the business then they must be a fully regulated utility where, yes, prices are controlled.
I can't buy SyFy without ESPN.
With inflation considered, Blu-Ray are actually cheaper than what VHS was.
I don't go to the theater enough to know for sure but it looks like our local megaplex lowers prices as a movie gets older. Man of Steel is playing now for $8/$12.75. Others are $7/$9.75. Those prices may seem high for those of us advancing in age but the rise has been slow and small compared to TV service.
Blu-Ray devalues with age as well. Target has Hansel & Gretel for $55. Skyfall is $25. Harry Potter 1 is $10.
Any delivery method will be the same - declining costs as an item ages. A shift to any new medium isn't going to change anything. The newer the item is the more it will cost. We will still have option to own or rent. People that pay the most to have it the soonest will continue to do so.
What difference if we pay for a physical disc or a little extra for data?
We do need net neutrality laws to prevent this. A byte is a byte.
Wow. So sports leagues are the only ones demanding too much?! Just the tip of the iceberg. I could just as easily say the production companies/actors/etc are getting too much for what they put out.
Whatever enables sports to be spun off will change the way everything is packaged.
Imagine this scenario.
Due to a deal with Disney (for example), NetFlix Disc Subscription service is required to send 1 Disney/Pixar/StarWars/etc disc for every 5 selected by the consumer. Without accepting this deal NetFlix would not have access to any Disney product. Knowing that lots of consumers want Disney products, they had no choice. So every consumer using this service pays $X a month and, as part of that payment, gets a disc they may not want or ever look at.
According to some, this is just a "business" deal and nobody should interfere. If the consumer doesn't like it they can just not use the service.
But... you can't buy any DVD/Blu-Ray in a retail store without paying a Disney tax and getting a Disney product either. It's just business.
Legal? It doesn't take a lawyer to answer that.
Yet this same practice is ok with "TV".
$55????? It's $14.98 at Amazon.
Sorry, poor reference. Yep, Target.com has 3D Blu-Ray at $54.99. Straight DVD is $19.99. Bet they sell a lot at that price! One has to wonder why anybody buys discs at any retail location.
Which has a tiny association to this thread...
If suppliers care so much about the money they are getting, why do they let Amazon sell their products?
The truth is that the bulk of the profit is not in the product, it's in the rigged distribution system!
Why wouldn't a production company want to go direct to streaming and make more for themselves? There is the business case and why it's gonna happen. As I've said in posts elsewhere, the distribution companies rarely exclusively own the production company.
You would pay $26/mo to showtime and not have a problem with it? I feel your mindset would change rather quickly in that instance. The grass is definitely not greener.
I would be happy to pay $26 a month for Showtime because then I wouldn't need DirecTV and it would save me $130 or so a month. I have fabulous OTA, Netflix, and Hulu already. Just need Showtime.
Not saying I wouldn't miss a few other channels/programs but 9 out of 10 things we watch are Broadcast Network, Netflix or Showtime.
I'd likely do OTA Tivo just so I don't have to watch on their schedule so that would also cut into my savings...
If you're paying $130/mo, it seems you're getting alot more than you want. Have you tried modifying that to cut back on stuff you don't care for?
Your claim was that was illegal.