Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'DIRECTV Programming' started by ssm06, Jan 2, 2013.
Do you remember the other provider that went before Congress to lobby for a la carte?
Another way in which movies aren't as different as they may appear...
How many successful movies do not come out with a sequel/prequel? Yep, that's right, movies are a series.
All video entertainment has a value per hour and it always declines as it becomes older.
and that shifts the costs for delivery down the line so the ISP will need to upgrade local areas to have more bandwidth to cover online TV.
That all sounds very time-consuming and in this day, with all that people have going on, who, among adults, has time to sit down and actively look for music, TV, etc? We are a very passive country, and we tend to go with we know. I work hard on a daily basis, the last thing I want to do is work to find entertainment content.
For those of us who know that a la carte will actually cost us more, why would we cheer for someone to lobby for it?
Why is this here and not in a non-provider specific section?
Last time I checked a la carte does exist in the form of the various private BitTorrent sites that exist and thrive. Simply keep that ratio kosher and all is well.
Another thing is advertising income for small, obscure channels. A big company such as Discovery Communications has a few "high profile" channels such as Discovery Channel and TLC, but also has a number of "lesser" channels such as Military Channel and Fit&Health.
In negotiating with carriers, they will want to include the "lesser" channels in the deal as they know not a lot of people would actually want to pay for these channels individually, and they run a much better chance of someone seeing their advertisements if they can promote the channel on the high profile channels, or if it is placed very close in number to the high profile channels for those just flipping channels and stumbling on something interesting.
The few attempts I have seen at "a la carte" in Canada, Europe, and the U.S. usually end up offering you packages. A "viacom" package that includes ALL of the MTV/VH1 stuff, or a "discovery" package that includes ALL of the Discovery stuff.
The box Intel offers is not a breakthrough in technology, it really isn't much more than a glorified Roku that can do some more things. From a technological point a view, a box like this could have been launched 10 years ago. It isn't the technology that is allowing (or restricting) a a-la-carte type service, it is the companies who own the content. And these companies are not going to want to split up their channels and charge individually for them, as it will most certainly drop their viewership of each channel, including the high-profile ones. And less viewers is less advertisement is less money. They would have to price the channels so high to offset this loss in revenue, it really doesn't make any business sense.
Yes. But the content that can be downloaded via those sites is not offered with the consent of the owner of said content. One can argue the legality of a torrent site (as they actually do not store ANY content, just a link that allows hundreds of hosts to share said content), but having the content on your hard drive, and subsequently uploading it to others (to keep the ratio kosher) is copyright infringement and illegal under U.S. laws.
But what if I subscribe to two providers and sub to every movie channel on one of those providers(fios)? Yeah, didn't think so but the practice continues and the communities thrive...Thanks for the quick lesson in US copyright law though..
Another interesting article on the topic
Hulu (Plus) fails to reach critical mass in features. That doesn't automatically mean the concept is rejected by consumers.
Just a quick check of their capabilities (their web site is strangely devoid of information) shows a few killers: 1) only streaming [supported on TiVo but it sounds like you can't use DVR functionality with their content], 2) no CBS network, 3) max 720p ("when available").
Here I discuss a winning way to do this. Not streaming "live", more of a On Demand method. Off-hours bandwidth utilization. Then consumer has DVR functionality and 1080i/p is less impact. As I stated in that post - the problem is content jail.
Although, I find it interesting that many claim this will never happen due to distribution companies owning their content and not wanting to break their monopoly (er, I mean model) yet lots of them... well... did do something different with Hulu.
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.
I typically use something called a "radio" for that. Not only is the content free, it consumes less electricity than my television/home theater.
Check out http://www.playlater.tv/
That's cool, but what if i don't want to do it that way? What if i prefer.... Headline News or TNT? You forcing your preferences on me is as ridiculous as me telling you that you need to watch CNN instead of listening to the radio. Care to decide what I'm having for dinner tonight as well?
And BTW - according to unixguru, broadcast is dead, so you might want to find a podcast or something.
Not true. Sports are neither DVR proof nor do they have to be watched live. Many of us watch on delay, recording it and starting to watch an hour or more into it to avoid yakking taking head pregame crap and commercials and halftime/intermissions. I watch almost all the sports I really care about that way.