1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Unbundling in the Air?

Discussion in 'DIRECTV Programming' started by Tubaman-Z, Feb 27, 2013.

  1. Mar 1, 2013 #21 of 126
    Laxguy

    Laxguy Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense.

    15,386
    585
    Dec 2, 2010
    Winters,...
    Abuse? No ethics? Have to screw 'them' to increase eps?
    There are some companies who may follow this path, but not the majority.
    Such companies that you seem to despise are not all about maximizing short term profits. Those that do are sooner or later out of business altogether. If employees and customers feel abused they will leave. So the smart company, public or private, reduces its bottom line by paying higher salaries, providing benefits and making for a decent to good to excellent work environment.
     
  2. Mar 1, 2013 #22 of 126
    lokar

    lokar Icon

    748
    13
    Oct 7, 2006
    Ideally that's how things are supposed to work but in reality it happens less and less. Take banks, they cut tons of corners to make short term profits that should have put the banks out of business but instead the government bailed them out. Another problem is that as time goes on, more and more companies buy out/merge/etc. with each other and there are fewer choices for customers and employees alike.

    To use a TV example, the FCC allows ownership of more than one station in a market. This has led to many job losses as one owner will buy another station in the market and then fire most of the employees in the place they just bought and pile all their work on to the original station's employees. Their per station operation costs go down the more they buy and this is why broadcasting in this country has been completely taken over by media conglomerates which is not a good thing.

    And with that I feel I have more than crossed the off topic barrier so I will stop.
     
  3. Mar 1, 2013 #23 of 126
    Jon J

    Jon J Grouch Extrordinaire

    1,233
    8
    Apr 22, 2002
    Music City, USA
    Defenders of bundling rightly point out that many niche channels with very few viewers would probably go dark without the forced income that bundling brings.

    But, isn't survival of the fittest the way commerce is supposed to work?
     
  4. Mar 1, 2013 #24 of 126
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    Is that consumer friendly? Do we want all channels to be McDonalds?
     
  5. Mar 1, 2013 #25 of 126
    Jon J

    Jon J Grouch Extrordinaire

    1,233
    8
    Apr 22, 2002
    Music City, USA
    Are all restaurants McDonalds? Of course not and smaller establishments fare quite well without siphoning off some of McDonald's income to prop them up.
     
  6. Mar 1, 2013 #26 of 126
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    Nice literal use of a comment.

    The fact is that the American restaurant landscape has become very homogenous. Very few local restaurants start up and strive any more.

    I think of this because my boss was looking for a nice but not too nice restaurant that was not a chain to take his staff that was visiting from out of town.
     
  7. Mar 1, 2013 #27 of 126
    Diana C

    Diana C Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    2,117
    293
    Mar 30, 2007
    New Jersey
    Not YET...however, how many hardware stores are there that are not Home Depots or Lowes'? How many grocery stores are not part of a national chain? How many dry goods stores are not Walmarts? Everytime one of those mega-chains move into an area the diversity and richness of choice in the area diminishes. Unbundling TV channels will have the same ultimate effect on diversity...NBC, Fox, USA, TNT and A&E will survive. Ovation, CMT, TCM and others, not so much.
     
  8. Mar 1, 2013 #28 of 126
    KyL416

    KyL416 Hall Of Fame

    4,492
    643
    Nov 10, 2005
    Tobyhanna, PA
    Did anyone read the original article and see the list of stations Dolan called out? Palladia, MTV Hits and VH1 Classic which are MTV and VH1's digital sister stations that actually air music. Stations that just happen to be in competition with a certain music station owned by MSG Media, which is also run by the Dolans...
     
  9. Mar 1, 2013 #29 of 126
    Curtis0620

    Curtis0620 Hall Of Fame

    1,500
    25
    Apr 22, 2002
    So if the Provider (Cablevision) will only buy the channels they want, how are you going to get the ones they don't buy?
     
  10. Mar 1, 2013 #30 of 126
    acostapimps

    acostapimps Hall Of Famer

    1,866
    50
    Nov 5, 2011
    Illinois
    What I meant to,say is why didn't directv took a tough stance against Viacom like Cablevision is doing for asking too much money for bundling crappy low ratings channels instead of just paying, I know the kids were upset that their favorite channels were missing, but guess who's paying for this.
     
  11. Mar 2, 2013 #31 of 126
    jmpfaff

    jmpfaff AllStar

    56
    0
    Dec 12, 2004
    I'm starting to feel like a broken record on this topic.

    The objective of DirecTV (and other providers) is to maximize shareholder profit for DirecTV shareholders.

    The objective of Viacom (and other content owners) is to maximize shareholder profit for Viacom shareholders.

    If the costs to consumers (which corresponds to profit since production costs are unlikely to change) would actually be higher in an a la carte environment, WE WOULD ALREADY HAVE A LA CARTE!!!!!!!

    The reason Providers and Content Owners are resisting a la carte is because it would be pro-consumer.

    Cablevision, however, is not seeking a la carte here, they are just seeking the ability to tell Viacom no on certain channels, and thus migrate some profit from Viacom to Cablevision, likely with no impact on consumer costs.
     
  12. Mar 2, 2013 #32 of 126
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    Or it is just completely unviable as a model. Less programming and a potentially collapsed marketplace is not pro consumer.

    But ignore all the analysis that shows it does not work and listen to all the voices that have no data saying it will. Yup.
     
  13. Mar 2, 2013 #33 of 126
    Davenlr

    Davenlr Geek til I die

    9,139
    28
    Sep 16, 2006
    Gee. Sounds like Comcast and Directv. They force me to pay for all sorts of channels Ill never watch, just to get one I do.

    So if they succeed in court, and bundling is ruled illegal, then I can subscribe to their lowest tier package, and tell them I also want channel X from the highest priced tier and they will have to comply?
     
  14. Mar 2, 2013 #34 of 126
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    Ha!
     
  15. Mar 2, 2013 #35 of 126
    Laxguy

    Laxguy Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense.

    15,386
    585
    Dec 2, 2010
    Winters,...
    Even if so, at what price to you? (????!)
     
  16. Mar 2, 2013 #36 of 126
    unixguru

    unixguru Godfather

    787
    33
    Jul 9, 2007
    Didn't the a la carte thread just go quiet? :grin:

    Are you suggesting that is a bad thing? That is the ultimate result of this economic system that everyone says we have/want (of course I can't name that system because then we would endure the twisting of the meaning). Unless it is TV. So are you now going to argue that we should do some kind of "bundling" in the restaurant industry to reinvigorate things?
     
  17. Mar 3, 2013 #37 of 126
    harsh

    harsh Beware the Attack Basset

    21,192
    183
    Jun 14, 2003
    Salem, OR
    There is an almost complete lack of logic in this assertion.

    A la carte doesn't work because people don't buy the channels they don't want. With the current model, they must buy the channels they don't want for more than the price of the channels that they do want and that benefits Viacom. They have a large block of channels that they sell for a relatively large price so you may get a three or four channels worth of content.

    What is broken is the idea that more channels is better. They need a whole lot less channels with the best content that they offer now.
     
  18. Mar 3, 2013 #38 of 126
    FLWingNut

    FLWingNut Godfather

    471
    12
    Nov 19, 2005
    Depends on what you mean by "best" content. Most popular? Doesn't mean best to me. Ala carte would mean fewer channels all filled with only mass appeal programming. And we would pay as much or more. Channels full of reality shows and old reruns are fine if they're balanced by other channels that may be less popular but have more varied programming. Balance USA Network and TBS with H2, Military Channel and Ovation. Without bundling we don't get the balance.
     
  19. Mar 4, 2013 #39 of 126
    Satelliteracer

    Satelliteracer Hall Of Fame

    3,042
    37
    Dec 6, 2006
    Note the part about the cost to develop content. 98 scripts were invested in this year, 70% of which will never make the air. Even some that do, they are gone within weeks.

    As talked about in other threads on the cost of television, this isn't like making a widget, or a gear, or a silicon chip. There are huge creative bets that are made in the hopes of a handful being successful.


    [​IMG]
     
  20. Mar 5, 2013 #40 of 126
    unixguru

    unixguru Godfather

    787
    33
    Jul 9, 2007
    And yet they still make lots of money.

    Sorry, just not true. It's a very naive perspective on what it takes to make stuff. Just putting "gear" and "silicon chip" in the same sentence shows this.

    In my ~30 years in software engineering nearly all of the products I worked on were not very successful for a variety of reasons. (No, that wasn't unique to me :lol:.) I spent the last 10 years working on one that is very successful. In those ~30 years I watched as many billions of dollars worth of investment in the computer hardware/software industry went up in smoke as product after product died. It's the norm.

    It's just total BS that entertainment is fundamentally different.
     

Share This Page