[JoeTheDragon]

Canadian TV viewers gain greater control of the dial

http://business.financialpost.com/2012/07/20/canadian-tv-viewers-to-have-more-choice-but-at-a-cost/

we need this as well.

 

[tonyd79]

Yeah so the per unit cost to everyone goes up and the cost for those of us who have everything goes through the roof and we have to start dropping things.

 

[Satelliteracer]

Here's the key

Bell will charge higher rates per channel.

"Fewer channels will mean unit costs for those channels will be higher than if you buy a bigger package," the Bell executive said. "There's a volume discount" for viewers who take bigger TV tiers with more channels.

If TSN for example costs a cable subscriber $2.50 month in a bundled package, individually, that fee could soar north of $10. Still, by opening up channels, consumers who want fewer channels at a lower cost will get their wish, Mr. Crull said.

....higher costs per channel. Too many people in this country think you take your $75 bill and divide by 150 channels and thus the cost is $0.50 per channel. They then compute that "I only watch 50 of these channels, so I should pay only $25, or 50 * $0.50". That's where everything falls apart.

That has always been my caveat with a la carte. It will lead to higher costs for consumers and less choice because some channels will simply go away, they need a few pennies per channel in massive volumes to stay alive for the 10% that care, but if sold only to those 10% as an a la carte, they have no chance. Will customers be ok saving some money on their overall bill but get 1/2 or 1/3 the channel options they have today?

It will be interesting to watch what goes on up there. The biggest challenge is getting all of the content providers to be on board. Having ESPN not sold to 90% of all pay tv customers is an example where this gets sideways almost immediately. In my opinion (which means nothing. )

 

[maartena]

Canadian TV viewers gain greater control of the dial

http://business.financialpost.com/2012/07/20/canadian-tv-viewers-to-have-more-choice-but-at-a-cost/

we need this as well.

In Canada they use something to accomplish that, something that in Washington D.C. (particularly with one side of the aisle) often evokes anger, profane language, and other bad reactions.

Key word: "regulation". A word that will cause SOME congressmen to reach for their pitchforks and/or rifles.

I don't think a similar regulation as in Canada will ever happen in the U.S. Lobbyists from both media and/or carrier companies are in cahoots with everyone from both sides of the aisle, and this kinds of thing doesn't really favor companies.

Nor consumers for that matter. Prices will go up.

 

[tulanejosh]

I think this is really a case of being careful what you wish for. SR is dead on - people think it's just a straight slice, 50 cents a channel. All you need to do is look at iTunes and Amazon Instant - single shows cost $2.99. Entire networks will cost far in excess. I hope if this every happens i retain the ability to buy bundles. Much better value.

 

[242424]

I could easily get by with 15 channels, maybe less. I would love it.

 

[Alan Gordon]

I still think theme packaging is the way things will move to... but I think there needs to be more choices than Comcast's current implementation.

~Alan

 

[tonyd79]

I could easily get by with 15 channels, maybe less. I would love it.

That will be $65.50 a month, please. $85.50 if one of them is espn or Disney or a premium.

 

[tonyd79]

I still think theme packaging is the way things will move to... but I think there needs to be more choices than Comcast's current implementation.

~Alan

I don't. For one reason. You think Disney want to be in the same package with Nickelodeon and vice versa?

 

[PCampbell]

I would pay 75$ for the 15channels. Now it is 105$ for the 15 I watch and the 195 I don't.

 

[Alan Gordon]

I don't. For one reason. You think Disney want to be in the same package with Nickelodeon and vice versa?

My programming package with DirecTV includes both Disney and Nickelodeon!

~Alan

 

[tonyd79]

My programming package with DirecTV includes both Disney and Nickelodeon!

~Alan

Touché

 

[PrinceLH]

I have a Shaw Direct subscription, beside my Directv subscription. This is great, because there is allot of channels, that survive on being in a bundle with stronger stations, from the same company. I only want the news channels, sports channels and a few of their specialty channels. I really couldn't care less for some of the specialty channels, that mirror their U.S. counterpart. HBO Canada, does not carry all of the same channels that HBO, in the U.S. carries. They sell many of their profitable programs, to other cable channels and you need about 5 different channels, to cover allot of their core programming, like in the U.S. Even AMC and TCM have to change their programming, in Canada. Something to do about movie rights. I would love to see this kind of idea, coming to our cable and satellite companies someday soon.

 

[west99999]

I would pay 75$ for the 15channels. Now it is 105$ for the 15 I watch and the 195 I don't.

The $105 you pay is not your 15 channels and the 195 you dont watch that is your total bill so with al a carte you would pay $75 for your 15 and then $15 per extra room, $15 for DVR, $15 for HD etc.... so now your over your $105 (hypothetically):eek2:

 

[tonyd79]

I would pay 75$ for the 15channels. Now it is 105$ for the 15 I watch and the 195 I don't.

Tell you what. Make a list of 15 channels. Every time you even sample something on one of the other channels, charge yourself $5.

We all think we only watch a small sample of channels until we realize. Oh, I watched that movie on TNT. Or I watched a rerun on lifetime.

You may be the exception and actually watch 15 or fewer but most people watch more than they think and don't realize they would miss those opportunities.

 

[PCampbell]

I have a short list of channels I watch and may go back to OTA at end of contract.

 

[tonyd79]

I have a short list of channels I watch and may go back to OTA at end of contract.

Like I said. You may be one of the few who really don't watch much outside a handful.

Don't think there are enough people who fit your style to design a whole environment around.

 

[Satelliteracer]

Tell you what. Make a list of 15 channels. Every time you even sample something on one of the other channels, charge yourself $5.

We all think we only watch a small sample of channels until we realize. Oh, I watched that movie on TNT. Or I watched a rerun on lifetime.

You may be the exception and actually watch 15 or fewer but most people watch more than they think and don't realize they would miss those opportunities.

That's a key component to it. People will often say "I only watch these 15 channels" and they really mean watch regularly. Then, something will grab their attention on another channel they watch every so often, and then another, and then another. My wife, for example, today watch SyFy which she has never watched in her life. Why? Because Raiders of the Lost Ark was on and she stumbled across it and wanted to watch it.

Then you get into the situation like all typical families. I have my 15, my wife has her 15 and only 3 or 4 overlap, so now we're at 27. My daughter has her 15 of which none overlap, now we're at 42. My son has his 15, which overlap quite a few to mine, let's add 8 there. Now we're at 50 channels "we have to have".

This is before any conversations with any programmer and you can almost guarantee they aren't going to unbundle any time soon because that means lost revenue, huge risk on their side (right now the distributors take all the risk) and likely loss of channels.

 

[longrider]

Why not offer both options? For the reasons posted most would still take the bundles but for those who do only want a few channels they have that option. Using myself as an example, while I certainly watch more than 10 channels there are definitely not more than 10 I would not be willing to give up to save $20 - $30 a month. There are no other viewers to consider in my case. From the channels perspective they might not lose that much as one alacarte subscriber at $2 makes up for 8 bundle subscribers lost at .25 each

 

[tonyd79]

Why not offer both options? For the reasons posted most would still take the bundles but for those who do only want a few channels they have that option. Using myself as an example, while I certainly watch more than 10 channels there are definitely not more than 10 I would not be willing to give up to save $20 - $30 a month. There are no other viewers to consider in my case. From the channels perspective they might not lose that much as one alacarte subscriber at $2 makes up for 8 bundle subscribers lost at .25 each

Because the bundles won't be as cheap as they are today because they will make up the revenue. And if enough people drop the high priced bundles, YOUR prices go up.

You are asking everyone to take less money.

Now let's take you example. Viacom gets say .25 each per channel. Then they insist that their channels bundle together. All (let's say 20 for easy math) 20. That is today $5 a month. But with your model it becomes $40. Maybe more.

Have you seen the prices for single shows via streaming even today? You think those will come down?