+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: Lounge (/forum-564.html)
+---- Forum: College Sports and Conference Realignment (/forum-637.html)
+---- Thread: Cable Lobbyist says "a la carte" means fewer channels for same price (/thread-633167.html)
Cable Lobbyist says "a la carte" means fewer channels for same price - orangefan - 05-14-2013 01:49 PM
http://bgr.com/2013/05/14/ncta-chief-powell-a-la-carte-criticism/
I believe him.
Youtube just announced it will offer pay channels - 99 cents to 7.99/month. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/10/business/media/youtubes-pay-channels-include-sesame-street-and-mixed-martial-arts.html?_r=0 And they don't even have any of the major cable channels.
Bottom line, poles and wires have to be paid for regardless of how many channels you get.
RE: Cable Lobbyist says "a la carte" means fewer channels for same price - Attackcoog - 05-14-2013 02:11 PM
(05-14-2013 01:49 PM)orangefan Wrote: http://bgr.com/2013/05/14/ncta-chief-powell-a-la-carte-criticism/
I believe him.
Youtube just announced it will offer pay channels - 99 cents to 7.99/month. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/10/business/media/youtubes-pay-channels-include-sesame-street-and-mixed-martial-arts.html?_r=0 And they don't even have any of the major cable channels.
Bottom line, poles and wires have to be paid for regardless of how many channels you get.
Exactly. Theres a butt load of infrastructure there that had to be built and continuously expanded/maintained. They are going to make thier money one way or another. The only thing ala-carte pricing will do is decide which content providers will get the most out of the cable companies. In the end, alot of choices will disappear due to not being popular enough to support thier cost and the ones that are popular, will simply gouge the consumer because at that point, they will have far fewer alternative shows to watch. IE--You pay the same or more for less.
RE: Cable Lobbyist says "a la carte" means fewer channels for same price - Fresno St. Alum - 05-14-2013 02:16 PM
NFL sun. ticket is up for bid after 2014. Directv might not bid or multiple companies may carry it, or 1 different company. I wonder what the season price will be. It's 225 this year, 300 if you add the red zone, computer access.
RE: Cable Lobbyist says "a la carte" means fewer channels for same price - arkstfan - 05-14-2013 02:16 PM
One of the few times a lobbyist is telling the truth.
If ESPN goes from 100 million homes at $5 each to 60 million homes the price has to go to at least $8.34 to not lose money. Some of those willing to part with ESPN probably do watch ESPN a few times a year for big events so audiences will fall lowering what sort of prices ads can command and that revenue will be made up in the subscription fee.
RE: Cable Lobbyist says "a la carte" means fewer channels for same price - bullet - 05-14-2013 02:21 PM
(05-14-2013 02:16 PM)arkstfan Wrote: One of the few times a lobbyist is telling the truth.
If ESPN goes from 100 million homes at $5 each to 60 million homes the price has to go to at least $8.34 to not lose money. Some of those willing to part with ESPN probably do watch ESPN a few times a year for big events so audiences will fall lowering what sort of prices ads can command and that revenue will be made up in the subscription fee.
If they aren't paying the curling channel and golf channel 2 and 3 stooges channel, there will be less cost to the cable company, so that doesn't mean customers will be paying the same. And customers will have the choice. Now it probably means sports fans will be paying more. People with kids (Disney, etc.) will probably be paying more. Others will be paying less.
RE: Cable Lobbyist says "a la carte" means fewer channels for same price - brista21 - 05-14-2013 02:27 PM
Ala carte being better for consumers is a very short term better. Long term it will be very very bad as there will be fewer choices.
RE: Cable Lobbyist says "a la carte" means fewer channels for same price - orangefan - 05-14-2013 02:35 PM
(05-14-2013 02:16 PM)arkstfan Wrote: One of the few times a lobbyist is telling the truth.
If ESPN goes from 100 million homes at $5 each to 60 million homes the price has to go to at least $8.34 to not lose money. Some of those willing to part with ESPN probably do watch ESPN a few times a year for big events so audiences will fall lowering what sort of prices ads can command and that revenue will be made up in the subscription fee.
Good point. This may be why ESPN and others are building a portfolio of championship events that even the casual fan wants:
ESPN - College Football Playoffs, NFL Monday Night Football, NBA Playoffs and Conference Finals, Wimbledon Finals, British Open final rounds, NASCAR Race for the Cup
TBS/TNT - Final Four, NBA Playoffs and Conference Finals, MLB Division and League Championship Series
FS1 - MLB Division Series
RE: Cable Lobbyist says "a la carte" means fewer channels for same price - TerryD - 05-14-2013 02:50 PM
(05-14-2013 02:21 PM)bullet Wrote:(05-14-2013 02:16 PM)arkstfan Wrote: One of the few times a lobbyist is telling the truth.
If ESPN goes from 100 million homes at $5 each to 60 million homes the price has to go to at least $8.34 to not lose money. Some of those willing to part with ESPN probably do watch ESPN a few times a year for big events so audiences will fall lowering what sort of prices ads can command and that revenue will be made up in the subscription fee.
If they aren't paying the curling channel and golf channel 2 and 3 stooges channel, there will be less cost to the cable company, so that doesn't mean customers will be paying the same. And customers will have the choice. Now it probably means sports fans will be paying more. People with kids (Disney, etc.) will probably be paying more. Others will be paying less.
I gladly will pay the same $$ for less "choices", or even more $$, rather than have channels that I don't want crammed down my gullet.
I don't want my ten cents per month going to the Big Ten Network. I want the choice to tell them to bite my ass, even if that costs me ten bucks to save that ten cents.
I will pay more money per month for the freedom to make that choice and to tell the Big Ten to go to hell.
Big deal to have "choices" that I didn't ask for and absolutely do not want.
RE: Cable Lobbyist says "a la carte" means fewer channels for same price - MWC Tex - 05-14-2013 02:54 PM
(05-14-2013 02:50 PM)TerryD Wrote:(05-14-2013 02:21 PM)bullet Wrote:(05-14-2013 02:16 PM)arkstfan Wrote: One of the few times a lobbyist is telling the truth.
If ESPN goes from 100 million homes at $5 each to 60 million homes the price has to go to at least $8.34 to not lose money. Some of those willing to part with ESPN probably do watch ESPN a few times a year for big events so audiences will fall lowering what sort of prices ads can command and that revenue will be made up in the subscription fee.
If they aren't paying the curling channel and golf channel 2 and 3 stooges channel, there will be less cost to the cable company, so that doesn't mean customers will be paying the same. And customers will have the choice. Now it probably means sports fans will be paying more. People with kids (Disney, etc.) will probably be paying more. Others will be paying less.
I gladly will pay the same $$ for less "choices", or even more $$, rather than have channels that I don't want crammed down my gullet.
I don't want my ten cents per month going to the Big Ten Network. I want the choice to tell them to bite my ass, even if that costs me ten bucks to save that ten cents.
I will pay more money per month for the freedom to make that choice and to tell the Big Ten to go to hell.
Big deal to have "choices" that I didn't ask for and absolutely do not want.
Same here. Plus, I don't have to scroll through hundreds of 'useless' to check what other channels have on that I like to watch.
Even though I may pay the same, knowing that I picked the channels I want to pay for is better than paying for channels I didn't ask for.
RE: Cable Lobbyist says "a la carte" means fewer channels for same price - curtis0620 - 05-14-2013 03:08 PM
Custom guide options are awesome. Hide the channels you don't watch.
RE: Cable Lobbyist says "a la carte" means fewer channels for same price - CardinalZen - 05-14-2013 03:47 PM
Bundled channels have killed choice. If there's a channel I like, I can't reward them with my business, it is just 'taken'.
This has lead to a proliferation of lowest common denominator channels that aren't worth watching, for the most part. The History Channel has no history, the Learning Channel has no learning, the Travel Channel has gross dudes eating gross food. And WTF is that crap on SyFy, WWE really? Tyranagator? Could it get more stupid?
On top of that, there's crap loads of commercials that I'm not interested in also.
Al a carte would allow excellence to thrive, replacing the swamp of crap that pay TV is now. Bring it on!
Eventually, there won't even be channels. We'll just pick on a show-by-show and an event-by-basis. That day cannot arrive soon enough!
RE: Cable Lobbyist says "a la carte" means fewer channels for same price - curtis0620 - 05-14-2013 03:56 PM
So you would rather have 10 channels for $100 instead of 100 channels for $100?
RE: Cable Lobbyist says "a la carte" means fewer channels for same price - LSUtah - 05-14-2013 04:29 PM
(05-14-2013 03:56 PM)curtis0620 Wrote: So you would rather have 10 channels for $100 instead of 100 channels for $100?
No. It's more like I would rather pay $50 for the 10 sports channels I watch that are unavailable over the air, rather than pay $100 for 100 channels (still only watching 10). The other 90 channels might as well be shopping network channels (and I'm sure 5-8 actually are). With the proliferation of Netflix, VUDU, etc, the only reason I retain cable is for live sports.
The term "cable lobbyist" is all you need to know to identify this as a misdirection play...
RE: Cable Lobbyist says "a la carte" means fewer channels for same price - Fresno St. Alum - 05-14-2013 04:33 PM
(05-14-2013 04:29 PM)LSUtah Wrote:I bet you watch more than 10 channels, we should all take a month and see how many we actually watch show/games/news/movies on.(05-14-2013 03:56 PM)curtis0620 Wrote: So you would rather have 10 channels for $100 instead of 100 channels for $100?
No. It's more like I would rather pay $50 for the 10 sports channels I watch that are unavailable over the air, rather than pay $100 for 100 channels (still only watching 10). The other 90 channels might as well be shopping network channels (and I'm sure 5-8 actually are). With the proliferation of Netflix, VUDU, etc, the only reason I retain cable is for live sports.
The term "cable lobbyist" is all you need to know to identify this as a misdirection play...
RE: Cable Lobbyist says "a la carte" means fewer channels for same price - Frank the Tank - 05-14-2013 04:56 PM
(05-14-2013 03:56 PM)curtis0620 Wrote: So you would rather have 10 channels for $100 instead of 100 channels for $100?
I sincerely enjoy TerryD's zealotry, but yes, he would do so in order to avoid giving any money to the Big Ten's coffers on principle.
The vast majority of other people are going to have a cost/benefit analysis on how many channels are you getting for what you're paying for.
As a general matter, though, sports fans are absolutely, unequivocally going to be the ones paying more under this system. It's the average viewer in the female over-50 demo (apologies to anyone that fits that category here - that's why I said "average") that could theoretically save a lot of money in a la carte. In contrast, very few of us here on a sports message board would fit that category (and if you actually like costly scripted programming like Mad Men, Breaking Bad, Archer, etc., as opposed to cheap reality programming, then you'll pay even more). Kudos to the ones that are feeling altruistic to those that aren't watching sports, but I'm certain every single person here is getting his/her TV viewing habits getting subsidized as opposed to the other way around. ESPN and your regional sports network alone would cost more in an a la carte environment than dozens of the channels at the bottom of your basic cable lineup combined.
Also take a step back and think about who can actually survive in an a la carte environment: only the very highest-rated programs for the masses. So, as much as people here seem to like pointing out the Big Ten Network as one of the evil basic cable networks, it's not the Big Ten (which, as a widely popular league, is why the BTN was able to get basic carriage in the first place - Comcast and DirecTV aren't paying those carriage fees to Jim Delany to be charitable) or SEC, but rather the smaller leagues that are only getting money from basic cable's thirst for programming. ESPN will surely survive, but NBC Sports Network (TerryD's new favorite sports channel) would be on life support. Basically, you can count on the cable channels that existed in 1990 to continue to survive, but niche channels are the ones that would get killed. Maybe that's OK with the marketplace, but I'd compare it to the newspaper industry. All of those free newspapers online were fantastic during the first couple of years of widespread Internet usage in the 1990s, but it's not so hot with those same papers having gotten ravaged in paid circulation 15 years later where you're now having to often pay for online subscriptions for less content than what you would have received years ago. brista21 is spot on - a la carte will be great in the very short-term when you have tons of choices, but it won't be so great when so many of those choices start dying off and you're left paying for a circa-1990 cable lineup.
RE: Cable Lobbyist says "a la carte" means fewer channels for same price - NIU007 - 05-14-2013 05:54 PM
I don't have cable now because it costs too much for how much I'd watch it. If I can get 2 or 3 channels ala carte for somewhat less, than I'll get it. I don't need to pay $600 a year for 300 channels I don't watch.
RE: Cable Lobbyist says "a la carte" means fewer channels for same price - moo - 05-14-2013 06:30 PM
(05-14-2013 03:47 PM)CardinalZen Wrote: Bundled channels have killed choice. If there's a channel I like, I can't reward them with my business, it is just 'taken'.
This has lead to a proliferation of lowest common denominator channels that aren't worth watching, for the most part. The History Channel has no history, the Learning Channel has no learning, the Travel Channel has gross dudes eating gross food. And WTF is that crap on SyFy, WWE really? Tyranagator? Could it get more stupid?
On top of that, there's crap loads of commercials that I'm not interested in also.
Al a carte would allow excellence to thrive, replacing the swamp of crap that pay TV is now. Bring it on!
Eventually, there won't even be channels. We'll just pick on a show-by-show and an event-by-basis. That day cannot arrive soon enough!
That's the idea in theory, probably not so much in practice.
Note that while there is a lot of crap on cable, there are also a lot of really great shows -- network TV is the wasteland these days. Cable networks regularly sweep the Emmy awards.
But quality TV costs money to make. An episode of Mad Men or the Walking Dead costs nearly $3 million to make. That's per episode. And the only reason AMC can make a high-quality, high-cost show like that is because of bundling.
(Those aren't even the most expensive shows on TV; Game of Thrones costs over $6 million per episode -- no wonder HBO won't sell the show to Netflix.)
These shows do not survive in an a la carte system. No way. How many subscriptions would AMC have to get to make that kind of cash? Or how much would they have to charge per subscriber?
So there goes your quality programming along with your trash. (And always remember that one man's trash is another man's treasure.)
Now, swap out AMC with ESPN. ESPN wouldn't be able to afford Monday Night Football, major college football, college basketball, Wednesday night baseball, the NBA playoffs, etc., etc., under an a la carte system. Or -- no, wait, they would. They'd just make up the costs they lost by overcharging the people who choose to subscribe. Congratulations, you're paying $50 per month just for ESPN. And that's WITHOUT ESPN2, ESPNU, WatchESPN. ESPN would have no reason to subsidize these platforms.
Be very careful what you wish for, sports fans. Right now we're the ones who have our viewing subsidized. We are lucky in that the DVR-proof nature of sports and the demographics it draws have led to the explosion of live sporting events on TV. But under a la carte cable, all of our choices go away. The Big Ten is not the conference that will suffer -- it will be conferences like the MWC and the AAC that will never see a national cable broadcast again.
RE: Cable Lobbyist says "a la carte" means fewer channels for same price - He1nousOne - 05-14-2013 07:43 PM
It never ceases to amaze me how this topic can truly bring out the Crazy in some folks.
"I will pay the same money for less just so that I can feel like I am screwing the Big Ten!"
Really?
Been swimming against the current around here for months now saying that a la carte is an idealistic dream but unfortunately our country doesn't work that way.
The Industry does not want to train the people to get used to paying LESS. They do not want their market value as a whole to SHRINK. At best you would be paying the same amount and having full control over choosing your channels. More likely we would end up seeing a system where you could only choose "bundles" of channels and not single channels. ESPN is not going to let you just pick one of their channels. NBC would bundle it's channels for you just like they do with the cable companies. Everyone would follow suit.
People love to dream their little childish dreams while completely ignoring how this country and it's corporate system actually works.
They are not going to allow you to get used to spending LESS money. Get over it.
RE: Cable Lobbyist says "a la carte" means fewer channels for same price - UCbball21 - 05-14-2013 07:56 PM
"A la carte" cable subscriptions will never happen for a variety of reasons (which is a good thing). However, on-demand options (like HBO GO) will certainly become more and more developed as the cable companies continue keep subscribers from cutting the cord in favor of just Netflix, Hulu, etc.
RE: Cable Lobbyist says "a la carte" means fewer channels for same price - NIU007 - 05-14-2013 07:57 PM
(05-14-2013 07:43 PM)He1nousOne Wrote: It never ceases to amaze me how this topic can truly bring out the Crazy in some folks.
"I will pay the same money for less just so that I can feel like I am screwing the Big Ten!"
Really?
Been swimming against the current around here for months now saying that a la carte is an idealistic dream but unfortunately our country doesn't work that way.
The Industry does not want to train the people to get used to paying LESS. They do not want their market value as a whole to SHRINK. At best you would be paying the same amount and having full control over choosing your channels. More likely we would end up seeing a system where you could only choose "bundles" of channels and not single channels. ESPN is not going to let you just pick one of their channels. NBC would bundle it's channels for you just like they do with the cable companies. Everyone would follow suit.
People love to dream their little childish dreams while completely ignoring how this country and it's corporate system actually works.
They are not going to allow you to get used to spending LESS money. Get over it.
There's an easy way to spend less, cancel the service.