Let me be the first to admit I was wrong, a la carte *cable is coming sooner than later - *Sorta | Page 2 | Syracusefan.com

Let me be the first to admit I was wrong, a la carte *cable is coming sooner than later - *Sorta

supp said:
In the end, a la carte is largely targeting the single and under 30 crowd that's cut the cord, bought a digital antenna, subscribed to Netflix, and steals everything else that they want to watch. For everyone else, bundling will still make sense because you're looking to accommodate the tastes of 3-plus people per household.
Expand...

BS! Your first sentence describes me to a T except that I am not single and substantially older than "under 30".:confused:
 
FWIW, all you guys clamoring for the ACC to launch a network so that we can roll in the fat dough of cable money... it ain't happening if the current model disintegrates.

So, you know, pick your poison. Because let me tell you right now, the B1G and SEC a la carte are gonna make a helluva lot more dinero than an ACC network a la carte.
 
People say it won't work but it already has in the past. Anybody who had one of the big dishes before the digital ones came out had exactly those choices. You had a very basic package and then added what you wanted and paid for it. The was also a myriad of package providers. Not only did it work, but it worked with far less subscribers then there are now. This is really about greed and gluttony.
 
I dunno, all of these channels with the exception of HBO use advertising of which they make a ton of money from. If I'm able to purchase channels ala carte I would expect that they offer their services without commercials, especially if they want me to pay the long buck for the privilege. Otherwise I'll just keep basic cable and pay for HBO and Netflix.

Which brings up the other question, I've got to think that there have been a lot of people double dipping on the revenue between franchise fees and advertising fees and I'm fairly certain that there hasn't been any trickle down affect in savings to the consumer
 
A strictly layman's view.

I think it will eventually be all about eyeballs. How many people can cable TV reach. How many viewers can a programmer reach using cable...or satellite?

How many subscribers has Facebook got?

I'm guessing that most producers and distributors of the media (movies/TV) are going to look at the number of people they can potentially reach using what the alternatives are and eventually move just about everything to the internet. If or when the delivery structure will technically allow it.

There will probably have to be a lot of jiggering of FCC regulations etc before this will happen, but I'll bet that the potential to reach the most people will be a major factor. It's going to be all about audience size and $.

How that affects subscriber fees is anybody's guess.

Verizon is finally ready to acknowledge that cable TV just isn't working for a lot of us anymore.
The company is planning to launch its Internet-based TV service that can be watched on mobile devices in the "late first half of 2015," Lowell McAdam, Verizon's CEO, said at a Goldman Sachs investor conference in New York on Thursday.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/13/verizon-tv-service_n_5812750.html
 
the marginal channels will go away completely.. right now if you say espn charges $6 for carriage fees well that has to go up. you think 50% of the houses will want espn? its probably way less than that and the same for all the other stations. I know people say they only need 3-4 channels, but is that true? do you never watch live TV, no local shows, no local news,

You like "the walking dead" you paying $10 for AMC a month, 17 million watched it so that means way less than in households , so say 5-10 million, right now they get 75 million a month from cable fees they need to get 7.5 million to break even. they might do it. but when the popular show goes away they start to hurt for money.

if you pay $100 a month for cable that means you dont watch more 10-15 channels , you don't watch whatever is the hot show because you never see it, you cant even check it out with this model.

i would say most people i know have 2-4 people living at home and watch 10-20 shows on a regular basis crossing 5-10 channels, but that doesnt mean i dont look around and find stuff all the time. you dont do that on netflix. its just like you dont browse ESPN on the web and see 20% of the content, you browse a newspaper and you see it all , you buy books on amazon you never see stuff you would if you went to a book store. you watch SU football you would never know teams score from inside the 20 if you didnt watch ESPNU..

if you really want to watch stuff years after the rest of the world netflix is great, but its not all on there and you will miss out on a ton of stuff.
 
I canceled my cable in April of '09. I'm going on 5+ years without a cable box in my residence.

Hardware:
I installed a HD Stacker TV antenna in my attic for local channels.
http://www.dennysantennaservice.com/tv-antenna-attic-installation.html

Before I moved to the suburbs, I used a Terk HDTVa Indoor Amplified High-Definition Antenna. I will admit it was an eyesore. I only set it up when I needed local tv, not convenient.
http://www.amazon.com/Amplified-High-Definition-Antenna-Off-Air-Reception/dp/B0007MXZB2

I have a PlayStation3 and a Roku3.

Prior to the Roku3, I used an old computer I got from work for free.

Accounts:
I have an optimum cable internet service, it's not ideal but I have no other choices. I get ESPN3 with this service.
$59.95

Netflex account with ability to borrow two blue-ray discs at a time ( I pay a little extra for the blu-ray upgrade).
$24.59

Total monthly service outlay: 84.54.
Roughly ~$450 in hardware amortized over five years (plus the bonus of using the PlayStation for games) $7.50

$92 a month and I don't feel I miss anything. I'm a year behind on shows like the Walking Dead and HBO stuff, but it doesn't bother me at all. Family of five has never bumped up against the monthly bandwidth cap.

I've been living the dream for five years. :) Living in NJ and not giving the big 10 a dime is very satisfying.

If you went to the grocery store to buy a banana and they forced you to buy a fruit basket, they would be out of business real fast.

Disclaimer I occasionally cheat with a family member's watch espn account to see college football/basketball in real time. But with three young kids, between the weekend gymnastics, lacrosse and soccer I see most of my cuse games on espn3 these days.

I'm also looking into Simple.tv as my next upgrade.

Maybe the money in sports has peaked in real real terms. Maybe the espns will not be signing such big content deals (real terms) in the future, so they can protect their margins in the shift to digital. I know... crazy thought. How would america survive if college football coaches were not the highest paid state employees.
 
Last edited:
Give me whoever is carrying Syracuse football and basketball, the long-anticipated ACC Network, the Ivy League Game of the Week and the FCS Channel and you've got a deal. I'll even pay NOT to have to watch any SEC games.
 
Millhouse said:
you're showing that not everything gets bundled. i agree.

i'm pointing out other examples of bundling and you ignore it.

restaurants don't force you to buy the whole menu. newspapers do bundle different stories.

you refuse to think about why that is. are newspapers nicer than restaurant owners? or do consumers benefit from a bundle. i never read the horoscopes ever. zero value for me. does that mean i'm ripped off?

the point of a 2 person 2 channel model is to show that a bundle can benefit everyone. the logic can still hold true with a thousand channels where some channels have no value

ESPN worth 10 to me. History channel worth 3. Bravo worth zero.
History Channel worth 10 to you. Espn worth 3 to you. Bravo worth zero.
Bravo worth 10 to a woman. History channel worth 3. ESPN worth zero.

what do you prefer? ala carte cable company charges 10 for each. we each get one channel we each value at $10, cable company gets $30.

cable company says, hey we can bundle for 12. they've already paid for the cable it doesn't cost them more to deliver 3 channels to each person. Everyone gets $13 value for $12. Cable company gets $36. win win

until the three of us start whining like dummies that we're paying for a channel we don't watch
Expand...


Does it hold true with 1,999 channels of which 1,987 have no value to me?

Some years back my local cable company dropped sports channel, which carried the Mets. They sent me a latter saying they did it because Sports channel was demanding a 80% in their fee but that they were lowering my bill by 50 cents because they are no longer carrying Sports channel. I wrote back to then and said that if that's the fee for sports channel, I'd gladly pay the extra 42 cents. They never responded. That told me (a) they get charged for each channel they carry, which means (b) we get charged for each channel they carry and (c) they were charged more than the 50 cents they were giving me back which means (d) they are .
 
orangeinjersey said:
but if the alternative is you lose the 1000 channels and are still forced to pay 80% of your original bill for the dozen you do watch, wouldnt you argue the former is actually the better value?

Folks, ala carte is coming, but it is NOT going to save you boat loads of money. If each channel cost 99 cents a month, yes, you could argue it would save you money. But My guess is HBO is going to be like $25 a month. An ESPN package would be like $30-$40 a month. You wont save and end up with a lesser product.
Expand...

If I lose 1000 channels I'd still have 999 of them.
 
Some here are really going to hate this comment, but the 'historical' intermediary distributors add zero value given current technologies, are an obstacle to true market effects and simply anachronistic and monopolistic. Investing any thought in them is like investing thought in the Tower Records retail chain circa 1999. You might not know when it is going to die, but it sure as shite isn't looking good.

Long before you go through Millhouse's exercise in the wisdom of bundling - the simple question is why in the world would a content creator need one or more content distributor(s)/intermediary(ies) in 2014? It will take some time to die, and some new aggregators will arise - but they will look more like Netflix and Amazon prime - and they will offer bundles of course. Ones that make economic sense.

And yes - this means our 'take' from the ACC Network will be subject to real market forces, and therefore be less than that of the SEC and B1G. Ain't that 'murica?
Ain't that how it should work?
 
Phillymoose said:
Some here are really going to hate this comment, but the 'historical' intermediary distributors add zero value given current technologies, are an obstacle to true market effects and simply anachronistic and monopolistic. Investing any thought in them is like investing thought in the Tower Records retail chain circa 1999. You might not know when it is going to die, but it sure as shite isn't looking good. Long before you go through Millhouse's exercise in the wisdom of bundling - the simple question is why in the world would a content creator need one or more content distributor(s)/intermediary(ies) in 2014? It will take some time to die, and some new aggregators will arise - but they will look more like Netflix and Amazon prime - and they will offer bundles of course. Ones that make economic sense. And yes - this means our 'take' from the ACC Network will be subject to real market forces, and therefore be less than that of the SEC and B1G. Ain't that 'murica? Ain't that how it should work?
Expand...

This.

It's not so much about the money. It's about choice.

Had to laugh reading the "I don't want horoscopes, but I but the whole newspaper as a bundle" example. That whole model was obviously disrupted by the Internet... And not just because it was cheaper - but because the Internet is true ala carte choice wise. I'm no longer faced with the choice of having things I don't read bundled with stuff I do. I just read what I want.

And that's the true reason. Cheaper? Maybe or maybe not. Broken up so I can watch what I want when I want it? That's already here - and the pressure to have all content delivered that way is too great.
 
Millhouse said:
HBO's not the best example because they're already ala carte and already expensive. It's only bundled with other premium channels and it costs real money because the people who don't want it aren't paying for it.

I'd love for some regular cable channel that's part of a giant bundle to go ala carte just to prove that they will charge more than they do as part of a bundle
Expand...

I love love love that Millhouse is a socialist when it comes to tv. Minimum wage - 'em... But when it comes to sitting I your a$$ and watching your constitutionally guaranteed 7 hours of daily tube, the burden of supporting the less fortunate (bad content that will go away under ala carte) must be shared by all. Hilarious

Content that is well made, niche, or popular will of course cost more outside if a bundle. What will cost less or go away is content that is none of those things because consumers will be able to dictate what content is worth rather than having a monopolistic cable co shove seventh channels you don't watch down your throat for the seven you do. The only loser is the person who prefers the bundle (eg people who's non work lives revolve around around tv). And that guy will still be able to get a bundle and ultimately that bundle will be higher quality and lower cost even in the bundle. There will however be fewer bad channels. God forbid.
 
I'm kinda skeptical of the quality argument.

How much better is the music industry post disruption? Journalism? Movies?

There's a lot of history that suggests when faced with business model disruption there is a flight to safe content at best, lowest common denominator content at worst.

I'm not on a soapbox here (unlike some people on these matters) but I think the notion that busting up the current model will result in better quality is somewhat naive.
 
Here's what I fear most with a la carte: lots of good niche fictional programming will never get made.

Take something like AMC's Breaking Bad. Here is one of the best shows in the history of television that launched on a fringe cable channel and got higher ratings with each subsequent season. Through word of mouth (and because already got AMC in my cable package), I joined the show at the start of season 2. If i didn't have amc, i likely would not have joined in and contributed to it's success. If ratings didn't improve, it likely gets cancelled early in its run.

My biggest fear is that networks will appeal to only whatever will yield the most guaranteed subs and take fewer chances giving us nothing but lowest common denominator shows with laugh tracks like dreck such as "Big Bang Theory" or "2 and a half men."
 
Great minds think alike Scooch, we posted nearly the same thought simultaneously.
 
Ragman2000 said:
Here's what I fear most with a la carte: lots of good niche fictional programming will never get made.

Take something like AMC's Breaking Bad. Here is one of the best shows in the history of television that launched on a fringe cable channel and got higher ratings with each subsequent season. Through word of mouth (and because already got AMC in my cable package), I joined the show at the start of season 2. If i didn't have amc, i likely would not have joined in and contributed to it's success. If ratings didn't improve, it likely gets cancelled early in its run.

My biggest fear is that networks will appeal to only whatever will yield the most guaranteed subs and take fewer chances giving us nothing but lowest common denominator shows with laugh tracks like dreck such as "Big Bang Theory" or "2 and a half men."
Expand...

Producing quality has been democratized. AMC actually proves the point. House of Cards proves the point. Mad Men proves the point. A channel is just a number. Put out great content and the people will come. Youtube millionaires everywhere are producing (relatively) high quality content and aggregating lots of users.. it all proves the point. If it is good, the marketing avenues are plentiful. It will get seen, and it will attract viewers.

That's all there needs to be - a level playing field. Why on earth should it be any other way? There simply is no longer a need for an intermediary distributor. There was a time when that infrastructure and network was extremely valuable. Now it is just another pipe delivering 1's and 0's.

The next Breaking Bad can come from anywhere and I think that's great. HBO can spend a fortune on GoT and still make money. I think that is great too. I fail to see the downside, and I definitely fail to see the logic that would lead to a diminution in quality.
 
cuseinchina said:
I love love love that Millhouse is a socialist when it comes to tv. Minimum wage - 'em... But when it comes to sitting I your a$$ and watching your constitutionally guaranteed 7 hours of daily tube, the burden of supporting the less fortunate (bad content that will go away under ala carte) must be shared by all. Hilarious Content that is well made, niche, or popular will of course cost more outside if a bundle. What will cost less or go away is content that is none of those things because consumers will be able to dictate what content is worth rather than having a monopolistic cable co shove seventh channels you don't watch down your throat for the seven you do. The only loser is the person who prefers the bundle (eg people who's non work lives revolve around around tv). And that guy will still be able to get a bundle and ultimately that bundle will be higher quality and lower cost even in the bundle. There will however be fewer bad channels. God forbid.
Expand...
There is nothing socialist about letting companies package and price things how they want. I'm pointing out that bundling can be good for consumers when fixed costs are high and marginal costs are low. And I'm pointing out that companies forced to offer ala carte will charge high prices for each channel. As usual you redefine common words into something totally different and nonsensical

Never said ala carte should be illegal or that cable companies must not offer it
 
TheCusian said:
This. It's not so much about the money. It's about choice. Had to laugh reading the "I don't want horoscopes, but I but the whole newspaper as a bundle" example. That whole model was obviously disrupted by the Internet... And not just because it was cheaper - but because the Internet is true ala carte choice wise. I'm no longer faced with the choice of having things I don't read bundled with stuff I do. I just read what I want. And that's the true reason. Cheaper? Maybe or maybe not. Broken up so I can watch what I want when I want it? That's already here - and the pressure to have all content delivered that way is too great.
Expand...
Ok how about spotify? So many songs you don't want to listen to that you have to pay for. Ala carte song selection should cost fractions of a penny!

Except we know that's not the case with itunes

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/05/1...-would-not-save-you-money.html?_r=0&referrer=
 
supp said:
For those looking for other existing pricing models for a la carte, the NFL Sunday Ticket streaming service (with a very limited rollout at the moment) has the same price structure that is offered to DirectTV customers.

I believe ESPN charges $5.75 per customer in carriage fees. ESPN2 is about $.75. ESPNU is $.21. ESPNews is $.23. If WatchESPN ever goes standalone, I'm thinking $10/month.
Expand...
I know a few years back the state of New Jersey was looking at how much the price of ESPN cost on the bills cable subscribers. That tells me people were calling the politicians and complaining they were being forced to pay for a whole network of channels they don't watch.
 
Millhouse said:
Ok how about spotify? So many songs you don't want to listen to that you have to pay for. Ala carte song selection should cost fractions of a penny! Except we know that's not the case with itunes http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/05/1...-would-not-save-you-money.html?_r=0&referrer=
Expand...

That's to the money argument and proves my point. I still choose to buy my music, but others like spotify or rdio. Choice.

I'd cut cable right now in favor of iTunes/Netflix if I had the choice to unbundle and purchase ESPN. But currently I have to buy a huge bundle just to watch 2-3 football games a week.
 
TheCusian said:
That's to the money argument and proves my point. I still choose to buy my music, but others like spotify or rdio. Choice.

I'd cut cable right now in favor of iTunes/Netflix if I had the choice to unbundle and purchase ESPN. But currently I have to buy a huge bundle just to watch 2-3 football games a week.
Expand...
people might want to buy just stern and not the rest of the satellite radio. should john mccain get involved in that? you don't have that choice
 
Millhouse said:
people might want to buy just stern and not the rest of the satellite radio. should john mccain get involved in that? you don't have that choice
Expand...

You don't think Stern has sat in a room with execs and run some numbers on delivering content straight to the internet through a subscription service rather than be bundled via satellite radio? C'mon.

Content makers that have consumers - will always work towards getting more consumers and more money. The pressure on the delivery systems (cable, newspapers, radio) to give them more consumers and more money is hamstrung by an antiquated delivery system. Change or die.

EDIT: and no I don't think the government should get involved - unless the consumer is getting screwed so bad that they need to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
170,361
Messages
4,887,403
Members
5,996
Latest member
meierscreek

Share this page

Online statistics

Members online
339
Guests online
1,459
Total visitors
1,798
Totals may include hidden visitors.


...
Top Bottom