What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Join the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Facebook view!
facebook.com/DragonAgeOrigins - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
108 Comments
- dinki, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11I hope all you guys like the mainstream programming. If you go away from package based programming then only channels with mass appeal will be worth the expense to the content provider. I don't ever watch Scifi channel, but by me subsidizing it with my monthly package fee, I'm keeping it around for those who do. Same goes for Speed Channel, OLN, Kid's channels, etc.
Be careful what you wish for. You might get it. - stealthboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Not going to happen. Who would pay for E! and HSN? The reason they bundle channels is to make sure you pay for the junk channels, too. It's like welfare for bad cable stations.
- sonofalink, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Yeah... that sounds like a GREAT idea... I can see it now "You want Discovery? $10! Oh, you meant you wanted Discovery AND TLC? Well now, thats $20. Now adding up all the channels you want, that comes out to $200... OR you can get our Basic/Standard/Digital package for only $80/mo!"
Cable companies aren't in the business of making the customer happy, they are in the business of making money. Thats kinda what businesses do. - merm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I can't believe there are so many "TV communists" commenting here. Yeah, let's pay more to subsidize trash television that we don't watch.
Might as well start sending checks off to NAMBLA just for the sake of "diversity."
The point is that by allowing the current system to continue we are wasting money and resources on some channels that could be replaced by others that are more innovative. The way the industry is structured currently prohibits innovation to a large degree. Now, the ones that people like will be rewarded, the ones people don't won't, and will be replaced. - Ratteler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Not going to happen. Who would pay for E!"
ME!
"The reason they bundle channels is to make sure you pay for the junk channels, too. It's like welfare for bad cable stations."
ESPN is the bulk of your cable Bill. Almost 1/3. I ***** HATE SPORTS!!!! I watch an occasianal boxing match, and that's it.
Sci-Fi and other "welfare" channels actually PAY the cable provider to carry them as opposed to ESPN and Disney that charge the cable provider.
You going to be very suprised when you see who was subsidising whom at the end of the day. Let the sport nuts pay their own goddamn cable bill and maybe I'll actually get cable again. - kidtux, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'd rather pay for the shows I like. Why should I pay for a channel if I only watch one or two shows on it?
- Ribald_Jester, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2could be a good idea. As long as the tv providers don't gouge us on the prices. It doesn't matter anyways - ipTV + DVR/HTPC + broadband connection will get rid of the traditional "tv lineup" as we know it. We'll have thousands of "micro" shows to choose from and can download/watch them whenever and whereever we want. If google was smart they'd figure out a way to tap into this ad stream (in a non-obtrusive way of course).
- snyy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2pay per show would be nice
pay per channel is more relistic - hammerattack, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If the FCC forces them to modify their business model, then it's not "in the interest of the free market" because it's not a free market anymore.
- pr0t0, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@CableCarrier, I doesn't work that way.
The money you pay for your cable bill goes to pay for the overhead, expenses, equipment and its depreciation needed to run the cable company.
Think about what it takes to run the cable company: installation tech and their vans and equipment; everybody in billing, their equipment, the mailing, the postage to mail out the bills, etc.; then there are the execs who get paid to...uh...to be execs; local license fees; running and maintaining cable to the entire area; you get the idea.
In your example, the SciFi Channel is a separate entity. It makes its money by selling advertising. It gets that advertising by trying to run shows compelling enough to get an audience. The number of people that watch the shows determines the price of the advertising, not the number of people who "could" watch the show by subscribing to the channel.
That said, you could make an argument that an ala carte model hurts the individual channels by cutting off potential fans who might catch a show while channel surfing. Conversely, it might make the success of any given show more predictable. For example, if they compile a list of what channels their viewers also subscribe to, they have a better idea of what their competition is.
I'd be in favor of ala carte, if it were less expensive. But given the financial mechanics of the industry, I don't see how it could be. Subscribing to half as many channels does not equal a 50% reduction in costs to my cable provider.
However, subscribing to the channel directly through IPTV would be a different story. I'd happily pay $2-3 per channel if it meant I stopped paying my cable provider $40-50 per month. - darkpedro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Why the hell should government be involved with this anyway? If there is a demand for cable ala carte, then a cable company will (or won't) step up to the plate. If a company does and is successful, others will follow. If not, it is up to the consumer to drive the business in that direction. Government involvement will screw the whole thing up. They think they know what's best for the consumer, so they push to get something done. But the consumer will decide with his cash what direction the services should go much better than the government ever could.
- sonofalink, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2mxpxpx: If they do pay-per-channel, you'll see the History channel turn into "History: Ancient", "History: The WWII era", "History: Prehistoric"
And then eventually all History channels will strangely only carry home improvement shows. - genrebusters, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5WOW, I had this idea like what, 25 ***** years ago? way to go FCC and be all on top of the tech *****!
- TheRealPod, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1SCI-FI pays cable companies???? Why don't they just jump on the bit torrent bandwagon and release shows w/ comercials in them. Everyone wins!
- holiday, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1this will end up sucking!
have to 2nd dinki... - gr00vy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1There seems to be a lot of ignorance about how channels are currently charged. There are six types.
Premium
The subscriber pays extra and there is a split between channel provider and cable provider (for sake of argument cable provider and satellite provider are equal). HBO, Showtime etc...
Cable Provider Pay.
This is by far the newest category and the one that causes the most issues. These are stations that are so important to bring subscribers to the cable channels that they can charge the cable provider a per-subscriber fee. Generally this is ESPN and Disney.
Bundled Channels.
ESPN not only charges a fee, they require a bundle of channels to be included, and usually included in extended basic. As advertisers have really no idea how many people watch these channels it tends to change on potential eyeballs.
Free Channels.
These are channels that attempt to get on to cable providers. This would include things like TechTV and G4. They don't charge, but it is often difficult to get carried as much of the bandwidth has already been consumed by everyone else.
Pay to Show. Home shopping and Religious channels. These folks *pay* a per subscriber cost to the cable provider. Generally there is ALWAYS room for these stations.
Must Carry.
By law a cable provider Must Carry stations that have significant OTA presence in a market. And this is true for satellite which required a massive infrastructure investment to provide, and even then it seriously chewed up bandwidth.
So out of limited bandwidth the channel spectrum gets chewed up, with ever greater costs in bandwidth and money being demanded by the major providers (ESPN, Disney, etc).
Ala Carte is not going to change things very much, with the possible exception of sports folks spending more money, and families spending more money. Maybe. Your favorite niche channel is not likely to disappear. New niche channels will still have a difficult time getting bandwidth, and there will be as many shopping channels as ever. Your big AlaCarte choice will be Nick or no nick, and Espn or no Espn. Some other stations may try AlaCarte because they believe that there may be a bigger overall check than just give it to everyone. Comedy Central, TLC, Discovery may try it. I suspect that they will find that being on "extended basic" is better for them than AlaCarte.
In actuality no one puts on a channel that is paid by another channel for any length of time. All the channels have to make money. It is just that some channels are so popular they can be leveraged for greater compensation. AlaCarte will help to bring direct market forces to those channels. We are still going to have c-span, local access, and the food network. And unfortunately it will not bring back TechTV. - rohcky, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1To those who agree with this "break through":
Lets assume that the channel that you love, be it Tech TV (R.I.P.), OLN or , isn't that popular. The station won't make much on subscribers and companies won't advertise on stations without viewers. In the end, there's going to be 50 cable channels left; all of which will be either MTV, ESPN and the G4 type channels.
You're paying for crap that you don't watch, but you do it so others can enjoy them. And in return, the others are supporting channels that they don't watch so that you can. - antoniojvr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Not a bad idea. It will never happen, but not a bad idea...
- solzeyejewels, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Having worked in the industry for a very long time, I will tell you that even tho it seems like a good idea. That would drive programming rates even higher than they are now. It would FORCE the smaller program networks like TRIO and SciFi completely out of business. They are more expensive to carry than the bigger networks like Lifetime and Discovery Channel etc. You would be surprised to know who owns what. The Shopping Networks that people say "I don't
NEED" actually make ZILLIONS of dollars and keep your programming costs DOWN. Be grateful for them, even though you may not watch them.
The FCC needs to STAY OUT of it.
Leave the negotiating of Programming to Turner and Murdock. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1They should charge in bulk... $10 for 4 channels or something...
- schlesinm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This will never happen unless they ban bundling by the content providers. Disney will fight it tooth and nail, since now they can introduce whatever channels they want and threaten to withhold ESPN if the cable provider doesn't take it.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1What a f'n new idea :| This industry is slow as f*ck. This has been needed for years. I'm so sick of wasting money on crap I don't watch.
- felchdonkey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1EXACTLY.
This is why I use iptv instead of paying for cable. Why should I pay $60/month when all I want to watch is three channels? - 70ny, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I have learned today that geeks don't watch tv and they hate sports. Fortunately geeks make up a very small percentage of the population. The average person doesn't know about IPTV or BitTorrent.
It would be a nightmare for the cable companies, because they would always be changing customer channel lineups. People would want to add channels to see new shows for channels that don't have. Sometimes I watch a channel just to check a show out. Channel surfing is fun. - JamesWilson, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3BitTorrent. Pay nothing. ***** them.
- Ratteler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Bout time the FCC did something besides drive Howard Stern off the airwaves.
- Kevin108, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I would like to see this happen. I don't think it will make me watch TV again, however.
- Bobby8988, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Finally the Government does Something Right for a change!!!
- Silverbird, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The question is why is non-broadcast TV so massivly funded by the consumer anyway? Are you paying for Google or Yahoo or any of the websites you commonly use? Nope. Advertisers carry the load.
Most of you are too young to remember that MTV was once, "All Music, No Commercials". Wonder what happened to that? Paying for HBO and non-ad sponsored TV is fine. Drop the commercials and I'll gladly pay for my ride.
Oh yeah. My TV bill? $0.00 I opted out of their over-priced crapfest. - Stelmate, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Damn I think its a good idea, Think about it, right now the channels that you subscribe to get what $.50 a month or less from you? if they change $1 a month a channels I'd be happy, there is only maybe 10 channels I really watch? and finally I can get rid of that stupid lifetime network. They should still offer the package deals but I'd like to be able to purchase what I want without the package deal.
- kindrobot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Great. Another way to extract another 50 to 60 bucks from us disguised as "consumer advocacy". Another downside? Remember, in the US this means the end of the science channel. Think about it.
- joehobbes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0IPTV -- that will take care of it
- h2osxx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0God god, it takes freakin govt to suggest this? I can't wait, bye HSN, ESPN, CMT. Weather Ch and more. Could be a nice campaign promise.
- Ratteler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"If the FCC forces them to modify their business model, then it's not "in the interest of the free market" because it's not a free market anymore."
Cable isn't a "free market" anyway. If you lucky you have a choice between 2 providers. (Not counting Satalite, which does have fair competition.)
In NYC there is no "choice" for cable provider. It's based on who serves the area you live in. No competition means NO FREE MARKET.
Sci-Fi Channel, Science Channel, E!, probably BET, all PAY to be carried by your cable provider, and make their return in Ad revenue. MTV, Disney ESPN, Etc are popular enough that they actually CHARGE the cable provider to carry them, and as part of the deal the cable proivder MUST include them in basic packages, as well as their other channels. This guarenties their ad revenue because they can claim every cable provider as a potential viewer.
Ala cart will only hurt ESPN, and MTV when people decide their not worth the money, and the cost that is being dumped on those who don't watch them has to to go to those who do.
All the nich channels will do fine, and will have REAL demographics on who watches.
If anything, this will help the cable companies who are being extorted by the like of Disney, MTV, and ESPN. Out of a $60 monthly cable bill they represent more than half that cost, and you can't get rid of them. Yet!!!! - joebob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Do most people have an overly simplistic view of how this could work? I think that is a definate yes.
However I am greatly disappointed in the 'pro cable socialism' stance. You are assaulting an idea which is not even in the planning stages yet. Why? (Aside from those of you working for Comcast, Cox, etc.. ;)
If you haven't heard this is a capitolist system where demand ultimately drives the market. No matter how many companies want to try an overly 'sheeplike' public into believing that the options they are given are either the only or the best option without having seen an alternative, those consumers still hold your fate in their hands. As soon as new crops of wideband communication are widely deployed across the U.S. I think we will see a new and extremely weaker stance from cable monopolists.
But until that time for god sake try something different before my cable bill is higher than my car payment! - taintedlove, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'd be happy without a la carte if cable companies would at least give more package options. For example, I could choose Group1 (e.g. Comedy Central, Sci-Fi, FX, and TMC) whether or not I want all 4 channels, but neither Group2(sports channels) nor Group3 (music: VH1, MTV, M2). There is still packaging, but customers get better control and don't get large groups of channels shoved at them. It might not save a lot, but it'd still be worth it for those of us who only watch a few channels.
- originalG, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0While they are doing this they should also eliminate the per box fees for people that own their equipment. It makes about as much sense as me having to pay a fee for each computer I connect to the Internet on my network. Which I dont.
- hwood, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The cable/satellite providers will twist this around and screw us somehow.
I hate the current prices and I'm sure I'll hate the new prices.
I don't need cable, but I have it to keep the wife off of my back while I'm on the Internet. - matsiescruff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0perhaps a better idea is to sell 50 channels for 50 bucks and you get to choose which channels you'd like. instead of paying per channel, you pay for an amount of channels and it's channels you'd like to watch. you can eliminate bet and espn and keep E! or cartoon network if you'd like.
- thecoolestcow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Last year's FCC report on the subject found that most U.S. households would face higher television bills if they only paid for the channels they wanted to watch."
Does that make sense? Why would they face HIGHER bills if they paid for only the channels they wanted?? - jcyr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Broadband Internet connectivity is in no way connected to this topic. Trying to compare if we shold pay for our bandwidth time or the sites we use is not relavent. It is apples vs oranges.
As for pay per channel, it is a worthy idea. We are keeping some channels on the air even though we don't want to because we have no choice. But it isn't because it is a public good. Highways are payed by taxes for the public good. Its best for all of us to have an infrastructure that supports commerce, growth, etc.
Forcing us to pay for channels we don't want isn't for the common good of mankind or the country. It is only for the common good of the little channels that nobody cares about anyway. For the record, there are many who would NOT get many of the 'popular' channels and would get those lesser viewed channels. Especially if they cost less. MTV comes to mind.
Advertising is based not on potential viewership, but actual. People who watch those channels will be able to get them, and thus continue to watch.
The big deal here is that it is coming. It doesn't matter if the cable companies want it or not. TV over IP is only a matter of time. Just look at the domains google is buying and the businesses they are buying up. Either the cable companies come to work with it now and get kinks out and become part of the solution, or they get left behind like newspapers are about to be/ and cds/records have just about become.
Remember, it isn't about the cable company. They are just distribution. Distribution will always fight to keep themselves in the picture and in full control. Until we have a new distribution method that utterly removes them from the picture. It will happen. The only thing they can do (cable companies) is to make sure they are part of that new distribution program (Internet over cable lines, for example).
Its funny to see this same argument being made over and over for different media/content topics. It all comes to the same thing. Distribuation mechanism a is about to be replaced by b, 'a' fights it all the way, people argue about merits, costs, etc. Evenutally change happens anyway. People move on to the new distribution issue.
Personally I don't think it will happen with cable companies. They will not change without being forced. It will naturally happen through some video over ip type system. AOL, Time Warner, Google and other players are already starting to release stuff regarding this. Soon it will be all over. The only thing the cable company will be good for is TV for those without internet and broadband internet service. - Harvey_Mushman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0HD football/baseball and PBS look the best from the antenna anyway. Speedvision is the only channel putting a kink in my plow line - but F1 bit torrents pretty well.
- diggmeup, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0i would feel bad for BET
- AmZa, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"I can't believe there are so many "TV communists" commenting here. Yeah, let's pay more to subsidize trash television that we don't watch."
When you say "we" you refer to the norm...the same norm that watches G4 and doesn't like TechTV. See what I'm saying? - SilentBobSC, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I can't believe anyone is thinking this is a GOOD thing... all that will happen is that the individual prices will wind up costing the same if not more than the packages, do you really think that big business and gov't is out to protect the CONSUMER? Please, if anything the consumer has been turned into just another number as well as an outright criminal by many companies as of late, and I don't see the gov't ever acting in our best interest... Money talks...
SB - jdgiotta, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0How will this be good idea?
Makes me think of when you had to pay a rent fee for the cable box that blocks the channels you "aren't" supposed to get. Plus, I don't see how cable companies can create a competative price plan. They'll see it as a huge profit loss because the lack of viewship on other channels.
I'd rather see news about lower cable internet rates. - @nival, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0thank god, finally, even if like matsiescruff said you get to choose packages of 10 30 or 50 channels as long as you can choose the channels and getting rid of the "pack-rat-tv-purchase" channel and the old western movies channel, who wants to have the CVC channel anyway
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0no TV; straight bit torrent
- Kriz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Dugg. Cable lineup purchasing has been unchanged for far too long.
- amishjim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0i watch 5 channels , at the most..........
-
Show 51 - 100 of 108 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is