Explanation of unbundleling Cable Channels

[Nice Squirrel]

So, to be clear, people here are also demanding amusement parks unbundle the price of amusement park rides?

Depends on the park. I won't pay $60 to go on all the Dollywood rides.

 

[coloradoatheist]

No, it's like going to an Amusement Park where you pay to for all the rides, but only 4 of the rides. So if you wanted it so you only rode the ferris wheel, then the the Amusement Park would have to find the land, put up a ferris wheel and only have people pay for that ride.

Continuing the Amusement Park analogy, what we've got right now is a park with 20 really cool rides that everyone wants, 20 rides that people will go on if they're bored, and 60 rides that nobody wants, but the owner's son made a business deal with a vendor that the company can't back out of. So in order for the park to make any money, they've got to charge as if you were getting 100 really cool rides.

But it's quite that way. Let's say you had a simple amusement part with two rides. Everybody pays $1 to go in and you get to ride either ride. If ride A costs $100 to maintain but ride B costs $5 to maintain and there are 105 people who go to the park but 100 like A and 5 like B then each pay a $1. If you limit it so person can only go to one then you will have the same cost of $1 for each person but they only get one ride.

 

[Axulus]

Oh for fuck sakes. Why is every single pro-corporate bullshit position embraced by the right-wing?

Unbundled channels would cost more if you get all of them. Kind of like how if you go to a restaurant and go only a la carte, but order a full meal that would have cost less if you just bought the meal.

Unbundled channels would cost less if you only get what you absolutely want to have. For instance, suppose I wanted football and children's programming. I can subscribe to Dishworld ($10 a month) and Nickelodeon ($6 a month). I get football and children's programming... for $16 a month instead of $100.

See how that works? Now if I wanted Netflix, Amazon Prime, CBS, Hulu Plus, Nick, HBO, Starz, Showtime, FoxSoccer2Go, etc... it'll cost more if you went to each party and spent money individually. That isn't a surprise. You save buying in bulk. The problem is, I don't want bulk, many people don't want bulk. A la carte allows people to be more picky about what they can watch, which means they receive only what they really want.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually it's like going to a restaurant and being required to order everything written on the menu and then picking through only the foods you want to eat. If you want to have corn on the cob with cole slaw, you will need to order everything from menu "A" and everything on menu "B" and then you can have both.

No, it's like going to an Amusement Park where you pay to for all the rides, but only 4 of the rides. So if you wanted it so you only rode the ferris wheel, then the the Amusement Park would have to find the land, put up a ferris wheel and only have people pay for that ride.

You mean like Nickelodeon Universe which offers both an unlimited pass and ride tickets?

Or it could be the case that the cost savings would be so miniscule for such a small number of people that it isn't worth while for the company to even offer it.

Without bundling, you may very well see a price like this:

Base fee for no channels: $30/month (to cover their fixed costs related to the infrastructure required to even have the cable to your home in the first place, to service your account, etc.)

Dishworld - $10/month
Nickeloden - $6/month

Total - $46/month

Bundled price for basic package with 140 channels - $50/month.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

It'd be nice to have some hard numbers instead of all these dueling analogies that may or may not have numbers anywhere close to reality.

Bah, Bloomberg don't need no stinkin' numbers when commie John Green is stirrin' up the proles against the innocent cable giants.

 

[dismal]

It'd be nice to have some hard numbers instead of all these dueling analogies that may or may not have numbers anywhere close to reality.

Here's one data point:

$0 - price you pay to cable companies if you don't think their service is worth what they charge.

 

[TSwizzle]

It's a constant battle with cable/satellite providers. The cable company I deal with now bundle TV, internet and phone. I get phone and internet from them as a bundle as it is cheaper than just internet. It's not just the TV program bundles that give you a headache, it's other services. Trying to mix and match between providers is a nightmare. You just can't help but feel you are being ripped off somewhere. I like the wide range of programs a bundle provides but I wish I could unbundle all the religious crap that gets tacked on.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Oh for fuck sakes. Why is every single pro-corporate bullshit position embraced by the right-wing?

Unbundled channels would cost more if you get all of them. Kind of like how if you go to a restaurant and go only a la carte, but order a full meal that would have cost less if you just bought the meal.

Unbundled channels would cost less if you only get what you absolutely want to have. For instance, suppose I wanted football and children's programming. I can subscribe to Dishworld ($10 a month) and Nickelodeon ($6 a month). I get football and children's programming... for $16 a month instead of $100.

See how that works? Now if I wanted Netflix, Amazon Prime, CBS, Hulu Plus, Nick, HBO, Starz, Showtime, FoxSoccer2Go, etc... it'll cost more if you went to each party and spent money individually. That isn't a surprise. You save buying in bulk. The problem is, I don't want bulk, many people don't want bulk. A la carte allows people to be more picky about what they can watch, which means they receive only what they really want.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually it's like going to a restaurant and being required to order everything written on the menu and then picking through only the foods you want to eat. If you want to have corn on the cob with cole slaw, you will need to order everything from menu "A" and everything on menu "B" and then you can have both.

No, it's like going to an Amusement Park where you pay to for all the rides, but only 4 of the rides. So if you wanted it so you only rode the ferris wheel, then the the Amusement Park would have to find the land, put up a ferris wheel and only have people pay for that ride.

You mean like Nickelodeon Universe which offers both an unlimited pass and ride tickets?

Or it could be the case that the cost savings would be so miniscule for such a small number of people that it isn't worth while for the company to even offer it.

Without bundling, you may very well see a price like this:

Base fee for no channels: $30/month (to cover their fixed costs related to the infrastructure required to even have the cable to your home in the first place, to service your account, etc.)

Dishworld - $10/month
Nickeloden - $6/month

Total - $46/month

Where is your mythical $30 fee coming from? Dishworld for sports is $10 a month (today... it is what it costs). Nickelodeon is saying it'll be $6 a month. There is no mythical $30 base fee.

 

[ksen]

It'd be nice to have some hard numbers instead of all these dueling analogies that may or may not have numbers anywhere close to reality.

Here's one data point:

$0 - price you pay to cable companies if you don't think their service is worth what they charge.

true, that is a datapoint

 

[Axulus]

Oh for fuck sakes. Why is every single pro-corporate bullshit position embraced by the right-wing?

Unbundled channels would cost more if you get all of them. Kind of like how if you go to a restaurant and go only a la carte, but order a full meal that would have cost less if you just bought the meal.

Unbundled channels would cost less if you only get what you absolutely want to have. For instance, suppose I wanted football and children's programming. I can subscribe to Dishworld ($10 a month) and Nickelodeon ($6 a month). I get football and children's programming... for $16 a month instead of $100.

See how that works? Now if I wanted Netflix, Amazon Prime, CBS, Hulu Plus, Nick, HBO, Starz, Showtime, FoxSoccer2Go, etc... it'll cost more if you went to each party and spent money individually. That isn't a surprise. You save buying in bulk. The problem is, I don't want bulk, many people don't want bulk. A la carte allows people to be more picky about what they can watch, which means they receive only what they really want.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually it's like going to a restaurant and being required to order everything written on the menu and then picking through only the foods you want to eat. If you want to have corn on the cob with cole slaw, you will need to order everything from menu "A" and everything on menu "B" and then you can have both.

No, it's like going to an Amusement Park where you pay to for all the rides, but only 4 of the rides. So if you wanted it so you only rode the ferris wheel, then the the Amusement Park would have to find the land, put up a ferris wheel and only have people pay for that ride.

You mean like Nickelodeon Universe which offers both an unlimited pass and ride tickets?

Or it could be the case that the cost savings would be so miniscule for such a small number of people that it isn't worth while for the company to even offer it.

Without bundling, you may very well see a price like this:

Base fee for no channels: $30/month (to cover their fixed costs related to the infrastructure required to even have the cable to your home in the first place, to service your account, etc.)

Dishworld - $10/month
Nickeloden - $6/month

Total - $46/month

Where is your mythical $30 fee coming from? Dishworld for sports is $10 a month (today... it is what it costs). Nickelodeon is saying it'll be $6 a month. There is no mythical $30 base fee.

Why would there not be a base fee charged by the cable company? These $10/month and $6/month are the _additional costs_ on a per channel basis. They do not cover the cable company's fixed costs.

Just like there is a base monthly fee for internet access and then, on top of that, a much lower variable monthly cost for Hulu, Netflix, Google or Amazon premium movies/shows, etc.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Oh for fuck sakes. Why is every single pro-corporate bullshit position embraced by the right-wing?

Unbundled channels would cost more if you get all of them. Kind of like how if you go to a restaurant and go only a la carte, but order a full meal that would have cost less if you just bought the meal.

Unbundled channels would cost less if you only get what you absolutely want to have. For instance, suppose I wanted football and children's programming. I can subscribe to Dishworld ($10 a month) and Nickelodeon ($6 a month). I get football and children's programming... for $16 a month instead of $100.

See how that works? Now if I wanted Netflix, Amazon Prime, CBS, Hulu Plus, Nick, HBO, Starz, Showtime, FoxSoccer2Go, etc... it'll cost more if you went to each party and spent money individually. That isn't a surprise. You save buying in bulk. The problem is, I don't want bulk, many people don't want bulk. A la carte allows people to be more picky about what they can watch, which means they receive only what they really want.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually it's like going to a restaurant and being required to order everything written on the menu and then picking through only the foods you want to eat. If you want to have corn on the cob with cole slaw, you will need to order everything from menu "A" and everything on menu "B" and then you can have both.

No, it's like going to an Amusement Park where you pay to for all the rides, but only 4 of the rides. So if you wanted it so you only rode the ferris wheel, then the the Amusement Park would have to find the land, put up a ferris wheel and only have people pay for that ride.

You mean like Nickelodeon Universe which offers both an unlimited pass and ride tickets?

Or it could be the case that the cost savings would be so miniscule for such a small number of people that it isn't worth while for the company to even offer it.

Without bundling, you may very well see a price like this:

Base fee for no channels: $30/month (to cover their fixed costs related to the infrastructure required to even have the cable to your home in the first place, to service your account, etc.)

Dishworld - $10/month
Nickeloden - $6/month

Total - $46/month

Where is your mythical $30 fee coming from? Dishworld for sports is $10 a month (today... it is what it costs). Nickelodeon is saying it'll be $6 a month. There is no mythical $30 base fee.

It wouldn't be mythical, it would be supporting the infrastructure going to your house.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It'd be nice to have some hard numbers instead of all these dueling analogies that may or may not have numbers anywhere close to reality.

Seeing the right-wing argument (why does it always seem to fall down to partisan shit?) is bankrupt. So they need shit analogies to pretend they have a point.

Netflix
Amazon Prime
DishWorld
FuboTV
FoxSoccer2Go
HBO Live (or whatever the online version is called)
CBS
Hulu Plus
Nickelodeon
WWE Network
Dish's SlingTV (which is a bundled IP service with fewer on demand options)

These are all examples of existing or to be existing a la carte services. The big companies are starting to head this way, so the idea that a la carte is a failure would go in the face of what media providers seem to be thinking with making this fork in their entertainment providing.

You can't go a la carte and get everything, but if you want everything, why go a la carte?!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Or it could be the case that the cost savings would be so miniscule for such a small number of people that it isn't worth while for the company to even offer it.

Without bundling, you may very well see a price like this:

Base fee for no channels: $30/month (to cover their fixed costs related to the infrastructure required to even have the cable to your home in the first place, to service your account, etc.)

Dishworld - $10/month
Nickeloden - $6/month

Total - $46/month

Where is your mythical $30 fee coming from? Dishworld for sports is $10 a month (today... it is what it costs). Nickelodeon is saying it'll be $6 a month. There is no mythical $30 base fee.

It wouldn't be mythical, it would be supporting the infrastructure going to your house.

You mean that $50 a month I pay to AT&T isn't covering that?! Seriously, is this the best you got? Why in the hell are you against anything that seems reasonable? I don't want to fucking pay for TruTV to show one program a day. I don't want to pay for infomercials. I don't want to pay for 100 minute movies being shown with 80 minutes of commercials (and that is after the channel rates have gone up from cable/sat to the channel providers!). I don't want to pay $8 to $10 a month for ESPN because they spent about $200 million per MNF in their contract with the NFL.

Are you even paying attention to what is going on or do you just get an email from your overlords?

 

[coloradoatheist]

It'd be nice to have some hard numbers instead of all these dueling analogies that may or may not have numbers anywhere close to reality.

Seeing the right-wing argument (why does it always seem to fall down to partisan shit?) is bankrupt. So they need shit analogies to pretend they have a point.

Netflix
Amazon Prime
DishWorld
FuboTV
FoxSoccer2Go
HBO Live (or whatever the online version is called)
CBS
Hulu Plus
Nickelodeon
WWE Network
Dish's SlingTV (which is a bundled IP service with fewer on demand options)

These are all examples of existing or to be existing a la carte services. The big companies are starting to head this way, so the idea that a la carte is a failure would go in the face of what media providers seem to be thinking with making this fork in their entertainment providing.

You can't go a la carte and get everything, but if you want everything, why go a la carte?!

Then that's fine. Let the market shake it out in the end. And we'll see what happens in 10 or 20 so years.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Seeing the right-wing argument (why does it always seem to fall down to partisan shit?) is bankrupt. So they need shit analogies to pretend they have a point.

Netflix
Amazon Prime
DishWorld
FuboTV
FoxSoccer2Go
HBO Live (or whatever the online version is called)
CBS
Hulu Plus
Nickelodeon
WWE Network
Dish's SlingTV (which is a bundled IP service with fewer on demand options)

These are all examples of existing or to be existing a la carte services. The big companies are starting to head this way, so the idea that a la carte is a failure would go in the face of what media providers seem to be thinking with making this fork in their entertainment providing.

You can't go a la carte and get everything, but if you want everything, why go a la carte?!

Then that's fine. Let the market shake it out in the end. And we'll see what happens in 10 or 20 so years.

So does that mean you are taking your ball and going home because you can't defend your defenseless position?

 

[dismal]

It'd be nice to have some hard numbers instead of all these dueling analogies that may or may not have numbers anywhere close to reality.

Seeing the right-wing argument (why does it always seem to fall down to partisan shit?) is bankrupt. So they need shit analogies to pretend they have a point.

Netflix
Amazon Prime
DishWorld
FuboTV
FoxSoccer2Go
HBO Live (or whatever the online version is called)
CBS
Hulu Plus
Nickelodeon
WWE Network
Dish's SlingTV (which is a bundled IP service with fewer on demand options)

These are all examples of existing or to be existing a la carte services. The big companies are starting to head this way, so the idea that a la carte is a failure would go in the face of what media providers seem to be thinking with making this fork in their entertainment providing.

You can't go a la carte and get everything, but if you want everything, why go a la carte?!

The idea that companies who provide a service you are not required to buy should be free to price that service how they like is now a "right wing argument"?

 

[coloradoatheist]

Then that's fine. Let the market shake it out in the end. And we'll see what happens in 10 or 20 so years.

So does that mean you are taking your ball and going home because you can't defend your defenseless position?

Nope. I'm letting the Cable Companies decide what they think is the best strategy and if they fail they fail. You could always start your own cable company and offer a la carte services like the one you listed.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Seriously, guys, you like bundling. You know how I know this? You seek it out in your consumer products. You want your hotel to give you free Wi-Fi and you don't want it to charge you by the towel.

for a while, we got our TV/Internet/Phone from one company, one bill. No thought.
The problem was, the company that we got it from is headquartered in a city about 45 minutes away. If we had a problem that required physical intervention, then we had to put up with the problem until the company had servicemen scheduled to be in our area, usually one or two times a week.
We went back to one company each for phone, TV and internet. Costs a little more, but if there's a problem, all three companies are local and are usually there inside of four hours, not three days. That's worth the extra fourteen bucks a month for us. If it ever stops being worth it, we'll bundle again.

I'm sure a lot of people here still have the plan we used to use, because cost is their overriding priority. But that's not the only priority people have. All analogies aside, i do like having the choice to bundle or not.
It just seems more American to have the choice than to have an authority figure tell me what my choice must be, and talk down to me while explaining how i should think.

 

[dismal]

Here's another big bundling problem I have uncovered in our society:

http://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowUser...ican_Restaurant-Charlotte_North_Carolina.html

I hope the rightwing bundlers that run this restaurant will feel the wrath of Higgins.

 

[Ford]

Netflix
Amazon Prime
DishWorld
FuboTV
FoxSoccer2Go
HBO Live (or whatever the online version is called)
CBS
Hulu Plus
Nickelodeon
WWE Network
Dish's SlingTV (which is a bundled IP service with fewer on demand options)

These are all examples of existing or to be existing a la carte services. The big companies are starting to head this way, so the idea that a la carte is a failure would go in the face of what media providers seem to be thinking with making this fork in their entertainment providing.

And some of them are, perhaps more importantly, not just a la carte but on demand.

If I want to watch House of Cards, I don't have to wait a week between episodes. If I want to watch Orange is the New Black at midnight without having to fire up a (rented) DVR, I can do that, too. There is no extra monthly fee for watching shows I want to watch when I want to watch them.

Right now, your cable or satellite provider will be happy to charge you for such a privilege. And give you 47 home shopping channels you don't want.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I'm still upset YouTube pulled this while I was in the middle of watching it.
Manet: The Man Who Invented Modern Art
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3365408/