The great upcoming a la carte channel universe - Page 4

HarvesterOfEars · 2009-10-06, 11:50 AM

I asked Bell, Rogers, and Shaw Direct if they planned to make all specialty channels available individually to their customers when the mandatory packaging ends in 2011.

Shaw Direct said it "will do its best to make something like this possible", but they added, "many of our specialty channels are packages together due to how we were given the rights to certain channels during negotiations with the actual Channel Broadcasters. As many of the Broadcasters own various channels, in order for us to have one channel that was popular with the majority of our customers we also had to take numerous other channels under the same ownership that were not as popular with our customers."

Rogers said they don't know yet.
But at least they understood the question, unlike the person providing the first response from Bell, who seemed somewhat annoyed at not comprehending my inquiry and inexplicably told me I should have asked the billing department. I tried again, and received a response saying my question had been passed along to someone else, but that was three weeks ago and I have not yet received an answer.

HT gearhead · 2009-10-07, 09:18 AM

Should have asked them where their call centre was located.
If it was offshore they wouldn't know anything about that.

reidw · 2009-10-07, 09:30 AM

I was going to ask Harvester exactly to whom did you speak at Rogers, Shaw and Bell? If it was to the base CSRs at any of these companies I doubt if you really got more than a standard reply. This change is still two years away. I doubt if phone CSRs have been given any real information mainly because I t any official policies have yet to be formulated. What I think you got from Shaw and Rogers were most likely the latest scuttlebut or conjectures going through the call centre. As for Bell at least they were probably honest (don't know a thing as usual).

---------------------------------------------------------------------
The universe will unfold as it should. Nothing we do can can make it change. Once you realize that you'll live a happier life.

HarvesterOfEars · 2009-10-07, 05:30 PM

I didn't phone or speak to anyone. These were e-mail responses I received within a day or two of sending them the question through their websites.

PFD · 2010-01-26, 10:28 AM

There's a very good article in The New Yorker discussing cable and sat. companies offering A La Carte and it makes a very good point that this would probably NOT decrease consumer costs. In fact you'll probably end up paying more for less;

For example if you are now paying $100/mo. for 60 channels, of which you only watch 40. With A La Carte, you'll end up paying maybe $95 for those 40.

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financ...alk_surowiecki

I'll quote only a paragraph:

The simple argument for unbundling is: “If I pay sixty dollars for a hundred channels, I’d pay a fraction of that for sixteen channels.” But that’s not how à-la-carte pricing would work. Instead, the prices for individual channels would soar, and the providers, who wouldn’t be facing any more competition than before, would tweak prices, perhaps on a customer-by-customer basis, to maintain their revenue.

reidw · 2010-01-26, 10:38 AM

I don't doubt this article for a minute concerning how pricing would change but I would be getting only the 40 channels I want to see at a price I can accept (not paying anymore for garbage). That to me anyway would be a better deal.

Food for Thought: I once heard it said that all a person really needs is ONE channel; a channel that would show only the programs that that person wants to see and no others.

classicsat · 2010-01-26, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PFD

For example if you are now paying $100/mo. for 60 channels, of which you only watch 40. With A La Carte, you'll end up paying maybe $95 for those 40.

Then buy the 60 channels then. Or a lower package and add the extra channels Alacarte

Alacarte more or less pays if you buy around 10 channels. You might spend $30 to $50 for channels you would need to subscribe to the $100 package to get. The savings would add up.

Alacarte does not mean elimination of the package system. They can work side to side to provide the most flexibility and value to subscribers, and not lose money for providers.

julie_rose_ · 2010-01-26, 02:02 PM

i wish to have tele à la carte. because i have the biggest packages with bell tv and yesterday, i have counted how many channels that i actually enjoy to watch and i counted 30 that's included my french channels. then its the premium movies packages, that i watch, and local tv(TVA, CTV, and sometimes GLOBAL).

But i am stuck with the biggest packages, if i take the small packages that included the premium movies packages, well it go up the same price once i added the other channels.... for thirty channel, i only wish to have the choices....

Francois Caron · 2010-01-26, 02:31 PM

I can't even choose ten specialty channels, much less 40. I would definitely save big time as long as there isn't a minimum requirement of channels, which unfortunately is what Vidéotron does, and which is why I don't have cable.

Give me the à la carte! Please! I do miss the channel surfing, but I only want to surf the channels that actually interest me.

julie_rose_ · 2010-01-26, 02:45 PM

maybe we will need to choose the local+# of channels that you want to have. I do wish that when it happen, that we will be able to choose the local channel that we want for exemple: I only watch tva, CJOH (just the news, because that is what i have with bell tv on 196),cbs. abc, fox, nbc,toon rétro both english and french).

if we could have the choice, it wont cost me much. but for now, it does....

ScaryBob · 2010-01-26, 03:06 PM

Simply put, it costs the entertainment industry $X billion dollars to produce, distribute and deliver entertainment that people consume each year. With a la carte, those costs will not go down. The industry will still need $X dollars to do its work. A la carte might eliminate some of the low quality distributors or channels in an open market. In Canada, most of the crud is government subsidized so all bets are off. All that will happen is the cost for individual channels will go up as their subscriber numbers go down.

dtvinvictoria · 2010-01-26, 09:23 PM

Quote:

For example if you are now paying $100/mo. for 60 channels, of which you only watch 40. With A La Carte, you'll end up paying maybe $95 for those 40.

Of course if a person like myself only wants 5 channels then the savings would be huge.

PlayitSimple · 2010-01-26, 10:51 PM

Quote:

Simply put, it costs the entertainment industry $X billion dollars to produce, distribute and deliver entertainment that people consume each year. With a la carte, those costs will not go down. The industry will still need $X dollars to do its work.

I don't think the costs are that high, especially since a few corporations own most channels nowdays in both the US and Canada. Also they tend to spread programming across their different channels so much original and unique programing do each of these channels actually have- I would say the percentage is low.

classicsat · 2010-01-27, 12:11 PM

A La Carte isn't about bringing the cost of production and distribution down. It is about customer choice, where they can choose to pay for only the channels they want.

Yes, the individual price of those channels will go up with A La Carte, but a smart buyer can save money, or just use the system in principal, to not support channels they may not want to.

And, as I have said, A La Carte likely will be a choice for the customer, also having the choice of buying packages, or even both.

gobisbay · 2010-01-27, 03:23 PM

How is that more for less?

Last I checked $95 was less than $100. I deal in absolutes, not averages. The channels I don't watch are worth $0 to me.

I'd rather pay $125 for 50 channels I want than $150 for 200 channels if I don't watch any of those other 150.

It's the same reasoning the Bell reps try to make when they call me to sell me phone services. "Right now you pay $X per month for these 3 services, but if you add these 4 other services, you will only pay $X+5. Look at how much you'll save!". My response? "Yeah, but I'll never use those other 4 services, so how will paying $5 more SAVE me money?"

I want what I want. If it costs me more PER UNIT to get them, but saves me money overall, how is that NOT beneficial to me?

For those of you that want every channel, maybe you should ask your provider for something similar to DirecTV's Titanium package (apparently no longer offered as per their website). For only $7,500/year you could have every channel wide open (something many of us here in Windsor had for years for free!) and up to 10 receivers.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...um.html?cat=39

2009-10-06, 11:50 AM	#46
HarvesterOfEars Rookie Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 10	I asked Bell, Rogers, and Shaw Direct if they planned to make all specialty channels available individually to their customers when the mandatory packaging ends in 2011. Shaw Direct said it "will do its best to make something like this possible", but they added, "many of our specialty channels are packages together due to how we were given the rights to certain channels during negotiations with the actual Channel Broadcasters. As many of the Broadcasters own various channels, in order for us to have one channel that was popular with the majority of our customers we also had to take numerous other channels under the same ownership that were not as popular with our customers." Rogers said they don't know yet. But at least they understood the question, unlike the person providing the first response from Bell, who seemed somewhat annoyed at not comprehending my inquiry and inexplicably told me I should have asked the billing department. I tried again, and received a response saying my question had been passed along to someone else, but that was three weeks ago and I have not yet received an answer. Last edited by HarvesterOfEars; 2009-10-06 at 01:15 PM.

2010-01-26, 03:06 PM	#56
ScaryBob Veteran Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: The Armpit of Southwestern Ontario Posts: 2,571	Pick'n'pay'n'pay'n'pay... Simply put, it costs the entertainment industry $X billion dollars to produce, distribute and deliver entertainment that people consume each year. With a la carte, those costs will not go down. The industry will still need $X dollars to do its work. A la carte might eliminate some of the low quality distributors or channels in an open market. In Canada, most of the crud is government subsidized so all bets are off. All that will happen is the cost for individual channels will go up as their subscriber numbers go down. __________________ -- Scary

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

2009-10-07, 09:18 AM	#47
HT gearhead Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 1,342	Should have asked them where their call centre was located. If it was offshore they wouldn't know anything about that.

2009-10-07, 09:30 AM	#48
reidw Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Stratford, PE. Posts: 1,434	I was going to ask Harvester exactly to whom did you speak at Rogers, Shaw and Bell? If it was to the base CSRs at any of these companies I doubt if you really got more than a standard reply. This change is still two years away. I doubt if phone CSRs have been given any real information mainly because I t any official policies have yet to be formulated. What I think you got from Shaw and Rogers were most likely the latest scuttlebut or conjectures going through the call centre. As for Bell at least they were probably honest (don't know a thing as usual). --------------------------------------------------------------------- The universe will unfold as it should. Nothing we do can can make it change. Once you realize that you'll live a happier life.

2009-10-07, 05:30 PM	#49
HarvesterOfEars Rookie Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 10	I didn't phone or speak to anyone. These were e-mail responses I received within a day or two of sending them the question through their websites.

2010-01-26, 10:28 AM	#50
PFD Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 427	There's a very good article in The New Yorker discussing cable and sat. companies offering A La Carte and it makes a very good point that this would probably NOT decrease consumer costs. In fact you'll probably end up paying more for less; For example if you are now paying $100/mo. for 60 channels, of which you only watch 40. With A La Carte, you'll end up paying maybe $95 for those 40. http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financ...alk_surowiecki I'll quote only a paragraph: The simple argument for unbundling is: “If I pay sixty dollars for a hundred channels, I’d pay a fraction of that for sixteen channels.” But that’s not how à-la-carte pricing would work. Instead, the prices for individual channels would soar, and the providers, who wouldn’t be facing any more competition than before, would tweak prices, perhaps on a customer-by-customer basis, to maintain their revenue.

2010-01-26, 10:38 AM	#51
reidw Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Stratford, PE. Posts: 1,434	I don't doubt this article for a minute concerning how pricing would change but I would be getting only the 40 channels I want to see at a price I can accept (not paying anymore for garbage). That to me anyway would be a better deal. Food for Thought: I once heard it said that all a person really needs is ONE channel; a channel that would show only the programs that that person wants to see and no others.

2010-01-26, 02:02 PM	#53
julie_rose_ Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 193	i wish to have tele à la carte. because i have the biggest packages with bell tv and yesterday, i have counted how many channels that i actually enjoy to watch and i counted 30 that's included my french channels. then its the premium movies packages, that i watch, and local tv(TVA, CTV, and sometimes GLOBAL). But i am stuck with the biggest packages, if i take the small packages that included the premium movies packages, well it go up the same price once i added the other channels.... for thirty channel, i only wish to have the choices....

2010-01-26, 02:31 PM	#54
Francois Caron Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 790	I can't even choose ten specialty channels, much less 40. I would definitely save big time as long as there isn't a minimum requirement of channels, which unfortunately is what Vidéotron does, and which is why I don't have cable. Give me the à la carte! Please! I do miss the channel surfing, but I only want to surf the channels that actually interest me.

2010-01-26, 02:45 PM	#55
julie_rose_ Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 193	maybe we will need to choose the local+# of channels that you want to have. I do wish that when it happen, that we will be able to choose the local channel that we want for exemple: I only watch tva, CJOH (just the news, because that is what i have with bell tv on 196),cbs. abc, fox, nbc,toon rétro both english and french). if we could have the choice, it wont cost me much. but for now, it does....

2010-01-27, 12:11 PM	#59
classicsat Veteran Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Kincardine ON. Posts: 2,597	A La Carte isn't about bringing the cost of production and distribution down. It is about customer choice, where they can choose to pay for only the channels they want. Yes, the individual price of those channels will go up with A La Carte, but a smart buyer can save money, or just use the system in principal, to not support channels they may not want to. And, as I have said, A La Carte likely will be a choice for the customer, also having the choice of buying packages, or even both.

2010-01-27, 03:23 PM	#60
gobisbay Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Windsor, ON Posts: 250	How is that more for less? Last I checked $95 was less than $100. I deal in absolutes, not averages. The channels I don't watch are worth $0 to me. I'd rather pay $125 for 50 channels I want than $150 for 200 channels if I don't watch any of those other 150. It's the same reasoning the Bell reps try to make when they call me to sell me phone services. "Right now you pay $X per month for these 3 services, but if you add these 4 other services, you will only pay $X+5. Look at how much you'll save!". My response? "Yeah, but I'll never use those other 4 services, so how will paying $5 more SAVE me money?" I want what I want. If it costs me more PER UNIT to get them, but saves me money overall, how is that NOT beneficial to me? For those of you that want every channel, maybe you should ask your provider for something similar to DirecTV's Titanium package (apparently no longer offered as per their website). For only $7,500/year you could have every channel wide open (something many of us here in Windsor had for years for free!) and up to 10 receivers. http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...um.html?cat=39