Re: Ability to choose channels of choice

RCSMG · ‎12-10-2007

HBO's fees that are paid to the movie companies are probably pretty substantial. Everybody has their costs which trickle down to the cost the subs pay for the movie channels. IMO

kkaschke2000 · ‎03-04-2009

You can please some of the people some of the time. But you can't please all of the people all of the time.

jrb531 · ‎10-23-2008

jantos5 wrote:
Just a guess...sports events are dynamic and appeal more to american male demographics? If you miss a sport event, there is a chance that you wouldnt be able to see it again, but movies are always going to be available from a variety of sources (netflix, blockbuster, library, movie theater, dvd, vhs, blueray). Sports teams have almost cult like followings, that very few movies to match.

just my opinion

I appreciate you taking a stab at this but this part "appeal more to male demographics" makes the case "more" for expensive sports to be placed in it's own package. By the very nature of it not having a broad appeal as well as "cult like" moves this more, IMHO, to the realm of "nitch" programming that by it's very nature (and high expense) makes it something that "everyone" should not pay for.

bri_man_65 · ‎09-21-2007

I would assume the cost of ESPN would be less, because ESPN broadcasts commercials to offset some of their costs, too. HBO has no commercials, so revenues come directly from subscribers.

jrb531 · ‎10-23-2008

RCSMG wrote:
HBO's fees that are paid to the movie companies are probably pretty substantial. Everybody has their costs which trickle down to the cost the subs pay for the movie channels. IMO

You are 100% correct but the very same could be said for ESPN. ESPN is paying a boatload of money to the sportsworld and it's end result is higher ticket prices and pay. The only losers are us who lose "free" sports on advertizing sponsored TV but now are forced to pay for ESPN no matter what we do unless we want to give up all pay TV.

HBO pays the studios big bucks to get those movies

ESPN pays the sports leagues big bucks to get the rights to televise these events that used to be free

Now we all know how this happened.

Years ago ESPN was a single channel (as was HBO) that provided a small sample of extra sports. Most of the major sporting events was on free tv and as such ESPN did not have much of an overhead so it was a cheap channel... basic cable so to speak.

Now in the past 20+ years ESPN has evolved into a package of "expensive" channels that is no different than HBO but due to it's roots it's been allowed to be locked into it's same basic cable package with the same associated "forced" payment on everyone.

Does this make it right? Does ESPN's roots somehow make it ok for them to charge anything they want and we just have to pay it? What if ESPN decided to charge an extra $10 more a month (silly but for the sake of discussion) - what can we do about it?

If HBO raises their prices too high and we have the option to cancel. If ESPN does this we only have the option to cancel all pay TV.

This is wrong wrong wrong!

And I'm not just picking on ESPN. IMHO any group of channels that are sold as a package (or if predatory pricing is used to make it impossible to buy the channels individually) then I maintain that those channels should NOT be allowed in any basic package.

A quick way to fix this would be to only allow channels that are not a part of ANY group package to be in the basic package. You want to sell your channels as a package... well then that package better be good enough and priced low enough to attract enough people to add that package on.

The programmers want it both ways and they currently have it.... they want to charge anything they want and they do not want us to have any option to cancel. What they are afraid of is competition. They know full well that once we are allowed choice then they would be forced to act like any other business... charge too much and you lose customers... put out a bad product and you lose customers.

If ESPN raises rates too high... what can we do?

If ESPN does not provide a product we want... what can we do?

If Sears charges too much we can choose to shop at another store

If Sears does not provide products we want we can go to another store

Show me a Cable Company, Dish, DTV, Uverse or any other Pay TV distributor that will allow me to NOT pay for ESPN?

The goverment should step in now to prevent this anti-competative practive of allowing the programmers to force the distributors into making us pay for things we do not want. They do it for other companies... why is the pay TV industry immune? Could it be the bribes... err donations that they give congress?

jrb531 · ‎10-23-2008

bri_man_65 wrote:
I would assume the cost of ESPN would be less, because ESPN broadcasts commercials to offset some of their costs, too. HBO has no commercials, so revenues come directly from subscribers.

In the beginning ESPN had little or no commericials. We "bought" into the entire pay TV thing because we grew sick of too many commericials. Instead of having the commercials pay for programming, we would.... now we pay "and" have to watch commercials. ESPN did the bait and switch... those "evil" commericials that free TV had were part of the reason people switched to ESPN... once we switched and little by little ESPN started putting more and more of those "evil" commericials.

We are stupid enough to allow commericals when we are paying for the programming. HBO knows that if they place commericials in their movies that everyone would cancel. Had we taken this same stand years ago with pay sports and we would be much better off. Those over paid cry baby athletes might only have to make due with 1 million a year

KCRoyals · ‎01-08-2009

Should of, Could of, Would of....

Your confusing the situation by picking and choosing your arguements. You comment that HBO and ESPN are "too expensive" but then say as anology that if Sears is too high, you can go somewhere else. If the price is too high, you can go somewhere else, it is called DirecTV, DishNetwork, Comcast, Time-Warner, etc.... That is why your arguement is with the existing price structure of the TV industry as a whole. That is why your argument is apples in oranges.

First, If HBO or ESPN, or any channel for that matter is too much, is your assumption. Why is that? Because you, me or anyone else for that matter, do not pay ESPN, HBO, or any other directly for their services. So the service prioviders, Comcast, Time-Warner, Cox, DirecTV, DishNetwork, Verizon FiOS, AT&T U-Verse, and so on..... pay them for rights to their channels, and if it gets too high they have the right to either raise their rates to subscribers, or drop their channels all together, which I know DishNetwork has done in the past, and Time-Warner passed on NFL Network all together, not you the individual. If you don't pay direct to the distributor of the channels in question, you don't have sufficient information to determine what is and is not too much, you have an opinion, but that is all it is, an opinion. For example, it is like me saying the price of sugar is out of hand for C&H Sugar, but the proper critisim would be the price is out of hand from the grocery store, for C&H Sugar is $X.XX, while Best Choice Sugar is $X.XX, so I "Choose" to buy the Best Choice brand of Sugar, does everyone, No. If a brand of product gets to expensise for a grocery store, they either raise the price, or drop the product, similar to the TV Providers.

I am sure the TV providers all pay good money to active lobbyist in Washington, to keep things the way it is. But for companies trying to build a TV base of customers, like AT&T and Verizon, don't get mad at them for using a business model that has worked for over 30 years, with the original TV providers. They don want a base of 1 million customers that, subscribe on avg of 30 channels a piece, how do they take that to a distributor when the rates negotiated? It will give them horrible position for negotiating price, and then the prices on their channels goes up, and you guessed it, your a la carte channels will go up, and then when the competitor calls and say I can get you from 30 Channels to 200 Channels for the same price after a 6 month or 12 month promotion, they loose what few customers they do have. The bottom line is a good business model is required to survive, and to get these infrastructure loans to build out their Fiber Optic upgrades, and if theb business model isn't good, you sink very fast. These business have accountability to the stockholders (Millions of people, not just a couple here and there), and their employees to be profitable and grow. To the customer they try top give them the best overall value. Not everybody agrees with it, but I believe your opinion is really in the minority, not because of the intentions, but because of the ramifications down the road.

As I have stated in prior posts, you are frustrated with the existing pricing structure of the television as a whole, you need to take it your congressman, or lobbyist that share you views. Even if you intentions are good for some of your ideas, a la carte pricing, but it can end up backfiring, when you have Viacom, Liberty Media, and so on pricing negotiations will be dicated by your customer base, TV Line Up and how many of their channels you add out of their Suite of channels. And if you don't measure up, the your business will falter.

This is beating a dead horse at this point, in my opinion.

Message Edited by KCRoyals on 06-09-2009 11:03 AM

Message Edited by KCRoyals on 06-09-2009 11:07 AM

Message Edited by KCRoyals on 06-09-2009 11:09 AM

jrb531 · ‎10-23-2008

KCRoyals wrote:
Should of, Could of, Would of....

Your confusing the situation by picking and choosing your arguements. You comment that HBO and ESPN are "too expensive" but then say as anology that if Sears is too high, you can go somewhere else. If the price is too high, you can go somewhere else, it is called DirecTV, DishNetwork, Comcast, Time-Warner, etc.... That is why your arguement is with the existing price structure of the TV industry as a whole. That is why your argument is apples in oranges.

Can you please tell me one "distributor" that does not place ESPN in their basic package in the Chicago area so I can switch to that provider?

If you read my post (yes they are long) I never said that this was in any way an attack against AT&T. This is an industrywide issue. ESPN "forces" their programing into the lowest tier for everyone!

We have NO choice in the matter. Unlike Sears and being able to go to another store if I do not like Sears... I cannot go to ANY other distributor for pay TV so I do not have to pay for ESPN.

So why not HBO? Why not force HBO on everyone so we get a better price?

Yes we are beating a dead horse. When did the citizens of this country decide to bend over for the large corperations and give up their rights?

Message Edited by jrb531 on 06-09-2009 11:39 AM

KCRoyals · ‎01-08-2009

jrb531 wrote:
KCRoyals wrote:
Should of, Could of, Would of....

Your confusing the situation by picking and choosing your arguements. You comment that HBO and ESPN are "too expensive" but then say as anology that if Sears is too high, you can go somewhere else. If the price is too high, you can go somewhere else, it is called DirecTV, DishNetwork, Comcast, Time-Warner, etc.... That is why your arguement is with the existing price structure of the TV industry as a whole. That is why your argument is apples in oranges.
Can you please tell me one "distributor" that does not place ESPN in their basic package in the Chicago area so I can switch to that provider?

If you read my post (yes they are long) I never said that this was in any way an attack against AT&T. This is an industrywide issue. ESPN "forces" their programing into the lowest tier for everyone!

We have NO choice in the matter. Unlike Sears and being able to go to another store if I do not like Sears... I cannot go to ANY other distributor for pay TV so I do not have to pay for ESPN.

So why not HBO? Why not force HBO on everyone so we get a better price?

Yes we are beating a dead horse. When did the citizens of this country decide to bend over for the large corperations and give up their rights?
Message Edited by jrb531 on 06-09-2009 11:39 AM

jrb531, there is not right or ammendement, that refers to "Pay TV in this Country," that is the facts. You have freedom on speech, and with that, you are able to voice your opinion on the matter, because you have an opinion doesn't mean you are right, or that your opinion will result in change in the pricing of pay tv. That being said, if it is change, that you are looking for, a Peer-to-Peer forum, for service that's subscriber base is still in it's infancy, is just a waste of everyone's time. If your want Pay Television Pricing Reform in America you need to notify the appropriate channels, and if it gets tables, it gets tabled.

Your complaint always comes back to why you have ESPN channels forced on you, no matter with what provider option you have, that stinks for you cause your obviously an ESPN hatter. On the other hand, there are thousands if not millions that hate the fact they have QVC, ShopNBC and Home Shopping Network as a part of their base package, with all their providers, but those are shoved down all of our throats, whether we like it or not. I don't see anyone opening threads complaining about how it is a "waste of their money," and how "I never watch that channel" and how "we need pricing reform" based on these worthless channels that are there just to get money out of a persons wallet, on top of whatever the customer is paying for their "pay tv service." I for one am glad I don't have to pay for ESPN, ESPN News, and ESPN2 a la carte, but by purchasing the U-450, I choose to get ESPNU in addition to the other ESPN Channels. Since they come from the distributor as a package, that also gets me ABC Family which my kids like, and ESPN Classic which occasionally has something that may catch my attention.... The TV providers don't pay a la carte for these stations from the distrubutor, the TV Providers have to buy their entire "Suite" of channels, and the more the tv provider puts in their base package, U200 package on u-Verse for example, they cheaper the "Suite" of Channels will cost the TV providers. Also, to get the price of the "Suite" of channels down, how many subscribers on your network, impacts the price, the more subscribers you have, the more homes they service, the cheaper the "suite" of channels is. Bottom Line is, it is not AT&T's fault that other tv providers put ESPN in their base Tiers, and vice versa.

And where your agrument doesn't hold water, is the U-Family is available to you on U-Verse, for $49.00, which gives you 70 Family oriented channels, and it does not force ESPN upon you. It doesn't give you some other popular channels, but if you dislike ESPN so much, it is not being "forced upon you." Also, DishNetwork has the "DishFamily" package that gives you 55 Channels for $19.99 per month, with a 2 year commitment, that also does not force you to take ESPN. And then there is DirecTV, they have the "Family Package" which providers you with 50 channels, at $29.99 a month, 24 moth commitment, which you guessed it, does not force ESPN upon you. So there you have it, you have options that don't have ESPN, with multiple providers, and then if you want HBO Package, you can add it to you Family Packages with all three providers, and if you don't want HBO, you don't have to take it.

This has nothing to do with a consumers rights, you have options, now are the options always perfect for everyone, no, all people have their own preferences. But this is the real world, and not everything in the real world is perfect, only in "Hollywood," is that the case. If you want change, bang your drum with a government official or lobbyist that supports your cause.

Message Edited by KCRoyals on 06-09-2009 12:53 PM

jantos5 · ‎07-15-2008

jrb531 wrote:
jantos5 wrote:
Just a guess...sports events are dynamic and appeal more to american male demographics? If you miss a sport event, there is a chance that you wouldnt be able to see it again, but movies are always going to be available from a variety of sources (netflix, blockbuster, library, movie theater, dvd, vhs, blueray). Sports teams have almost cult like followings, that very few movies to match.

just my opinion

I appreciate you taking a stab at this but this part "appeal more to male demographics" makes the case "more" for expensive sports to be placed in it's own package. By the very nature of it not having a broad appeal as well as "cult like" moves this more, IMHO, to the realm of "nitch" programming that by it's very nature (and high expense) makes it something that "everyone" should not pay for.

I didn't mean cult-like as in small cult like, i meant large cult-like. I think I remember hearing that more Kobe Bryant shirts have been sold in China than in the USA, and sports obviously have, at some levels, worldwide followings. Like KCRoyals said, I think you are in the minority here. Believe it or not, sports are relatively popular in not just the USA, but the entire world, which causes a high demand for programming. The system may be messed up, but i really don't think that making it your sacred duty to expose corporations for their screwy, outdated business plans will actually do anything, and on a peer-to-peer forum, even.

I do like the discussion though, very intriguing.

Chitown67 · ‎05-27-2009

Millions unemployed, banks collapsing, nationalized car companies, crazy amounts of foreclosures------------------yet ONE person is fixated on HIS cause: Alacarte cable choices and the elimination of ESPN from all consumer packages! Who is our hero? "Super Alacarte Man!" Our hero will personally bring cable and satellite networks to their knees by Nationalizing yet another industry.....cable tv! Now, instead of selecting between u200 or u300, you will call into the Office of Big Government Television affairs and apply and receive permission to change channels on an alacarte basis. All channels will be alacarte, except one channel, which will be mandated by the Office of Big Government Television affairs, MSNBC. All U.S cable customers must carry MSNBC. And Super Alacarte man can be happy that the Evil practices of cable bundling are no more.

Johnbsr · ‎11-18-2008

I think some people here are under the mistaken assumption that if the providers went ala carte on the channels that they would be paying roughly 30 cents per channel like we do for the U450 package. More likely you would wind up paying $1.00 - $1.50 per channel, more for the sports and movie channels and wind up with a bill roughly the same or more than you're paying now for less channels. The networks and providers would have to make up the revenue with higher costs. Smaller niche channels ad revenues would dry up due to lack of numbers and they would dissapear. So then we'd be innundated with the where did the "insert your favorite" channel go threads.

The current system may not be perfect but it caters to the widest audience and offers many choices, if people can't find what they want from the current providers they can always go back to the OTA on the roof and get what they get for free, but don't expect to see any major change in the way packages are offered.

Message Edited by Johnbsr on 06-09-2009 09:55 PM

jdomutz · ‎03-18-2008

I have U-200 and am a NASA-TV fan. AT&T, without asking any of its customer base, discretely moved NASA up to U-300, and is forcing us to upgrade. Of course they offer a free 3-month trial, but like yourself, I watch very few channels. I don't even watch the U-300 movies. So, I'm being forced to upgrade to a menu I don't watch, by taking away an item I watched on U-200 and bumping it up to U-300. I'm on a limited income and don't like being blackmailed, so I will not upgrade when the 3-month trial is up. I hope no one else does either.

This is an unfair action to their customer base.

KCRoyals · ‎01-08-2009

jdomutz wrote:
I have U-200 and am a NASA-TV fan. AT&T, without asking any of its customer base, discretely moved NASA up to U-300, and is forcing us to upgrade. Of course they offer a free 3-month trial, but like yourself, I watch very few channels. I don't even watch the U-300 movies. So, I'm being forced to upgrade to a menu I don't watch, by taking away an item I watched on U-200 and bumping it up to U-300. I'm on a limited income and don't like being blackmailed, so I will not upgrade when the 3-month trial is up. I hope no one else does either.

This is an unfair action to their customer base.

Forced to pay more for NASA TV?

To the contrary, you do have choices, and to help you out, DirecTV has their "Family Plan" package for $29.99, total for 50 Channels, which includes NASA TV. Also, DishNetwork has the NASA TV Channel as a part of their "DishFamily" Plan, which give you 55 Channels, for $19.99 per month. However, both providers do lock you into a 24 month commitment.

I hope this helps.

Chitown67 · ‎05-27-2009

If your on a limited income, why are you paying for premium cable and paying for the movie channel packages all so you can see NASA? What are you thinking? TV programming packages isn't a god given right---its a choice that you make. If you receive government assistance, I would think paying for anything other than the most basic level of service is immoral.

As for the theory that your being blackmailed---if you bit$h about NASA being on u300 and want that moved to u200---then whatever AT&T moves to u300 in its place, I'll bit$h about that channel because I won't be able to see it any more without buying the u300. Use some logic. Not everyone is going to be happy with the programming packages. Deal with it or find another tv company.

Message Edited by Chitown67 on 06-10-2009 02:05 PM

jrb531 · ‎10-23-2008

A few points...

If sports are so popular then ESPN will have no problem in their own package gaining subscribers? Are they really afraid that if people had to "directly" pay their fee that they would lose the ability to raise their fees without any downside?

I like sports and I do not hate ESPN but it's a great example on the double standard hypocracy that we have today.

Their is ZERO difference between HBO and ESPN yet somehow (legal or not) we actually have people defending the current system that is set up to screw us.

Lack of choice is good for the programmers NOT us!

Let's drop the entire "legal or not" arguement for a minute.

Does anyone feel it's right to have programmers be able to dictate terms on the distributors? Tell them where to place the channel or withhold more popular channels unless they take unpopular channels?

I guess I'm just amazed on how anyone can defend this practice.

One last point... those "family" packages that have only been around for a few years only came about because congress was about to hold hearing into the pay tv industry. For years to distributors and programmers told us that these packages were impossible (insert stupid reason why) but in a matter of weeks the impossible became possible because the pay tv industry feared that congress would expose their practices.

You have to ask yourself... what are they afraid of? Some may say needless government regulation but others will say that they really fear that if the "truth" comes out it will be exposed that the current system is rife with back room deals, strong arm tactics and other forms of VERY anti-competative deals that are in place to make sure that our bills stay high no matter what.

Ala-cart... maybe not but surely there is a middle road that allows us "some" choice.

The family packages show that this can be done..... *IF* they wanted to.

jrb531 · ‎10-23-2008

jdomutz wrote:
I have U-200 and am a NASA-TV fan. AT&T, without asking any of its customer base, discretely moved NASA up to U-300, and is forcing us to upgrade. Of course they offer a free 3-month trial, but like yourself, I watch very few channels. I don't even watch the U-300 movies. So, I'm being forced to upgrade to a menu I don't watch, by taking away an item I watched on U-200 and bumping it up to U-300. I'm on a limited income and don't like being blackmailed, so I will not upgrade when the 3-month trial is up. I hope no one else does either.

This is an unfair action to their customer base.

You're a nut job like me LOL

Millions of people losing their jobs and I'm on a crusade to allow those having tought times to lower there bills to save some cash. Someone here actually tried to turn this around like the pay tv industry is doing us all a favor by keeping prices high and choice non-existant!

Why? What could be the possible motive to defend these silly anti-competative practices?

jrb531 · ‎10-23-2008

Chitown67 wrote:
If your on a limited income, why are you paying for premium cable and paying for the movie channel packages all so you can see NASA? What are you thinking? TV programming packages isn't a god given right---its a choice that you make. If you receive government assistance, I would think paying for anything other than the most basic level of service is immoral.

As for the theory that your being blackmailed---if you bit$h about NASA being on u300 and want that moved to u200---then whatever AT&T moves to u300 in its place, I'll bit$h about that channel because I won't be able to see it any more without buying the u300. Use some logic. Not everyone is going to be happy with the programming packages. Deal with it or find another tv company.
Message Edited by Chitown67 on 06-10-2009 02:05 PM

No.... how about this

In hard times people cut back. I'm glad everything is going great with you and us "rift raft" have the nerve to actually want to watch "some" pay tv instead of cancelling all forms of entertainment and just working 4 jobs.... if we could get them.

If he wants to watch NASA TV then why does he have to subscribe to package 1 and package 2 just to get package 3? How about allowing him to subscribe to just the package that NASA is in?

jrb531 · ‎10-23-2008

Chitown67 wrote:
Millions unemployed, banks collapsing, nationalized car companies, crazy amounts of foreclosures------------------yet ONE person is fixated on HIS cause: Alacarte cable choices and the elimination of ESPN from all consumer packages! Who is our hero? "Super Alacarte Man!" Our hero will personally bring cable and satellite networks to their knees by Nationalizing yet another industry.....cable tv! Now, instead of selecting between u200 or u300, you will call into the Office of Big Government Television affairs and apply and receive permission to change channels on an alacarte basis. All channels will be alacarte, except one channel, which will be mandated by the Office of Big Government Television affairs, MSNBC. All U.S cable customers must carry MSNBC. And Super Alacarte man can be happy that the Evil practices of cable bundling are no more.

Are you one of those guys who thinks that "all" forms of government regulation is not needed?

Maybe we can talk about removing all those "needless" banking regulations.... oh wait... we already did that a few years ago and look what it got us?

Businesses are in it to make money. They do not care about us unless doing so will make them more money. I'm sorry but "some" regualtion is needed because greed will be our ruin someday. I'm glad everything is ok with you but someday, and I do not wish this on anyone, you may find yourself in need of some form of assistance. People working 30+ years have lost their pensions because it was determined that "good business" means that they can farm that job overseas and by declaring bankruptcy they could wipe their books and make more money.

Legal? for the moment but this does not make it morally right but few companies have morals these days.

Remember... what goes around comes around. It took a long time to gain the rights we have (had?) and some are sure quick to give them up for the short term buck!

KCRoyals · ‎01-08-2009

The point is mute in the lastest request, for NASA TV, because people do have choices, and in this last scenario, if he "has to have NASA TV," DirecTV has their "Family Plan" package for $29.99, giving him a total for 50 Channels, which includes NASA TV. Also, DishNetwork has the NASA TV Channel as a part of their "DishFamily" Plan, which give him 55 Channels, for $19.99 per month. However, both providers do lock you into a 24 month commitment. If he wants that channel, and doesn't want to upgrade to the U-300 to get it, he can go with another provider, isn't that one of the many reasons why there is competion for?

It's not an injustice when one TV provider has a channel you want in a higher package, if that happens, a consumer has the right to shop around, and I did the work for him, making it even easier.

Chitown67 · ‎05-27-2009

KCRoyals your right. You could take any product and "cry" injustice. I want a GPS that talks.... I only want to spend $129 which is the price of the "basic GPS" at Best Buy. The GPS that talks costs $229. Besides talking, the $229 GPS also shows live traffic conditions. Why can't Best Buy get me a GPS that talks for $129? I don't want the live traffic conditions and don't want to spend $229 for the feature....I think its unfair that in order to get a GPS that talks I have to buy a unit that shows me live traffic conditions. Best Buy should let me "choose" which features I want in my GPS! I think this is not competitive and a violation of the Sherman anti-trust act! I'm calling big government right now to force Best Buy (which is just a distributor, but what do I know) to get me the GPS that I want!

Message Edited by Chitown67 on 06-11-2009 08:28 AM

jrb531 · ‎10-23-2008

The way some people here defend "everything" the programmers do I have to wonder.

No one still yet to answer my question why ESPN is forced on everyone and HBO is not or what the different is between the two.

All I get is defense of the distributors, defense of the programmers, anti-government propaganda and endless excuses. A few even decided that it was ok to toss a few insults at me for "daring" to question.

Amazing!

Message Edited by jrb531 on 06-11-2009 10:20 AM

SomeJoe7777 · ‎01-30-2008

jrb531 wrote:

No one still yet to answer my question why ESPN is forced on everyone and HBO is not or what the different is between the two.

I can't speak as to why ESPN is included with every package and why HBO is a la carte.

But as far as the difference between them, the most obvious that would indeed affect their revenue and pricing structure is that ESPN has commercials, while HBO is commercial-free.

I believe this was mentioned a few posts up.

There are other differences: ESPN, even though it is carried on cable only, mostly obeys what would be broadcast rules as far as profanity, indecency, etc. HBO can and will broadcast fully uncut programming.

ESPN has a variety of programming, from 3-hour long sporting events/games, to 30-minute biopic pieces, to hour-long sports news. HBO stays typically within the 2-hour movie realm, with some 1-hour special series.

These difference affect the audience both in composition and size, which directly affects revenue either from advertising or subscription, and affects liabilities including carriage rights. All of this must be factored into the business model.

RCSMG · ‎12-10-2007

In short, no one here can answer your question because the powers that be at HBO and ESPN don't feel it worth their time to come here and tell us. It is possible that an exec or two have read your question and decided not to answer it. The bottom line is $$$$, that is why those channels are on the air in the first place. IMHO

KCRoyals · ‎01-08-2009

jrb531 wrote:
The way some people here defend "everything" the programmers do I have to wonder.

No one still yet to answer my question why ESPN is forced on everyone and HBO is not or what the different is between the two.

All I get is defense of the distributors, defense of the programmers, anti-government propaganda and endless excuses. A few even decided that it was ok to toss a few insults at me for "daring" to question.

Amazing!
Message Edited by jrb531 on 06-11-2009 10:20 AM

Jrb531, you must of forgotten, 2 pages ago on this very thread, "ESPN" is not forced on anyone. You may remember I wrote:

Your complaint always comes back to why you have ESPN channels forced on you, no matter with what provider option you have, that stinks for you cause your obviously an ESPN hatter. On the other hand, there are thousands if not millions that hate the fact they have QVC, ShopNBC and Home Shopping Network as a part of their base package, with all their providers, but those are shoved down all of our throats, whether we like it or not. I don't see anyone opening threads complaining about how it is a "waste of their money," and how "I never watch that channel" and how "we need pricing reform" based on these worthless channels that are there just to get money out of a persons wallet, on top of whatever the customer is paying for their "pay tv service." I for one am glad I don't have to pay for ESPN, ESPN News, and ESPN2 a la carte, but by purchasing the U-450, I choose to get ESPNU in addition to the other ESPN Channels. Since they come from the distributor as a package, that also gets me ABC Family which my kids like, and ESPN Classic which occasionally has something that may catch my attention.... The TV providers don't pay a la carte for these stations from the distrubutor, the TV Providers have to buy their entire "Suite" of channels, and the more the tv provider puts in their base package, U200 package on u-Verse for example, they cheaper the "Suite" of Channels will cost the TV providers. Also, to get the price of the "Suite" of channels down, how many subscribers on your network, impacts the price, the more subscribers you have, the more homes they service, the cheaper the "suite" of channels is. Bottom Line is, it is not AT&T's fault that other tv providers put ESPN in their base Tiers, and vice versa.

And where your agrument doesn't hold water, is the U-Family is available to you on U-Verse, for $49.00, which gives you 70 Family oriented channels, and it does not force ESPN upon you. It doesn't give you some other popular channels, but if you dislike ESPN so much, it is not being "forced upon you." Also, DishNetwork has the "DishFamily" package that gives you 55 Channels for $19.99 per month, with a 2 year commitment, that also does not force you to take ESPN. And then there is DirecTV, they have the "Family Package" which providers you with 50 channels, at $29.99 a month, 24 moth commitment, which you guessed it, does not force ESPN upon you. So there you have it, you have options that don't have ESPN, with multiple providers, and then if you want HBO Package, you can add it to you Family Packages with all three providers, and if you don't want HBO, you don't have to take it.

Fact is, most people aren't so narrow minded and self centered to think that there is one option that will make everyone happy. Your solution has flaws as well, you just fail to relize them. If some company offered an a la carte channels for their TV channels, raises prices a per channel basis to the point if you want over 40 channels you are paying more a month that a person on U 300 or U450, cause of the inflated pricing and worse prices that company would get from the distributors. In addition, on prior posts, whichever company, who would be stupid enough to try a la carte pricing to their customers , it would be corporate suicide, cause all the competitors would prey on your customers, offering those customer 3x the channels for the same or lower prices a intrductory offer, and pick them off and you are stuck with customers who ask for 5 to 15 channels a month, who you make little or no revenue off of, which is a terrible a business decison. Let me ask a question, on your home phone, who do you think AT&T wants as their customers, the person that has a basic phone line, or a customer that has a ALL Distance Package HSI and Intl Calling plan on the line? Which do you think is more profitable? If the plain jane phone line guy calls and says I am going else where, do you really think it is going to send a company downward spiral, when there was $12 coming in on that phone line? No, it doesn't, nobody wants the customers who would sit there with that few of channels, while the customer would be happy, the company would not make any revenue on it, and ultimately, any company is in business to what jrb531? You got it, make money. Fact is there are some "tight" and "cheap" people that would do that if a la carte pricing came to fruition, and the companies and government knows it, and then you'd have a conflict of interest if Washington has to bail out all of these comapnies, that would offer a la carte pricing. So then the US taxpayer gets to absorb the loses of a failed plan.

Bottom line is if you don't want a package with "ESPN" don't order one. There are packages that don't give you ESPN. If you think your plan is so great, write a business plan, take it to a bank to apply for a loan, and take count on how many bank managers laugh that you want to borrow their capital to build a network to bring in so little revenue. Also called the Channel distributors, and see what kind of pricing they'd give you to order a la carte pricing for their channels, they will have to puit you on hold while they are laughing.

People are addressing your concerns jrb531, you just fail the vision to see the big picture, and apply logic to your self-gratifying solution, and while being blind to the realization that the plan hasn't been implemented for a reason. One last question, which customer on U-Verse is more profitable to AT&T, the U450 Customer on HSI Max 18, or the customer who is on U-Family and HSI Express? They both have HSI and TV, but the company will cherish one more than the other, I think we all know who that is. Or, if two customers are at a car dealership, and they are trying to decide on a car, one wants a Ford Mustang (Plain Jane) and one wants the Mustang Shelby Edition, which do you think the company wants to sell the most, and do what it takes to get the deal done? They are both Mustangs, have 4 wheels, seats, and so on, but they will make more money on the Mustang Shelby Edition, if the plain jane Mustang balks at the price, they are less likely to move the price.

Fact is, when it comes to all companies, all customers are not created equal, and there is no business law or rule written otherwise.

Chitown67 · ‎05-27-2009

jrb531- Tell me a channel you like. I will then complain to you that "I have to pay" for that channel and don't want it.

KCRoyals · ‎01-08-2009

Chitown67 wrote:
jrb531- Tell me a channel you like. I will then complain to you that "I have to pay" for that channel and don't want it.

And don't forget to keep repeating to him that, "it is infringing on your rights as a consumer to be forced to take channel XXXXXX, even know you don't want it or watch it, but you have to pay for it." Then after numerous people reply to you, post a thread repeating yourself, and how no one had answered you questions or concerns.

hocktom · ‎06-11-2009

Here's a little Internet vocabulary lesson. Our word for the day is "Troll": a person who posts messages in a forum with the sole purpose of sowing controversy and causing discord. The troll has no actual interest in the topic he or she purports to discuss and will never be satisfied with any answer or solution that is offered. On the contrary, the troll will continue to respond to any and all posts with replies calculated to prolong the controversy and increase the discord. The more anger and frustration the troll can inspire among those participating in the discussion, the better the troll enoys it because that is, after all, the point of his or her actions. The only defense against the troll is to ignore his or her posts. On the other hand, replying and keeping the thread going is the worst response because that gives trolls exactly what they want. Indeed, there comes a point when those replying become trolls themselves. Once it is clear that a troll is at work, anyone who aids the troll can be considered equally guilty. For example, this thread is clearly going nowhere, so prolonging it is pointless, and anyone who continues to reply . . . well you see what I mean.

jrb531 · ‎10-23-2008

You have got to be kidding!

I'm not a troll. The point I bring up has merit and I'm not some kind of nut-bag gettingmy rocks off trying to piss people off. I have been logical and respectful yet others (and I question how the mods allow this) seem to feel that it's ok to bash me "personally" - that has never been an attack on Uverse in any way, shape or form but rather what I "thought" was an intellegent conversation about the current system and how the programmers often ofrce the distributors (Uvers being one of them) to do things that may be against what they or us want for the reason of increasing their revenue.

Look at this quote from a few posts up...

"Fact is, most people aren't so narrow minded and self centered"

How does suggesting that I'm narrow-mined and self centered help this discussion? This was not the first indirect or direct attack on my person but I'll not take the bait (which is what you want I'm guessing) and start some flame war in an attempt to get this thread closed.

This entire thread is a valid discussion and while we might disagree, there is nothing wrong with discussion. Calling or suggesting that I'm a troll is demeaning to me. If you bother to look at my posts here I do not post to try and troll.

What is most amusing is that I actually like ESPN and I would subscribe to it (provided they did not get crazy silly with the prices) if it was in a separate package. I only bring it up (and the mod is the only one who even came close to presenting a reason why... $$$$) because it is an example of the utter hypocrasy of the current system.

Telling me that (and as I pointed out that those stripped down family packages were "impossible" a few years ago but only because possible when congress was about to investigate the Pay TV industry) I could subscribe to some stripped down family package that eliminated most channels even in the cheap package is not an answer.... it's an attempt to "shut me up" and provides little merit.

Sure there may be other channels in the packages that people do not want but the difference between ESPN and the others is cost. ESPN charges premium rates and is NOT a basic channel anymore.

Many posts ago I proposed that a simple test to see if any channel or "package" of channels should be allowed into the basic tier would be this...

"Any channel or package of channels that charges more than 3 times what the average cost for the remaining channels in that tier could not be placed in that tier"

This would do many things....

1. It would act as a natural check on prices. As long as "all" the channels charged a bit more each year there would be no issue but if select channels wanted to increase their fees above and beyond what the other channels in that package charged.... well they would have to move to the next teir of channels that had a higher per channels average fee or elect to break into their own separate pay package.

2. This would keep the current structure intact and forgo ala-cart so it would not "rock-the-boat" so to speak.

3. It allows flexability for the programmers because each of the three tiers would allow more fees...

Example: (prices are just examples and do not reflect real costs of course)

Tier 1: Channels in this "lowest" tier would have an "average" per-channel fee of 10 cents - this means (by the 3x rule) that any individual channel in this package could not charge more than 60 cents per month per customer (20 cents x 3)

Tier 2: Channels in this "mid" tier would have an "average" per-channel fee of 40 cents - no channel in this teir could charge more than $1.20

Tier 3: Channels in this "upper" tier would have an "average" per-channel fee of 60 cents - no channel in this teir could charge more than $1.80

Tier 1: Free - 60 cents

Tier 2: 40 cents - $1.20

Tier 3: 60 cents - $1.80

This is just a starting point. Since each Tier would be "averages" it does not limit the distributors ability to package channels or charge what they want but it does limit the programmers ability to charge "anything" they want and tell the distributors what tier they "must" be placed in.

So if ESPN, for example, wanted to charge 60 cents they could remain in the lowest tier but if they wanted to raise their fees so much that they are no longer and "average" channel in tier 1.... well they would either have to break up into their own package or be bumped up to a higher priced tier and endure lessor ad revenue.

After all you cannot have it both ways (well they do now LOL) and charge premium dollars as well as maximum ad revenue. If you want to be sponsored mostly by ads you clearly want to be in Tier 1 but then you cannot charge Tier 3 prices.

I guess these ideas make me a troll

jrb531 · ‎10-23-2008

hocktom wrote:
Here's a little Internet vocabulary lesson. Our word for the day is "Troll": a person who posts messages in a forum with the sole purpose of sowing controversy and causing discord. The troll has no actual interest in the topic he or she purports to discuss and will never be satisfied with any answer or solution that is offered. On the contrary, the troll will continue to respond to any and all posts with replies calculated to prolong the controversy and increase the discord. The more anger and frustration the troll can inspire among those participating in the discussion, the better the troll enoys it because that is, after all, the point of his or her actions. The only defense against the troll is to ignore his or her posts. On the other hand, replying and keeping the thread going is the worst response because that gives trolls exactly what they want. Indeed, there comes a point when those replying become trolls themselves. Once it is clear that a troll is at work, anyone who aids the troll can be considered equally guilty. For example, this thread is clearly going nowhere, so prolonging it is pointless, and anyone who continues to reply . . . well you see what I mean.

What is the definition of someone who registers a new account for the sole purpose of bashing someone without revealing their identity?

Hocktom - Registerd as a new user on June 11, 2009 with 5 posts