Cable vs Dish set up

[krw]

That's the point. You'd save nothing. The records and billing costs would far outstrip any savings.

Packages being stupid is not the point. The point is packages vs. a la carte.

[Mark Lloyd]

Not true. Ever hear of a "multiswitch"?

Anyway, it would be 4 RECEIVERS (where a dual-tuner unit counts as 2). The output of a receiver can be distributed to any number of TVs.

You can get satellite internet, but it's not very good (high latency).

I have had 6 receivers on one dish, and seen multiswitches that allow

I can't get DSL. I can get cable internet, and that works well.

[Edwin Pawlowski]

And you know this how? Computers do the billing. Once set up, the computer sends the bill out every month the same way. Sure, there may be some initial envestemnt, but after that, it is simple. The cable company also pays the networks based on how many subscribers. They may save themselves.

That is the point. Why buy a stupid package when you can get exactly what you want a la carte for less. My neighbor watches most every sport on TV and he wants more. I never watch sports of TV and want none. We both pay the same and we both have compromised listings available. I get 90 channels for about 75¢ each per month. I'd rather have 35 channels I want and watch and pay $1 per month.

I've been looking at cars. I want a particular option, but it is part of a $750 package but all I want is a $150 portion of it. I'd rather pay $250 and get only that feature. Is the auto maker saving me money on the package or just increasing their profits? Same with cable TV.

[Phisherman]

Cable is expensive ($45+/mo), but it looks like 60% of the US population are subscribers. I have a theater system and only watch DVDs. A local video store allows unlimited three-disc rental for $10 per month. I watch Showtime, classics, documentaries, DIY instructional, etc with hi-res and NO commercials. I get news/weather from the Internet and radio.

[krw]

Computers are free? =20

Set up is free? =20

Is anything *YOU* don't have to do "simple"?

Are you having trouble reading?

...and he doesn't use channels you do. So? =20

...but it wouldn't cost $250. It would cost everyone more because=20 there are more models to make, more options to track, more=20 inventory control. Options (and limited interior colors) are there=20 for a reason, and it's not to annoy you.

--=20 Keith=20

[Edwin Pawlowski]

Set up is free?

They have computers doing similar things right now. Of course not free, but what is the setup cost? Subscribers still need to be set up now. I've change my service type twice in the past 18 months and they had to do a setup. Took but a couple of minutes while I was on the phone It does not have to be free to be cost effective. It has to be done "right". I have an HD package. Why don't they force everyone to have it? I don't have HBO, but others do and pay for it. We have a choice of Showtime, HBO and another. Sort of like the a la carte you think is so difficut. Same type of billing scenario as I'm suggesting.

Is anything *YOU* don't have to do "simple"?

What is so complex? Do you have figures on the cost? The time needed? Give me some facts and I may take you seriously. Electric companies bill on different pacages adn differend time sof day. Cable companies can tell what yo are viewing. They can program in "pay per view" simply over the phone or through the cable box. Is that too complex for you to comprehend?

...and he doesn't use channels you do. So?

So why pay for them?

...but it wouldn't cost $250. It would cost everyone more because there are more models to make, more options to track, more inventory control. Options (and limited interior colors) are there for a reason, and it's not to annoy you.

They call them Options because they are a choice. I just said it would cost more; look at the numbers I used, 150 versus 250. I just said I'd be willing to pay for exactly what I want, even at a higher price, so I don't have to pay for things I don't want or don't use. In reality, it is not all that much more costly. Manufacturing to order is easier than you think. The only major difference is time. You can get something off the dealer's lot today, not have to wait a few weeks. Meantime, someone has to pay for that inventory sitting on the dealer's lots.

Paying for something you can not, will not, ever use is not a good value at any price.

[Mark Lloyd]

Most of the time I see sports on TV is when I want some other thing that's SUPPOSED to be on. That's why I say "F-ball".

BTW, I have nothing against football (or any other sport) itself. It's just the way they keep intruding into other things.

I have DirecTV, and mainly watch the following:

CBS local PBS local WB local UPN local Comedy Central SciFi History Channel TV Land WGN HDNet BBC America

(a lot of these are mainly for older shows)

I don't care to pay for home shopping (and worse) channels.

The other features can lower your gas fuel economy and increase maintenance costs.

[hallerb]

The Feds should MANDATE purchase of just the channels you want!

Why be required to buy cookies if you want milk?

technology today will easily support purchase of specific channels, those who desire can still buy the everything pack including every channel.

no one would make you buy channels ala carte....

in our case we arent sport fans, but ESPN REQUIRES all providers to carry ESPN a very pricey channel in its basic tier....

i am stuck paying for something we never use...........

[yourname]

So you figure that the cable tv company is going to make less money in any scenario? To further the car analogy, although I haven't done it in years, you can probably price an american car with vinyl seats, hand crank windows and a/c, but it will cost just as much as getting the power and cloth. The automakers save money by limiting the number of variations they have to build, and cable, while different is the same. Imagine the overhead of little old ladies and broke college kids trying to order 2 damn channels, then change their mind every month. Trust me, if I was in charge of figuring out the alacarte fees, I would make it not worth while, just like carmakers do with special order options.

Sure, any channel you want, 2 bucks a channel. What too much? well, get this package of 200 channels for 40 bucks.

Of course you realize hd tv is FREE, there are 5 pbs channels in eastern mass, plus 24 hour live doppler weather. Free. 20 bucks one time for an antenna from radio shaft

[Edwin Pawlowski]

The beauty of a menu system is the consumer can save and the cable company can make more money.

First of all, the 200 channels are more than 40 bucks where I am. I pay $75 for my package and I don't get everything available.

Sure, there has to be a minimum base charge just to have the connection. Even utilities have charges like that. The cable company does get some programming for free, but they pay for some of their packages. Let's say they pay $5 per subscriber for a certain group of channels, then sell them for $7. They just made $2.

Since many of their customers don't want all of that package, they negotiate to pay only for the user that really do want them and pay a total of $3. Then, in turn, they re-sell them for $6. Cable company makes a buck more, the consumer save a buck and everyone is happy. It can even pay dividends for advertisers. When you contract to run an ad for $5000 on a sports channel, you have a good idea of how many viewers you get and the potential for more. For hte same money or less, they know the viewers of that network chose to have it and do really view it as opposed to many that never take a peek.

Nothing is free and more is not always better. More sales dollars does not always mean more profit.