Canada Based Rogers Cable Offers A La Carte Channel Selection - High-Def Digest Forums
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-07-2011, 03:41 PM
HDD Contributor
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,281
Default Canada Based Rogers Cable Offers A La Carte Channel Selection

After selecting a base cable package, customers are able to select channels to add on a channel-by-channel basis.

http://www.engadget.com/2011/11/06/r...-ontario-will/
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-08-2011, 02:12 PM
flickdirect's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 56
Default

DirecTV NEEDS THIS now!
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-09-2011, 02:20 AM
gravis778's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,639
Default

You know, for the first time ever, I wish I were Canadian! I have heard so many bad things over the years about Rogers Cable, but this is great, and the price of $2.69 a channel is very reasonable! I hope this catches on in my area. Whoever is the first to adopt it, I will be the first to jump in with them! This would save me a fortune!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-09-2011, 11:41 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 103
Default

This will do nothing but make channel prices skyrocket, and cause smaller channels to fail. Once animal planet sees that Rogers is getting $2.69 from every customer that adds their channel what do you think they are going to do? They are going to raise their price to over $2.00 per subscirber (Rogers is probably only paying them around $0.26 per subscriber now). So then Rogers is going to raise the cost of the channel to subscribers to $3 or $4, then the next time they have to sign a deal with Animal Planet the price will shoot way up again, and so on. This doesn't even take into consideration that since the number of people subscribed to Animal Planet will be cut by 90% or so, they will then have to increase their prices by 10x in order to make the same amount of money.

You always hear people compaining about "why should I have to pay for channels I don't watch, I'm just subsidizing the cost of the channel for other people". Sure that's true, but guess what, they are also subsidizing the cost of the channels you're watching too. It works both ways. So while you might not watch ESPN at all, remember that there are a ton of people who do, and without them you would probably have to pay a lot more money to watch ABC Family, or Lifetime than you do now, or they might be completely off the air because they can't charge enough for their channel by itself to keep running.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-09-2011, 05:15 PM
Wolvie's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,971
Default

Beerstalker, you raise some interesting points. Allow me to counterpoint...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beerstalker View Post
This will do nothing but make channel prices skyrocket, and cause smaller channels to fail.
If smaller channels fail, who's fault is that? Not the subscribers. They probably didn't want the smaller channels in the first place.

Quote:
Once animal planet sees that Rogers is getting $2.69 from every customer that adds their channel what do you think they are going to do? They are going to raise their price to over $2.00 per subscirber (Rogers is probably only paying them around $0.26 per subscriber now). So then Rogers is going to raise the cost of the channel to subscribers to $3 or $4, then the next time they have to sign a deal with Animal Planet the price will shoot way up again, and so on. This doesn't even take into consideration that since the number of people subscribed to Animal Planet will be cut by 90% or so, they will then have to increase their prices by 10x in order to make the same amount of money.
So if Animal Planet raises its price, and Rogers in turn raises the cost of the channel, subscribers can choose to (a) pay the higher costs because they still want the channel, or (b) refuse to pay the higher costs and cancel the channel. Either way, the subscribers should have the option to make those choices, not the cable/sat operators with their forced bundled packages. Let the market decide.

Quote:
You always hear people compaining about "why should I have to pay for channels I don't watch, I'm just subsidizing the cost of the channel for other people". Sure that's true, but guess what, they are also subsidizing the cost of the channels you're watching too. It works both ways. So while you might not watch ESPN at all, remember that there are a ton of people who do, and without them you would probably have to pay a lot more money to watch ABC Family, or Lifetime than you do now, or they might be completely off the air because they can't charge enough for their channel by itself to keep running.
Sorry but this argument really doesn't hold up. I would rather pay the non-subsidized costs for the channels I want, than to pay/subsidize for all of the unwanted channels I never watch. I bet that people have more unwanted channels than channels they watch in their TV package. Not only will it be easier to scroll through the channel listing, but I'm pretty sure my bill would actually be lower...because I get to choose.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-09-2011, 05:35 PM
Wolvie's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,971
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gravis778 View Post
You know, for the first time ever, I wish I were Canadian! I have heard so many bad things over the years about Rogers Cable, but this is great, and the price of $2.69 a channel is very reasonable! I hope this catches on in my area. Whoever is the first to adopt it, I will be the first to jump in with them! This would save me a fortune!
I'm with you, gravis778. Consumers have been demanding ala carte in TV programming for years. When you compare this to the music industry, Apple's iTunes is a phenomenal success because it is ala carte. People listen to only what they want. I think it's about high time we get the same in our viewing choices.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-09-2011, 11:20 PM
gravis778's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,639
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolvie View Post
Beerstalker, you raise some interesting points. Allow me to counterpoint...



If smaller channels fail, who's fault is that? Not the subscribers. They probably didn't want the smaller channels in the first place.



So if Animal Planet raises its price, and Rogers in turn raises the cost of the channel, subscribers can choose to (a) pay the higher costs because they still want the channel, or (b) refuse to pay the higher costs and cancel the channel. Either way, the subscribers should have the option to make those choices, not the cable/sat operators with their forced bundled packages. Let the market decide.



Sorry but this argument really doesn't hold up. I would rather pay the non-subsidized costs for the channels I want, than to pay/subsidize for all of the unwanted channels I never watch. I bet that people have more unwanted channels than channels they watch in their TV package. Not only will it be easier to scroll through the channel listing, but I'm pretty sure my bill would actually be lower...because I get to choose.
I agree with this 100%. If a channel cannot survive by both advertisers and subscribers, than the channel is non-profitable. The channel should not be operating.

BTW, most of the smaller channels have shows that have low production costs anyways. Even channels like SyFy, Discovery and History who have shows that have relatively higher production values really only have a few hours of new shows a week, the rest of the time they are rerunning shows from years ago. And those channels will probably actually end up being more profitable with this pricing method.

Truthfully, if a channel does fail because of this, it will probably only be a couple of channels, and they will probably be something I never heard of in the first place.

I could also see this having some good effects on the quality of programming. If a station starts to change its format, the increase or decrease of subscribers should show studio heads what people think of it.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-10-2011, 02:25 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 143
Default

It's a step in the right direction, but not enough for me. We watch about 5 channels generally total. I don't need the full "basic" 100+ channel package as it is (including timeshifts), before I start adding more channels.

If I could pay $2.60 a channel, and only subscribe to 5-10 channels, i would be very happy. Also, Rogers cable boxes may be the most ancient and horrible designs on the market. There is no function to display only your subscribed channels, so this will NOT make channel surfing easier. The guide is also incredibly slow, and looks like it's running on a commodore64.

Finally Rogers brings a new product to market that people will like again. They used to be the bleeding edge first adopters of all new tech in Canada. I was in a first-adoption area for broadband internet and have used it since. Now they don't bother getting Samsung flagship android phones until 6 months+ after Bell, they have the WORST digital cable boxes in Canada BY FAR, they don't allow any HD Tivo on their network, and the government won't step in like they did in the US so we're forced to use only their digital boxes.

Be thankful for your cablecard option Americans. I'd have one in my PC if I could and/or have an HD Tivo, and get rid of this damned Rogers box forever.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sling TV Launches A La Carte Channel Options and Free Content Selection scohen HD Digital Downloads (NEW!) 2 07-01-2018 02:16 PM
In switch, cable operators want to go "a la carte" Elee s High Definition Smackdown 35 10-04-2011 03:02 PM
Rogers Video (CANADA) - PV's $21.99 hammer Ultra-HD/Blu-ray Bargains 1 07-11-2008 05:12 PM
Rogers, Canada's second largest renter goes purple. Rob.D.inToronto High Definition Smackdown 7 10-10-2007 11:56 PM
Rogers B&M Canada to support both HD and BD Rob.D.inToronto High Definition Smackdown 3 08-21-2007 04:10 PM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off