# TV the way I want it... maybe Tivo could be the front runner



## magnus (Nov 12, 2004)

Ok, let me start off by saying that for some this might seem a bit off for them but....

What if Tivo had a way for us to subscribe to 5 of our favorite cable/satellite channels for a flat rate... like $10 per month. 

I really think that while you get 200 channels for $50.... that your average person is really not getting value from that. My argument is that most people only really watch about 5 channels beyond their local ones. 

So, each month you would be able to change your 5 channels but would not be able to again until the beginning of the month. 

Ok, there is the fact that Tivo does not have their own content but.... if they were to partner with the stations to somehow let us download the shows from that channel for the month... then that would be great. 

Imagine being able to download all the shows you wanted to watch for the month from the Sci-Fi channel. And the next month when Sci-Fi does not have content you want to watch.... you're able to change to another channel that has content that YOU want to watch.

Imagine a time when you can determine what you want and not be forced by cable and satellite to watch what they have in their over-inflated packages with no substance. 

Yes, this is a dream but it has to start somewhere.... maybe Tivo can help.


----------



## magnus (Nov 12, 2004)

And ofcourse the ability to have season passes for automatic downloads would be a must.


----------



## isbellHFh (Nov 6, 2003)

If not channels, then individual shows would work, too.

TiVo already does Unbox, why not add iTunes Store and whoever else is out there and add season passes for them? I'd do that.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

1. TiVo doesn't really want to get that involved in the content industry, I am guessing. They want to license their platform to content delivery services.

2. The content industry is rather reluctant to break their decades old practice of selling middle to low value programming in the context of a channel, and the channel as part of a larger suite of channels.

3: For the delivery method on current hardware, it is rather inefficient. The will have to go to MPEG4 or other to be cost effective, which will mean extra hardware. 
IMO, might as well have some other company try out such a venture. Look up Akimbo, they tried.


----------



## BobB (Aug 26, 2002)

This would represent a completely different business model for TiVO. Maybe you misunderstand how TiVO works - they don't provide you with ANY channels, they just provide a way for you to manage the channels & programs you're getting from your cable provider. They're the ones to whom you should be addressing this suggestion. Not that you'll get anywhere with them.

This is a hotly-debated topic, try doing a Web search on a la carte pricing for cable TV.

Personally, although I can see your point and once agreed with you, I've come to the realization that a la carte pricing would be consumer-unfriendly, in that you'd end up paying just as much (or nearly so) and getting far fewer options in your cable lineup.


----------



## magnus (Nov 12, 2004)

Yep, I understand how Tivo *currently* works. I'm just saying that I'd like to have only the channels that I want. I think that maybe this could be some sort of special pricing that Tivo and Unbox could work out.

I'm not really thinking of being able to watch the channels live... I'm thinking that the shows that are on the channels (for the month) could be downloaded for one price.

I really do not want to get cable or satellite because I just don't see the value in it. For now, I'll just use Dish Now when I feel that there is something worth watching.



BobB said:


> This would represent a completely different business model for TiVO. Maybe you misunderstand how TiVO works - they don't provide you with ANY channels, they just provide a way for you to manage the channels & programs you're getting from your cable provider. They're the ones to whom you should be addressing this suggestion. Not that you'll get anywhere with them.
> 
> This is a hotly-debated topic, try doing a Web search on a la carte pricing for cable TV.
> 
> Personally, although I can see your point and once agreed with you, I've come to the realization that a la carte pricing would be consumer-unfriendly, in that you'd end up paying just as much (or nearly so) and getting far fewer options in your cable lineup.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

magnus said:


> Yep, I understand how Tivo *currently* works. I'm just saying that I'd like to have only the channels that I want. I think that maybe this could be some sort of special pricing that Tivo and Unbox could work out.


Well first of all, the quality of Unbox video really, really sucks. Secondly, it's much, much more expensive than CATV, and I suspect you won't get them or anyone similar to come down in price an order of magnitude. You may dislike "paying for services you don't use", but the fact is you'll almost certainly wind up spending less with tiered CATV or Satellite services.



magnus said:


> I'm not really thinking of being able to watch the channels live... I'm thinking that the shows that are on the channels (for the month) could be downloaded for one price.


That price would almost surely be higher than what you are paying now. Wholesale distribution is always cheaper than retail distribution, and video is no exception. There might be a few people who would wind up paying less, but very, very few, and those few would be watching very little in the way of TV. You want a better bargain, get congress and the FCC to force network programming to shut down. You're paying easily 10 to 20 times as much for network programming than you are for cable or satellite, and at least with cable and satellite you have the choice not to pay.



magnus said:


> I really do not want to get cable or satellite because I just don't see the value in it. For now, I'll just use Dish Now when I feel that there is something worth watching.


That is your right, but someone has to pay for the cost of delivering the services. If consumer A does not, then consumer B must. Any significant reduction in revenue must be accompanied by a corresponding reduction in content. That means that any significant overall average lowering of cost for consumers must be accompanied by a reduction in the available choices for programming. There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.


----------



## CrashHD (Nov 10, 2006)

lrhorer said:


> You want a better bargain, get congress and the FCC to force network programming to shut down. You're paying easily 10 to 20 times as much for network programming than you are for cable or satellite, and at least with cable and satellite you have the choice not to pay.


By network programming, do you mean the OTA that comes down my antenna for free? How am I paying for that?


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

CrashHD said:


> By network programming, do you mean the OTA that comes down my antenna for free? How am I paying for that?


You think it's free? Where do you think the networks get the hundreds of billions of dollars they report in revenue each year? Thin air? The get it from you, me, and every single person who purchases a can of beans, a vacuum cleaner, or a gallon of gasoline. Depending on the product, up to 30% of the retail cost of almost every item you buy is spent on advertising, and for many products by far the largest percentage of that advertising dollar is spent on Network TV. Every time you see an add for Charmin toilet paper it costs you 10 cents or so, whether you buy Charmin or not. Every time you see an add for a Ford, Chevy, or Toyota, it adds $20 to the cost of your next vehicle. Last year the Networks cost me personally nearly $5,000, and I don't even watch network television if I can avoid it. I certainly don't watch the commercials, but I still have to pay for them. By comparison, cable only cost me $1800, and that includes broadband internet and 2 movie channel packages. Of course, $150 or so of that $1800 went to advertising, as well.

Free? You've got to be kidding me.


----------



## magnus (Nov 12, 2004)

I'll just disagree with you and leave it at that.



lrhorer said:


> You think it's free? Where do you think the networks get the hundreds of billions of dollars they report in revenue each year? Thin air? The get it from you, me, and every single person who purchases a can of beans, a vacuum cleaner, or a gallon of gasoline. Depending on the product, up to 30% of the retail cost of almost every item you buy is spent on advertising, and for many products by far the largest percentage of that advertising dollar is spent on Network TV. Every time you see an add for Charmin toilet paper it costs you 10 cents or so, whether you buy Charmin or not. Every time you see an add for a Ford, Chevy, or Toyota, it adds $20 to the cost of your next vehicle. Last year the Networks cost me personally nearly $5,000, and I don't even watch network television if I can avoid it. I certainly don't watch the commercials, but I still have to pay for them. By comparison, cable only cost me $1800, and that includes broadband internet and 2 movie channel packages. Of course, $150 or so of that $1800 went to advertising, as well.
> 
> Free? You've got to be kidding me.


----------



## CrashHD (Nov 10, 2006)

That is a few reasonable points taken to unreasonable extremes.

If I buy a pack of charmin for $2.00, then the pack of charmin cost me $2.00...not the network tv. Yes, the company spent money on advertising, and their costs will be passed on to the consumer. 

If you find the advertisments that disturbing, the buy from a company that does not advertise. Buy the generic brand toilet paper, beans, and soda? The advertising probably makes up the bulk of the cost difference between generics and name brands, so if you buy the generic product, you didn't "pay for the network tv", and you can put the money you saved toward more of the magic smokeysmoke that leads one to come up with that paragraph of insanity.


----------

