Subscriber selected DStv channels demanded by customers

Say what you want about DSTV but their sport package is unrivalled.
 
wallsend said:
Say what you want about DSTV but their sport package is unrivalled.
Click to expand...

Um, we've already pointed out many times that it is unrivaled because they are using their dominant monopoly position to lock out any newcomers. They do this through bid inflating for the licenses, putting in multiple bids (at considerable expense) and other scummy tactics. This is common knowledge and yet nobody wants to do anything about it. They should be investigated by the Competition Commission.
 
Garyvdh said:
Um, we've already pointed out many times that it is unrivaled because they are using their dominant monopoly position to lock out any newcomers. They do this through bid inflating for the licenses, putting in multiple bids (at considerable expense) and other scummy tactics. This is common knowledge and yet nobody wants to do anything about it. They should be investigated by the Competition Commission.
Click to expand...
A worse thought for me is paying 2 subscription fees because Dstv has rugby and toptv has the cricket.

That would be a rip off.

Right now,their value proposition is fine IMO. I am willing to pay R600 odd to get to view all the sport I want.
 
wallsend said:
A worse thought for me is paying 2 subscription fees because Dstv has rugby and toptv has the cricket.
That would be a rip off.
Right now,their value proposition is fine IMO. I am willing to pay R600 odd to get to view all the sport I want.
Click to expand...

That may be fine for you, but what about the millions of other South African who can't afford that much.
What are they supposed to do to get to watch their favourite teams play?
 
Garyvdh said:
That may be fine for you, but what about the millions of other South African who can't afford that much.
What are they supposed to do to get to watch their favourite teams play?
Click to expand...

Why should I fight the greater cause? Did you stop using your ADSL line to show support for uncapped internet? Alternatively,should people stop buying expensive cars in the hope that the manufacturers would lower their prices?

If someone can't afford it,tough. Do without it. If you don't find value in their propositions then leave.
 
wallsend said:
Why should I fight the greater cause? Did you stop using your ADSL line to show support for uncapped internet? Alternatively,should people stop buying expensive cars in the hope that the manufacturers would lower their prices?
If someone can't afford it,tough. Do without it. If you don't find value in their propositions then leave.
Click to expand...

I did leave... I canceled my DSTV several years ago already.
But then I am fortunately not a huge sports fan.
But we are not just talking about luxury items here.
The Government recognises that Sport and access to Sport are basic rights of citizens in South Africa.
That is why we have a sports ministry and the promotion of Sports.
So being able to watch their favourite team play is of huge importance to many citizens in our nation.

Your crass indifference does not surprise me though. It smacks of the language of entitlement and indifference.
Fortunately this issue is of far greater importance than you and your other spoiled brat DSTV subscribers who have the attitude of "I just want my sport and to hell with everybody else"
Perhaps you should leave this discussion to those who have slightly more objective viewpoint in life than immediate self gratification?
 
Why do people suddenly want Multichoice's management not to run the entity like a business?

Lets look at what could happen if they split their bundles into single channels that people can pick or choose.

Their cost would remain the same as they said they also get the channels in bundles so just because few people subscribe to one of the channels doesn't mean Multichoice can just drop it, so how then would you allocate part of your fixed costs to those low popularity channels.

They basically become by-products, one way of allocating cost to by-products is not to allocate any cost to it and instead just use the revenue from those by-products to decrease the cost you allocate to other products more popular channels.

So most people proposing this idea wants to get rid of the channels they don't watch and if everyone does that we end up with some most people watching the popular channels and not many watching the unpopular ones.

So who ends up gaining from the above situation? The people who doesn't choose popular channels end up paying cheaper, and since those people don't pay as much in subscription fees, and Multichoice is unlikely to change to a model where they end up making less money, the money lost to those not subscribing to popular channels is then compensated for by increasing the cost for those who subscribe to the popular channels.

So for those who watch sport, you could end up in a situation where you pay more for less channels because those who don't watch the popular channels pay less for their channels than they did with bundled channels.

However most who demand unbundled channels only think about it from a "buy less, pay less" perspective and not from one where the cost allocation influencing the pricing would change.
 
borga said:
Why do people suddenly want Multichoice's management not to run the entity like a business?
Lets look at what could happen if they split their bundles into single channels that people can pick or choose.

Their cost would remain the same as they said they also get the channels in bundles so just because few people subscribe to one of the channels doesn't mean Multichoice can just drop it, so how then would you allocate part of your fixed costs to those low popularity channels.
Click to expand...

Yup, that's what happens. They get their best actuaries on it and they end up getting the same amount of money from them. When the actuaries take on the consumers, consumers rarely win.

DSTV spend R6bil/year to get their content. They built that up from a single channel over decades. We all agree it's overpriced, but it's just as unreasonable to get government to step in and create laws to force creation of an opposition at DSTV's expense. 1. it doesn't always work (eg neotel), and 2. that would send an AWFUL message to foreign investors. I'd like to think we have a little bit of a free market left here!
 
Last edited:
Keeper said:
Not out if context at all. :p
My point is if you use DSTV for Movies & Series and NOT SPORT, then you are doing something wrong.
Click to expand...

You've brought it back onto point. Assuming you know my needs. I don't need it for movies and series, and never even suggested I did.

As I said - keep up those assumptions, you're doing GREAT :)
 
elvis_presley said:
You've brought it back onto point. Assuming you know my needs. I don't need it for movies and series, and never even suggested I did.

As I said - keep up those assumptions, you're doing GREAT :)
Click to expand...

So if you don't use DSTV for sport, movies or series, what on earth are you paying R600p/m for? keeping up with cnn news?
 
Keeper said:
So if you don't use DSTV for sport, movies or series, what on earth are you paying R600p/m for? keeping up with cnn news?
Click to expand...

News, soapies, kids programs and cleaning my conscience when I do leech series - a few people on this thread have expressed they like to do stay legal, and I'm one of them - DSTV gets all the series at some point, I just pull them forward in time from the internet, and the guys that make the programs still get their cut of my money :)
 
Fair enough. :o

pretty expensive for only news, soaps and kids programs though...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X