dslreports logo

    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery


how-to block ads

topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2012-06-26 10:38:55: The Department of Justice recently launched an investigation into whether cable operators are engaged in anti-competitive behavior against over-the-top Internet video rivals. ..

prev page · 1 · 2

Bon Aqua, TN


Much like the teleco's for smart phones.. if they kill the fun of the device/activity by over pricing it, I will drop it

That just happened

New Pricing Scheme

Current average cable bill ~ $85

New ala carte pricing* -
ESPN - $10
News Channels (CNN, FOX, MSNBC) - $5/each
History - $5
MTV - $5
FX - $5

*must select no less than 12 channels, plus $25 "cable availability fee"
If they told you wolverines make good house pets, would you believe them?

Des Plaines, IL

Re: New Pricing Scheme

think bigger theme packs.

$10-$15 line fee + locals (clean QAM) + all the free shopping and PSA channels.

ESPN pack
ESPN news

Sport pack 1
In market RSN's + bigten (in market) + pac12 (in market)

Sport pack 2
NFL network and NFL network red zone (free with NFL ST), NBA TV (free with NBA LP),NHL network (free with NFL CI), MLB network and MLB network stike zone (Free with MLB EI)

Sports pack 3
NBCSN, golf channel, CBS Sports Network, speed, Fuel TV, Universal Sports, TVG, HRTV.

Sports pack 4
Big Ten Network (out of market), pak12 (out of market), Fox College Sports, CBS Sports Network.

Sports pack 5
Fox Soccer, Fox Soccer Plus, GOL TV.

Spots pack X

TNT, tru tv,TBS, MSNBC, CNBC (Sports only)

sports pack mega 1-4 as part a deal
sports pack mega with ESPN 1-4 and X as part of a deal.

that is just some ideas on the sports side.

Complete Your Transaction



"In an a la carte world, consumer satisfaction would be destroyed."

A la carte is the only thing I want from cable.


Limestone, ME
·Pioneer Wireless

Of couse we'd lose jobs with zero benefit :-\

I bet the savings on cable bills will be spent elsewhere.

Maybe even locally, benefiting and supporting the local business!

We can't have that now.

This is a hard sell, but Piracy even benefits the economy.

1. Pirates will pay a premium for faster internet
2. Pirates spend more on hard drives

But, that money isn't going to the RIAA/MPAA so it must be LOST.

Superior, WI

it would kill 1 million worthless jobs

it would simply mean that the good channels would stop subsidizing the crappy channels, and so, if the crappy channels didnt have good content, they would not be subscribed to, and thus, would either go away or adapt. I can't wait for this to happen, and this article is very one sided. It ignores the fact that most of the channels in the "bundle" i pay for I dont watch, and they get that pay regardless. Its a ripoff TV model, where one does not have to work, or produce good content to survive, and it simply raises customers bills.

Coventry, RI

Not all cable's fault

I think the anger here against the cable, satellite and Telcos is misplaced. It's not their fault we don't have a la carte. The TV networks, or rather their 5 corporate parents, control that. They force all the rebroadcasters to buy channels in bundles, so it would be very difficult financially to offer a la carte pricing.

The other major gripe people have against TV is the number of commercial minutes per hour. This is also controlled by the TV networks.

If commercial minutes per hour of programming were reduced to 10, and a la carte pricing were available, my local cable company might be able to coax me back as a customer.

Noah Vail
Son made my Avatar
Lorton, VA

Two things I've never paid for - TV & Sex

Makes me realize that marriage is a little bit like the internet.
I get unlimited with just one commitment.




The argument that channels that people don’t want will go away (and that is bad) is simply anti free market. Let the market decide what channels add value, not socialist analysts or politicians. At least try to let the end user have more control.

as Mr. Pink as they come
Phoenix, AZ

If the crap channels

Died out, operators could ease up on the compression rates on decent channels with bandwidth made available from the death of those channels.

Little Rock, AR

Re: If the crap channels

Well I think it BS that someone watching amc or the history channel has a sports fee added to their cost.

I remember a long time ago comcast big shot saying oh if the people watching sports had to pay for it they couldn't afford it...LAUGHING HIS ASS OFF.

so everyone pays some dipshit $50 million a year to run a football
and the morons don't have a clue the gov is stealing us blind and says I got his jersey off that their intranet for only $50 bucks.

DUH and we wonder why we are 64th in the world in literacy ?



Re: If the crap channels

said by sparks:

so everyone pays some dipshit $50 million a year to run a football
and the morons don't have a clue the gov is stealing us blind and says I got his jersey off that their intranet for only $50 bucks.

DUH and we wonder why we are 64th in the world in literacy ?

The irony in that last statement is thick as molasses.

213 251 145 96

Laurel, MD

Niche channels are already destroying themselves...

...voluntarily, with no help needed from a la carte. Consider:

Sci-Fi Channel -> SyFy, shows wrestling
Music Television -> MTV, shows "reality" trash
Discovery Channel -> too awful to discuss
BBC America -> Shows U.S.-made programs
The Nashville Network -> TNN, shows ST:TNG (just like BBCA)
Bravo -> Was arts, now "reality" trash

TNN changed to something else later, I forget what. Anyway, you get the point: All these channels, and many more, started out "niche", and moved towards the lowest common denominator. How much real niche programming is even left?
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0



Analysis protect big businesses

It depends a lot on how A-La-Carte is going to be done. If it's restaurant-like then channels such as PBS or Retro they're going to be sold for pennies. That way that users would pick them anyway just to have a bigger lineup.

Big channels like ESPN or SPEED will probably suffer more because people uninterested in sports are going to ditch them meaning big savings.

I think this analysis is really trying to protect big networks.

Aren't they the ones getting the biggest chunks out of the pie anyway?