 newviewEx .. Ex .. ExactlyPremium
join:2001-10-01
Parsonsburg, MD
kudos:1 | ... tell me about it I know exactly what you mean Verizon ... I hate paying for channels I don't watch either ... like the entire Viacom networks and ESPN. |
|
| This is a great idea.... I look forward to when Verizon passes on the savings to me and only bills me for the channels that I watch.
Do I really need to explain that was sarcasm? |
|
|
|
 Camelot OnePremium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Greenwood, IN
kudos:1 | reply to newview
Re: ... tell me about it It it were anyone other than Verizon, I would say this would blow up in their face when users such as yourself use their own argument against them.
But with the Verizon lobby machine, they might just get this to fly. We pay for 500 channels, they pay only for the dozen or so people actually watch.
--
Intel i7-2600k /ASRock P67 Extreme4 /4x 4Gb G.Skill /2x Intel 510 series 250Gb SSD /3x WD20EADS 2TB /2x PNY GTX 260 /Silverstone 850W /Custom water cooler /Antec Twelve-Hundred |
|
Reviews:
 ·Frontier Communi..
| al la carte We really need al la carte, turn Verizon into a dumb pipe and let consumers purchase the channels directly from the content providers, much the same way as my electric utility delivers the juice that I purchase on my own from a supplier. You'll never get to purchase TNT without CNN, Disney without ESPN, or A&E without History, but at the very least you could choose which content companies you want to do business with. Heck, perhaps they would allow you to get Disney without ESPN, though I'm sure you'd pay more for the privilege.
Everybody wins under this scenario, Verizon isn't paying royalties, you're not paying for channels you aren't watching, and the smaller content providers with small but loyal followings don't get shut out because ESPN raised their royalty rate yet again.
Of course, "everybody wins" is exactly why it won't happen. |
|
| reply to ptbarnett
Re: This is a great idea.... it actually says in the WSJ article that customer bills won't decrease. this is about saving verizon money, which we won't see a dime of. |
|
CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picturePremium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:1 | reply to Crookshanks
Re: al la carte Everyone but the shareholders. Since there is a great deal of profit collected for channels no one watches, they will resist any attempts at ala carte imposed on themselves. |
|
| reply to newview
Re: ... tell me about it ...Complains They're Paying For Channels Nobody is Watching
|
|
| reply to Crookshanks
Re: al la carte Smaller stations and start-ups dont win either.... |
|
| This seems to be part of the opening salvos.... ....in a broader attack on the content companies.
Cablevision is suing Viacom over bundling and now Verizon is suing over ratings. This could be the start of a full blown war between the 2 sides that will not be good for consumers. No matter who wins, consumers will pay more somehow. |
|
Reviews:
 ·VoicePulse
| Will Verizon Charge Customers Only For Channels Watched? Will Verizon only charge THEIR customers for the channels they watch? Of course not. They will charge THEIR customers for an entire package of mostly unwanted and unneeded channels while demanding that their cable broadcast (channel) vendors only get paid from them based on what is watched. |
|
| reply to moonpuppy
Re: This seems to be part of the opening salvos.... It needs to happen. The content companies are not even trying any longer with spin-off of spin-off of spin-off reality shows and 48 hour marathons of Pawn Stars.
As far as I'm concerned, the cable and satellite operators should be selling the eyeballs to the networks, not the eyeballs paying to see the networks. |
|
| reply to CXM_Splicer
Re: al la carte what a sad truth. |
|
 skeechanAi OtsukaholicPremium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2 | reply to nasadude
Re: This is a great idea.... Unless you get a dividend statement. |
|
 n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY | reply to ptbarnett
said by ptbarnett:I look forward to when Verizon passes on the savings to me and only bills me for the channels that I watch.
Do I really need to explain that was sarcasm?
ROTFLMAO! So true! In fact, your rates will probably go up to pay for the monitoring system.
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears. |
|
 meskinctMad Scientist at WorkPremium
join:2002-01-07
Southbury, CT
1 edit | DSL and Phone Bundle And why exactly do they require phone and DSL service if you only want DSL? Hmmm. Nice try Verizon.
--
Rich. My Website |
|
djcrazy
join:2009-08-05
Minneapolis, MN | LOL! Verizon customers, you will not save any money at all. I think most of you know this already. Any savings will stay at the top. |
|
SunnyD
join:2009-03-20
Madison, AL | The holy grail of metered billing... Except where it would actually hurt our bottom line.
- Verizon. |
|
| reply to nasadude
Re: This is a great idea.... There is a good possibility bills won't increase for a while though. |
|
 morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | Verizon wants a la carte for themselves; not for consumers It's great to see a provider admit that a la carte pricing will save money. Paying only for content used is a great model. Verizon proposing this new pay system for themselves at least means they cannot claim that if implemented, consumers won't also save money. |
|
| No problem with me Look at it this way, if Verizon makes this happen, the networks that don't really get watched may go away. This frees up provider capacity, which in turn allows the company to deliver a higher quality product that actually gets watched.
Ah who am I kidding, Verizon would never do that. But the smaller companies that are still private and still give a crap about their customers actually would.
And the biggest bonus is; the people that participate in Nielsen, who I believe are actually lying, will no longer have any control over whats on the air. Could you imagine how much better the advertising gets and the content gets, when the ratings represent hard facts rather than perceived reality based upon what people choose to write down in their neilsen books. |
|
