B52GUNR
KM 7D love and D3 Nirvana
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-06
Vallejo, CA
clubs:   | I'm shocked!
No, really! I'm actually shocked the FCC even bothered to get up off their knees long enough to clean their chin and publish something. |
|
mikeg826
join:2002-02-11
Morrisville, PA
| said by B52GUNR  :No, really! I'm actually shocked the FCC even bothered to get up off their knees long enough to clean their chin and publish something. LMAO |
|
krobar
Is this thing on?
join:2002-09-15
Columbus, OH | reply to B52GUNR
*sigh* well said, well said indeed.  |
|
Some Random Dude
@151.143.x.x | I no longer believe...
...the US government represents "the people".
We live in an age when corporations pull the strings and the government marionettes dance.
Welcome to the New World(tm). |
|
joebear29
join:2003-07-20
Alabaster, AL
| Anyone know how the study was flawed?
I know consumer groups say its flawed, but how so?
I've never been a big believer in a la carte programming saving money - it seems to me that everyone is subsidizing the others viewing habits to a large degree, and it's all a wash - but I would be interested in specific criticisms of the study. |
|
dotditdot
@northropgrumman.c
| Terrible conclusions
I just read the report, and they deem that a la carte isn't worth it, because out monthly bill would rise based on the national average amount of channels each person receives. Sucks for those of use who only want 2 or 3 channels (the report concludes that people who would purchase 9 or less channels would face a reduction in their bills). The report goes on to say that *any* form of a la carte would result in additional expenses for the operators.
On top of that, they deem that video on demand and DVRs and increased broadband adoption will enable viewers to choose their own programming, whenever they want... |
|
dotditdot
@northropgrumman.c
| I gets better. They deem that channel surfing is now an integral part of watching tv (and something that viewers find very valuable), and that a la carte programming would reduce channel surfing, therfore tv "viewership" would go down! Wasn't that part of the point in a la carte? |
|
WarrenMan
@mchsi.com
thumbs down from:
PloKoon
| A La Carte Cable Pricing
This is really a silly issue. If you cannot afford $50 - $60 per month for cable then you shouldn't have it. Most people enjoy flipping through all 90 channels or so on occasion just to see if anything is interesting on one of the channels -- even though they may end up usually watching a few stations regularly. Penny pinchers should not dictate pricing for the rest of us. |
|
xirian
Premium
join:2003-01-26
Beacon, NY
| I have iO, tons of channels. I only actually ever watch 10 or 15 of them. The rest I dont see any use for. Think of it, why pay for something you dont want? People can afford it, but do that want to spend all that money to get the little bit they do want? |
|
dotditdot
@northropgrumman.c
| reply to joebear29
Re: Anyone know how the study was flawed?
Read page 23 of the study (and the following pages). Its all "Comcast states", "Charter states", "Warner states", "Disney states" and then the report goes on to accept the statements from the large cable companies as the correct answer, with minimal consideration of any other point of view. |
|
goalieskates
join:2004-09-12
Knoxville, TN
 ·Knology
·Comcast
| reply to Some Random Dude
Re: I no longer believe...
said by Some Random Dude:
...the US government represents "the people". You got that right.
If I want a channel that's not in my "package", I have to buy another package, even though there are 30 channels in my current package I never, ever watch.
That's the flaw in the argument. I can't trade channels to see what I want - I'm forced to buy high $ packages to get what interests me.
As for channel surfing, since the networks bought into the cable channels there's very little original programming. Endless reruns of network shows - wow. Just how much Law & Order do we need to see? ESPN no longer carries sports - they just talk about it a lot. No, thanks. |
|
dotditdot
@northropgrumman.c
| reply to xirian
Re: A La Carte Cable Pricing
The report gives the example of the Golf channel which started out as a la carte channel and was teetering on the verge of bankrupcty until they finally managed to become part of one of the packages... Should tell you something about how many people actually want to watch the content of plenty of these bundled channels. |
|
TheWickerMan
join:2002-04-09
Enola, PA
| reply to WarrenMan
said by WarrenMan:
This is really a silly issue. If you cannot afford $50 - $60 per month for cable then you shouldn't have it. Most people enjoy flipping through all 90 channels or so on occasion just to see if anything is interesting on one of the channels -- even though they may end up usually watching a few stations regularly. Penny pinchers should not dictate pricing for the rest of us.
I can see your point, but I don't completely agree with it. There are some channels I will never watch, like those shopping or sports channels. If I could, I'd drop them like a bad habit. |
|
joebear29
join:2003-07-20
Alabaster, AL | reply to dotditdot
Re: Anyone know how the study was flawed?
Did you read pages 21 & 22? It has comments from the Consumers Union of America and other anti-bundling groups. There are several other places in the report where it lists views from non-cable/satellite companies. |
|
bistro777
Donuts-Is There Anything They Can't Do?
Premium
join:2002-02-07
Englewood, CO
| reply to WarrenMan
Re: A La Carte Cable Pricing
If I buy an order of chicken wings, odds are I’m gonna eat all of ‘em. If I buy a six-pack, count on that being consumed, too.
So why force me to buy every chicken and brand of beer in the supermarket when I just walk by them to get what I really want?
A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking. |
|
dotditdot
@northropgrumman.c
| reply to joebear29
Re: Anyone know how the study was flawed?
I read them... keep reading. The report goes on & on about how the cable co's are going to have higher costs because consumers are too stupid to pick a package on their own, etc etc etc. The report promptly dismisses any views supporting a la carte, and instead accepts the cable cos views. I thought the FCC was to represent the interest of the general popluation? How hard would it have been for them to come to a conclusion that cable cos should offer a la carte side by side with packages? |
|
SequimPC
Got Fiber?
Premium
join:2004-02-11
Sequim, WA
| A La Mode
I would like to see an A La Mode approach. You know, you have your basic channels, then you add X number of channels for a price, but the packages are customizable.
They want me to be subject to them. When did businesses get so damn cocky? I thought the Customer was always right, but the government agencies that dictate policy to us say otherwise. America is no longer by the people for the people, it's by the elite for the elite.
It's not usually about what's best fo us either, it's about what profits a man if he loses his soul.
--
First rule of fiber optics: you do not talk about fiber optics |
|
StudioTech
S2409W plus SA4250HD
join:2001-10-10
Edison, NJ | Sports channels should be a la carte. Peroid.
And this is coming from a baseball fan. I would have no problem paying extra. Sports programming is one of the biggest costs to cable operators. |
|
joebear29
join:2003-07-20
Alabaster, AL | reply to dotditdot
Re: Anyone know how the study was flawed?
Given the facts in the report, it would be very hard to come to that conclusion. |
|
Phatty
join:2000-05-10
Valley Park, MO
 ·Vonage
·Charter Pipeline
| I agree with it
As much as I would love to save money, and would love to just stick with the 10-15 or so channels I actually watch on a regular basis I think A La carte would end up hurting in the long run. Some channels would definitely go out of business making our choices less. You may say then that just shows they are not getting enough viewers, but certain channels are targeted for a specific group of people. You start Al La Carte and you are going to end up with a lot less selection. The only time I think a la carte is good is if a certain channel cost considerable amount more than the rest such as the sports channels. It makes since to me that if the cable company blames some rate hikes on certain channels, then those certain channels need to be a la carte so it doesn't affect everyone as much. That way those high cost channels can actually see if they are worth the price they think they are worth when consumers act with their wallets by not paying extra for them..
Just my thoughts.
Phatty |
|
