vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA
| But why?
The parents' TV council has been wanting this for awhile so they can do away with "crude" programming like Comedy Central in their homes. Looks like the only way to get today's FCC to listen is to have a right-wing sponsor. Ehh, that's politics, hopefully it will also mean choice for the rest of us. |
|
BlitzenZeus
Burnt Out Cynic
Premium,MVM
join:2000-01-13
Beaverton, OR
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| Its what some want, but it will make it worse.
You will be forced to pay XX.xx for package A, or you can get X channels for XX.xx, certain channels are X.XX per month, lets not forget the x.xx per month for the cable box...
With their rates something needs to be done, not everyone wants the gardening channel, however how much is it really going to cost us to get only the channels we want?
--
My hourly rates:
$25 per hour.
$35 per hour if you want to watch.
$45 per hour if you want to help.
$75 per hour if you tried to fix it, and failed.
The biggest error is sitting in front of your keyboard. |
|
tnroroc
Let's Rock
join:2001-04-25
Matawan, NJ
| reply to vpoko
Re: But why?
If I had to bet, we will probably never see true ala-carte offered. What the cable co's. will offer is several more groups of packages, that in the end if you want to get just what you want, will still cost you what you are paying today. 
--
rok - Enjoy this game called life, nobody is actually keeping score.  |
|
amungus
Premium
join:2004-11-26
America
clubs: | I could do without
espn, shopping, mtv's, and a few others. somehow I doubt this'll ever apply to the analog channels, but if it did, I don't see how this couldn't save me a little dough by ditching a few of these useless channels. |
|
kalphearion
In nomine Patri
Premium
join:2003-11-08
Denver, CO
clubs:
 ·Comcast
| sounds cool
I usually only watch the basic channels, 4,7,9 31 for news but at times I like to watch SciFi and some other various "non standard" channels.
The breaking point is going to be how much you would save if you went a-la-carte compared to buying the whole package.
I forsee the Cable companies just creating a few more packages. |
|
gheezer
Compooters R Us
Premium
join:2002-12-20
Henrietta, NY
| reply to tnroroc
Re: But why?
Under the current offering model by the programmers, A La Carte will prove to be much more expensive for the consumer.
ESPN for example, charges an extra premium if their "bundle" package isn't included in the contract with the MSO.
Unless the Programming providers (networks) adjust their pricing and delivery model, there will be price increases for A La Carte services, and we all know where price increases wind up, don't we.
--
Join the NAVY, see the world....It's mostly water! |
|
CO_Chris
Premium
join:2001-08-28
Broomfield, CO | shopping channels
How many GDAmm shopping Channels do we need also what WTF is up all the church ones ?? |
|
goalieskates
join:2004-09-12
Knoxville, TN
·Knology
·Comcast
| It's about time
I'm tired of paying for ESPN, kiddie channels (no kids), shopping channels, etc. The way packages are structured, if you want a particular channel you have to buy the next package when you don't watch half of what you already have.
My next wish would be to have them limit the number of cable channels the networks can own. There used to be some interesting independent programming, now networks buy them and rerun the same old shows (and commercials).
Along those lines, we used to watch ESPN when they carried sports - before they were Disneyed. The Weather Channel? It's become entertainment for old folks. Yuck. |
|
Fatal Vector
join:2005-11-26
1 edit | It's not likely
That the cable companies will cut their own throats any time soon, especially since this would be "voluntary" (and we know what corporations think of voluntary, dont we?). It would be nice if you could just order the channels you want when you order cable, but then, they would just start pricing them individually and the prices would just keep marching up. The solution, of course, is to just let the non viable channels that no one carries (Like TRIO for example) die a natural death, instead of propping them up somehow. Certain of the movie channels that repeat the same movies allmost nightly for months on end (BRAVO comes to mind) would be prime cantidates. After all, how many times can one watch The Sands of Iwo Jima? Or, The Godfather, Part 2? PLEASE.
No, the only break from escallating prices will come when the telcos (or, whomever steps up finally) begin offering TV service competittion over fiber. Make no mistake, it WILL happen. It will just take time. Fiber is, in the end, the only viable way for the telcos to go if they want to compete. |
|
tmc8080
join:2004-04-24
Floral Park, NY
| Hallelujah
call me cynical, but I sincerely DOUBT that this will happen... the cable industry has been one "BLOCK" special interest, if all channels break up into a-la-carte, many channels will die off, or fight for their very broadcast lives, and just MAYBE will have to self-promote (say it isn't so) so that you'll see company executives worrying about (gosh darn it) CONTENT they shovel down the throats of people and the PRICE they charge.
Personally, DIE ESPN, DIE ESPN, lay off 30,000 time warner, lay off 30,000 time warner.
victory for the consumer |
|
plencnerb
Premium
join:2000-09-25
Franksville, WI
clubs:
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to kalphearion
Re: sounds cool
said by kalphearion  :The breaking point is going to be how much you would save if you went a-la-carte compared to buying the whole package. I forsee the Cable companies just creating a few more packages. I agree. The question will be, how much will each channel cost in the end? I'm guessing that some channels will cost more then others, and the thing you will have to look at is if you only want say 3 channels, and each one is $5, is that less then what you are currently paying to get 500 channels?
For example, I pay around $56 a month for TWC in Kenosha, WI. That gives me access to over 1500 Channels. Now, looking at the list of channels, the ones I watch on a daily basis are
1) TNT
2) USA Network
3) FX
4) Lifetime
5) Discovery Channel
6) A&E
7) Nickelodeon
8) Cartoon Network
9) Food TV
So, if each channel will cost me say $5, then my cable bill will be $45 a month. Is it really worth it for me to save the 11 bucks or so a month? Probably not. But, if each channel was say $1 each, then I would only be paying $9 a month for cable TV. In that case, IT would be a savings for me.
In the end, it would depend on how much each channel costs, and if the overall savings is worth it or not.
--
============================
--Brian Plencner
E-Mail: bplencnerCancer@wi.rr.com
Note: Kill Cancer to Reply via e-mail |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| reply to tnroroc
Re: But why?
said by tnroroc :If I had to bet, we will probably never see true ala-carte offered. What the cable co's. will offer is several more groups of packages, that in the end if you want to get just what you want, will still cost you what you are paying today. I agree. If the FCC, in the unlikely event, demands a la carte pricing, the cable companies and telcos will merely price them so as not to be worthwhile ordering.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
My Web Page |
|
owenhome
keeper of the magic blue smoke
Premium
join:2002-07-13
Bentonville, AR
| BS
There is no way in the world cable co's would willing give customers the ability to pay less. That's just stupid. Do you honestly think they would set it up in such a way that you could just buy the channels you want and save money?? It's all about finding new and creative ways to get more money out of you, no the other way around.
--
Never argue with a fool, people might not know the difference. |
|
therightthing
@cox.net
| Just Disconnect
Not intending to start a troll but...
98% of the stuff on TV isn't worth watching. I have better things to do with my time. TV is a trap which we
have fallen into and we are wasting away our lives by watching it.
Cable TV has a false or "artificial" value associated with it.
If americans would just wake up and see the harm they are doing to their lives by wasting their time watching TV they would be much better off. |
|
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| reply to goalieskates
Re: It's about time
said by goalieskates :My next wish would be to have them limit the number of cable channels the networks can own. There used to be some interesting independent programming, now networks buy them and rerun the same old shows (and commercials). There used to be limits. The FCC lifted those a couple of years ago.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://whip.isca.uiowa.edu
Member: American Association of Geographers, American Geophysical Union, American Water Resources Association |
|
Primis1
join:2005-06-13
Coldwater, MI
| The Other Side
I'm personally tired of paying for everything *but* ESPN.
Everyone can complain all they want about ESPN, but most ESPN viewers watch WAY more TV than most of you complaining about it.
Personallly, I'd eliminate just about everything *but* ESPN if I could. It's not like I watch any of that other crap like Lifetime, USA, TNT, FX, every single news network, etc... |
|
wdoa
join:2001-10-16
Spencer, MA
·Verizon Online DSL
| shopping channels
You'll always be getting the shopping channels. No way in hell that the cable cos will drop them as they get a percentage of the sales made on them. That's why there are so many of them. Everytime a subscriber buys something through a shopping a channel it's a ring of the register for the subscribers cable company. |
|
BosstonesOwn
join:2002-12-15
Everett, MA
clubs: | reply to CO_Chris
Those channels actual pay to be carried by the provider. |
|
jameswade
join:2001-12-09
Hot Springs, NC
·US Cellular
·Verizon BroadbandA..
·AT&T Southeast
| reply to Primis1
Re: The Other Side
I certainly don't want to subsidize ESPN for the people that want it.
There are only about 15 channels that I want to watch, none of them are sports.
Why should we pay for things that we don't watch? Paying only for channels that we actually want would sure send a signal to the program providers!
I can hear the cries now that diversity of programming will decrease, this is rhetorical, but I this diversity will increase. I am sure that the quality will improve and maybe those annoying graphics will go away. |
|
Topmounter
Sent By Grocery Clerks
join:2001-02-20
Evergreen, CO | reply to wdoa
Re: shopping channels
You may "think" you are, but you aren't actually paying for the shopping channels.
Even with ala carte pricing, you would still receive them. |
|
