DMS1
join:2005-04-06
Carrollton, TX
| Really bad.
This would be really bad in the medium to long term. Something close to the ubiquitous 80/20 rule applies, with 80% of the people only ever watching 20% of the available channels. Allowing a-la carte selection would quickly force the other 80% of the channels out of business. |
|
sharksfan3
Premium
join:2004-02-16
Poughkeepsie, NY | Less = More
Less crap channels = More room for HD! |
|
major marco
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA
clubs:
| Not So Fast
I'd like to see the specific language of this mythical legislation that telco errandboy Martin would support because I'm certain it has zip to do with consumer choice/saving money and everything to with squeezing every last nickel out of consumers. This kind of political whore doesn't change horses mid-stream just because his PR firm is marketing feel-goodisms about ol' Kevvie. |
|
krayzie bone
join:2006-09-03
Marietta, GA
| does a la carte make sense?
theoretically only the big channels would survive and all the small channels would die out? I don't see the point because cable operators will eat their cake no matter what. What happens when they jack up the price (or content providers get greedy) for those select channels that everyone wants? We will have less choice and less programming. I guess it's for the children, and you can never be against the children... 
idk maybe someone can offer a different explanation... |
|
sharksfan3
Premium
join:2004-02-16
Poughkeepsie, NY
 ·Verizon Wireless B..
 ·Optimum Voice
 ·Optimum Online
·Time Warner VOIP
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to DMS1
Re: Really bad.
said by DMS1  :Allowing a-la carte selection would quickly force the other 80% of the channels out of business. They could of course provide content worth watching. |
|
Chuckles
Premium
join:2006-03-04
Saint Paul, MN | Everything OnDemand.
Aside from the obvious emergency broadcast and newsflash everything should be OnDemand.
--
kustomerservice.net |
|
Chuckles
Premium
join:2006-03-04
Saint Paul, MN | reply to sharksfan3
Re: Really bad.
Are you the one to decide what's worth watching? |
|
DMS1
join:2005-04-06
Carrollton, TX
| reply to sharksfan3
said by sharksfan3 :said by DMS1 :Allowing a-la carte selection would quickly force the other 80% of the channels out of business. They could of course provide content worth watching. My point exactly - they do provide content worth watching for at least some people. Take for example Ovation, which provides arts and culture programming. Not everyone's cup of tea, but a channel I watch regularly. I fear it would be one of the first to go. |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| reply to major marco
Re: Not So Fast
I can only see two motivations here:
He's playing politics in order to appease social conservatives and gain their support for a post-FCC political career.
He's working with the ILECs on an as-yet-unannounced IPTV standalone channel ambition that requires a legislative or policy change.
You know I'd like to think he's really looking out for the consumer here, but then I'd have to insult myself for being naive. |
|
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ | Ala carte'
Those channels that can't survive on their own merits just need to be allowed to die out and ala carte' would be the vehicle to allow this.
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth |
|
Diaboyos
join:2007-08-21
Shreveport, LA
clubs:
 ·AT&T Southeast
·RoadRunner Cable
·Comcast
| Per Channel
I wouldn't mind paying per channel. I only want a handful of channels anyway. I only have the basic 2-13 right now because I can't afford the next tier. If I could pay per channel I'd do it.
They would probably make it restrictive to the point of being meaningless however. Like $10 per channel if you get them individually. So the price of the bundle of 50 channels would cost just a little more than the cost of 5 individual channels. |
|
Rob
In Deo speramus, God Bless the USA
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL | The only thing he should be exploring..
IS A NEW JOB. |
|
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| Don't like the way that sounds.
I dunno. Sounds like double talk in regards to what a la carte should really provide. He's saying the smaller and newer channels will be the ones you can pick, but doesn't mention the "popular" channels. This is the deal for me. I DON'T WANT ESPN. None of it. Not a single channel. Sports channels are probably the most expensive part of your cable bill. I heard nothing in the way Martin worded his "pro-carte" that would give customers a real choice.
Here's what I think. Smaller fringe channels, they aren't the problem with your cable bill. It's the big channels. If you don't want certain big channels then you shouldn't pay for them. This is where a la carte should focus on. Not on whether or not you want to pay for the The Cooking Channel (which probably costs you less having that and a dozen other special interest channels than TNT or Comedy Central). |
|
meskinct
Mad Scientist at Work
Premium
join:2002-01-07
Danbury, CT
clubs: | Nothing will Change
By the time these laws are passed we will all be watching our content on the Internet. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| Martin doesn't have legal authority to force ...
... a la carte on content providers like he says here:
"The Federal Communications Commission on Tuesday plans to begin considering banning programmers from "tying" — making cable systems take less-popular or new channels to get must-haves, such as ESPN DIS or CBS CBS He needs a law passed by Congress to give him that authority. And even if they did pass such a law, it would almost assuredly be struck down as unconstitutional.
Now he may have power to force a la carte on cable companies, but even that is doubtful. They'd probably challenge his ruling in court and win.
--
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
TwistedLefty
join:2001-07-08
Excelsior Springs, MO
| ala cart is long overdue
I'm tired of paying for a bunch of crap i never watch, so that others can afford it.
The free market should decide what is "worth watching"
maybe this would raise the literacy rates back up a bit if all the junk/fluff was driven into the waste can of history.
I know i could get by with just 3 channels if i had to.
(i did it for 15 years before cable) |
|
Richard B
Fur It Up
join:2007-06-22
Portland, OR
·Comcast
| reply to sharksfan3
Re: Really bad.
Two words
Niche Markets
I do not care how good content is I not going to watch the Golf Channel but my hypothetical neighbor would be glued to the channel. At the same time he has no interest in Sci-FI but I do. a la carte will dumb down TV to the lowest common denominator. |
|
Puzzled
@comcast.net | reply to Karl Bode
Re: Not So Fast
The telcos don't want standalone channels either. Nothing like spending $1,200 per HP to sell a bunch of $15 monthly subscriptions to wreck an already undesirable business model. |
|
sirghost
citywide
join:2005-07-23
Phoenix, AZ | its all about choice
My two cents is, Id rather have choices, rather then limitations. Alacarte limits me to what my choices are because channels that are not super popular would die off, thus, giving me LESS choices. |
|
tmc8080
join:2004-04-24
Floral Park, NY | Avoid channels advertisers you don't want? I'm in...
You mean I can cancel channels that air that annoying "HEAD-ON" commercial with the chorus of repetitive nonsense?
(hint-hint, cough, cough CNN!)
I'm IN! |
|
