 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. | |
|
 | | | 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. | |
|
| |  ChucklesPremium
join:2006-03-04
Saint Paul, MN | Re: Really bad. Are you the one to decide what's worth watching? | |
|
| | |  james
join:2001-02-26
CWCville USA | Re: Really bad. Your comment is really stupid if you take the time to think about it.
It isnt like he's saying "any channel I dont watch should go off the air" he's saying "any channel NO ONE watches should go off the air" and logically, if there is a channel that no one watches, it should change formats to appeal to more people or be replaced, otherwise millions of dollars are being wasted to appease 10 peoples horrible taste (as opposed to millions of peoples horrible taste i suppose, but still). | |
|
| | | |
1 edit | Re: Really bad. I'd have to agree that Chuckles posted an amazingly stupid question. Yes, consumers *should* be the ones who decide what's worth watching. What is wrong with you? | |
|
| | | | | ChucklesPremium
join:2006-03-04
Saint Paul, MN
1 edit | Re: Really bad. I'm sorry you read "you" as consumers and not sharksfan3.
Actually he said, "They could of course provide content worth watching." | |
|
| | | | | | | | Re: Really bad. said by Chuckles:I'm sorry you read "you" as consumers and not sharksfan3. Actually he said, "They could of course provide content worth watching." So even if you did mean sharksfan3, how in the world did you infer that sharskfan3 even suggested that should be the one whom decides what's worth watching. He's just simply suggesting that some stations have no consumers, or not enough to sustain their programming lineup.
No offense, and Perhaps I'm wrong, but I can't help but think that you are trying to put an anti Free Market spin on this. | |
|
| | | | ChucklesPremium
join:2006-03-04
Saint Paul, MN | I believe channels are on the air because someone is watching them. Someone's horrible taste could be you.
--
kustomerservice.net | |
|
| | | | | shouldn't we the consumers be the ones deciding whats worth watching anyways??? it's our money we're working hard for, handing over to the cable co's. if those channels aren't worth paying for individually why would they be any more worth buying in a bundle? | |
|
| | | | | Are you kidding? My interest in ESPN shouldn't subsidize your wanting to watch super obscure programming. If those networks have a following, it will show up as subscribers in an a-la-carte model. Otherwise it will go away. | |
|
| | | |  MospawWhat, too soon?Hawaiian Jellyfish
join:2001-01-08
Mile High
kudos:1
All Things Macintosh
Automotive
Rants, Raves, and ..
| Re: Really bad. Note: I'm pulling the numbers below out of the air, in order to make a point. They don't represent anything but hypotheticals.
Likewise, my interest in obscure programming shouldn't subsidize ESPN, in which I have zero interest.
ESPN might even be profitable on its own and be a freebie or very low cost in an a la carte lineup. Likewise, something a bit more obscure, call it the "Obscurity Channel" will have a smaller audience, and require maybe a dollar or two for each subscriber. I'm fine with that. I'd rather get rid of a bunch of crap channels I'll NEVER look that cost 10 cents a month and get one or two I do want that cost many times more.
Heck, you might even get some channels that pay you a tiny bit to have them, like QVC, HSN, etc.
I'm totally for this and hope it happens.
That way I can say goodbye to probably 30 channels for good AND not have to pay for them.  | |
|
| | | | | said by Chuckles:Are you the one to decide what's worth watching? No the people are. If they don't want to watch it because they hate the shows maybe they should make a better attempt at making programs that appeal to the consumer and we shouldn't be forced to pay for a channel we don't watch. | |
|
| | DMS1
join:2005-04-06
Carrollton, TX | 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. | |
|
| | | Reviews:
 ·Windstream
1 edit | Re: Really bad. So you expect that everyone else should subsidize your more -ahem- eclectic tastes? I hope you send money for your NPR habit to supplement the taxes we send to CPB to subsidize Big Bird ($400M for 2008, up 33% in 8 years).
I have no problem with packages of channels rather than true ala carte, but the deal now (at least on DirectTV) is a $30 package aimed squarely at the Bible Thumpers, and then $50 for a 140+ channels, 30-40% of which are XM radio. I know that they can manage different packages, because I have an older package that is no longer offered. (I have no idea what the differences are, but they seem to manage it OK.)
So why not a Pick30 with local channels for $30 package? Make ESPN cost an extra $5 if that's what Disney wants for it - an awful lot of folks would pay it. And maybe they can find someone who wants XM Suite 62 and Galavision - whatever they are.
Or maybe not. Nobody said being an artist would be easy... | |
|
| | | stevephl
join:2000-11-27
Colorado Springs, CO | I am sure that there might be a channel or two that I might watch that would go away due to a lack of interest by the market (viewers) so be it. Why should the rest of us subsidize your feel good channel? I've been saying for a long time that a large majority of the channels on the satellite (DirecTV) have a fairly small audience if any at all and should either be switched to programming that a majority of people would enjoy or removed entirely. A quick poll at work provided some interesting data, over 90% (around 25 people) indicated that they only watch a hand full of channels on their cable or satellite systems. Most (80%) also replied that they favor the a-la-carte business model. Let the free market place determine what are viable channels and what channels are financial losers. | |
|
| | |  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T DSL Service
| said by DMS1:I fear it would be one of the first to go. Oh it would be.
Convert to watching Football, Nascar, and Wrestling, and you'll be a happy man.
 | |
|
| | Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| 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. | |
|
| | | stevephl
join:2000-11-27
Colorado Springs, CO | Re: Really bad. There is a huge plethora of channels dedicated to over the air selling (marketing)such as QVC and similar types, food channels, save the world/animal/green planet channels and several channels offering tv shows that never were able to garner an audience when first broadcast, a majority of these channels have a very small viewer ship, once again why keep channels that most people do not enjoy watching? If we go to the a-la-carte business model the major TV content providers will be able to asses the data and determine which channels do not enjoy an audience. One final thought just because other people might not enjoy watching some off the wall channel you enjoy does not mean we are being dumbed down. | |
|
| | | | tlcbob
join:2001-07-11
Harrisburg, PA | Re: Really bad. Let those marketing channels be FREE since they are getting revenue from sales. If they want to sell to us, allow them to be part of a FREE tier. The more popular channels can be a-la-carte. I can then pay $30 and get some free public interest, marketing, viewer funded (like PBS) channels in addition to my maybe 30 picked channels. | |
|
| | | | This is a billing nightmare to the service providers and a few companies own most of the cable channels. So if you want MTV you get BET too, because it's owned by the same big media conglomerate(Viacom).....Is this a great country or what ?? | |
|
| | | | | Re: Really bad. said by ashworth:This is a billing nightmare to the service providers and a few companies own most of the cable channels. So if you want MTV you get BET too, because it's owned by the same big media conglomerate(Viacom).....Is this a great country or what ?? If this is a billing nightmare, better call NPS and tell them to close shop. If making smaller packages is a bad thing, better get rid of Star Choice. NPS sells by the channel for many of their channels. They also sell a variety of packages from a Discovery Channel package to a get-it-all package. I usually order just the channels I want and add the Starz/Encore package to get some fun movies thrown in. (FYI Starz package is about 30 channels total with 4 in HD) I can even decide to go for 90 days, 180 days, or a full year to save even more. I pay about $30 every 3 months to get my selection of channels, and another $35.75 to get the 30 channels of Starz. All digital and better PQ than DBS.
Star Choice up in Canada has nice little bundles of packages to choose from so you can add just music or just sports. Seems to work fine.
I'm not saying it doesn't take a little more effort than giving only 3 or 4 packages, but in reality, the DBS providers are supporting dozens of different pricings and packages due to various offerings over the years. They're smart, and they can handle it. In fact, they may enjoy having the forced unbundling since it might break the strangehold Capital Cities (ABC/Disney/ESPN) currently enjoys. The DBS providers must carry ESPN and Disney at the basic level and this money goes mostly back to CapCities. If subscribers are freed from this, they may spend more on more profitable segments like PPV and premium channels. | |
|
| stevephl
join:2000-11-27
Colorado Springs, CO | Market forces should determine what channels are retained and what channels are canceled due to a very small segment of the market place ordering these channels.
A-la-carte is the wave of the future. We here find ourselves only viewing less then six channels at most, why pay for all of those channels we will never watch? | |
|
| | | The programmers and cable companies would find a way to keep getting the money they're used to through jacked up prices for channels, increased equipment costs, and extra fees. Best case scenario we'd save a few bucks a month. | |
|
| | Less = More Less crap channels = More room for HD! | |
|
 major marcoRes Firma Mitescere NescitPremium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA | 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. | |
|
| Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| 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. | |
|
| | | | 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. | |
|
| | | | | Re: Not So Fast Political posturing it is then.... | |
|
| | | |  MrMoodyFree range slavePremium
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC | Re: Not So Fast Exactly. He knows it isn't going to fly, so it's safe to stick his neck out on. | |
|
| | stevephl
join:2000-11-27
Colorado Springs, CO | The a-la-carte business model makes sense with most viewers in agreement, this is the wave of the future, much like music is now purchased on a per song basis, instead of the old per album basis, same theory why buy the complete album just to get one song? So why buy 150 mostly useless channels just to get a couple?
Give this guy some credit he has a good idea here. | |
|
| | | | said by Karl Bode: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. KARL--FINALLY, A BRILLIANT POST! I'm a Democrat but don't drink the Kool-Aid so know Bulls**t when I see it. This crook Martin, like all President-appointed leaches, are always looking out for "future employment."
Bush appointee leaves - FoxNews hires them
Clinton appointees - A lot work at CNN, MSNBC, etc.
The rest get big paychecks from law firms just so the firm can say they employ the idiot, or, they become lobbyists. Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, has a kid with NO lobbying experience working as a lobbyist for Google.
--
Saving the world keeps me busy. However, I find Earth very primitive from my home planet of Krypton.
-Supergirl | |
|
| | | | said by Karl Bode:He's playing politics in order to appease social conservatives and gain their support for a post-FCC political career. Why is this an ideological issue? I'm a conservative and I couldn't care less about ala carte TV. Sure, I get some channels I wouldn't want my kids to watch, so I go into the setup and turn those channels off. Easily defeated if my kids really want to but I don't put TVs in their rooms. The only TV for the kids is sitting in the middle of the family room where everyone can see what they're watching.
--
What's certain about Darwinism is that it would take less time for (1) a single-celled organism to evolve into a human being through mutation and natural selection than for (2) Darwinists to admit they have no proof of (1) - Ann Coulter | |
|
| | 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... | |
|
|  ieolusSupport The Clecs
join:2001-06-19
Duluth, GA | Re: does a la carte make sense? Uhmm, that already happens.. the most desirable channels DO get their prices jacked... just look at ESPN and the price it commands, let alone the power to dictate carrying ESPN2 thru 8 (The Ocho!).
--
"Speak for yourself "Chadmaster" - lesopp | |
|
ChucklesPremium
join:2006-03-04
Saint Paul, MN | Everything OnDemand. Aside from the obvious emergency broadcast and newsflash everything should be OnDemand.
--
kustomerservice.net | |
|
 dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | 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 | |
|
| ChucklesPremium
join:2006-03-04
Saint Paul, MN | Re: Ala carte' said by dvd536: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. So you prefer to just watch sports, sitcoms and news? I should look at some statistics before saying this but oh well..
--
kustomerservice.net | |
|
| | | | Re: Ala carte' If there really is an interest in a show and the cable industry dumps it or in the Al a Carte world the comsumer dumps it, there will always be the internet.
Look at Tech TV, they were popular to a niche market while on cable but apparently not profitable enough. However it lives on in the form of dl.tv.
--
Folding for our future!! | |
|
| |  joetaxpayerI'M Here Till Thursday
join:2001-09-07
Sudbury, MA | said by Chuckles:said by dvd536: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. So you prefer to just watch sports, sitcoms and news? I should look at some statistics before saying this but oh well.. I'm not convinced either way. I hadn't watched Sci-Fi channel in years, but then watched one mini-series a year or so ago (The Secret Room). If I didn't already get it, I doubt I'd have it as part of an ala carte plan. I happen to watch two other shows on Sci-Fi, so now, I guess I'd choose it. Same with TNT for the show "Burn notice" With ala carte, you have to choose the lineup you want (duh?) but that removes the freedom to "channel surf" and randomly find new shows. I happen to not be a sport fan, but when people come over, the games go on. I think the idea of ala carte is far more appealing than the actual implementation. The 80/20 rule will apply, and you may get some unintended consequences, like a sport channel pushing a higher price due to demand, and groups of smaller channels being offered all for a $1. Call me a cynic, but I think there is a chance the channels will price out so a good group will cost more than the current 'package'.
JOE | |
|
| | 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. | |
|
|  ToadmanHypnotoad
join:2001-11-28
Ohio
kudos:1 | Re: Per Channel said by Diaboyos: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. This is exactly what will happen. They will charge $10 per channel or $45 for the package of 50 basic channels. They will also have some restrictive "pricing" that will make HBO $50.00 stand alone or $13.00 when purchased with the $45.00. Not much will change.
Good merit but very poor execution. | |
|
| Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..
 ·US Cellular
| I used to have a la carte satellite with my old C band dish, it was great!
I spent about $10/month for the 10 channels that I watched. Sports programming was MUCH more expensive, since I didn't have to subsidize those expensive channels I got what I paid for and paid for what I got.
If I wanted some premium movie channels I would pay for them a la carte. If I didn't want something like USA that has so many advertisements, time compresses movies, and splatter graphics all over the programming I'd vote with my dollars.
If a channel that I wanted couldn't survive on what I was willing to pay for it or if there weren't enough others interested in paying for it it would die, nobody had to subsidize it.
I REALLY don't like subsidizing other people's viewing tastes. I also don't like the "Family Friendly" crowd co opting the a la carte phrase to basically make a "Family Friendly" package.
Anyway, don't tell me that a la carte doesn't work, I used it for years before the whole C band thing died out... | |
|
| | | | Re: Per Channel Is the C band the huge satellite dishes? The old kind? I had the huge kind of satellite dish in my old home years ago. It was fantastic!
For a mere $50 a month I had hundreds and hundreds of channels. I had like 10 HBO's, 10 Cinemax's, 10 Showtimes, like 200 music channels. It was great. I don't think the new satellites (Directv or Dish Network) have a $50 a month plan that gives you like 600 channels. I could be wrong because I haven't really looked but I don't think they do.
Why could the big satellites do it but the small ones can't? I miss my old home... | |
|
| | | dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | Re: Per Channel said by Diaboyos:Is the C band the huge satellite dishes? The old kind? I had the huge kind of satellite dish in my old home years ago. It was fantastic! For a mere $50 a month I had hundreds and hundreds of channels. I had like 10 HBO's, 10 Cinemax's, 10 Showtimes, like 200 music channels. It was great. I don't think the new satellites (Directv or Dish Network) have a $50 a month plan that gives you like 600 channels. I could be wrong because I haven't really looked but I don't think they do. Why could the big satellites do it but the small ones can't? I miss my old home... Was primestar C band?
I had that, had a 8 foot dish in the back yard(New york)
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth | |
|
| | | | Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..
·US Cellular
| Re: Per Channel What I should have said was Big Ugly Dish - I actually got C and Ku band and both analog and multiplexed digital feeds.
I think that Primestar was a multiplexed digital feed using Ku band. Well, here is a little information: »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primestar
It's probably not fair to compare the old and the new services where technological advances and inflation play a part, but I did want to point out that a la carte was working before it go squashed. | |
|
 RobIn Deo speramus, God Bless the USAPremium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:2 | The only thing he should be exploring.. IS A NEW JOB. | |
|
| KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: The only thing he should be exploring.. said by Rob:IS A NEW JOB. Why? He's got that sewn up already. You're right tho... maybe he has to pick between Verizon and AT&T. | |
|
| | 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). | |
|
| Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: Don't like the way that sounds. You are right I read most channels cost .30 per viewer while ESPN charges $3.00. The problem is a la carte will be favorable to channels that pull the most viewers making niche cannels very vulnerable.
Not mention ESPN pulls in business from chain restaurant like Old Chicago, Chilies and Applebee’s and a host of local sports bars. ESPN will not be going anywhere. | |
|
| | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | Re: Don't like the way that sounds. If the cable companies are also charged A La Carte by the content creators then it really doesn't matter if very few watch the channel, as long as more bandwidth is still available. With the elimination of analogue channels there should be plenty of room for variety. | |
|
 meskinctMad Scientist at WorkPremium
join:2002-01-07
Danbury, CT | Nothing will Change By the time these laws are passed we will all be watching our content on the Internet. | |
|
| | 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 | |
|
|
See 7 replies to this post |
|
| | 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) | |
|
| ChucklesPremium
join:2006-03-04
Saint Paul, MN | Re: ala cart is long overdue said by TwistedLefty: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. HAHAHA! So the most people watching the most popular TV programs are the literate ones? LOL!
--
kustomerservice.net | |
|
| KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| said by TwistedLefty: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. Uh, you've seen which shows have the highest ratings, right. Raise literacy rates? LOL. More like flush em down the toliet....
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
|
sirghostcitywide
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. | |
|
|  BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: its all about choice said by sirghost: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. Not true.
First of all why do people think it's going to be either or? Where do you read that if ala carte is made mandatory that that will be the ONLY choice? The fact is the the VAST majority of customers will continue with the service they have currently. Those that want ala carte will get their choice? How is this bad? I would be seriously surprised if more than 15% of cable customers at any one time would be taking advantage of ala carte.
I also doubt that it will be true ala carte so if you want say 13 channels then you can get 13 channels. There will probably be tiers like 10 channels for X amount 20 channels for X amount etc etc. | |
|
| | 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! | |
|
| MrMoodyFree range slavePremium
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC | Re: Avoid channels advertisers you don't want? I'm in... Ha, I'd like to apply something directly to their foreheads. | |
|
 gatorkramKaBOOM BabyPremium
join:2002-07-22
Winterville, NC
kudos:2
·Suddenlink
1 edit | middle man Why do we need a middle man, ie the cable company to get TV anyway...
Why don't we all get a dish, and then get the channels we want, right from the channels themselves. And heck, if we are getting them direct, maybe we can get rid of all the commercials...
Heck, do we even need the tv channel people? Let's just put up a dish, and get our stuff right from the providers of the content in the first place.... hmmm
Real, and true on-demand.... Like a big jukebox in the sky, music, tv, movies.... YUM
edit: I guess we could just do it all over the internet, and skip the dish part..
--
Give me bandwidth or give me death! | |
|
 Jwobot
join:2002-08-14
Sterling Heights, MI
1 edit |  sounds good
Knowledge package(Science, Discovery, History channels),
Sports package,
And variety mix(TNT, USA, FX, Sci FI, ect)
Stuff that I would not care for
Music mix package (MTV,VH1, that country music channel),
Kids mix package(Nick, Cartoon Network,Disney),
News mix package,
Religious mix package,
And maybe a second variety mix package that would include (Lifetime, HGTV, SpikeTV, BET, ect)
Man think about all that money that could be saved! | |
|
| | | Re: sounds good This is actually common place in other countries; like the U.K. I think Sky has 6 "mixes" i.e. Knowledge, News, Entertainment.... Of course the price of Sports is insane there (think $40 for 5 sports channels, other packages at about $10 each), it would probably be a bit more reasonable due to generally higher ad revenues here. Also keep in the mind the exchange rate, where 20 pounds there is much more reasonable than the equivalent $40 here.... | |
|
RayWPremium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
kudos:1 | This is bad! I may have to get cable! One of my complaints is that in order to get the 8 or so channels I want, I have to pay for all three or four tiers (based on the last time I looked a couple of years ago).
And no, the channels that the cable companies supposedly claim that are the ones driving the 'cost increases' (like sports) are not them.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
|
|  buckinghamBuckingham Pa
join:2005-07-17
Buckingham, PA
 ·Verizon FiOS
1 edit | Re: This is bad! I may have to get cable! said by RayW:One of my complaints is that in order to get the 8 or so channels I want, I have to pay for all three or four tiers (based on the last time I looked a couple of years ago). And no, the channels that the cable companies supposedly claim that are the ones driving the 'cost increases' (like sports) are not them. I'm in the same boat right now. I subscribe to COMCAST's basic service with Digital Plus and HD on top. $38 a month. I just got a note that effective at the end of the month, they were taking away a few HD channels, including Discovery Theater HD...the ONLY station my kids are allowed to watch without permission. The only way to get it back is to agree to a special deal that adds another $30 to my bill and about 50 channels I don't need. I don't give a rat's patoot about the sports channels, etc., but why take away the one of the only HD channels that is actually worth watching? I'm very much in favor of a la carté...and can't wait until my township stops screwing around with unreasonable demands that are keeping VZ from finishing FiOS installation so I at least have an alternative. A la carté and competition are what I am hoping for... | |
|
| | RayWPremium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
kudos:1 | Re: This is bad! I may have to get cable! said by buckingham:...and can't wait until my township stops screwing around with unreasonable demands that are keeping VZ from finishing FiOS installation so I at least have an alternative. What do you consider unreasonable? Full community service? Guaranteed minimum level of service quality? That was what AT&T thought was unreasonable 4 or so years ago here (according to one of the people on the board), Comcast did not, so we have Comcast now.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
|
| | Sort of makes sense Lots of pros and cons, but the big picture might well turn out to be a forcing of hands...the comment about getting our video over the internet is really the twist, especially in light of the providers wishing to charge the content providers for bandwidth.
Think about it...
Some of us will pay for a bundle of 6-10 channels we watch regularly.
Some of us will pay for "unlimited" channels.
Some of us still won't pay to watch any tv.
Not very much unlike the internet business model.
Some folks are willing to pay for prepackaged content from their ISP is a "safe" zone (former AOL customers).
Some of us are willing to pay for the 5 to 20 web sites we use daily (excluding search engine results, p2p, etc...). I'm talking www-based "services", such as BBR, Itunes...
Some folks still don't find value in anything connected with the internet.
Should the government drive this? Not sure I am one to say, but obviously the marketplace hasn't really responded to differentiate and their does appear to be a tendency of the large incumbents to settle into a cozy oligopoly.
Imagine making cell phones a mass market product like the old wireline phones bought cheaply at wal-mart. Bring choices to the consumer market and the populace will speak.
Content over the internet will require subscriptions with each content provider, rather than via the incumbent. That's really all ALA Cart appaears to envision as desirable. It certainly is ILEC friendly given their design to utilize IP as the delivery protocol from the start...
Anyhoo...just another idea to toss in the mix. | |
|
| | Its just fair. I dont want watch much TV because I dont have time but I could do with 5 channels just fine. Yet I get around 100 channels which are all worthless to me and im sure im paying for. Now that isnt fair.
Give me:
Discovery
Comedy Central
Nick
Univision
--
2001 Pontiac Firebird V6 3.8L
Mods:
Flowmasters Cat-back Exhaust System
Cold Air Intake
| |
|
| | Thats all I want... Is that so much to ask? Discovery, History and all the locals | |
|
|
|
