TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
1 edit |  Lawsuit at least names the content providers .....
.... which are the main cause of high prices for cable and satellite TV costs.
The lawsuit names the worst offenders in the bundling of unneeded channels that nobody watches - the content providers. Any attempt to force a la carte will fail if there are no sanctions on the content providers and only go after the cable companies like Martin from the FCC is trying to do.
The companies named in the suit are NBC Universal Inc., Viacom Inc., The Walt Disney Co., Fox Entertainment Group Inc., Time Warner Inc., Comcast Cable Communications Inc., Cox Communications Inc., The DirecTV Group Inc., Echostar Satellite LLC, Charter Communications Inc. and Cablevision Systems Corp.
--
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
majortom1029
join:2006-10-19
Lindenhurst, NY | hmm
Why is verizon not included in this. In a lot of cases they are actually more expensive then cablevision . So why arent they included in this? |
|
lew_jean
join:2005-05-13
Marietta, GA | Let me pay for what I want
Why should I have to pay for the shopping channels, sports channels, all the other channels I do not want or care for and lets not forget all the music channels.
we may watch about 15 channels it that much
|
|
Jmartz
join:2000-07-20
Tenafly, NJ
1 edit | Just think about it:
Everyone SHARES the cost of channels, even channels they don't watch.
A La Carte... 1/4 the number of people share the same cost (prices wont come down)... so that means the cost for the channel will increase to maintain the same revnue... so you're going to be paying the same, if not more, for LESS.
And, a lot of channels will go out of business if people don't subscribe. So you will have less to chose from, at a higher price.
It doesn't make sense to do a la carte. I prefer the packages, if Cable wants to do that, then give people a choice... people who want A La Carte can have it... but I want to keep my programming bundles. |
|
mrfuzzy
@comcast.net
thumbs down from:
TKJunkMail 
| reply to lew_jean
So if you bought your fifteen channels you watch say at a reasonably price of $5 per….. That’s $75.... Now for *extended basic* (80 channels) generally goes for $53 |
|
Toadman
Hypnotoad
join:2001-11-28
Medina, OH | Sue the solution
Great, now my cable operator will have another reason to raise the bill. Legal fees to defend themselves from this yahoo and his (undefined $$$ damages). He takes millions, forces us to pay more. Good Job! |
|
Chuckles
Premium
join:2006-03-04
Saint Paul, MN
1 edit | How about...
A la carte taxation?!
My job would suck even more if there was a la carte pricing. Imagine the calls... 400 people in queue all wanting to change their lineup. Please remove channels a,b,c,d and e and add on w,x,y and z. Whattaya mean everytime I change my line up I have to pay $1.99? Why does channel a cost more than channel b. Your company is ripping me off! Why do I have to hold for 10 minutes?
HAAAAAAAHA! |
|
wentlanc
You Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH
| Lets face it.....
Consumers in EVERY market are becoming fed up with being strong-armed by these industries to purchase enhanced services that are strategically designed to make people spend more money. It all stems from the desire to appease stockholders greed, rather than offering truly competitive services, and return some value to the customer. This is true for wireless services, telephone, broadband, broadcast services, the list goes on and one. Guess what corporations, people are starting to really feel the pinch, and won't take it forever.
Ah well... This will be interesting..
CW |
|
i1me2ao
Premium
join:2001-03-03
TEXAS | spanish
why cant all the Spanish channels be bundled in one area instead of spread out..
--
»www.thereligionofpeace.com/ |
|
Jim Gurd
Premium
join:2000-07-08
Plymouth, MI
 ·AT&T DSL Service
·Comcast
| reply to lew_jean
Re: Let me pay for what I want
said by lew_jean :Why should I have to pay for the shopping channels, Actually you don't. The shopping channels pay the cable companies to carry them. I can live with that if it brings down the monthly fee.
--
We don't care. We don't have to. We're the phone company.
-- Ernestine |
|
Chuckles
Premium
join:2006-03-04
Saint Paul, MN
| reply to wentlanc
Re: Lets face it.....
said by wentlanc :Consumers in EVERY market are becoming fed up with being strong-armed by these industries to purchase enhanced services that are strategically designed to make people spend more money. Now that people know businesses are strategizing to get their money do you think they'll stop spending? No.
Isn't that what a business is? A concept to get money.
People think they need cable television and that they need cell phones and expensive clothes, etc...
No one is being strong armed. People just can't stop spending.
--
kustomerservice.net |
|
bob saget
@comcast.net | Have we all forgotten that cable is a “LUXUARY” service? |
|
JSRoman
Premium
join:2005-03-10
Callahan, FL
| Here if the future if they get what they want.
Customers thing they are paying a lot now, just wait if this crap ever happens. You will get less channels and the ones that are left will be more expensive.
Bravo,AMC,Discovery,Biography,History,Currentv,SCIFI, would probably all be in trouble just to name a few. Shopping channels which I hate but little old ladies love, would go adios.
--
»www.seabee.navy.mil |
|
JSRoman
Premium
join:2005-03-10
Callahan, FL
| reply to i1me2ao
Re: spanish
said by i1me2ao :why cant all the Spanish channels be bundled in one area instead of spread out.. On Directv all the spanish channels are bundled together and you only purchase them if you want those channels. Who is your tv provider that has them all spread out.?
--
»www.seabee.navy.mil |
|
BuriedCaesar
It's Not Polite To Stare.
join:2004-03-27
Richardson, TX
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Yahoo
| reply to mrfuzzy
Re: Let me pay for what I want
$5 per channel? Still not worth it.
Try $2-$3 max per channel. That might entice me to consider getting cable. Maybe.
Then again, taxes and fees and whatnot else they want to try to tack on below the line will still probably push it close to $5 per channel anyway.
What am I missing by not having cable? Not much.
--
That was preposterous! Utter Nonsense! Totally unsupportable drivel! You can't be serious!....Um, what did you say? |
|
n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY
·Optimum Online
| Bye Bye ESPN!
I would love to not have to pay for the sports channels; ESPN, ESPN 2, ESPN whatever, Yes!, SNY, etc. Being the most expensive "Basic" channels currently running, removing them alone would probably cut the content cost by 30%-40%.
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears. |
|
brandon
Some truth included in this post.
Premium
join:2003-03-31
Hurley, MS
·AT&T Southeast
1 edit | reply to mrfuzzy
Re: Let me pay for what I want
said by mrfuzzy :
So if you bought your fifteen channels you watch say at a reasonably price of $5 per….. That’s $75.... Now for *extended basic* (80 channels) generally goes for $53
Ah, but what about me who watches MSNBC, CNN, Comedy Central, and Fox on rare occasions? My bill just went down to $25. And if it's cheaper than $5/month, then my bill goes down even more.
The FCC is requiring them to offer a la carte...not necessarily making it the only option. Thus, bundlers could still save if they want 15 channels, and those of us that want 5 could save as well. No one seriously watches the 80 channels on "extended basic." |
|
swhx7
Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to Jmartz
The only way ala carte would help subscribers is if all the channels were priced the same. The same as each other, that is, regardless of popularity. That way, the cablecos would make less profit as a percentage on more popular channels (because their payments to content providers are higher) and more on less popular channels. So, on ESPN and HBO they would make pennies or take a loss; on golf channel they would make more. But with larger volume on the popular channels it might almost even out.
This would be good for subscribers because it would provide an incentive for the cableco to keep the smaller channels available; and they would have to keep the bigger channels to keep customers.
If they have to offer ala carte but prices are not required to be the same for every channel, they will charge according to demand, and drop less-watched channels, and cable will descend to the lowest common denominator - just sports, big Hollywood movies and those so-called "reality" shows. |
|
MrMoody
But the Grinch ... did Not.
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC
·Embarq
 ·Skype
·magicjack.com
| Cartels
I guess it's good they're starting to notice, but there are plenty of cartels ripping people off in this country besides the entertainment and cable industries, some much worse. Telcos, banks, oil, drug companies, the list goes on and on, and we've been letting them join up freely for about 15 years now.
--
"It is a future in which globalization really does work ... and everybody winds up getting to be part of the third world." - William Gibson |
|
