how-to block ads
|
|
Uniqs:
163 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
| What's the big deal? Okay, I pay around $60 a month for cable (the wife loves her movie channels), and I get too damn many channels to count. And, like everyone, I only watch maybe 10. But every once in a while, I like to channel surf. Why would I want an a la carte pricing structure? The cableco is never going to lower channel pricing low enough that it'll make a significant dent in my bill, and if I only got ten channels and suddenly there was something interesting on another channel that I just *had* to watch, I'd be out of luck.
I'd much rather have 300 channels at $60 than 10 for $45. | |
| 300 for 60 vs. 10 for 45?
You need to look at www.bigdish.com to get an idea of exactly how much a la carte SHOULD cost.
Take the basic 12.00 (20 channel, ABC/NBC/CBS/FOX/WB/UPN/etc) lineup that all cableco's are required.
Then add in the cost of the '10' channels you watch. Most likely, that's only going to add about 15-20/month. Your total bill would be 27-32.00, not 60.00, and you'd still watch the same things.
Around here, the '50' additional channels, of which I only watch 4-5 of them, costs almost 50.00 by itself. (65.00 bill). Under the a la carte plan, I'd only pay about 18.00 a month for the basic + 5 channels I watch.
Cost difference over a year : 780.00 (old) vs. 216.00 (new), and I STILL watch exactly the same things. Sure, no ESPN, Golf Network or Telemundo, or HSN, but I don't want to pay for those. I'd much rather have 564.00/year in my pocket than give it to ESPN.
Who benefits from the change? Why, ME the customer. Sure, that's a strange and scary concept for the corporate apologists, but the FCC exists 'FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD', not to ensure cable companies make money.
--
Sure the internet has lots of porn and piracy, but I'm sure there's a downside to it. | |
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| said by G_Poobah:Who benefits from the change? Why, ME the customer. Sure, that's a strange and scary concept for the corporate apologists, but the FCC exists 'FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD', not to ensure cable companies make money. Oh I so wish it really was the way you say, and would work out that way.
But I stronly believe that the Cable companies would not fairly price ala carte offerings. They would simply raise prices on channels people want so that their profits stay the same (or potentially, are even higher) even if the consumer only gets 2 dozen channels vs 200.
I'd love to think the Bigdish prices would reflect the Cable companies prices, but alas, based on their history, I would say not a chance.
--
"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!) | |
|
