 GreggEThinking - ThinkingPremium
join:2003-06-01
Mid Tenn | How bout this? They should set up a standard price like iTunes does. Maybe a $1 a channel for regular and $1.50 for premiums and you pick from a list of say 200 channels. If the cable companies want more money, offer better channels - if the channels want more money, offer a better product. I've got probably 200 channels and watch maybe 30 of them...some I have never watched and have no intention of ever watching.
Some channels should be a credit on your bill as well. Like home shopping networks. They are the ones that benefit from being in my home. |
|
|
|
 calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | Wait. You want a "standard" price, and then you say prices should vary. Which is it--or are you proposing that you, personally, get to dictate the "value" of channels?
This is insane. Channels charge cable companies rates based on subscribers--meaning that the channels assume that some subscribers will watch and some won't.
If "a la carte" means that fewer subscribers will sign up for a given channel, the rate per "signed up subscriber" will be much higher--and this will be passed along to the end user.
If this would supposedly "save" money, which industry segment is going to "give up" the money saved? Does anyone think that the cable companies, with direct end-user pricing control, are going to voluntarily cut their bottom line? Does anyone think MTV, CNN, TNT, WGN, or any of their parent corps will maintain the same feeds for less money? Do we expect the actors to accept lower residuals for cable distribution?
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
GreggEThinking - ThinkingPremium
join:2003-06-01
Mid Tenn | said by calvoiper:Wait. You want a "standard" price, and then you say prices should vary. Prices would vary on PREMIUM CHANNELS - not regular cable channels. You know, the ones without commercials?
said by calvoiper:If "a la carte" means that fewer subscribers will sign up for a given channel, the rate per "signed up subscriber" will be much higher--and this will be passed along to the end user. There again - you want more subscribers, offer better content on your channel. I'm not saying this is a perfect solution, but iTunes has done very well for themselves with standard pricing. (And yes theirs varies too - they offer video & tv downloads) |
|
| The real problem is the high cost of TV. Lets take the post about the Mens package, someone else came back and stated that ESPN would cost $10 a month.
That is ture, and why? because the NFL players get millions, the Networks also pay millions to carry the games. ESPN payed millions to have the games. So ESPN told the cable company if you want this channel you must make everyone pay for it. So it is part of basic cable and that is a $10 part of you $52 a month basic cable rate.
The fact that everyone don't whatch ESPN makes no difference you still pay for it because you have to. ESPN made sure of that when they made there deal with the cable company.
Greed is where it all started, and it is the millions paid to the players in this case that makes that channel be $10 a month in the first place. ESPN should be like the moive channels and become a pay tier.
The cable companys need to get back to a lower cost offerings. Like locals and a few supperstation and a few others for 10 bucks a month, for a minimun package.
The fact that you must pay more for a few HD channels when all channels are to change to HD in the next few years is a joke. Also pay more to use a hardware that records, or is HD ready. They just keep thinking of ways to charge you more money each month. Like the one guy said, I pay $140 a month for TV and he had no problem with that, he has the money but many familys do not. |
|
