 JRW2R.I.P. Mom, Brian, Ziggy, Max and Zen.Premium
join:2004-12-20
La La Land
kudos:5
 ·Optimum Online
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
Re: A la carte still not a good deal said by fAcEtIOUs:The new study really hasn't changed the fact that using a la carte still gets you a lot less channels for the same price. If you only watch a few channels, maybe it will work for you. But look at these items from the press release of the new study: The corrected calculations show that a subscriber could receive as many as 20 channels, including six broadcast signals, without seeing an increase in his or her monthly bill. This is more than the 17 channels that the average television household watches.
if a la carte were only implemented on digital cable systems with appropriate set top boxes in place, then a la carte could result in a 1.97 percent decrease in consumers’ bills.
Sure, I am going to go a la carte and get 20 channels instead of the 150 I have and save nothing. Just break even. And these studies don't mention at all the costs of premium packages that include HBO, Sho, etc. Will the cable companies do a la carte without being forced to by a law?? I doubt it. And if they do, it will surely be priced so that they make more money - not less. See that's where the FCC has to put their foot down...
If I am paying $50 a month for 125 channels, then A La Cart for the same channels can NOT cost more...
Otherwise they are just gouging the customers...
This way you ONLY pay for the channels you want and save a BOATLOAD of cash!!
--
Warning, I have one poster on my radar, who has a problem if your opinion disagrees with their’s. RIAA... Bite me!!!! |
|
| said by JRW2:See that's where the FCC has to put their foot down... If I am paying $50 a month for 125 channels, then A La Cart for the same channels can NOT cost more... Otherwise they are just gouging the customers... This way you ONLY pay for the channels you want and save a BOATLOAD of cash!! I agree with an earlier poster that it is the content providers that drive these high costs and not the cable and satellite companies. And all these possible new regulations do nothing to change that fact. In effect the press and the anti-cable and anti-satellite groupies are going after the wrong target. They are trying to stick it to the middle-men instead of the manufacturer.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
My Web Page
Conrail Photo Album |
|
Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| The content providers have to pay for the new HDTV equipment, editing facilities and time, distribution, legal work, marketing, production, employees, music rights...
PBS does some cutting edge productions and yet, they are considerbly cheaper than HGTV costs (home crap and relicensing of TOH, AskTOH...).
Cartoon Network Adult Swim is not going to separate channel. Unless the content is.
Did some of you forget SciFi (wish that was HD)?
History Channel. Discovery Channel. BBC News. |
|
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
You're missing the point on how a la carte affects content creators. It pushes a free-market system upon them, and they'll need to compete for viewers rather than achieve revenues based upon overall system subscribers. Part of me loves a la carte because I find it obscene that sports networks have to pay huge contracts to carry sports that I do not watch. Right now, I'm charged whether I like it or not.
What they do not say however, is that this will indeed impact programming diversity. Many channels will simply disappear under a la carte programming if they can't find a core audience that's willing to pay for the product. In a real world, that's the way it should work. In our world, it'll result in more programming to the lowest common denominator and cheap reality or knock-off shows that have no creativity.
A la carte would be a good thing albiet initially painful. It's just getting out of hand the costs passed onto the consumer, and it's time to put some free market forces into play on the sports and Hollywood types. |
|
| said by clickie:You're missing the point on how a la carte affects content creators. It pushes a free-market system upon them, and they'll need to compete for viewers rather than achieve revenues based upon overall system subscribers. But the mechanism to do what you want pushes a regulated environment on the carriers instead of the providers. If the real problem is that providers won't sell unbundled channels, then the solution should be a law that says providers have to sell a la carte to the cable and satellite companies. Go to the source of the problem and regulate them instead of the middle-men.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
My Web Page
Conrail Photo Album |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | Actually, it should affect both, and I think it would. I sincerely doubt that the cablo co's would be required to unbundle without the content providers also required to unbundle. I'm sure their lobbyists will make sure this is how it comes about. Content providers only bundle it up because cable co's would just drop all their other channels and rake in more profit. |
|
