how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
Re: A la carte still not a good deal Maybe you misunderstood what you posted.
It doesnt matter if I pay $50 for 150 channels or 1000 channels. If I only really watch 17 channels and those are the only ones I want, then I should have the option of not even getting the others and only paying for those 17. Even if it only saves me $5-$15 a month. Maybe I don't want them because of the content they deliver (TBS and MTV fall into that category). Regardless, getting and paying for channels I don't want just so we can say the cost per channel is lower is pure BS. If you honestly watch more than 20 channels regularly, then you would still opt to bundle. That's your choice and would benefit you more. I personally would only subscribe to 6 channels and get my locals (in HD) over the air.
The studies don't need to mention the premium channels. I may be going out on a limb here, but maybe that's because they are ALREADY a la carte.
Personally I would say yes, they need to be required to do this and pricing should be mandated by the FCC until the water settles. They certainly won't opt to do it on their own so someone needs to make them.
As mentioned in the report, they have no idea how much some of the channels are truly costing so until all that is ironed out the FCC should make sure the consumers are not gouged. Until the subscriber base is settled, it may be hard to determine the price per sub a channel is costing. However, that can be estimated based on the licensing fees required for the channel(s). Based on the report if a household can get 20 channels (average only watches 17) and pay about the same, than that should be the target the FCC shoots for.
I am not sure how much of the report you read, if any. I personally just went over the first 25 or so pages. It is a pretty good report and does a much better job of delivering both sides instead of being industry biased like the other one. It is simply amazing that that other report made so many assumptions, many of which are false, and delivered them as facts. | |
 JRW2R.I.P. Mom, Brian, Ziggy, Max and Zen.Premium
join:2004-12-20
La La Land
kudos:5
 ·Optimum Online
| said by Skippy25:Maybe you misunderstood what you posted. It doesnt matter if I pay $50 for 150 channels or 1000 channels. If I only really watch 17 channels and those are the only ones I want, then I should have the option of not even getting the others and only paying for those 17. Even if it only saves me $5-$15 a month. Maybe I don't want them because of the content they deliver (TBS and MTV fall into that category). Regardless, getting and paying for channels I don't want just so we can say the cost per channel is lower is pure BS. If you honestly watch more than 20 channels regularly, then you would still opt to bundle. That's your choice and would benefit you more. I personally would only subscribe to 6 channels and get my locals (in HD) over the air. The studies don't need to mention the premium channels. I may be going out on a limb here, but maybe that's because they are ALREADY a la carte. Personally I would say yes, they need to be required to do this and pricing should be mandated by the FCC until the water settles. They certainly won't opt to do it on their own so someone needs to make them. As mentioned in the report, they have no idea how much some of the channels are truly costing so until all that is ironed out the FCC should make sure the consumers are not gouged. Until the subscriber base is settled, it may be hard to determine the price per sub a channel is costing. However, that can be estimated based on the licensing fees required for the channel(s). Based on the report if a household can get 20 channels (average only watches 17) and pay about the same, than that should be the target the FCC shoots for. I am not sure how much of the report you read, if any. I personally just went over the first 25 or so pages. It is a pretty good report and does a much better job of delivering both sides instead of being industry biased like the other one. It is simply amazing that that other report made so many assumptions, many of which are false, and delivered them as facts. I think you are responding to me, so I will admit what I typed may have not been clear...
If 150 channels from cable/sat/etc cost $50, then each channel will have a price associated with it, but the total cost to get all 150 channels via A La Cart should NOT cost more than the original $50. So now I only want 20 to 30 of those channels, and just for argument sake, they are the most expensive of the original 150 channels, the total for ALL of them should NEVER cost more than $50, and SHOULD in actuality cost no more than around $20 to $30. Anything more and they are just gouging us, and that is why A La Cart should allow EVERYONE to save a boatload of cash, since most of us will never watch most of the channels...
--
Warning, I have one poster on my radar, who has a problem if your opinion disagrees with their’s. RIAA... Bite me!!!! | |
 Ebolla
join:2005-09-28
Dracut, MA | dont forget though that as a channel has less subscribers the cost associated to that channel does go up. So 20 channels you choose may actually cost the same if not more then 150 channels bundled.
Think of it like a fast food place, cheeseburger+ fries+ drink seperate will cost you more then getting the "meals". | |
|
