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...
·