 qdemn7Smurf in My LoopPremium
join:2003-09-16
Fort Worth, TX | reply to b10010011
Re: A la carte will end up with less choice said by b10010011:Because the popular channels in a programming tier support the less popular channels. If a la carte gets pushed on us with in a few years the number of channels to chose from will start to decline. Eventually cable companies will only carry a few popular channels because it will not be worth it for them to carry less popular channels if no one is buying them. A la carte = A la crappy  That is exactly what will happen but people are too hard-headed to realize that.  If a la carte hits, within 5 years the number of channels will probably 1/4 of what they are now, and then the same people crying for a la carte now will be crying about a lack of "choice".
--
“We want the Republicans out of our bedroom and the Democrats out of our wallet and both out of our First and Second Amendment rights." - Alan Nathan |
|
| You mean I'd only have a choice of three shopping channels and not ten? 
Show me where the bad outwieghed the good in an a la carte offering? Which national cable provider has made such an offering longterm and provided evidence to such a conclusion. |
|
| reply to qdemn7
said by qdemn7:said by b10010011:Because the popular channels in a programming tier support the less popular channels. If a la carte gets pushed on us with in a few years the number of channels to chose from will start to decline. Eventually cable companies will only carry a few popular channels because it will not be worth it for them to carry less popular channels if no one is buying them. A la carte = A la crappy That is exactly what will happen but people are too hard-headed to realize that. If a la carte hits, within 5 years the number of channels will probably 1/4 of what they are now, and then the same people crying for a la carte now will be crying about a lack of "choice". Oh darn... I mean come one, choice to me does not mean that I should pay for 250 freaking channels as part of a package. You and I both know that the normal person probably only watches 30 of those at the most. The lack of "choice" that you speak about is all of the stupid no name channels that NO ONE EVER WATCHES |
|
|
|
| reply to qdemn7
No one will be crying in 5 years after it, people will be rejoicing all the crap channels get weeded out and finally the best/popular ones will be on TV on.
A la carte = great |
|
 celeritypcFor Lucky Best Wash, Use Mr. SparklePremium
join:2004-05-15
Caldwell, NJ | said by markopoleo:No one will be crying in 5 years after it, people will be rejoicing all the crap channels get weeded out and finally the best/popular ones will be on TV on. A la carte = great One man's crap is another's treasure. Just because you think a channel is crap or it does not receive the high ratings of other channels (which may indeed be crap) does not mean everybody does.
What a la carte will signify is the end of niche channels that may only be of interest to a limited audience and people will no longer have exposure to these channels perhaps finding out they like them. We will all end up with the same generic entertainment and massively expensive sports programming.
I have always felt the real solution is creating tiers of channels of similar interest. Also, by just removing sports programming from the general line up and letting those who want sports pay extra, we would all see a reduction in price with no reduction (and perhaps, the addition) of new channels. RSNs and ESPN et al represent about 25% or so of the cost of the channel lineup I now have. Keep in mind, I am just talking programming costs, not other costs associated with cable service. |
|
| While total 'a la carte' has a good sound the bottom line is that you will end up paying more. They did a partial 'a la carte' here some years ago, kinda of a basic package plus 'a la carte' and guess what happened- all the good popular channels were 'a la carte' and most of the basic (besides the 'BIG 3' and the local PBS) channels were shopping ,religion, and fluff- and this money saving idea cost most people more/ cable companies loved it.
McCain has lately with this and the illegals thing has dropped many notches with me. |
|
 pb5kCan't TriforcePremium
join:2005-11-16
Glendale, AZ | reply to celeritypc
Come to think of it I like your plan quite a bit. I don't watch much TV but when I do it's FX, History, Discovery or Scifi with a venture into SpikeTV when they have star trek reruns. No "news" channels (google news is faster to the punch anyway) and no sports channels. Sorry, I don't like to watch one millionaire tackle another millionaire (unless it's donald trump vs. bill gates, I would pay to see that.)
Personally I'd like an option to banish your least favorite options to a selectable level of hell. I would place G4TV in the worst level, to be tortured by imps and people that drive too slow in the fast lane.  |
|
 Combat ChuckToo Many CannibalsPremium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA
1 edit | reply to markopoleo
said by markopoleo:No one will be crying in 5 years after it, people will be rejoicing all the crap channels get weeded out and finally the best/popular ones will be on TV on. A la carte = great I guarantee you that you have at least one channel you watch that would be gone with a-la-carte.
Heck I wouldn't be at all surprised if you saw even moderately popular channels like the history channel and Discovery adversely affected by this. Everyone watches these somewhat educational networks but many people don't realize how much they do and will likely go without them to save a couple bucks.
MY concern with a-la-carte is purely selfish tho. I have fairly eclectic taste in media (My favorite movie is Kung Fu Hustle, and I'm happy that Cartoon network has started showing Billy and Mandy again) so it's hard enough to find shows I like now.
--
gau gau |
|
Combat ChuckToo Many CannibalsPremium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA | reply to GhostDoggy
said by GhostDoggy:You mean I'd only have a choice of three shopping channels and not ten? Can we, as a society, stop using the shopping channels as examples of crap we don't watch.
You don't pay for them anyway and with a-la-cart you're still going to have access to them weather you want them or not being as you aren't paying for them in the first place.
--
gau gau |
|
| I'm not paying for them? Then how come they are included in my top 180 channel line up, like the other garbage music, infomercial and religious fluff they stick in my package just so they can say I'm getting 180 channels? I PAYfor the channel line up, don't I? Have you ever flipped through the channel line up and seen what that crap is? Let the good programs weed out the fluff bad programs and guess what? The overpaid Hollywood "actors" and producers will will have to earn their money by putting out a better product. |
|
Combat ChuckToo Many CannibalsPremium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA | Correct, you're not.
said by OceanaJones:Then how come they are included in my top 180 channel line up Because they are 24 hour commercials and most likely they pay the operator to run them.
said by OceanaJones:like the other garbage music... ... and religious fluff they stick in my package just so they can say I'm getting 180 channels? Those are a different issue, you most likely are paying for those.
said by OceanaJones:I PAYfor the channel line up, don't I? yes, you also pay for newspapers and magazines and those have content that someone else is paying the publisher to include as well.
A-la-cart is not going to mean you won't have shopping channels, they're still going to be included with any other channels you choose.
--
gau gau |
|
