 drslashGoya AsmaPremium
join:2002-02-18
Marion, IA | Let the crap channels die on the vine I would like to see how many channels could survive on their own. I would also like to see the most expensive channels, like the many ESPN flavors, only get revenue from those who watch. ESPN is probably the biggest reason for annual or semi-annual cable rate hikes.
--
Save water...drink beer! |
|
| And they may not even "die". Why not let the niche stuff move online....over the next ten years it seems like that's going to be the natural evolution anyway. |
|
 wdoa
join:2001-10-16
Spencer, MA
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to drslash
yup, I would love to quit subsidizing the sports channel. I watch virtually no sports yet I know that much of my cable bill goes towards supporting the sports channel. I once had a cable exec in my local office tell me that 50% of his programming budget went to the sports channels. |
|
 sporkmedrop the crantini and move it, sisterPremium,MVM
join:2000-07-01
Morristown, NJ
 ·Optimum Online
| said by wdoa:yup, I would love to quit subsidizing the sports channel. I watch virtually no sports yet I know that much of my cable bill goes towards supporting the sports channel. Nothing would make me happier than having the people that watch that crap pay full price for it. |
|
| reply to wdoa
And that's one of the biggest reasons that cable will have a hard time going "a la carte."
ESPN makes them pay a fee per subscriber to carry ESPN and the other ESPN channels. No matter if cable can show the numbers of customers watching or not.
Same thing with the NFL network, and why TWC won't carry it. Because the NFL wants per subscriber fees paid.
If the FCC is going to mandate "a la carte" for cable, then the FCC is going to have to step in and stop content providers from charging per cable subscriber instead of per channel viewer. |
|
| said by smcallah:Same thing with the NFL network, and why TWC won't carry it. Because the NFL wants per subscriber fees paid. Is that why my TWC is like $60 cheaper than Cox, for essentially the same package? I mean the only difference is that I had the 10/1 internet with Cox and with TWC I have half the speed, but TWC gives free basic HD, doesn't charge extra for an HD-DVR vs. a regular cable box, and the DVR service fee is cheaper. My bill is like $102 with TWC versus the nearly $170 I had been paying with Cox.
Plus the picture quality on TWC is dramatically better than Cox...even on analog channels. |
|
Reviews:
·Bright House
| reply to drslash
said by drslash:I would like to see how many channels could survive on their own. I would also like to see the most expensive channels, like the many ESPN flavors, only get revenue from those who watch. ESPN is probably the biggest reason for annual or semi-annual cable rate hikes. I know for a fact that ESPN is the major reason. I agree with sports related packages, you should be FORCED to have a Sports Tier to cover those fans who love it, and protect those who could give a rats ass. I could care less about any kind of ball game being played. Now watching someone get their ass kicked, thats a different story, but not much of that goes on anymore on ESPN, etc...
--
SIPPhone/Gizmo # 17476200648 / PIMPNET Chatline / Ran by Asterisk & Slackware 10.1. |
|
