MaroonGuru
join:2003-09-03
Oconomowoc, WI
| reply to ashworth
Re: Really bad.
said by ashworth  :This is a billing nightmare to the service providers and a few companies own most of the cable channels. So if you want MTV you get BET too, because it's owned by the same big media conglomerate(Viacom).....Is this a great country or what ?? If this is a billing nightmare, better call NPS and tell them to close shop. If making smaller packages is a bad thing, better get rid of Star Choice. NPS sells by the channel for many of their channels. They also sell a variety of packages from a Discovery Channel package to a get-it-all package. I usually order just the channels I want and add the Starz/Encore package to get some fun movies thrown in. (FYI Starz package is about 30 channels total with 4 in HD) I can even decide to go for 90 days, 180 days, or a full year to save even more. I pay about $30 every 3 months to get my selection of channels, and another $35.75 to get the 30 channels of Starz. All digital and better PQ than DBS.
Star Choice up in Canada has nice little bundles of packages to choose from so you can add just music or just sports. Seems to work fine.
I'm not saying it doesn't take a little more effort than giving only 3 or 4 packages, but in reality, the DBS providers are supporting dozens of different pricings and packages due to various offerings over the years. They're smart, and they can handle it. In fact, they may enjoy having the forced unbundling since it might break the strangehold Capital Cities (ABC/Disney/ESPN) currently enjoys. The DBS providers must carry ESPN and Disney at the basic level and this money goes mostly back to CapCities. If subscribers are freed from this, they may spend more on more profitable segments like PPV and premium channels. |
|
Cabletvanon
| reply to Chuckles
said by Chuckles :Are you the one to decide what's worth watching? No the people are. If they don't want to watch it because they hate the shows maybe they should make a better attempt at making programs that appeal to the consumer and we shouldn't be forced to pay for a channel we don't watch. |
|
imanogre
join:2005-11-29
Mcdonough, GA
| reply to Chuckles
said by Chuckles :I'm sorry you read "you" as consumers and not sharksfan3. Actually he said, "They could of course provide content worth watching." So even if you did mean sharksfan3, how in the world did you infer that sharskfan3 even suggested that should be the one whom decides what's worth watching. He's just simply suggesting that some stations have no consumers, or not enough to sustain their programming lineup.
No offense, and Perhaps I'm wrong, but I can't help but think that you are trying to put an anti Free Market spin on this. |
|
