| Don't like the way that sounds. I dunno. Sounds like double talk in regards to what a la carte should really provide. He's saying the smaller and newer channels will be the ones you can pick, but doesn't mention the "popular" channels. This is the deal for me. I DON'T WANT ESPN. None of it. Not a single channel. Sports channels are probably the most expensive part of your cable bill. I heard nothing in the way Martin worded his "pro-carte" that would give customers a real choice.
Here's what I think. Smaller fringe channels, they aren't the problem with your cable bill. It's the big channels. If you don't want certain big channels then you shouldn't pay for them. This is where a la carte should focus on. Not on whether or not you want to pay for the The Cooking Channel (which probably costs you less having that and a dozen other special interest channels than TNT or Comedy Central). |
|
Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| You are right I read most channels cost .30 per viewer while ESPN charges $3.00. The problem is a la carte will be favorable to channels that pull the most viewers making niche cannels very vulnerable.
Not mention ESPN pulls in business from chain restaurant like Old Chicago, Chilies and Applebee’s and a host of local sports bars. ESPN will not be going anywhere. |
|
|
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | If the cable companies are also charged A La Carte by the content creators then it really doesn't matter if very few watch the channel, as long as more bandwidth is still available. With the elimination of analogue channels there should be plenty of room for variety. |
|
