how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
| reply to MadMANN
Re: Idiots! said by MadMANN:You keep saying that MSOs should get the public on their side by giving this info to the public. Every time there is a rate increase or a channel not added to a lineup they try to explain this. The consumer base in this business is very apathetic, however, and only wants what they want when they want it. And if a cable co can't provide it, they are the evil company. I have seen this done twice EVER in my area. Both times ABC was the subject and this happened once in the 80's and once in the 90's BEFORE I had cable. It was well publicized on the local TV stations. Otherwise, the cable company rolled over and took it.
And, I suspect, one reason the cable companies don't fight too hard is because it would help those who want ala carte rules in place. | |
 MadMANNPremium
join:2005-08-19
kudos:2 | said by moonpuppy:And, I suspect, one reason the cable companies don't fight too hard is because it would help those who want ala carte rules in place. You are entitled to believe what you want. The truth is, is that content providers must sell their content on a per-channel basis, rather than selling a group of channels to MSOs for ala-carte to become a reality.
The NFL Network and the BTN are networks that want ridiculous amounts of money AND want EVERYONE to pay for them. Both of these channels are only good for about 4 months out of the year. And these are just single networks. Now picture Viacom who wants to make the same or more amount of money, selling each individual network. You think rates for those channels are high now?
Again, these things come at a price. You want ala-carte? Well, that's great, but you will pay for that too. | |
| said by MadMANN:said by moonpuppy:And, I suspect, one reason the cable companies don't fight too hard is because it would help those who want ala carte rules in place. You are entitled to believe what you want. The truth is, is that content providers must sell their content on a per-channel basis, rather than selling a group of channels to MSOs for ala-carte to become a reality. The NFL Network and the BTN are networks that want ridiculous amounts of money AND want EVERYONE to pay for them. Both of these channels are only good for about 4 months out of the year. And these are just single networks. Now picture Viacom who wants to make the same or more amount of money, selling each individual network. You think rates for those channels are high now? Again, these things come at a price. You want ala-carte? Well, that's great, but you will pay for that too. It's funny how Comcast will fight against NFL but not ABC/Disney/ESPN. 
Ala carte is the ultimate form of capitalism. If people want the channels, they will thrive. If not, they go bye bye. | |
MadMANNPremium
join:2005-08-19
kudos:2 | said by moonpuppy:It's funny how Comcast will fight against NFL but not ABC/Disney/ESPN. Ala carte is the ultimate form of capitalism. If people want the channels, they will thrive. If not, they go bye bye. It's not so funny. It's actually quite simple. It's much easier to fight a specialty network that offers one single type of programming that caters to a fraction of a subscriber base for a quarter year than it is for a much larger content provider who offers incredibly diverse and popular programming that caters to 100% of the subscriber base on different networks all year 'round.
As far as ala-carte is concerned, I, personally am not against the idea, but a LOT of changes in the industry as a whole would have to be made before it can even be considered. What I do NOT approve of, is any law that chases after the MSOs to offer it without chasing after the content providers to change their ways as well. If they only go after one without the other, the consumer can not benefit at all where pricing is concerned. | |
|
