More channels = higher price in http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r20534051 en Wed, 11 Nov 2009 04:45:26 EDT Wed, 11 Nov 2009 04:45:26 EDT Re: More channels = higher price http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20537508 KrK :
said by BF69 See Profile :

Per channel cost no it wouldn't be cheaper. But since I would be paying VASTLY fewer channels yes it would be cheaper.
It *SHOULD* Be cheaper. A lot cheaper. But it won't be. It will be like at&t and unbundled DSL. Sure you can get DSL only with no POTS. For $5 MORE a month then it costs for POTS + DSL.

I expect they'll deliberately price ala carte that way. Make the price if a few ala carte channels so high that it would be cheaper and more economical to stick to some tier or package.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20537508 Sun, 25 May 2008 13:54:45 EDT Re: More channels = higher price http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20537273 funchords :
said by GOLFnSUN See Profile :

The debate is - would a la carte, where you pay only for that 13%, cost less than the whole package of channels. The FCC says a la carte would be cheaper. The cable companies and Hollywood say it won't.
If the Internet is allowed to be unfettered by interference, then a la carte doesn't matter anymore. I could subscribe directly to any single content provider (or package) that I wanted. (I probably wouldn't sign up this way, as I like TV delivered the way it is.)
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
HTTP is the new Bandwidth Hog...
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20537273 Sun, 25 May 2008 12:36:44 EDT Re: More channels = higher price http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20535847 dvd536 :
said by Morac See Profile :

Just because the "stuff" to price ratio is better now than it was 10 years ago, doesn't mean it's a better value.

10 years ago, I watched a handful of channels and didn't use VOD. Today, I watch a handful of channels and rarely, if ever, use VOD.

So I don't care if there are tenfold more (mostly crappy) channels compared to a decade ago. That doesn't make cable a bargain.
Look at your program guide after 10pm. most are "paid programming". hardly more value per dollar than years ago[unless you're an advertising exec]
Ala carte would show the true number of channels people ACTUALLY watch. the others would just die out[must carry needs to go]
--
When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20535847 Sat, 24 May 2008 23:55:07 EDT Re: More channels = higher price http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20534715 BF69 :
said by GOLFnSUN See Profile :

said by Morac See Profile :

10 years ago, I watched a handful of channels and didn't use VOD. Today, I watch a handful of channels and rarely, if ever, use VOD.
An interesting stat from the story:

watch only a fraction of what they pay for — on average, a mere 13 percent of the 118 channels available to them.
The debate is - would a la carte, where you pay only for that 13%, cost less than the whole package of channels. The FCC says a la carte would be cheaper. The cable companies and Hollywood say it won't.
Per channel cost no it wouldn't be cheaper. But since I would be paying VASTLY fewer channels yes it would be cheaper.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20534715 Sat, 24 May 2008 18:29:08 EDT Re: More channels = higher price http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20534374 S_engineer : Well think of it this way, if the cablecos are saying these "package deals" are cheaper, and we see 15% annual increases on them, then you know they'd rape on ala carte!
--
"Anything worth having is worth cheating for." WC Fields]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20534374 Sat, 24 May 2008 17:01:05 EDT Re: More channels = higher price http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20534067 GOLFnSUN :
said by Morac See Profile :

10 years ago, I watched a handful of channels and didn't use VOD. Today, I watch a handful of channels and rarely, if ever, use VOD.
An interesting stat from the story:

watch only a fraction of what they pay for — on average, a mere 13 percent of the 118 channels available to them.
The debate is - would a la carte, where you pay only for that 13%, cost less than the whole package of channels. The FCC says a la carte would be cheaper. The cable companies and Hollywood say it won't.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20534067 Sat, 24 May 2008 15:30:01 EDT More channels = higher price http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20534051 Morac : Just because the "stuff" to price ratio is better now than it was 10 years ago, doesn't mean it's a better value.

10 years ago, I watched a handful of channels and didn't use VOD. Today, I watch a handful of channels and rarely, if ever, use VOD.

So I don't care if there are tenfold more (mostly crappy) channels compared to a decade ago. That doesn't make cable a bargain.
--

The Comcast Disney Avatar has been retired.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20534051 Sat, 24 May 2008 15:24:21 EDT