how-to block ads
|
-
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO | reply to TKJunkMail
Re: Well...
Both industries want it because it increases the profits of both. | |
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
| reply to skuv
said by skuv :
If he wants "a la carte" programming, then he needs to stop going after the cable companies for it.
Do you know why? Because of the CONTENT providers, not the service providers.
Can Martin be so stupid as to not realize that it is the CONTENT providers holding EVERY service provider hostage and not just cable at fault here?
If only cable companies are forced into "a la carte," how is that fair?
Good summary of the problem. It also makes Martin's motives obvious - a grudge against cable. If he really wanted a la carte to work, he would have to take on Hollywood studios and the telcos and the Sat TV providers.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? | |
skuv
@rr.com
 from:
TKJunkMail 
| If he wants "a la carte" programming, then he needs to stop going after the cable companies for it.
You don't see Sat providers, AT&T, or Verizon offering "a la carte." Do you?
Do you know why? Because of the CONTENT providers, not the service providers. If you want ESPN, then all of your subscribers have to pay for it, not just the ones that want to buy it "a la carte" or in a sports package. And if you want to carry ESPN, then Disney wants to you carry ABC Family, and ESPNU, and ESPN Classics. And collect a fee for every single channel for every single subscriber.
Can Martin be so stupid as to not realize that it is the CONTENT providers holding EVERY service provider hostage and not just cable at fault here?
Just like when DirecTV goes ahead and pays a fee for each subscriber to the NFL for the NFL Network, even though, obviously, not all of their subscribers watch the NFL network... they are giving into the NFL's demands just to carry that one channel. Just so they can make cable companies that have refused to pay look bad. DirecTV is not helping the problem. But the CONTENT providers are the ones to blame.
And just like Kevin Matin, DSLR continues to push "a la carte" as if it's entirely up to the cable companies.
The content providers don't want to go "a la carte." Why would they? Do you think they want to lose all that free money? And cable companies are, basically, forced to carry the channels under these demands, because if they don't, then Satellite will, and the content providers will advertise on behalf of the Satellite providers as being the only ones to carry a channel in that area.
If only cable companies are forced into "a la carte," how is that fair? | |
|
