| Bundles = POS But bundle vs. a la carte being an "antitrust" issue? I don't see it. I canceled cable a long time ago because I couldn't get only the channels I want (to not pay for the ones I don't want, and not "subsidize" those I don't want for everyone who does--ESPN et al).
The Internet is my "a la carte" now, though I expect every ISP that also provides TV service (Comcast, at&t, Verizon [FiOS]) to do everything it can to void that capability as soon as it can. "TV" is such a small part of my day anyway. So, if bundling is my only choice for channels, then I'll pass. |
|
| I see it as antitrust and very anticonsumer.
They should be required to provide channels a la carte. That does not mean they can't offer their current bundles that may appeal to the masses or even get creative by creating new bundles that may appeal to even more. They have no reason to not offer this. They make this pretty clear when their only argument is that it will "cost consumers more". Though I appreciate them looking out for me and my pocketbook I call BS.
Very few providers and very few channels owned outside of the big 4 or 5 content producers = anticompetitive behavior that is beneficial to the megacorps and not the consumers. |
|
| Oh, we all know that their argument is bogus. Without a bundle, Channel X will cost more for customers who want Channel X because all of the customers who don't want Channel X will no longer be paying into the "Channel X bundle fund"; plus, some customers are willing to pay for the extra crap to get something they want, which means more money for the provider, which is the only thing the provider is really concerned about--more money for them. Bundles are a marketing tactic and, yes, anticonsumer... but not "antitrust". |
|
|
|
