site Search:


 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery






how-to block ads


 
Search Topic:
Share Topic
Post a:
Post a:
AuthorAll Replies

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

reply to mod_wastrel

Re: Bundles = POS

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.


mod_wastrel
Gone fishin'

join:2008-03-28

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".


Saturday, 02-Jun 15:36:23 Terms of Use & Privacy | feedback | contact | Hosting by nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo
over 12.5 years online © 1999-2012 dslreports.com.
Most commented news this week
Hot Topics