1 edit | reply to ualdayan
Re: The basic flaw... said by ualdayan:If that's true then how can they continually, over and over, raise prices and claim it's not really them doing it but rather 'content providers' are at fault? To hear many cable companies tell it the content providers are the ones 99% responsible for rising monthly fees. Of course they do! But you don't actually believe them, do you? Classic strategy of "It's not our fault, it's those evil content providers..."
The reality is that it's both groups. You and I may not like what we spend of video entertainment each month, but the fact is that the cable companies know exactly what price points generates the most revenue. That pool of money is fixed over the short term. Over the long term it changes based on inflation and the amount of discretionary entertainment money people are willing to spend.
The content providers want the largest possible share of that pie, so they negotiate for as much as they can get. The cable companies want to keep as much as they can and not pass it through to the content suppliers.
I believe in the War Games strategy: The only way to win is not to play... |
|
1 edit | At $2 a channel, clearly you are wrong.
There is no package in my area for $15 that offers every channel I want. You work for the cable company dont you? What's the matter? Too lazy to deploy SDV? |
|
|
|
| said by the cerberus:At $2 a channel, clearly you are wrong. There is no package in my area for $15 that offers every channel I want. You work for the cable company dont you? What's the matter? Too lazy to deploy SDV? Perfect A La Carta pricing would be to call them up and say you only want one channel and nothing else. If I lived in Canada, I would say I want CNN for $2, and the rest would be what I could get with an antenna. |
|
| said by burgerwars:Perfect A La Carta pricing would be to call them up and say you only want one channel and nothing else. If I lived in Canada, I would say I want CNN for $2, and the rest would be what I could get with an antenna. True - but that's the problem. The content providers have no interest in their channels being offered ala carte, so they won't let the cable companies sell that way. And even if they were forced to offer channels separately, the cable companies can't afford to support subscribers who only generate $2/month in revenue.
And for those who want IP delivery of a channel, the guys who own the channels have no interest in bypassing the cable and sat companies and threatening the massive revenue they get from that source. |
|
 morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | said by travelguy:And even if they were forced to offer channels separately, the cable companies can't afford to support subscribers who only generate $2/month in revenue. Then they adapt and change their model. It can be done. I can never see a cable bill going for $2 for one channel, but I can see a 3-5 channel selection for $15 being offered. People would love to just have the channels they want.
Cable can survive in an a la carte environment. It's the annoying channels that cannot. |
|
