| [TWC] Time Warner Dropping More Channels? I thought I would share this link:
»www.cinemablend.com/television/T···972.html |
|
Reviews:
 ·Time Warner Cable
| blown out of proportion news article which basically ripped off the wall street journal that got their info from the legal notices on the month to month changes without any word from an actual representative of TWC. Basically sensationalizing something to make news! |
|
| I also read this article which tends to make more sense.
»money.msn.com/now/post.aspx?post···e3448315
If you are going to add channels, you will have to weed out the ones no one watches. |
|
|
|
 chambercPremium
join:2008-08-05
Irving, TX
·Time Warner Cable
| said by Rick4769:If you are going to add channels, you will have to weed out the ones no one watches.
Hopefully that means MSNBC and CNN are on their way out as well. |
|
| I was thinking along the lines of: The Word Network, Halogen, Centric, CNBC World, G4, WE, and IFC for starters. Since former Music stations such as MTV, VH1 etc play little music, I personally could do without those also. |
|
| reply to chamberc
If they drop those terrorist networks they need to do the only logical thing and drop the other terrorist network FuaxNews as well.
--
All hail my invisible zombie in the sky who watches everything you do and sends you to fictional places when you die. |
|
ifa
join:2009-07-17
New York, NY | reply to Rick4769
The time has come for "a la carte" pricing. I do not watch any sports channels and can do without them. However, I do watch IFC, AMC, Starz and others, which may dropped by TW. Why can each subscriber select the channels that it wants to access and just pay for those or, alternatively, why can't as many channels as possible be made available and the monthly fee would be determined by the channels we watch and the time we spend watching them? |
|
| I would love to pay only for the channels that I watch but I don't believe TWC would even consider it. |
|
| reply to Rick4769
TWC won't do it because the people who don't think like you would throw a hissy fit. Naturally doing ala carte and adding everything would be more expensive than the overall. I don't see a problem with it, I'd probably drop huge swaths of channels (NOT MY CARTOON NETWORK), but you'd probably end up grouping channels together and still would have a lot of channels you don't watch. |
|
 DrDrewSo that others may surf.
join:2009-01-28
SoCal
kudos:8 | reply to Rick4769
said by Rick4769:I would love to pay only for the channels that I watch but I don't believe TWC would even consider it.
Cable providers can't even get the channels ala carte... They pay for channel packages too and its the basis of many of the channel carriage disputes between them and broadcasters.
--
If it's important, back it up... twice. Even 99.999% availability isn't enough sometimes. |
|
| reply to Rick4769
Cut cable cord year * half ago when those boutique channels were less interesting fare. IFC just seemed to offer dribble after being a decent source of indy films and others like it were ending showing indy ones. Like Oxygen at one point actually had some interesting films. Lost need to blow $75 a month for just more talking head channels like FOX CNN. |
|
 UnbundledBut When ? ?Premium
join:2010-09-13
Irving, TX | reply to Rick4769
I fondly remember the days when, you could pay a small fee for Basic Cable TV, without a box, and see a weather channel and a channel guide channel, and local access stations.
My how we've "progressed". Not.
I have ROKU, and will soon cut the TW cable cord.
What will I do without ESPN ? I will live without it, for now.
TW cable just has too many mouths too feed, and way too much R&D to for me to fund, for a lot of features, that I do not want.
I dumped AT&T also. So there's two conglomerates I won;t be dealing with.
Instead, for now, it's Clear 4G Wi-fi/Modem, Metro PCS, and ROKU, and my Over-The Air Antenna in the attic, to get me ny.
--
A La Carte Cable Choice is the ONLY Choice I'm Interested in ! ! ! |
|
