Reviews:
 ·Frontier Communi..
| al la carte We really need al la carte, turn Verizon into a dumb pipe and let consumers purchase the channels directly from the content providers, much the same way as my electric utility delivers the juice that I purchase on my own from a supplier. You'll never get to purchase TNT without CNN, Disney without ESPN, or A&E without History, but at the very least you could choose which content companies you want to do business with. Heck, perhaps they would allow you to get Disney without ESPN, though I'm sure you'd pay more for the privilege.
Everybody wins under this scenario, Verizon isn't paying royalties, you're not paying for channels you aren't watching, and the smaller content providers with small but loyal followings don't get shut out because ESPN raised their royalty rate yet again.
Of course, "everybody wins" is exactly why it won't happen. |
|
CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picturePremium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:1 | Everyone but the shareholders. Since there is a great deal of profit collected for channels no one watches, they will resist any attempts at ala carte imposed on themselves. |
|
|
|
| reply to Crookshanks
Smaller stations and start-ups dont win either.... |
|
| reply to CXM_Splicer
what a sad truth. |
|
| reply to ITALIAN926
Please provide some detail as to why your blanket statement with no facts is true.
If smaller stations and startups dont have to pay X per ALL subscribers simply because the startup wants to carry the line does it not benefit them in requiring less capital and expense to support their service? |
|
 BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | reply to Crookshanks
said by Crookshanks:We really need al la carte, turn Verizon into a dumb pipe and let consumers purchase the channels directly from the content providers, much the same way as my electric utility delivers the juice that I purchase on my own from a supplier. You'll never get to purchase TNT without CNN, Disney without ESPN, or A&E without History, but at the very least you could choose which content companies you want to do business with. Heck, perhaps they would allow you to get Disney without ESPN, though I'm sure you'd pay more for the privilege.
Everybody wins under this scenario, Verizon isn't paying royalties, you're not paying for channels you aren't watching, and the smaller content providers with small but loyal followings don't get shut out because ESPN raised their royalty rate yet again.
Of course, "everybody wins" is exactly why it won't happen.
You think you'll be paying less but you won't. You'll be paying about the same for fewer channels. You think the networks will charge the same rates if they are getting less money.
For example TNT cost about $1 per sub and it's pretty popular. If they went ala carte you think you'd still pay $1? If 1/3 subscribed you can bet they'd charge $3. The fact is most people would pay the same or more and get less. A small % that watch very few channels would save. Then you have to winder why bother having pay TV at all if one watches that little of it?
People have their delusional fantasy that if ala carte came their cable bills will magically be cut in half or more. It's fantasy. |
|
| i am in a different category. i only have the lowest basic cable package,(no premium channels). i used to have a higher bundle package, but they kept moving the few channels that i DID like, to an even higher,more expensive bundle. and i only watch minimal TV at that. so i just dropped down to the lowest package, so i would still have local news and PBS. if there were an a la carte option for me to add the two or three channels that i would like to add, even at 3 or 4 dollars per, i would do it. that would raise my bill from about 25 to maybe 35 or 40. still much less than the previuos type of bundle that i did have.
and if i were close enough to any of the local channels for OTA bunny ears, i would cut cable entirely. unfortunately, i am 55 miles from any broadcast transmitter, and buildings and terrain obscure those.
so i guess i am in the minority, someone who has the smallest bill possible, and who would pay some small amount more for only 2-3 extra channels. but i can dream! |
|
CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picturePremium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:1 Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| reply to BF69
said by BF69:You think you'll be paying less but you won't. You'll be paying about the same for fewer channels.
I agree that's what the cable companies would try to do (and may succeed) BUT:
1) Hopefully, content providers would set a maximum price a cable company could charge as part of their agreement
2) As people drop channels from their current packages, their bill will HAVE TO go down... maybe not as much as they are expecting, but their bills will be lower. Depending on how they implement their 'price lowering algorithm', they could open themselves up to lawsuits. |
|
 AVDRespice, Adspice, ProspicePremium
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ
kudos:1 | reply to ITALIAN926
said by ITALIAN926:Smaller stations and start-ups dont win either....
sure they do, they go to youtube subscription service and distribute for free.
--
* seek help if having trouble coping
--Standard disclaimers apply.-- |
|
| reply to omi5cron
Have you considered a hoverman antenna for OTA? If all you need it for is for local news and PBS you should easily be able to get both with OTA for the cost of a sub $20 DIY antenna.
The bunny ears antennas are a jokr, throw the hoverman in the attic or on a pole in the yard and you'll more then likely get some decent reception. |
|
