 | I think the option to buy channels a la carte is a good one. I doubt there would be more than 10 channels on the television. The current model props up bad programming. Open the market up, let freedom dictate how much channels cost. Of course, they'd probably charge $15 a month for a channel like HBO or higher. People should vote with wallets. If enough call in to cancel, watch how fast they change their tunes. |
|
 | said by Probitas :a la carte is a good one. I doubt there would be more than 10 channels on the television. The current model props up bad programming. Open the market up, let freedom dictate how much channels cost. Of course, they'd probably charge $15 a month for a channel like HBO or higher. People should vote with wallets. If enough call in to cancel, watch how fast they change their tunes.
Ha! 1/3 of the cable channels now PAY the cable companies to show them. All those home shopping channels, religious channels, reality marketing channels, etc. You don't pay for them and they will continue even under a la carte systems. So you pay for 10 and will get 30 more whether you want them or not. |
|
 Reviews:
·Shaw
2 recommendations | reply to Probitas
The way I see A La Carte working is if the cable company charges an access fee. To cover their infrastructure costs, labour, hardware, and turn a healthy profit?
How much profit does able make on your average subscription right now? 15-30 dollars maybe? The rest goes to the above and carriage fees.
So charge a base fee that makes the same profit, and then charge for channels at their actual carriage fee. Show the consumer how bad its getting and how much these channels are actually costing them. Let them pick and choose.
I know A La Carte will make channels more expensive because the destruction of bundling would create fewer viewers per channel. I have to think this would get rid of the fluff, and the quality channels would remain. You might be better paying for 15 channels at a premium than 200 at a discount. |
|
 | I completely agree. Cable companies should be "dumb pipe provider" for TV channels and internet. Any per channel fees should be passed directly to the channel/content provider. |
|
 BF69Premium join:2004-07-28 West Tenness | said by JoeSchmoe007:I completely agree. Cable companies should be "dumb pipe provider" for TV channels and internet. Any per channel fees should be passed directly to the channel/content provider.
You really don't know how pay tv works. It's the pay TV operators that pay the content providers not the other way around. Currently ESPN demands $5 per sub. So your bill reflects that because your cable company is going to get that money from you, they aren't eating that cost. In a la carte it will still work that way. Except each channel is going to cost more. |
|