dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
20
share rss forum feed


baineschile
2600 ways to live
Premium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI
reply to microphone

Re: Depends on the channel

just because you dont watch them doesnt mean they are without viewership

thats exactly what the article is trying to say....these stations, style, science, military....there isnt enough viewship to sustain them a-la-carte. the networks and the sports would survive, and maybe a few others that have been around a while (TNT, USA), but i see most of the industry dying.

i am a fan of sci and currenttv, and i expect both would disappear.

then again, i do believe people should have more choices when it comes to cable


Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

1 recommendation

No, what this article is trying to say is..... "oh please oh please don't give consumers what they want because the poor cable/content providers are not smart enough to adjust their business models to stay afloat. Please think of all the minorities and children that will be negatively effected by this!".

Which is all utter BS. They make the assumption that they do not adapt and quite frankly if they dont, then they should go belly up and all their employees should move on to another job/industry. Attempting to use a scare tactic by only providing the doom and gloom side of things is silly.

ANY and EVERY good show will find a new home if the channel they are currently on goes under. DVR's make primetime, less of an actual clock time. I rarely watch shows during actual "prime time" and yet I still watch prime time shows all the time.


Os

join:2011-01-26
US
reply to baineschile

Why would Current disappear? It's not owned by any other conglomerate, so it's not packaged the way the rest of these channels are. They're pretty much on their own, which is part of the problem for them.


jcondon

join:2000-05-27
Fishkill, NY
reply to baineschile

So if the market doesn't really want some of these less popular channels we should be forced to take them and pay for them so they still exist?

It's just TV. If 200 channels went away tomorrow there would still be stuff to watch. Or maybe IPTV will take off for those who want to watch less popular stuff.



Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
Reviews:
·ooma
·Comcast
·Callcentric
·Site5.com
reply to baineschile

said by baineschile:

thats exactly what the article is trying to say....these stations, style, science, military....there isnt enough viewship to sustain them a-la-carte. the networks and the sports would survive, and maybe a few others that have been around a while (TNT, USA), but i see most of the industry dying.

This is the problem with a-la-carte in essence. Many networks/channels would go out of business without the package deals we have today. I would be happy to pay for military, history, discovery, and so on, but there are many channels I wouldn't pay for that I would watch. Those channels would be hard pressed to make money.

Maybe a-la-carte is the way to go though, just to get rid of the crap networks like Fox Reality.
--
My domain - Nightfall.net

john262

join:2003-09-26
Elko, NV

Fox Reality went off the air a long time ago. It's NatGeo Wild now.