Time Warner Cable Testing Cheaper TV Tiers That can't be bundled with VoIP or broadband Responding to the slow erosion of customers the cable industry previously claimed didn't exist, Time Warner Cable recently hinted that they would soon be experimenting with lower cost channel bundles. Now Reuters has a little more detail, noting that the company will be testing $30-$50 packages in New York City and Ohio that can't be bundled with VoIP or broadband. The story of course comes complete with a quote from industry quote machine and stock jock Craig Moffett, who plays off the new cord cutting trend once again as a "a low-end phenomenon" due to "poverty." Time Warner Cable tells Bloomberg this new "TV Essentials" tier kicks off first in New York City next week for $39.95, and will include local and major broadcast networks along with the top 20 highest-rated cable networks -- except for Fox News and Comedy Central. Time Warner Cable says they're responding to "customer need": What we're planning to do is deliver on that customer need," said Marcus. "We're planning on delivering a package, or possibly more than one package, of programming that will exclude some of the higher priced networks. Because we're excluding the high priced channels, we have the ability to charge a lot less for it." There's a lot of caveats with this bundle, including the fact you can't tack on a DVR, the offer is only going to be for a year, you can't bundle other services, and a lot of major networks won't be included (Fox News, MSNBC). The value proposition isn't all that impressive, given that for another $10 you can get something like 80 additional channels. While it's nice that Time Warner Cable is finally realizing you can't continually cram rate hikes down the throats of consumers during a recession, this project seems more like a confused and half-hearted lab experiment than a legitimate effort to lower prices and increase choice.
|
  rcdaileyDragoonflyPremium
join:2005-03-29
Rialto, CA
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| Cheaper TV Tiers For some people it might be a lot cheaper to just get an antenna and go for local digital channels. If you aren't getting the major cable networks with these cheaper tiers, do you really need cable?
--
Human nature abhors an empty closet. | |
|  | | | Re: Cheaper TV Tiers I've found a way to negotiate with TWC and it was to tell them that I don't need them but might go back with the right deal. I cancelled this summer and told them I'll do Clearwire/Netflix/Hulu, which I did. A month later they sent a flyer with a lower priced deal then called me, I said I'm content with Netflix/Hulu. They sent me another flyer with a better deal, HD/DVR and HBO trial for $30/month and I took it. Later they sent a flyer for cable modem for $30/month for 7Mbps. I took it (actually getting 15Mbps). I was paying $140/month (2 DVRs, cable modem) and now pay just $60 for essentially the same service minus 1 DVR.
I was able to do this because I told them I don't need them but would go back with the right deal. It took a couple months but it worked. The deal is over in a year but I'll just cancel again for a couple months (reactivate Clear or someone else) and see what they come up with. BTW, I still don't watch cable TV very much - tend to still do Hulu/Netflix and massive amount of PlayOn/PS3 content so it's no issue to drop them again. | |
| | |  DryvlyneFar Beyond DrivenPremium
join:2004-08-30
Newark, OH | Re: Cheaper TV Tiers Yep, I pretty much did the same thing. I left TWC for almost 2 yrs for DISH. Recently a TWC rep was going door-to-door in our neighborhood and offered us a great deal to come back to them.
I'm now paying ~$80/mo for a package that prior to my stint with DISH ran me ~$115/mo. Of course the $80/mo deal is only good for 2 yrs, but like you said, I'll just threaten to take my business elsewhere again if they don't give me a good deal.
Most people don't realize you can negotiate with utility companies on prices. The bottom line is they will usually bend pretty far to keep or add subs because they know consumers have other alternatives... at least when it comes to TV. Hopefully someday the same can be said for broadband.
--
In relative terms life is shorter than the blink of an eye. Remember that each and every day because in the end it's not about what you've done but how you've lived.
| |
|
 TransmasterDon't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
 ·CenturyLink
| And Maybe the iPad et-al I have read a survey showing people with the iPad are most likely to "cut the cable" then anyone else when they find out much of what they watch on their cable system is available online and can be comfortably viewed on their iPads. The impact on satellite services and TV delivery through your ISP is less. The way I see this is it is not so much the "magic of the iPad" but what the device does. So as the numbers of Android, and Windows Mobile Pads start to hit the market this trend will only increase. This will dovetail into Apple's iTV, and Google TV if they can get enough content.
--
I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's.
- Mark Twain in Eruption | |
| | | | | TransmasterDon't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY Reviews:
·CenturyLink
1 edit | Re: And Maybe the iPad et-al = pandora 
I subscribe to satellite, and own an iPad.
Watching a program on an iPad or PC isn't the same as pulling it up from a STB via remote control on a 55" TV.
Comfortable isn't the word I'd associate with viewing video on an iPad, more like adequate, serviceable, acceptable ... for single viewing when necessary.
--
I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's.
- Mark Twain in Eruption | |
| | | | | said by pandora:Watching a program on an iPad or PC isn't the same as pulling it up from a STB via remote control on a 55" TV.
ipad -> appletv -> 55" teevee...
--
.:|:. aztec being aztec...™ | |
| | | | TransmasterDon't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY Reviews:
·CenturyLink
1 edit | Re: And Maybe the iPad et-al = aztecnology
ipad -> appletv -> 55" teevee...
--
I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's.
- Mark Twain in Eruption | |
|
| | | you also forget that iPad didn't (may still not) have flash which a lot of sites use and Sliverlight. | |
| | | TransmasterDon't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY Reviews:
·CenturyLink
2 edits | Re: And Maybe the iPad et-al said by hottboiinnc:you also forget that iPad didn't (may still not) have flash which a lot of sites use and Sliverlight.
Which is why the real impact, if there is any, will been seen by people using Pads with either an Android or the Windows Mobile OS, and just maybe a pad from HP using a Palm OS, Blackberry??? This is a whole new market area and it is going to be fansinating to watch.
--
I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's.
- Mark Twain in Eruption | |
| | | | | | Re: And Maybe the iPad et-al it sure will, especially since the PlayBack will have Flash support. | |
|
 LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 |  After promo period NOT a good deal
It will officially retail at $49.99 and feature around 50 channels compared with around 130 channels for an average digital starter package at $59.95.
Key to the reduced price will be the exclusion of higher cost channels such as Walt Disney Co's ESPN's flagship channels, which charge among the most expensive carriage fees in the cable business. Also excluded are Time Warner Inc's TNT Network, News Corp's Fox News and NBC Universal's MSNBC among others. | |
| | | | Re: After promo period NOT a good deal yep! and in Ohio the Expanded Tier costs roughly $55 per month from TWC. TWC-NEO/WPA and Mid Ohio are the largest markets in Ohio and they're prices are very smiliar. The customer' s wont be better off with this and TWC knows that. Don't forget- you'll be required to have a digital box for this or a cable card. And TWC has those set at about $7 per box and about $4 per card. also don't forget your sales tax on the equipment. | |
|
 unknvoipRIP goosePremium
join:2006-07-25
Rochester, NY
kudos:1
 ·ViaTalk
| What the quote should be: What we're planning to do is giving the illusion of delivering on that customer need. We're planning on delivering a package, or possibly more than one package, of programming that will exclude some of the more popular networks. Because we're excluding the channels people watch, we have the ability to charge a lot less for it, and when people don't subscribe it will prove that ala carte is not what the consumer wants. | |
| | Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..
| Re: What the quote should be: said by unknvoip:and when people don't subscribe it will prove that ala carte is not what the consumer wants.
True ala carte isn't technologically feasible as long as they still deliver a significant number of channels through analog signals. In my area almost all of the major cable channels are delivered on the analog tier. The only thing they can do with those is trap out ranges of channels and that requires a truck roll. | |
| | |  Killa200Premium
join:2005-12-02
Southeast TN
·Charter
| Re: What the quote should be: said by Crookshanks:said by unknvoip:and when people don't subscribe it will prove that ala carte is not what the consumer wants.
True ala carte isn't technologically feasible as long as they still deliver a significant number of channels through analog signals. In my area almost all of the major cable channels are delivered on the analog tier. The only thing they can do with those is trap out ranges of channels and that requires a truck roll. Even this true ala carte wouldn't be feasible due to the nature in which cable companies are charged for programming they air. Sure i suppose if you want to pick out your programming channel by channel RIGHT NOW on a digital network, we could block everything you don't want to see, but I will still charge you for all those channels that I cut out if they fall into a bundle agreement with the network we purchase content rights from. In the end you'll get the 12 channels you actually want, and I'll get to charge you for those and the other 100 I blocked out for because they fall under contention agreements.
Trust me, if we could offer true ala carte and the content providers would make it so it would still be profitable to operate, we'd be more than happy to do so. But its not going to happen. | |
| | | | | | Re: What the quote should be: Understand that this is exactly the problem with cable TV. Maybe "you" should consider pushing back on the companies you have "contention agreements" with to get those removed. I don't purchase cable TV mainly because I don't feel like paying $80/mo for 6 channels. The first company that figures out how to resolve this issue gets my money. | |
|
| DryvlyneFar Beyond DrivenPremium
join:2004-08-30
Newark, OH | said by unknvoip:What we're planning to do is giving the illusion of delivering on that customer need.
QFT | |
| | Killa200Premium
join:2005-12-02
Southeast TN Reviews:
·Charter
2 edits | Considering I work for one of those companies and see how those agreements work and get negotiated, I can tell you for a fact your going to have to get ALL cable companies, or a very significant portion of them all, to agree to suddenly refuse to provide service in order to make that push work. It ain't gonna happen. Those content providers are ABSOLUTELY convinced their polished **** is made of gold.
Trust me, its not just every cable co. wanting to screw users. Me and my boss are both under agreement that we'd love to provide packages a-la-carte. Neither of us like half the crap we air on the system, and I am sure our viewers have the same feelings considering how many junk stations exist now. But sure enough if we ever got our wish of unbundled content pricing, I can safely bet it will come out more expensive in the end for us, and in the end, for you the subscriber. | |
|
Reviews:
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| Before criticizing you have to look at the demographics Moffet isn't entirely brain dead, what he says it's true.
The ones most likely to "cut the cord" are single people lacking income for whom an extra $50/month means being able to pay the rent. And it is likely that for them most of the "missing" channels are some they never watch (Fox is too republican for poor people anyway).
If anyone thinks otherwise please show me statistics on how many people who have HBO, Cinemax, premium sports channels, HD, etc give up their package entirely in favor of going OTA/online...
Disclaimer: I do not hold stock in any media provider. I am just an impartial, realistic observer. | |
| | | | Re: Before criticizing you have to look at the demographics actually the "cord cutters" are the ones that are actually losing their homes or on the verge and not able to pay the MSO/TV provider anymore. Those people are the real cord cutters. Other than that. the people that leave their MSO are likely going else where- DTV/Dish, FiOS, U-Verse, etc. I left TWC several months ago...does that make me a cord cutter even though i went and signed up with WOW? NOPE! it means that i just changed to another provider which a lot of people are doing if they're able to save money. | |
| | Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·Optimum Online
·EarthLink
| said by cowboyro:The ones most likely to "cut the cord" are single people lacking income for whom an extra $50/month means being able to pay the rent. I make well into six-figures. I canceled my Cablevision service because they were charging me $54/month for a whopping 45 channels. And to get any more channels would have raised my rate to $80/month. I felt that $54/mo was a poor value and I didn't want to give them any more money, so I cut the cord. I get no TV service at all now.
Every two weeks, Cablevision sends me junk mail for a triple play offer for $70/month, plus the cost of boxes (expensive!), plus taxes. They're just wasting trees and postage, because their offer is only for satellite and TV customers. Since I have no TV service, I don't qualify. I wouldn't want their phone service anyway. | |
| | | Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
| Re: Before criticizing you have to look at the demographics said by Bobcat79:said by cowboyro:The ones most likely to "cut the cord" are single people lacking income for whom an extra $50/month means being able to pay the rent. I make well into six-figures. I canceled my Cablevision service because they were charging me $54/month for a whopping 45 channels. And to get any more channels would have raised my rate to $80/month. I felt that $54/mo was a poor value and I didn't want to give them any more money, so I cut the cord. I get no TV service at all now. Let me guess... no wife/kids in the house... | |
| | | | Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·Optimum Online
·EarthLink
| Re: Before criticizing you have to look at the demographics said by cowboyro:said by Bobcat79:said by cowboyro:The ones most likely to "cut the cord" are single people lacking income for whom an extra $50/month means being able to pay the rent. I make well into six-figures. I canceled my Cablevision service because they were charging me $54/month for a whopping 45 channels. And to get any more channels would have raised my rate to $80/month. I felt that $54/mo was a poor value and I didn't want to give them any more money, so I cut the cord. I get no TV service at all now. Let me guess... no wife/kids in the house... Nope. One of each. My daughter cried when I had it shut off. Now she says she doesn't even miss the TV. | |
| | | | | | | Re: Before criticizing you have to look at the demographics We had a grand total of four channels growing up. The local CBS, NBC and PBS affiliates all the time and the ABC affiliate on good days. Somehow we managed to turn out ok.... | |
|
| | | | Same here... Actually, just spent a bunch so that I COULD drop cable (DishTV actually), so it's not about the money more than it's about the need/value.
Every TV in the house now has a HTPC attached to it, streaming movies from my collection or elsewhere. OTA signal is being fed into HDHomeruns and fed to the HTPCs as well.
Wasn't cheap to build, but it's all mine and I'm paying about $125 less a month to someone for little value. That $125 a month is financing the new TV I just ordered to put in the den!
I know quite a few others that had done similar, none are low-income/uneducated/single folks I keep hearing about in the Cord Cutter articles. | |
|
| elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | said by cowboyro:Moffet isn't entirely brain dead, what he says it's true.
...
And it is likely that for them most of the "missing" channels are some they never watch (Fox is too republican for poor people anyway).
Huh?
"Poor" people don't overwhelmingly or automatically vote for Leftists. | |
|
 baineschile2600 ways to livePremium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI | Comcast Already offers something similar. Its called Digital Economy | |
| QLR
join:2009-06-23
Tallahassee, FL Reviews:
·Comcast
 ·Verizon Wireless..
| Comcast has been doing something like this for a while. Comcast launched their digital economy package a while back... price is $30, you get most channels that is in the expanded basic, HD is optional, and there's a triple bundle that you can get as well. The only thing that isn't available is on demand, but I don't care for that anyway. For some weird reason, I am able to access the free movies on demand though. The only thing that I don't like is that all channels I can view in SD, aren't viewable in HD, like TNT, TBD, Versus. I get a message stating that a subscription is required or I am not approved. Other than that, I am happy with the $30 tier, considering the prices are $12, $57, and $74 before junk is added. | |
| | | | Re: Comcast has been doing something like this for a while. figures that Comcast is across the river. suddenlink doesn't have a cheap package in our area. i'm paying the almost 60 for a bunch of junk i don't watch.4-5 shopping channels, atleast 2 channels in spanish, couple religious channels..... UG, about to get netflix and hulu my shows | |
|
Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..
| Comcast has said that they will do something similar here(Peoria, Illinois) in public Comcast complaint meetings. This was in response to senior citizen complaints, after the switch from Insight to Comcast.
But, I'm not sure if they have done so. I switched over 1 year ago, so relying on others to report on Comcast. | |
|  kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY | Typical BS from a crooked, scumbag like Time Warner Another PoS offer, serving their utter PoS quality service and their bugfest DVRs...
...cannot wait to see this PoS crooked garbage corporation to get fcuked by FiOS in NYC. | |
| | | Woohoo! ..... Wait a minute... Wait, I can get a cheaper tier, without ESPN or Fox News? Why wasn't this done sooner!
(oh, they also drop the couple good cable channels like TNT and comedy central...) | |
| unknvoipRIP goosePremium
join:2006-07-25
Rochester, NY
kudos:1 | Friends and Family How about a tier where you can 'roll your own'? Give me any 10 channels for an extra $10/mo.
Require a basic package first and allow DVR and on-demand.
I'd bite. | |
|  Irun Manwhat obstacle?Premium
join:2002-10-18
Walden, NY | no big deal I'm in TWCNYC upstate, pay $46/mo. a la carte for basic CATV channels and Road Runner basic 1.5M down / 512K up. It's all I am willing to pay for.
If I was single I'd drop the TV and keep RR only.
--
I run, therefore I am | |
| | TransmasterDon't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY Reviews:
·CenturyLink
| Re: no big deal Here is the link to the survey I mentioned above it is very interesting.
»tdgresearch.com/blogs/press-rele···ord.aspx
--
I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's.
- Mark Twain in Eruption | |
| | bn1221
join:2009-04-29
Cortland, NY | RR Lite is 768/128K
If you really have 1.5/512K that would be pretty decent actually. | |
|
| | We can't we be like Canada and have theme packs? We can't we be like Canada and have theme packs? | |
| | Reviews:
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| Re: We can't we be like Canada and have theme packs? said by castsucks :We can't we be like Canada and have theme packs?
Theme packs? Oh you mean... The Sports channel that doesn't include the FIGHT network? Thats been "rebundled" where X channel is on its lonesome and you pay 6.99$ for 1 good channel and 9 crap channels? Oh yeah great theme packs in Canada! (trust me I'm canadian!) About the only ONE "pack" that is really a theme pack is the music theme pack! and it has music channels that being a non teen I really don't give a rats ass about! | |
|
| | Poor offering Way to offer such a horrible TV tier, making it so unatractive, that nobody will want it, then later claim alacarte wont work in the industry. | |
| | | Way to go.. Way to go time warner! i know here Cox offers Cable, Internet, and Phone for $90/mo... that's the normal basic cable, 12Mdown/2Mup, and phone with long distance & calling features if you agree to a 1-year commitment
it's a much better deal that TW is trying to shove down people's throats | |
|  BHNtechXpertBHN StaffPremium,VIP
join:2006-02-16
Saint Petersburg, FL
kudos:82 | Karl your bias is showing again.... "While it's nice that Time Warner Cable is finally realizing you can't continually cram rate hikes down the throats of consumers during a recession, this project seems more like a confused and half-hearted lab experiment than a legitimate effort to lower prices and increase choice."
When Verizon is faced with the same programming cost increases and they will be soon, how will you word that phrase? I doubt that it will be worded anything close to the above as you posted in this article.
What do you expect TW to do when their costs to offer these channels increases exponentially? Simply absorb the cost? There comes a point when they can't absorb the cost and continue to offer the programming. You seem to think that TW can print its own money...fail....In order to continue offering consumer demanded services, programming and equipment they have to remain profitable.
It boggles the mind that you seem incapable or unwilling to understand that. | |
| | | | Re: Karl your bias is showing again.... well if these cable co's would stand up to these networks that are making a ton off of ad revenue plus the per sub charge to the networks then we wouldnt have this issue, it's insane what companies like Fox try to charge to be on the air so they can be viewed by an audience
the whole system is broken | |
| | | BHNtechXpertBHN StaffPremium,VIP
join:2006-02-16
Saint Petersburg, FL
kudos:82 | Re: Karl your bias is showing again.... said by brad152:well if these cable co's would stand up to these networks that are making a ton off of ad revenue plus the per sub charge to the networks then we wouldnt have this issue, it's insane what companies like Fox try to charge to be on the air so they can be viewed by an audience
the whole system is broken
But Brad, TW and Brighthouse and several other providers have stood up to these networks only to be vilified in the process. You have three types of people, those that don't care, those that care but aren't willing to allow the networks to go dark for a while to prove a point and those that do care and have no problem with the networks going off the air until a fair settlement can be reached.
The problem is then you have the competitors to these providers who aren't faced with immediate negotiations tripping over themselves to wooo customers over to their side under the auspice of "ooooh you won't lose your Fox with us" nonsense when in fact they will be faced with the very same issues in just a few months.
Generally speaking consumers don't care enough about holding prices down to allow their provider to work on their behalf and the best way to do that is to let the damn stations go dark and impact the networks where it hurts the most...demographics (rankings) and the wallet. If enough people backed their provider instead of the networks this nonsense would stop in a real hurry. Especially if Comcast and TW, Bright House and Cox got together and made them all go dark at once. I promise you these channels would not be off very long.
But every time they do go dark people go insane and flood their local provider with a non-stop barrage of hate calls thus not only hurting the provider but also the customer with REAL issues in need of support....it gets real nasty. | |
|
Reviews:
·Charter
| Seriously? 40 bucks for 20 channels? That makes no sense at all and that's way too expensive for 20 channels. Even as crappy as Charter is in my area (all analog) you'd still get about 60 channels for 44 a month.
The only way .. and I mean THE ONLY WAY they're going to stop losing clients is to go to the a-la-carte method. Let customers PICK the channels they want instead of forcing them to waste money on channels they don't. Until that happens you have no chance of regaining most of those customers.
To make people pay such a high price for channels most people never watch is a waste of our money and just keeps channels alive that should have died a long, long time ago.
Cable and Satellite are going to continue to falter until that happens. | |
| | | | Re: Seriously? Cable and Sat providers don't have the choice to offer a la carte.
How do you not understand this by now?
The CONTENT providers are the ones that control the CONTENT. They say when and how their CONTENT will be delivered by the Cable/Sat companies. If the Cable/Sat companies don't like it, then they don't get the channels.
A la carte is up to the CONTENT providers. Until the CONTENT providers decide they don't want the sweet, sweet deal of PER SUBSCRIBER fees that they get now, and instead only get paid for who actually WANTS the channel, a la carte will not happen.
What do you think the chances of a CONTENT provider giving up collecting a fee from ALL cable/sat subscribers, all of which don't even watch the channels?
Until all Cable/Sat providers do what Cablevision did, and allow their content deals to expire and fight till the end, a la carte is what it always has been, a dream. | |
| | |  UnbundledBut When ? ?Premium
join:2010-09-13
Irving, TX | Re: Seriously? said by skuv :Cable and Sat providers don't have the choice to offer a la carte.
What do you think the chances of a CONTENT provider giving up collecting a fee from ALL cable/sat subscribers, all of which don't even watch the channels?
Until all Cable/Sat providers do what Cablevision did, and allow their content deals to expire and fight till the end, a la carte is what it always has been, a dream.
What the consumer needs is for Congress, especially the "New" Congress, to get a fire lit under them to, so that they will legislate to have the content provider's "take all this, or none of this" model changed to allow a la carte, by law.
I'm going to hold my legislators feet to fire over this !
--
A La Carte Cable Choice is the ONLY Choice I'm Interested in ! ! ! | |
|
| fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | said by megarock:40 bucks for 20 channels? That makes no sense at all and that's way too expensive for 20 channels. Even as crappy as Charter is in my area (all analog) you'd still get about 60 channels for 44 a month. FINALLY someone gets this!
ugh...
It's clear that almost 99% of the people that post regularly on this blog do not get marketing and how it works.
About everyone of you guys fell for this and are more sheeple than you think.
MANY regular posters here cry that they force too many worthless channels on to people for a price that isn't "cool"... so now the price is lowered and many of the people who make that argument are NOW saying "but for $10 more, you can get X more number of channels.." ... well NO kidding!
The lower price tier is NOTHING more than a step in up-selling.. um.. say it... saaaaaay it!! ... VALUE!
Congratulations guys - you FINALLY are getting the marketing standards in promoting "VALUE" which is what this plan is going to do for TWC.. its VERY easy for them to advertise a lower package rate and when people call in , the CSRs will promote the "value" of going to the next step up, which is standard basic cable, for about $10 more...
But.. Megarock was the one to pick out the ploy which is most likely the most probable reason for this new tier.
I'm not going to say that TWC isn't trying to put out a tier that is in fact cheaper to have a cheaper tier - they probably are, ... but they ARE getting a tier that promotes the "value in full basic cable for a few bucks more".. | |
|
Reviews:
·ooma
·Optimum Online
·Verizon FiOS
| retread time warner and cablevision have been hocking a $29.95 cable-tv (usually as part of a dual/triple play for around 10 years) so offering it as a SINGLE PLAY does nothing to woo the consumer at the SAME RATES. to add to the foolishness, they'll likely cut the number of channels offered too. can't keep offering 150 channels for around $30 a month FOREVER. ESPN, FOOD NETWORK AND FOX said SHOW ME THE MONEY... AND GOT IT! | |
| | | Better include Fox News No Fox News -- no subscription. Give me the broadcast networks, Fox News, Discovery, USA, TNT, TBS, SciFi in HD for $30 and it's viable. Otherwise, Dish Network is a better alternative.
And that should include the option of adding Internet. | |
| | | | Re: Better include Fox News If removing Fox News saves me even a penny each month, I would take it. They should actually pay me for having non-stop propaganda that airs 24 hours-a-day, 7 days-a-week and 365 days-a-year piped to my home. | |
| | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: Better include Fox News said by nofoxnews :If removing Fox News saves me even a penny each month, I would take it. They should actually pay me for having non-stop propaganda that airs 24 hours-a-day, 7 days-a-week and 365 days-a-year piped to my home.
.. and what you call news is what others call propaganda.
There are people that subscribe to Fox News that believe CNN and NPR is pure crap.. so what's your point?
It's nice to live in a country where people have the right to have their own view points.. it's also nice to live in a country knowing that SOME people are still smart enough to realize that bias exists and that neither "side" is being objective.. it's also nice to live in a country where people realize that there is always going to be some kind of bias towards any issue.
You DO realize this don't you? .. I'm not confident, to be honest.
I was really floored the other day when I heard, out of his OWN two lips, Mr Rockefeller thinks that Fox News, and MSNBC should be taken off the air through the powers of the FCC.. give me an F'ing break! What a load of crap. Because, well, yea.. NPR is SOOOOO good at being non-bias and keeps up strict ethics..
After what NPR did a few weeks ago, that's one news (i use the term lightly) organization that can take a flying leap... | |
| | | | | | Re: Better include Fox News A viewpoint is not however a fact, it is an opinion. It is well documented that Fox has, on several occasions, outright fabricated news and lied as well. In fact, they went to court and won a case so they could do just that very thing. "Yellow Journalism" at it's finest.
In fact, let's take a look at Cavuto yesterday shall we? »mediamatters.org/research/201011200002
Because ya know, In Soviet Russia, news reads you!
Go watch Bloomberg.
--
Capturing the images of Colorado
»jdebordphoto.com | |
| | | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: Better include Fox News said by HotRodFoto:A viewpoint is not however a fact, it is an opinion. It is well documented that Fox has, on several occasions, outright fabricated news and lied as well. STOP right there... I could care less if you came up with 20 examples of what you're calling fabricated news. The fact is that what I just said is 100% correct and you fail to see the point.
For ever time you say Fox fabricated news, I can give you one example where CNN did, MSNBC did, NPR has, and many others. Do you REALLY think that everything you hear in the news is "fact"...? If so, then you're world is going to hurt.
Second, I read that link you sent.. I'm not going to go into that and break it apart. What you're talking about is 1) not "news".. it's op-ed which is subject to opinion. 2) Is two people talking about, to be honest, 2 different things. 3) The CBO, as much as people like to put full faith and credit, is STILL a government agency and is NOT your one-stop shop for reliable information and also isn't always accurate as well!
I don't put my faith into any one single source of information. ANYONE who does is a complete retart! I won't get it from Bloomberg either.. the entire business is just that, a business to make money! When money is backing the source of news, I'll be less likely to trust it. You can't even trust NPR after the news organization who outright claims they are there to support an open dialog and report honestly just fired one of the reporters for speaking openly. Right or wrong, NPR even just got done demonstrating how they are willing to control the message being sent out over the air to people...
You REALLY think that there is one source of reliable information out there? You think even the President tells you the truth? You think that the White House press is telling you accurate information... you think they're on your side? You do know that the questions they ask in a press conference are pre-screened don't you?
It just floors me to realize just how much some people still believe that what they are told is the truth.
Dude, really... don't care where you get it from.. while much of the stuff you do see and hear is valid "news".. when it comes to the op-ed portions of the "media" there IS in fact motivation to control the message - from ALL of them. If you think otherwise, you're in for a world of hurt and disappointment.
I'm waiting for the news cable news channel.. it will be called CYA. As soon as one calls themselves that, at least they're being honest and I'd be more likely to believe them.
I'd rather get my news from a non-profit news agency.. not one that's competing for ratings and to make profits. | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Better include Fox News 100% correct, that a sucker is born every minute? Yep, you sure are. Lay the facts on me then where CNN fabricated news then please, because I would love to see it. FOX is well known for editing out certain things, how many times do we have to say it, FOX lies, and knowingly so does it. About the only honest to God honest person left on the channel these days is Shep. Come on, there is a whole wikipedia website dedicated to Fox controversies, never mind the fact that someone at Fox News was caught editing entries on the site itself »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_C···oversies Time to take off the Tin Foil Hat, and free your mind, you will see the world in a whole new light. Go watch the BBC for a different perspective on things, it is rather refreshing.
--
Capturing the images of Colorado
»jdebordphoto.com | |
|
| |
|
|
Re: And Maybe the iPad et-al
