• New here? Register here now for access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Plus, stay connected and follow BP on Instagram @buckeyeplanet and Facebook.

Ala Carte Cable

Jump to latest Follow Reply
plum diamonds buckeye planet
Sort by date Sort by votes
buckeyefool

buckeyefool

He's back and better than ever!
    • the article talks about how things such as abc or espn bundle stuff, and they may not allow that, but also talk about how cable companies may not be allowed to bundle lineups either.

    FCC puts 'a la carte' cable on the menu - USATODAY.com

    FCC puts 'a la carte' cable on the menuPosted 1d 8h ago | Comments 34 | Recommend 7E-mail | Save | Print | Reprints & Permissions |

    clear.gif
    clear.gif
    Kevin Martin
    mug-martin.jpg
    USA TODAY file
    clear.gif
    clear.gif



    By Leslie Cauley, USA TODAY
    If you're tired of paying for dozens of cable TV channels that you don't want and don't watch, relief may be on the way.
    The Federal Communications Commission on Tuesday plans to begin considering banning programmers from "tying" ? making cable systems take less-popular or new channels to get must-haves, such as ESPN (DIS) or CBS (CBS).
    Programmers have used the practice to launch scores of channels. That's why you see all those spinoffs of Walt Disney's ESPN on basic and digital cable. Operators didn't necessarily want them ? they just couldn't see a cheaper way to get the flagship channel.
     
    Be careful what you wish for.

    The history of prices going UP after regulation goes back literally thousands of years. There are examples from ancient Sumeria and Egypt, the Chinese Dynasties, Mercantilist Societies, the industrial revolution all the way through the present day. The FCC does not have a good track record by the farthest stretch of the wildest of imaginations.
     
    Upvote 0
    DaddyBigBucks;927481; said:
    Be careful what you wish for.
    Click to expand...

    You aren't the boss of me.

    If every channel charges the cable provider $1.00 per month per subscriber, the cable companies are going to charge customers more (so that they make money). So let's say they charge customers $1.50 per month for each channel you get. I'd guess that my wife and I can agree on a certain number of channels where we can save money each month.
     
    Upvote 0
    Zurp;927635; said:
    You aren't the boss of me.

    If every channel charges the cable provider $1.00 per month per subscriber, the cable companies are going to charge customers more (so that they make money). So let's say they charge customers $1.50 per month for each channel you get. I'd guess that my wife and I can agree on a certain number of channels where we can save money each month.
    Click to expand...

    Problem is, they won't all cost the same... and you guys will probably dump all the .25 cent ones... and want to keep the now $5 ones. (ESPN isn't going to stay $2 if they can't put its little cousins with it).
     
    Upvote 0
    AKAKBUCK;927651; said:
    Problem is, they won't all cost the same... and you guys will probably dump all the .25 cent ones... and want to keep the now $5 ones. (ESPN isn't going to stay $2 if they can't put its little cousins with it).
    Click to expand...

    I don't think I would mind so much. I don't think the overall price is the big issue. (Don't get me wrong, there's a line, somewhere, that I won't cross when it comes to paying for a cable channel.) But the more I think of it, it disgusts me that I have to pay for 80% of the channels that I don't watch. The fact that they're $.75 or $.50 or $.10 or $.02 isn't that big of a deal.

    If the channels were 2 cents, I'd be more likely to get it, rather than a $5 channel. But the point is that I should be able to have more power when it comes to choosing which channels that I get.
     
    Upvote 0
    I just can't wait for the day that all cable companies will be obsolete and all programming will be downloadable via the internet and the money will go directly to the TV shows.

    You know the day is close as most of the technology exists to go this route. It will just be a matter of time that your television set just becomes a big monitor for your computer.
     
    Upvote 0
    Zurp;927670; said:
    I don't think I would mind so much. I don't think the overall price is the big issue. (Don't get me wrong, there's a line, somewhere, that I won't cross when it comes to paying for a cable channel.) But the more I think of it, it disgusts me that I have to pay for 80% of the channels that I don't watch. The fact that they're $.75 or $.50 or $.10 or $.02 isn't that big of a deal.

    If the channels were 2 cents, I'd be more likely to get it, rather than a $5 channel. But the point is that I should be able to have more power when it comes to choosing which channels that I get.
    Click to expand...

    Shouldn't it disgust you if you get fewer channels for the same price, or more?

    A la carte sounds great, but does anyone think ESPN is going to let you get away with paying them less?

    The other problem I have is that you can't launch new channels this way.... you think enough people would have paid for things like Food TV, HIstory Channel, (Or whatever you like) to get them off the ground when they were new?

    And... a lot of these channels will end up being "free" I think (I mean, ad revenue is important)... but... you still have to pick them.
     
    Upvote 0
    You must log in or register to reply here.
    Back
    Top