 
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
edit:
July 1st, @04:42PM
| Why isn't it higher with... C-Band? It MAY be higher IF you turn around and then buy all the stupid channels you didn't want anyway. I figure I'm like most people...I only watch about 10 channels plus 2 or 3 locals...the other 100 are lame filler. Commentating on ESPN is so horrid I would dump their expensive asses in a second...same with Fox Sports West dummies ruining ANAHEIM Angel games with their pointless chatter.
I used to think it was a bad idea buying the FCC argument but after looking at C-Band I would expect cable to be no different, in fact it may even get better due to competition and more direct marketing. USA and other channels would be selling direct to consumers rather that relying on cable operators to include them in bundled packages. If their programming sucked...no subscribers, no revenue. | |
|  | jabetcha
join:2003-02-13
Lake Mary, FL
 ·BroadVoice
| Re: Why isn't it higher with... ESPN accounts for anywhere from 15-30% of a standard cable subscriber's bill. Rather than al-a-carte, why not regulate them into a premium (like HBO) or pay-per-view realm?
The ones that will be hurt most are the smaller networks. I think it would be smarter to stick it to the big dogs at Disney (parent company of ESPN) and tell them we don't need their hands in our pockets if we don't want their lousy services. | |
| | |
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
| Re: Why isn't it higher with... Let them be hurt...compelling programming can save them...if they're not willing to put compelling programming and actually get ratings then they can cease operating. Neither cable operators or subscribers should be operating a charity organization for channels which can't pull a rating point. | |
| 
Its Me Again
@170.190.x.x
| Pretty much all sports channels are junk. All of those damn music channels. (who listens to those?) MTV, VH1, and network channel other than locals, TBS, Home Shopping channels.
The list goes on forever. I only watch around 10 cable & 1 local channel in the morning to get the traffic report. Give me a choice. | |
| | Primis
join:2004-03-21
Coldwater, MI
| Re: Pretty much all sports channels quote:
Pretty much all sports channels are junk.
I suppose... except to the millions of us who watch a couple hours of ESPN and FoxSports daily because we have an interest in it.
That's like wondering why there's sportstalk radio. It's because there's a huge demand and market for it. Regardless of your own personal feelings or tastes. | |
| 
verolom
join:2002-03-23
Eatontown, NJ
 ·Comcast
edit:
July 1st, @05:17PM
| Video On Demand I have hopes that when Verizon starts offering TV service on their FIOS they will have channels on demand and that will force the cable monopolies to play a different tune.
For RR service, Basic channels (broadcast + shopping) and Family Channels (all analog) I pay more than $90 a month. I watch one news channel, FX, SpikeTV, USA, Comedy, Discovery, History, NBC and only one or two shows on each. 8 channels with 2 minutes of commercials every 10 minutes. It is ridiculous, but I am addicted. | |
| 
Titus Pullo
I came, I saw, I slept
join:2004-06-26
 ·Embarq
| McCain lip service, plain and simple. This guy must have Kevlar in his boxers, what with the fences he rides. He should do himself a favor and paint a yellow stripe down his back.
--
"You work three jobs? … Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic that you're doing that —George W. Bush, to a divorced mother of three, Omaha, Nebraska, Feb. 4, 2005
| |
| markopoleo
join:2003-04-02
Bonne Terre, MO
·Charter Pipeline
| Cable just needs to.. Let customers choose channels that they want and get sent those channels, even if a box is required to filter them out in the end I think they would gain customers.
I have not had cable for years, not missing it with all the junk on cable. I would be satisfied just having all digital local channels and a option to buy other cable channels for a few extra a month. If they gave me all Local Channels (ABC/FOX/NBC etc) i would pay $20 a month for just that. If a option existed to buy more through remote I would prob get CNN or something else. Everything else i could care less about..
But then again we are talking about Charter communications..they seem to have Chartered a boat off to Oz when it comes to prices and reason. | |
| | mlody
join:2000-07-26
Des Plaines, IL
edit:
July 1st, @05:32PM
| Re: Cable just needs to.. I would be just happy to remove channels that I will never watch even tough they are part of the deal. Every TV allows to completely remove a channel if someone wishes it. Just make this feature available on all digital boxes and I see many people weeding out 95% of garbage by removing access to those channels. | |
| | cablebob
join:2005-06-13
Bellingham, WA
·Qwest.net
| Ah, cable. I used to have the whole deluxe package, 150 channels i didn't watch, all the premium movie channels, but F that. i downgraded to the "limited" package with comcast (keep in mind i have dsl now so no need to worry about package pricing to keep that cheaper) and i get the locals, some channels from Canada and the good ol shopping channels, and i pay $14.95 a month. Granted there is nothing on in the summer time, but i should be outside anyways, and almost everything i watch is network aways, so it works for me | |
| Rob850
join:2003-04-11
Mary Esther, FL
| TV Is Dead With the rising costs of TV (programming) these days it doesn't make sense anymore. I watch maybe an hour of TV each day. All tv is it's nothing but bugs and commericals.
and with the push to digital those of us with analog TV's are gone. I'm not going to miss it that much since I'm sick and tired of watching the FDA's commericals for prescription drugs begging us to see our doctor, beer commericals and the like.
Let TV die. We have DVD's and the Interent.
-Rob
--
»rob.luniac.com/w0kie | |
| | biochemistry
join:2003-05-09
92361 | Re: TV Is Dead I don't think the FDA is giving free advertising on behalf of the pharmaceutical companies. | |
| | Rob850
join:2003-04-11
Mary Esther, FL | There letting them advertise which shouldn't even be happening. I guess I should have said "the FDA is letting drug co's freely advertise" when before prescr. drugs wern't allowed.
-Rob | |
| Eric Martin
join:2005-06-19
66308
| I totally AGREE ! TV is DEAD ! I just watch some sports. Thats it.
There is NOTHING cool and educational or anything unique . It's all cop shows and recycled ripped off vomit. CSI this and that bs. I would love for there to be a good uncensored movie channel thats not pay per view. But we know thats not going to happen in Soviet Christian regulated TV . Right ?
Alot of it is targeted at FAT WOMEN also ! BORING TOO. Anything cool is usually boycotted by LAME Bible belt religous groups. | |
| | 
beeman65
join:2001-07-23
Mckeesport, PA
clubs:
| Re: I totally AGREE ! TV is DEAD ! I was browsing through the guide on my Comcast Digital for something to watch while I ate dinner, and after about five minutes of finding crap, I settled on a show on Discovery Science Channel about bridge construction.
--
Get Firefox. Join the new wave. | |
| | | cablebob
join:2005-06-13
Bellingham, WA | Re: I totally AGREE ! TV is DEAD ! Hey, i like bridges, they are cool  | |
|
streamspiratedpredic
| Ha don't- it'll be the cable companies' worst.. Ha! I laugh at the stupidity of it all! Broadband is getting so good in terms of QOS that cable channels could be streamed over the internet with no problem at 300x200 resolution and compression. This MAY begin picking up speed as rate increases and choice-denied to consumers takes shape. Increasingly its a take-it-or-leave-it proposition with forced bundling and its making people sick and tired of paying $25-75 too much for channels they don't watch or want and services they don't need (on demand @ $6-100 a pop) | |
| SKYWARP
join:2005-02-02
Portland, OR
·Comcast Formerly ..
| Broadcasters share a good amount of the blame The broadcasters, like ESPN share the blame for channel bundling.
When a cable co. goes to ESPN to carry their channels, ESPN sells them a channel set (including some Disney stuff, etc) and in the contract the cable co has to carry all of those channels within a certain package range. That way ESPN is guaranteed to get more exposure than they may by selling their channels al la carte.
The broadcasters who own groups of channels will use the popularity of ESPN to force the cable co to carry other less popular channels. It's that way with most of the major broadcasters.
Al la carte pricing will most likely raise the price of individual channels because rather than a cable or DBS co. getting a big group rate ESPN will have to charge more becuase they would loose a large portion of their mandatory subscribers.
Who knows how much it would cost to buy ESPN al la carte??? Right now the cable co. pays a per subscriber fee for every single subscriber who has that package. If a good half of the people who have no interest in ESPN dropped their subscribership. . .ESPN would have to make up for the revenue in HUGE al la carte charges.
Overall I think it would probably cost more to al la carte channels for the majority of subcribers, not everyone, but most. | |
| | kubus
join:2000-12-22
Irwin, PA
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Broadcasters share a good amount of the blame Almost got it right Skywarp, it's the networks that come to MSO's for the carriage deals. But yes, ESPN and ESPN 2 are the staples, and then as part of the package, MSO will have to carry News and Classics, the College Sports Network. ABC Family is treated somewhat separate from ESPN, and it holds it's own with pretty good ratings.
The most recent ESPN carriage deal with Comcast, called for about $3.70 per subscriber. ESPN has grounds to charge that much, they pull in strong ratings and have nice local avials package.
In any case, a la carte is BS. It is not a solution (solution is in your damn remote) and will cause even more problems and will run up the cost of cable. Not to mention that niche channels will never have a chance to develope and we are all going to be stuck with more of the same, which is pretty much crap. The only solution, and something pretty much every MSO jumped on is VOD push. With VOD, each network has additional outlet for commercial inventory, it will offer an engaged viewer (a lot of agencies will be asking for guarantees on engaged viewer, so far only Court TV has done it), and most of all, it will offer the choice for people that don't know how to use their remote.
All McCain is doing is trying to make himself look good, however to me he looks like a control freak, taking away the choices. | |
| |
NopeDontBuyThatNonse
| The mere fact that ESPN puts a must carry provision in their contract futher errodes public confidence and trust that it is a channel worth carrying and MUST be dropped! Let the WEAK channels DIE a MEANINGFUL DEATH! Only channels people want should be carried. Once you kill off the weak stuff, the popular stuff will survive. Even turner networks knows when to kill of channels (CNN-FN). You need to stop using the baseball team strategy to think about revenue sharing when buying TV SERVICE.. companies like ESPN for example getting the lion's share (like the Yankees ) and others getting .10 cents per month per subscriber (Not that I would put ESPN in the same class as the Yankees, but the revenue disparty is the same)
Yes, there should be bundles... but ONLY consumer driven, not INDUSTRY driven. The industry must not be driven by SPORTS, or polticical based power.. power needs to be in the consumers' hands. Everyone has this concept of cable-tv as this universe that everyone must come from planet earth, otherwise you dont' exist--watching the same tv, being manipulated by media, etc.
At some time in the future, tv will be increasingly broadcast over the internet and people will need to face the fact that cable tv will die an eventual death as we know it because consumers are already tuning out things they don't want, and soon they won't have to pay for it either! In my opinion, companies like ESPN should be investigated for ANTI-TRUST, strong arm tactics and go the way of ENRON.
Our economy works on supply and demand, with few exceptions and cable tv is one that for the most part flies in the face of free-market, supply-demand, more like take it or leave it. I personally coudn't see a block of 100 channels going for $20 cheaper just because ESPN was included!
I don't know about your fast foot restaurants, but in mine.. the a-la-carte menu has cheaper items as well as expensive ones and once you have choice, you ain't going back. Die ESPN, DIE! | |
| 
supersix8
Premium
join:2005-03-20
Oakland, CA | bulls@#$T  who listens to music on there teley?NO ONE.nuff said | |
| | SKYWARP
join:2005-02-02
Portland, OR | Re: bulls@#$T I don't listen to music on my television, but I have my stereo and home theater system connected to my cable DCT. . .and I do listen to the music choice channels when I'm bored with my music library. | |
| | | |
|
|
Cable A La Carte