Broadcasters, MPAA Line Up Against Proposed A La Carte Bill

[dfergie]

Sens. Richard Blumenthal and John McCain's bill draws comment from ESPN and the MPAA, and has little chance of passage.

Source & More: hollywoodreporter.com

 

[Teehar]

Sens. Richard Blumenthal and John McCain's bill draws comment from ESPN and the MPAA, and has little chance of passage.

Source & More: hollywoodreporter.com

I'm shocked! Look at this snippet from ESPN.

While ESPN would not address the Senator's stance, the network did provide a statement: "An a la carte system would cost consumers significantly more money for dramatically less choice as evidenced by virtually every research and academic report prepared on this topic. ESPN is hugely popular and, along with many other cable networks, provides a tremendous entertainment value."

Tremendous entertainment value eh?Let them go ala carte,and let the consumers decide the value.

 

[dfergie]

I'm shocked! Look at this snippet from ESPN.



Tremendous entertainment value eh?Let them go ala carte,and let the consumers decide the value.

I think ESPN and the rest of the mouse would lose much value/income immediately ...

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

I am surprised to see Richard Blumenthol speaking out against ESPN since he is ESPN's hometown senator. They can turn and use that against him saying that he is trying to cost Connecticut Jobs.

Oh well... He has never been a good politician anyways.

 

[mike123abc]

I am shocked and dismayed that any cable channel would not support a la carte!

I do think it will eventually happen one way or another... I see tons of young people no longer with any cable/satellite all videos from the internet. It may happen slower than the decline of the land line for cellular only houses transformation, but if they are losing the 14-25 year old crowd now, it will ripple pretty fast. Eventually there will be content providers (like Netflix, Youtube and Amazon are trying to do with their original programming) that traditional cable will just not seem that important...

 

[FaT Air]

They'd actually learn what channels are junk and what is worthwhile to carry. It would give YOU the choice. Instead of having to be force fed junk*.(that you probably program your TV to SKIP) So a lot of 'cable' channels are worried.
But then, with the load on the 'cable' dwindling they'd have to cut rates.
I can see our cable supplier going from 40 some 'basic's they have now to 9 or 10 channels. 4 'major' networks and 5 or 6 'cable'.
I calculated what it cost me to watch cable tv a while ago. It's over $5 per hour for the few 'cable' programs I like to catch. Summer, that's another story as it's all reruns so little TV is watched. Since then, same channels and shows, but the cable bill has increased to the tune of near 20%.
One more 'hike' and I'm gone.
And the day OTA scrambles - - - (it only takes an email to set up payment and receive the 'key', punch it in, then 'flip the switch')
*As an example, quoted from article: Bristol-based ESPN, Disney/ABC's revenue and viewership powerhouse, which currently hauls in about $5.40 per month per subscriber. Endquote
On a lot of cable systems it's in the basics, so you're paying for it whether you watch or not. I know a LOT of people who don't watch it AT ALL.
?I'm all for CHOICE. And if your choice is to have a less popular channel delivered to your television, you should pay more. Just don't force ME to pay for something I have no use for.