Lower revenue doesn't imply lower cost..Right now their actions say that bundling makes them more $$.. implying that alacarte would make them less $$ (which implies consumers spending less $$).
Lower revenue doesn't imply lower cost..Right now their actions say that bundling makes them more $$.. implying that alacarte would make them less $$ (which implies consumers spending less $$).
If a broadcaster owns 5 channels and he won't sell one to a provider unless they buy all five, why would he permit the provider to sell them individually when that would cost the broadcaster ad revenue? The provider would have to sell all 5 as a package deal.
um, yes, that (bundled channels) is exactly the system we have now. Alacarte would mean that the channels can be subscribed to separately.. and that is the decision of the channel/content owners, not the cable/sat company (which are stuck with bundling/packages for now)
Do you all really want to pay $20 for a channel ?
It is funny to me that you have to tack on negative terms (socialism, pyramid-scheme) and make up a channel (basket weaving) to make that argument.
Bundling is how this industry works, I don't see the per-channel fight being fought by the consumer anytime soon and remain a battleground for the producers and providers for the foreseeable future.
Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
Finally, something that may get pulled that I DON'T watch.
LOL. Your right! TBS was the only one I cared about and now that baseball is over I won't be watching them till next October if they have the post season
I say they resolve it since they extended it which is good but if not I don't see it lasting long knowing DirecTV history of disputes they don't last long most of the time!! imo![]()
Or they don't happen to begin with!I am glad an agreement was reached with no disruption to the end user. Hopefully we will see this more often.