I know a lot of people with season tickets to pro games. But, for every one of them there are hundreds that cannot afford it and watch on TV.
John McCain Wants Pay Channels Sold Individually, Not In Bundles
- Thread starter dfergie
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 205
- Views 22K
I know a lot of people with season tickets to pro games. But, for every one of them there are hundreds that cannot afford it and watch on TV.
my point
they get much more in value for $5 or 10 a month charge. the system in place benefits most people now.
the trouble arises when the providers pay too much for a group(s) of channels
ex: time warner pays Lakers & Dodgers 2-3 times what they got in their last deal then we have to pay for it.
and it's total bull we have to pay for our locals because they want paid to be on the systems, when they forced providers to carry them years ago now they want $$$ silly.
Last edited:
Well in Canada they have a channel called TSN Jets that has the games of the Winnipeg Jets when they're not on the CBC. The price tag?
9.95 per month....for just games
But onto ESPN.....there are folks like me who arent in the "I hate ESPN and sports" boat but I'm not in the "damn I NEED ESPN" boat. Once in a while I flip it on but there is a game I REALLY need to see (like the Vikes) they are on local TV
I thought we still had this option?
Well, if not, one could "move" to a area that does not offer locals and do not opt to get the DNS locals.
move .........really to save $5 a month ?
thanks for the humor lmao
ps. and out to the sticks tooo.....this just keeps giving
Once again, if a la carte is allowed it doesn't mean one cant get a bundle. IT'S AN OPTION. Right now there are no market forces keeping prices down. 5 companies own 90% of all programming/channels. If a la carte is mandated, single channels wont go up to "a MILLLLLLion dollars a month" because the market will not support it. A channel like TNT trying to get $10 a month will quickly find out just how few people want to watch Law&Order reruns that much. Will some channels die, maybe. But some channels deserve to die if no one is willing to pay for them. The programming won't necessarily go away. Consolidation is the name of the game. More value for the dollar.
On top of that, just about every cable channel on the air now started having commercials pay the freight, not subscriber fees. Subscriber fees were used as a supplement. With channel consolidation, audiences are consolidated making each ad buy more profitable.
I can't believe there are people here that actually want to DENY choice to others. Again, having a la carte does not necessarily mean no packages.
On top of that, just about every cable channel on the air now started having commercials pay the freight, not subscriber fees. Subscriber fees were used as a supplement. With channel consolidation, audiences are consolidated making each ad buy more profitable.
I can't believe there are people here that actually want to DENY choice to others. Again, having a la carte does not necessarily mean no packages.
name any in home service to go down over the past 20 years ?
please no more government they can not pay their bills Now
like any of us have the power to.....DENY choice to others
Last edited:
one could "move" to a area
move
/mo?ov/VerbGo in a specified direction or manner; change position.
NounA change of place or position.
Synonymsverb. stir - shift - budge - remove
noun. movement - motion - step - action - removal
I have to make a correction to my previous post. From "most cable channels", to "many of of the most popular cable channels like TBS, TNT, USA, TNN(Spike), MTV, Nick@Nite, Discovery, Etc.". Channels like Nickelodeon and the AMC (suite), the Arts Channel (not to be confused with Classic Arts Showcase), The Learning Channel and others began as commercial free channels wholly dependent on subscriber fees. Channels like Bravo, the Entertainment Channel(Merged with Arts to make A&E), Disney Channel began as premium subscription networks, but all failed in that model so they adapted to be "basic" channels by forcing themselves on the line-up. In Disney's case "If you don't carry Disney on the basic line-up, you can't have ESPN"
Not sure if you don't know for real or you are being deliberately thick. But just in case you really don't know: "Move" with quotes in this and other satellite forums means to change your service address only. Nothing else moves. It's as simple as a phone call. Satellite companies publicly do not approve of this, but in practice generally do not care as long as you pay your bill.
None, because there is no real competition allowed right now. And I don't expect the prices to go down after a la carte. However I expect the rate of increase, which is at about 12% a year now, to drop dramatically.
Actually this would be one of the government actions that even the most conservative among us should support. It breaks up an oligopoly which is stifling competition and keeping market forces from doing its thing.
Supporting the status quo in the current cable system and actively lobbying your congressman to prevent anyone from being able to chose whether to buy a bundle or individually is actively working to deny others' choice.
Yes, we all know you have never ever ever told any kind of lie or said anything intentionally misleading to make a point or have something work to your advantage in your life as an adult.
its only lying if you get caught
was a "mover" for almost 10 years of satellite.......then had to legit move to get my free satellite programming here at the apartment
how many business have you run ?
you are talking about changing their whole model.
McCain has a brain fart really and some like the smell
gov involvement cost more every time
Yes. That is why long distance bills went up after the break-up of ATT. That is why gasoline prices went so high when Standard Oil was broken up. That is why cell phone service prices went so high when the FCC cleared more spectrum.
The current model is an oligopoly which is counter to anyone who says they are for "free market".
The current model is an oligopoly which is counter to anyone who says they are for "free market".
The government is already involved, allowing all the mergers to go through that created some of these media monsters. Yes I run my own very successful business, and I would do the same thing the media conglomerates are doing now, if I was allowed to run amok unchecked. That doesn't mean it is right and some of these channels are taking up public airwaves, so the government should have a say in this.
