It's 2012, how come we still don't have any kind of a la carte services?

[concise]

Or will we forever be held hostage in these annual contract disputes between cable and satellite companies?

I'm thinking somebody could even have a service where they meet us halfway and ask us to pick the channels we want plus select some set number of channels from a bunch of lists (think pick a couple of sides/ appetizers at a restaurant) to round out a package.

 

[Ezus Jezus]

I've been saying this for years. I pay over $100 a month for cable and I only watch a few channels.

 

[jwinfield]

What benefit would cable companies get from this?

Instead of having you pay a bunch for packages I'm gonna let you pay $12 a month for the 14 channels you watch?

 

[daze23]

What benefit would cable companies get from this?

Instead of having you pay a bunch for packages I'm gonna let you pay $12 a month for the 14 channels you watch?

yep, it would only work if people started a serious 'boycott cable' movement. otherwise there's no incentive

 

[Wildin]

yep, it would only work if people started a serious 'boycott cable' movement. otherwise there's no incentive

it would never ever work. If u cut out the middle man (cox, cablevision, time warner, comcast, etc) the networks would rape you so fierce and get away it that you'd kill yourself.

the cable companies are distributors. ABC own disney and espn, viacom owns all those networks. discovery has like 6 or 7 channels, plus HBO has a bunch. fukk I dont watch HBO Latino but HBO dont give a fukk they say take them all or have nothing.

ESPN charges a particular cable company approx 8 million a month. 96 million a year. Each year they usually acquire something new like olympic coverage, masters, us open tennis, wimbledon or some shyt then the next year they say well we just acquired *this so we are worth x and now we want 10 million...Cable companies usually say fukk that, thus black outs and the little messages on the screen and the commercials that say call your provider to keep amc, viacom channels, espn etc.

If the companies happily agree each year they get fukked. and you as the customer pay more for channels. The cable companies negotiate and say ok HBO we will pay you 10 million month even, have full access to hbo on demand and hbo go then sell all 8 channels plus hd to customer for $15 a month....they agree. Now your paying $15 for all instead of 10 for 2 or so.

If you went straight to hbo or espn, youd pay like $80 for espn 1 and thats it. or $40 for hbo east and thats it.

I worked in a call center for a cable company for a couple years (got phone, internet and cable free) and now my boy works for them, I can get anyone whos interested some industry links that talks about network profits and such if you like numbers.

 

[daze23]

it would never ever work. If u cut out the middle man (cox, cablevision, time warner, comcast, etc) the networks would rape you so fierce and get away it that you'd kill yourself.

the cable companies are distributors. ABC own disney and espn, viacom owns all those networks. discovery has like 6 or 7 channels, plus HBO has a bunch. fukk I dont watch HBO Latino but HBO dont give a fukk they say take them all or have nothing.

ESPN charges a particular cable company approx 8 million a month. 96 million a year. Each year they usually acquire something new like olympic coverage, masters, us open tennis, wimbledon or some shyt then the next year they say well we just acquired *this so we are worth x and now we want 10 million...Cable companies usually say fukk that, thus black outs and the little messages on the screen and the commercials that say call your provider to keep amc, viacom channels, espn etc.

If the companies happily agree each year they get fukked. and you as the customer pay more for channels. The cable companies negotiate and say ok HBO we will pay you 10 million month even, have full access to hbo on demand and hbo go then sell all 8 channels plus hd to customer for $15 a month....they agree. Now your paying $15 for all instead of 10 for 2 or so.

If you went straight to hbo or espn, youd pay like $80 for espn 1 and thats it. or $40 for hbo east and thats it.

I worked in a call center for a cable company for a couple years (got phone, internet and cable free) and now my boy works for them, I can get anyone whos interested some industry links that talks about network profits and such if you like numbers.

it could work if people refuse to pay those prices. the networks would have no choice. they would have to accept less profits or die

personally I hate when people say something will "never" happen. if it doesn't break the laws of physics, it can happen. sure it maybe very unlikely in our current capitalist system, but that don't mean shyt can "never" change

 

[jadillac]

How do you expect smaller channels(that you might like0 to make money and survive?

It's obvious channels like ESPN, CNN, etc have tons of viewers but other channels like Spike or TRU might not have their viewership and they benefit from being under the cable umbrella.

 

[daze23]

How do you expect smaller channels(that you might like0 to make money and survive?

It's obvious channels like ESPN, CNN, etc have tons of viewers but other channels like Spike or TRU might not have their viewership and they benefit from being under the cable umbrella.

if they don't have enough viewers to survive, then they won't survive. that seems like business-101. sure it may suck if that's a channel you personally like, but I don't want to prop up some antiquated system just for my personal benefit

obviously you can't expect anything to change without some sacrifices

 

[jadillac]

if they don't have enough viewers to survive, then they won't survive. that seems like business-101. sure it may suck if that's a channel you personally like, but I don't want to prop up some antiquated system just for my personal benefit

obviously you can't expect anything to change without some sacrifices

yeah, but the simple logic is that the Food Network prolly doesnt do the same numbers as ESPN.

These channels need the parternership of the cable co to get their channel out there...in turn they both get paid

 

[daze23]

yeah, but the simple logic is that the Food Network prolly doesnt do the same numbers as ESPN.

These channels need the parternership of the cable co to get their channel out there...in turn they both get paid

and it leads to the situation we're in now where you're paying for a bunch of stuff you don't use. it's like a system where if you want to hear the Nas album, you have to buy a 'set' that includes every Def Jam release from that year

 

[jadillac]

and it leads to the situation we're in now where you're paying for a bunch of stuff you don't use. it's like a system where if you want to hear the Nas album, you have to buy a 'set' that includes every Def Jam release from that year

That's the way it goes breh.

Everyones palm is getting greased.

 

[StarClout]

I see that Disney/Viacom was already mentioned.

Back in the day, you could buy your channels directly from the providers (like cable/D*/E* did) with this here. You could even get NFL ST with it till sometime last decade. Too bad HD service with these was shytcanned a year or two ago

 

[Wildin]

it could work if people refuse to pay those prices. the networks would have no choice. they would have to accept less profits or die

personally I hate when people say something will "never" happen. if it doesn't break the laws of physics, it can happen. sure it maybe very unlikely in our current capitalist system, but that don't mean shyt can "never" change

The reason it's so expensive is because the events themselves are expensive. Think how much you pay to go to Wimbledon or the Super bowl. And then how much exclusive coverage some networks get.

If you live in San Diego and want to was the Jets unless you have direct ticket etc...your not seeing the game. Unless you fly to NY, or wait for someone to send you the tape. You can read the score online etc, but it's not the same.

If everyone stopped going to Lakers games would,drink they change the ticket prices etc? Maybe after a couple of years...then if they still didn't generate enough sales to keep selling out seats they may move to a smaller venue, but they keep winning and people keep coming etc

 

[daze23]

The reason it's so expensive is because the events themselves are expensive. Think how much you pay to go to Wimbledon or the Super bowl. And then how much exclusive coverage some networks get.

If you live in San Diego and want to was the Jets unless you have direct ticket etc...your not seeing the game. Unless you fly to NY, or wait for someone to send you the tape. You can read the score online etc, but it's not the same.

If everyone stopped going to Lakers games would,drink they change the ticket prices etc? Maybe after a couple of years...then if they still didn't generate enough sales to keep selling out seats they may move to a smaller venue, but they keep winning and people keep coming etc

all that shyt is a mess too. it's only because we as a society have put so much value into these frivolous things

 

[concise]

How do you expect smaller channels(that you might like0 to make money and survive?

It's obvious channels like ESPN, CNN, etc have tons of viewers but other channels like Spike or TRU might not have their viewership and they benefit from being under the cable umbrella.

What about that appetizers suggestion I had?

Put a couple of those smaller channels in a subsection and force people to pick a couple (say 5 or 6). Would be better than being forced to have all of them, no?