How long do you think it will take till Cable offers Ala Cart channels like Canada does?
I just dumped Cox here in the Valley because of the prices continuing to climb and I was paying $70 for basic extended cable (no digital boxes, no fancy channel or movie packages....just the first 70 something channels pretty much). I don't watch a lot of TV so I said "enough". Cox tried everything they could....not to keep me at what I had....no...their only solutions were to offer me additional TV options instead which only raised the price. I told them to call me when they offer Ala Cart like Canada does, and I will come back for the 5-10 channels I need
Not sure where this ala carte in Canada idea came from. At least not here in Calgary, Alberta. Everything is grouped into specific packages, usually carefully designed so that the average customer will want just one channel in each group.
Huh? What provider makes you pay extra for ethnic channels? The only ones I get are public access and local "must carry's".
Man, I'm getting really tired of these redundant threads being started by people who don't want to pay for cable, but have this inordinate need to constantly bash it and complain about it.
Either pay up or don't, and live with your decision. Shut up, and grow up already. Start taking some personal responsibility.
I'm really fed up with this being turned into an "anti-cable agenda" sub-forum since a few months back. It's like we've been invaded by those types who, instead of marching on the Capitol, who makes and cherry picks when to enforce the laws and rules, disrupts innocent people's livelihoods and business in some downtown area.
And it's always the same group of immature, misguided clowns who jump all over these threads, with the same old broken record BS.
Go post somewhere else. Or at least keep it within those couple of already-existing threads that have been pretty much delegated for that here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rammitinski /t/1459055/poll-how-long-do-you-thi...rt-channels-like-canada-does/30#post_23058162
Huh? What provider makes you pay extra for ethnic channels? The only ones I get are public access and local "must carry's".
Man, I'm getting really tired of these redundant threads being started by people who don't want to pay for cable, but have this inordinate need to constantly bash it and complain about it.
Either pay up or don't, and live with your decision. Shut up, and grow up already. Start taking some personal responsibility.
I'm really fed up with this being turned into an "anti-cable agenda" sub-forum since a few months back. It's like we've been invaded by those types who, instead of marching on the Capitol, who makes and cherry picks when to enforce the laws and rules, disrupts innocent people's livelihoods and business in some downtown area.
And it's always the same group of immature, misguided clowns who jump all over these threads, with the same old broken record BS.
Go post somewhere else. Or at least keep it within those couple of already-existing threads that have been pretty much delegated for that here.
What a bizarre post. Who is talking about ethnic channels? We're immature and need to shut up because we don't like the current pay-TV situation in the US? I think you're the one who needs to grow up.
This isn't the place for such rude comments. Everyone has a right to their own opinions and views. You have to understand the view of both sides.
Some people have no issue dishing out stacks of cash to over-priced product and services. Because of this and the lack of competition in many areas, it only promotes service providers and networks to raise their costs even more.
There is nothing you can say that can justify this action. And those of us who do stand up for ourselves and others, *do* stop paying for it. No "one" channel is worth paying for a 100 other channels just so you can watch it.
Basically, if you are ok with this (Rammitinski), then you should be just as comfortable walking into your favorite fast food restaurant and ordering one of everything on the menu just so you can eat that *one* burger you crave....and then throw the rest away. No option of getting just the burger by itself.....because it all comes forcefully as a package deal.
Some of the regulars in this thread can't just leave it at mere commiserating - in every thread like this, they inevitably end up going further and "telling" everyone else that they "should", or "need to" feel the same way. There's a history of this, going back well over a year.
They're the ones that have the bigger issue with accepting the other side's feelings - that many here and elsewhere do find it worth it.
For the record, I personally don't. But that's not the point. I can accept that some don't feel the same way, and that's their right.
These conversations generally go nowhere. This "same old same old" gets to be a drag.
I'm no big fan of Pay-TV (I'm sure most of you have read my posts on the various Threads, so I won't say anything further). However I have to admit one man's trash is another man's treasure. To each their own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jh20001 /t/1459055/poll-how-long-do-you-thi...-channels-like-canada-does/0_60#post_23058671
Some people have no issue dishing out stacks of cash to over-priced product and services. Because of this and the lack of competition in many areas, it only promotes service providers and networks to raise their costs even more.
There is nothing you can say that can justify this action. And those of us who do stand up for ourselves and others, *do* stop paying for it.
This attitude is exactly what Ramminitski is talking about (even though I'm not sure why he went on a tear now) - saying essentially that we're all fools for paying for TV. Thank you borntocoast for recognizing that one man's trash is another's treasure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jh20001 /t/1459055/poll-how-long-do-you-thi...rt-channels-like-canada-does/30#post_23058671
This isn't the place for such rude comments. Everyone has a right to their own opinions and views. You have to understand the view of both sides.
Some people have no issue dishing out stacks of cash to over-priced product and services. Because of this and the lack of competition in many areas, it only promotes service providers and networks to raise their costs even more.
There is nothing you can say that can justify this action. And those of us who do stand up for ourselves and others, *do* stop paying for it. No "one" channel is worth paying for a 100 other channels just so you can watch it.
Basically, if you are ok with this (Rammitinski), then you should be just as comfortable walking into your favorite fast food restaurant and ordering one of everything on the menu just so you can eat that *one* burger you crave....and then throw the rest away. No option of getting just the burger by itself.....because it all comes forcefully as a package deal.
You don't think the manager of the fast food restaurant would give you a nice little discount if you bought one of everything on the menu? And, ala carte might work if, as in the restaurant example, you only want ONE burger (channel). Most of us (actually, I'm guessing ALL) want to watch multiple channels although we may have one or two favorites.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoilerJim /t/1459055/poll-how-long-do-you-thi...rt-channels-like-canada-does/30#post_23060404
You don't think the manager of the fast food restaurant would give you a nice little discount if you bought one of everything on the menu? And, ala carte might work if, as in the restaurant example, you only want ONE burger (channel). Most of us (actually, I'm guessing ALL) want to watch multiple channels although we may have one or two favorites.
Actually, a better example for restaurants would be something like this:
If you just want a single burger, you can pay for a burger and nothing else. It's cheaper on its own.
However, you can usually add a drink and a couple of side dishes for a small amount more.
If you can't decide on one thing, some restaurants have "sampler" platters, where you might pay more than the one burger, but you get to taste a bit of several different mini burgers, each for less than each whole one would cost individually.
The last example is the way most people consume TV - they take little bits from several different channels instead of sitting on on channel all day long. By getting the big platter of different ones, it lets you nibble from each one without paying the cost of one channel on its own.
Now, if you do sit on one channel all day long, then buying that one channel is the perfect solution for you. For those who want their local stations and a handful of cable channels, it starts costing close enough to a package that it's worth it to just have the option of watching those other channels.
I know myself, the channels I primarily watch tend to change season to season. At one point, it was all about SciFi (before it was syfy) TNT and FX. Then it was USA and TBS. Now it's AMC and FX. Who knows what it will be next.
I don't have favorite channels, I have favorite shows. I don't care that HBO makes Game of Thrones, or AMC makes Walking Dead. If both of those shows moved to Lifetime, I would be happy. I wouldn't care if I only had 1 channel. I want to watch the shows I like whenever I want. An on demand system, where you can just choose what show you want to watch, regardless of time slots I think should be how TV is done. A lot like a DVR, except I shouldn't have to DVR it. I could look through the list of shows and pick what I want to watch.
A lot like hulu and netflix, but through the cable/dish provider instead. Show/filmmakers wouldn't have to worry about time issues either. Like a lot of these shows skip the intro tunes now because the adverts are taking too much time up. Another thing is commercial breaks. Sometimes hulu will give you an option of watching a big commercial at the front of the show then no commercial breaks. That's another thing I would love to be default.
I agree with Network. I don't just sit on one channel all day. I like of like the buffet of channels that let's me sample a little of this and a little of that. I've found some great programming this way (well, great to me anyway!) and I probably would have never found it if I didn't have the choice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoilerJim /t/1459055/poll-how-long-do-you-thi...rt-channels-like-canada-does/30#post_23060404
You don't think the manager of the fast food restaurant would give you a nice little discount if you bought one of everything on the menu? And, ala carte might work if, as in the restaurant example, you only want ONE burger (channel). Most of us (actually, I'm guessing ALL) want to watch multiple channels although we may have one or two favorites.
Well then find a happy compromise. Offer the ability to choose your own channels at a cheaper price (up to so many ala cart channels...the max being reasonable), and beyond that you can choose the large package deals. That way those of us that don't watch enough TV or channels to justify paying for 100+ channels for the 5 we need...can have what we want. Those who have members in the house that watch all sorts of channels, they can subscribe to the bigger packages.
My debate is the fact that there is no choice. It doesn't matter if you watch 30+ channels every month within a house....or 1-5.....you can't get *any* of them unless you at least subscribe to 100+ channels (the basic packages)....and it works the same for both parties. I do miss CNBC, and I do miss the history channel and comedy central......but the sacrifice was well worth it (and even the history channel has been polluted by reality TV anyways).
There has to be a compromise. A happy selection where everyone can feel confident in what they are paying for. I personally, I only want that one burger in the menu (maybe some fries -_^).
Quote:
Originally Posted by jh20001 /t/1459055/poll-how-long-do-you-thi...rt-channels-like-canada-does/60#post_23060643
Well then find a happy compromise. Offer the ability to choose your own channels at a cheaper price (up to so many ala cart channels...the max being reasonable), and beyond that you can choose the large package deals. That way those of us that don't watch enough TV or channels to justify paying for 100+ channels for the 5 we need...can have what we want. Those who have members in the house that watch all sorts of channels, they can subscribe to the bigger packages.
My debate is the fact that there is no choice. It doesn't matter if you watch 30+ channels every month within a house....or 1-5.....you can't get *any* of them unless you at least subscribe to 100+ channels (the basic packages)....and it works the same for both parties. I do miss CNBC, and I do miss the history channel and comedy central......but the sacrifice was well worth it (and even the history channel has been polluted by reality TV anyways).
There has to be a compromise. A happy selection where everyone can feel confident in what they are paying for. I personally, I only want that one burger in the menu (maybe some fries -_^).
I don't think that's unreasonable, but it won't happen right now. There are still far too many people that are willing to pay for the current system for anything to change.
Now, should the recession continue for another decade and more people start looking to save money by dumping those packages, then you might see some changes. Until then, the cable companies are content to not fight the media companies for the right to split things up and potentially not get the deals they currently do for those channel groupings. It will take getting a lot fewer subscriber fees to get the media companies to soften up to the idea. Then, the cable companies might have some amunition to offer alternative options.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV /t/1459055/poll-how-long-do-you-thi...rt-channels-like-canada-does/60#post_23060835
I don't think that's unreasonable, but it won't happen right now. There are still far too many people that are willing to pay for the current system for anything to change.
Now, should the recession continue for another decade and more people start looking to save money by dumping those packages, then you might see some changes. Until then, the cable companies are content to not fight the media companies for the right to split things up and potentially not get the deals they currently do for those channel groupings. It will take getting a lot fewer subscriber fees to get the media companies to soften up to the idea. Then, the cable companies might have some amunition to offer alternative options.
It won't necessarily take another decade of recession -- instead, another decade of cost increases that run well above general inflation might do the trick. Especially when combined with the apparent tendency for younger households to be less interested in paying for cable or satellite than their older counterparts.
What's needed is some cost discipline in the industry...and absent a la carte, I don't really see that happening. Really, what's the incentive to keep ESPN from continuing to jack up its rates?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Desmond /t/1459055/poll-how-long-do-you-thi...rt-channels-like-canada-does/60#post_23065629
What's needed is some cost discipline in the industry...and absent a la carte, I don't really see that happening. Really, what's the incentive to keep ESPN from continuing to jack up its rates?
I agree. ESPN is the main cable channel contributing to this problem. They are a greedy monopoly. If they could they would put ex lax in the water supply and corner the market on toilet paper.
ESPN does not have a monopoly over sports programming, there's plenty of competition for the events out there. They just happen to have more money to throw around than most because of the subscriber cash cow base, which is why the MSOs should force them onto their own tier with all the other sports channels. Not that it's ever going to happen.
Yes, I hate it for me since I'm a big sports fan, but I hate it just as much that a lot of people are pissed and dropping pay TV because they don't want to subsidize sports for folks like me.
I remember when cable came to my Neighborhood a little over 30 years ago. ESPN was included in the "Basic" Package ($7.99 a Month). for $21.00 a month you got everything they offered, including the three "Premium" Channels (HBO, Showtime and The Movie Channel). At that time ESPN showed mostly Minor League Stuff such as NCAA Division II and III Football Games, Midget Car Racing and "Australian Rules Football", among other things. Today they have become a Titan, and have secured Big League Games. Of course to secure these big-league games they have had to spend the Gigabucks, and the costs are passed on to subscribers, who have to pay whether or not they watch them. Of course, those who don't watch sports aren't too happy with having to pay for them, and that's why so many of us want a-la-carte programming. People are only willing to spend so much, and if something gets too costly people will give it up and purchase something cheaper to replace it. There is a point where people will stop paying for something, Pay-TV may very well find themselves "Pricing themselves off the market".
Quote:
Originally Posted by borntocoast /t/1459055/poll-how-long-do-you-thi...rt-channels-like-canada-does/60#post_23070708
Today they have become a Titan, and have secured Big League Games. Of course to secure these big-league games they have had to spend the Gigabucks, and the costs are passed on to subscribers, who have to pay whether or not they watch them.
One other thing to consider is that the leagues have started to monetize their product. 30 years ago, you could not watch every NCAA Division 1 football game, because not every game was even televised. There are many games from years past that will never be seen again because they don't exist on tape, unless the school itself was recording it for practice tape-sessions. But now the SEC, Big12, B1G, Pac12, ACC all have contracts with networks, be it ESPN, Fox Sports, whomever. They have a product and they've monetized it.
On the one hand, that's good for fans. On the other, it costs big money to produce and broadcast 60 different games a week.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
AVS Forum
34M posts
1.5M members
Since 1999
A forum community dedicated to home theater owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about home audio/video, TVs, projectors, screens, receivers, speakers, projects, DIY’s, product reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!