NFL Network vs. Cable holdouts - The 8 game dilemma. - Page 13 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #361 of 1586 Old 08-15-2006, 09:19 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
posg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,988
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredfa View Post

And everyone keeps forgetting the real value of football ( --which cable takes advantage of in its local avails, by the way: young men watch it. In droves.
There is nothing else -- NOTHING -- that draws young men to the TV set like football.
Advertisers covet them, so the rates are higher.
It is not just pure viewers -- ask CBS about that. It has "won" (by an average of several million viewers) the total viewers race the past three seasons, yet everyone on Madison Avenue talks about Fox as the winner because it has the most (by a very slim margin) 18-49 viewers.

It doesn't matter if you sell one million dollars worth of advertising if the program costs you 1.2 million dollars to acquire.

ABC got out their calculator and came to the same conclusion.

Fact is that the NFL has priced itself out of being viable depending exclusively on advertising dollars. They need subscription fees as well.
posg is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #362 of 1586 Old 08-15-2006, 09:23 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
fredfa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: San Antonio TX 78251
Posts: 49,069
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by posg View Post

It doesn't matter if you sell one million dollars worth of advertising if the program costs you 1.2 million dollars to acquire.

ABC got out their calculator and came to the same conclusion.

Fact is that the NFL has priced itself out of being viable depending exclusively on advertising dollars. They need subscription fees as well.

(Obviously the executives running CBS, Fox and NBC disagree with you.)

And by the way, ABC's calculator has a large mouse face on it -- the same calculator owned by the ESPN folks -- who have run ABC Sports for years.

It is just a conglomerate moving an asset from one entity to another. And with so many of ABC's hits being female-skewed the need for a male-oriented platform in MNF has eroded.
fredfa is offline  
post #363 of 1586 Old 08-15-2006, 09:24 AM
Moderator
 
CPanther95's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 23,796
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
Liked: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by posg View Post

Fact is that the NFL has priced itself out of being viable depending exclusively on advertising dollars. They need subscription fees as well.

Take a look at post #359, and tell me how many of those networks are "viable, depending exclusively on advertising dollars" - and where was TWC's fiscal responsibility when adding all those networks and passing on those costs to consumers?
CPanther95 is online now  
post #364 of 1586 Old 08-15-2006, 09:26 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
posg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,988
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by CPanther95 View Post

Here's a real reality check.

How do you suppose the ratings were on Monday night for these channels TWC is charging customers for on the same tier NFL Network is looking to be on? If your point is "popularity", where on this list would you expect the NFL to fall?

Populaity is only part of the equation. Many of those less popular networks have a much higher return on investment than the sports channels, with modest carriage fees subsidizing sufficient ad revenue.

We may be talking big revenues, but thin margins. That is usually a recipe for disaster. Not that the NFL is in trouble, yet. But they haven't seemed to have reached the bottom of the pocket, yet.
posg is offline  
post #365 of 1586 Old 08-15-2006, 09:36 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
posg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,988
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredfa View Post

(Obviously the executives running CBS, Fox and NBC disagree with you.)

And by the way, ABC's calculator has a large mouse face on it -- the same calculator owned by the ESPN folks -- who have run ABC Sports for years.

It is just a conglomerate moving an asset from one entity to another. And with so many of ABC's hits being female-skewed the need for a male-oriented platform in MNF has eroded.

The folks at CBS, Fox, and NBC have been able to justify the costs because research has shown NFL football can be used to drive viewers to more profitable programming. It's a house of cards.
posg is offline  
post #366 of 1586 Old 08-15-2006, 09:39 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
fredfa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: San Antonio TX 78251
Posts: 49,069
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by CPanther95 View Post

Take a look at post #359, and tell me how many of those networks are "viable, depending exclusively on advertising dollars" - and where was TWC's fiscal responsibility when adding all those networks and passing on those costs to consumers?

Let's just wait and see how far TWC (and other cablecos) push their fight against paying to rebroadcast local signals.

What percentage of homes will immediately defect to telco or dbs (or even OTA) the moment ABC/CBS/Fox/NBC/ etc (and in NY, LA, Texas, Florida and Arizona markets the Spanish stations, which lead the ratings) disappear from lineups.

It seems odd how DBS and telco seem to be able to pay for local rebroadcast with no problem and keep their monthly bills lower than cable.

Clearly the time for cablecos paying for carriage of local stations is just around the corner. And it should be: the locals add far more value as a group to cable than any other set of stations.

Good luck TWC.
fredfa is offline  
post #367 of 1586 Old 08-15-2006, 10:00 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
posg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,988
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredfa View Post

Let's just wait and see how far TWC (and other cablecos) push their fight against paying to rebroadcast local signals.

What percentage of homes will immediately defect to telco or dbs (or even OTA) the moment ABC/CBS/Fox/NBC/ etc (and in NY, LA, Texas, Florida and Arizona markets the Spanish stations, which lead the ratings) disappear from lineups.

It seems odd how DBS and telco seem to be able to pay for local rebroadcast with no problem and keep their monthly bills lower than cable.

Clearly the time for cablecos paying for carriage of local stations is just around the corner. And it should be: the locals add far more value as a group to cable than any other set of stations.

Good luck TWC.

Although they disguise it, DBS still sells locals as an add-on option, and pays only for those subscribers who elect them. It is A La Carte all the way. It's a profit center for the satellite operators, not a cost.

The telcos are too small right now to do anything except pay premium rates for everything. It's just a pill they have to swallow.

The broadcasters have leveraged all the sibling networks they can muster onto cable systems "in consideration" of retransmission, and now that that well is dry, it's time for cash.

My argument is this. What incentive does a broadcaster have to provide abundant quality programming when all he needs is a couple of marquee events to extort carriage fees from cable operators, and fill his schedule with cheaper programming.

In other words, you move the target away from attracting viewers, because eyeballs are all you have to sell, to a mixture of ad revenue and subscription fees, AND THAT IS NOT "IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST". Especially if they still expect market exclusivity for their product.
posg is offline  
post #368 of 1586 Old 08-15-2006, 10:17 AM
Moderator
 
CPanther95's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 23,796
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
Liked: 73
Funny how the arguments conveniently shift to suit TWC's interests.

D* is going to be including LILs standard in all packages. That means all subs will be used when calculating carriage fees (I think it's close to 90% now anyway). Plus digital locals - which were separately negotiated - are included at no charge for all their LIL subs.

So your point is that DBS and Telcos have that "pill to swallow", but cablecos should be excluded because they agreed to retransmission of sibling networks? Are you kidding? Do you think DBS is immune from bundling by the networks?

Stick to your guns TWC, after all, broadcast networks only offer 2 - 3 hours a day of quality programming. Maybe if you setup a website, your customers will demand that the local networks be carried a la carte so they confine their costs to the 99 "high demand" cable channels that TWC customers really want. Good luck with that.
CPanther95 is online now  
post #369 of 1586 Old 08-15-2006, 11:22 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
posg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,988
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I personally don't care if broadcasters charge cable operators or not. I see the logic and illogic on both sides of the fence.

But what I do mind is the bulls**t games they play. If every group owner published a rate card for his portfolio of channels, and let the market decide, fine. In otherwords Sinclair might charge 50 cents for an NBC SD channel with a 10 cent surcharge for the HD. CW might be 25 cents and a nickel, EVERYWHERE.

But now their going to try to leverage all their digital sidecar channels in as part of their deals, and it's going to be a mess. And they'll give it away to small systems while holding TWC's feet to the fire, all the while saying "Barnyard Cable wants you to have CBS but TWC hates you."

And the only winners again will be the bloodsucking attorneys.
posg is offline  
post #370 of 1586 Old 08-15-2006, 11:34 AM
Moderator
 
CPanther95's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 23,796
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
Liked: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by posg View Post

But now their going to try to leverage all their digital sidecar channels in as part of their deals, and it's going to be a mess. And they'll give it away to small systems while holding TWC's feet to the fire, all the while saying "Barnyard Cable wants you to have CBS but TWC hates you."

And the only winners again will be the bloodsucking attorneys.

But this is the system that has been created. All kinds of networks have been leveraged into the lineup using different methods depending on the target MSO. The end result is identical in all these negotiations, but the PR departments will put the most advantageous spin on it.

Yes, it's ridiculous to say TWC hates the football fan, or E* hates women (during the Lifetime negotiations) - but that PR battle is what ensues because none of the parties involved really want the nuts and bolts made public. TW, Comcast, D*, etc. can't make bundling an issue because they have affiliated business units that need bundling in order to maximize profits.

TWC can stand up to the NFL because they have no distribution for TW products, and no other channels to hold as leverage. If Comcast or News Corp purchased the NFL Network, negotiations with TWC would immediately come to a successful conclusion.
CPanther95 is online now  
post #371 of 1586 Old 08-15-2006, 11:47 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
posg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,988
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by CPanther95 View Post

But this is the system that has been created. All kinds of networks have been leveraged into the lineup using different methods depending on the target MSO. The end result is identical in all these negotiations, but the PR departments will put the most advantageous spin on it.

Yes, it's ridiculous to say TWC hates the football fan, or E* hates women (during the Lifetime negotiations) - but that PR battle is what ensues because none of the parties involved really want the nuts and bolts made public. TW, Comcast, D*, etc. can't make bundling an issue because they have affiliated business units that need bundling in order to maximize profits.

TWC can stand up to the NFL because they have no distribution for TW products, and no other channels to hold as leverage. If Comcast or News Corp purchased the NFL Network, negotiations with TWC would immediately come to a successful conclusion.

Why is everybody afraid to disclose the details of their negotiations. It's because they're being sneaky and dishonest and not playing on a level playing field. They smell the money, and play the ambush game.

You're not an attorney are you?
posg is offline  
post #372 of 1586 Old 08-15-2006, 12:41 PM
Moderator
 
CPanther95's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 23,796
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
Liked: 73
I'm leaning towards the NFL Network, primarily because of the reasons for the impasse. Cable is only resisting because of their "outsider" status when in reality, what the NFL is doing is far less insidious than what transpired when all the other ancillary networks were added. Overpriced or not, at least the battle is defined around the cost vs. the value of the programming/network.

The costs added for the many other small cablenets had very little to do with value to the cableco or their customers. It is just a cash-grab reserved for those few megacorps that are in a position to scratch each other's backs.
CPanther95 is online now  
post #373 of 1586 Old 08-15-2006, 02:02 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
posg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,988
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by CPanther95 View Post

I'm leaning towards the NFL Network, primarily because of the reasons for the impasse. Cable is only resisting because of their "outsider" status when in reality, what the NFL is doing is far less insidious than what transpired when all the other ancillary networks were added. Overpriced or not, at least the battle is defined around the cost vs. the value of the programming/network.

The costs added for the many other small cablenets had very little to do with value to the cableco or their customers. It is just a cash-grab reserved for those few megacorps that are in a position to scratch each other's backs.

I'm obviously leaning towards the cable side because I think the value equation is out of whack. Not that I think half of what's on basic cable is worth what it costs. I just think that the NFLN deal is a pack with the devil just like ESPN turned out to be. TWC could probably drop all the MTV channels and not miss a beat. I'm not so sure that's true once they give subscribers NFL. I can hear the behind the scenes pep rally at NFLN - "TEN YEARS - TEN DOLLARS!!!"
posg is offline  
post #374 of 1586 Old 08-15-2006, 02:07 PM
Moderator
 
CPanther95's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 23,796
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
Liked: 73
When they start dropping MTV and the 75% of the other channels where the value equation is out of whack, I'll be on the TWC bandwagon right beside you. Until then, it's just a hypocritical application of the value argument that only affects fans of the NFL.
CPanther95 is online now  
post #375 of 1586 Old 08-15-2006, 02:19 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
posg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,988
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by CPanther95 View Post

When they start dropping MTV and the 75% of the other channels where the value equation is out of whack, I'll be on the TWC bandwagon right beside you. Until then, it's just a hypocritical application of the value argument that only affects fans of the NFL.

Except that more than half of the programming costs are already sports related, so for the non-sports fan, it's JUST as out of whack.

I don't think full A La Carte is the answer, but it sure would make sense to divide basic into five or so major categories at $9.95 each. Perhaps Sports, News & Public Affairs, General Entertainment, Lifestyle, Educational & Informational, Broadcast Channels, and the junk could still be "free".
posg is offline  
post #376 of 1586 Old 08-15-2006, 02:29 PM
Moderator
 
CPanther95's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 23,796
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
Liked: 73
Dividing by categories will do nothing to prevent the existing abuse. Subs that only want CNN will be forced to pay for Fox News, and whatever other channels Fox decides to add to the genre - and vice versa. The only difference is that they will apply the same tactics to each individual category - don't carry CNN International, and 3 more channels to be named later and you can't carry CNN.

Let the value of the programming on each network justify its price - just like you are suggesting with the NFL Network.
CPanther95 is online now  
post #377 of 1586 Old 08-15-2006, 03:41 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
posg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,988
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by CPanther95 View Post

Dividing by categories will do nothing to prevent the existing abuse. Subs that only want CNN will be forced to pay for Fox News, and whatever other channels Fox decides to add to the genre - and vice versa. The only difference is that they will apply the same tactics to each individual category - don't carry CNN International, and 3 more channels to be named later and you can't carry CNN.

Let the value of the programming on each network justify its price - just like you are suggesting with the NFL Network.

When everyone has an OCAP compliant TV. Until then, can you imagine the chaos. Too complicated for the subscriber, and the rates would go up just to train the CSR's. They're "challenged" as it is.
posg is offline  
post #378 of 1586 Old 08-15-2006, 03:47 PM
Moderator
 
CPanther95's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 23,796
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
Liked: 73
Very true, the controlled cable rates and highly skilled CSRs available under the status quo is much preferred.
CPanther95 is online now  
post #379 of 1586 Old 08-15-2006, 03:57 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
fredfa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: San Antonio TX 78251
Posts: 49,069
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by posg View Post

Although they disguise it, DBS still sells locals as an add-on option, and pays only for those subscribers who elect them. It is A La Carte all the way. It's a profit center for the satellite operators, not a cost.

I must be missing something here.

How do Dish and DirecTV "disguise" the monthly charge for locals?

Those charges are detailed in every bill.

Now CNN, the ESPN suite, RSNs, TNT, those are disguised.
fredfa is offline  
post #380 of 1586 Old 08-15-2006, 04:00 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
fredfa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: San Antonio TX 78251
Posts: 49,069
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by CPanther95 View Post

Very true, the controlled cable rates and highly skilled CSRs available under the status quo is much preferred.

And TWC, in particular scores so well annually in the JD Power survey.

Oh sorry that wasn't TWC, or Comcast.

That was Dish and DirecTV.

And they charge less too!

What sloppy business practices they must have.
fredfa is offline  
post #381 of 1586 Old 08-15-2006, 04:32 PM
Moderator
 
CPanther95's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 23,796
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
Liked: 73
OK, now that I've contributed to the gradual shift in focus of the thread - let's keep the discussion confined to the NFL vs. cablcos vs. their customers.

I'll take my uncontrollable pro-a la carte outbursts elsewhere.
CPanther95 is online now  
post #382 of 1586 Old 08-15-2006, 05:08 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
posg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,988
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by CPanther95 View Post

OK, now that I've contributed to the gradual shift in focus of the thread - let's keep the discussion confined to the NFL vs. cablcos vs. their customers.

I'll take my uncontrollable pro-a la carte outbursts elsewhere.

Yeah, we need threads titled "Broadcasters vs. Cable Holdouts", "HDTV channels vs. Cable Holdouts", "Al Queda vs. Cable Holdouts", "Santa Claus & the Martians vs. Cable Holdouts".

Let's give credit where credit's due. At least the discussion hasn't degenerated into a discussion about actual football. As the season wears on.......
posg is offline  
post #383 of 1586 Old 08-15-2006, 05:19 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
posg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,988
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredfa View Post

I must be missing something here.

How do Dish and DirecTV "disguise" the monthly charge for locals?

Those charges are detailed in every bill.

Now CNN, the ESPN suite, RSNs, TNT, those are disguised.

Because you can still buy basic service "with" or "without" locals. "Without" is cheaper. Broadcasters only get paid on those who choose "with".

The disguise is there marketing says you can get one thousand channels (I think Dish has a million) "including your locals" (*where available) for $X/month.

But they are optional. The bill clearly shows that. And that's how they've gotten away with "cost plus" pricing. Incremental revenue rather than incremental cost.

I'M NOT SAYING IT'S WRONG. I WISH CABLE OPERATORS WERE AFFORDED THE SAME OPTION.

Apples, oranges, peaches, pears.
posg is offline  
post #384 of 1586 Old 08-15-2006, 05:50 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
posg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,988
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
fredfa and cpanther95.

I noticed you both have the same join date, Oct 2002. fredfa has over 2000 more posts than cpanther95. I'm but a mere amateur. I think we maybe all need "lives".
posg is offline  
post #385 of 1586 Old 08-15-2006, 05:50 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Keenan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 28,223
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 309 Post(s)
Liked: 384
Santa Claus, hands down. Game over.
Keenan is offline  
post #386 of 1586 Old 08-15-2006, 06:33 PM
Moderator
 
CPanther95's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 23,796
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
Liked: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by posg View Post

fredfa and cpanther95.

I noticed you both have the same join date, Oct 2002. fredfa has over 2000 more posts than cpanther95. I'm but a mere amateur. I think we maybe all need "lives".

And you've never seen us post at the same time....hmmmmm.
CPanther95 is online now  
post #387 of 1586 Old 08-15-2006, 06:56 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
posg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,988
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by CPanther95 View Post

And you've never seen us post at the same time....hmmmmm.

You aren't one of those guys who has two screen names and answers his own posts, a cyber pschytophreniac ??? They're out there !!!!
posg is offline  
post #388 of 1586 Old 08-15-2006, 07:02 PM
Advanced Member
 
uncrules's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: High Point, NC
Posts: 756
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
If DBS' are the only ones charging separately for locals then how come I used to pay TWC 8 bucks for nothing but channels 2-13 (not including HBO on 7) before D* offered LiL service.

How is that different?
uncrules is offline  
post #389 of 1586 Old 08-15-2006, 07:12 PM
AVS Special Member
 
GeorgeLV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Las Vegas/Pahrump, NV
Posts: 3,139
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by uncrules View Post

If DBS' are the only ones charging separately for locals then how come I used to pay TWC 8 bucks for nothing but channels 2-13 (not including HBO on 7) before D* offered LiL service.

How is that different?

Because it's not possible to order any cable packages without limited/lifeline basic? Are you able to say to TWC that you got your locals just fine with your antenna and just wanted expanded basic? Probably not.
GeorgeLV is offline  
post #390 of 1586 Old 08-16-2006, 06:56 AM
Advanced Member
 
dslate69's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 517
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by posg View Post

When everyone has an OCAP compliant TV. Until then, can you imagine the chaos. Too complicated for the subscriber, and the rates would go up just to train the CSR's. They're "challenged" as it is.

A la carte is the solution to NFL vs. TWC since TWC won't give a penny off current profit margins.
Why do you think a la carte would be so mind blowing ?
Customer and cashiers do it all day long at Walmart. Or Amazon...
Login to TWC website check the channels you want and hit submit.
I wouldn't have a problem with TWC, DISH, etc. saying you can only take advantage of a la carte through the web or form sent with your bill, since CSR's usually can't handle change in procedure.

Apples to apples. When you want a PPV movie from TWC, they some how manage to get that to you. Wouldn't a whole channel be easier than one program to manage?
dslate69 is offline  
Closed Thread HDTV Programming

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off