Search results for query: *

So now I can't state my opinions unless they agree with the majority? "Change is coming"? Fine. Bring it on. I just think the change shouldn't come because of legislation. I've said this over and over on this thread. I have no problem with ala carte. I've even said how'd I'd like to see...

I'll answer your question... no, I've never owned a business. Will you answer MY questions (which I've repeatedly ask but everyone ignores)... Isn't the part I bolded collusion? Isn't collusion illegal?

Because there's competition with the other broadcaster(s) who own 15 channels? How many competitors do you need until there's competition? Even if only two broadcasters owned every channel, wouldn't there still be competition between them? THAT I will grant you. But it is far from the only...

Wouldn't the bolded happen no matter the size of the company? Why does it only happen to small businesses? Granted, small businesses may feel the pinch quicker, but any company who ups their prices too much will go out of business. And 'broadcasters don't have competition'? Which...

I'll agree with everything except the last sentence. But from reading your post (among others), it sounds like you're not happy with whatever provider you're doing business with. There's nothing wrong with that, but if you are so unsatisfied, why do you keep handing over your hard earned money...

Can you name ONE company that doesn't tell it's customers they should be happy and they're getting a great value? What do you want them to say? Yes, there are other places I can go, but they don't offer the rides, attractions, or "ambiance" that Disney does. In the same vane, YOU also have...

First, please show me where ANYONE has said you should be "ecstatic" over the deal. I never said you should feel good about it, I never said the choices you have are good ones. I've said MULTIPLE times I'm at least interested in ala carte. I told you how I'd like to see it work. I am...

Wait, it's ok to say "let people choose to pay" under your model, but when I say "let people choose to pay" under the current model, that's wrong? While I appreciate your wish, I don't think it's realistic. First, pick a network. They give up their "subscription" costs and charge more for...

A decade ago I'd agree with you. The advent of satellite gives "choice" to 90% of consumers. I agree with you (except I never described collusion, so I don't know where you're going there). I'm sorry, I don't see it as a monopoly. I can choose my local cable provider, Dish, or Direct. Not a...

So you don't care what MVPD's charge per channel, as long as it's ala carte? If your programmer came out tomorrow and said "We're going ala carte! Only $20/month/channel!", that's fine? What if they want $50/channel?

I thought collusion was illegal in fact. If you've got some kind of proof of illegalities, file it with your state's attorney general. Let's make this simple... Disney owns some networks (ESPN, ABC, etc). They should be able to sell those however they feel like it. If they want to bundle...

Agreed. 100% No, I AM getting it. If Ford (your example) bundled three cars together, don't you have the choice not to buy the bundle? Who is FORCING you to buy the bundle (getting it shoved up your arse)? Why is this so difficult to understand? If you don't like the options presented...

Just because you WANT something doesn't mean it's NEEDED. There's a big difference between the two. If you're unhappy with what you're paying or what you're getting, there's a easy solution... CANCEL. You aren't forced to "subsidize others", or give anyone your money. If enough customers...

Point taken. Consumers are free to lobby on their own. Contact your lawmakers. Get your friends to do the same. Heck, start your own lobbying group. As far as why anyone subsidizes another's viewing preferences? Answer that yourself. If you have cable or satellite, YOU are doing...

And what do you think would happen if enough people don't buy a Prius (or buy subscription TV)? The providers either need to cut costs or find another way to entice customers. I'd like to think if any provider went to a true ala carte (which I REALLY hope they do), they'd get subscribers...

And you forced to participate in this "sham and racket" how? I disagree. EVERY network gets exclusivity for their sports packages. Why do you think "the only place to watch the Olympics" is on NBC? Or "the only place to watch March Madness" is CBS (and it's affiliated networks now)? The...

I get both your points. However, I think you're missing mine. Yes, ESPN has enough sporting events to fill multiple channels. I get it and am glad of it. However, others would be more than happy to see ESPN (and the associated costs) go away. I like the idea of ala carte. I would prefer...

And I'm sure there are people who say one ESPN is plenty, why have more? My point is there are different opinions on programs. As far as H2, I actually turned it on yesterday because it was showing 'Modern Marvels' (which I enjoy) and History had something I didn't like. As far as...

What I bolded is the key though. What YOU think is decent programming is different than what *I* think is decent programming. So who gets to decide? Think about it... how popular is/was "Honey Boo Boo" and "Jersey Shores"? Personally, I don't like "The Voice", "American Idol", "America's Got...

Yea, THAT'S more realistic than what I suggested. :rolleyes:. In a TRUE Ala Carte, each channel is available to each subscriber individually. The cost for each channel will vary based on the popularity of the channel. I'm willing to wager if there would be a discount for multiple channels...

It's not what we have now. We are forced into the bundles the satcos/cablecos decide to offer. What I was suggesting was satcos/cablecos passing along the bundles from the networks. So I could choose the Disney/ESPN bundle, and not bother with Viacom or NBC.

True. I was thinking passing along the "forced" bundles the programmers are sending to the satcos/cablecos. Does Disney "bundle" all those together when doing the contracts? And wouldn't ala carte have to involve the networks? It's not really fair (IMO) cable/satcos being pushed to break...

Instead of a channel-by-channel ala carte, could providers to a 'programmer by programmer' ala carte? So, if you want ESPN, you also Disney. If you want CNBC, you also get Bravo. I'm using those as examples, I'm not up on what's "bundled" to the cable/satcos.

So ESPN (for example) shouldn't charge Dish to carry them? After all, if it wasn't for the DBS/Cable companies, ESPN would have ZERO viewers. By YOUR argument, ESPN is "double dipping" the consumer also. BTW, you're not wrong about anything... it is a symbonic(?) relationship. Assuming the...

I wasn't referring to the Fox dispute. I was referring to the folks who say OTA stations shouldn't charge DBS/cable for retransmission. The .25-.50 per sub/per month charge is what I've been hearing too. Obviously anytime ANY channel raises prices to Dish/Direct/Cable, they will in turn raise...