People who nothing about how the TV industry might think that. I've had a few customers that have thought that before and complain to me why Dish doesn't do it. Most people just don't know how this business works and that's OK, not everyone is suppose to know.You think wrong.
So you decide on how to do things out of spite? I feel like doing that sometimes but usually don't act on it.I don't expect my bill would change drastically, if I only paid for the channels I watched. However, at least then my money would go only to the channels I watch. For instance, given the option, I would not choose to buy any cable news channels, so none of my money would end up in their pockets like it does now. The argument that our money would no longer go to certain channels was a selling point when I convinced my wife to switch to the Welcome Pack. Of course, I am still paying for MSNBC, so it was not a complete victory.
Well... I see no reason to exclude existing bundles in an a la carte regime. That way you can continue paying for your bundle if you so choose, and I can pick and choose.We are actually all in agreement, it would be fewer channels for more money. Some people like you would just take fewer channels to save money. Large families like mine with many different programming needs would pay more for less though.
Because virtually all of us are paying for channels we don't watch. So in an a la carte regime, we would pay for far fewer channels, and the total cost would be less even though the cost/channel would be more.Then how can anyone possibly presume their overall price will be cheaper. Use the channels I mentioned in my post: What will it cost me under an a la carte system ?
I realize that equipment costs money, so that has a cost. The channels at a low selection would also have a more notable price. But if I can choose five or so non-premium channels for a notably lower cost (saving $40 is nice), then I'm paying for exactly what I want to watch and nothing more.To save $40 a month? I think a decent amount of people would like that. I honestly think that is a terrible return for my money. If I'm only getting 5 channels then I only expect to pay no more than $20 a month.
Because I can't get access to a lot of TCM films or legal EPL coverage without it.If you had to pay that much for so little then why not just get Netflix and Hulu?
But as we are seeing, millenials aren't paying and alternative streaming methods are being developed. Granted, the prices up to now, that have been advertised are not too impressive.People vote with their wallets. As long as people continue to pay nothing will change.
Not out of spite per se. Like I said, it helped the argument. In general though, I try not to give money to people/companies I dislike. I don't shop at certain big box stores, etc. I try to make statements, however small, with how I spend my money.So you decide on how to do things out of spite? I feel like doing that sometimes but usually don't act on it.
But we are paying for the whole group. I don't want to pay Turner for CNN, HLN. I want Cartoon Network and TCM. It'd go from the bundling of channels to a corporation bundling of channels, with little change.Each company owns a set of channels that we would call mini packs. If they offer their own streaming service then that is what they would offer. The providers could offer each company's set of channels and when they want a price increase let the customers choose with their wallets for that company's set of channels.
This may be true. But if YOU don't like the price of the Turner bundle, then YOU could decide not to pay it - it takes your TV provider out of the equation. Right now we have forced bundling. In the ideal setup the consumer would be given the choice whether to buy a bundle or buy individually. The impact on cable bills - and company revenue - would vary. If you're a heavy sports consumer, your bill would probably go up. Channels like ESPN - which are already among the most expensive part of the bundle would still be very popular, but with fewer subscribers (maybe 50-70% of subscribers instead of the current 90-100%?) the remaining subscribers would be asked to pay more and would probably do it. Right now I think cable companies are paying about $5.00 per subscriber per month for ESPN. I would guess that the price for ESPN alone would jump to about $9.00 per month for their main channel alone, and maybe $12 per month for an ESPN bundle. On the other side of the equation, a channel like HGTV probably costs cable companies less than $1.00 per month under the current setup. Ala Carte, the price would likely be higher - but maybe not a lot higher ($2.00 per month or $4.00 bundled with Food Network/DIY/Cooking Channel???).But we are paying for the whole group. I don't want to pay Turner for CNN, HLN. I want Cartoon Network and TCM. It'd go from the bundling of channels to a corporation bundling of channels, with little change.
I think you're assuming too much. Yes, it's a safe assumption that under a la carte, everyone would pay for fewer channels. HOWEVER, I think you're making a huge jump in saying the total cost would be less. It might for some folks, but I'm guessing as a general rule, most people will pay about the same as they're paying now.Because virtually all of us are paying for channels we don't watch. So in an a la carte regime, we would pay for far fewer channels, and the total cost would be less even though the cost/channel would be more.
There is also no reason I can see to end the current system, so those of you who are happy with your current bundle should be able to keep it. IMHO.
But we proles will likely want a channel here, a channel there, and before you know it, you have to sub to four corporate bundles and you are saving $10 a month and getting less. In order to get NBCSN, would I need to pay for every Universal channel? a la carte is a la carte. What is developing doesn't appear to be much better.This may be true. But if YOU don't like the price of the Turner bundle, then YOU could decide not to pay it - it takes your TV provider out of the equation.
Only because of the ads. If television were like ads, it'd be like watching ABC Family or AMC (see Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone over the period of 4 hours) for every channel.We subscribe to magazines this way, and despite the decline in publishing, there are still hundreds to choose from - at very attractive prices. I don't see why this wouldn't work for TV.