3 ms·

I really strongly disagree. In our household we get a big cable TV package because we couldn't opt out of it to get the highest tier internet service. The only

I really strongly disagree. In our household we get a big cable TV package because we couldn't opt out of it to get the highest tier internet service. The only networks we watch are rural cop shows and Food TV with some rare cable TV news and only one network out of the options there. There are hundreds of other junk channels that I never watch. There is one game show channel that my in-laws like to watch when they visit. The other channels just have nothing that ever appeals to anyone in the household. We're more than happy to occasionally (like once every 2 years) watch a TV show like Breaking Bad on Netflix years and years after it was a popular event. Would be happy to downgrade to a package that has Food Network and almost nothing else.

ethbro 9y ago
I'm the same kind of viewer. In general, I think the bundles appealed to the "I have to watch X" demographic. When in reality there are a large number of people who are perfectly happy to watch something else, if X doesn't happen to be on a channel they subscribe to. There's more quality content nowadays than viewer eyeball-hours. Also, curious question for someone up to date on cable tech. What's the technical ability to deliver a la carte channel subscriptions?
tw04 9y ago
>In our household we get a big cable TV package because we couldn't opt out of it to get the highest tier internet service. That kind of practice should be banned, and is generally a clear indicator of monopoly status. If they had true competition they would be absolutely slaughtered forcing customers to buy TV packages to get the internet package they want. It's one thing to offer a discount for bundling, it's another thing entirely to force bundling to get certain types of service.
- gregmac 9y ago
  Even for lower tiers it is sometimes cheaper to bundle -- I suspect one reason is because it allows their "cable TV subscriber" count to be higher. This has implications for the overall outlook of both the industry and cable company, fees for channels the cable company is paid to carry, and cost of advertisements, especially on channels the cable company owns.
- j-c-hewitt 9y ago
  In the rural area that I live in, the local/regional companies provide awful service at an average price. The national company I subscribe to offers excellent internet / good cable / great, friendly, & knowledgeable technicians at a relatively high price. While I would love to be able to order channels a la carte and get the best internet available, I don't have good options for switching -- the other internet providers suffer from typical rural ISP issues. From personal experience with the same company in a major US city, the rural service ranks among the best ISPs I've ever used whereas in the big city it was the absolute worst. There are actually options where I live, but there's only one good choice -- the newcomer national behemoth. I think in general telecom competition should be allowed to happen more often, but in this particular case I'm not sure it's a competition issue. I would have to investigate more about the local/regional/state situation to really decide.
rhino369 9y ago
There are some people who would benefit--those who watch one or two channels only--but there are people who would get screwed. I watch maybe 5 hours of cable tv a week, but it's many different channels during the course of the year. USA when Mr. Robot is, AMC when TWD and BCS, FX when Fargo and Americans, Sundance when Hap and Leonard, some random channel playing a movie I want to watch. And it will only save money for people who watch less channels than average. You might say people who watch more channels should pay more, but that really doesn't make much sense really. Should someone who watches Fox News 18 hours a day pay 10 times more than someone who watches 10 channels a month for 2 hours combined a day?
- uecfqcfmbp 9y ago
  Why not get those shows from a service like iTunes, or Amazon, or whatever? I bet it wouldn't cost any more than you currently pay for all the channels, and you have the advantage of being able to watch whenever you want and on any device, even when away from home. You wouldn't get sudden new fees or have to pay a rental fee for your cable box.

ethbro 9y ago

I'm the same kind of viewer. In general, I think the bundles appealed to the "I have to watch X" demographic. When in reality there are a large number of people who are perfectly happy to watch something else, if X doesn't happen to be on a channel they subscribe to. There's more quality content nowadays than viewer eyeball-hours. Also, curious question for someone up to date on cable tech. What's the technical ability to deliver a la carte channel subscriptions?

tw04 9y ago

>In our household we get a big cable TV package because we couldn't opt out of it to get the highest tier internet service. That kind of practice should be banned, and is generally a clear indicator of monopoly status. If they had true competition they would be absolutely slaughtered forcing customers to buy TV packages to get the internet package they want. It's one thing to offer a discount for bundling, it's another thing entirely to force bundling to get certain types of service.

gregmac 9y ago
Even for lower tiers it is sometimes cheaper to bundle -- I suspect one reason is because it allows their "cable TV subscriber" count to be higher. This has implications for the overall outlook of both the industry and cable company, fees for channels the cable company is paid to carry, and cost of advertisements, especially on channels the cable company owns.
j-c-hewitt 9y ago
In the rural area that I live in, the local/regional companies provide awful service at an average price. The national company I subscribe to offers excellent internet / good cable / great, friendly, & knowledgeable technicians at a relatively high price. While I would love to be able to order channels a la carte and get the best internet available, I don't have good options for switching -- the other internet providers suffer from typical rural ISP issues. From personal experience with the same company in a major US city, the rural service ranks among the best ISPs I've ever used whereas in the big city it was the absolute worst. There are actually options where I live, but there's only one good choice -- the newcomer national behemoth. I think in general telecom competition should be allowed to happen more often, but in this particular case I'm not sure it's a competition issue. I would have to investigate more about the local/regional/state situation to really decide.

rhino369 9y ago

There are some people who would benefit--those who watch one or two channels only--but there are people who would get screwed. I watch maybe 5 hours of cable tv a week, but it's many different channels during the course of the year. USA when Mr. Robot is, AMC when TWD and BCS, FX when Fargo and Americans, Sundance when Hap and Leonard, some random channel playing a movie I want to watch. And it will only save money for people who watch less channels than average. You might say people who watch more channels should pay more, but that really doesn't make much sense really. Should someone who watches Fox News 18 hours a day pay 10 times more than someone who watches 10 channels a month for 2 hours combined a day?

uecfqcfmbp 9y ago
Why not get those shows from a service like iTunes, or Amazon, or whatever? I bet it wouldn't cost any more than you currently pay for all the channels, and you have the advantage of being able to watch whenever you want and on any device, even when away from home. You wouldn't get sudden new fees or have to pay a rental fee for your cable box.