6 ms·

You mean 180 channels, where 160-170 are just absolute trash? So you're really paying $65 bucks for 10-20 channels at best. Not much of a deal there. I'm very

by urda 12y ago

You mean 180 channels, where 160-170 are just absolute trash? So you're really paying $65 bucks for 10-20 channels at best. Not much of a deal there. I'm very welcome to this pick what you want idea. I'm ready for cable to die as a cord cutter.

diminoten 12y ago
Yeah, because $3.25-$6.50/channel is totally not a deal, compared to $17.5/channel. At all.
- IanCal 12y ago
  That depends entirely on what you want to watch, surely. It's still $30 more, so if those extra channels aren't worth $30 to you then it's much better. Besides, I'm not sure what you get if you have a larger cable package. The HBO $14.99 appears to be for a big back-catalogue.
  - diminoten 12y ago
    I'm commenting solely on the factual incorrectness of saying the above was not a deal, when it very clearly was, assuming "deal" means a more economical choice. That's all.
    - IanCal 12y ago
      > I'm commenting solely on the factual incorrectness of saying the above was not a deal, when it very clearly was, assuming "deal" means a more economical choice. And again, this assumes that all channels are equally valuable to you. Spending more money on things you do not want is not more economical.
      - diminoten 12y ago
        Person I replied to said 10-20 "valuable" channels.
        IanCal 12y ago
        No, at best they classified them as "not absolute trash". And again you're assuming that all those channels have the same value.
        diminoten 12y ago
        They do have the same value, and that value is "do I want to pay for this channel?" The person I replied to said there were 10-20 channels worth paying for, and then complained about the cost of those channels, despite the fact that they were undeniably cheaper than anything the person could get individually. I hope you realize I have no dog in this fight, and am merely commenting based on internal argument consistency. The argument the above poster made was incorrect, internally. That's all I'm pointing out. We've now spent the better part of 3 hours talking about this. Consider for a moment the possibility that this isn't a very important distinction, and that your continual insistence on the issue is perhaps detrimental to the greater conversation and HN in general.
        IanCal 12y ago
        > They do have the same value, and that value is "do I want to pay for this channel?" By that logic, all items in the world have the same value and that value is "do I want to pay for this item"? They each have a different value based on "what do I want to pay for this channel". It is not a binary option of "I WILL PAY NO MATTER THE COST" and "I WILL NEVER PAY NO MATTER HOW CHEAP". > The argument the above poster made was incorrect, internally. That's all I'm pointing out. And all I'm pointing out is that your argument is incorrect. > We've now spent the better part of 3 hours talking about this. Which is odd, since all I've been saying is that the choice: More expensive & more channels vs less expensive & fewer channels has no clear winner without agreeing on what each particular channel is "worth". This is a classic case of multi-objective optimisation. I'm quite interested in finding out why this is such a disagreeable concept to you. > Consider for a moment the possibility that this isn't a very important distinction, and that your continual insistence on the issue is perhaps detrimental to the greater conversation and HN in general. And yet your continual insistence is beneficial? I'm a little confused, it's worth your time to try and point out a problem in someone's thinking, but not worth anyone else's time to point out problems in yours?
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
pbreit 12y ago
But the 160-170 "trash" channels need to be included to have any chance of ever being seen. To the point they are willing to be included for free and in fact some will even pay to be included. The economics of a la carte just don't make any sense at all.

by urda 12y ago

diminoten 12y ago

Yeah, because $3.25-$6.50/channel is totally not a deal, compared to $17.5/channel. At all.

IanCal 12y ago
That depends entirely on what you want to watch, surely. It's still $30 more, so if those extra channels aren't worth $30 to you then it's much better. Besides, I'm not sure what you get if you have a larger cable package. The HBO $14.99 appears to be for a big back-catalogue.
- diminoten 12y ago
  I'm commenting solely on the factual incorrectness of saying the above was not a deal, when it very clearly was, assuming "deal" means a more economical choice. That's all.
  - IanCal 12y ago
    > I'm commenting solely on the factual incorrectness of saying the above was not a deal, when it very clearly was, assuming "deal" means a more economical choice. And again, this assumes that all channels are equally valuable to you. Spending more money on things you do not want is not more economical.
    - diminoten 12y ago
      Person I replied to said 10-20 "valuable" channels.
      - IanCal 12y ago
        No, at best they classified them as "not absolute trash". And again you're assuming that all those channels have the same value.
        diminoten 12y ago
        They do have the same value, and that value is "do I want to pay for this channel?" The person I replied to said there were 10-20 channels worth paying for, and then complained about the cost of those channels, despite the fact that they were undeniably cheaper than anything the person could get individually. I hope you realize I have no dog in this fight, and am merely commenting based on internal argument consistency. The argument the above poster made was incorrect, internally. That's all I'm pointing out. We've now spent the better part of 3 hours talking about this. Consider for a moment the possibility that this isn't a very important distinction, and that your continual insistence on the issue is perhaps detrimental to the greater conversation and HN in general.
        IanCal 12y ago
        > They do have the same value, and that value is "do I want to pay for this channel?" By that logic, all items in the world have the same value and that value is "do I want to pay for this item"? They each have a different value based on "what do I want to pay for this channel". It is not a binary option of "I WILL PAY NO MATTER THE COST" and "I WILL NEVER PAY NO MATTER HOW CHEAP". > The argument the above poster made was incorrect, internally. That's all I'm pointing out. And all I'm pointing out is that your argument is incorrect. > We've now spent the better part of 3 hours talking about this. Which is odd, since all I've been saying is that the choice: More expensive & more channels vs less expensive & fewer channels has no clear winner without agreeing on what each particular channel is "worth". This is a classic case of multi-objective optimisation. I'm quite interested in finding out why this is such a disagreeable concept to you. > Consider for a moment the possibility that this isn't a very important distinction, and that your continual insistence on the issue is perhaps detrimental to the greater conversation and HN in general. And yet your continual insistence is beneficial? I'm a little confused, it's worth your time to try and point out a problem in someone's thinking, but not worth anyone else's time to point out problems in yours?
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]

pbreit 12y ago

But the 160-170 "trash" channels need to be included to have any chance of ever being seen. To the point they are willing to be included for free and in fact some will even pay to be included. The economics of a la carte just don't make any sense at all.