It might not sound like a lot, but there are tens of millions of cable and satellite subscribers out there. 90% of Americans have some kind of pay TV.
We are subsidizing this leftist drivell
Posted on 08/12/2013 6:47:57 PM PDT by upbeat5
With streaming television becoming more and more popular, and providers like Aereo making an end-run around cable and satellite providers, a lot of attention is being paid to the future of bundled cable. In a world of growing choices and a weak, jobless economy, how long can something last that charges customers a ton of money for dozens of channels they never watch? Bundled cable is, in my opinion, one of the greatest hustles ever perpetuated against the American people. The worst part is how it works as a kind of affirmative-action program for left-wing programming that likely wouldn’t survive in a world where we weren't forced to pay for channels we never watch. Chief among them, CNN, and MSNBC. As this discussion heats up, analysts and experts are fessing up that in a world without bundled cable, only 20 television networks would survive (that means that around 80 would not). Presumably, the survivors would be the twenty most-watched channels throughout the cable world. This would be terrible news for CNN, MSNBC, and HLN -- networks that usually rank in the thirties and forties. Fox News is usually in the top 5.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
A LA Cart. Period
And the down side is?
Geez, that would wipe out much of the DNC’s campaign arm.
Maybe someday we will be able to subscribe to conservative channels, if there were any. Without having to subsdize all the leftist crap
The less popular channels would simply have to raise their price :p
Let the devil take the hindmost. If there is a market, it will be subscription or ppv.
It’s not just cable, we have bundled satellite also and then there is Verizon and Uverse.
Meh. I dumped TV in ‘97. Cable TV is SOOOOOO 20th century.
Let the devil take the hindmost.
Yup. With the way it is, every single ‘conservative with cable/dish is willfully funding the left. Same goes for movie goers for the most part.
They have gits when someone mentions it, but the truth is in the math.
For instance, I never watch any of the Spanish channels...
coming soon -— and how many people would CHOSE to pay even $1 a month for MSNBC, etc?
I love the idea of ala carte channels but it would seriously shut down 70 channels. I can’t imagine there is the viewership for Oprah, the dedicated chick channels, the spanish language channels, the black channels and the four gay channels, and the lefty news outlets enough to keep them in business.
Oh, if it kills the leftist propaganda channels, it’ll never happen. Being carried by conservatives is the only life they understand. Though, I’m sure they don’t think of it in those terms. This deal for example; if they realize it would disproportionately hurt the leftist lie mills, they’d be against it because it would be “censorship” or “discriminatory against minority views” or “disenfranchising”, you know, some excuse where the problem isn’t that they’re afraid to have their idea compete on their merits but somehow, everyone else must be forced to subsidize their crap or it just wouldn’t be fair. Somehow.
Probably not enough to keep it going
Por qué no?
Which 20? What channel would YOU pay for and how much?
I have Roku and while not perfect it is bit by bit adding new channels that I find interesting and will watch.
Ala Carte is the way of the future on cable and the internet.
I suspect that I will get all of the channels I wish to watch over Roku and pay either next to nothing for them or they will be free.
Comcast has announced that they’ll be adding Al Jazeera and raising my rates to pay for it.
my neighbor cut cable and dish 3 years ago. If he wanted to watch sports, he can get it anywhere on the web for free. If he wanted a specific show, just download using torrent. No biggie and he’s happier saving $100 on a bundle per month.
There are several misnomers about bundled pricing. Sure, it won’t make everyone happy but what cable watchers think is a fair price for the cable channels their family *does* watch, added together comes out more than most people pay for standard cable.
I like mostly news and sports but sports channels a la carte would be very expensive because of all the rights fees they charge to be carried and because I want to see my teams play in the NFL, I would be forced to have CBS, FOX and NBC along with ESPN and NFLN just to catch every game my team plays (there’s Sunday Ticket but the local broadcasts over the air are blacked out on that).
Most people who hate bundling love to complain about the shopping channels and the religious channels. Well, here’s a secret. They not only cost you nothing they subsidize the rates you do pay. Shopping channels and religious channels PAY the cable operator to carry them. Scratch those off and your cost per channel actually goes up, not down.
Sure, some people would love to only pay for the channels they watch but it would not be nearly the bargain you think it might be if you went on the faulty premise that all channels cost the same.
This includes CCTV4 (commie China), Bridges-TV (Muslim Beheader Television), Current/Pivot and others.
50 percent have basic cable the other’s watch regular TV.Basic and Premiums are losing payers because of jobs.I don’t care who wins.
40% of the money paid to cable channels go to sports channels
I assume you realize most all NFL games can be viewed (illegally like in Edward Snowden) on the internet from European wagering sites?
So... no LOGO or BRAVO for you then?
It might not sound like a lot, but there are tens of millions of cable and satellite subscribers out there. 90% of Americans have some kind of pay TV.
We are subsidizing this leftist drivell
I would love to ditch time Warner cable. $145 per month. All I really need is local, Fox News , some financial channels and local channels. How do you cut the cable.
If someone launches a conservative channel, will ROKU carry it?
how many cents per month are they going to give to Al Jazeera?
It's bad enough my tax dollars are siphoned off for PBS and NPR - left wing 'public' media. But insult to injury when I have to re-support them in order to get cable. It's time... for pay per channel...
9() percent is not a real number.Where did you get that from?
Bundles and packages are sold all the time and are generally less expensive than buying a la carte. I never order a la carte at restaurants. So the premise is absurd. However the lead-in is correct. Internet based programming has killed cable. It is less expensive without commercials. Internet based programming is not a la carte. Netflix and Amazon each contain a bundle of all sorts of content wrapped together as a package and included in the monthly fee.
It is not a matter of bundles vs a la carte. The entire content model has changed from cable broadcast + DVR/time shifted to internet packaged content by different service providers, e.g. netflix, amazon, etc.
Too many commercials on basic cable packages and expensive movie channel bundles of low quality trash content, e.g., HBO. People are just finding other ways to get their entertainment besides the old cable broadcast model.
LOL I rarely watch any channel, believe me as I’m busy even during night time especially in my industry here in L.A. I think the only channel my GF watches religiously is the Cooking Channel. The Homo garden, Fago or Bravo whatever you call it, they are not required.
I don’t know but its going to cost me nearly $10 per month to add a channel I don’t intend to watch.
Bump what you said. The technology has been in place for at least a decade.
http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/reports/2012/cross-platform-report-q3-2011.html
“” Consumers are staying connected. The vast majority (90.4%) of U.S. TV households pay for a TV subscription (cable, telephone company or satellite), while roughly three-quarters (75.3%) opt for broadband Internet. “”
Nielson could be full of crap I guess
In some ways, cable bundling is worse that British-style fees. We already pay for PBS and, via cable bundles, we are also paying for the extremist leftoids who dominate the media.
I got rid of TV too
there is so much online you can watch and learn
besides TV shows and movies, there are a ton of YouTube videos on how to do things- I learned hour to pour concrete to resurface my garage floor, epoxy the floor
refinish the basement, re-do roofing, buikd a fire with my bare hands, garden for crops, survival techniques, etc. etc.
$10?
That ain’t all about Al Jazeera, Al Jazeera would be insanely lucky to get 15-20 cents a month from you. That is just an excuse to jack up your rates.
Same with our horrible left wing subsidized 'art'... The ONE thing leftest are great at - the ONLY thing they're great at - is lining their pockets with 'public' money.
Then again I'm sure elite liberals wouldn't mind paying for 200 conservative channels so they could watch the 8 channels they like... /s
Think about why they don’t do it.
Cancelled the cable in January. There are other ways to be entertained or watch/listen to television. Plus the reception with the antenna plus the HD TV is soooooo much clearer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
