they should still be able to set a minimum charge the same as it is now and you can select only three channels or up to what is currently in the minimum package, after that, a la carteObviously some crap channels cant make it on their own like pmsnbc and the bqtl shit
Of coarse they want to block A’La carte T.V. They want us to continue paying for the trash such as CNN,ESPN and the alphabet networks.
Most cable companies are under contractual obligations to “bundle” some channels.
I know “customers” don’t give a shit—but when the basic package goes up by $4, you will understand.
To be honest, most cable companies would be thrilled to get rid of local carriage, and just become internet companies.
Cable socialism.
[[Many have predicted that a lot of cable TV channels would not survive à la carte TV as they count on people paying for the channel who don’t watch the channel.]]
Can the gubmint come in and demand that people pay for a product that i have, that they don’t watch or receive from me too?
What a racket! I can just complain that not enough people are buying my product, even though they have absolutely no use for it, and won’t ever use it!
This would obviously be the most direct feedback for ratings and customer approval of every show they made.
They dont want that.
Because we all have to pay for spanish speaking channels when we don’t speak spanish.
Never again will I subscribe to the wasteland of cable TV.
When this comes to my town the first thing to go is ESPN.
This I hope happened. Would love to see the look on these media executives when they get a reality ratings, especially for CNN and MSNBC. Advertisers would be the biggest winners .Pay per subscribing audience.
Ummmm, can anyone explain why unwatched and unloved channels going out of business is a problem?
I’m not a lawyer and I’m sure there are some legal nuances I don’t understand, but how is bundling cable TV channels any different than the Microsoft practice of bundling its web browser ... which got it into trouble under U.S. anti-trust law?
Outrageous, isn’t it!
Sports networks on cable are the driving factors in prices ... most people just do not watch sports, or only watch one or two or only at sometimes of the year. The rest go unwatched, but command premium prices from the cable companies, and thus cable prices to the consumer skyrocket.
Without the sports, cable dies.
Our cable company offers a “choice” option where you get certain channels included but you choose 10 others also. The service is $24/month. We decided to use it and then, we were told only new customers could take it. lol Still mulling over our options.
Why fight this battle when the war is already lost? 6 customers quit cable/sat every minute. Directv Now is bleeding customers. I dropped DirecTV after 20+ years and looked for a strteam of OANN but Klowd TV only sells an 86 channel package. I didn’t bite. I’d pay $5 a month for OANN but I have sworn that never again will I buy a TV package with channels I don’t want to get one I want. In fact I would pay $5 a month to get OANN but would not buy a package with OANN for $5 a month.
Hey just last night I was watching the Mets in
the NYC area on CW 11 carried by Verizon
1/2 way through they had an ad for Snapchat
where a girl was proud of some boy she knew
Liking boys
Pissed, I complained strenuously
They told me they have no control over the programming or the ads
Is that so? I thought they could overlay the ads?
Tech savvy, but too lazy to have dropped standard offerings
What roku, firestick etc option do I have to avoid this shiite?
I want a la carte. Can I order out of market sports channels too?
“National Cable & Telecommunications Association representing more than 200 cable networks”
The “bundling” that prevents a la carte BEGINS with the cable channels, not the cable channel distributors like Comcast et al, regardless of how the bundling helps them too.
No cable channels are single independent channels. All are part of companies that own any number of channels, some a great many channels under one cable channel or media conglomerate.
The bundling begins with the giant-multi-channel cable channel owners, as their demand on the cable distributors - like Comcast, Dish, Verizon, AT&T ect, as to what channels they MUST take together if they want the popular channels they seek most. That is what leads to the bundles the cable distributors offer.
I think the cable distributors ought to look at the legal challenge as one they can face, by accepting it as a way they could no longer be forced to take in bundles all the channels that the cable channel owners want them to take as bundles.
Yes, it would initially shrink the cable distributors revenues (as some cable channels actually die), but they all provide Internet services and they could move to expand their own channel-by-channel video streaming services, which is part of what cord-cutters and bundle-busters want to do.
they should still be able to set a minimum charge the same as it is now and you can select only three channels or up to what is currently in the minimum package, after that, a la carte