Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Verizon Working On a La Carte Internet TV Service

Posted by Soulskill on from the i-cannot-in-good-conscience-let-any-of-my-money-go-to-TLC dept.

An anonymous reader writes: One of the reasons people have been fleeing cable TV in droves is the idea that they're paying for hundreds of channels but only using a handful. Even though that's not really true, Verizon is now working on an internet TV service that lets people pick and pay for only the channels they want. Verizon CEO Lowell McAdam said, "I think everyone understands it will go to a la carte. The question is what is that transition look like ... I don't think there is anyone that would stand up here and say the only way it's going to be offered five years from now is linear and it's going to be tied to your TV set because frankly they will miss the market and they will be the ones left behind."

108 comments

  1. It is not just the "extra" channels... by houstonbofh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It is also about watching whatever you want, whenever you want. Not just Thursdays at 9:00... People no longer want to schedule their lives around the broadcast schedule.

    1. Re:It is not just the "extra" channels... by TrollstonButterbeans · · Score: 0

      Exactly.

      But I would most people to continue paying for cable tv. Someone has to foot the bill, making tv shows and content is expensive.

      But if, say, Netflix and similar services were to ever to become the "norm" and cable tv to begin to erode, I think the undesirable qualities of cable TV would find their way into Netflix and similar services.

      I don't want streaming to be loaded up with advertising, as an example. But cable tv is the main venue for advertising today and there are tens of billions of dollars in it.

      --
      Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
    2. Re:It is not just the "extra" channels... by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      It is also about watching whatever you want, whenever you want. Not just Thursdays at 9:00... People no longer want to schedule their lives around the broadcast schedule.

      Welcome to the 1980s, houstonbofh.

    3. Re:It is not just the "extra" channels... by whoever57 · · Score: 3, Informative

      But I would most people to continue paying for cable tv. Someone has to foot the bill, making tv shows and content is expensive.

      How about the people who watch those shows? Why should I pay for the most expensive group of non-premium channels (ESPN) when I never, ever watch any ESPN channels? Today, my choice is limited to paying for ESPN or not getting the channels I really want (BBC*)

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    4. Re:It is not just the "extra" channels... by iluvcapra · · Score: 2

      I think the undesirable qualities of cable TV would find their way into Netflix and similar services.

      Your Netflix bill is already paying for Orange is the New Black and House of Cards -- these are very good shows, so that's a saving grace, but it's not like you can tell Netflix to take $2 off your bill in order to skip their original programming. And presumably as Netflix expands its original content offerings, your bill is going to be subsidizing a lot of content you couldn't care less about. Shops like Amazon and Crackle already crank out unruly gobs of uneven content, they only get away with it because Amazon Prime offers many other valuable services, and Crackle doesn't charge subscriptions.

      Further, it's still not realistic for a producer, even a David Fincher, to just set up his own website somewhere and get people to give him $10 a month to make a TV show. He needs to piggyback off of a platform like Netflix, which already has a lot of brand recognition and traffic.

      The problem with "a la carte cable channels" is the presumption that people want channels. They want shows that are suited to their tastes. The center of value is the program, that's what brings in the people, but due to underlying economics, the center of costs remains the channel, this Netflix must offer its subscription on a channel-wise, take-it-all or leave-it-all basis.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    5. Re:It is not just the "extra" channels... by Provocateur · · Score: 2

      Someone has to foot the bill, making tv shows and content is expensive.
       
      Otherwise what? They're going to start shoving ads down our throats?

      Oh, wait...

      --
      WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
    6. Re:It is not just the "extra" channels... by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      It is also about watching whatever you want, whenever you want. Not just Thursdays at 9:00... People no longer want to schedule their lives around the broadcast schedule.

      Welcome to the 1980s, houstonbofh.

      We got there a long time ago. Content companies are still figuring it out.

    7. Re:It is not just the "extra" channels... by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      I was just trying to be a little bit sarcastic, in that I (and many many many others) were using VCRs in the 1980s to "watch whatever I want, whenever I want"... and nowadays (and for the last decade for me) with DVRs.

      It's not a new thing.

    8. Re:It is not just the "extra" channels... by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      I was just trying to be a little bit sarcastic, in that I (and many many many others) were using VCRs in the 1980s to "watch whatever I want, whenever I want"... and nowadays (and for the last decade for me) with DVRs.

      It's not a new thing.

      And yet, somehow the networks still don't get it... Look at the international release delays, among other things...

    9. Re:It is not just the "extra" channels... by Darinbob · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The referenced article about cord-cutting being a fantasy is just outright wrong. First, it's not talking about cord-cutting but instead about ala-carte payments, very different things. I can guarantee my $7 a month is economically better than $70 a month I used to pay.

      Next, the assumptions are that if you stop paying things like the ESPN fees that someone else is going to pay more. Well guess what, those who won't pay the ESPN fee will be saving money! It is not the television viewer's goal to try to optimize the average amount spent across all viewers, but instead to try to get an economical value for themselves alone without regard to other people. It is also not the television viewer's goal to try to create a sustainable market for cable providers, and they have no incentive at all to try to maintain current revenue for ESPN or AMC yet the article seems to imply that this is important. If ESPN went out of business because I failed to subsidize them I still would not shed any tears.

      The assumption that current television pricing is a good deal for everyone makes the ridiculous assumption that everyone wants to watch TV or considers it affordable. Yes, a $80,000 Lamborghini is a great deal but that doesn't mean everyone will want to pay that since many will still want the $15,000 Honda instead. The thing is a lot of people are finding cheaper ways to get the amount of TV they like, and some people are even deciding not to watch any TV at all. So it is indeed working to cut the cord.

      The author sounds like the audience was supposed to be television execs rather than actual consumers. The whole argument sounds like a whine to keep paying huge amounts of money so that we can subsidize other people like him.

    10. Re:It is not just the "extra" channels... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Yes maybe I am subsidizing some shows on Netflix I don't want to see. But at $7 a month I'm much more willing to put up with it than under my old $70/month satellite bill (or $100+ if I were cable instead).

      If netflix prices get up into ridiculous range that cable/satellite current has, then hopefully someone else will come along and undercut them and start the cycle over. Eventually the high priced guys might take a hint and cut the costs instead of assuming there's some law that mandates we keep paying whatever they demand.

    11. Re:It is not just the "extra" channels... by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      I'll let someone else foot the bill thank you very much. Nothing is forcing me to watch this stuff or forcing me to pay for it.

      And I hope it doesn't surprise anyone to learn this, but no one actually has to foot the bill at all. The world will not come to an end if these television companies go bankrupt or if advertising companies go bankrupt.

    12. Re:It is not just the "extra" channels... by Hamsterdan · · Score: 1

      8$ is *nothing* compared to a cable bill (and doesn't have ads)

      --
      I've got better things to do tonight than die.
    13. Re:It is not just the "extra" channels... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      8$ is *nothing* compared to a cable bill (and doesn't have ads)

      I pay about $70 a month for internet (I investigated just getting internet without TV or phone). It costs $10 a month for phone and another $10 for cable TV. I could cut the cord and stop paying for cable, but I still need internet if I want to watch Netflix. $8 is not nothing compared to $10.

      A la carte is not going to save consumers money because it doesn't reduce costs. Yes, I stop paying for ESPN, but my neighbor stops paying for SyFy. Both channels increase how much they charge per person because they have fewer people covering them. The cable company still sends both channels to my house -- the cable box just only shows one to me. Nothing's cheaper.

      The only time a la carte helps is when you have to buy a bundle just to get one channel. For example, I would like to watch Doctor Who on BBC America, but I would have to add fifty or a hundred other channels to get it. If they could sell BBC America for $2 or even $5 a month, it would be better for me. But in most cases, the bundles would still be cheaper than the a la carte prices. If I get SyFy, TNT (Last Ship and Falling Skies), TMC (classic movies), Lifetime (Witches of East End), AMC (The Walking Dead), FX (The Americans), USA (Covert Affairs), and MTV (Teen Wolf), then I'm better off with the $10 bundle that also gives me things that I don't watch, like ESPN and MSNBC.

      People are all excited about the possibility of not subsidizing ESPN anymore, but ESPN is popular. It's going to keep going under either model. It's far more likely that something like SyFy will get dropped, as that's much more driven by surfing. People watch SyFy just to watch one movie (e.g. Pitch Black) but don't feel the need to keep it for the movies that it shows. It's the kind of channel that people will surf to, watch a movie, and then forget what channel it was.

      Even worse is the possibility that a la carte will reduce cable's ad revenue. If you have a hundred channels, there's probably five that you watch a lot, forty-five that you watch occasionally, and fifty that you never watch. Under an a la carte system, you probably only get the five channels. You don't bother getting the forty-five for occasional content. Cable thus loses the ad revenue from the times that you aren't watching a one-off piece of content on those channels. Without that revenue, cable needs to charge a higher monthly subscription fee to cover distribution costs.

      All this isn't to say that we shouldn't allow more a la carte options. It's just that we shouldn't expect them to make the typical bill cheaper. They'll make some bills cheaper, most will stay about the same, and a few may go up.

    14. Re:It is not just the "extra" channels... by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

      But even at $7 a month it's not clear it's worth as much as one HBO, it's first-run original programming is pretty thin, all you've got is the back catalogue, which competitors can easily replicate -- just as Amazon has. If a shop like Netflix wants to keep subscribers they have to offer something beyond just the library, in a cost game there's not much question an Amazon can destroy them -- the original programming is the tail that wags the dog, they have to constantly produce it an improve it. HBO's sub growth is driven almost completely by people wanting to get into new original programming, just having movies wasn't enough.

      It'll never be $70 a month, but $20, or $30?

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    15. Re:It is not just the "extra" channels... by pepty · · Score: 1

      The problem with "a la carte cable channels" is the presumption that people want channels. They want shows that are suited to their tastes. The center of value is the program, that's what brings in the people, but due to underlying economics, the center of costs remains the channel, this Netflix must offer its subscription on a channel-wise, take-it-all or leave-it-all basis.

      Increasingly I'd say that's more true of cordcutters than cable subscribers. Some folks want a continuous background of thematically related stuff they can vaguely watch for hours and hours at a time: a channel. The underlying economics you mentioned make that much harder for Netflix or anyone else whose content delivery costs are directionally proportional to the amount of content consumed per customer. Cable companies traditional delivery costs were pretty much the same whether you left the TV on 24/7 or just watched 12 episodes of The Wire per year.

    16. Re:It is not just the "extra" channels... by porges · · Score: 1

      Someone has to foot the bill, making tv shows and content is expensive.

      Otherwise what? They're going to start shoving ads down our throats?

      Oh, wait...

      I think it's fair to consider him writing in opposition to people saying "if we had ala carte channels, we could all get the same stuff for less money". So, keeping "the same stuff" is part of the goal.

      To most consumers, "keeping the total of the country's payments to the networks the same" isn't a goal, to put it mildly, which is why the rest of his argument is useless.

    17. Re:It is not just the "extra" channels... by Simulant · · Score: 1

      It sounded to me like the author just wants some of us to continue to subsidize his ESPN viewing.
      There is literally nothing on basic cable I miss after 15 years of no cable. HBO was extra anyway.

    18. Re:It is not just the "extra" channels... by Tailhook · · Score: 1

      they have to constantly produce it an improve it

      Netflix told shareholders it's currently filming eight new and continuing series, two of which are big hits with fans and drawing subscribers by themselves, of which there are 50 million as of Q2 2014. I noticed in that list they omitted at least one Netflix property of which I'm personally a fan, so it's not comprehensive.

      You're arguing with success here, for some strange reason. Yes, Netflix doesn't have Warner Bros. or Paramount profits. That's not a bad thing. Their operating income is ~$228e6 and they employ about ~2000 full time. It's a cost effective operation that can't milk its famously cost sensitive customer base and become another media behemoth. They're commoditizing media and I can't think of a single thing we're going to lose as a consequence that I'm going to miss.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    19. Re:It is not just the "extra" channels... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Never liked HBO, haven't seen it in a decade. Not worth the cost for me. Original programming maybe, but not worth the cost for me when I can wait a few years and it'll show up somewhere else.

      Amazon is a wannabe players, a late comer to the game who flashes around a name with most of their customers comprised of people who mostly want discounted shipping. Sure they could kill Netflix, but only by deliberately running their streaming service at a loss rather than be competing straight on.

      Original programming is nice and all, but the cable providers don't create it and they still charge the huge fees. And if you wait the original programming shows up elsewhere.

    20. Re:It is not just the "extra" channels... by unixisc · · Score: 1

      It is also about watching whatever you want, whenever you want. Not just Thursdays at 9:00... People no longer want to schedule their lives around the broadcast schedule.

      But if I only watch, say 5 channels, why should I pay for another 95? Verizon has the right idea

    21. Re:It is not just the "extra" channels... by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

      They're commoditizing media and I can't think of a single thing we're going to lose as a consequence that I'm going to miss.

      I work in media.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    22. Re:It is not just the "extra" channels... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Enjoy your pay cut.

    23. Re:It is not just the "extra" channels... by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      If it's so easily replicable, why hasn't it been replicated?
      Hulu, more expensive and always has ads even with subscription.
      Amazon, expensive up front or per episode costs.
      Apple, expensive per episode pricing.
      others, no selection or commercials.

      In all, I find netflix's back catalog very compelling and well worth $7 / month. The original programming is icing on the cake.

      --
      Cheap storage VM.
  2. I can't see this happening by hguorbray · · Score: 3, Insightful

    a lot of niche content will no longer get funded, so choice might actually be lessened

    but more importantly the cable operators will no longer get their $120+ a month from nearly every household in the US

    the kids have already moved on to streams though -so the corps are making the money back through non flat rate wifi billings, data overage fees, etc

    -I'm just sayin'

    1. Re:I can't see this happening by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So maybe people should pay for their niche programming and if the programming can't make it on price then it isn't made. Some TV shows not getting made is not the worst thing in the world.

    2. Re:I can't see this happening by taustin · · Score: 1

      a lot of niche content will no longer get funded, so choice might actually be lessened

      If not enough people are watching it to get it funded in an al a carte environment, then it's not worth funding in the first place.

    3. Re:I can't see this happening by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some TV shows not getting made is not the worst thing in the world.

      What? You don't think there are enough pilots of situation/dramas with carefully balanced ratios of hetro, homo and bisexuals created every year? If you don't help fund all this then I'm not going to have my pregnant Amish lesbians in a Manhattan loft reality show!

    4. Re:I can't see this happening by mcrbids · · Score: 3, Informative

      Note that the reverse trend is happening. Thanks to the very low cost of production and distribution, there are many, many, many alternate "shows" out there that you can watch.

      Have you missed youtube entirely? What rock have you been hiding under? Also, the place with the most interesting display of documentaries and "non-primary" content is NetFlix. There is a *ridiculous* amount of youtube channels with interesting content.

      For example, as a violinist, I like Taylor Davis' work immensely - she mixes violin and many of the themes to movies and games I've loved....

      Remember when MTV was a close as you could get to stuff like this?

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    5. Re: I can't see this happening by jd2112 · · Score: 2

      I may br showing my age but I remember when MTV showed music videos.

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    6. Re:I can't see this happening by iluvcapra · · Score: 2

      Note that the reverse trend is happening. Thanks to the very low cost of production and distribution, there are many, many, many alternate "shows" out there that you can watch.

      As a happy contributor to Red Letter Media on Patreon, I've found that the quality of this kind of indie, samizdat prodcutions to be pretty uneven, it'd be hard to get any kind of mass penetration with it. From a producer's perspective, that's the big peril of going YouTube -- you'll definitely get your stuff out there, and you may even be able to make a living, but there's never going to be a "hit." Even if you do hit, there's really no good way for you to monetize your programming long-term, all of the rents in the system that used to flow to creators through copyright now flow to advertisers and search aggregators.

      You'll only make a killing if you turn yourself into a sort of brand celebrity, a Lady Gaga or a Justin Beiber, who, musical talent aside, are salient primarily due to their ability to brand media and consumer experiences. They're a substrate for ads -- they're the kind of artists the world gets when no one pays for art.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    7. Re:I can't see this happening by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank Hezbuh, we don't need that kind of show evah.

    8. Re: I can't see this happening by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      They still show music videos on MTV in Europe.

    9. Re:I can't see this happening by QuantumRiff · · Score: 1

      Some argue the opposite. For example, the majority of people in my area do not speak spanish. Spanish language stations essentially make nothing per subscriber (pennies). If, I was instead able to extract a few dollars a month from each person that wants to view my show.. (ie, spanish speakers in the midwest) that might (depending on the number of people) be much, much more income.

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    10. Re:I can't see this happening by 0xDEAD · · Score: 1

      Where art thou modpoint? This comment nails it dead on.

    11. Re:I can't see this happening by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      Look at print media. Niche publications are dying out left and right, yet we have an abundance of media covering more niches than ever. Granted, many of these new media forms, such as blogs, are of a decidedly less formal and professional nature than those that have preceded them, but we're by no means starved for the content we want, since if the demand still exists, someone will put it together. Tech magazines in many cases had to appeal to the masses if they wanted to be able to stay afloat, but most blogs have no such demands being placed on them. It's perfectly possible for a person to employ themselves by going sufficiently in-depth on a topic.

      By that same token, some of the smartest media folks I've seen have started betting big on YouTube channels, video streaming, and other, newer forms for getting video footage in front of eyeballs. They may not have the production values of a news room or studio setup, but they have a faster turnaround, no obligation to fill a time slot, more direct control over their revenue stream, and more immediate feedback both from and regarding their viewers.

      It's pretty clear that the days of old-style broadcast TV are numbered and that in a few more years "cable TV" either won't exist or won't resemble what it does now. The upcoming generations have no concept of broadcast schedules or what it even means to miss an episode, since everything is on-demand and always available.

      ESPN is merely Twitch for sports lovers. They just haven't realized it yet. Or, if they have, it's scared the crap out of them.

    12. Re: I can't see this happening by Eravnrekaree · · Score: 1

      MTV was always mindless tripe. I remember when there were actually some semi-sophisticated shows, such as X Files, Twin Peaks, STNG. Those were the days.

    13. Re: I can't see this happening by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      semi-sophisticated shows, such as X Files, Twin Peaks, STNG.

      I watched X-Files and ST:TNG as much as the next geek/nerd, but there was nothing semi-sophisticated about ST:TNG.

      It's painful to go back and watch episodes from the first 3-4 seasons of ST:TNG now.

  3. Nothing to see here by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 5, Informative

    Its for mobile only. Wake us all up when plain old tv is available by IP (FiOS) a la carte.

    1. Re:Nothing to see here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My Verizon phone has an HDMI out =P

    2. Re:Nothing to see here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I cut the cord 3 years ago (at home). I own a vacation rental that has cable TV as an amenity and I find that I don't watch TV when I am there (changed habits). Back when I had cable, I watched ESPN (American Football) because that is where the game was (and I had already paid for ESPN). The game was ESPN because they used the power of the forced fees to put the game exclusively on EPSN. Now that I don't have cable, I don't watch ESPN. The argument "because you watch it, you need it" is invalid. If your life is made less meaningful because you can't watch sports then you need to swap it out for a better one.

      I'd go back to cable if... no I won't. I'd stream shows across the intarweb if I felt a mild desire to do so. Wake me up when plain old tv is available by IP (FiOS) a la carte.

       

    3. Re:Nothing to see here by antdude · · Score: 1

      And when its FIOS is available like in my home Verizon areas. :(

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  4. Missing the point by mcrbids · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I see the exact opposite trend. Netflix is growing by gangbusters, but is the epitome of having many shows that "you aren't paying for". It's not a la carte... at all! You pay a flat rate of $8/month and stream whatever you like.

    If you combine horrible customer service, high prices, and synchronized broadcasting, and you have unhappy customers switching to clearly better alternatives. "Paying for channels you don't use" is a symptom. The real problem is that they are horrible companies offering a previous generation, substandard service at ridiculous prices that have risen much faster than inflation.

    --
    I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    1. Re:Missing the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed.

      For me, I live in a rural small town outside a giant city and have one choice for cable tv and internet (bundle). I am forced to pay $130 a month for the bare minimum when all I watch is USA, BBC America, and SyFy, CNN, Travel Channel. My wife watches Big Bang Theory. My kids watch NIck Jr. That's seven channels only. If I could get BBC America, we'd cut the TV portion and only get the 30mb connection. I feel trapped and I hate it.

    2. Re:Missing the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the fuck is wrong you. Netflix + pirate bay and you can save that $130. At $130/month for 18 years you could pay for one of your kids to go to college.

    3. Re:Missing the point by Anubis+IV · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The first six seasons of Big Bang Theory are on blu-ray as a set for $86 on Amazon right now. You could probably pick up the entire series for less than you pay in a month, and you'd have it forever. You could repeat the same process again with your kids' shows, and you'd likely get even more bang for your buck. SyFy makes most or all of their series available via their website and Hulu for free (though you have to wait a month after air date, but that only feels weird for the first month, after which it feels like normal).

      Just cut the cable for one month. One month. Divert that cash into buying the shows you can't find elsewhere for free and still want to see (you'll be shocked at how much stuff you actually don't miss once it's gone). Go get season passes from iTunes or Amazon or wherever if there's something you absolutely have to see as it's coming out that isn't on Hulu or whatnot. Repeat the process for as long as you need. My bet is that within three months you won't be spending anywhere close to the full $130/month.

    4. Re:Missing the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "TV is for idiots" - the same has been often said about the Internet, yet here we are, all of us.

    5. Re:Missing the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real problem is that they are horrible companies offering a previous generation, substandard service at ridiculous prices

      Previous 'loved me some cable' person here. I cut the cord. The price ratio was out of wack. I was so bad I had pretty much the entire 70+ station line up memorized. I could tell you what was on when. I even would sit thru the commercials. Then tivo came along... I went nuts. Watching hundreds of hours of tv.

      When it was 15-20 bucks it was 'yeah sure why not, bit pricy but I get a lot'. Then in about 5 years it went from 15-20 to 70-80. The cost benefit was no longer there for me to not cut the cord and just BUY my material outright. I hear of people with 150-300 dollar cable bills. Thats nuts. For 300 a month you could buy ~200 movies in under a year.

      I took the money and built me a bad ass HTPC. 8000+ pieces of video content all bought and paid for. More than I can watch in a year. I have tons to chose from. I add 1-2 new movies/seasons every month. I keep my eyes pealed for interesting seasons to pop up at the local stores or on line for decent bundle prices. My best score was 5 seasons of Remington steel for 20 bucks. Cheesy show sure but just as entertaining as anything else on tv... When people ask 'hey what do you want of your birthday' or Christmas I have a LONG list of movies I have not seen and can give them that list.

      When they first added commercials to cable we should have cut the cord then. They got greedy. I remember the promise that commercials would keep the costs low. HA...

    6. Re:Missing the point by allquixotic · · Score: 1

      What the fuck is wrong with *you*? Breaking the law is not a solution to social problems. It's a great way to land yourself in jail, where your "personal sanctity" will be mercilessly abused by homicidal men who actually *belong* in jail. Breaking the law just further validates the rhetoric being slung by the elite. Suddenly anyone who doesn't want to pay their $130 is a criminal, or a terrorist.

      The solution is to make your voice heard. Join the Mayday SuperPAC. Write to your congress critters. Support the few companies out there that are offering content with sane licensing models, such as DRM-free, using open formats, "watch anywhere". You have to inflict positive change upon the system, which antagonizes and hurts the evil parts of it. Once they feel the burn, they start speaking out even more loudly in favor of their own positions, and their rhetoric can then be exposed to reason and it can be shown how ridiculous it is. If you instead choose to break the law, you are actively helping them dig in their heels, because now they can rally the ignorant public against a "rising threat"; they spin piracy as a common enemy of both the consumer and The Man, and use this as lube to get the public to agree to let them fuck them harder.

      Pirating may appear to be the "best" short-term, self-interested solution to the problem of watching what you want without paying outlandish prices, but it creates a backswing that will hurt *every* consumer, whether they pirate or not, and helps ensure that the greedy actors who have put us in the position we're in now, will continue to wield enormous power over our society's decision-making systems.

      Don't do it.

  5. Unbundling Horsecrap by Giant+Electronic+Bra · · Score: 2

    That link about 'myths' of unbundling is horseshit. It fails the basic math test. If everyone was unbundled and only paid for what they watch then we'd have the same number of people watching the same things they watch now. The AGGREGATE money collected in fees would remain the same and it would be distributed proportionately to the same vendors it is now. Nothing would change. The author of that piece of garbage somehow thinks what, that everyone would suddenly be paying $500 a month to watch individual channels???!!! Where would all that extra money go? Man people are stupid sometimes.

    Obviously the Cable Cos. know all of this. They don't want to unbundle because it would cut customer's bills, they don't like it because once you stop having ESPN on your dial you'll forget it exists and pretty soon you'll only be paying for what you actually watch, and if that's cheap shows THEN they really will get a lot less revenue. Beyond that the ad revenue drops because people will just skip ESPN if they only watch it 5 times a year. Indeed, once the customer's start picking what they want to pay for the Cable Co becomes just what it should be, an ISP.

    --
    "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
    1. Re:Unbundling Horsecrap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      More likely very heavy TV viewers would pay more because they use more channels. Light viewers would pay less.

    2. Re:Unbundling Horsecrap by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      I would gladly pay the SAME amount if I could literally turn off the channels I don't watch.

      Yes, I KNOW you can disable channels e.g. in a Tivo (IIRC, at least in some cable company boxes, you STILL can't do that simple thing).

      But I mean literally turn them off. Why? I want to give positive reinforcement to ACTUALLY the channels I want, and remove the home shopping & religious channels, even if they are subsidizing part of my bill.. (But I would also be removing some channels that ARE being paid through my bill..)

      If it were on a show by show basis, but NOT at the $1-$2/episode price the various services charge now.. even better..

      Heck, even though I love DVRs, if Hulu Plus had an AD FREE version for $50/month (that worked on a TV, not just on a computer -- I know, Tivos have Hulu Plus too), I'd use that INSTEAD of DVRing stuff.

    3. Re:Unbundling Horsecrap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That link about 'myths' of unbundling is horseshit. It fails the basic math test. If everyone was unbundled and only paid for what they watch then we'd have the same number of people watching the same things they watch now. The AGGREGATE money collected in fees would remain the same and it would be distributed proportionately to the same vendors it is now. Nothing would change. The author of that piece of garbage somehow thinks what, that everyone would suddenly be paying $500 a month to watch individual channels???!!! Where would all that extra money go? Man people are stupid sometimes.

      this doesn't sound quite right. you can talk about subscribing individually to every channel you have currently, but that somehow misses the point. if the things you watch now comprised of 10 popular channels, and you subscriped to those under the new model, you would pay less than someone who subscribed to 10 unpopular channels. and, let's face it.. i want you to help subsize the osteichthyes channel that i so love.

    4. Re:Unbundling Horsecrap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. The cable companies get their cut every step along the way... one channel at a time. They know exactly how to bundle the channels. If it didn't matter then we would get X number of channels per bundle and we would get to choose the channels.

    5. Re:Unbundling Horsecrap by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 1

      Show your work?

      I'm not wasting time proving you wrong if you have put zero effort in.

      Start with any article on blackouts due to pricing disagreements, and work your way up.

    6. Re:Unbundling Horsecrap by Giant+Electronic+Bra · · Score: 1

      What 'work'? Its basic logic. Either you can follow it or you can't.

      --
      "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
  6. Still behind the times by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I don't want "channels" I want shows and movies. That's the real future.

    1. Re:Still behind the times by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And I want a toilet seat made out of gold. What is your point?

    2. Re:Still behind the times by toejam13 · · Score: 1

      I believe that the boat for à la carte channel lineups has already sailed. Back during the 1990s when digital cable and mini-sat were starting to hit their prime, à la carte channel lineups would have been cutting edge.

      But technology has since moved forward, and à la carte programming is now a mature market. Services like Netflix, Hulu, Prime and the like give you access to individual shows at any time. And you now have an entire generation that has been raised with DVRs, PPV and BitTorrent. Broadcast schedules are increasingly seen as antiquated.

      Lastly, there is a larger force at play here. People aren't just cutting their cords because of price or because of poor quality content. They're cutting because they have better things to do. Video games and the Internet now consume a large chunk of my "wired" free time while cooking and home improvement stuff that I learned on PBS and online takes up the rest. I don't need 299 channels of crap to keep me entertained.

  7. Missing the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    will state price of 0.02 cents and charge $0.02, verizon math....

  8. Not really true? by TopSpin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The link that supposedly refutes the argument that people are paying for things they wouldn't otherwise pay for doesn't actually refute anything. Rather, it characterizes the current situation as "socialism"; "Cable TV is socialism that works."

    I do not want to contribute to ESPN. Nor the myrid "shopping" channels. Or the "Christian" networks. Or any of the other dreck that pollutes this world. Even if that means the things I do want aren't as well subsidized for the lack of fuhtbawl knuckle-heads.

    Whatever.... I can't remember how long ago it was that I last paid a cable bill. My vote has been cast. Join me and cut these bloodsuckers off. You won't miss it.

    --
    Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
    1. Re:Not really true? by Moof123 · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Right now I have no good way to vote down the oodles of crap channels, or to really vote up my tastes. Worse yet, the price keeps going up faster than my paycheck inflation. So we dropped it and have no regrets. We watch less total TV, and pay vastly less to get the handful of shows we actually want. Sadly Hulu still has ads, and I am getting close to dropping it too.

      I am fine with some bundling, but really want to some option to be able to defund ESPN, QVC, Christian Blab, "History" Channel, TLC, and similar. I would be fine if the model was a handful of ad funded "Free" stations if they wanted access to me (broadcast model), then say a few bucks each for each station I actually wanted with a minimum 1 month buy-in and some base service charge. Tons of stations would wither, others would flourish. Ideally I would be able to stream at will and be able to choose a higher ad-free price tier. All wishful thinking I am sure.

      Part of my hope of seeing the likes of ESPN wither, is that it would lead to less funding of professional sports via reduced budget for buying broadcast right. Professional sport are a colossal waste of resource, IMO.

    2. Re:Not really true? by Eravnrekaree · · Score: 1

      The link read a lot like Cable Company Astroturfing, trying to obfuscate the issue. Its really quite simple, that when you pay for a bundle, your money is going to fund channels many of which you utterly despise and which you do not want to have any part in supporting. The problem is, you can't get the channels you might want unless you pay for the ones you dont.

  9. Meh by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 1

    Who watches TV these days.

    1. Re: Meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bread and circuses. Keep the people debating bundled vs a la carte so they won't have time to think about actual stuff.

    2. Re:Meh by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1

      Who watches TV these days.

      Most nights when people are watching TV I'm out walking the dog. Judging by the number of TVs I see glowing in everyone's living rooms as I walk by, I'd say a lot of people are still watching TV these days.

    3. Re:Meh by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 1

      Who watches TV these days.

      Old people.

      A cohort of TV viewers die every day and are not replaced by younger ones.

  10. Not True? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hahaha
    Fuck you, shill. I cut the cable nearly 6 years ago and I absolutely love paying $10/month over $60. Fuck ESPN. Let the goddamn sports fanatics pay for that wasteland of a channel. AMC? Please. You long ago lost your purpose. History channel? Fucking reality TV. There isn't anything on basic cable that is worth the cost. The few things that are good are easy to buy as boxed sets or watch when the hit Prime or Netflix.

  11. That's Cute. by Seumas · · Score: 2

    Now that people aren't watching live television, probably aren't even watching *television*, and don't use television as the delivery method for their entertainment and are dropping cable, they want to roll out a la carte?

    Thanks, but it's not 1999-2003, anymore. You need to deliver the content I want, when I want it, on whatever device I want it, through whatever delivery method I want it, for a very reasonable price. Cable subscriptions, live television, and television-bound viewing is something I ditched a decade ago and you're not getting me back.

    I'd say you should look into these other demands from consumers, but frankly we all know that by the time you get around to delivering what we want today, *that* will be something we no longer care about, either.

  12. TV used to be a social medium by rsborg · · Score: 2

    I posit that the rise of Youtube, Facebook, Twitter and the like allowed people to share and discuss about things they actually care about, rather than TV shows or even movies. Hell, I spend more time on /. than watching TV - and I'm increasingly feeling like most of my family is the same (not on /., but you get the picture).

    For those who still watch TV, TiVo and Netflix have set the standards too high for many to really give a crap about last century's TV model anymore.

    --
    Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
  13. comcast will just lower there cap to kill this by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    comcast will just lower there cap to kill this

    1. Re:comcast will just lower there cap to kill this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the FCC will convert them to Title II and Comcast will go bye-bye.

    2. Re: comcast will just lower there cap to kill this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And congress will promptly tell the FCC to go pound sand

  14. Phew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thank god I miss-read that. I first read it as Verizon working on a-la-carte internet service... meaning only access certain websites and have to pay a premium to access others.
    Oh wait...

  15. Canada Begins Hearings on Forcing A La Carte TV Op by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 2

    http://www.dslreports.com/show...

    we need this in the USA

  16. Nothing to see here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that is not true. This service is from Intel's OnCue acquisition which targets large screen TVs.

  17. That's Cute. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Thanks, but it's not 1999-2003, anymore."

    Fair enough, but let me play devil's advocate on this one: Think back to your home Internet connection 1999-2003... if you were even lucky enough to have one. I can't speak for you, but the only options available to me were 56k (50k if you were lucky) dial-up and I believe 5/1 from a horrible, horrible cable company.

    Over the top television only began to be feasible for most consumers five or so years ago. Probably even less if you have the misfortune of living in a rural area. Broadband speeds have just recently caught up to bandwidth requirements of high-quality (that means large-screen TV) streaming.

  18. Re:It is not just the by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have all ESPN channels on parental lockout, I'd love to see a "Sports" rating on the lockout menu to automatically lock out anything sports related.

  19. Ala-cart, not all it is cracked up to be. by Brad1138 · · Score: 1

    The problem with "Ala-cart" is, you can't get just the 1 channel you want, you get the "Viacom" channels or the "Turner" channels or the "Fox" channels etc. If you want just news channels you have to buy 3 or more channel "groups" to get Fox News, CNN, MSNBC (or whatever). There wont be a time soon when you can just order the specific channel you want, the parent companies wants all their programming sold together.

    --
    If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
    1. Re:Ala-cart, not all it is cracked up to be. by Eravnrekaree · · Score: 1

      WRONG. What you are describing is NOT ala-carte, its just another form of bundling. Real ala-carte is where you can buy JUST one or more of the channels that you want with nothing else, from all of the channels available. So stop using cables own broken form of so called ala-carte to try to suggest people dont want the real thing.

    2. Re:Ala-cart, not all it is cracked up to be. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course its not the ala carte we want. Its the one the cable and providers want.

      The cable companies want it so they can just raise the price on particular bundles and who is to blame for the bill going up is the right people. As they are tired of taking the heat for raising the prices.

      The providers do not want it at all so they can continue to conflute the price issue onto someone else.

      The providers will want it that way (if forced into it) so they can still charge you for espn 1-50 and CBS even though all you care about is maybe CBS.

  20. No thanks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I get 2600 channels including PPV on my $380 free to air receiver.

    1. Re:No thanks. by Hamsterdan · · Score: 2

      How many of those JesusTV or Ethnic channels? I've looked into hooking up my FTA receiver, but decided to go OTA instead.

      --
      I've got better things to do tonight than die.
  21. Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why do I feel they figured out a way to make us pay even more than we do now.

  22. It's called bullshit for a reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Sure, folks complain about paying for those niches, but only because they don’t realize others are subsidizing their particular interests

    Pretty much standard BS, not even first quality. That amounts, to cut it short, to going to a buffet full of food you don't like, getting 2 kinds of food and getting happy by thinking if you would have all the variety you want it would cost an arm and a leg -- because the owners are greedy for sure.

    That said, let me tell you my point of view... (feel free not to read it, if you ever see it, since I'm an AC and this is /.).

    In 2007 we got Full HDTV here in Brazil: public TV with lousy content but not 1280x720... it is 1920x1080i, in all its glory. Very well, I wore my feet out by going to shops which sold TV-sets and talking to salesmen, trying to find a cheap one to use. Everyone mocked it, saying:

    a) it's not better than cable -- it was way better than cable back then, because cable was ugly... few people could afford HD cable.
    b) it's not better than a good antenna -- way better, because of digital transmission, but no one seem to get that;
    c) there are no shows in HD -- sure but that's where upscaling helps;

    Well, what happens now? Everyone has been trying to leverage higher prices on HD and now people start to compete on high definition: prices have fallen and we finally, after probably some 15 years yearning I can sign a service with HD quality. In all channels? Nope, now there's many but not all.

    Do I care? No. And here's why: we need just a few channels, 8 would do, 15 would be more than enough. For our uses and available time, it's not even interesting to consider paying more for HD. Cable TV went from an opera-like experience to a fast food one. We turn on, see the same old series, laugh a little and go to internet.

    I don't even care about the HD offers I get... and I'm actually very demanding about quality (hence my thirst for HD quality; now I dream about UltraHD).

    So, to sum it up... Cable TV, enjoy your final years! I like you exactly how I love M$.

    Rest in peace! Thank you for nothing, you bloodsuckers.

    1. Re:It's called bullshit for a reason by bn-7bc · · Score: 0

      UHD is not that important to me at this point cost of UHD tvs etc are still to high), but a bump in quality would be nice. I have a sugestion what about starting to broadcast/stream using 4:2:2. hroma sybsampeling instead of the current 4:2:0 efectivly dubeling the croma resolution of the picture. and start using h265 and use the same banwith you use now, net result. mouch better hD with no need fir exoensive UzhD tvs

    2. Re:It's called bullshit for a reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hi, I'm not sure I understand enough of this to comment (useful article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chroma_subsampling ). Let's just say it would be interesting to do some experiments with that sub-sampling to see if losses are visually acceptable. For home videos it might be an option, though I'd like to see what bandwidth and storage gains are possible.

      On a related point, I'm interested on methods to reconstruct damaged images (I usually add noise to profit from natural brain-made extrapolating abilities) and sound (think restoring original quality from an encoded mp3 track). Not for the faint of heart, I'd say.

      Now, regarding my anger, I found a very instructive video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ilMx7k7mso .

    3. Re:It's called bullshit for a reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, bn-7bc, misread your post, you're actually advocating for reduced losses and that is exactly my POV. I'll be sure to test your ideas...

  23. What cable ? by speedlaw · · Score: 2

    Cut cable. Streaming content. OTA with DVR. Don't miss cable. Oh, and the $6 per month "sports fee" is what finally made me dump cable. The sheer arrogance that I'll buy a service (don't watch sports) because I have no choice....ESPN LOST them a viewer due to this fee, and $1000 less per year to the cable co. buh bye !!

  24. Re:Canada Begins Hearings on Forcing A La Carte TV by Hamsterdan · · Score: 1

    Our national broadcaster (SRC/CBC) would prefer to have people pay to get their signal, even if they are financed by our taxes and advertisers. I'm pretty sure TVA (owned by Quebecor) and CTV (Bell), Global (Shaw) and CITY-TV (Rogers) would like that too...

    --
    I've got better things to do tonight than die.
  25. Many people do want ala carte by Eravnrekaree · · Score: 1

    Its hard to think that anyone can honestly say that a large percentage of users do not watch only a small fraction of channels in their cable package, thus funding channels they will never use and may even despise intensely. Dismantling the everything or nothing bundling is about allowing people to opt out of funding mind numbing garbage that they may even despise and want to be no part of. I should have a right to not support programming that I think is total rubbish just to get the programming that I want. This will actually make the providers more responsive to customer wishes. Its also good to have an ala carte per program option, which, it should be obvious many want.

  26. Ala Carte means something different to me by msobkow · · Score: 1

    To me ala cart means picking the shows you want, not the channels. Even on channels I like, 90% of whtat they have is crap I don't watch.

    Torrents, man. Season torrents of shows. That's the way to go.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    1. Re:Ala Carte means something different to me by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      I agree with you that a-la-carte should be by show, not by channel, but I can't agree with your logic of torrenting everything. If you want entertainment, then you really ought to pay the creator of that entertainment. It wasn't free to produce, and you get value out of it, so you should pay. If you didn't get any value, you wouldn't waste time watching it.

      Might I suggest a compromise? Pull out your credit card and make a good faith effort to pay for what you watch. If that option isn't available, see if there is a good, free substitute. If neither of those options is available, then at least you tried to do the right thing. Torrent away.

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    2. Re:Ala Carte means something different to me by neminem · · Score: 1

      "If you want entertainment, then you really ought to pay the creator of that entertainment."

      The problem is that by paying for cable, that is *not* what you're doing. It's several steps back from actually paying the people creating the content, to the point where they get basically crap-all out of it. I would *love* to pay the people responsible for creating the content; I have less love for the concept of most of my money going to the people screwing us over at [whichever one cable company your area happens to be allowed to purchase cable through.]

    3. Re:Ala Carte means something different to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Torrents can be paid, free or pirate. It's just a medium like CDs or DVDs.

      Cars are not bad just because thieves use them to rob banks.

      Torrent distribution of unlicensed copies is a legal problem. Keeping them working is also mandatory, just like we didn't close airports after terrorist acts.

      Be careful not to throw out the baby with the bath water...

      And it's "à la carte"! (my apologies if /. eats accented letters -- I was hoping they've already fixed that by now)

    4. Re:Ala Carte means something different to me by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      So if you read what I wrote, I did not suggest returning to paying for cable television. I suggested making a good faith effort to pay for the specific content that he wanted to watch.

      This is exactly what I do personally, by the way. I cut the cord a while ago, but I really like watching live baseball. So I pay for a subscription to MLB.tv and watch it on my Roku box. There are a few other shows that my family enjoys but aren't on network TV, so I pay for those specific shows, as well. But that's it. I'm saving $1,164 per year by not having cable TV, so I figure it's only fair to kick some of that back for the content that I actually want to watch.

      And to tell the truth, there have been a few instances where a particular episode or movie was not offered for sale, so I did wind up torrenting it. But this is after having hunted, with credit card in hand, for what I wanted to watch. I was ready to pay for it, but wasn't given that option.

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
  27. Why? by sgt+scrub · · Score: 1

    Why should people have to pay for cable, pay for "TV channels", and pay for bandwidth. Why can't they just stfu, be an ISP, and let people tf alone?

    --
    Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
  28. Re:It is not just the by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like father like son.

  29. I call BS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Streaming movies and shows over the internet is the future of TV. The BS of data caps is the combination cable TV/ISPs way of trying to slow or stop the flow of people that are getting rid of cable TV and going to Netflix. There are other streaming services, but until they realize that people are no longer willing to tolerate commercials on a service that they already pay for, Netflix will continue to be number one. I would willingly pay $15 a month for Netflix if they could get a lot more TV shows and movies that I want to see. They have a lot of good stuff now, but also a lot of not-so-good stuff.

    Its already too late for ala carte on cable tv, it should have been done 15 years ago when it could have made a difference.

  30. Re:It is not just the by vettemph · · Score: 1

    I'm Sorry, We didn't get your name.
    Was it:
    1 Aaron Hernadez
    2 Ray Rice
    3 Adrian Peterson
    or
    4 Michael Vick?

    --
    The government which is strong enough to protect you from everything is strong enough to take everything from you.
  31. alacarte by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    should already be an option when a provider encrypts and digitally-transmits the video signal.. which these days, is pretty much every provider. there is no fucking reason why i shouldn't be able to pay 30 bucks a month, get broadcast channels, espn, cnn, tnt, tbs, syfy, cartoon network, and disney/nick for the kids.. and nothing else... and not the 68 a month (plus another 20 in taxes fees and extra charges) the cable company charges for the cheapest (and non hd) package that has those channels

  32. What a load of garbage! "That's not really true" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Complete non-sense. The author of the piece linked to suggesting that it's not true that they're paying for hundreds of channels but only watching a handful is wrong on every level.

    First of all, people pay for hundreds of channels and they do only watch, on average, a handful. Nothing about this linked story disputes that FACT.

    Second, the argument the story makes is totally upside-down. It states that 4.8% of subscribers watch ESPN and that ALL households with cable pay about $5 to watch it. The argument is that, if just those interested in it had to pay for it, they'd have to pay just over $100 a month -- and here's the kicker -- FOR ESPN TO KEEP THEIR CURRENT REVENUE LEVEL. That's the snowjob. The ONLY reason ESPN is making that money in the first place is that they're ripping off everyone. IF they could only get the 4.8% to pay, there's absolutely NO WAY those people would pay $100 a month for that service. No way. Thus, every dollar over what that amount would be is robbery.

    The article claims this is socialism at it's finest. It's not. It's rampant capitalism at its worst. It's not a free market at all. It's collusion by the networks to only allow one option. Cable wants those households but the only way to service them is to give in to the network's demands. There is no other competition to choose from and no other model to consider, so they give in. Thus, 95.2% of households are robbed each month so that ESPN can be rich beyond their wildest dreams. If ESPN lost 95.2% of that revenue they'd die. However, it's clear the service is worth more than $5 to many interested ESPN viewers. However, that's a value we're likely to never find out given today's limited, borderline legal models.

  33. chiming in to take a shot at TFA (1st link) by marvinglenn · · Score: 1

    Along with all the other fine comments taking a shot at the linked article "Cord Cutting Fantasies", I too have something small to add...

    [...] to maintain their current revenues.

    The tone I read in the argument contends that the content providers are necessarily entitled to have the revenues they do. I dispute that presumtion. I think the revenues of some of the content providers is higher than it rightfully should be because of collusion and other illegitimate market powers certain providers have.

    I cancelled my cable TV some months ago when the "introductory rate" ran out. (I was no longer a new customer but rather just a loyal on, so apparently I didn't deserve to receive any special consideration anymore.) The expiration of the discounts put my bill at a level that I was not willing to pay.

    Open letter to Charter Communications: When you can offer me a la carte on the channels I want, then you may call to solicit me about adding services. Until then, I'll pay my internet bill and stop f-ing calling, because I often work swing shift.

    --
    The whores get mad when the sluts give it away for free.
  34. HINT for Verizon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Consumers no longer want stations a-la-carte - they want individual shows a-la-carte, and time shifted. The Netflix/Amazon Prime model of releasing an entire season of a show at once on-demand is where it's at.

    You're pursuing and outdated ideal there Mr. Verizon.