Slashdot Mirror
Unbundling Cable TV: Be Careful What You Wish For
schnell writes Consumers have long complained about the practice of "bundling" cable services and forcing customers to pay for channels they don't want — and an increasing number of "cord cutters" are voting with their wallets. But an article in the New York Times suggests that if cable companies are finally forced to unbundle their services it may actually result in higher prices and worse service. From the article: "there's another, more subjective dimension in which the rise of unbundled cable service may make us worse off. It's possible for a market to become more economically efficient while becoming less pleasant for consumers. For a prime example, head to your nearest airport."
Head to my nearest airport and observe what?
When one revenue stream goes away, corporations will gouge their customers in other ways to make up the difference, or make more money in the long run.
The cable companies are screwing us now, and will continue to screw us in the future using whatever means available to them.
It's a rigged game, played by people who feel entitled to the revenue, and who have more power than we do.
This isn't a surprise, nor should it be.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
is all I want. Extra inconvenience is fine, so long as I get precise control over who takes my money and who doesn't.
.. for public security reasons..
And it's just getting worse. There's been articles here on Slashdot about how carriers "tune" channels for quality on the shared data pipe. SciFi, Discovery, the nature type channels that all benefit the most from good quality get the low tuned down shit, but never mind, the Home Shopping Network is always 1080P and max bps.
I haven't had cable of my own or satellite in years and I frankly don't miss it. Every time I'm at a friends or relatives and I see definitive examples of said channel tuning and all the Spanish networks being on the lowest paid for tier while even channels that are free streaming over the web and on terrestrial satellite being on upper tiers it doesn't soften my feelings towards cable companies.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
The article's point is moot, nobody needs media options like they do travel options, cable will always be one of the first things to go. This just reads like a cable company stamping their feet crying after they've been pulled from the breast after decades of suckling. It's really disturbing how greedy these companies are that they never seem to run out of scary stories to tell people.
$400 ticket
+$25 for luggage
+$25 for 2nd piece of luggage
+$50 for a seat that isn't between two 300 pound men who haven't showered yet this year.
+$75 for to not have your legs knees shoved in your face when the person in front of you reclines
+$15 for internet, 2G speeds only
+$5-15 to use the entertainment console at your seat
+$10 for a light snack
+$25 to sit near the front of the plane so you don't have to spend 30 minutes in your seat both before and after the plane lands
Worse service? Than a cable company? I'm 99.99% sure that is impossible.
You do sound superior. How do you watch live sports?
Nearly everyone I know has dumped cable and in most cases it wasn't to make their budget better but that once they got Netflix that commercials became insufferable and the cost per cable hour watched then skyrocketed. In my area to have a half decent set of packages you will end up paying around $100 per month. So for people who were just watching the occasional news show and not much else they realized that they were paying pretty much the same per show as the entirety of their monthly Netflix cost.
But then I hear other complaints which is that the news is becoming wildly biased while the quality of most programming is in freefall. I hear that it is becoming clear that many of the new programs are being made on silly low budgets. For instance I was over at a cable using friend's house and the weather reporter was talking to a camera on a tripod. They had eliminated the cameraman. Plus some of the travel shows are basically all selfie shots with a selfie stick or a tripod.
And CNN really took the cake when they had 1000's of hours of reporting on the missing airliner when their only two real facts were that it was missing and that it turned left.
So while in 1994 I would have killed to get my channels a-la-carte at this point it is just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
It's not like they would have any reason to try to help us save money, since that money would be directly lost by them if they did. We already see that elsewhere - Verizon, for instance, is technically "happy" to let you not pay for phone service if you don't need it: you can pay like 70 bucks for internet by itself, or alternatively, you can pay *50* bucks for the same internet and also a phone line. But it's *technically* an option...
I'm imagining that the same thing would happen here - yes, you can totally only buy one channel. It'll cost you 500 dollars, but it's *technically* an option... according to our website, not according to any actual logic...
Obviously that's not what anyone wants, and wouldn't reasonably be considered "unbundling" by anyone except a cable company, but still.
Food, drinks, legroom, checked baggage.
The thing about cable is that large majority of people don't want all the crap they force down our throat.
For example there are romance centered channels, sports centered channels, reality show channels, cartoon centered channels, science centered channels and fake science centered channels (which USED to be real science centered channels).
If you are a family with a wide array of interests than you might probably want all of that.
But I have zero interest at all on the sports channels (total geek), fake science channel (TLC, I'm looking at you), reality show channels, etc.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
With fewer channels on average the value of the advertising per channel should go up. So while Logo will probably end up with less money and cost more if you really want it or go away completely. Cartoon network, AMC, and other popular channels might actually drop in price so they can sell more ads.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
It's impossible for Comcast to offer worse service without actively stabbing each of its customers...
Really? Is that even possible?
For a prime example, head to Netflix. Great service, great selection for a single channel, no commercials, no lobbyists
I wouldn't have cable, but my wife likes watching the shows. My way of getting back at the cable companies and the MPAA in general? I like local entertainment - open mic nights, concerts, jams, plays, reading, writing. I know that's not for everyone but those are the things I prefer. It will take a while to make all of those illegal.
Neil Irwin is a talking head on CNBC, MSNBC, PBS, etc...
http://neilirwin.com/about-nei...
So he's not exactly unbiased. lol
For a decent counter to his stupid argument:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ti...
Who watches sports?
Using the comparison of cable television with the airline industry is foolish, as this Techdirt article reveals. Efficiency (by which I assume they mean profitability) is irrelevant if the only customers the cable industry has left are the sports nuts. In this country, there should be enough of them to keep the industry going, I suppose.
--- Andy West http://andywest.org
The simple solution is to completely unbundle everything and you only pay for the shows you want to watch. For examples, there's not reason someone should have to pay for Discovery channel for an entire year or even an entire month if the only for the channel is to watch a few hours of TV on Shark Week. The reason unbundling is expensive for the consumer is that they are left subscribing to channel just because they may want to watch it for a couple hours a month. If they unbundled it down to individual episodes, then people would pay only for what they actually want to see. There would be a large decrease in the amount of content available, as right now, there's a lot of junk content being subsidized by the popular content, but I personally think that's for the better.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Cable (and IPTV/satellite) is unbundled where I live. Guess what happened? People ended up getting less channels, paying more per-channel, and at the end their monthly bill ended up about the same. Now the CRTC is likely going to force unbundled cable to be required nationwide, and I expect to see the same thing happen in all other provinces.
Cable companies will set their prices so that their ARPU remains unaffected. The vast majority of people will save no money. A small number of people who pick an extremely limited number of channels might save some money.
How do you watch live anything? Sports, News, current show episodes, anything new on first airing?
Those who like to be well-rounded individuals.
And by well rounded, I don't mean around the waist because we're sitting on our fat asses in our mother's basement rather than going outside once in a while.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Been saying this as long as /. was around, few agreed but most argued.
Fuck Ajit Pai
I'd gladly pay $30-40/mo just to stream ESPN content.
I'd pay that to be able to stream all EPL games as well.
I won't pay $135/mo to Cox Cable though for the same. So I have OTA TV via an antenna and I find streams for matches I want to see.
In a stadium, like most normal people
-SKK
Dish just introduced a $20/mo. streaming service that includes ESPN. Seems like the cord cutters have the final piece of the puzzle now.
You mean twitch.tv? I think you forgot an 'e' in front of "sports" word.
I don't see how it could be worse?
I pay about $8/month for Netflix - unlimited movies, TV shows, documentaries, etc. with no commercials.
Compared with $50-$100/month+ to get edited, censored content whilst being bombarded every 8 minutes or so with loud annoying commercials trying to convince me to buy a bunch of stuff i'll never need or want.
I could care less about what happens to the cable company - or Hollywood for that matter.
Both have made billions of dollars by selling people (mostly) garbage.
Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
How do you watch live sports?
With my drone!
That when industries raise rates and lower service to unacceptable levels (Blockbuster) that someone will come along with a better, cheaper, and more convenient alternative (Redbox, Netflix) that will kill them. And in the end, the content makers will find a new, albeit, less lucrative alternative distribution model.
Select from tblFriends where interesting >= 4;
"May" actually result in high prices and worse services? Of *course* it'll result in high prices and worse services, when the cable companies are *forced* to do anything. What you think, they'll go "ok we've learned our lesson, we're going to play nice now".?
The real answer is to starve them out. Use alternate services whenever possible. Don't give in to cable. If there's a series you want to see, wait for netflix or hulu. Or lower your expectations for TV-brain-to-mush time. I'm not a "kill your tv" person but TV just isn't important enough to put up with cable in any fashion.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
You do sound superior. How do you watch live sports?
By personally attending the events I'm interested in..... Captcha: Season Tickets!
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
So you do you watch sports on tv sitting on your fat ass in your mother's basement, or do you watch your sports on tv going outside once in a while... I'm confused...
Comparing the airline market to cable television isn't as straight-forward as the article purports. First, back in the day of great airline service with cocktails and loads of legroom tickets where very expensive and most people could not afford to fly regularly if at all. Nowadays airline travel has become a commodity that the vast majority of people can afford. Yes, passengers get treated like crap, but that leads to the second point that airlines have a fairly captive customer base. If we need to go somewhere reasonably far away, we have to fly. Most people make the choice that being uncomfortable is a price to pay for the cheap ticket. They may not like it, but not enough people skip travelling altogether for the airlines to have to change their ways.
For cable companies on the other hand, the situation is quite different. We are not coming off some historic reduction of prices, the changes are driven by technology and customer demand. Also, it is a minimal impact on me to make the choice to not subscribe to a service if I think its too expensive. So I miss a few shows or games, no big deal .There's still a plethora of entertainment to be had. One could just as easily make the argument that breaking up the cable bundling will push prices down and increase quality as the competition for subscribers increases.
I don't care about cost, personally. When I do watch TV shows, I don't want commercials, and I don't want to watch junk. I watch what I carefully choose. So higher cost is not an issue. Quality is. I want to be able to cherry pick what I want to watch, and if I have to go to a hundred different sources, that is fine: I will discover which sources are worth checking. That is what I do now. I don't watch cable TV at all: I watch shows on Netflix and Amazon and streamed via Comcast - never cable. So cable has no impact on me as it is, except that I have to pay for it but never use it.
I cant' see how it could be any fucking worse than it already is. Cable companies, through their set top boxes, know EXACTLY how much and what people watch. They take that data and then carefully engineer TV packages that force you to spend as much as they think they can get out of you in order to get the shows you want.
They have shit channels. They KNOW they are shit channels, but they force you take them because they can. Filler. Padding to nickle-and-dime you for the things you're really after.
Cable would be a whole lot better without forced packages because we'd no longer be rewarding shit channels for being empty filler.
People want:
Sports (I don't watch sports, but I know this is a primary driver of broadcast TV)
News channels (Or what passes for news today. Its really just outrage entertainment and/or conservative propaganda depending on who you tune in to)
The major national TV networks
A handful of cable networks that produce good content
A handful of premium cable channels that produce some of the best programming ever made
Syndication channels that show re-runs of the best of the previous three
The above maybe cover 30 channels. Maybe. Even half of those are better served by internet-delivered streaming of archived content. Everything else is shit.
I don't watch cable TV because I'm forced to pay 70 bucks a month for things I'd care to watch. I don't care for sports, news channels, or the major national networks.
I doubt I'd go back anyway. Watching non-live events on someone else's schedule is for suckers. When you subscribe to a channel you should get streaming access to the channels entire past library of content. That would bring me back.
I already pay a cable box fee for each TV and a fee for a cable modem. (By the way, it's only by the grace of regulation that I am allowed to rent a cable card for my Tivo.) I guess they could start metering TV by the minute or charging us for the bandwidth we "consume" watching Jon Stewart.
I like the idea of not paying for ESPN; not just because I don't watch it, but also because it would reduce the power of the sports industrial complex.
general aviation, my friend.
Copyright (c) 1990 - 2014 Dice. All rights reserved. Use of this comment is subject to certain Terms and Conditions.
You do sound superior. How do you watch live sports?
https://gamecenter.nhl.com/
I got fed paying $100+ just to have 100+ channels of zero-value content so my family cut the cord a couple of years ago. When we visit relatives with cable we find we aren't really missing anything. Our Roku with Netflix is more than enough to keep us happy and surprise! we've been going to the library more.
We don't have that over here. I like airports. But then again we don't have TSA and get our balls massaged for free before security clearance.
I don't know that watching sports makes you a more well rounded person. It's not in the same category as, say, reading a book on improving your career, improving your relationships, training your focus, etc. At best it's simply another entertainment category that's no better or worse than any other mainstream entertainment.
If you pay for streaming, you aren't anywhere near superior enough. I only DVR from antenna broadcast TV (with occasional live watch) and download torrents (in other words, no subscriptions or streaming) of mostly current season anime from Japan. I have never seen Breaking Bad, The Wire, or Game of Thrones (I even ignored GRRM at a science fiction convention), and I only get to see Dirty Jobs, Pawn Stars, and Mythbusters when I visit my mother.
But I am still nowhere near the coveted top of the hipster scale: no TV at all. It's almost frightening to think about.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
Sports and News are usually available for a short period of time on the broadcaster's own website for streaming. Same is true for many current show episodes and other new content. Usually you have to prove you're subscribed to the content to view it after the first week.
I always thought the desire to unbundle channels was a move by the cable industry themselves.
There's nothing lost by not sending all those channels over the cable. Restricting which ones you see could inflate profit.
What I want is for them to not just be regulated as utilities, but for companies to be able to use the poles and maybe even lines to compete with them. At the very least, don't sue municipal broadband away.
Who asked for UNbundling? Wasn't the key problem that you shouldn't bundle CNN with Cartoon Network? Wasn't the main complaint that you couldn't get all of the kids channels in one low-end package, or, you know not pay for sports?
No, this should work like pizza where, yes, individual toppings are more expensive than a bundle, but you can buy a Hawaiian pizza and pay two bucks for extra cheese . . .
Seriously, sports are the easiest: 30/month for all the sports channels or 10/month per sport and you get the basic ESPN with it
This isn't rocket surgery people.
A long time ago it would have been nice for the cable companies to unbundle so you could pick which channels you wish to receive.
How quaint.
With the Internet, unbundling should mean separating the bandwidth provider from the content provider.
In a competitive content market, it's not clear if the local cable is relevant or front and center.
It just depends on how well they can do arranging access to desirable content compared to Netflix, etc.
Another part of unbundling nowdays might be separating content distribution from production.
At the very least, a producer who also controls the bandwidth should not use one monopoly to unfairly advantage the other.
Completely unbundle your cable subscription. Tell them to shove their box up their ass.
I used to be a news junkie. That was one of the reason we got cable in the home. But then the real reporting kept shrinking while the talk (or rather "arguing") shows increased. It's like 1 hour of fluff news and 23 hours of talking heads arguing for the sake of arguing, just like that Monty Python sketch.
The real problem with cable companies is not that they "bundle" to create fixed service packages - it is that they are effective monopolies providing an essential service, that escape any meaningful regulation that such a model absolutely requires for to protect the interests of the public. As long as this situation persists any service pricing scheme is going to gouge the customers for Internet access as well as TV access.
The weakness of regulation is nicely conveyed by the the FCC itself:
So no regulation by any government body for "non basic services". And "basic service" regulation is entirely optional, and left piecemeal to lower levels of government where it is always ineffective in exercising oversight for national corporations which practice cartel-like collusion to protect their margins and market share.
Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
While I think this is a great "devil's advocate" piece and something to consider, I think there are some marked difference between the airline industry and cable. First, cable companies are like the AIRPORTS, not the AIRLINES. Cable companies distribute content that ESPN, NBC, et. al create. Cable companies aren't going to go away, but content delivery has changed. The clear path forward is to divest from content distribution and invest in superior internet infrastructure. The channel providers will then be able to set their own price in an open market place... :-/
Actually, I just realized why ISPs (some of which are cable companies) are taking issue with net neutrality. In essence, it is their attempt to bolt on their existing business model to the Internet. With existing channels, Comcast & Verizon generate revenue off both sides of the distribution. They make money off of us for paying for the bundled channel package into our home then make money again off the channel in the form of carrier fees. Yeah... now I'm seeing how these dots connect.
Mod me down, I shall become more off-topic than you could possibly imagine.
Those that are big consumers of high-cost channels like ESPN aren't going to like unbundling at all. Those whose TV watching needs tend towards the lower-cost stations will be pleased.
Unlike airlines, a channel list is pretty transparent. With airlines the amount of fees you need to pay is often a little hard to figure out.
Is where it is at. Why would I pay insane rates and deal with the outages from Directv (a light rain takes out their "Professionally installed" TV). Their customer support tries to tell me that there were people in Hurricanes that their satellite TV didn't go out. Well that is not possible being we all know water blocks that frequency quite easily, but you can't tell them that! I have even had snow (I live in Minnesota) take down Directv during medium to heavy snow storms.
I now watch OTA TV with a HDTV antenna and never miss a show from rain or snow. I don't miss the shopping channels and all the other junk that I don't want to see.
Like most of SlashDot, I dumped cable a couple of years ago and haven't missed a thing. File Charter and the rest of the them under "Buggy Whips In Progress"
Our condo building provides "basic" cable as part of the maintenance fee. I'd be all for dropping even that to save a little money. Over the air TV still exists, after all, even if the choices are limited. But given that I don't even watch what I have available now, I doubt that I'd care.
I have comcast. Can customer service get any worse or the prices get any higher?
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
But an article in the New York Times suggests that ...
should be
But an advertisement in the New York Times suggests that...
People who couldn't afford $200 ticket but can afford $180 one: IMHO that's a small number. Yes, they very likely exist. I think they're a minority.
People who don't watch sports: most people. From my horrifically-biased small sample, that's either 83.3% or 91.6% (depending on how I take one person's answer) of the people who watch television.
Ergo, I don't think the word "equivalent" means what you think it means.
The very fact that sports has fought so hard to prevent unbundling, I take as evidence that they know how intensely sports fans are subsidized by everyone else.
If all features or options in a flight were to be bundled with every ticket, the cost per person would be outright extravagant. Free checked baggage, enough room to cross your legs, a simple meal when flying cross-country, wider seats, onboard wi-fi-- you'd be buying all of that whether you like it or not. Since there's insufficient demand for flights at that price point and the businesses know that some willing are willing to pay more (though not max price), you get the fee-for-service system. That way, those who need less pay less and those who need more pay more.
Taking it to the discussion of unbundled cable, ya, if you divide your monthly cable bill by the number of channels you get, you're not likely going to come up with the price you're going to pay per channel that's going to eventually be offered a la carte. If you pay $100 per month and get 890 channels (450 of which are duplicates of other channels in different qualities), you're NOT going to be charged 11.2 cents per channel. It will likely be sub-bundled like this:
The Super Package: $100
Base Fees: $25
(Admin, Connection, Taxes, etc.)
Local Bundle: $10
--- Antenna-based TV
24-Hour News Bundle: $10
--- CNN: $5
--- MSNBC: $5
--- Fox News: $5
--- C-Span Bundle: $5
--- Other: $5
Sports Bundle: $20
--- $5 for each type of ESPN
--- $5 for NFL
--- etc.
Cable Super Bundle: $25
--- Bravo, TLC, Discovery, Food, HGTV, SciFi: $15
--- All the Rest: $15
Premium Bundle: $40
--- HBO: $15
--- Showtime: $15
--- Cinemax (Is this still a thing?): $10
--- Etc.
Chinese Bundle: $5
Arabic Bundle: $5
Spanish Bundle: $5
In the end, if you want it ALL, you'll be offered the $100 package (First Class). If you want nearly everything (AKA every option they offer in the Coach section short of moving to first class), you'll probably pay more than $100. The real benefit is for the tightwads who want Local, 24-Hour News, and Sports. They'll pay $55 instead of their previous $100. Sure, they won't get to watch Honey Boo Boo or reruns of Battlestar Galactica on TV, but they'll get their DC Comics shows, breaking news, and follow their favorite sports teams. And for a lot of people, that's all they care about.
I stopped getting cable tv about 7 years ago, and I really haven't missed it. I buy the occasional DVD or BluRay, but for the most part I watch less crap.
Yeah, there's the occasional tv that everyone talks about, but if I really want it, it is out there to be grabbed and watched.
If the various content providers could come up with a way that people like me could buy individual episodes of the shows we are interested in -- buy, not rent -- then they would lure me back. I'm simply not going to pay $100+ a month just to watch Game of Thrones, Doctor Who or what ever the flavor of the month is..
But then I hear other complaints which is that the news is becoming wildly biased while the quality of most programming is in freefall. I hear that it is becoming clear that many of the new programs are being made on silly low budgets. For instance I was over at a cable using friend's house and the weather reporter was talking to a camera on a tripod. They had eliminated the cameraman. Plus some of the travel shows are basically all selfie shots with a selfie stick or a tripod.
The fact that some news or weather channel is low quality doesn't mean that TV in general is all going downhill. Actually, this is quite possibly another Golden Age for TV. Quality hasn't been higher for years. You now have more high quality shows than you can possibly watch. Among recent shows with very high quality are: Breaking Bad, Sons Of Anarchy, Game Of Thrones, House Of Cards (from Netflix, but let's count it as TV), Downton Abbey, The Big Bang Theory, Modern Family and others. There are actually too many good one hour shows right now. There are a lot of shows I'd love to watch but I can't find the time, so I don't even start to watch them. Besides that list I've got quite a few shows that I really like a lot that are on network TV, but while I like them a lot, I think few would consider them to be truly great. If the folks you know only like the news and not much else, then sure, dump TV. But the quality is there. That doesn't mean that everything is great, but there are plenty of really good shows out there that deserve the accolades they get. Keep in mind though some networks like TLC live off reality TV and yeah, everything they have is pretty much low quality garbage for sure, but there are plenty of serious TV channels out there. Even SyFy is planning a multi-episode sequel to Arthur C. Clarke's 2001 and 2010 stories and it sounds promising, with Ridley Scott attached as producer.
Josh's article last year was wrong on a few levels. This article is wrong as well. What's important to understand is the price you pay depends upon "how many channels you buy, how frequently you buy, and when & where you watch, etc."
1st., you are overpaying why you buy local channels; they are free "over the air" but they are allowed to charge when a cable company transmits via their cable -- today a digital antenna works well for most and certainly anyone who is price sensitive.
2nd., we are just left with the cable TV shows and "Premium channels" -- and in this context Josh's article is right IF your family is large and/or you consume a lot of programs of different types a bundle that includes everything can be cost effective.
3rd., if we remove the cost of local TV and assume you just want to watch specific channels than Josh's calculations are certainly wrong. The question becomes when you want to watch a "new" channel or a show on an ad hoc basis -- should you subscribe to an entire bundle to get one network, or a whole network to get 1 or 2 shows?
4th., another reason Josh's calculations are clearly wrong is the time and place value of information; do you need to watch a show as a "first run" or can you wait until later and watching it on a web site like Netflix or Amazon Prime?
5th., If you limit your intake to specific networks or shows (through Google Play, Apple iTunes, NetFlix) you costs can be much lower ala carte.
http://www.hawknest.com/
Sure, Airlines have unbundled extras from the basic ticket. But the article then makes a gigantic leap to dissatisfaction with said airlines, without showing any work or proof that the complaints are at all related to the fees for said services!
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
It's called an Antenna....
You have an odd idea of 'most' and 'normal'. About 18-20 million people on average watch an NFL game on TV. Stadiums hold about 70K people.
Consider the Comcast policy for low cap internet as an excellent example. All plans are capped at 300GB. If you don't need that much you can reduce the cap to 5GB and get a massive $5 discount off the base price of the plan. However, under the reduced plan each GB over 5 costs a dollar per GB. If you get back up to 300GB that would cost you $295 for the same data that only saved you $5 when it was removed.
Savings per GB reduction $0.02
Cost per GB added $1.00
This is the actual pricing plan currently offered by Comcast so let's try substituting Channels for GB and see what that does for the price.
If this same ratio were applied to channels then you would save 2 cents for each unbundled channel you removed but have to pay a dollar for each channel you want. As with the internet plan the base price would still apply even with no channels so let's do an estimate. Let's say you pay $50 a month for 100 channels. Removing ALL of the channels at 2 cents per channel would save you $2 for a plan price of $48.
This means that for the exact same price as your bundle you can now only have 2 channels. Going back to all the channels you had in the bundle would cost you $148 for the same service you previously got for $50.
Must be nice to be you. 49ers tickets =~ 2K http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_...
By personally attending the events I'm interested in
So you're not a fan of non-local teams, or spend an awful lot of money on travel, I take it?
Go on, citizen, stamp the vote card. R or D, your choice.
motogp.com. It isn't shown anywhere on US TV anyway, so I would have been paying for it anyway.
Before the dish companies were forced into cable-style bundling (by the channels), you could order them ala-carte. They wre like $2-3 a channel. For the most part, this NYT article is alarmist, and is following the line of the cable companies and so on who now love the profitability of these high-cost packages and don't want to lose them (and the channels also love charging for each and every customer whether they want various channels or not.) I find the airport analogy poor at best, since channel bundling is simply a bundle of channels, not wine, drinks, bigger seats, and so on.
The fact of the matter is, some people who watch a large number of channels ARE in fact better off with the current system; but, at $2.50 a channel, you'd have to order up 20 channels before you hit the $50/month a base cable package typically costs these days. I don't want any sports channels (I used to want Speedvision when they covered WRC, but now that it's all NASCAR... no thanks!)
If you want to be "well rounded" there's enough sports broadcast over the airwaves. You don't need cable for that level of sports.
Cable sports is only necessary for the obsessed wannabes that are just another version of the GamerGate stereotype.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
1. they assume we're going to actually subscribe to all those channels.
2. they don't appreciate that ultimately we don't want a la carte channels but rather a la carte shows. Just because I like ONE show on a network doesn't mean I want to buy them all. Imagine if Warner Brothers presumed that because you wanted to see ONE movie that you had to buy a license to their whole year of movies. No. Just no.
3. They assume that we even have to buy TV licenses. The thing is that we have a lot of competition for our entertainment. Video games, the internet, etc. I don't need to have a subscription to a channel. I only watch tv at my parents house and find the practice to be generally quaint. In my own home, I have a big screen tv that plays movies, shows, and video games. All of which without a subscription to anything but a few cheap streaming services.
4. They don't appreciate that bundling effectively subsidizes failed stations. Consider CNN or the Oxygen Network. Neither one has ratings high enough to really credit their existence. What keeps them alive is the bundling model. Without the bundling, they'd have either never been born or would have died long ago. I don't want my subscription fees used to subsidize garbage content. No one is impressed when the cable companies say "you'll get 250 channels!"... We know what that means. Cut out the trash and you're looking at maybe 25 channels that are worth a damn and that includes the three or four versions of ESPN. The actual number of channels that are worth a damn are a tiny fraction of the total catalog and everyone knows it. THOSE stations are worth paying for and the rest are not. The rest are generally worth ZERO. They're just padding to make people think they're getting an amazing deal. Look at all the stations. Then you hook it up and realize that that is just more shit to skip through to get from one of the decent stations to another.
5. They still think that we're going to hook up a regular cable connection instead of just do video on demand. Listen lackwits, traditional cable is dying of old age. Think of it like a 25 year old dog. The poor guy is blind, limps around the house, smells like death, and keeps leaving mange all over the place. Face it. Video on demand is the the future. And with a video on demand a la carte model I could buy ONE channel or ONE show and nothing else. I don't have to sign up for everything else. I know you want me to because you like money. But guess what it isn't competitive. You can't get away with that crap for much longer. Either sell me what I want and nothing else or keep whiffing.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
"...if cable companies are finally forced to unbundle their services it may actually result in higher prices and worse service." Here's my alternate opinion: If cable companies are finally forced to unbundle their services it may actually result in LOWER prices and BETTER service. Who knows for sure? I say we force them to do it and find out.
I didn't read the article, but I would *expect* higher prices _if you picked the same channels that were previously a bundle_.
That is, it's _vaguely_ similar to buying a bunch of small packages of something vs buying a huge Costco package. (But do unit comparisons too.. the Costco packages are NOT always cheaper.. often, yes, but not always.)
But I *still* would like the option of a la carte.. I also would expect my bill to be "higher" by turning off ad and religious channels. Yes, I already have them unmapped, but at least after doing a total price comparison, I'd like to compare bundles vs a la carte.
ESPN is mostly worthless to me -- except for WSOP. So I would cancel it most of the year and save money.
Who cares? You're obsolete. Haven't paid a cable bill in almost 2 years.
people who want to have something to talk to non-geek co workers about?
Good or bad, it's going to happen.
In the future, it will look completely stupid that people would pay for 200 channels of which they can only watch one at a time. And, they had to watch at the behest of Hollywood TV programming schedules, or get sophisticated personal video recorders to schedule recording (even more silly when you realize most TV is already recorded -- not live).
The model of watching TV channels is on its way out. The only way for cable companies to get some "cord cutters" back is to offer them only what they want, say a sports or news channel. And this will only prolong the inevitable.
No doubt cable companies would not just sit on their hands and let people scale back their bills and channel selections. Duh. But the writing is on the wall, and their days are numbered.
I just ordered a new internet service through a different cable provider, and I had to tell the poor gal that I don't have a TV to get her to stop offering bundled x y and z.
My problem with bundling is that your cable dollars *underwrite* crap like the Kardiashian shows, whether you watch them or not. I don't, but through my cable bill, I'm as responsible for the Kardiashians (as a media entity) as much as anyone.
I'm surprised more people aren't irked at this aspect, that as cable subscribers, they are funding any shows/channels they detest.
There are also soldiers who have written books on torture - who are expert because they had been POW's in prior wars who had torture used on them.
They know it works. If they know it works, it's pretty much end of debate that torture can and does work - he question is only if and when it should be used.
Even people who have had torture used against them are divided on us using torture on enemy combatants.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I do. They don't have it on cable.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
So, how much less WITHOUT ESPN?
As a TWC "customer", I'm stuck paying off the billions that they stupidly gave the LA Dodgers, and there's nothing short of internet-only that, at least for now, gets me out from under that load. Should we all switch to that model, I suspect that the internet-only price will go through the roof, since our only alternative is AT&T, which is hardly a low-cost, consumer-friendly provider.
I'm really hoping that there's a data-only plan coming from T-Mobile or Sprint that lets me cut TWC out of the loop completely, even if there's a bandwidth and latency cost.
Cable companies are forced to sell in bundles by the content providers. That is why when there is a disagreement over rates when a contract is up you see a bunch of channels go black. I'm sure most cable companies would be glad to unbundle, it would make it a lot easier to keep customers from disconnecting. As it is now the content providers force the cable companies to place their channels on a designated tier of service and do not allow them to sell it separately in most cases (HBO being a rare exception).
If the cable companies can break out of the forced bundling they would easily crush these new startup streaming companies. They could provide the same service for the same price but with a much higher quality due to the fact they would have exponentially more bandwidth to utilize.
A pleasant side effect: If all channels are unbundled, bundled channels like EWTN, 3ABN, Daystar, TBN, etc. will only be paid for by those who WANT them, and will die of their own accord. No more subsidies!
"But an article in the New York Times suggests that if cable companies are finally forced to unbundle their services it may actually result in higher prices and worse service"
Isn't that the Comcast biz model? I mean every year I pay more and more and get less and less.
...or we'll kick it up a notch.
Yeah. Fuck you and your product.
Requiem for the American Dream
It's called an Antenna....
Increasingly, no. Many sports are switching to subscription channels (ESPN, Fox Sports, Root Sports, CNBC/MSNBC, etc.) with limited or no legal options for streaming. MLB is there today and has a decent product; Olympics are ok; NFL is pretty much absent. I'm not sure about the NBA or NHL.
Most of the channels I can receive over the air (networks) don't carry much of interest to anyone in my household. But we watched so little TV that we went ahead and got rid of cable anyway. I did subscribe to MLB.tv, though (and am much happier than what we had from basic cable since I can now watch the teams of interest to me).
I suspect cable companies will be in trouble should the NFL decide to start streaming their games. I doubt this will happen, though; they're getting a ton of money from ESPN to stay right where they are (and most folks are resigned to just keep paying for cable to watch NFL games).
I have a couple friends who are senior people at Cable companies I am not sure it is always the Cable companies fault.
1. Cable companies have to pay distributors to license feeds
2. Those distributors bundle their channels. One or two popular channels, 8 - 10 undesirable ones. Cable company has to buy the whole block, it is priced as a monthly charge per subscriber to the tier that includes the block.
3. Distributors are always trying to raise the rates. Thats when you get the websites about "Tell Comcast you want to keep your channels", because the cable company is trying to hold the line on price increases
4. ESPN is the most expensive part of the cable bill. Last I saw the numbers, it cost the Cable company $5 per subscriber per month. It is probably higher now. That is why there has been an explosion of Sports Networks on cable. They are all trying to get that sweet sweet cash flow that ESPN gets.
5. The content providers have been fighting al a carte pricing. It will signal the death of a lot of channels that get few viewers. In the end, it may lead to less choice
My Cable company was very slow to get a lot of HD channels. My friend told me it was part of their strategy to hold the line on prices. They refused to pay extra to include HD feeds. Their belief was, the production company already had sunk the costs into producing the show in HD. It cost them extra to produce a non-HD feed. A customer who was watching the HD channel, was not benefiting from having the non-HD channel available too.
Maybe if I ever had Comcast, my attitude would be different, but I feel like my Cable company is doing what they can to control costs.
The problem is - the whole idea of a 'TV Channel' is soooo 20th century. People want to see good TV programs. What 'good' means is subject to taste, of course - but the programs is what they are willing to pay for. And those programs are created by production houses. Of course, some TV channels have their own production house, other programs are created by (more or less) independent producers. The TV channel chooses which programs it wants to carry, schedules them in a particular order, and mixes in publicity. That was a great added value in the 20th century, as there simply was no alternative to get the programs into your living room. Today, what are people complaining about? The TV-schedule doesn't match my schedule and there is too much publicity - the very role of a TV channel is not an added value any more, it is a burden. And there is an alternative, production houses can get the programs you want, when you want it, where you want it. Why would you settle for less?
link: http://www.theatlantic.com/bus...
1) "Consider: Consumers’ overall satisfaction with the airline industry is down 4.2 percent since 1994, according to the American Customer Satisfaction Index, a period in which much of this unbundling has occurred."
Also consider this is the exact period that includes a massive uptick in airport security theater and controls on what you can bring onto an airplane.
2) "Spirit Airlines is not just the king of unbundling air travel; it is also the king of customer complaints. According to an analysis of complaints to the Department of Transportation by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group Education Fund, Spirit had about nine complaints per 100,000 passengers, about three times as many as the airline with the next-most complaints."
Error margins anyone? ...
How do you watch live sports?
You realize you are posting to Slashdot, right?
Learn to love Alaska
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
There is a third way too.... Don't be a sports fan..... You decide which it is.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Is exactly the type of "nickle and dime you to death" he is speaking of. You have to pay for baggage, seat choice, etc, etc. Just because there are worse things doesn't make spirit a good example. Their seats are abysmal and they are champions of the race to the bottom.
>> if cable companies are finally forced to unbundle their services it may actually result in higher prices and worse service. ...in which case people just won't buy cable. It will finally HAVE to get significantly better or die. I honestly don't believe the cable companies literally can't increase programming quality especially when their existence is at stake. In fact thats probably what it takes before they stop acting like greedy monopolies. And if they can't, they will fail and leave a big gap for someone to come along that can. I really don't see the problem here.
If you want to be "well rounded" there's enough sports broadcast over the airwaves. You don't need cable for that level of sports.
Cable sports is only necessary for the obsessed wannabes that are just another version of the GamerGate stereotype.
The only professional sport that is on the over-the-air broadcasters around here is the NFL. The local MLB, NBA, NHL, and MLS teams are all on regional cable channels.
How often do you have to watch sports in order to not become a fat ass in the basement?
One piece maybe. There was nothing in the Dish package that I would pay $20 for. Sure other people may want this though. I'd want a bundle with AMC, IFC, BBCA, and maybe TNT (which is in Dish package). But only if it also had episodes that never expired or a way to make a DVR service from it.
Bummed that Netflix sometimes makes things go away, probably due to licensing. But it's all about how much pain you're willing to take (be it cost or inconvenience) in exchange for the stuff you do get. I'm adapting to it though, and I just can't see myself going back to a more traditional channel oriented thing ala Dish package. I don't care about "channels" that much anymore, but instead individual shows.
Obviously if it's true for an airport it's true of all industries. I didn't even need to RTFA! Thanks, Slashdot!
captcha: nonsense
Dish just introduced a $20/mo. streaming service that includes ESPN. Seems like the cord cutters have the final piece of the puzzle now.
I pay $10 a month to add cable to my phone and internet service. Why would I pay $20 a month for fewer channels?
From what I understand, torture can make most people talk, but can't make them tell the truth. So if you're looking for easily-verified information it might be effective. If you're looking for information that is hard to verify, then it might not work as well.
And even if torture does make people talk, there may be other less brutal (and possibly more effective) ways of getting the same information.
Most or all of the decent AMC shows are already on Netflix. I don't know IFC or BBCA, but I believe much of TNT's content is available online too.
Which is to say, at this point, pretty much everything currently on cable TV, save sports, is already available a la carte from one place or another. Sports has always been the biggest holdout, so ESPN being available via Dish is a big deal for the people who care about that stuff. That's not me, certainly, since I was happy to ditch cable years ago (technically, I was forced to ditch it by a cheap landlord, but after a month I loved not having it).
For me, the biggest mental hurdle was crossing from "I want to watch X" to "is something I'm interested in watching available?". Once you do that, Netflix and the other streaming services suddenly get much more compelling, since you've essentially commoditized entertainment, meaning that you're under no compulsion to pay for expensive packages to get X. And I do still occasionally care about a particular show or movie, but it's getting rarer and rarer these days. Even with the licensing ups and downs, Netflix still has plenty for me, and most of the stuff they lose they get back later anyway, so it never really impacts me anyway.
As the Cable / Satellite companies continue to raise their rates, they'll continue to bleed off customers. Bundled or unbundled services won't matter much unless they get their rates under control. The faster they raise their rates to compensate for loss of customers / profit, the more customers they'll lose. It's a downward spiral from there until the company implodes. It's not really a matter of if, but when at this point.
I've minimized the cable as much as I possibly can while keeping HD, DVR and the channels that get watched. I do have limits though. At some point they'll raise their rates beyond a threshold that I'll put up with. When they do, I'll join the rest in dropping cable completely.
Personally, I would prefer unbundled services because I don't watch 90% of what is included in my " package ". ( Toss out the Shopping Channels, Jesus channels, Spanish channels, Sports channels, Pron channels ( and all their HD mirrors ) and you're not really left with much to choose from )
So I say, let nature take its course. At this point it's all gimmicks and marketing voodoo in an attempt to save a doomed business model.
I used to love the once-named Sci Fi channel. Doctor Who, Eureka, Battlestar Galactica, Dresden Files, The Outer Limits, Sanctuary, Stargate: SG1, Stargate: Atlantis, Sliders, Warehouse 13. These were all beloved shows.
What Sci Fi turned into (SyFy wrestling and reality shows) is painful. I'm fairly certain that the audience watching SyFy is not the same audience that watched Sci Fi.
What if we could make that known loud and clear. If people CHOOSE not to subscribe to SyFy and can give a 3-month subscription commitment pending the development, launching, or re-running of X, Y, and Z shows, those people could affect change in SyFy. If everyone was to go unbundled, imagine the absolute panic fest some of the more inane stations would face. "OMG!! Why aren't people picking us up!? We're doomed!! PLEASE CHOOSE US!! TELL US WHAT YOU WANT!!"
And that's the power of unbundling. It allows actual demand to genuinely affect supply.
And it may mean that I can get a new Stargate series. And that's what matters in the end.
Copyright was created to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for a LIMITED time. That may have been the objective-but the reality is the system has been corrupted and thats not happening. You aught not respect the law merely because it is the law. As individuals we should not cooperate where it is within our power not to regardless of what the law states when injustices occur. What was 7 years has turned into an indefinite period of time. Fortunately we have the tools today to actually fight back. There is something called BitTorrent and plenty of DRM-free streaming services. While the later may not be perfect due to the majority needing proprietary software you'll at least be reducing this industries resources and hopefully reducing its ability to take away our rights.
It's possible for a market to become more economically efficient while becoming less pleasant for consumers.
Possible? That is how it will always happen when there is no/limited choice.
How about they be careful what they GIVE us. If it's of a lesser quality AND costs more than I'm pretty sure consumers will go elsewhere. It's the reason we are having this discussion today I believe, consumers have already gone elsewhere and the cable company wants to cut off a mass exodus as seen in the CD/music industry.
Good. Cut down the number of channels. I now have about 900 channels of shit on the TV and nothing to choose from. Cut down the extra channels and deliver some quality programming. I'm constantly exploring TV shows that were on before I was even born - Hogan's Heroes, Bewitched, I Dream of Jeanie, and stuff like that. I couldn't be bothered with so-called "reality TV." My cousin was on one of those so-called "reality" shows and I never once tuned into it. No interest in that shit.
I'd rather go back to a handful of networks that offer quality programming, or better yet, loosen up "licensing" a bit so Hulu, Amazon, etc. can expand their offerings. I will not tune into "reality" TV shows. It's utter shit.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
If the cable companies unbundled the expensive sports channels like ESPN and Fox Sports they could reduce the cost of the new no-sports packages by an amount that is less than the cost of the sports channels but still enough to make people happy they are getting a saving.
If the sports channels cost $10 per month per subscriber, they could reduce the cost of the new no-sports package by $7 and make $3 more in profit from those customers.
Sports customers would also be paying the non-sports cost (and making the cable company the same $3 in profit) plus ALSO paying for the sports pack (which could be priced at $13 in the example meaning that the cable company gets $3 profit from it)
Obviously this is a simplification but with my example, everyone who doesn't want sports earns the cable company $3 more profit (possibly even more depending on whether the subscriber numbers increase as a result of the cheaper no-sports package) and everyone who wants sports earns the cable company $6 more profit.
Back when I wanted a la carte channels, I only watched Cartoon Network and SciFi on cable. Then SciFi became Syfy and started showing WWE wrestling. I dumped cable and won't go back. I missed Adult Swim and the Clone Wars shows for only about two weeks. OTA TV has so many shows from the 60's and 70's that I've never seen, so I'm set for TV watching.
I like local entertainment - open mic nights, concerts, jams [...] I know that's not for everyone
Especially because a lot of them happen in venues where minors are not admitted because alcoholic beverages are served. College underclassmen? Too bad. Have kids? Too bad.
I don't care what time slot they're on.
Others disagree. In a football match, they want to see the goal being kicked within 60 seconds after the goal is kicked. This goes for both association football (FIFA) and gridiron football (NFL).
do you need to watch a show as a "first run" or can you wait until later and watching it on a web site like Netflix or Amazon Prime?
Sports pretty much need to be first run. For other things, it depends mostly on the spoiler culture among your circle of friends.
distributors bundle their channels. One or two popular channels, 8 - 10 undesirable ones. Cable company has to buy the whole block
Then cable companies ought to pass this bundling model through to subscribers. If you order Discovery, you get Discovery, TLC, and Animal Planet, but not Nickelodeon, A&E, and everything else on the same "tier".
You have this backwards. The profit made by the popularity of The Kardiashians is funding the less popular shows you watch. If things are unbundled, the price of reality TV shows can go down, as they make up for it on the ad side. You should then expect the shows you like to rise in price to stay afloat, now that they have less viewers funding the pot they're paid out of.
Who writes this stuff? It's only to attract page views to increase ad rates.
Absolutely. The bigger surrounding problem is the current state of anti-trust enfarcement. A tiny number of media companies controls nearly everything people see, hear, and read. I wish we could have another president T.R. Its amazing how many of our current problems stem from this single (ignored) issue.
Rob Enderle's excellent new book: Everything I needed to know about Computer Science I learned in Marketing School
Keep the old way for people who want it and make the new way for other people.
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
That's the inner pouch, Mr Know-it-all. What is defined as an MRE is the entire bag, which does contain a water activated heater that gives off hydrogen when used. When you open an MRE there are usually about 4 different bags, which are inside their own cardboard boxes, a heater, a spoon, and a toiletry/spice pack.
At least for JetBlue. I didn't feel like googling any further to prove your stupid ass wrong.
It's under the Flammable Items Prohibited.
Now go ahead and defend your derp by say prohibited isn't "illegal". You know what he meant.
She goes to sports bars on Monday night.
You said "bars". If the kids want to watch too, too bad.
economically efficient while becoming less pleasant for consumers
Why would anyone think 'economically efficient' and 'pleasant for consumers' would be correlated? I doubt if any consumers every thought so.
Oh so you're a racist fuck. Gotcha. Hate Hispanics elsewhere, asshole.
You wouldn't.
But for folks who no longer have a landline and no longer have cable, it's a wash for them in terms of cost since they wouldn't be getting the bundle discount that you're getting. Plus, this streaming service is available for pretty much every common type of device out there (e.g. mobile, desktop, laptop, set-top, etc.), whereas cable TV is largely still relegated to the direct connection between your cable box and TV. Were I someone who had cut the cable but was missing my ability to watch sports, this seems like an ideal package, since I wouldn't care about the fact that it had fewer channels, and I'd absolutely love the added convenience of being able to watch it in more places.
As for me, I won't be subscribing, since I'm not a sports lover, and it really doesn't matter which other channels it does or doesn't have, since I don't miss any of them either.
Of all of the channels to choose as an example you chose the gay channel Logo. You are the only person thus far in the thread to choose it. That says to me that you have something against gays and the gay "agenda" so tell us why you hate gays so much?
No you aren't! I read your stuff on here. NOT ONCE have you ever told the rest of us that your taxes are too low and you want to pay more. You're a Lbertardian. Paying more taxes just isn't your thing.
Big deal. This guy hates that crap out of principle. People who shop on principle always pay a but more just to stick it to the other guy. I bet he'd pay 50 ADDITIONAL dollars per month just to make that show go away.
Really? I don't pay for cable TV or digital phone from the cable company any more. OTA HD TV totally rocks! Terk antennas are great. With my ROKU or that new tiny PC from Intel so I can run Netflix and I am good to go. If you're still paying for what you can get for free; fill in the blanks from here.
Will it be more expensive on a channel-by-channel basis?
Sure!
But if I'm paying $100 a month for 200 channels, that's 50 cents per channel.
Even if we saw a tenfold increase ($5/channel). If I was only watching 3-4 of those 200 channels, that's $15-20.
A fairly substantial savings. AND, the money the cable company owes would be going to DIRECTLY subsidize the channels I want. Rather than handing me 10 ESPN channels (which I don't want and never EVER *EVER!* watch), and then tacking in a bunch more crap that I never watch, just so I can get a couple channels that have the content I'm ACTUALLY interested in.
As for something like this being unfair to channels that just don't have the draw to stay subsidized? All I can say is "I sure love my buggy whip!".
In a free market, you're also free to fail.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
I fail to see what watching a bunch of guys chasing after a ball on a screen does to make me a more well-rounded person.
I think that's the trend with many shows having their episodes available the next day on iTunes/Google Play/Amazon Instant Video for a small fee $2-5.
Exactly. That was one of the major reasons I quit cable tv too and one thing that really makes me feel good about it. That I don't support all that shitty reality tv anymore. I don't think I will ever go back to cable tv again. If I did, I would be a requirement that I could choose not to support those channels.
That sadly includes the discovery channel after their 2007 decision to "focus on the people behind the technology instead of the technology" or however they worded it in their press release.
and who is claiming that it must be unbundled or bundled? Let me guess, the cable companies.
I think most people will find that if the pricing is right, they'll keep their bundles and be happy while a small percentage will go with a base bundle plus a few select channels. The world will not fall apart like the cable companies would like us to believe.
I do not find the airport all that unpleasant, except for the security circus. I have several ways of checking in. I have several ways of buying a ticket. When I am there I have several options of spending my time.
If I want I can spend more or less on anything and get the service I desire or can or will pay for.
So what is bad about it? As expected if you want better service, you pay for it, just as in the past. However now you can also pay less and get less service.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Yes, because those alcoholic first class passengers then have more time to keep their blood alcohol levels boosted so they can enjoy their flight. That walk from the bar misallocates precious metabolism time.
Then most people are getting the fleecing they deserve...
Any solution that contains the word "channel" is the wrong solution for 2015. People don't watch channels. They watch shows.
Let me pay to watch shows, not channels. I'm throwing my money at the monitor trying to pay. Who will take my money?
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
Who says a channel has to charge? TBS costs cable companies $.63 a month per subscriber, bringing in $731 million a year for 96,700 homes. ESPN is $5.75 a month per subscriber in 94,000 homes.
I'd pay $1 a month for TBS. Some channels wouldn't have to charge. QVC? That's just a big infomercial. Golf? Offer it for free.
It looks like we may get choices soon: Cable Under Fire: Plunge in Ratings Could Spell Trouble for Top Nets
What, me worry?
While it is a correct statement that unbundling cable tv, it will also reduce the number of "weak" non- interesting channels that you have to surf through to get what you want to watch. It will be just like ordering your dinner, order the dinner special or just order the steak- potatoe- and a glass of wine. Which is cheaper?? Remember, we have become " GIVE ME WHAT I WANT". Not what you think is good for me.
Service can get WORSE?
Have you considered that maybe the Kardashian show is subsidizing the stuff that YOU want to watch? It's almost certainly more popular than whatever it is you're watching.
We pay to have garbage picked up; why should we pay to have garbage delivered?
And yeah we support our local PBS station.
Unbundling the various entertainment packages is not what I want. I want the internet connection and to hell with the entertainment. There are only a very few programs I watch and the rest is just crap and profit redistribution.
If the cable monopoly is broken (Comcast and TWM in my area) there is sufficient competition to deliver entertainment to picky people for a reasonable price.
That describes my viewing exactly. (Ditto Empty-V and its myriad tedious clones.)
Dropping the landline involves some paradigm shifts. Please help me work through understanding this.
*I* never have this problem because not only do I keep my phone with me
When you're carrying something upstairs or downstairs with both hands, how do you carry the phone as well?
We communicate via text
I have a flip phone that I use for occasional calls out of the house. I tried texting with T9 and found it slower and more painful than voice. Besides, one can often fit well over 160 characters' worth of information into the amount of voice airtime that has the same price as one text message. And that's without mumbling.
email, IM, whatever.
Until you're away from home and public Wi-Fi. Or until you need to call your ISP to troubleshoot why the Internet is not working.
Phone calls or Skyping are scheduled affairs.
Unless you're, say, trying to get a ride from a family member on Sunday, when public transit has the day off. And trouble calls to your ISP aren't scheduled; prepare to pay dearly to your carrier to hear "Your call is important to us and will be answered in the order it was received" for half an hour.
If your kid is old enough to be home alone, they are old enough to have an inexpensive cell phone.
I'm not sure what you mean by "inexpensive", and I don't know anything about the law where you live, but where I live, there are a few years between the age at which a child is old enough to be home alone and the age at which a child is old enough to have a job to earn the money to pay for a cell phone. I must be missing something fundamental.
Besides, if your kids *don't* have a cell phone then how will they call 911 in an emergency while they are traveling home from school and aren't at home yet?
From the school district's code of conduct: "Use of all cellular (cell) phones or electronic devices during school hours or on the bus is not allowed without [district] administrative permission." I imagine that the school bus driver is responsible for contacting emergency services should a genuine emergency occur.
Further, given Dish's offer of ESPN via internet
And Internet via what? Satellite Internet has harsh monthly caps, and DSL from the phone company in many areas often isn't fast enough for multiple HD streams. Cable companies have been offering bundle discounts that make Internet + pay TV cheaper than Internet + Netflix + Hulu Plus + Amazon + Dish ESPN.
"Careful what you wish for, cord cutters: Unbundled TV could prove more expensive" How stupid is this? We already cut the cord, we are making due without it. How can it be more expensive? If the price is right we will buy, if not, we won't.
http://www.loveguruastro.com/services/
How much more expensive with craptastic service can it get? That was the main reason I ditched TimeWarner Cable...freakishly expensive and it never worked.