OT-For those complaining about your cable bill...

[minidarren]

And wanting a la carte service, a good read for you...

http://mobile.businessweek.com/articles/2013-12-06/the-ugly-numbers-behind-unbundled-cable-tv

 

[amory]

"While unbundling cable may not work economically, the Needham report does suggest one solution for people disenchanted over paying for all those unwatched channels: Cut the cord, keep your modem, and stream the shows you like from Hulu, Amazon, or Netflix. Says Martin: “That’s how capitalism works.”

Except if you want to watch live sports. Which is pretty much the only reason I even own a TV.

 

[UConn Dan]

And if you watch sports then it's your best interest to allow cable companies to keep bundling, otherwise that cable bill will double.

 

[ChampHusky]

And wanting a la carte service, a good read for you...

http://mobile.businessweek.com/articles/2013-12-06/the-ugly-numbers-behind-unbundled-cable-tv

The alternative is to go with a combination of Roku/Apple TV and a basic cable plan for sports and cable news. If you want to completely cut the cable cord get an antenna at best buy for $20 for local channels, and stream CNN, ESPN platforms on a laptop connected to your TV (will require a friends cable password).

 

[minidarren]

The alternative is to go with a combination of Roku/Apple TV and a basic cable plan for sports and cable news. If you want to completely cut the cable cord get an antenna at best buy for $20 for local channels, and stream CNN, ESPN platforms on a laptop connected to your TV (will require a friends cable password).

This is a great work around. But when I watch ESPN3, I want to hurt myself.

 

[UConnJim]

That article says nothing. There is bundling and then there is bundling. People aren't opposed to bundling, they are opposed to forced bundling. For example, Disney could sell ESPN and all of their other channels individually or as a bundle of Disney channels. I'm sure they would price a bundle cheaper than the individual channels.

Ultimately, cable will have to offer a la carte channels because there is a segment of the population that will leave cable and move to Netflix, Aereo, over the air,..., but most people will still have some sort of bundled cable product.

 

[Jax Husky]

A la carte would not work. Without reading the article, we'll be paying $40/month for just ESPN or HBO. Also, there will be far less content available, as networks that aren't as popular will not have money to produce content. We are stuck with the current system as far as I can see.

 

[UConnJim]

A la carte would not work. Without reading the article, we'll be paying $40/month for just ESPN or HBO. Also, there will be far less content available, as networks that aren't as popular will not have money to produce content. We are stuck with the current system as far as I can see.

A la carte would work as most people would still buy bundles.

 

[huskypantz]

This is a great work around. But when I watch ESPN3, I want to hurt myself.

The only way streaming sites like ESPN3 is feasible for me would be if tI could achieve the highest video quality 99.8% of the time. I have a big screen HDTV for a reason, and it's not so that the video feed can go fuzzy on third down. The Memphis game was a perfect example this weekend - it was high quality 85% of the time, and I could correct by closing my session and opening a new session....sometimes. I know that someone had attributed the variable picture quality to the carrier (I have FIOS) and not ESPN, but it really doesn't matter which one it is - the bottom line is that if I don't have a consistent HD quality image, I need cable.

 

[minidarren]

That article says nothing. There is bundling and then there is bundling. People aren't opposed to bundling, they are opposed to forced bundling. For example, Disney could sell ESPN and all of their other channels individually or as a bundle of Disney channels. I'm sure they would price a bundle cheaper than the individual channels.

Ultimately, cable will have to offer a la carte channels because there is a segment of the population that will leave cable and move to Netflix, Aereo, over the air,..., but most people will still have some sort of bundled cable product.

Ya, your probably right. Im going to trust you over this fool who wrote the article for Business Week with supporting factors.

As more and more people leave cable TV and go to "over the top" content providers such as Netflix and Hulu customers are going to be left with increases in their internet subscriptions. Dont think for a second that an internet provider, with billions of dollars of infrastructure, is going to sit back and watch one of these alternate subscription services feed off their bottom line. Be careful what you wish for.

 

[partial]

Seems like a lazy way to think about it to me. Us paying less would mean there is less money to create content, but the upside might be that it forces crappy networks to produce shows people actually want to watch. There'd be plenty of content just less hopefully.

Plus it's clear people are willing to pay a premium for tv entertainment doesn't mean a la carte viewing would somehow change that.

 

[Adesmar123]

And wanting a la carte service, a good read for you...

http://mobile.businessweek.com/articles/2013-12-06/the-ugly-numbers-behind-unbundled-cable-tv

And so we listen and believe someone who makes a very cushy living monitoring the industry she tries to protect.

Follow the money!!