Cable Companies Seek to End Bundle Packages for Themselves - High-Def Digest Forums
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-30-2011, 01:54 PM
HDD Contributor
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,281
Default Cable Companies Seek to End Bundle Packages for Themselves

Of course, this may or may not end up passing on to the consumer.

http://www.engadget.com/2011/09/29/s...hannels-but-n/
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-03-2011, 10:43 AM
twonunpackmule's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 32,843
Default

I mistook this as them trying to unbundle their internet and tv packages. Of course, I then clicked the link to find out it's less stupid than that. I mean, this is getting close to the A La Carte service of my dreams, but I know it's a few years away.

Seriously, I thought for a second that the companies were going to do something REALLY stupid.

---

The bigger news of the day is that Arrested Development is coming back, and the movie looks to be a go. So...yeah.
__________________
PSN/Live - Twonunpackmule
3DS - 0817 - 4464 - 1180

Any game that features paid loot boxes should be rated AO.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-03-2011, 12:07 PM
gravis778's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,639
Default

I hope this works out. There are a handful of channels I watch, but sadly, no matter which provider it is, those channels are usually only available in the top-tier packages. I am paying roughly $100 a month to get about half-a-dozen channels that I actually watch. I have been debating on cutting the cable for years. However, if they "unbundle" channels and pass the savings on to customers, I might just be willing to keep cable.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-03-2011, 12:32 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 885
Default

People, unbundling will be a DISASTER!!! First, smaller focused stations that can't build large audiences will completely disappear. Income to the cable providers will shrink, so they will have to charge more per channel, and you will all end up paying just what you pay now (and more) for less channels. You don't know what you are wishing for...
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-03-2011, 12:55 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 74
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iontyre View Post
People, unbundling will be a DISASTER!!! First, smaller focused stations that can't build large audiences will completely disappear. Income to the cable providers will shrink, so they will have to charge more per channel, and you will all end up paying just what you pay now (and more) for less channels. You don't know what you are wishing for...
If the smaller focused stations can't find an audience large enough to support them, they shouldn't exist in the first place. Customers shouldn't be forced to subsidize channels that they have no intention of ever watching.

I doubt your belief that prices will rise because of lost channels. In fact, prices have been dropping, albeit indirectly. If you put in a little effort and hound customer service of your provider, they will throw discounts at you to keep you from leaving. TV providers have been hemorrhaging subscribers both from competition from streaming media & other entertainment markets and people cutting their budgets due to the recession.

If TV companies have any sense, they should exploit this change and revamp their entire model. A lot of people will come back if they can get the entertainment they desire at a lower price and the TV companies can preserve their income through volume instead of draining blood from a stone.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-03-2011, 03:24 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 222
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gravis778 View Post
I hope this works out. There are a handful of channels I watch, but sadly, no matter which provider it is, those channels are usually only available in the top-tier packages. I am paying roughly $100 a month to get about half-a-dozen channels that I actually watch. I have been debating on cutting the cable for years. However, if they "unbundle" channels and pass the savings on to customers, I might just be willing to keep cable.
I pay $189 a month for cable and internet. I dropped stars a while ago had my bill down to $160 but with increased rates and taxes my bill jumped back up. I don't watch most of the channels I get, but the ones I do watch are attached to bundles you can't get this channel unless you have this bundle of channels. It wouldn't be so bad if they let you pick the channels in the bundle. I personally could do without cable altogether but my wife needs to watch her shows. Cable is definitely getting expensive as I pay almost $200 a month and I don't even have all the premium channels, anything they could do to lower prices is great because more people are dropping cable for other services.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-03-2011, 04:52 PM
gravis778's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,639
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by P.M. View Post
I pay $189 a month for cable and internet. I dropped stars a while ago had my bill down to $160 but with increased rates and taxes my bill jumped back up. I don't watch most of the channels I get, but the ones I do watch are attached to bundles you can't get this channel unless you have this bundle of channels. It wouldn't be so bad if they let you pick the channels in the bundle. I personally could do without cable altogether but my wife needs to watch her shows. Cable is definitely getting expensive as I pay almost $200 a month and I don't even have all the premium channels, anything they could do to lower prices is great because more people are dropping cable for other services.
Your bill sounds like mine. If you add Internet, I pay about the same price. I am hoping they will role out Uverse in my area - right now, the providers in my area don't offer bundles, so I have to pay seperately. However, AT&T has been laying fiber in my area for about 2 years. I keep calling them and asking them about it, because there has been fiber to the pole for about 2 years now, but they keep telling me it hasn't been connected to the central station yet, so I can't get the service. I have already priced UVerse, and I could probably cut $50-$80 a month from my bills by bundling services.

Quote:
People, unbundling will be a DISASTER!!! First, smaller focused stations that can't build large audiences will completely disappear. Income to the cable providers will shrink, so they will have to charge more per channel, and you will all end up paying just what you pay now (and more) for less channels. You don't know what you are wishing for...
If a station cannot generate enough revenue after advertising and subscribers to operate, it shouldn't exist. The less-popular channels usually have shows that are cheaper to produce anyways. I don't know if the Outdoor Life Network is still around or not, but seriously, how much do you think it costs to produce a fishing or hunting show? How much do you think it costs to buy a 30-second time-slot for advertising, even on a less popular network? Multiply that by 10-20 minutes of advertising time per hour. If that is not enough to cover production of a show, and the subscribers cannot justify operations of the network, than you have a flawed business model.

I am sure channels such as History, TLC, Travel, and Discovery (and their networks, some of which I have already listed), and Nickelodeon will generate plenty of revenue to continue producing programs, and shows like TVLand generate enough revenue to buy their syndication licences for programs.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-04-2011, 09:55 AM
Krawk's Avatar
Mod, Staff, Movie Buff
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 13,545
Default

As much as I hate Senator McCain of Arizona, I like that he was pushing hard for ala carte programming. I am just as frustrated by as the next in that buying the next tier is required to get my one favorite channel of that tier. If I custom built my own "Top 120" package it would be tough finding 120 channels I would want. I would probably even pay say 50% more for this package rather than the standard "Top 120" packages the providers supply because it would still be significantly cheaper than what I got now.
One of my favorite channels is Cloo (formerly known as Sleuth) and either dish provider seems to require like the 3rd level of service at close to $80 once the intro pricing expires.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-06-2011, 09:10 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 161
Default

I remember on comcast you used to be able to add individual channels if you called up CS an begged, but they charged like $35 or something per channel. I fear this option may end up like that. Being able to cherry pick your channels may sound good, but its hard to tell until we actually see the pricing per channel.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 10-10-2011, 01:01 PM
Hastor's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 555
Default

I agree that it will be a disaster for smaller stations that won't be able to survive anymore. As for people saying they should disappear if they don't have an audience, that is just not the way of thinking I can support. I would rather pay for several small channels to survive, so that I can have one. It works kind of like health insurance, you pay whether you need it or not, but it helps the group as a whole. It allows more independent and original ideas to get out there. It allows smaller groups to have a voice when they are supported by someone who is paying for a different small group. Without this, we will slowly move towards the handful of big companies only showing us what they want. Just like Netflix moving to instant watch, where they can only show what they have rights to, instead of renting any disc they can find. Giving more and more control to the few with the most money. It will be along the lines of tiered internet, where you only pay for the sites you use. If an audience is required for a website to exist then, say goodbye to lots of people that are able to get their ideas out there. Right now, it is an even playing field. It is just as easy for someone to go to MGM.com as it is to Troma.com. What if a cheaper package was offered that only offered MGM, but not Troma, and then they had no more visitors because people would check them out, but aren't gonna pay more to go there on a whim (a whim which could have led to a new fan being created). Another independent voice silenced. I know my rant isn't the best organized, typing it on my lunch break while also eating lunch, but I do think this will lead to more power for the few rich companies, and less voice for the smaller guys. Same for just niche audiences - More Michael Bay movies to watch on cable, less classic Looney Tunes.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
'Buffy the Vampire Slayer,' 'Lake Placid 2,' 'Hide and Seek' are coming September 13 Landy Blu-ray Software General Discussion 8 07-19-2011 11:53 AM
Sony Said to Seek President as Successor to Stringer Kosty High Definition Smackdown 6 11-27-2010 11:42 AM
Cable Companies Considering Packages With Fewer Channels and Lower Price TheDickWard HDTV Programming and Info 15 07-14-2010 01:43 PM
Hide & Seek Landy Blu-ray Wish Lists 0 06-13-2010 11:10 AM
HD hide and go seek johnxl High Definition Smackdown 51 12-12-2006 03:30 PM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off