August 13, 2009 at 12:47 pm
jpowers (8/12/2009)
Personally, I would prefer to pay only for the channels I watch. I see no reason why they can't allow us to pay just for our preferred entertainment.
I'm sure everyone would like to reduce their costs by excluding the channels they never watch. The flip side is that some of those channels that you do want to watch might not exist any more, or they might charge more to receive than you have saved by not bundling. It all depends on whether you like the mainstream channels or something a little more obscure.
August 13, 2009 at 12:58 pm
matt stockham (8/13/2009)
jpowers (8/12/2009)
Personally, I would prefer to pay only for the channels I watch. I see no reason why they can't allow us to pay just for our preferred entertainment.I'm sure everyone would like to reduce their costs by excluding the channels they never watch. The flip side is that some of those channels that you do want to watch might not exist any more, or they might charge more to receive than you have saved by not bundling. It all depends on whether you like the mainstream channels or something a little more obscure.
The other side of the coin is that it may actually be cheaper for the cable/satellite companies to get the extra channels many people may not watch than to not get them from the various content providers. Bundling may be more cost effective for them as well.
August 13, 2009 at 12:59 pm
matt stockham (8/13/2009)
jpowers (8/12/2009)
Personally, I would prefer to pay only for the channels I watch. I see no reason why they can't allow us to pay just for our preferred entertainment.I'm sure everyone would like to reduce their costs by excluding the channels they never watch. The flip side is that some of those channels that you do want to watch might not exist any more, or they might charge more to receive than you have saved by not bundling. It all depends on whether you like the mainstream channels or something a little more obscure.
But at least you'd be paying for value that you wanted, rather than fluff you did not, to the possible exclusion of what you do want.
---------------------------------------------------------
How best to post your question[/url]
How to post performance problems[/url]
Tally Table:What it is and how it replaces a loop[/url]
"stewsterl 80804 (10/16/2009)I guess when you stop and try to understand the solution provided you not only learn, but save yourself some headaches when you need to make any slight changes."
August 13, 2009 at 1:02 pm
matt stockham (8/13/2009)
jpowers (8/12/2009)
Personally, I would prefer to pay only for the channels I watch. I see no reason why they can't allow us to pay just for our preferred entertainment.I'm sure everyone would like to reduce their costs by excluding the channels they never watch. The flip side is that some of those channels that you do want to watch might not exist any more, or they might charge more to receive than you have saved by not bundling. It all depends on whether you like the mainstream channels or something a little more obscure.
You mean more than what I'm paying now for a bundle? In any case, let the market and tastes decide the fate of those individual channels. Right now, we get only those bundles where the cable companies have negotiated favorably. It's not based on demand. Last year, in my area, we had trouble getting pay-per-view NFL because of contract disputes between NFL and cable company though the demand was extremely high.
August 13, 2009 at 6:25 pm
And there's the rub, we don't get to negotiate things, or get more choice. We also get what is negotiated, which definitely isn't always a good thing for consumers.
August 17, 2009 at 9:14 am
jcrawf02 (8/13/2009)
matt stockham (8/13/2009)
jpowers (8/12/2009)
Personally, I would prefer to pay only for the channels I watch. I see no reason why they can't allow us to pay just for our preferred entertainment.I'm sure everyone would like to reduce their costs by excluding the channels they never watch. The flip side is that some of those channels that you do want to watch might not exist any more, or they might charge more to receive than you have saved by not bundling. It all depends on whether you like the mainstream channels or something a little more obscure.
But at least you'd be paying for value that you wanted, rather than fluff you did not, to the possible exclusion of what you do want.
Not necessarily...
Have you noticed the new trend, where on one and the same channel there is bundling? Take for example SyFy channel (named that way because English was unbundled in the educational package? Not sure...), which now not only hosts various gradations of Science Fiction and Fantasy series and movies, but also features Wrestling. How can I unbundle that...? 😉
August 17, 2009 at 9:31 am
Ronald Bruintjes (8/17/2009)
jcrawf02 (8/13/2009)
matt stockham (8/13/2009)
jpowers (8/12/2009)
Personally, I would prefer to pay only for the channels I watch. I see no reason why they can't allow us to pay just for our preferred entertainment.I'm sure everyone would like to reduce their costs by excluding the channels they never watch. The flip side is that some of those channels that you do want to watch might not exist any more, or they might charge more to receive than you have saved by not bundling. It all depends on whether you like the mainstream channels or something a little more obscure.
But at least you'd be paying for value that you wanted, rather than fluff you did not, to the possible exclusion of what you do want.
Not necessarily...
Have you noticed the new trend, where on one and the same channel there is bundling? Take for example SyFy channel (named that way because English was unbundled in the educational package? Not sure...), which now not only hosts various gradations of Science Fiction and Fantasy series and movies, but also features Wrestling. How can I unbundle that...? 😉
I feel old when I type that I can remember when MTV was a medium for watching music videos....
I consol myself on that point when I realize that I'm not old enough to remember when TV news was about information, instead of about marketing and political indoctrination.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
August 17, 2009 at 10:11 am
Ronald Bruintjes (8/17/2009)Have you noticed the new trend, where on one and the same channel there is bundling? Take for example SyFy channel (named that way because English was unbundled in the educational package? Not sure...), which now not only hosts various gradations of Science Fiction and Fantasy series and movies, but also features Wrestling. How can I unbundle that...? 😉
Funny, but I happen to agree with their categorization of Wrestling into Fantasy.....;-)
---------------------------------------------------------
How best to post your question[/url]
How to post performance problems[/url]
Tally Table:What it is and how it replaces a loop[/url]
"stewsterl 80804 (10/16/2009)I guess when you stop and try to understand the solution provided you not only learn, but save yourself some headaches when you need to make any slight changes."
October 3, 2009 at 1:29 pm
I believe most of the opinions against bundling, and the 'free-choice' perspective might have their sustained reasons. However, bundling allows a small member of a business model to take a proportional part of it. In the case of Golf Channel, it couldn't be possible for them to compete with ESPN nor FOX Sport, in example. Nevertheless, they have the part of the "pie" that they are entitled to; and of course, its TV technicians, IT technicians, journalists, and reporters, grow up everyday as professionals, and feed their families thanks to that.
October 3, 2009 at 9:32 pm
Heh... it doesn't matter if anything is bundled or not... you're still going to pay too much. 😀
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
October 5, 2009 at 6:31 am
Jeff Moden (10/3/2009)
Heh... it doesn't matter if anything is bundled or not... you're still going to pay too much. 😀
Preach it, brother!
---------------------------------------------------------
How best to post your question[/url]
How to post performance problems[/url]
Tally Table:What it is and how it replaces a loop[/url]
"stewsterl 80804 (10/16/2009)I guess when you stop and try to understand the solution provided you not only learn, but save yourself some headaches when you need to make any slight changes."
October 5, 2009 at 8:29 am
I'm not sure we pay too much. There is some competition, and there's certainly demand. I wonder how things would work if we could al la carte things.
I'll tell you from owning my own business that we'd offer much less if we had to concentrate on what had the most demand. Sometimes you need those subsidies to bring about new business areas
October 5, 2009 at 9:04 am
In the old days when bandwidth for analog channels was fixed, bundling made sense. But with digital channels and improvements in bandwidth management, billing, monitoring, and other advances in pay-per-view, it gets harder to justify bundling.
December 18, 2013 at 9:33 am
Bundling in consumer products like music and TV does not make sense to me because it amounts to paying for incompetence (stuff nobody wants or very few buyers want) by making the competent more expensive (to subsidize the less desirable products). This may actually hurt the good products, because they now are more expensive than they could have been.
As for discovering new interests/music/TV because of bundles, that is not something you should be forced to pay for via a bundle. There are always avenues like Pandora and its variations, word-of-mouth and user reviews to spread the word about something good.
Hakim Ali
www.sqlzen.com
December 19, 2013 at 3:30 pm
The TV situation is mooted by the fact that delivery of content is heading (kicking and screaming) towards individual content purchases. I gave up on cable TV when I realized the handful of shows I did watch could be purchased through iTunes.
This content is streamed on demand, without commercials. The aggregate cost for a years worth of shows was less than two months of the cable subscription. Meanwhile, I have replaced my "random TV watching time" with random online video watching through sources such as YouTube.
I don't miss the traditional cable box, the traditional format for programming and have picked up a few hours a week of productive time to boot. I don't see bundling surviving unless it is made *cheaper* to get the content you want bundled than in this fashion.
Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 44 (of 44 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply