I don't really care. The bottom line is that I cannot get exactly what I want.
It's what I want + whole lot of worthless BS I never watch anyways at higher price.
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Cablevision sues Viacom for forcing it to pay for channels no one wants
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
I don't really care. The bottom line is that I cannot get exactly what I want.
It's what I want + whole lot of worthless BS I never watch anyways at higher price.
This. I want Discovery and HBO. Nothing else. I can't get these things for less than $80/mo.
preslove
Lifer
They do. It's impossible for cable companies to get disney content without putting espn in the just-above-base package. Often, cable companies will give you a really small number of channels, mostly broadcast, that actually reduces your internet price to about the same total price of the bill. Above that, you are paying for espn, no matter what. This is true across the oligopoly that controls cable content, to the point where cable companies don't have much say about which package contains which channels.
Bad for consumer choice.
JimKiler
Diamond Member
You do not care but you are willing to take it out your anger on the cable companies when the content providers are the problem. Do you also hate gas stations when the oil companies/investment firms are gouging us?
ESPN's per subscriber cost is expensive, compared to other channels. I think for the small cable company in my hometown it was like $5 per subscriber for just ESPN 1, and 2 and then $2 more I think for ESPN Classic, and ESPN news
preslove
Lifer
Yeah, it's among the worst examples of oligopoly pricing in this mess.
Cut the cable about 3 years ago, due to cost not due to us being enlightened people or anything like that. Missed it but got used to it and Netflix/Hulu helped a lot.
Moved, it was cheaper to bundle internet with the lowest cable tier that has actual cable channels (basically the cheapest cable channels, no mtv, vh1 or espn stuff). We figure we can see what we were missing and it is pretty surprising. Firstly the decline of nearly ever channel into little more than a vehicle for reality shows is pretty crappy. Second they have the most bizarre scheduling ever. For example my wife pointed out she rarely watches the TV even with cable but was looking to see if there was anything worth watching to at least take advantage. On the Food Network they had 8+ hours of one reality show. Seen it happen on discovery, AE, history, etc. Just huge blocks of one show one day, huge block the next. Always some reality show of one kind or another.
Cable just seems to get worse and worse with just a handful of exceptions. I never thought cable was awesome but can't really believe how bad it got in just three years.
Towards that end I don't see how bundling really hurts much. Bundling a VH1 with another VH1 seems pretty fair. It is bundling ESPN, which is very expensive per subscriber, with MTV that I see as a problem. I'm not sure if that is the cable company or the production company's fault.
Moved, it was cheaper to bundle internet with the lowest cable tier that has actual cable channels (basically the cheapest cable channels, no mtv, vh1 or espn stuff). We figure we can see what we were missing and it is pretty surprising. Firstly the decline of nearly ever channel into little more than a vehicle for reality shows is pretty crappy. Second they have the most bizarre scheduling ever. For example my wife pointed out she rarely watches the TV even with cable but was looking to see if there was anything worth watching to at least take advantage. On the Food Network they had 8+ hours of one reality show. Seen it happen on discovery, AE, history, etc. Just huge blocks of one show one day, huge block the next. Always some reality show of one kind or another.
Cable just seems to get worse and worse with just a handful of exceptions. I never thought cable was awesome but can't really believe how bad it got in just three years.
Towards that end I don't see how bundling really hurts much. Bundling a VH1 with another VH1 seems pretty fair. It is bundling ESPN, which is very expensive per subscriber, with MTV that I see as a problem. I'm not sure if that is the cable company or the production company's fault.
Out of millions of phony lawsuits, this one is long-awaited and very necessary. Even better, next subscribers need to sue the cable company for channels they are also forced to buy.
Exactly. They are opening a huge Pandora's box.
Exactly. They are opening a huge Pandora's box.
Last edited:
SphinxnihpS
Diamond Member
If everyone only watched the popular channels, there would be no good channels. Forcing companies to pay for all the channels is the only way we will ensure having good ones.
preslove
Lifer
Name some actual channels that you fear will go away.
SphinxnihpS
Diamond Member
Fuck, I don't watch TV. TV's for morons.
JimKiler
Diamond Member
In fact the opposite will happen, if we are not forced to pay for channels, they will have to incentivise us to watch their channel so the channels would probably be free until they can have enough quality programming that people are willing to pay for them.
Atomic Playboy
Lifer
No, it will incentivize them to do the most cost-effective programming; something cheap to produce that still generates a broad base of viewership. You know, reality shows. No actors to pay, no writers to pay, none of the overhead that comes with having sets to maintain, and people will gobble that shit up regardless. We'll end up with nothing but reality shows 24/7, Honey Boo Boo on every channel, all the time always. Hooray for choice!
Come to think of it, that's pretty much all TV is now.
videogames101
Diamond Member
Palladia is awesome!
reallyscrued
Platinum Member
That's so cute how you think they'll pass on their savings to you.
I used to believe in things when I was younger too.
🙁
SphinxnihpS
Diamond Member
Honestly.
History (maybe they should)
Science
Discovery
A&E
PBS
NatGeo
CSPAN
Cartoon
ComCentral
Telemundo (I have to have my novelas!)
Midwayman
Diamond Member
Pretty much. You'll end up paying the same or more for less channels. Worse yet is that your favorite niche channel gets cut without enough subs. However we probably been to de-bundle anyways if we ever want the mess to resolve itself and let consumer pressure dictate what channels are worthwhile. I just hope the niche ones become available to sub online. I don't need a 24/7 channel, just new episodes as they become available.
Phokus
Lifer
Actually there's some really good TV. The movie industry is a mess churning out garbage after garbage.
Game of Thrones, Dexter, Breaking Bad, White Collar, Community, etc.
PBS would go away?
Atomic Playboy
Lifer
Game of Thrones and Dexter are on pay subscription channels already, so a la carte pricing wouldn't affect them. I haven't seen any of the other shows you mentioned, although I am interested in catching up with Breaking Bad.
Have you noticed how pay subscription channels don't have reality shows? Shit, maybe that IS the way we need to go. I'd gladly lose every reality show ever for one or two more shows of Game of Thrones' quality.
preslove
Lifer
PBS? Is that a joke, or are you just stupid?
Cartoon and ComCentral would be expensive, but there is no way they'd go away.
C-SPAN is a non-profit that charges 6 cents per subscriber. It probably wouldn't go away. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-SPAN
History, Science, Discovery, A&E, and NatGeo are all pretty terrible.
pyonir
Lifer
I think it's kind of like how the music industry was when Napster started. They tried to maintain their current business model when people refused to participate in it anymore. Eventually they started moving to iTunes, streaming radio and satellite radio and bands started to find the new ways to reach their customers.
I think cable/satellite is next. They have the same old business model and refuse to change, even though there is Hulu, streaming TV, shows on iTunes. While I agree that Cablevision is just as much to blame for what's wrong, Viacom and conglomerates like them only make the problem worse. Maybe this is a step in the right direction.
For a cynic, I'm sure searching for the silver lining. LOL.
I think cable/satellite is next. They have the same old business model and refuse to change, even though there is Hulu, streaming TV, shows on iTunes. While I agree that Cablevision is just as much to blame for what's wrong, Viacom and conglomerates like them only make the problem worse. Maybe this is a step in the right direction.
For a cynic, I'm sure searching for the silver lining. LOL.
Phoenix86
Lifer
The most compelling shows on any network (broadcast, cable, premium) are by far on cable. HBO, Showtime, AMC, FX, USA, etc.
Does anyone know of a link that compares ALL shows/series like this (for say 2012)? I'm curious to see how things like Game of Thrones vs. Breaking Bad vs. say CSI:whatever stack up. I tend to think the view numbers are similar despite less people having access as you step up in tiers.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
