Independent television networks band together to protest "program tying"
Filed under: Industry, Cable, New content
Relevant Posts
- HDFEST schedule revealed, indie films hit Dolby Labs in December (7 days ago - 1 Comment)
- Poll: How are you enjoying HD Netflix streaming on the Xbox 360? (13 days ago - 70 Comments)
- MOJO HD officially passes away: an unceremonious reminder (4 days ago - 29 Comments)
- Many first-time HDTV buyers bypassing the HDTV service (10 days ago - 32 Comments)
- Roku streaming problem really a Netflix problem? (3 days ago - 13 Comments)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
ZeitgeistXIII @ Jun 5th 2008 12:36PM
Ala Carte channel ordering would be the dogs bollocks!
Galley @ Jun 5th 2008 12:49PM
I dumped satellite six months ago because I was only watching about 10% of the channels I was playing for.
retro77 @ Jun 5th 2008 1:07PM
I would like to only pick the channels I want to watch. I fI could only pay for service when I use it, I would like that too. I watch a few programs a week and thats about all.
MadMike @ Jun 5th 2008 1:14PM
And yet, FX-HD still won't get on Verizon FiOs and Comcast.
Why don't they dump "the wealth channel" and give us some real channels.
Who except the "I wish I was euber rich" double wide trailer with a monstrosity of a television that takes up 3/4 of their living room and a stupid big sectional couch with stains and cigarette burns trash would watch a freaking channel like that anyway?
Chad @ Jun 5th 2008 1:30PM
Hehe...you made me laugh
TrentD @ Jun 5th 2008 1:46PM
Under this policy, niche channels with limited mass appeal would vanish, leaving the people who liked those channels out in the cold.
Channels would homogenize, pandering to the middle 80% just to survive. Goodbye programming that is unique, or doesn't appeal to the masses.
I like the concept of a la carte TV, but the reality and economics of it don't work very well, I'm afraid.
MadMike @ Jun 5th 2008 2:09PM
Actually the technology (for Verizon FiOS and Direct TV at least) is there.
The economics makes sense to the masses and consumers.
The problem is the service providers. They want to lump channels so they can charge you obscene premiums. Oh, you want ESPN & ESPN2? Oh well, then you need to get Wealth TV, Liberal Hippy Pot Smoking HD TV, Right Wing PB & J loving HD T V and 37 Mongolian Music channels for a price of $81.99 a month extra. Oh you want to ensure to get all the NFL football games, well then you need NFL1, NFL2, NFL3, NFL Games from the 70's, NFL 24/7, etc... for $70.00 a month.
I mean, who in the world wants to watch 30 year old football games 24/7?
I just want to make sure I have access to EVERY (current) live NFL game.
It's all F-ing worthless, just so the providers can make an extra buck.
This is reason #7263847627 that I am a dirty pirate.
TrentD @ Jun 5th 2008 2:13PM
Mike,
You're talking about the content deliverers, like Comcast, DirecTV, etc., but what I'm talking about is the actual content originator - the channel itself.
If they lose carriage, they lose funding. Their budgets decrease, or they go out of business.
I could care less about Liberal Pot Smoking Hippie TV, or the Clinton News Network, but most people have a few small channels they like, that don't have mass appeal. Those channels would go out of business.
Chad @ Jun 5th 2008 2:13PM
Perhaps you were referring to ESPN Hacky Sack channel, or ESPN badminton channel. Last year I learned that ESPN has a requirement that if you (you being a cable/SAT/IPTV provider) want to carry ANY ESPN channel you must carry them all on EVERY plan you provide. Since that means you have to pay ESPN for every subscriber you have for every channel they provide. You know you will be ridiculed if you don't provide ESPN to your top tier customers so you give in and provide it to all of your customers despite the fact 2/3 of them will never watch those channels.
I cannot substantiate this information nor do I know if it is still practiced but if true it would seem pretty shady to me.
Joe Maki @ Jun 5th 2008 3:02PM
Exactly TrentD. We'd get to subscribe to any of the 12 channels available that we wanted to. Might as well just watch OTA.
TrentD @ Jun 5th 2008 2:37PM
Chad,
Even if you're not exactly right, you're close. Channels are constantly packaged together like you describe.
bman @ Jun 6th 2008 1:58AM
I have a revolutionary idea for everybody. STOP WATCHING TV. Anything that is worth watching can be found on the internet. Or you could make a Powerpoint presentation called "An Inconvenient Programming Dilemma" and travel around the United States and share it with everyone. Meanwhile you will win the Nobel Peace prize and secretly start your own Cable Company that everyone will subscribe to and you will make a Gajillion dollars. This is how I deal with all of my problems.