Exactly. The technology already exists, so why haven't cable/satellite providers figured it out yet? Let's say you pay $50 a month for 100 channels, basically $0.50 a channel. I would gladly pay $0.75 a channel if I could pick from the 20-30 that I ACTUALLY WANT!
If they want my money, give me this option. Otherwise I'll just watch it on the net.
[citation][nom]zerapio[/nom]So, when can I subscribe to channels independently and not as part of a package?[/citation]
Id gladly pay $0.75 to $2 per channel if I get ONLY the ones I want.
Talking about price gouging and bad business practices, Time Warner is not one to talk. How about making your internet prices reasonable before trying to garner sympathy from the consumers, TW? In Japan everyone has 100M upstream/downstream on fiber optic connections, yet in America, they raise their prices constantly, and when they come to "repair" the lines they send out two contractors equipped with nothing more than a roll of duct tape to make the line serviceable again. They get away with this practice of having a half-ass business because they have a monopoly in high-speed internet in most regions. And when they don't have a monopoly? They cry and moan about how unfair it is that a company is better than they are?
So let me get this right: Time Warner wants me to say 'no' to the networks so Time Warner's bi-monthly rate increase will go to THEM rather than the legitimate corporations that created the entertainment in the first place. This is a scam, the only difference is that Time Warner's emails don't backtrack to Nigeria.
time warner is just going to use this as an excuse to raise thier prices later which is BS every one knows TV networks get's their money from sponsers its the whole reason we have comercials and crap that are 7 minutes long every 5-10 mintues of a show
I would like to see cable go to an a la carte type of channel selection. Or even a partial a la carte, where we can chose the channels in the grouped packages, i.e. here is a list of 100 standard channels at $0.25 per channel; here is a list of 50 channels (more premium) at $0.50 per channel, etc.
The other thing that cable should do is broadcast only the HD signal of the channels and let the cable box downconvert to SD for older TVs. That way anyone with an HDTV will get the good picture.
"... perhaps they'll all pull the plug and we'll end up watching our favorite TV shows online."
That's ok with me. I only watch free broadcast television. The few cable shows I like I watch online or buy the DVDs. There's no point in paying a subscription for TV unless you are addicted to sports.
Since July 09 slime warner has raised my bill three times to $170.00 and I don't even have premium channels. I don't even own an HDTV. I am saddled with a mess of channels I don't want, some of which I can't even understand (foreign languages). I leave this epitaph as my swansong, I'm outa here! Hello AT&T or anyone else who can give me a reasonable deal.
I agree with FoShizzleDizzle. First, there is not any competition for Cable companies anywhere! You can get dish services if you can get them and want to pay all of the huge deposits but there is not any competition for cable. I believe that this rollover or get tough nonsense is just a way for the public to not feel like it is Time Warner that is at fault when I believe that they are just as greedy as they have always been and need a fifth car and sixth home!!! Propaganda from Time Warner.
They might as well do like Windows and send out a virus to hold your computer hostage until you buy Police Pro!
If I could find another affordable way to hook up my phone from vonage or magicjack I would but you can't do it with satellite.