Good man. Im usually scared when legislation interferes with free market, but I only see good here. I like also that theres to be no black outs on tax paid stadiums. Whats everyone elses opinions here?
Explain why 'it doesn't sing'..Or do you object to the status quo based on the desire to exist in a comfort zone?Is he really bringing that up again?
He used that to get attention when he ran for president eight years ago.He served our country with distinction and kept the faith with his fellow prisoners while being held prisoner of war. Since then he has been a U.S. Senator. But the TV a la carte thing.... just doesn't sing! He needs to find a better issue.
Joe
What makes you claim this?I dont like it. If we ever got a la carte then it would be so expensive per channel that you couldn't afford it.
Ill take my packages
but if all channels cost $15 .. how would that work out ?HBO/SHO etc. manage to get people to buy their product a la carte.
less choice of stuff to watchOr it would force networks to come up with more than 1 or 2 shows.. If they were really forced to compete for your $$ they may be forced to make only 2-4 networks.
hope soThis idea was last put out by McCain in 2006, it was killed last time and I expect it to be killed this time too... Too much big money against a la carte.
Explain why 'it doesn't sing'..Or do you object to the status quo based on the desire to exist in a comfort zone?
I dont like it. If we ever got a la carte then it would be so expensive per channel that you couldn't afford it.
Ill take my packages
how is that ?The real loser in this would be channels like ESPN.
Look, I am the LAST person to agree with government meddling in the affairs of private business, but sometimes it is necessary.My concern is that allowing the government to direct the policies of a private company is not in the best interest of the country. IF some provider wanted to try doing exactly the same thing I would like to see it.
But compelling a company to expend funds to offer a product that their best research indicates will not produce a profit is just the wrong way to go. Next thing that could happen is the government will force you to use seat belts or buy health insurance.
Could be a good idea...but forcing it is not the proper role of government. Likewise there is no place for government subsidies to help pay for it.
Having said that.............I am looking around for a way to replace commercial TV. The ads are just too distracting and repetitious. The early draw for cable & satellite service was the lack of commercials. Them days be gone. Got a way to get the a la carte thing done.........I'd sign up if the money was close or less than now.
Joe
Not sing? I think it does. I had Cband back in the day and paid only for the channels I wanted. I paid $75 a YEAR for the channels I wanted, and only the channels I wanted.
how is that ?
the non sports watchers are always gripping about the $5.00 - 5.50 ESPN gets. is that $5.00 - 5.50 worth all the stress ?
if half of the subscribers dropped ESPN even. and the other half of sports watcher dropped the 50- 100 channels they don't watch. the sports watchers would pay double. and the non sports watchers would pay double for their 50- 100 channels . nothing changes.
You are so right! When I go to the grocery store, I see the price of tide and the price of bleach vs the price of tide with bleach in one package and I don't see why anyone would ever want to buy just bleach or just tide! Grocery stores should just get rid of the individually packaged items.I dont like it. If we ever got a la carte then it would be so expensive per channel that you couldn't afford it.
Ill take my packages
must know little about sports people pay $80- 5,000.00 to go to just 1 game in the NBA alone. we won't drop ESPN because it cost $10 a month.Because if half the households drop ESPN, ESPN then has to jump to $10/month to break even. Then more and more households drop as the price has to go higher and higher, or they take a cut in profit for the short term while the current contracts are in place, then do not bid as high for the future contracts, essentially working its way back to cutting player salaries.
Limited time offer