I think you are saying packages is the way to do it and I am saying it is not the way to do it.
If that comment is to me (hard to tell since you didn't quote the person in which you are responding), I haven't stated any opinion on that matter, I only pointed out undeniable facts about reaching the largest possibly audience with a single "package" whether that is a single channel or every channel every created.
Cable was approx. $14.99 in the mid-1970s, and that was with HBO.
Content providers don't get their share of the blame for this. HBO, ESPN has raised their prices by a lot. Broadcast TV like ABC, CBS, NBC has charged cable companies to carry their signal.
The rules regulate Internet companies much like telephone companies and therefore federal and state telephone fees will eventually apply to Internet bills.
I think a lot of people don't realize this. The FCC said there would be no new taxes. But by classifying internet provider as telecommunication services, states that tax tangible property can now tax the property of telecom providers which may include wireless spectrum. Also public utilities are taxed higher than regular property taxes. And since the FCC applied light touch to pricing, consumers may be the ones paying the increase.
The WSJ article states that Apple is working on a channel bundle of 25 select channels for $25-$30/month. That is $1/day, which harkens back to the days of .99 iTunes songs and would be both affordable to most consumers and palatable to even the cord cutter cable haters. As it stands now, most consumers have been paying $80-$150/mo. for bundled channels and services. i.e. paying through the teeth NOT to watch most channels in their bundle. That is a highway robbery business model that would never have withstood the market were it not for the bizarre number of customers lining up to pay for that gun in their own ribs.
If you break the package model are there are some channels that virtually no one would be willing to pay for? So maybe 300 of the 500 channels available just go away due to lack of interest.
The WSJ article states that Apple is working on a channel bundle of 25 select channels for $25-$30/month. That is $1/day, which harkens back to the days of .99 iTunes songs and would be both affordable to most consumers and palatable to even the cord cutter cable haters. As it stands now, most consumers have been paying $80-$150/mo. for bundled channels and services. i.e. paying through the teeth NOT to watch most channels in their bundle. That is a highway robbery business model that would never have withstood the market were it not for the bizarre number of customers lining up to pay for that gun in their own ribs.
I can tell you that I only have 8-10 channels I watch. So again 15 that I don't watch or care about, but get to pay for. Four of those that I do watch are the broadcast networks and I can get the shows I watch there on Hulu Plus, if I wasn't so lazy. Somehow watching on a DVR seems easier than Hulu. Ah first world problems.
If you break the package model are there are some channels that virtually no one would be willing to pay for? So maybe 300 of the 500 channels available just go away due to lack of interest.
The word is now Apple's service will cost under $40. Let's just say it's $40. If you get all channels for $40 and we're talking 300 channels that means each channel without being in a package comes out to 13¢ each. Do you really think that each channel will average 13¢ a piece? There will be packaging because those that want ABC will want NBC, CBS, FOX. Those that want ESPN will probably want the other ESPN channels, etc.
It's called "was commercial free and no long is", which was the point of the OP.
Which is an incorrect statement because it never was. You can pretend the early days of cable TV was all Rockwellian, but you're only lying to yourself.
I'm pretty sure 95% of the population watches the same 30-50 channels.
And about 75% of the population watch the same 20 channels.
All those POS channels on cable that no one wants KILLS BANDWITDH and makes cable bills more expensive for everyone. Get rid of those crappy dung. Many of those POS channels should be internet channels anyway.
If "no one" wanted them they wouldn't exist. The majority may never watch them, but that's a very different situation. Do the majority of cable/sat viewers watch Spike, ESPN, PBS, Nickelodeon, Home Shopping, etc? I'd say they don't. There are demographics that will mostly watch a certain channel or type of channel, but that's a very thing than what you're talking about. You can't reasonably say that because you don't watch a channel that it should shrivel up and die. You need a better solution!
Yep. In 1975, 21¢ had the purchasing power of $1.00 today. Our currency has been in decline since the Federal Reserve was formed, but it got much worse when the dollar went off the gold standard.
Yep. In 1975, 21¢ had the purchasing power of $1.00 today. Our currency has been in decline since the Federal Reserve was formed, but it got much worse when the dollar went off the gold standard.
Really, it's that simple? What would be the amount of money needed in 1975 to purchase a new MacBook? I was using a PDP 8 around that time and to observe it was barely even a related item (which cost incredibly more in those vaunted 1975 dollars) is beyond comical. You might also look into what fraction of a person's income needed to be spent on food compared to today. Those who yearn for the days of the gold standard can do so only by studiously avoiding the history of all the panics and disasters that accompanied it.
Those who yearn for the days of the gold standard can do so only by studiously avoiding the history of all the panics and disasters that accompanied it.
What panics and disasters? Subtract fiat currency and usury and you’re left with stability.
What panics and disasters? Subtract fiat currency and usury and you’re left with stability.
Plus throw in the hundreds of billions extracted from the public to bail out mismanaged financial "institutions", plus trillions lost due to Fed incompetence...
What panics and disasters? Subtract fiat currency and usury and you’re left with stability.
Plus throw in the hundreds of billions extracted from the public to bail out mismanaged financial "institutions", plus trillions lost due to Fed incompetence...
Quite. A right Royal disaster. You'd be better off with a Monarchy.
Comments
I think you are saying packages is the way to do it and I am saying it is not the way to do it.
If that comment is to me (hard to tell since you didn't quote the person in which you are responding), I haven't stated any opinion on that matter, I only pointed out undeniable facts about reaching the largest possibly audience with a single "package" whether that is a single channel or every channel every created.
Yes.
Cable was approx. $14.99 in the mid-1970s, and that was with HBO.
Content providers don't get their share of the blame for this. HBO, ESPN has raised their prices by a lot. Broadcast TV like ABC, CBS, NBC has charged cable companies to carry their signal.
Paying is fine as long as programs are not interrupted every 5 minutes by ads. I suppose ads before programs start would almost be tolerable.
The rules regulate Internet companies much like telephone companies and therefore federal and state telephone fees will eventually apply to Internet bills.
I think a lot of people don't realize this. The FCC said there would be no new taxes. But by classifying internet provider as telecommunication services, states that tax tangible property can now tax the property of telecom providers which may include wireless spectrum. Also public utilities are taxed higher than regular property taxes. And since the FCC applied light touch to pricing, consumers may be the ones paying the increase.
The WSJ article states that Apple is working on a channel bundle of 25 select channels for $25-$30/month. That is $1/day, which harkens back to the days of .99 iTunes songs and would be both affordable to most consumers and palatable to even the cord cutter cable haters. As it stands now, most consumers have been paying $80-$150/mo. for bundled channels and services. i.e. paying through the teeth NOT to watch most channels in their bundle. That is a highway robbery business model that would never have withstood the market were it not for the bizarre number of customers lining up to pay for that gun in their own ribs.
It's called "was commercial free and no long is", which was the point of the OP.
If you break the package model are there are some channels that virtually no one would be willing to pay for? So maybe 300 of the 500 channels available just go away due to lack of interest.
The WSJ article states that Apple is working on a channel bundle of 25 select channels for $25-$30/month. That is $1/day, which harkens back to the days of .99 iTunes songs and would be both affordable to most consumers and palatable to even the cord cutter cable haters. As it stands now, most consumers have been paying $80-$150/mo. for bundled channels and services. i.e. paying through the teeth NOT to watch most channels in their bundle. That is a highway robbery business model that would never have withstood the market were it not for the bizarre number of customers lining up to pay for that gun in their own ribs.
I can tell you that I only have 8-10 channels I watch. So again 15 that I don't watch or care about, but get to pay for. Four of those that I do watch are the broadcast networks and I can get the shows I watch there on Hulu Plus, if I wasn't so lazy. Somehow watching on a DVR seems easier than Hulu. Ah first world problems.
The word is now Apple's service will cost under $40. Let's just say it's $40. If you get all channels for $40 and we're talking 300 channels that means each channel without being in a package comes out to 13¢ each. Do you really think that each channel will average 13¢ a piece? There will be packaging because those that want ABC will want NBC, CBS, FOX. Those that want ESPN will probably want the other ESPN channels, etc.
Which is an incorrect statement because it never was. You can pretend the early days of cable TV was all Rockwellian, but you're only lying to yourself.
If "no one" wanted them they wouldn't exist. The majority may never watch them, but that's a very different situation. Do the majority of cable/sat viewers watch Spike, ESPN, PBS, Nickelodeon, Home Shopping, etc? I'd say they don't. There are demographics that will mostly watch a certain channel or type of channel, but that's a very thing than what you're talking about. You can't reasonably say that because you don't watch a channel that it should shrivel up and die. You need a better solution!
brought to you by Comcast and Timewarner Cable
Yeah, I understand they helped write the bill.
Yep. In 1975, 21¢ had the purchasing power of $1.00 today. Our currency has been in decline since the Federal Reserve was formed, but it got much worse when the dollar went off the gold standard.
Yep. In 1975, 21¢ had the purchasing power of $1.00 today. Our currency has been in decline since the Federal Reserve was formed, but it got much worse when the dollar went off the gold standard.
Really, it's that simple? What would be the amount of money needed in 1975 to purchase a new MacBook? I was using a PDP 8 around that time and to observe it was barely even a related item (which cost incredibly more in those vaunted 1975 dollars) is beyond comical. You might also look into what fraction of a person's income needed to be spent on food compared to today. Those who yearn for the days of the gold standard can do so only by studiously avoiding the history of all the panics and disasters that accompanied it.
Those who yearn for the days of the gold standard can do so only by studiously avoiding the history of all the panics and disasters that accompanied it.
What panics and disasters? Subtract fiat currency and usury and you’re left with stability.
Plus throw in the hundreds of billions extracted from the public to bail out mismanaged financial "institutions", plus trillions lost due to Fed incompetence...
Quite. A right Royal disaster. You'd be better off with a Monarchy.