Hulu Plus Users

[dreamcastrocks]

And if Direct TV says great we'll offer every channel we can get our hands on but in return we'd like you to run your business the way we want... BTW, you do have the option if you truly mean at any price. Just buy Direct TV.

The problem with cable to me is not having the a la carte option. Imagine going to the store to buy bread, but in order to buy the bread, you have to buy mayo, lunchmeat, lettuce, tomatoes and pickles. All you want is the bread, but you have to buy everything you need to make a sandwich, even if you don't like sandwiches.

To me, this type of extortion equates to stealing.

 

[Catlover]

The problem with cable to me is not having the a la carte option. Imagine going to the store to buy bread, but in order to buy the bread, you have to buy mayo, lunchmeat, lettuce, tomatoes and pickles. All you want is the bread, but you have to buy everything you need to make a sandwich, even if you don't like sandwiches.

To me, this type of extortion equates to stealing.

I know what you mean and it's very frustrating to have to pay so much when most of it means so little to me. Let me pick the twelve channels I watch and to heck with the rest of them. But Cable isn't all at fault here. Their hands get tied by the FCC and the various channel providers work them over too. Fox, ESPN etc. dictate much of what they offer, how it's packaged and, effectively, what they charge.

 

[crisper57]

Vote McCain! Seriously though, the bundling thing was settled in the courts against Microsoft a decade ago. Just due. There is precedent.

 

[JS22]

The problem with cable to me is not having the a la carte option. Imagine going to the store to buy bread, but in order to buy the bread, you have to buy mayo, lunchmeat, lettuce, tomatoes and pickles. All you want is the bread, but you have to buy everything you need to make a sandwich, even if you don't like sandwiches.

To me, this type of extortion equates to stealing.

In the long run al la carte would be way more expensive. From what I've read you'd need to pay $10-$20 a month per channel in order for the cable companies to justify the option.

Perhaps a 10 channel minimum at a reduced cost, or something similar, would work. Although I see us bypassing the cable companies entirely in the near future as networks themselves offer their content directly to the consumer at a monthly cost.

 

[Chaplin]

It seems to me that the older the show is, the less ads it shows where when I watch a show that just aired 2 days ago it has 3-4 per break

Makes sense, doesn't it? Newer shows will get much higher traffic, so more ads equals more views.

 

[BigRedRage]

Watched two episodes ago modern family with no ads and new episode had three adds per break

Sent from my XT1056 using Tapatalk

 

[RugbyMuffin]

And if Direct TV says great we'll offer every channel we can get our hands on but in return we'd like you to run your business the way we want... BTW, you do have the option if you truly mean at any price. Just buy Direct TV.

Good points.

Two things:

1. If DirecTV doesn't want to listen to their customers then that is poor way to run an entertainment business, but that is just me.

2. My piggy bank says that I cannot buy DirecTV unfortunately. Would love to.

Finally, I think what I said at the beginning relates to the comment. If it is none of my business how DirecTV runs its business, and the way it is looked at is "if I can do better, than I should", then we are back to me finding a game to stream online when it is not offered by their service. I am thus doing exactly what is being asked of me. Which is if I don't like it, then figure it out myself.

So, I did, and why I should feel guilty about making someone or some company eat their own words, I do not know. I was told if I don't like it, to figure it out myself.....so I did.

Just sayin'.

 

[Catlover]

Good points.

Two things:

1. If DirecTV doesn't want to listen to their customers then that is poor way to run an entertainment business, but that is just me.

2. My piggy bank says that I cannot buy DirecTV unfortunately. Would love to.

Finally, I think what I said at the beginning relates to the comment. If it is none of my business how DirecTV runs its business, and the way it is looked at is "if I can do better, than I should", then we are back to me finding a game to stream online when it is not offered by their service. I am thus doing exactly what is being asked of me. Which is if I don't like it, then figure it out myself.

So, I did, and why I should feel guilty about making someone or some company eat their own words, I do not know. I was told if I don't like it, to figure it out myself.....so I did.

Just sayin'.

My comment really wasn't about your choice or how you'd feel about it. Had you written "I am comfortable helping myself to online streams because those companies have failed to meet my needs in some way", I'd have stayed silent. It was when you suggested we should all help ourselves to illegal streams, guilt-free. I'm going to feel guilt over it because I believe it's wrong. Not end of the world wrong, more like going 74 in a 65 zone. I go 68 in that same zone and rationalize those three illegal miles per hour but I'd never think of going 80 in that same place.

I think you're rationalizing a little but you should have heard me rationalizing last night when I lost a stare-down with a piece of Carrot Cake. If you were my friend the day before you watched an "illegal" online stream, you'd still be my friend the day after. I would think no less of you (don't you feel lucky) but we all have to draw our own lines in the sand. I don't believe anarchy is lurking just the other side of the line I've drawn but we always hear about that dreaded slippery slope. What if it's steal a Cable feed today, overthrow a government tomorrow?

 

[dreamcastrocks]

In the long run al la carte would be way more expensive. From what I've read you'd need to pay $10-$20 a month per channel in order for the cable companies to justify the option.

Perhaps a 10 channel minimum at a reduced cost, or something similar, would work. Although I see us bypassing the cable companies entirely in the near future as networks themselves offer their content directly to the consumer at a monthly cost.

There are only a few channels that actually cost the $10-20 per month. ESPN, HBO, Cinemax, etc. 80% of the channels cost the cable companies ~$2 per channel last I read.

 

[Catlover]

There are only a few channels that actually cost the $10-20 per month. ESPN, HBO, Cinemax, etc. 80% of the channels cost the cable companies ~$2 per channel last I read.

But that pricing has to do with the level those channels are placed in. ESPN, for example, would demand to be placed in the basic package so that every person automatically receives that channel. If they can't guarantee a certain number of households then the pricing would change dramatically and that's the problem with a la carte.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

But that pricing has to do with the level those channels are placed in. ESPN, for example, would demand to be placed in the basic package so that every person automatically receives that channel. If they can't guarantee a certain number of households then the pricing would change dramatically and that's the problem with a la carte.

That is an assumption at this point. There is no data to support that.

 

[Catlover]

That is an assumption at this point. There is no data to support that.

I'm not sure what you're talking about? I don't think there was anything in my post that was an assumption although I should have said something other than "basic" since that's a specific tier for Cable Companies and I was going for something more general. What exactly were you referring to when you said "assumption", maybe I'm keying on the wrong sentence?

 

[dreamcastrocks]

I'm not sure what you're talking about? I don't think there was anything in my post that was an assumption although I should have said something other than "basic" since that's a specific tier for Cable Companies and I was going for something more general. What exactly were you referring to when you said "assumption", maybe I'm keying on the wrong sentence?

You speculating that the price per channel will be based on the tiered packages and say that is the problem with a la carte. It is already done that way now. The whole point of a la carte is to not be forced into these packages. ESPN demanding anything is moot.

 

[Catlover]

You speculating that the price per channel will be based on the tiered packages and say that is the problem with a la carte. It is already done that way now. The whole point of a la carte is to not be forced into these packages. ESPN demanding anything is moot.

Oh, I wasn't speculating at all although I guess I didn't make myself clear. I was describing their current business model and why it would be a problem to go with a la carte. I'm not saying it's an insurmountable problem but it is a problem. Right now they can offer all these channels but if they go a la carte many of them will be priced out of consideration.

Ma Bell faced a somewhat similar situation several decades ago when it's pricing for businesses was used to offset the losses for basic residential service. Their justification for overcharging businesses was that if they didn't subsidize the average residential customer there would be far fewer homes with phones and businesses would then suffer as a result. Cable and Satellite derive much of their value from the fact they offer such a large variety of channels but if each channel had to earn it's own way, there would be far fewer survivors in a fairly short time. It might be best for the customer initially but it's uncertain how it would play out over time.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

Oh, I wasn't speculating at all although I guess I didn't make myself clear. I was describing their current business model and why it would be a problem to go with a la carte. I'm not saying it's an insurmountable problem but it is a problem. Right now they can offer all these channels but if they go a la carte many of them will be priced out of consideration.

Ma Bell faced a somewhat similar situation several decades ago when it's pricing for businesses was used to offset the losses for basic residential service. Their justification for overcharging businesses was that if they didn't subsidize the average residential customer there would be far fewer homes and businesses would suffer as a result. Cable and Satellite derive much of their value from the fact they offer such a large variety of channels but if each channel had to earn it's own way, there would be far fewer survivors in a fairly short time. It might be best for the customer initially but it's uncertain how it would play out over time.

Fair enough.

 

[RugbyMuffin]

My comment really wasn't about your choice or how you'd feel about it. Had you written "I am comfortable helping myself to online streams because those companies have failed to meet my needs in some way", I'd have stayed silent. It was when you suggested we should all help ourselves to illegal streams, guilt-free. I'm going to feel guilt over it because I believe it's wrong. Not end of the world wrong, more like going 74 in a 65 zone. I go 68 in that same zone and rationalize those three illegal miles per hour but I'd never think of going 80 in that same place.

I think you're rationalizing a little but you should have heard me rationalizing last night when I lost a stare-down with a piece of Carrot Cake. If you were my friend the day before you watched an "illegal" online stream, you'd still be my friend the day after. I would think no less of you (don't you feel lucky) but we all have to draw our own lines in the sand. I don't believe anarchy is lurking just the other side of the line I've drawn but we always hear about that dreaded slippery slope. What if it's steal a Cable feed today, overthrow a government tomorrow?

Completely understood, and you did a great job with the tone (something I fail to do well) of your post.

I very much respect your thoughts on the subject, how well it is written, and the splish splash of joking within.

All good stuff.

......and yes, much like the carrot cake there is some definite rationalization on my side, no doubt. LOL.

 

[Catlover]

Completely understood, and you did a great job with the tone (something I fail to do well) of your post.

I very much respect your thoughts on the subject, how well it is written, and the splish splash of joking within.

All good stuff.

......and yes, much like the carrot cake there is some definite rationalization on my side, no doubt. LOL.

Oh I thought your tone was just fine and if you're curious, it was really good Carrot Cake. I brought it home from the Cheesecake Factory for my husband but he was watching a basketball game and eating popcorn so I kept it to myself. Good call on my part.