- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Explain why cable providers don’t just let you select your channel listing.
Posted on 1/18/18 at 8:10 am
Posted on 1/18/18 at 8:10 am
On the surface it makes sense for cable providers maximize their money by getting kickbacks based on the stations people subscribe to, and by not individualizing the channel listing they increase total income/subscription base.
However wouldn’t more people prefer a company that allowed customers to select exactly the channels they want? A market based system benefits the channel, increases their revenue because they can charge more to advertisers. Wouldn’t the market leader in “pick your channel listing” cable providers be able to gain ground quickly? And wouldn’t this further make the customers happier?
It would seem everyone would be happier except the old cable providers.
TLDR: cable providers suck
Nb4: Hulu/chromecast/roku
However wouldn’t more people prefer a company that allowed customers to select exactly the channels they want? A market based system benefits the channel, increases their revenue because they can charge more to advertisers. Wouldn’t the market leader in “pick your channel listing” cable providers be able to gain ground quickly? And wouldn’t this further make the customers happier?
It would seem everyone would be happier except the old cable providers.
TLDR: cable providers suck
Nb4: Hulu/chromecast/roku
21
Posted on 1/18/18 at 8:11 am to tigerstripedjacket
Because frick you.
- Comcast
- Comcast
Posted on 1/18/18 at 8:13 am to tigerstripedjacket
Because they're all assholes.
Posted on 1/18/18 at 8:13 am to tigerstripedjacket
I’d love it, but they’d go broke.
Posted on 1/18/18 at 8:14 am to tigerstripedjacket
If cable companies were innovative, they wouldn’t be in the situation they are in now.
Posted on 1/18/18 at 8:15 am to tigerstripedjacket
Simply put, because their contracts with networks probably forbid them to not include particular networks in packages. The real issue at hand is why the fricke was I paying the cable company for access to those channels and STILL having to watch advertising? Hello Netflix, Hello Hulu, buh-bye Cocks.
Posted on 1/18/18 at 8:17 am to tigerstripedjacket
Because it would kill channels that have low viewer numbers.
Posted on 1/18/18 at 8:18 am to tigerstripedjacket
$$$$$$$
Posted on 1/18/18 at 8:18 am to tigerstripedjacket
As people keep cutting the cord, it will probably come to that on the internet side. I'm guessing ESPN would rather keep the current model of charging cable companies a few bucks for everyone, instead of trying to charge like $20 in an a la carte package. Anyway, this is probably your future:
Posted on 1/18/18 at 8:23 am to TheHarahanian
quote:
Because it would kill channels that have low viewer numbers.
Who cares? That’s like saying we should eat at crappy restaurants so they don’t go out of business.
Posted on 1/18/18 at 8:25 am to tigerstripedjacket
quote:
A market based system benefits the channel, increases their revenue because they can charge more to advertisers. Wouldn’t the market leader in “pick your channel listing” cable providers be able to gain ground quickly? And wouldn’t this further make the customers happier?
Are you saying that cable providers don't operate in a free market? REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Posted on 1/18/18 at 8:31 am to tigerstripedjacket
Because they are not in business to make happy customers. They are in business to make money off those customers. If they couldn't pretend you were getting 120-140 channels (most useless) in your cable bundle, they couldn't convince anybody to pay the obscene prices they charge for cable ("service"). Then they wouldn't make so much money.
Posted on 1/18/18 at 8:35 am to tigerstripedjacket
Because the price you would pay for just select channels would be as much or more than what you’re paying now for 140.
Posted on 1/18/18 at 8:37 am to Mike da Tigah
quote:
I’d love it, but they’d go broke
Nah, they just wouldn't make the same profits.
Eventually the random channels would go broke though.
Posted on 1/18/18 at 8:50 am to tigerstripedjacket
Channels are not owned by the cable and satellite companies. Viacom for example owns VH1, MTV, Nickelodeon and a host of other channels. That's why you'll see the occasional crawl across the bottom of your screen when negotiations get contentious. The weak channels are thrown in with the good, and that's why your lineup is littered with garbage.
Posted on 1/18/18 at 8:51 am to tigerstripedjacket
quote:
However wouldn’t more people prefer a company that allowed customers to select exactly the channels they want? A market based system benefits the channel, increases their revenue because they can charge more to advertisers. Wouldn’t the market leader in “pick your channel listing” cable providers be able to gain ground quickly? And wouldn’t this further make the customers happier?
It's almost like the supposedly "free market" isn't the perfect solution that so many would have you believe it to be.
Posted on 1/18/18 at 8:52 am to The Pirate King
quote:
Because the price you would pay for just select channels would be as much or more than what you’re paying now for 140.
No it isn't.
Posted on 1/18/18 at 8:58 am to JawjaTigah
quote:
Because they are not in business to make happy customers. They are in business to make money off those customers. If they couldn't pretend you were getting 120-140 channels (most useless) in your cable bundle, they couldn't convince anybody to pay the obscene prices they charge for cable ("service"). Then they wouldn't make so much money.
I love it when they use that line in their sales pitch. You get 300+ channels. . . .
My response. "I have to surf through 300 channels, to find the 10 channels I might have an interest in". They usually shut up then.
Posted on 1/18/18 at 9:05 am to tigerstripedjacket
Probably in the contracts with the networks that require cable provider to put channels in their basic package or a certain percentage of the cable provider's total subscribers to have a particular network. Remember that a relatively small number of big media corporations (ABC/Disney, Viacom, NBC-Universal, etc) own an awful lot of networks. So those big companies can use their most popular networks as negotiating leverage to force cable companies to include their less popular networks in most packages.
Being able to pick individual channels would kill cable companies as they are today because a lot of people would cut down to 5-10 channels that they actually watch and the cable company wouldn't have justification to charge $100-150/month for TV service anymore. I'd drop ESPN in an instant if this ever became an option and only add it back in during college football season.
Being able to pick individual channels would kill cable companies as they are today because a lot of people would cut down to 5-10 channels that they actually watch and the cable company wouldn't have justification to charge $100-150/month for TV service anymore. I'd drop ESPN in an instant if this ever became an option and only add it back in during college football season.
This post was edited on 1/18/18 at 9:06 am
Posted on 1/18/18 at 9:22 am to LSUTigerFan247
quote:
Simply put, because their contracts with networks probably forbid them to not include particular networks in packages
This is the only correct answer I've seen so far. The cable providers have very little say so in what lineups are actually offered.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News