Quote:
Originally Posted by ken0042
How is that better? I ask just because I'm trying to understand the reasoning. As you state, you are getting 3 channels you want for $18; as opposed to 2 channels you want for $20.
I guess I don't understand what the issue is with getting channels you don't want. If there are channels you don't want, don't watch them. Then at some point if there is something you want to watch, it is there. It's like your favourite pizza place now also selling fish. If you don't want fish, don't order it. However having that option in the future is a good thing. For example just recently a friend brought over her 3 year old. Even though I never watch the channel, I was able to throw on Treehouse to keep the kid entertained.
|
I think that's the big problem/misconception with the a la carte model. To subscribe to everything that you want, it might end up costing more than just having cable. The idea of picking and choosing your channels sounds great, but particularly for sports fans, Sportsnet won't and can't be the same price as "Cosmo" or some other specialty channel. I heard on a podcast once (Planet Money or similar) that sports channels make up the bulk of the cost of cable packages, even for those that don't watch them. Other subscribers are effectively subsidizing sports channels for us.
As soon as you unbundle everything (whether through online subscriptions or if the cable companies are forced to unbundle), the cost to get just the sports probably won't be any cheaper than just getting everything.
While I'm not a hardcore sports fan, I do enjoy a variety of sports on occasion. So for the time being it is just cheaper to keep cable than to get a subscription for each sport that I like. If I didn't enjoy watching hockey and soccer, I could easily cut the cord and rely on Netflix I think.