lokar, you want to blame somebody, blame ESPN. They set their rate high because no service provider can survive being without them. They get their asking price. Every other network then falls in line.
I do blame ESPN. If the world was a la carte, ESPN could not get away with what they get away with now. I think ESPN's highest ever recorded rating was somewhere around a 10.0, meaning that 90% of people probably don't care about ESPN yet are paying a high price for it every month.
Truth is, in my selfish world, I don't need 4 simultaneous streams and the only live TV I need is some basic sports... Even those sports could be streamed (and are if you're a Comcast subscriber).
I'd be happy to pay 5 to 20 times for the channels I want and considering the few channels I want I'll still come out way ahead. If the channels I want can't convince enough people to watch and to stay in business then so be it. Showtime and HBO don't seem to have any trouble staying in business and they have some of the best programming available. Aren't Showtime and HBO 'a la carte' today and since the beginning?
I'm all for choice and channel selection but I'll have to disagree on the 'tremendous value'. I, and I think many others, watch very few of the 200+ channels but we all have to pay for them.
I completely agree with all of this. Add in the fact that channels like A&E, History, Bravo, etc. have abandoned their original missions and gone to reality TV crap which makes the choice of which channels I would keep even easier. I would like a package that would give me the following: NBCSN, BEIN Sports, USA, Sci-Fi, Cartoon Network, NHL Network, BBC America, TNT, Discovery Science and my locals in HD. I occasionally watch ESPN but could live without it just fine. If the above came to $50-$60 a month with a la carte I would be surprised but would be OK with it.
Edited by lokar, 13 September 2012 - 11:05 AM.