Of course the cable networks are opponsed to going a la carte! This would mean that all the channels that don't have a real audience can't muscle in on the schedule and force humongo-packs on those that want to buy 10-20 channels!
This guy can't see the bright side to it because there is none to the broadcaster side of the equation. It is only beneficial to the cable co (increased subscriptions from those that never wanted the humongo-packs and possibly increased revenues from existing subscribers that would pay a buck or two more for a channel on the next tier up, but wouldn't pay the $10 for the higher package) and the subscriber who would have a real choise whether to get ESPN that caused his overall bill to go up by 4 bucks over the last two years.
I'm not opposed to packages at all. I think it will still be way cheaper to get a package as opposed to a la carte, but I'd like to have the choice!
See ya
Tony
This guy can't see the bright side to it because there is none to the broadcaster side of the equation. It is only beneficial to the cable co (increased subscriptions from those that never wanted the humongo-packs and possibly increased revenues from existing subscribers that would pay a buck or two more for a channel on the next tier up, but wouldn't pay the $10 for the higher package) and the subscriber who would have a real choise whether to get ESPN that caused his overall bill to go up by 4 bucks over the last two years.
I'm not opposed to packages at all. I think it will still be way cheaper to get a package as opposed to a la carte, but I'd like to have the choice!
See ya
Tony
