On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 10:12 PM, Kevin M. <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 10/30/10, televisiongirl <[email protected]> wrote: > The lengthy response I typed has vanished without a trace, so I'll > just respond by saying I agree, and the lack of 'a la carte' is what > has driven people like me to watch shows online, despite the lower > resolution and delays in posting. In my mind, I could not justify > subsidizing crap, but cable companies gave me no choice. > But wouldn't the same argument apply vis a vis the channel? I watch Mad Men and Rubion, but the only other things I watch on AMC are a very occasional movie. Why should I have to pay for all the crap I don't want to watch? I watch Dexter on Showtime, and the NFL show, and almost nothing else. Your a la carte argument logically means that cable companies should allow us to pay for each program individually. I think it makes sense to have required clusters of channels (and programs of course). I don't pay only for the parks I use (or the swings I sit on in each park); I don't pay only for the streets I drive on. Bundling popular channels with less popular ones allows the provider to make available a variety of programming options that alone would not be able to pay for themselves. I pay for programs I don't watch, but that maybe you do; you pay for programs that you don't watch, but that maybe you do. -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
