Gutch220

The more choices for the people, the better.

Jay G.

And yet I had 7 links for articles and studies that prove that statement wrong.

SteelWill

Is the chance that these networks will broadcast their content over the web out of the realm of possibility? Do we really need cable companies at all any more? Wouldn't these networks be better off charging viewers directly a nominal subscription fee? Between DTV and Hulu I have almost all my TV needs met, but I would still like to get a news channel and a bit more content that can't currently be streamed legitimately. I'm getting awfully tired of my Dish bill with how small that additional content is and how much useless crap I'm stuck paying for.

Jay G.

A few networks are streaming at least some of their content over the web. Sites like Hulu make good outlets for their content. However, I think the number of online viewers still pales in comparison to those viewing via cable/sat.

You may not, but there are plenty of people who don't have PCs capable of playing HD online content, and if they do, it's likely not connected to their TV.

Which is easier: Collecting your massive subscrption fees monthly from a handful of cable providers, or trying to collect millions of tiny subscription fees from individual customers?

Gutch220

You seem to be: 1) taking the side of the large cable company, and 2) afraid of change.

Giving choices to the people, with everything in life, will always be more popular than being told what to do.

calhoun07

If the pricing was fair, I'd go for it. There are a handful of channels I would gladly pay a few bucks more for each month, but I can't afford the digital tier prices to get them. So if I could pick like five channels I REALLY wanted for like $15.00 more a month or so, I'd be all over it.

SteelWill

The first two issues would resolve themselves as content and thus user base increased and with the ease of transactions now I would think the last issue really wouldn't be an issue at all. I'm not saying it's ready for mass consumption right now, but at the very least the potential is there for these networks to attempt webcasting in addition to traditional cable/sat broadcasting. I'm kind of shocked these networks aren't looking at this and seeing dollar signs.

Jay G.

Whereas you are: 1) Making ad hominem attacks instead of a real argument, and 2) wrong.

I don't care what's best for the cable companies. However, I'm a pragmatist, and I know that the cable companies aren't going to change anything unless they're either forced to by the FCC or it makes economic sense to them. Splitting the packages cable companies already provide into smaller, overlapping packages simply doesn't make economic sense.

People already have plenty of choices in regards to TV. There's OTA, cable, and satellite. With cable, some places are able to chose between multiple providers, a first for cable. Within a certain cable provider, they often offer several tiers of service, starting with the most basic of local channels only up through expanded analog and digital channels, through additional premium packages and channels.

More choices may not be a bad thing. However, contrary to your claim, there certainly is such a thing as too much choice. Any cable company that tries it may find that their customers are getting confused, causing more customer support, lower customer satisfaction (customers aren't sure they're getting the best deal possible), and possibly even fewer signups and a lower retention rate, as some customers decide to go with another provider if they can.