Comments on: Is Time Warner Cable Opening the Door to a la Carte?

By: Get Ready for Even More Retrans Fights in 2011: Online Video News «

Get Ready for Even More Retrans Fights in 2011: Online Video News « — Tue, 04 Jan 2011 00:50:46 +0000

[...] Time Warner Cable is serious about making channels available a la carte, it could be the beginning of the end for how we think about the cable bundle. Already the cable [...]

By: How Netflix Shares Continue to Beat Cable: Video «

How Netflix Shares Continue to Beat Cable: Video « — Mon, 20 Dec 2010 21:43:49 +0000

[...] are seeing their margins gradually decline. That’s got some pay TV firms — like Time Warner Cable — deciding to roll out lower-priced plans, while others — like AT&T and DirecTV [...]

By: Time Warner Cable’s New Bundle: Under $40, No ESPN: Video «

Time Warner Cable’s New Bundle: Under $40, No ESPN: Video « — Thu, 18 Nov 2010 22:42:35 +0000

[...] To help retain customers, Time Warner Cable has teased investors with the possibility of a lower-priced cable package in the past, most recently mentioning the bundle as part of its latest earnings [...]

By: jak

jak — Sat, 13 Nov 2010 19:51:41 +0000

Are you kidding? Why does even the most basic of cable require commercials being pumped into your livingrooms? I paid for programming not commercials! I am being charged for “programming” and also charged to listen to commercials. NO WAY!
I have $126 two year lockdown price for basic cable – no DVR, no movie channels, every program is poorly created video with child actors, rotten in other words! Just plain rotten! And then A La Carte will cost me extra on top of 126? BUll! Television is crap anyway – I am dumping my TV and cable too!

By: Johnny Griswold

Johnny Griswold — Wed, 10 Nov 2010 00:22:58 +0000

Too many channels and not enough good shows. Widdle down the channels, widdle down the lame filler shows and widdle down my damn cable bill. Seriously, do we need a show on cable about a guy who eats bugs in far away lands? Most of these “niche” programs should be downloadable video podcasts or something you could view on Hulu.

By: David H. Deans

David H. Deans — Sun, 07 Nov 2010 15:37:14 +0000

Ryan, you said “the devil is in the details” — and that may be an understatement in this particular case.

I’m a TWC customer in Austin, TX. I’ve seen analog basic cable go from $10/month to the current $20/month. Given the included channels in the “basic” tier, it seems that TWC doesn’t want to offer the service, so they intentionally make it unattractive (their franchise agreement with the City probably requires that they “offer” it).

Therefore, from my point of view as a TWC customer, this notion of “really basic cable” is an oxymoron that defies logic — given the current scenario.

By: Chris K

Chris K — Sat, 06 Nov 2010 00:16:24 +0000

There’s something wrong when a $100 ATV the size of my wallet gets me Netflix for $9/month plus movie and tv rentals and streams content from my computer – all using a slick GUI. And it’s quiet, and doesn’t put out much heat. And the picture quality is great. And everything is on-demand.

IT’s now become so plainly obvious how old the current cable model is.

Look at ESPN3 on the 360 too. It could easily be on an ATV or Roku also. And no one can argue that its interface/format is much better than cable and satellite’s current way of watching ESPN content.

This is a stellar example of what monopolies or oligopolies do to markets. They stifle innovation.

By: Sean McMenemy

Sean McMenemy — Fri, 05 Nov 2010 23:08:00 +0000

Maybe those channels that don’t get picked should rot. Why should the cable company or the viewer pay for anything they don’t want to watch? This will be the ONLY way to see what a networks true value should be.

By: TechClicker

TechClicker — Fri, 05 Nov 2010 18:47:41 +0000

I don’t necessarily agree with the premise that networks which aren’t adopted by large portions of the viewing population via an a la carte model would be “left to rot”. Why wouldn’t those niche networks just charge the premium for their content needed to support its production and expected quality. People who really want to consume this content would have to pay for it just as if it were any other niche or luxury item.

By: Eric

Eric — Fri, 05 Nov 2010 17:57:31 +0000

About time, this way they can pay Fox or other content providers only for those subscribers who want the content and not for all subscribers.

This will save them a fortune and will probably help keep subscribers longer as people will no longer have to pay for 490 out 0f 500 channels that they do not watch.