roncofooddehydrator: No... there's a limited supply. So the more popular something becomes the more expensive it becomes. Diamonds are very popular but there's only so many of them.
apoptotic: Won't the threat of more people switching to streaming tv just result in stricter bandwith limits? Or are American cable companies and ISPs run totally separately?
MisterRonbo: Are you farkers under the impression that these channels are individual companies, or that their customers are you?Bwaaa haaaa haaaaaa. Disney, Viacom, and other firms hold bundles of channels. Their customers are the cable and SatTV firms. The latter provide marketing, billing, customer service.Now imagine you're a business who sells all of your output as one package, to only a handful of customers. Would you piss off your five or six customers, and break apart your core product to sell the high value parts separately, suddenly have to own a lot of the marketing yourself, to do business with a small niche player?Intel's only hope - and it's slim - is to cut an agreement to sell bundles of channels in overseas markets. Even that is dicey as geo-IP is not hard to get around.Know why its expensive if not impossible to get all of your sports, live, over the internet? Yeah, same reason this won't happen. Its a cozy arrangement for content and distribution providers. You are just the field they graze on.
steamingpile: Then all of you will be pissed once you get this then wind up paying $75 for just the few channels you want,
Alonjar: No see... now you get to directly fund things you want. Now scifi gets a bigger chunk of the pie if you like scifi, so maybe they can afford to make cool new shows instead of airing ghost hunters 800 times./At least, thats what im telling myself
gregscott: Sports channels have the highest feels.
Kittypie070: You guys trust these tards to tell you anything straight when they have a BS story about Neil Armstrong?
Counter_Intelligent: Kittypie070: You guys trust these tards to tell you anything straight when they have a BS story about Neil Armstrong?That's the Live Strong guy, right?
Thraeryn: roncofooddehydrator: No... there's a limited supply. So the more popular something becomes the more expensive it becomes. Diamonds are very popular but there's only so many of them."No" in pretty much every respect when it comes to entertainment content. 1500 people can watch a show as it airs from one guy's cable box if said box is streaming to the internet. One camera recording or DVD of a movie becomes 250k copies as people download it. The only scarcity even mildly related to the market is the ease or difficulty of viewing the original broadcast/showing.It's been this way since the first Betamax players and blank tapes arrived on store shelves. Where were you?
thisiszombocom: like, i dont even have a tv
Counter_Intelligent: That's the Live Strong guy, right?
Huck And Molly Ziegler: I'm predicting that within 10 years, professionally created video entertainment specifically for home consumption will disappear. Yes, even Law & Order.People will still go to new movies for the communal experience.People will still go to local theater for the novelty of watching live people perform.But "television" will be replaced by whatever six people with a couple of cameras want to put on the Internet. They'll have day jobs. Their "reward" will be Internet viewings. If they're really good enough, they'll make their entertainment some sort of pay-per-view.
Fluorescent Testicle: No, that's the Louisianan jazz musician.
madgonad: And you both would be completely wrong.What is never mentioned in these a la carte vs all inclusive comparisons is that competition would fundamentally change. For the first time EVER the channels would be selling directly to the consumer. The costs aren't laundered through BigCableCo - they are directly charged to the customer.
serial_crusher: fusillade762: by some estimates, only about 25 percent of cable customers actually watch ESPN on a regular basis. So if you unbundled ESPN, the per-subscriber cost might shoot up to $20 or more, to account for the 75 percent drop in its customer base.So why not create bundles targeted at certain demos? Create a sports bundle for sports fans, a nerd bundle with stuff like Siffy, Discovery, The Science Channel etc. Seems like anything would be better than the one-size-fits-all system we have now.Why only worry about the people who watch ESPN regularly? They have to watch everything on the channel? The only sports I ever watch on TV are Virginia Tech football games, so I wouldn't be in the regular viewership category, but me and thousands of other people like me would gladly pay 10 bucks a season to watch all the Virginia Tech football games. That's going to add up.From there, it's easy enough to create other relevant bundles. Make a college football bundle for the guy who likes to watch every game. Make a Virginia Tech package that includes all the different sports, but only VT. And have an "everything" package for the guy who just wants to watch sports.
cretinbob: Huck And Molly Ziegler: I'm predicting that within 10 years, professionally created video entertainment specifically for home consumption will disappear. Yes, even Law & Order.People will still go to new movies for the communal experience.People will still go to local theater for the novelty of watching live people perform.But "television" will be replaced by whatever six people with a couple of cameras want to put on the Internet. They'll have day jobs. Their "reward" will be Internet viewings. If they're really good enough, they'll make their entertainment some sort of pay-per-view.Maybe there could be a show....Fark TV?
WhyteRaven74: roncofooddehydrator: Diamonds are very popular but there's only so many of them.you can create all the diamonds you want these days
gibbon1: President Merkin Muffley: People still watch TV?I came here to say this. I've haven't watched any TV for maybe 20 years. When I occasionally see it, my god, it's way way overwhelming.
madgonad: The key benefit of this is that a lot of the crap channels will start folding. And this isn't necessarily a bad thing.
roncofooddehydrator: You're misunderstanding what the supply is. The supply is quality television. There's only so much of it. When there's a demand for it, the price goes up. That's why ESPN can charge $5 per subscriber. It's not some arbitrary number, it's the law of supply and demand at work.
sweet-daddy-2: .I shut our cable off about seven years ago and only miss seeing the NYY games.
Triumph: I'm for this if it's what finally kills MTV.
7th Son of a 7th Son: Zombie DJ: Oh good. I can see it now.TNT $20 a monthMTV $3 a monthComedy Central $40 a monthSyFy $10 a monthand so on...I get the feeling I'd be paying MORE because I like popular channels like CC, USA and TNT.People who like dreck like MTV will probably end up paying less.THIS THIS THIS SO MUCH THIS.
eddievercetti: Viacom is ready to troll us & stop this from happening.
If you like these links, you'll love
Come for the Total, stay for the Farking.
Sign up for the Fark NotNewsletter!
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2018 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Jun 18 2018 02:33:20
Runtime: 0.521 sec (520 ms)