Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If your point was to eliminate the most expensive channels because you dont watch them you'd still have an outrageous (more than you pay now) cable bill because then I could eliminate the channels from my line up that you watch that I dont. The channels you watch would go up in price exponentially.
That list was just the most expensive channels per viewer - it didn't factor in what I watch and don't watch. The point is that if you remove those ten channels, or even as the OP posited, just five channels, the the average cost per viewing hour goes down. You cannot reduce the cost of cable any more efficiently than getting rid of those ten channels.
So no - I wasn't suggesting a pick-and-choose. I was suggesting that the matter of cost stems from the fact that there are some channels that are being excessively subsidized and other channels that are not. Those that are excessively subsidized are the problem.
And there are twenty channels on that list... truly, all twenty should be eliminated from tiers with other channels. I wouldn't "like" having channels I was eliminated, but I would either pay the $10-$25 per month for the channels on that list that I watch which get eliminated, or decide to live without them. But I wouldn't react antagonistically toward the change, because it is rational and fair.
That list was just the most expensive channels per viewer - it didn't factor in what I watch and don't watch. The point is that if you remove those ten channels, or even as the OP posited, just five channels, the the average cost per viewing hour goes down. You cannot reduce the cost of cable any more efficiently than getting rid of those ten channels.
So no - I wasn't suggesting a pick-and-choose. I was suggesting that the matter of cost stems from the fact that there are some channels that are being excessively subsidized and other channels that are not. Those that are excessively subsidized are the problem.
And there are twenty channels on that list... truly, all twenty should be eliminated from tiers with other channels. I wouldn't "like" having channels I was eliminated, but I would either pay the $10-$25 per month for the channels on that list that I watch which get eliminated, or decide to live without them. But I wouldn't react antagonistically toward the change, because it is rational and fair.
The heck? I thunk you missed the point of the thread....
No, not at all. I answered the question in the OP, and even provided some insight into the basis of my consideration of the question. Then my answer was challenged, so I explained why the challenge wasn't adequate. Which part didn't make sense?
I would be completely satisfied if I could only watch the swedish channels SVT1 and SVT2 for the rest of my life.
But it would have to be like they were before we had an open market.
I could do without 18 of the 20 listed ... I'd need to keep BBC America, and TNT. Though ... I don't have cable. So in reality, I do without them all. On cable.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
