Jump to content

MSG Network pulls plug on Time Warner


  • Please log in to reply
72 replies to this topic

#61
JBigjake54

JBigjake54

    Amicus Curiae

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,312 posts
  • Supports:MetroStars

That's why the channels usually win in these situations. People have very little contact with the channels other than watching them, but people have awful experiences with their cable providers. It's hard to be sympathetic to cable companies whose business model is to punish you with price increases the longer you stay with them. In the end both sides will look bad and TW customers will have to pay more.

Cable companies should be out of the network business entirely. People should be able to directly link to networks, via their cable provider or satellite service, in much the same manner as people call others on the telephone. The cable provider should only be able to charge for installing & maintaining the link. Charging for network access is similar for charging you different rates for whoever you dial on your telephone!

Ah, good ole Amurican capitalism at work!

Is it done any differently, elsewhere?

Telecom companies are some of the most obvious examples of why our economy is shit.


:rolleyes:
What's your bright idea, then? :unsure:

my statement was a joke about the irony of "american capitalism" and how it's not capitalism it all

Really? It seemed like an insiped, snide remark.

We are good enough to beat the best teams, and bad enough to lose to the worst teams. 


#62
Rooney22

Rooney22

    Dir. of Football Operations

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,999 posts
  • Supports:The Mighty Fucking Metro
Someone may want to try This

#63
UpstateFan

UpstateFan

    First Team

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,887 posts
  • Supports:NY Red Bulls
What i would really like is for the ability to order "a la carte" cable channels. I wouldn't mind paying a bit more for MSG if i can cut out the fees for the 70% of channels that i've never watched, and never will.

#64
RedBullsFC

RedBullsFC

    First Team

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,462 posts
  • Location:Hackensack, NJ
  • Supports:club: NYRB/////country: USA

What i would really like is for the ability to order "a la carte" cable channels. I wouldn't mind paying a bit more for MSG if i can cut out the fees for the 70% of channels that i've never watched, and never will.


I think "a la carte" is the way to go, once more competition from companies providing this type of service seamlessly, the cable companies will cave in...but in the meantime we will have to deal with this rip-off <_<

#65
irishapple21

irishapple21

    Player/Manager

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,911 posts
I think services like Roku are the wave of the future (although I think they will all be integrated into the TV sets instead of small set-top boxes). You'll be able to subscribe to the channels you want and either watch live streams or video-on-demand. I can't wait for that to happen. I don't subscribe to cable right now because I don't want to waste hundreds of dollars a year on channels I don't watch. I can proudly say that not even a dime of my money has ever gone to the Kardashians.

#66
Thomas A Fina

Thomas A Fina

    Dir. of Football Operations

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,161 posts
  • Supports:USMNT, Metro, NotRedBull

What i would really like is for the ability to order "a la carte" cable channels. I wouldn't mind paying a bit more for MSG if i can cut out the fees for the 70% of channels that i've never watched, and never will.


No, you really wouldn't. Most of the channels you don't want would be like 10 cents a month or something, and then they would totally jack up ESPN/HBO/SHO/ etc...

You would see zero difference in your bill. In fact, it would probably end up being more expensive.

#67
UpstateFan

UpstateFan

    First Team

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,887 posts
  • Supports:NY Red Bulls

No, you really wouldn't. Most of the channels you don't want would be like 10 cents a month or something, and then they would totally jack up ESPN/HBO/SHO/ etc...

You would see zero difference in your bill. In fact, it would probably end up being more expensive.


Based on what tough? Do we have a list of all the individualized fees that each channel charges for TW? I don't pay get "premium" channels like HBO and Showtime....but i'd like to see what those other channels actually are and how much they each make up on my bill.

#68
RedBullScouse

RedBullScouse

    Dir. of Football Operations

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,798 posts
  • Supports:Irresistable Mermaids/Liverpool/RU

Based on what tough? Do we have a list of all the individualized fees that each channel charges for TW? I don't pay get "premium" channels like HBO and Showtime....but i'd like to see what those other channels actually are and how much they each make up on my bill.

Channels don't usually charge individual fees - the business model is pretty complicated. ESPN is a good example; Disney packages their portfolio of channels with ESPN, forcing cable networks to make room for other Disney channels if they want to have ESPN. At one point in a negotiation Disney actually proposed charging a cable network more for ESPN alone than they would for a full package of channels that included ESPN. Fox is the same way; if you want Fox, they make you take Fox News. And that's why you have all these other little channels out of Scripps, because they leverage the Food Network and HGTV to make cable companies carry their other channels.


Which, BTW, is very similar to how and why they package the partial season ticket plans here the way they do.

"Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth." - Iron Mike

 

Bitch covered my plaid?
The sorrow inside me grows.
I need my plaid pitch.

"It goes without saying that when things don't go your way they just don't go your way. " - JCO

"He can't kick with his left foot, he can't tackle, he can't head the ball and he doesn't score many goals. Apart from that, he's all right.”
George Best, on David Beckham


#69
GMoney

GMoney

    Dir. of Football Operations

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,118 posts
  • Supports:New York Red Bulls
Great point.

Tiny newtworks wouldn't be able to survive. It would force a consolication (similar to yuor Disney example). You'd wind up having the option to buy the Fox Soccer but would not be able to buy standalone. It would be a much more expensive package with many Fox owned channels grouped together. Think of the one's they own today, plus the one's they'd buy (dozens) so smaller networks could survive.

There's a romantic part of me that would also be sad with that. How would start up networks launch? They'd be forced to sell to a much larger company in order get on the radar. That would just help the larger companies out there. Don't like.

The New York Red Bulls previously kicked around Major League Soccer as the MetroStars with limited success. But after transforming under a new banner in 2005, the Red Bulls have become a force to be reckoned with in the Eastern Conference. The club has made leaps of progress since its previous incarnation and now has its focus on bringing the league title to New York. Grab your New York Red Bulls soccer jersey and other gear here at MLSGear.com.


#70
kubrick74

kubrick74

    First Team

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,165 posts
  • Supports:Metro FC / US Nats
problem solved!

http://www.nytimes.c...ve-dispute.html

#71
acesfull86

acesfull86

    Player/Manager

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,151 posts
  • Supports:NYRB, NYK, NYM, NYR, NYJ
Well I'm glad I didn't change providers!

#72
MetroFever

MetroFever

    First Team

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 759 posts
  • Supports:MetroStars
Thank you Jeremy Lin! :cheers:

This never would have been resolved before the start of the Red Bull season, if they were battling the Nets for last place as they were 2 weeks ago.

#73
nyrmetros

nyrmetros

    Dir. of Football Operations

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,850 posts
  • Supports:Metros, USMNT, NUFC, Rangers
Damn it. I was hoping that twc would hold their ground.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users