Why can't you buy a cable package with only the channels

Ok

File: 1486242352584.jpg (38KB, 657x527px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 657x527px

>>80417156

why couldn't the BBC when the uk moved over to digital settop boxes make the BBC subscription only instead of sending you threats by default, even if you have informed them you don't own a TV?

>>80417156
>trutv

you deserve it

>>80417156

Because the cable companies are run by Jews

File: Impractical_Jokers_Title.png (222KB, 416x233px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 416x233px

>>80417315
Only one good show, but I love it so much.

>>80417156
>>80417324

Because studios are also run by jews. They force cable companies to take channels they dont want, so they force you to as well.

>>80417156
Isn't that kind of what YouTube tv is supposed to be?

>>80417156

That's a lot of fucking channels. Why can't I just pay for the shows I want and download them with my internet connection?

Oh wait, I can.

>>80417394
No, I don't think so. It's still the regular, fewer channels for less money thing that Sling TV and PlayStation Vue give you, but you still have to buy a full package, you can't customize or anything.

>>80417156
because the government creates regulations to protect the jews and big business from competition and you as the good goy is forced to buy whatever they sell you

>>80417156
have you tried asking them about it

>>80417685
Bummer. If cable really wants to stay competitive I suspect we'll see them moving in the direction of a la carte make your own packages in the near future. Something like
>$5/channel
>$30 for ten
>$45 for twenty
>$80 for one hundred

Millennials hardly watch any tv and gen z almost exclusively watches YouTube and streaming apps and more and more people are cutting the cord every year. The only thing that keeps many people subscribing currently are live sports, but even with that there are new options that are making even those folks turn away from traditional television.

>>80418128
>Millennials hardly watch any tv
this, i just have a computer where i can watch anything i want on instead of having to follow the tv schedule

>>80418128
That would be fantastic. I think the main reason they aren't doing that is because the companies that own multiple channels force cable companies to carry their shitty ones, as well as the ones people actually watch. So the cable companies force you to pay for them.

the government made them do it in canada, they just charged a lot for channels and it didn't improve anything

you can get one of the big two sports channels for $4 or buy both and three more in a package for $5

I think media is going to go back to an older industry model like in the 50s where companies fund the shows and retain the ip like how the flintstones were a cigarette ad

>>80417156
The cable companies would make less money from each customer and it would probably be a logistical nightmare to make happen. Durr.

>>80417156

Why would you want to watch garbage like TruTV?

File: Tom Dwan.jpg (34KB, 333x500px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 333x500px

>>80418517
That's durrrr to you.

File: jokers.gif (1014KB, 450x253px) Image search: [Google]

1014KB, 450x253px

>>80418647
Because of Impractical Jokers. Nothing else.

>>80417156
Because the cable companies (which later merged with or absorbed telecommunications companies) lobbied the government to gain the right to govern their own business and to prevent the government from setting up a competing public service, and then used that opportunity to collectively agree to stay out of each other's designated region of the US. As a result, cable/telecom companies basically get to gouge you as much as possible, and because there's no competition, there's nothing you can do about it except go without cable and high-speed Internet (let's be honest, you won't be able to handle going back to dial-up, assuming you even lived through that time in the first place).

>>80418755
That show is okay I guess. TCM, FX, and HBO are basically the only other channels that are worth it in my opinion (FX is barely worth a subscription though), but my opinion doesn't really matter does it.

>>80417156
Because, as in your meme, there is very little competition in the cable industry so for the longest time they could basically do whatever they want without fear of customers leaving.
Of course with the advent of streaming that's changing, yet they're pretty much refusing to adapt.

File: based_wings.webm (2MB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 640x480px

>>80418128
>The only thing that keeps many people subscribing currently are live sports

I can usually find a stream but yeah I've been close to buying cable a couple times just so I can watch sports. If I could just buy a sports package without all the other bullshit I would.

99% of my TV is Investigation Discovery.


I need my murder porn

>>80419095
Is Disccovery Science a thing anymore or did it go down the same path as History Channel?

>>80417156
The vast majority of cable channels run at or near a loss and are subsidized by others in their package. The end result of being able to pick and choose channels is only a few would remain. The ones that started to fail would be forced to either change their content or die.

>>80419081
There's the NFL/NBA/MLB apps you can get. They're maybe $100 but they give you access to every game all season.

>>80419169

So?

>>80417156
I don't watch live tv. I've tried to convince my parents for years now to cut the cord but they refuse.

>>80419166
It's on it's way to being another History channel. Not quite there yet

>>80419216
If you want a channel with only a niche following, you're outta luck if more popular channels aren't subsidizing the niche channels that you like in particular.

There is zero reason to pay for shitty overpriced cable when all I want to do is watch maybe half a dozen shows total.

>commercials
>shit channels I'll never watch included
>more commercials
>terrible shows on the same channels I might be interested in
>more commercials

Paying for TV is a fucking joke.

>>80419203
Those still block out local games. I watch the local teams ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

>>80419338

Unfortunate, but those shows can move to youtube, or something more friendly to niche works.

An interesting argument for bundled cable packaging is that the channels everyone really wants (espn, CN, disney etc.) would cost almost as much as a cable bundle itself. Dunno if it's true but I'd believe it. They give you 100's of cheap channels to hide the fact your paying $50 a month for two channels

The question that you are asking is "Why can't I buy channels "a la carte"?"

While it may sound great to only get the channels YOU want, keep in mind that by bundling channels together the larger channels subsidize the smaller ones, making it possible for niche interest networks to exist. So removing bundled channels would likely kill smaller, more experimental networks... leaving you with only the channels that appeal to the broadest of audiences. Most cable networks only get a fraction of the viewership that the large network shows get, so without bundling, they would give up the ghost fast.

Think Clear Channel on the Radio, you have to listen to the same goddamn classic rock and roll bullshit because it is the least offensive, widest appealing, generic programming available.

If you love Dancing with the Stars, vote for a la carte, choose your channel policies, and you will get all of that bullshit you can handle.

>>80419395
What's the logic behind this? Is it like piracy where they assume every local game watched on TV equates to a lost ticket sale?

>>80419545

Name a good small channel.

Daily Planet and How it's Made are the only things I can stand to watch now and I can barely stand watching Daily Planet. I wish television was more educational.

>>80419568

>should've bought a ticket to go see your favored team, goy

File: history channel.jpg (209KB, 960x927px) Image search: [Google]

209KB, 960x927px

>>80419619
watch more history channel!

>>80419712
>WW2 era
What was the logic behind that? At the time I assumed they literally ran out of money and started playing their old/more popular documentaries. Or was it that WW2 is so popular historically its cheaper to make documentaries for it than any other subject?

>>80417156
Classic autism.

>>80419712
History Channel should be called Pawn Stars/American Pickers Channel ffs. It makes me sick.

>watch 3-4 shows DVR'd a week
>pay 200 a month for cable, internet, phone
>don't even know my phone number for the land line

wtf am i doing. I should drop everything but internet and save 120 a month.

>>80419835
Probably both. What gets me is they dont even replay their old stuff. Wouldnt even cost anything to produce.

Presidents Day and instead of showing their pretty cool series The Presidents, they marathon a car show.

>>80419835
90s and 00s were the golden age of WW2 docus because the last survivors were just barely hanging on and there was a rush to interview them before they all dropped dead.

>>80419568
>What's the logic behind this?
Its the way TV Contracts are set up. Obviously if you could buy streaming sports right from the nba,nhl,nfl etc then Fox, nbc, cbs, espn, etc would lose money because who wants their bloated bullshit.

>>80419712
I used to have H2 to go to avoid Ancient Aliens and Pawn Stars, but they replaced that with Viceland. I went to go watch what I thought was H2 and it was some shit about gay blacks getting AIDs or some faggy shit.

>>80419909
Honestly, just having to pay for Internet is more worthwhile considering how shitty television is now.

>>80419993
>Viceland

oh lawdy. I cant even stand seeing commercials for that shit