<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Uninterested in A La Carte</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.zatznotfunny.com/2007-06/uninterested-in-a-la-carte/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.zatznotfunny.com/2007-06/uninterested-in-a-la-carte/</link>
	<description>All your digital media goodness.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Mar 2010 14:45:41 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: metroxing</title>
		<link>http://www.zatznotfunny.com/2007-06/uninterested-in-a-la-carte/comment-page-1/#comment-71926</link>
		<dc:creator>metroxing</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Jun 2007 05:39:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.zatznotfunny.com/2007-06/uninterested-in-a-la-carte/#comment-71926</guid>
		<description>Great website and I&#039;m REALLY REALLY surprised that you hit the nail on the head but all backwards - how is a networks supposed to grow to one you&#039;d pay money for? What was on ESPN in the beginning compared to now - how do you expect a network to grwo if you look over its launch programming and go me&#039;h - how does ESPN 192 get to ESPN 2007 when you are only willing to pony up when it becomes &quot;world class&quot; and $10 bucks a channel for the top tier, that&#039;s laughable - why would ESPN sell you the channel you want for $10? WE WOULD ACTUALLY PAY MORE ... If I were Disney ... I would charge $79 a month for ESPN from September to January and $59 a month for the rest of the year. Or for $35 a month if you sign up for a 2 year commitment, I throw in every ESPN channel - what deal will you want? And if you want all Disney and ABC, I&#039;ll throw that in for $10 more ... EVERY cable channel would be linked with some massive conglomerate. We would end up in EXACTLY the same boat but actually PAY MORE ... you still can&#039;t rid of QVC, it would be FREE, a gift from the cable company ... all the religius stations would pay the cable companies $1 to be included in the ESPN package FREE and of course, take the tax writeoff. 

A la carte might&#039;ve worked in the early days of cable but NOT NOW. You can get the 10 channels you want for $100 a month plus, they&#039;ll throw in 100 for free as part of your deal. They will make a la carte so pricey JUST LIKE in restaurants you will gladly take QVC, Trinity and Al Sharpton network to save $5.

Sorry to be rude but you are being pretty naive ...

http://2aday.wordpress.com/2007/05/02/cable-tv-a-la-carte-you-want-censorship/</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great website and I&#8217;m REALLY REALLY surprised that you hit the nail on the head but all backwards &#8211; how is a networks supposed to grow to one you&#8217;d pay money for? What was on ESPN in the beginning compared to now &#8211; how do you expect a network to grwo if you look over its launch programming and go me&#8217;h &#8211; how does ESPN 192 get to ESPN 2007 when you are only willing to pony up when it becomes &#8220;world class&#8221; and $10 bucks a channel for the top tier, that&#8217;s laughable &#8211; why would ESPN sell you the channel you want for $10? WE WOULD ACTUALLY PAY MORE &#8230; If I were Disney &#8230; I would charge $79 a month for ESPN from September to January and $59 a month for the rest of the year. Or for $35 a month if you sign up for a 2 year commitment, I throw in every ESPN channel &#8211; what deal will you want? And if you want all Disney and ABC, I&#8217;ll throw that in for $10 more &#8230; EVERY cable channel would be linked with some massive conglomerate. We would end up in EXACTLY the same boat but actually PAY MORE &#8230; you still can&#8217;t rid of QVC, it would be FREE, a gift from the cable company &#8230; all the religius stations would pay the cable companies $1 to be included in the ESPN package FREE and of course, take the tax writeoff. </p>
<p>A la carte might&#8217;ve worked in the early days of cable but NOT NOW. You can get the 10 channels you want for $100 a month plus, they&#8217;ll throw in 100 for free as part of your deal. They will make a la carte so pricey JUST LIKE in restaurants you will gladly take QVC, Trinity and Al Sharpton network to save $5.</p>
<p>Sorry to be rude but you are being pretty naive &#8230;</p>
<p><a href="http://2aday.wordpress.com/2007/05/02/cable-tv-a-la-carte-you-want-censorship/" rel="nofollow">http://2aday.wordpress.com/2007/05/02/cable-tv-a-la-carte-you-want-censorship/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jason</title>
		<link>http://www.zatznotfunny.com/2007-06/uninterested-in-a-la-carte/comment-page-1/#comment-71897</link>
		<dc:creator>Jason</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Jun 2007 00:18:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.zatznotfunny.com/2007-06/uninterested-in-a-la-carte/#comment-71897</guid>
		<description>I really want a la carte, but its about the oppostie reason most people give.

I only want ESPN, ESPN2, Speed, and throw in 2 of the Fox Sports Net channels for fun.

I&#039;m willing to pay greater than $5 per channel to get this.  However, right now I can&#039;t get those channels for less than $50 a month (because of the 9000 other channels I have to get in the current packages), and somewhere around $10 per channel makes me stick to just OTA-HD.

Even if it is $10 I still might do solely ESPN and Speed.  I just want some kind of option for $20-$30 a month, which right now just gets randomly spent at Fry&#039;s instead.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I really want a la carte, but its about the oppostie reason most people give.</p>
<p>I only want ESPN, ESPN2, Speed, and throw in 2 of the Fox Sports Net channels for fun.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m willing to pay greater than $5 per channel to get this.  However, right now I can&#8217;t get those channels for less than $50 a month (because of the 9000 other channels I have to get in the current packages), and somewhere around $10 per channel makes me stick to just OTA-HD.</p>
<p>Even if it is $10 I still might do solely ESPN and Speed.  I just want some kind of option for $20-$30 a month, which right now just gets randomly spent at Fry&#8217;s instead.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: lutton</title>
		<link>http://www.zatznotfunny.com/2007-06/uninterested-in-a-la-carte/comment-page-1/#comment-71896</link>
		<dc:creator>lutton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 10 Jun 2007 21:35:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.zatznotfunny.com/2007-06/uninterested-in-a-la-carte/#comment-71896</guid>
		<description>if 47% have no interest, doesn&#039;t that mean that 53% have some interest?

I think one consequence of a la carte would be much more interest, action and enforcement by content producers regarding unauthorized distribution.

Take a look at the way Canadian satellite service arranges their packages:  A base package (broadcast networks and some other basics), premium packages (akin to HBO, etc), then a bunch if mix and match packages of 6,8,10 themed channels (learning, entertainment, sports, kids, etc).  You still may have to get a specific package (and its 8 channels) to get one particular favorite.

I don&#039;t think a la carte will ever fly, but getting some mix and match packages might be a compromise solution.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>if 47% have no interest, doesn&#8217;t that mean that 53% have some interest?</p>
<p>I think one consequence of a la carte would be much more interest, action and enforcement by content producers regarding unauthorized distribution.</p>
<p>Take a look at the way Canadian satellite service arranges their packages:  A base package (broadcast networks and some other basics), premium packages (akin to HBO, etc), then a bunch if mix and match packages of 6,8,10 themed channels (learning, entertainment, sports, kids, etc).  You still may have to get a specific package (and its 8 channels) to get one particular favorite.</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t think a la carte will ever fly, but getting some mix and match packages might be a compromise solution.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dave Zatz</title>
		<link>http://www.zatznotfunny.com/2007-06/uninterested-in-a-la-carte/comment-page-1/#comment-71876</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave Zatz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Jun 2007 16:05:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.zatznotfunny.com/2007-06/uninterested-in-a-la-carte/#comment-71876</guid>
		<description>I want a la carte! Until that happens (yeah, right) I want FiOS TV.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I want a la carte! Until that happens (yeah, right) I want FiOS TV.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robert Aitchison</title>
		<link>http://www.zatznotfunny.com/2007-06/uninterested-in-a-la-carte/comment-page-1/#comment-71874</link>
		<dc:creator>Robert Aitchison</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Jun 2007 15:29:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.zatznotfunny.com/2007-06/uninterested-in-a-la-carte/#comment-71874</guid>
		<description>I&#039;d be all over A La Carte programming even if didn&#039;t save me any money.

We are on Dish Network&#039;s lowest tier (non-family) plan.  For that we get 100 Channels, probably 20 of those are music so lets call it 80.

Of the 80 we only watch at most 12 of those even once a year (probably 5 we watch regularly)

There are a few channels we do want to get but it would practically double our bill to upgrade tot he packacge that would get them.

Speaking of social conscience, I would actually pay a couple bucks more per month to not subsidize crap time MTV or stuff I have no interest in like ESPN.  Of course I probably wouldn&#039;t be as annoyed by ESPN if it didn&#039;t cost me $5/month for something I don&#039;t watch.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;d be all over A La Carte programming even if didn&#8217;t save me any money.</p>
<p>We are on Dish Network&#8217;s lowest tier (non-family) plan.  For that we get 100 Channels, probably 20 of those are music so lets call it 80.</p>
<p>Of the 80 we only watch at most 12 of those even once a year (probably 5 we watch regularly)</p>
<p>There are a few channels we do want to get but it would practically double our bill to upgrade tot he packacge that would get them.</p>
<p>Speaking of social conscience, I would actually pay a couple bucks more per month to not subsidize crap time MTV or stuff I have no interest in like ESPN.  Of course I probably wouldn&#8217;t be as annoyed by ESPN if it didn&#8217;t cost me $5/month for something I don&#8217;t watch.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hdtivo</title>
		<link>http://www.zatznotfunny.com/2007-06/uninterested-in-a-la-carte/comment-page-1/#comment-71873</link>
		<dc:creator>hdtivo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Jun 2007 15:11:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.zatznotfunny.com/2007-06/uninterested-in-a-la-carte/#comment-71873</guid>
		<description>People don&#039;t seem to have much interest in ala carte access to internet information. The free market development of the net has led to free access to everything, by and large.

A few internet sites with special info are restricted to subscribers.

I wonder how much parallel there is in that model to television.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>People don&#8217;t seem to have much interest in ala carte access to internet information. The free market development of the net has led to free access to everything, by and large.</p>
<p>A few internet sites with special info are restricted to subscribers.</p>
<p>I wonder how much parallel there is in that model to television.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

