You are a shill and everyone is aware of it, so why continue the act?
I don't have an aversion to the concept of bundled channels, so why do you keep harping on it? I've long stated that skinny bundles are the future. Technology is democratizing TV entertainment and cable isn't necessary anymore.
Awhile ago you were here shilling on behalf of ESPN and I said the next step in this process is trimmed down bundled options, and you said it would never happen - that same week it did.
Your masters at ESPN are feeding you bad information, slave. You can't convince folks that they have a moral obligation to purchase overpriced packages and ESPN. I just read that the average cable customer pays $30 per year to ESPN just for the NBA, but the majority of folks will never watch an NBA game. What a terrible business. So happy it's failing.
I just helped my aunt cut the cord. They were paying $140/per month. Now they have a local internet provider using fiber, antenna, hulu/Netflix....happy as clams. They don't watch sports and don't want the ESPN tax.
People are fleeing cable because of the inflated cost and ESPN is the main driver. The ESPN Tax has got to go.
No reason to pay more than $20 - $35 dollars for TV anymore. ESPN is a very outdated model that doesn't work anymore now that customers have options.
No, no one is "aware" of that. It's just something you just made up in your own mind.
What this is really about is you are pouting because a long time ago, I told you that your grand idea of the future was wrong, and it was. There is ALWAYS going to be a bundle model. ALWAYS. The business model hasn't changed. Just the delivery system.
Now, where I have argued with you (and continue to do so) is your fantasy that you will have the same content for a lower price. That simply won't happen. If you are willing to give up some content (like ESPN), then you can get content at a lower price. If you don't want to give up content, you are still going to have to pay as much to get it. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
ESPN isn't the main reason. If you give up ESPN, you are giving up your other sports channels as well. People who are doing that aren't sports fans in general.
If you only pay $20-35 dollars for TV, then you are giving up some content. You aren't getting all the channels you had before for at $20-35 dollars. Simply not happening. If you are fine with giving up some content, then it works. It's just doesn't work for someone who wants to keep their same content.
That's the whole point, shill. People don't want all that content/channels, they don't watch it, so why pay for it?
You're a slave TV, I am not and do just fine without 200+ channels filled with crap.
I've never once even implied getting the same "content" (crap) for a lower price. It's always been about more options for customers.
Everyone is aware of your purpose here - you are a shill. Your moral obligation argument is a big loser, I don't know why you keep selling it, no one is buying.
The only one getting a free lunch were your masters at ESPN.
By the way folks, this is straight from the cable company playbook. They create a false premise which everyone NEEDS 200+ channels, and that's were they start the discussion.
Topdecktiger is just a trained shill. You can tell by the way he dismisses the idea that people don't want or need that many channels.
Don't accept their false premise. They want you to think their product is so important, that your life would change if you no longer had it.
No, you have made up the "purpose" in your head. You frankly sound like a dumbass repeating it so much.
I have never said anyone has a moral obligation to buy ESPN. Never. Not once. Go look at all the thread, and show me where I said that. You can't, because I never said it.
Now getting to your point, some people don't want all that content. That's fine. However, what you don't realize are the ramifications of this. Some content that you DO WANT isn't going to survive this, at least not if it works out the way you imagine it.
I don't know what you like to watch. Let's just say you like watching the History Channel. Ok, well the History Channel simply can't survive, not even with a skinny bundle. What you don't understand is, there is floor for production costs. There is simply certain cost that has to be met for a given channel to produce content and stay in broadcast. If they don't meet that certain cost, they simply have to go out of business.
Now, if EVERYBODY is only paying $20-30 a month for TV, then 75% of the channels are gone. If that doesn't bother you, that's fine. However, what will most likely happen is that the streaming providers will do what the cable companies did: they will start expanding packages (and raising the price) to include more content. Not all of the streaming services will survive either. Some will not make it, the market will be consolidated, and those remaining will be able to price things higher. Like I told you, there's no such thing as a free lunch.
LOL - I don't care if every channel goes out of business. Your fear mongering doesn't scare me, shill.
It's not fear mongering. I'm just telling you that you have no concept of how the market actually works. You get what you pay for. You want to pay $20 for TV, then you won't have as much content. You pay $100 for TV, you will have more content. It's simple economics.
You are just under this delusion that you will pay $20 a month and get to watch whatever you want. You're living in fantasyland.
It's not fear mongering. I'm just telling you that you have no concept of how the market actually works. You get what you pay for. You want to pay $20 for TV, then you won't have as much content. You pay $100 for TV, you will have more content. It's simple economics.
You are just under this delusion that you will pay $20 a month and get to watch whatever you want. You're living in fantasyland.
LOL - I DON'T WANT THE CONTENT.
$20 a month gets a handful of channels. That's more than enough for anyone who isn't a couch potato.
The reason folks are cutting the cable cord is because they don't want all those terrible channels and know cable companies are very bad.
Your "moral obligation" argument is a big loser. People hate cable companies and want them out of their lives.
Old technology, bad customer service, price gouging, and ESPN taxing grandma...we need to deconstruct the cable state and get them out of homes.
Typical ESPN employee response. So arrogant. No wonder why that network is failing.
Instead of admitting there's a problem with the product, they accuse the customer for "not knowing how the market actually works".
ESPN really feel entitled to everyone's money - the moral obligation argument.
If customers felt like they really needed ESPN, they wouldn't be cutting their cable cords.
No matter how many shills they send, folks will keep dumping ESPN.
Again, you are making up this "moral obligation" argument. Go quote me the post where I said you have a moral obligation to buy cable. You can't, because I never said it.
It has nothing to do with being a couch potato. Some people only watch a few shows.....but those few shows are on networks they can't get if they don't have cable. That's the issue. These $20 bundles, for example. Let's say you rarely watch TV, but your favorite shows are on Bravo network. If you get the $20 bundle on Sling TV, you don't get Bravo. If that's the one channel you want, you have to get a more expensive package to get it.
THAT is the issue. The $20 bundle is fine........if your favorite shows happen to be on channels in that bundle.
Actually, what you need to do is let each consumer get what he wants. If a consumer wants cable, it's not up to you to tell them what to get. If that want cable, let them get that. If they want skinny bundles, let them get that. You are the one trying to tell people what to do, not me.
I wish you realized how stupid you look making this argument. I'm accusing YOU of not knowing how the markets work. Not anyone else, only YOU. It's because you don't know how the markets work. Some content will simply disappear if everybody only pays $20 a month for television. That's why you will ALWAYS have options. Even if cable television is completely eliminated, services like Sling or VUE will end up offering larger channel package.
You have wayyyyyyyyyyy too much of a hardon for the cable argument.
LMAO!!!
Really shill? You think that we don't know that if you move from a plan with 200 channels, to one with 20 channels, that we will get less channels? LOL!
You are so desperate. People are very happy to give up channels, and that isn't my opinion - it's a fact.
The proof is is the pudding troll. If people cared about ESPN, or Bravo (LOL), cable wouldn't be losing massive amounts of subscribers each month.
More shill tactics from our paid shill - you'll lose your favorite shows without cable!
This is just more shill training and obsfucastion. When they can't convince you that you have a moral obligation to buy cable, and when their fear mongering fails, they move onto this stage - sentimentalism.
"Without cable you won't have your favorite shows."
Nice try, shill. Busted you again.
No one wants to pay $140 per month just for Bravo. However, I just checked SLINGTV, and the bundle that does include Bravo is $25/month.
That same bundle does not include ESPN - just Fox Sports. I might give that a try. ESPN is so bad now, I'd feel guilty giving them any of my money.
I will give you credit for one thing, you are right about channels disappearing. I think that's great. Can't wait for it to happen!