Why do we still have to sit through commercials?

[sedated]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

Cable companies have to pay for the technicians, the DVR boxes, the customer service support, etc.... etc... etc...

There is a charge for installation. And for the DVR boxes. That’s how a $35 package becomes $85.

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

TV stations have to make money in order to pay actors, directors, and producers for TV shows and to earn the rights to televise live sports games.

They do that with advertising. Why are conglomerates like Viacom fleecing DTV for a hike in rates (that will ultimately be paid by the customers) when they can sell a SB commercial for $5 million per minute?

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

Unless you're suggesting that the better alternative is to pay for every single sports game you watch. Or pay for every minute you browse through 100 channels.

The only reason we have 100 channels is because of the bundling that is forced on us by the Viacoms of the world. It’s the only way they can get any money for the crap channels no one wants. As has been stated multiple times in this thread, people will gladly cut it down to 5-10 channels if they got any price break for it.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by sedated

There is a charge for installation. And for the DVR boxes. That’s how a $35 package becomes $85.

And you think that covers all of their operating expenses? Salaries of technicians, salaries and technology for customer support, investments in innovation and new technology, programming fees, buildings to house employees, buying trucks and gas for technicians, advertising for new business, maintaining the cable lines, the internet and phone systems all employees need to have, etc... etc... etc...? It's not like this is just a few technicians driving around drumming up business. We're talking about a national company with a ton of costs.

They do that with advertising. Why are conglomerates like Viacom fleecing DTV for a hike in rates (that will ultimately be paid by the customers) when they can sell a SB commercial for $5 million per minute?
The only reason we have 100 channels is because of the bundling that is forced on us by the Viacoms of the world. It’s the only way they can get any money for the crap channels no one wants. As has been stated multiple times in this thread, people will gladly cut it down to 5-10 channels if they got any price break for it.

I don't think you realize the implications of what you're proposing here. You're giving unbelievable amount of power to the "big 5 or 10." And an "a la carte" channel lineup is only going to raise advertising prices and lower overall viewership. The worst thing to happen to the radio was for a few big conglomerates controlling the entire airwaves.

If you want truly quality programming, you have to pay a price for it.