Thread regarding AT&T layoffs

The OP clearly has no idea how the traditional pay tv setup worked. Pay companies were unable to offer a-la-carte packages because the providers (like Warner, Disney, Viacom, etc) insisted on bundling channels nobody watched with the big ones. For instance, if you want ESPN Disney forces you to also take those garbage channels nobody cares about or Disney won't give you ESPN. So, that one channel you want comes with 5 or 10 that you don't.

Even worse, Disney charges for all those worthless channels, meaning the subscriber fee goes up. It's a mess, but at least this isn't the fault of companies like DIRECTV or Cox or Spectrum.

And AT&T is just as bad now. People who want any of the Warner channels will have to take all of them, regardless of whether they want it or not.

It's the predatory American capitalist system in action: Gouge, fleece, and then laugh when people complain.

It's not a radical or novel idea, it is one consumers have been fantasizing about for years now. It is difficult to implement and far more importantly, difficult to monetize. This is why no one is doing it.

Why are all the channels run by people of one race, who consider themselves above all others. Truly, selected by their God to be better than everyone else. This is what ATT believes in?

to the OP that works for T but has no understanding of how content works

https://www.techhive.com/article/3296376/why-a-la-carte-tv-still-isnt-happening.html

In a perfect world, the end distributor (your cable company) would probably love to have a workable/practical model that would allow them to offer per-channel service. They'd probably come out ahead. But, the various studios and creators of content don't want this as much. The consumption of content isn't a completely predictable business. You have to factor in advertisers, as well. All of the different parties involved in the chain of providing content to the consumers have slightly different business needs – and all of the entities involved need to spread the business risk whereby the most profitable services/products cover the less profitable. It's true in any business. When you have many parties involved in delivering a service, you inevitably end up with "packaged" good and services.

You would probably end up paying about the same price ( possibly even more). If you don’t understand why, then you don’t understand the business.

Cable and satellite companies have wanted to offer that for years while network distribution companies block it. Every time there is a Network distributor black out and angry customers demand their channels back part of the argument is usually the must carry provisions on basic tiers. Example: If you put ESPN on a tier then you must also include their less popular networks there as well (and pay for them.) In these content disputes, customers take it out on their TV provider not the content provider so the cable and tv companies have little leverage to break the bundle.

WIOW! REVOLUTIONARY,

too much for AT&T

The Modern Dinosaur facing extintion..L

Nothing radical or new about this idea. In fact you plagiarized it.

All of these arguments are new to me, and I think this gentleman is smarter and braver then whoever is trying to blow him up without any better idea ! Typical ATT management reaction to a forward thinking idea !!!! S— on that management tool !

None of these arguments are new. Meanwhile, the cable bundle has survived so much change, for reasons OP doesn't even attempt to explain. How can OP be so ignorant of the fundamentals of the business, and yet, so full of genius ideas about how it best be run?

You mean to tell me that you don't want 275 infomercial channels?