TV Blog

Time Warner Cable testing smaller, cheaper TV bundles

TV Blog

RSS feed

What's on this page?

Comments

Dale Roe writes about television for the Austin American-Statesman.

He's worked at the American-Statesman for 10 years and has written family movie and video game reviews as well as watched lots of TV. Dale directs, writes and performs with Austin's Gag Reflex comedy ensemble, is a freelance illustrator and has contributed stories and reviews to Macworld magazine. He lives in Round Rock with his wife, two children and a dog named Apollo who barks whenever he hears another dog bark on television.

Dale Roe writes about television for the Austin American-Statesman.

If you use an RSS reader, here is the feed for this blog: XML.

Learn more about RSS.
A FAQ on Web logs

The entry titled "Time Warner Cable testing smaller, cheaper TV bundles."

By Dale Roe | Thursday, November 18, 2010, 05:48 PM

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Time Warner Cable is testing smaller and cheaper channel packaging in light of the current economic reality many subscribers are facing (a subscription is needed to view much of the article).

The offering, called “Time Warner Cable TV Essentials,” will be deployed on a test basis beginning Monday in New York City, where it will cost $39.99 per month, and northern Ohio, where the price will be $29.99 per month, the article says. A Time Warner Cable spokeswoman placed the retail value of the package at $49.99 per month.

Time Warner Cable TV Essentials includes local broadcast stations, major broadcast networks, and a dozen of the highest-rated cable networks, but missing from the tier are ESPN, Comedy Central, TNT, Fox News, MSNBC, Fox regional sports, and MSG.

The company plans to roll the offering out across its other markets next year after obtaining results from the trials of the year-long promotion.

Jeff Simmermon, Director of Digital Communication for Time Warner Cable who tweets as @jeffTWC, commented on the test.

“We’re trying to gather data to find a package and a price point that’s right for our customers looking for a smaller, more stripped down cable offering,” Simmermon wrote on his blog, Untangled. “This isn’t for everyone, and we understand that, too. But we think it’s important that we offer a wider variety of choices and let our customers choose what’s right for them.”

Would you go for a cheaper, stripped down channel package such as the one described in the trial? Log in and sound off in the comments.

Permalink | Comments (3) | Post your comment Categories: Entertainment, TV Technology

More archives...

When commenting, we ask that you keep things civil and abide by our Visitor Agreement. To report comment abuse, click here.

By Thomas

November 19, 2010 12:25 PM | Link to this

I might be tempted to switch to it, but I really agree with Dan.

Give me a la carte!!!

By Craig W

November 19, 2010 10:24 AM | Link to this

As Dan says: "Would I go for the package referred to in the WSJ article? No. " But probably for different reasons. Our $23/month basic package is already missing ESPN, Fox News, etc., so I see no point in paying more to keep doing without them.

By Dan

November 19, 2010 8:44 AM | Link to this

Would I go for the package referred to in the WSJ article? No.

What I would go for is the option to pick channels a la carte, paying only for the channels I actually watch. Give me that, cable companies!