Why Cable Sucks (no offense to Breand)

[Grieve]

Every wondered how much you would pay for just the channels you watch if it was a-la-carte, rather than you having to get 120 channels you never watch? Check out the costs below. What annoys me most is that by FAR the largest amount go to sports channels, which I never, ever watch. Which is why I'm all for Apple's (yes I know, I'm an Apple fanboy) plan to let you just pay for what you watch.

[Slamz]

I think a-la-carte is inevitable. They're going to have to do it eventually to stay competitive with internet options which ARE a-la-carte (or simply free, like Hulu, ABC.COM, etc)

I would pick about 6-8 of those channels, greatly reduce my cable bill and be a happy camper. Honestly the only reason I still have cable is because sometimes I like to sit down and just turn on Mythbusters or Family Guy or something and have it already on my DVR. Most things I'm really interested in watching (like "V") are things I can already get online, on demand.

[Snowreap]

the only reason those prices are so low is because every cable subscriber is paying for them, even if they don't watch them. you can expect the per-channel pricing to go way, way up for a la carte if you don't have all those other people subsidizing them for you.

-ken

[Jakensama]

Yeah these guys are buying in bulk, if you buy it ala carte you will still pay a lot.

Sports channels are the only reason to have television at the moment IMO unless I am home drunk just flipping through channels regularly.

[Breand]

Cable companies are not ALLOWED by the gubment to offer ala carte pricing. Cablevision desperately wants to be able to offer it because they think they can make even more profit off of it. The Content Providers are completely against it, because they know if given the choice, subscribers will not want their crappy networks and they will go bankrupt. Since the providers and their profits outnumber cable, they pay off politicians more and keep the legislation from ever passing. So don't blame the cable companies for this.

Here's the big secret with cable bills, and why cable companies are always unfairly bashed for their high prices, and for bills continually going up: it's all the content providers' fault. Cablevision makes a simple stance on this: They have not raised broadband or phone service fees in over 5 years. Why? Because there is no content provider to pay off. Your cable bill goes up because the content providers continually ask for more money when their contracts expire. So of course these increases have to get pushed down to the consumer. Providers know that everyone hates their cable company, so they are perfectly happy to screw the consumer because they know the cable company will get blamed for it. The perception on how this business works needs to change drastically, and people need to start saying 'Why the hell am I indirectly paying for crap I don't want?' And the answer is: because your government fails you in every respect and this is just another example. Cable companies will happily give you only the channels you want, if the government would get out of the way.

[Thudz]

Blaming the cable companies in this instance is just ... ignent.

[Vanraw]

In the end its about the business model. x amount of revenue is needed to run the business. It doesn't matter if move to a new cost or revenue structure. In the end the revenue will be close to the same.

I don't think you will see ala-cart. Perhaps more choices with different groupings, but not channel by channel ala-cart. However in 10 years, as WiMax and fiber to the curb increase bandwidth to the home, you will see see more and more subscription like services . Meaning its all just a packet and they will continue to group services that will sell.

Look at my industry, Telecommunications. Everything used to be separate. Local, LD, Internationale, calling card, data, etc etc. Now its collapsed, not gone deeper into ala-cart. Voice is all one thing now. Most companies aren't even charging per call rates. Its all xx per month everything included. Cellular is the same. And these will collapse into one IP based service.

[Diggles]

The only reason I continue business with Charter cable is lowest possible internet latency for FPS gaming

[Grieve]

Blaming the cable companies in this instance is just ... ignent.

You've been down south too long when you start using the local slang.

I didn't blame the cable companies, I just said they suck. I don't care whose fault it is, I just object paying over a hundred bucks a month for 120 channels when the entire family only watches 4 or 5 of them. And I REALLY object to the fact that sports channels make up the majority of the costs when I don't watch them.

I realize that channels would be more expensive when pulled out of the package deal, but my 4-5 channels would still be way cheaper than paying for 120. I'm sure the sports fans would be REALLY screwed without the rest of us subsidizing their ESPN subscription, but that's their problem.

Right now most of the shows my wife watches are on ABC, so we could get most of them online or on iTunes. We only really get the package for CNBC, kids shows (Disney and Cartoon Network) and my wife's HGTV and TLC addiction...

[Jakensama]

I realize that channels would be more expensive when pulled out of the package deal, but my 4-5 channels would still be way cheaper than paying for 120. I'm sure the sports fans would be REALLY screwed without the rest of us subsidizing their ESPN subscription, but that's their problem.

I think its the other way around, ESPN is consistantly one of the top rated channels, its the fans of Sci Fi and niche networks who are subsidized by sports fans and fox news watchers.

[Grieve]

I think its the other way around, ESPN is consistantly one of the top rated channels, its the fans of Sci Fi and niche networks who are subsidized by sports fans and fox news watchers.

Okay, let's take a look.

Let's say there are 100m (way too high, but a nice round number) subscribers to the providers (via cable, satellite, Fios, etc).

Based on the bulk costs below, that means the following four channels would get this amount of monthly income:

Code:

ESPN              $4.08   $408,000,000.00
Fox Sports       $2.37   $237,000,000.00
SyFy             $0.21   $21,000,000.00
Science Channel  $0.06   $6,000,000.00

Now let's say that in a-la-carte, 60% of those households want ESPN, 50% want Fox Sports, 10% want Syfy, and 5% want the Science Channel. To get the same income the price would need to be:

Code:

ESPN              $6.80 (60m subscribers)
Fox Sports        $4.74 (50m subscribers)
SyFy              $2.10 (10m subscribers)
Science Channel  $1.20  (5m subscribers)

So...if you just wanted the sports channels, the cost basis would be $11.54. If you just wanted SyFy and the Science Channel, the cost basis would be $3.30 - less than a third. Whatever you ended up paying (obviously more than the cost basis), you would still be paying far less if you didn't care about sport.

Also, there is some element of a-la-carte available now. I can pay $15 extra for HBO, $10 extra for Showtime, $10 extra for Playboy (I only watch it for the articles!), and $5 extra for HDNet. Obviously that model works out fine for those guys...

[Vanraw]

Grieve, your main flaw is thinking that the cable business priority is to have you pay them less money. There is no business motivation or competitive pressures to for them to lower revenue.

[Grieve]

Grieve, your main flaw is thinking that the cable business priority is to have you pay them less money. There is no business motivation or competitive pressures to for them to lower revenue.

Maul, I entirely agree about total revenues. My argument is that the TV addicts that went a lot of channels or expensive channels (sports, movies) will pay more, and those of us only interested in fewer channels or cheaper channels will pay less.

They already have that general model - basic, bronze, silver, gold packages, for example. I'm just saying it needs to be reworked to have more granularity.

[Vanraw]

But as long as you pay, they will not change. Unless they have a business plan that shows them they will make more money, they will not change.

[Jakensama]

So...if you just wanted the sports channels, the cost basis would be $11.54. If you just wanted SyFy and the Science Channel, the cost basis would be $3.30 - less than a third. Whatever you ended up paying (obviously more than the cost basis), you would still be paying far less if you didn't care about sport.

Care about sports, not sport - sport is how they say it on this side of the atlantic, incorrectly.. Like calling it "maths".

Anyways, I agree it would be cheaper but you originally posited non sports watchers are currently subsidizing the sports watchers.

In reality the top ranked channels are the ones that are (under the current system) subsidizing the unpopular ones, because they are the reason cable is generally sold to people and the only reason the unpopular ones get distributed to households in the first place.

[Vllad]

This is the same argument as the college football argument.

The only way to truly effect its reform is to stop watching it. If you are truly interesting in effecting change the best way is to stop supporting it.


Vllad

[Grieve]

Care about sports, not sport - sport is how they say it on this side of the atlantic, incorrectly.. Like calling it "maths".

Well I'm British, and I say "maths" and "sport", and I put it to you that it is the US that is incorrect. So yah boo sucks to you. :wink:

[Breand]

Like I said before, this whole argument has NOTHING to do with cable or the content providers. The U.S. Federal Government does not allow for ala carte pricing. Simply another example of the feds sticking their noses where they don't belong. If you want the system to change, you have to do it through the political system. And don't blame the cable companies, they want ala carte.

[Jakensama]

Care about sports, not sport - sport is how they say it on this side of the atlantic, incorrectly.. Like calling it "maths".

Well I'm British, and I say "maths" and "sport", and I put it to you that it is the US that is incorrect. So yah boo sucks to you. :wink:

You moved to the US, speak English damnit!

The dumbest British idiom is "drink driving". Apparently in the UK "drink" is not a verb, its an adverb..

You should all just be happy you dont pay 60 euros a month for German Cable.

[Slamz]

Grieve, your main flaw is thinking that the cable business priority is to have you pay them less money. There is no business motivation or competitive pressures to for them to lower revenue.

Lower revenue, no.

Lower prices, YES.

If they offer per-channel service in the next 5 years, I will probably end up paying $5 per channel for 5 channels or so. I pay less than now, the cable company gets less money than now.

If they don't offer per-channel service in the next 5 years, I'd say there's a 95% chance I will cancel my cable TV entirely. I pay nothing, they get nothing.


I'm sure there are people out there now who don't have cable because it's too expensive, but would pay $5 for SyFy and $5 for Cartoon Network or whatever.

The real losers will be the channels nobody watches. They'll die. Good riddance. Maybe they can start a blog instead.

[Breand]

yes, but they did come up with my favorite phrase, "tits up."

[Jakensama]

Actually I take back what I say about German Cable, they do have these late night call in game shows on basic cable where the girl host takes her clothes off as the show progresses.

[Vanraw]

Grieve, your main flaw is thinking that the cable business priority is to have you pay them less money. There is no business motivation or competitive pressures to for them to lower revenue.

Lower revenue, no.

Lower prices, YES.

If they offer per-channel service in the next 5 years, I will probably end up paying $5 per channel for 5 channels or so. I pay less than now, the cable company gets less money than now.

If they don't offer per-channel service in the next 5 years, I'd say there's a 95% chance I will cancel my cable TV entirely. I pay nothing, they get nothing.


I'm sure there are people out there now who don't have cable because it's too expensive, but would pay $5 for SyFy and $5 for Cartoon Network or whatever.

The real losers will be the channels nobody watches. They'll die. Good riddance. Maybe they can start a blog instead.

All I'm saying is if it wont justify a plan for increased revenue or revenue protection, then it will not happen. The thing that you seem to forget is that 99.9999 consumers are b;lind sheep just following the herd.

[Slamz]

Eh, everyone has to face the bills, though, and cable bills are becoming increasingly difficult to justify. Sure, my parents will keep using cable regardless because they aren't net-savvy enough to want to try and find shows online but I think anyone my age or younger will be increasingly reluctant to either sign up for cable or to continue getting it.

A la carte is definitely going to be seen as a "revenue protection". It's not critical now but I predict it will be within 5 years.

[Kakarat]

Eh, everyone has to face the bills, though, and cable bills are becoming increasingly difficult to justify. Sure, my parents will keep using cable regardless because they aren't net-savvy enough to want to try and find shows online but I think anyone my age or younger will be increasingly reluctant to either sign up for cable or to continue getting it.

A la carte is definitely going to be seen as a "revenue protection". It's not critical now but I predict it will be within 5 years.

In my personal experience I hold a lifelong grudge versus cable companies(my area anyways). Their modems did not support a router connected to it and timed out once in awhile. That is the cable internet grudge I hold. My DSL is consistent and reliable. Because of the internet issue I had, I canceled the whole cable idea and have saved myself a lot of money over the last 6 years.
Any movie or tv show I want to watch or would watch I can catch on the internet now one way or another...