The Problem With Cable Is Television

Saul Hansell writes in the NY Times about how various services offered by cable companies affect their spending and their revenue. As it turns out, a lot of the cost increases and investment needs are coming from television and video services rather than internet connectivity. The scramble for high-def and rising licensing fees for programming seem to be the biggest headaches for Comcast and Time Warner right now. Quoting: "By all accounts, Web video is not currently having any effect on the businesses of the cable companies. Market share is moving among cable, satellite and telephone companies, but the overall number of people subscribing to some sort of pay TV service is rising. (The government's switch to digital over-the-air broadcasts is providing a small stimulus to cable companies.) However, if you remember, it took several years before music labels started to feel any pain from downloads. As the sour economy and the Web start putting more pressure on the cable companies, they may be forced to consider breaking up the big bundles of channels they now insist that consumers buy and instead offer individual channels or smaller groups of channels on an à la carte basis."

Comments

Re:Not the programming

[commodore64_love]

>>>I would love to pay $5/mo "directly" for FoodTV (directly

Then do it. I don't see why I should have to pay ~70 cents per channel for 40-something channels I never watch. Your lesser-viewed channels like FoodTV or GolfTV should be supported directly by those who want them, not be people like me who think they are shit. I apologize for being so blunt, but I am a strong supporter of A La Carte cable, which by my calculation would drop my bill from $65 a month to about $20 a month - an obvious boon for the average consumer.

In this time of recession, we need ways for people to cut costs, not socialistic anti-choice solutions that force people to buy junk they don't want.

Re:Not the programming

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Forcing me to pay taxes and then using those taxes to benefit someone else is theft. You think taxes are good, then defend taxes, don't dispute that they are theft though. If I stuck a gun in your face and demanded 20% of your money it would be armed robbery. When the government does it, it is called taxation.

Then every deal is a "theft", since the person you paid money to for whatever you bought is also going to use it to benefit his family, i.e. "someone else". Participation in a society is also a deal. You are free to leave the deal anytime by going to a place where a different deal is offered, say some banana republic with no taxes (and the corresponding quality of a society). Or you can hide up in the mountains and never pay a red cent of taxes. But then you do not get the benefits of the deal either. But of course you would like all the perks but are too greedy to pay for them. Now, come to think of it, speaking about thieves ....

He could die before I walked across the road and pissed on him if that was all he needed. I also don't care if your mewling brats get an education or if your parents have to eat roadkill. Taking my money to benefit you and yours is fucking wrong,immoral

That is the logic of vicious, rabid animals, not civilized people. "Sociopathic" does not even begin to describe it...

... and exactly what the founders of the USA were dead set against.

Oh really? You mean they wanted a "society" where people "walk across the road and piss" on those who have a heart attack? Could you offer some quotes from Jefferson or Payne on that?