The Cable Industry's a La Carte Bait and Switch

jfruhlinger writes "For years, cable operators have insisted that a la carte pricing, in which users could chose the channels they want, would undermine the both their own business models and the existence of important but less-watched channels currently wrapped into bundles. That's why it was surprising to hear that major cable companies are privately working towards offering a la carte pricing. But when you look at the details, it seems more like a bait and switch: those lesser channels (which pay cable companies for their place on the dial) will still be bundled with the local stations cable companies are required to provide, whereas pricey sports channels (which cable companies have to pay for) will become HBO-like premium services."

Comments

Makes sense actually

[bruce_the_loon]

For those of us who don't like sport and don't like subsidizing those who do, this is a win. For a sport fan, it's a good way to part him from his money.

Re:Makes sense actually

[Fortunato_NC]

Your assumption is that once the sport channels are removed, the price of basic cable will fall. I am not sure that the cable companies are on board with you here.

Re:Makes sense actually

[s73v3r]

You realize that every damn thing you watch is subsidized by others as well, right? That you're not an island, and rely on others to split the cost of providing the channel with you just as much as they do for sports?

Re:Makes sense actually

[ByOhTek]

Mine recently lowered some of their prices, and contacted me to tell me that my service price was lowered. So... I think mine might do this again.

3 my cable company. So glad I'm not stuck in a Time-Warner only region of the city.

Re:Makes sense actually

[mrsnak]

Dish is the way to go for non-sports viewers. DirectTV has all their money tied up in sports fees, so regular viewers don't get the HD variety you do on Dish. You also pay more to subsidize the sports viewers. Been my bone of contention with DTV for years, but wife hates the Dish user interface.

Re:Makes sense actually

[uigrad_2000]

Let's say the average customer pays $45/month today. If cable companies suddenly start sending people only 20% of the channels that they did before, they still are going to need to get an average of $45/month from each customer, or else they will no longer be solvent. I don't think this works out as you would like.

So, I am one of the sports-only type people that you are referring to. I would have dropped cable long ago, except that I need ESPN and the Big-10 network (a lot of my social life involves inviting friends over to watch sports). I would resubscribe with only those 2 channels. Let's say that they count as 3 channels each, because they are more expensive than most others.

You, on the other hand, choose 4 non-sports channels, possibly Discovery, and History, E!, and MSNBC.

Another family (single parent) wants 5 channels: Lifetime, TNT, TBS, Disney, and Cartoon Network.

I think this is a pretty good illustration of how people would buy channels with an a la carte system. The 3 customers above have bought an average of 5 channels each (counting my sports choices as triple). Comcast divides $45 by 5, and gets $9/basic channel, and $27/sports channel.

In summary, the consumers are paying pretty similar prices as before, but are getting far less channels. If a movie comes up on AMC that one of us wants to watch, none of us can. You are right that sports fans (like myself) suffer the most, but you are wrong about how. We don't just go and buy every channel like we did in the past, we just trim down to just 2 channels, and watch the heck out of those 2 channels.

Re:Makes sense actually

[tripleevenfall]

One thing you can be sure of - cable companies aren't going to make changes that get them less money overall.

My situation is that I was paying Comcast about $70-80 for their lowest cable and HD package, and I was really only buying it for Fox Sports and ESPN. (I already get local channels in HD over the air). So I cancelled my cable. I can live without ESPN and the local hockey team, if it saves me $80 a month.

If Comcast is going to come to me and say "Come back! You can buy any one of our basic channels for $10 a month, per channel!" then I'll be back. I'll have a $20 cable bill, and be getting exactly what I was getting before.

If Comcast is going to come to me and say "Come back! You can buy individual tiers of programs, but we'll put the ones you really want in groups with other garbage just like before, and you'll have to pay equipment rental fees, agree to a contract, and end up paying us approximately what you were before", then no thanks.

Re:Makes sense actually

[Attila Dimedici]

Let me see if I get this right, those channels which pay the cable company to be on basic cable will be on basic cable, but those that charge the cable company will cost me extra? I am not sure how this is not exactly what I am asking for. There are a lot of channels in my package that I am not interested in, but if they have no impact on the cost of the package, I don't care.
Right now there are two channels I would like to get, but in order to do so, I have to pay for the next tier up from the one I have and they are not worth it. If I could get only the channels I want out of the tier I am in, plus those two by paying only for those channels, I would be happy. I have no problem with the cable company throwing in those channels that pay them to be included. I probably won't watch them, but as long as the cable company is not charging me to include those channels, I don't care and there are a few channels that I am not interested enough in to pay for that I might watch occasionally.

Re:Makes sense actually

[h4rr4r]

Are those even available to people without cable?
I know the espn thing requires you to have a participating ISP.

Re:Makes sense actually

[Amouth]

my cable company raised rates so that basic cable + basic internet was 125$ a month.. i told them they could keep the bill and the service since they seem to value it more than i do.

Re:Makes sense actually

[h4rr4r]

You are not counting people who dropped cable years ago due to cost and my rejoin if the cost structure was reasonable.

I would pay the full $45/month on one condition they will never grant, no commercials on paid for channels. This is the same reason I will not pay for Hulu. Amazon and Netflix seem to be happy to get my money.

Re:Makes sense actually

[GIL_Dude]

Well, that would work except for the fact that ESPN, Disney, etc. charge the cable company per person who has access to the channel. So, let's say you have that bundle for $50 a month and it includes Disney and ESPN. If I don't subscribe to those in the new model, the cable company no longer has to pay for them (to ESPN and Disney). Since they don't have to pay for them, they can be solvent just fine getting something less than $50 from me for the channels I do subscribe to. Of course this only works for the channels that the cable people have to pay for. However, that seems to be a lot of them these days.

Re:Makes sense actually

[AvitarX]

Don't these sports channels have ads?

This sounds like a negotiating ploy.

Re:Makes sense actually

[Unequivocal]

This is true for quantity as well. If I watch very little, I am subsidizing those who watch a lot with the all you can eat cable models. Netflix and Hulu are basically the same models - Netflix $8/month all the movies you can watch. Amazon movie rentals reward less viewing - you rent by title.. So this subsidy factor goes in a lot of directions.

Not sure if the analogy holds, but with internet service, Australia has had pay per byte models which some analysts argued (inside the FCC when I worked there) that this retarded AU's investments in internet infrastructure. US isn't that great for infrastructure either so I'm not sure I buy the argument, but the idea is that "all you can eat" is pro-innovation and development, and "pay as you go" offers more consumer choices, and lower average costs (at the cost of longer term stagnation in capital formation and investment in new services).

Re:Makes sense actually

[babblefrog]

If they would pass on something like the actual cost per channel, plus overhead and profit, we consumers could make better choices about which channels are actually worth it. Channels that charge too much for their programming would be obvious. Those with higher costs and less value would find themselves with fewer viewers. This sounds like a win to me!

Re:Makes sense actually

[jmorris42]

Exactly right. Amazing that even if the idjit submitter couldn't figure it out one would have hoped the /. editor could be bright enough. If the channel is paying the cable company to carry them it is subsidizing my bill so bring on the shopping channels.

I just want to be rid of ESPN & Co. I read somewhere that just ESPN1 costs most cable systems about $3/mo. Their cost, not what ends up on our cable bill. Don't think I have ever watched a full program on that channel. There are quite a few channels that have slowly crept up their prices to over $1/mo and still have commercials. That is utter bullcrap. If they made them ala cart most would get unchecked from most households and they would either go away, become free to view and survive on the ad revenues or go commercial free (real pay cable) and try to be worth the fee.

Even worse is the stupid tiers that were required in the days of physical filter traps but in a digital world is just subsidizing politically connected channels like Current from people wanting the couple of useful channels in the same tier.

And once freed of the perverse incentive of the revenue stream from cable operators more ad supported channels would feel more confident in offering their wares via streaming and other online outlets.

Re:Makes sense actually

[ByOhTek]

Guess I'm luck to have one of the few decent cable companies in the US.

Re:Makes sense actually

[hjf]

Well, you can try asking if they can lower the price. I live in Argentina, and this happened to me:

ISPs have "promos" where you sign up and for the first 6-12 months the price is, say, $15. After that period it raises to $30. Since there are 3 ISPs in the area, I thought, well, I can play the game too, and periodically switch ISPs. So I called my ISP and told them I wanted to cancel. They told me they can renew the promo and be on the 6-months-half-price again. WTF? Yep. I need to remember to call every 6-12 months and renew.

I also have accounts with two different banks. Since banks here charge you for basically everything, I was going to cancel one of the accounts I wasn't using. About $30 a month that gave me: credit card, debit card, loan (up to USD15k which is a lot translated to Argentine Pesos), savigs acct, checking acct and all. I called and said I didn't want the service anymore because I wasn't really using it and didn't want to spend $30 a month for nothing. Guess what? They gave me a 50% discount for the next 6 months. And they told me to call again in the next 6 months to renew my discount so I could keep "saving".

I had no idea you could do that, much less in a country where you're supposed to pay 30% interest rate in your credit card, $5 for "billing charge", and $100 per year for your "credit card renewal".

Re:Makes sense actually

[DragonTHC]

here here! screw those dumb jocks!

Re:Makes sense actually

[icebraining]

ISPs have "promos" where you sign up and for the first 6-12 months the price is, say, $15. After that period it raises to $30. Since there are 3 ISPs in the area, I thought, well, I can play the game too, and periodically switch ISPs. So I called my ISP and told them I wanted to cancel. They told me they can renew the promo and be on the 6-months-half-price again. WTF? Yep. I need to remember to call every 6-12 months and renew.

Here in Portugal you can do that too, but they usually try to "lock you in" a 2 years contract to get the promotion.

Re:Makes sense actually

[maxume]

It seems to me that price cuts might be one of their bigger motivations. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the bigger channel bundles end up pricing quite a few people right out of cable altogether. Some of those people might be interested in a cheaper package.

Re:Makes sense actually

[Miseph]

"mostly all for trucks and beer anyway"

I wish. They're mostly for *crappy* trucks and *crappy* beer. If they were ads for quality products I might seriously consider purchasing it would be far less annoying.

Re:Makes sense actually

[jedidiah]

No. ESPN in particular is taking larger than it's fair share from cable operators.

Then we have bundles forced on the cable operators.

First the cable companies need to be able to get ala carte pricing from upstream. They're big companies that can presumably take care of themselves and negotiate and even they can't manage to avoid dreck foisted upon them against their will.

Of course the real problem here is the idea that ANY ad supported channel should be able to force fees from cable operators. This is where the basic price disconnect begins. Cable operators should be able to rebroadcast any ad supported channel without needing to get permission or paying for it. The whole point up with putting up with those stupid things (ads) is the idea that they pay for the content.

If they don't, then why bother?

Re:Makes sense actually

[jedidiah]

If ESPN really needs to be more like HBO rather than leeching off of the rest of us, then they should "man up".

Re:Makes sense actually

[Cutting_Crew]

.... Most people do not care about sports at all....

this really isn't true. do you know how many people watch college football on saturdays that arent in the stands counting in the thousands upon thousands?

Re:Makes sense actually

[Anonymous Coward]

One thing you can be sure of - cable companies aren't going to make changes that get them less money overall.

Well, it's not their choice to make - it's a unilateral decision made by us, the consumers. We don't have to keep paying.

Personally, I am never going back to to pay $1000 for cable again, as this was 90% crap anyway. Internet PPV is the future.

Re:Makes sense actually

[Rolgar]

But revenue is not all profit. The cable company pays the sports channels for each subscriber that receives the channel. The cable company builds a tier and sets a price for it that includes the amounts that each channel demands. I don't know if the cable company's cost for the tier is the same as what you pay for the tier, or if the cable company adds in a little extra, but I suspect there isn't much profit there. If all of the Fox Sports, ESPNs, and the college sports networks are on a tier that costs the customer $50, I suspect that's about what the sports channels are demanding. If so, then the cable company doesn't really care if you get it or not because they don't lose any profits from you dropping that tier, their profits would all come from the amount you pay for basic service.

The tiers then exist to keep customers happy, allowing those that would not buy any service without the premium content to get it, while others pay for the basic package. The cable company has every reason to give customers a low priced option for the basic package, because every additional basic subscriber is almost entirely profit because the basic channels are are nearly free, but the company still collects the fee for your basic service, which is why the cable company can bundle them for the basic price of service.

If they are going to offer a la carte, I would like the smallest tiers possible. Besides basic, the only channels I'm really interested in are ESPN and my regional Fox Sports affiliate. Those are the only two channels that offer games I'm interested that aren't on my basic service tier. Going forward, I might be interested in an educational tier since our children are entering the age were they might benefit from access to the History channel as well as others. As it currently works, I don't think they offer tiers of completely similar programming because the companies that own the channels demand that all of their channels be on the same tier even if they don't really have the same market focus (ESPN, ABC and Disney Channel). Why do the companies do this? They only have to get you to want one of the channels, and they force you to pay for all of them. The cable company is just the middle guy who signs the contract that allows them to carry the service, then advertises you to buy the product.

I find it ridiculous that every time a channel threatens to pull service from a cable station, the channel demands that customers call the cable company and tell them to negotiate with the company, which gives the channel negotiating leverage to ask for more money in programming fees, which will eventually be passed on to the customer in the next annual price increase. Every freaking time, I'm rooting for the cable company to hold out, starve the channel of viewers, so they'll eventually cave in without getting more money to the cable company to drive up the next round of price increases. But the channels always wait until right before some big game that will be on their channel (a playoff game involving a local team, or the NCAA tournament), then threaten to pull their programming so customers will frantically blame the cable company not realizing they are asking to pay more for their cable bill.

Re:Makes sense actually

[jackbird]

ESPN is Disney/ABC. Disney strongarms cable operators into carrying a bunch of channels they may or may not want by requiring ESPN as a prerequisite for buying any of them. This pushes up Disney's viewership numbers and hence their advertising prices.

Re:Makes sense actually

[Culture20]

But the result is that I get to pay $50 for Basic Cable Hookup which gives me 204 home shopping channels for "Free", then I get to pay a la carte for local stations or anything with actual content.

Re:Makes sense actually

[Ossifer]

You don't understand -- those junk channels serve to *lower* the cost of basic cable.

If you really concerned about them over-exciting photons in your copper, then you'll have to pay *more* to not get them.

Think of it this way: there will be one basic cost, that is pretty much without respect to content--you'll get all the channels the cable company is forced to carry, plus all the ones they are paid to carry. Anything else will cost more, if you choose to get it. These choices will not usually be single channels, but packages: for $x.xx per month you can get the ESPN suite of like 8 ESPN channels, etc.

Re:Makes sense actually

[Nikker]

I'm not really sure where you're coming from here but if you are trying to promote some sort of 'balance' into all of this then why not just scrap using the copper for Internet/TV and use it strictly for Internet? Everyone from pseudo Internet YouTube sensations to HBO can charge you as they like from micro payments to thousands of dollars per episode if they see fit. The cable companies will save boat loads of money since they no longer have to hire expensive sales staff and negotiators to watch out for the lowly consumer as well as their bottom line. Even if they charge slightly more for a unlimited 20Mb/s connection I could then easily get a VOIP account plus TV channels for far less than paying each one separately. Since it apparently costs these providers so much to maintain this infrastructure as evident from my $10+ monthly 'system access' charges for each service both of us should be happier at the end of the day.

Re:Makes sense actually

[hjf]

Yes, I thought that too, in fact I think the promo is half of the "lock in" thing, that's why I was surprised when I called.

Even so, apparently the "early cancellation fee" is about 1 month service. So if you cancel and pay the fee, and re-subscribe for another 6-12 months at half price, it makes sense.

Re:Makes sense actually

[NabisOne]

Nope. I tried this on Monday night. I have Time Warner for internet service, but no cable service and when I tried to log into the WatchESPN website, it gave me an error stating I didn't have the correct cable TV package to access ESPN online. So you have to have a cable TV package with ESPN to use the online service.

Re:Makes sense actually

[InsertCleverUsername]

For those of us who don't like sport and don't like subsidizing those who do, this is a win. For a sport fan, it's a good way to part him from his money.

It's a great start. For a follow-up, how about we stop committing my tax dollars to fund the rebuilding of privately-owned sports stadiums?

Re:Makes sense actually

[blackraven14250]

ESPN would then raise their price to compensate for the lost income. If they lose 4/5ths of the people that had access, they need to raise their price quite a bit for them to stay solvent. $3 per subscriber now, but with 1/5th the number of subscribers they'd ask $15.

Re:Makes sense actually

[Coren22]

I think you are misunderstanding him. He said he has no problem getting the channels that pay to be there, it is the ones he pays for, but does not watch he wants to get rid of. There should be a cable package that has local channels and all those "free" channels, that is practically free, but there is not.

Re:Makes sense actually

[Coren22]

Totally offtopic, but please go to Dishnetwork.com, the bottom right box, and read the box...

Free HD for life
Free HD DVR* ...
* - DVR costs $6/mo

WTF, since when can you call something free if it costs $6 a mo?

Re:Makes sense actually

[quarterbuck]

Economic models show that in a competitive market, prices fall until the marginal producer is making zero profits. Cable TV is not very competitive (barriers to entry in the form of laying cables etc) but still it is not a pure monopoly either. Even in such a market, prices can be raised by bundling. Breaking the bundles are more likely than not to decrease prices for individual customers.
The paper specifically uses Cable TV as an information good and shows how bundling works http://ebusiness.mit.edu/erik/Bundling%20Competition685305.pdf

Re:Makes sense actually

[spire3661]

I get ESPN3 on my Xbox without having a TV package at all. But like someone said below the streaming libraries on the ISP site generally require you ot have TV flagged on your account.

Re:Makes sense actually

[Ossifer]

I already explained this.

Re:Makes sense actually

[ral315]

Really. As bad as SyFy is, at least it does show at least some legitimate sci-fi. If not only ad revenue, but subscriber revenue was based on viewership, you'd better believe they'd drop sci-fi entirely to cater to the lowest common denominator.

Re:Makes sense actually

[Toonol]

I'd like to see some stats. How many men watch, say, at least one sporting event per week? I have no idea if that's 60% or 10%. I watch one per year, on a particularly busy year, but this isn't the sort of thing you can judge by anecdotal evidence.

Re:Makes sense actually

[Surt]

I have the same feeling on the non-sports side. I have a package that includes something like two dozen sports channels, none of which I have ever watched. I'm leaving Comcast until they can give me the 5 channels I care about at a decent price.

Re:Makes sense actually

[Surt]

All of the above work in the USA too. My bank tried to charge me a fee for an overdraft on my checking which was 'linked' to a savings account. I said: sorry, when I signed up for that, the guy who sold me on it seemed to be saying such a situation would be covered by an automatic transfer. I'll be taking my money to another bank. What do you know, overdraft fee erased.

You really just have to know when you have all the leverage in a situation. If you're a credit card user who uses it for convenience rather than credit, or dealing with your bank in any way, or dealing with a tv provider you don't really need you have complete walk-away power, and that is an enormous advantage in negotiations.

Re:Makes sense actually

[Cutting_Crew]

well all i know is is that i turn in the tv on saturdays this time of the year and every stadium or most stadiums are packed out with 30K - 100K fans across the spectrum, not to mention all of their fans watching on television. Saturday night college football games are religiously followed. i dont have stats on me I am just going by what i observe. I did just look up tv ratings for one specific game,. LSU vs Oregon on Sept 4th

(in Millions)
8 PM, 6.45
9 PM, 8.07
10 PM, 6.73

and this is just one game, probably one of the more popular, but still those numbers are more than 2 of the regular programming shows on at 8 and always the top rankings throughout saturday night.

Re:Makes sense actually

[hjf]

Same thing with AMEX. When I signed up I was in electronic billing, my e-mail address was was wrong. So they almost canceled my card and lowered my limit. So I told them "oh.. well, then I don't want your card anymore. put me through with someone who can cancel it". 30 seconds of music later, my credit limit was back.

My current bank has an interesting thing: my savings and checking accounts have the same number, but that's not how it works in the bank system. So it's actually a checking account "front end", which is always on zero balance, and the bank automatically transfers from/to the "back end" savings account, which gives me interest. A useless 0.25% annual interest rate. But interest anyway.

Re:Makes sense actually

[thomst]

Rolgar stated:

The tiers then exist to keep customers happy, allowing those that would not buy any service without the premium content to get it, while others pay for the basic package. As it currently works, I don't think they offer tiers of completely similar programming because the companies that own the channels demand that all of their channels be on the same tier even if they don't really have the same market focus (ESPN, ABC and Disney Channel). Why do the companies do this? They only have to get you to want one of the channels, and they force you to pay for all of them. The cable company is just the middle guy who signs the contract that allows them to carry the service, then advertises you to buy the product.

Wrong.

When I inquired about satellite service, some years back, I was told that, in order to get the Discovery channels (Discovery Channel, History Channel, Discovery Science, etc.), I would have to subscribe to their Tier 1 package - which included a raft of sports channels in which I had zero interest. In order to add the National Geographic Channel, I would also have to subscribe to their Tier 2 package (for a total additional cost for both tiers of around $75/month), which included yet another group of sports channels, in which I had less than zero interest. And, of course, the sales rep added that I could also subscribe to additional premium sports packages, as well - plus HBO, Showtime, etc. - each of which would add their own, separate charges to my bill.

Note that Discovery Channel is not owned by ESPN, ABC, Disney, or any other third party. It's owned by Discovery, Inc. - full stop. National Geographic Channel, likewise, is not owned by any third party. It's a wholly-owned subsidiary of the National Geographic Society.

The reason the satellite (and cable) provders bundle these prestige channels with sports programming is that they cost money, while the sports channels make money. So bundling them with sports channels forces sports fans to subsidize programming for those of us who have no interest in sports.

At any rate, that's the rationale the satellite and cable operators use.

The reality, of course, is that bundling also forces those of us who have zero interest in sports to subsidize you sports fans, because the NatGeo Channel, for instance, costs the satellite/cable operator around $6/month/subscriber (and I haven't checked, but I suspect the entire network of Discovery channels costs them somewhat less, since it's bundled with the less-expensive Tier 1 programming). And an a la carte (i.e. - unbundled) model would bring my cost down to a level I could accept, whereas having to spend nearly $100/month to receive the programming in which I'm actually interested was a complete dealbreaker.

So now I use bittorrent to watch the programs that interest me - broadcast, as well as satellite/cable-only - and I'm perfectly satisfied with that arrangement. I pay my cable company only for Internet service, and I wind up watching far less TV than I would have done had I subscribed to their programming, as well. It costs me far less per month, and, as a very welcome bonus, I don't have to put up with those endless, annoying, repeitive commercials, as well. I win, and the satellite/cable industry loses - all strictly because those assholes refuse to give their customers what they actually want .

Re:Makes sense actually

[flimflammer]

Time Warner Cable in California has done this for me so many times I don't recall ever paying more than the intro price in years.

They've done it for my phone, they've done it for my internet, and they've done it for my premium channels/base package I had gotten. All I gotta say is I'm looking to drop everything and they offer to keep me on the lower rates. Something tells me they're actually pricing their service at the low rates all the time so they don't mind keeping people on it, but those not smart enough to call are essentially just paying more for the same thing.

They're the only cable company in my region too with their guaranteed monopoly.

Re:Makes sense actually

[laura20]

In summary, the consumers are paying pretty similar prices as before, but are getting far less channels. If a movie comes up on AMC that one of us wants to watch, none of us can.

Yah, this is what I expect to happen. The cable channels know that you are willing to say, pay $50 a month for cable. If that's just because of four channels, then that's what those channels are worth and that's the price they will extract. With bonus extra profit because now they don't have to give you anything else. Some individuals will be better off, some worse, since cable won't be able to charge users individual rates, but overall customers will end up paying the same for fewer channels.

Re:Makes sense actually

[flimflammer]

I'm assuming the trickery here is that the DVR box costs $6/mo, but they'll bump it up to an HD DVR box for free.

Re:Makes sense actually

[dgatwood]

Depends on whether you really mean viewers or simply the number of people who are willing to pay extra money for the ability to view it when they want to do so.

If SyFy (new name; ugh) were provided a la carte, the sorts of folks who watch pro wrestling would probably not want to pay the extra fee for a sci-fi channel just to watch one wrestling show per week, which means that it would go back to being a sci-fi channel instead of burning some of its hours on unrelated mass-market crap.

I don't think it would fold unless they found that they couldn't make enough money off of ad revenue and subscriber revenue to cover their costs, which doesn't seem very likely to me. What seems likely is that the number of subscribers would drop to about half its current levels, and the per-subscriber cost would double, and they would break even, while going back to being a channel that sci-fi fans actually want to watch instead of one that they cringe about.

Re:Makes sense actually

[Obfuscant]

WTF, since when can you call something free if it costs $6 a mo?

When you are Charlie Ergen and the customer is something that keeps sending you money and not something that needs careful tending and support.

Oh, God, don't get me started on Disk network ... I walked away ten years ago after they pulled the "free DVR ... $5/month" stunt with me and I've never regretted it.

Re:Makes sense actually

[dgatwood]

So what this tells us is that out of 115 million TV households, about 5.3 million households (average; 7.751 million viewers on average; source: ESPN MediaZone) were watching sports that day. That's only 4.6% of TV households, and probably somewhere around 15-20% of all the TVs that were turned on at the time (though that's just a guess based on typical Saturday evening viewing numbers; I can't find the share numbers, which are the statistic you actually need for these purposes).

In truth, I think the total number of folks who watch sports is a bit higher than that—somewhere around 25-30% of TV viewers who watch sports at least occasionally, with probably 10-15% who watch sports on a regular basis (daily or weekly). It's definitely nowhere near half, and it isn't dramatically more popular than any other major category of content (e.g. drama, news, etc.).

Re:Makes sense actually

[CCarrot]

Personally, I am never going back to to pay $1000 for cable again, as this was 90% crap anyway. Internet PPV is the future.

8S

I am sincerely hoping you accidentally added an extra zero, there. Otherwise...ouch. Just ouch.

Re:Makes sense actually

[Cutting_Crew]

does espn count those numbers from tv + espn3(formerly espn360)????

Re:Makes sense actually

[Obfuscant]

ESPN would then raise their price to compensate for the lost income. If they lose 4/5ths of the people that had access, they need to raise their price quite a bit for them to stay solvent. $3 per subscriber now, but with 1/5th the number of subscribers they'd ask $15.

Two problems with that analysis. 1. If they raise the price too much, more people will drop and they'll wind up losing money anyway. That old joke about how someone makes up for selling a product at a loss ("volume, volume, volume") doesn't apply.

2. With a more accurate viewer count, they can raise their ad prices to cover the lost revenue. I.e., if they are part of a large package that, say, 1 000 000 people on a system pay for, they have to charge less than they could to advertisers because the viewers are less qualified. If they are ala carte and 100 000 people buy the channel, then they are reasonably sure that 100 000 people watch at least some of the programs and can charge more for more eyeballs. "One million have access to" is less valuable than "one hundred thousand pay extra to receive".

Re:Makes sense actually

[billcopc]

Even after the so-called "triple-play discount", our bill was around $250 here for cable TV, internet and home phone. I hardly watch any TV, and everyone calls my cell. So one day, a much admired DSL ISP expanded into the cable business in my area. We cancelled everything and went for a $55 uncapped internet service, and a $20 VoIP phone for the stupid apartment intercom.

What we really care to watch, we either download or stream from Hulu or the like. I'm quite content to watch the hockey games at the pub or a friend's place.

My point is: it's real easy to get by without cable TV. If they priced it all more reasonably, I think laziness would have won and I'd still be with the other company, and I'd still get my hockey fix twice a week. For the extra $190 though, 15 hours of sports ain't worth it when I can spend less than that, at the pub, on beer and hang out with the lads.

Cable prices need to be slashed or we will start seeing more quitters like myself, when you can get almost any non-live shows on the internet for the terrifying sum of $0 dollars.

Re:Makes sense actually

[Quirkz]

Maybe they meant per year? It certainly adds up.

Re:Makes sense actually

[billcopc]

useless 0.25% annual interest rate

I don't know how things work in your neck of the woods, but up here in Canadia we call that a plain old chequing account. They come with the token 0.25% interest rate. What we call a savings account will carry a higher interest rate (maybe 1.50% these days), and rather steep per-transaction fees to discourage you from moving too much money around. The chequing account usually has flat fee tiers for 10-20-unltd transactions.

Re:Makes sense actually

[unitron]

Guess I'm luck to have one of the few decent cable companies in the US.

That sentence makes your previous mention of having a choice other than Time-Warner redundant.

Re:Makes sense actually

[geekoid]

Man paying for something he didn't use stops paying for it, saves money. news at 11.

Re:Makes sense actually

[CCarrot]

I already explained this.

Sort of. You are describing how the new method will be an improvement over the old method. GGP is describing how the old method doesn't meet his needs by globbing the two channels he actually wants in with a bunch of other channels in a 'tier'-based structure, and he's hoping the new structure will meet his needs.

Think of it like this: music store that has a membership fee, which gets you some cool local and indie band music for 'free' with your membership, either because they have to carry them, or get the content for free from the bands. Then they only offer other, more popular music in 'packages', (e.g., 'top pop' package, which includes bieber, lady gaga, rihanna, maroon 5, kelly clarkson and michael bubbles). If you're only interested in one or two of those artists, why would you ever buy the 'package', unless that's the only way they are offered? The music store might pay for some of them, and get paid to carry others, but why should that matter to you? You just want what you want, with the largest possible signal to noise ratio.

This is basically what cable companies do now, and after RTFA, it sounds like that's pretty much what they will still be doing, only with less offered per package and more packages. It *might* improve granularity somewhat, it really depends on package pricing and what they decide to bundle together, same as it always has. One can only hope that if they do slice out the most popular channels and place them in a semi-premium 'a la carte' subscription mode, they will also drop the pricing on the mangled remains left behind...but probably not. I do wonder how they're going to get people to buy their 'other channel' bundles, though, if they strip out the top performers and sell them separately...

The best thing about this whole deal might be that you won't have to subsidize the Golf channel to watch TSN...*crosses fingers*

Re:Makes sense actually

[blackraven14250]

That's a failed assessment. Advertisers won't accept a higher ad price for the same viewership - they don't have a viewer count by number of subscribers (which would be incorrect), but by Nielson ratings, which are derived directly from viewing habits already, and takes into account what times of day are spent watching which programs - which subscriber count can't even approximate. The change in subscribers wouldn't affect their ratings, and thus ads would be the same rate as before. If ESPN attempted to charge more for the same ad spots, they may not even be able to get enough ads to cover all of their spots anymore.

Re:Makes sense actually

[unitron]

You don't understand -- those junk channels serve to *lower* the cost of basic cable...

Do you have a way of knowing that for certain? Since cable companies usually have geographic monopolies, I figured what those channels pay just goes to pay for the cable company executives' cocaine and hookers.

Time-Warner keeps removing analog channels (that aren't shopping or preaching, but rather the kind for which they would have to pay) from the extended basic package, but they aren't reducing the price any.

Re:Makes sense actually

[unitron]

...Of course the real problem here is the idea that ANY ad supported channel should be able to force fees from cable operators....

That!

Re:Makes sense actually

[unitron]

So we can't get ala carte because the cable companies can't get ala carte from the "content providers"?

Sounds about right. Kind of like when record companies forced bands to include songs on their albums because the company owned the publishing on them and when the band's own songs drove album sales the record company got extra money for free.

Everytime someone talks about the free market and products that compete on their own merits I just want to slap them.

Re:Makes sense actually

[Obfuscant]

That's a failed assessment. Advertisers won't accept a higher ad price for the same viewership

It's not the same viewership. The current system has "one million have access to". Ala carte would result in "one hundred thousand pay extra for". That is a significant difference in both numbers of viewers and quality of same.

The change in subscribers wouldn't affect their ratings,

It won't change the "Neilson numbers", but it certainly will change the demographics and desirability of those viewers. People who pay extra to watch a channel are more likely to be interested in that programming and content, more likely to watch that programming and content, and have disposable income.

Yes, the actual Nielson ratings may go down due to the loss of "viewers" who have parked the telly on ESPN as background for a party or to keep the kids entertained, but those who pay for the channel have just pre-qualified themselves for whatever marketing takes place thereon.

It's the same kind of difference between someone setting up a street corner booth to sell fishing supplies and setting one up at a sporting goods show. The former will get him more people walking by, but they are all unqualified (in marketing terms) and many have no interest at all in what he's selling. At the show, there may be many fewer people, but they are all prequals because they have paid money to come to the show and that means a higher probability that the passersby will have an active interest in what he's hawking. The higher cost of being a vendor at the show is more than offset by the higher rate of sales, and that's why the show operator can charge more for booth space there than could be charged for a sidewalk space.

Re:Makes sense actually

[Brucelet]

Which is what company, if I may?

Re:Makes sense actually

[Dthief]

maybe he meant per year?

Re:Makes sense actually

[mgblst]

I will always have a problem with paying for TV, this seems like the most stupid thing I have ever heard of. Why would anyone do that? What a waste of a life.

Re:Makes sense actually

[swalve]

The odd thing about cable is that the ratio of content to advertising is actually over-square on most channels- there is more advertising than content. If they can't make enough money with all those ads, they should just give up. Of course, the other oddity is that the advertising is all that very cheap, infomercial kind of stuff. I don't know why they don't just charge more to the advertisers.

Re:Makes sense actually

[travbrad]

Those triple play things are largely a big scam anyway. They lure you in with a great 6month rate, but after that you save NOTHING. After the 6 months you pay exactly what you would for each service individually (I know from experience). They know enough people will just keep the services to easily cover that discounted introductory price.

P.S. I called Comcast and pointed this out to them, and mentioned switching to DSL. Suddenly they decided they should charge me lower rates. ;)

Re:Makes sense actually

[AvitarX]

My guess is that comcast thinks they are over-paying

If they pass on the cost to customers, the channels have a lot to lose (in ads), if they don't, the channel should be premium.

Keep all the free and pay the cable company channels, and let me subscribe. Someone alleged that espn is 10/month/customer, I would happily take a $5 discount to not have it (actually I do very basic (networks and a local college) cable and internet now (the tv only because its $7 more a month and the antenna cuts out when the tension is highest). Id pay $5 for comedy central, and $3 each for FX and AMC, I'dstill be $20 under extended basic plus internet.
My guess though is that the channels that cost money will get cheaper for comcast, and no savings passed on, with the idea of a la carte being a negotiating tactic.

Re:Makes sense actually

[Macgrrl]

Don't you mean: "Aren't these sports programs ads?" Given the amount of branding the average sports person wears during competition.

Re:Makes sense actually

[Amouth]

paying for TV in it's current form is stupid.. paying for content isn't.. the actual shows - that is entertainment. originally advertisements where what funded the shows and the broadcast towers. When cable came along you had to pay for it, but there where no commercials (because well you where paying for it). Then they got greedy. Now people pay for cable so they can watch what someone else says they should like - and have to deal with a lot of very obnoxious adds. And they are paying a fortune wile the media companies rake it in passing the money from consumers and advertisers around to each other and them selves.

The wife and I subscribe to Netflix so we can have some quick and easy entertainment - no commercials and no fuss.. (and a fair bill for it). If they at any point wanted to add commercials the service better be free (aka like Hulu) or i will walk away.

Re:Makes sense actually

[zippy590]

The price of basic cable may not fall as much as you would like, but it may not go up as much as it would otherwise. The "bait and switch" part of the argument seems to be unclear to me. The source article was kind of fuzzy. It seems that what the cable companies are proposing is mini-bundling. A soccer fan that buys ESPN will get all the ESPN channels, even if the Ottawa curling finals are of no interest. Even this kind of unbundling is good however because it places programming decisions back on ESPN. Which now because it is a separate charge on the your cable bill has to explicitly balance between programming cost and viewer ship to keep customers.

Re:Makes sense actually

[CCarrot]

Ahh, that must be it! I didn't notice there were no units stated, so I was thinking monthly...that's a bit better!

$83 a month is still pretty steep, though...

Re:Makes sense actually

[ByOhTek]

I have a friend who's only other choice than TW is Comcast, so, no, not redundant.

Re:Makes sense actually

[mallyn]

Can we see a point at which Netflix would overcome cable? Everything on demand, including sports? If I were Netflix, I would try to buy out all of the sports contracts and offer *all* sports via streaming.

Re:Makes sense actually

[RatherBeAnonymous]

It works with banks, but not with Time Warner. Two months ago my wife called to try to negotiate a lower price. Over the past year they have repeatedly cut channels and raise prices. They steadfastly refused. They apparently would rather loose a customer than cave to demands. The best they would do was to reduce us to broadcast channel package at $17 per month.

Re:Makes sense actually

[RatherBeAnonymous]

I'm probably being naive, but I'd think that a la cart pricing would be a huge negotiating benefit to the cable companies. When the PDGG channel (Paint Drying and Grass Growing) calls up and demands triple their current fees. The cable companies could retort with something akin to "Polling data indicates that 80% of consumers are only willing to spend 25 cents for your channel. We ain't gonna pay triple for your crappy content."

Re:Makes sense actually

[RatherBeAnonymous]

I don't disagree with you. But the same logic applies to the cable operators. They sell their own advertising. Depending on your local population size, they could make cable TV free and ad supported. Broadcast networks have done this for decades. Sure, they should charge the customer for installation and equipment, but the monthly service should be free.

Re:Makes sense actually

[dgatwood]

Don't know, but the numbers I've seen for computer users who watch sports are generally in about the 20% range, too.

Re:Makes sense actually

[Do You Smell That]

Note that Discovery Channel is not owned by ESPN, ABC, Disney, or any other third party. It's owned by Discovery, Inc. - full stop. National Geographic Channel, likewise, is not owned by any third party. It's a wholly-owned subsidiary of the National Geographic Society.

Right about Discovery, wrong about Nat Geo.

Last I checked, it was owned by News Corp... (well, most of it anyway)

http://www.neatorama.com/2008/07/07/who-owns-what-on-television/ (Somewhat dated)
http://www.cjr.org/resources/?c=newscorp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Geographic_Channel

Re:Makes sense actually

[s73v3r]

And you completely fucking missed the point of my comment. He doesn't want to subsidize sports. Ok. However, the people who do watch sports are also subsidizing his watching of indie films on IFC, or Mythbusters on Discovery.

Re:Makes sense actually

[mattack2]

I don't pay for something "someone else says [I] should like", and I skip the ads with my TiVo.

Yes, I wish there were commercial-free options (which I would pay more for), but I am paying for the content. I can't get the "cable" shows at the same price elsewhere, or else I would.

Even for the network shows, I would have to rotate an antenna in different directions for different networks -- so paying for the overall better signal on cable is worth it. Do I wish it were a lot less? Yeah.

Conversely, I can't get DSL, I would gladly pay MUCH less for DSL instead of a cable modem, even though I know it's a lot slower.

Re:Makes sense actually

[mattack2]

I also have accounts with two different banks. Since banks here charge you for basically everything, I was going to cancel one of the accounts I wasn't using. About $30 a month that gave me: credit card, debit card, loan (up to USD15k which is a lot translated to Argentine Pesos), savigs acct, checking acct and all. I called and said I didn't want the service anymore because I wasn't really using it and didn't want to spend $30 a month for nothing. Guess what? They gave me a 50% discount for the next 6 months. And they told me to call again in the next 6 months to renew my discount so I could keep "saving".

So you're still paying $15/month for something you're basically not using.

Re:Makes sense actually

[mattack2]

The odd thing about cable is that the ratio of content to advertising is actually over-square on most channels- there is more advertising than content.

[citation needed]

That's ridiculous, unless you're trying to make some kind of joke about the "content" on some of the channels.

Cable channels I watch seem to actually have a slightly higher rate of commercials than the broadcast networks, but the worst I've seen is on some MTV shows (maybe Real World), where it was something like 40 minutes show/hour (as opposed to 42 or so for network TV). Yes, I'm counting credits, "previously on", etc., since that is actually non-commercial time, even though it's stuff you FF through.

Re:Makes sense actually

[thomst]

Note that Discovery Channel is not owned by ESPN, ABC, Disney, or any other third party. It's owned by Discovery, Inc. - full stop. National Geographic Channel, likewise, is not owned by any third party. It's a wholly-owned subsidiary of the National Geographic Society.

Right about Discovery, wrong about Nat Geo.

Last I checked, it was owned by News Corp... (well, most of it anyway)

I sit partially corrected.

Re:Makes sense actually

[unitron]

If you have a decent cable company, then it goes without saying that you have a choice other than Time-Warner.

Re:Makes sense actually

[swalve]

Get a stopwatch and check out some of the channels, you'll be surprised. But yes, I am counting "previously on" as advertising, since that is what it is.

Re:Makes sense actually

[hjf]

You might want to ask this guy: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2450702&cid=37545634

Re:Makes sense actually

[hjf]

It's complicated.

The thing is, this bank offers "discount" at a nearby supermarket (Carrefour does it with HSBC and Santander, Walmart does it with Standard Bank, and so on). When I first subscribed, the 15% discount was nice, but it had a maximum of $30 a month. Since that supermarket is where I shop anyway, and the cost was $10 a month, it was a good deal. Fast forward 4 years: the maximum discount is still $30 but account cost is $30, so I was just barely covering the maint. cost. I thought of downgrading to a basic account ($12 a month and it also has supermarket discount). But for $3 extra I get to keep my credit card...
"I wasn't using" the account as much as before because I just went to a smaller local supermarket chain that has decent prices... Carrefour is big and has lots of variety, but their prices are consistently higher than the local supermarket (how would they give you a 15% "discount" if they didn't raise their prices accordiingly?). The local supermarket is only "good enough".

Don't see the problem.

[wiredog]

whereas pricey sports channels (which cable companies have to pay for) will become HBO-like premium services.

So why is this an issue? If I don't want to watch ESPN 9, why should I pay for it?

Re:Don't see the problem.

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Heh. Because you won't end up paying less.

Re:Don't see the problem.

[John Napkintosh]

You shouldn't. However, to contrast with my other posts, larger channels and networks with enough sway to do such things have actively resisted being placed in an a la carte situation in order to make sure that people who don't want it are still paying for it. "You either put is in the standard package that reaches 95% of your subscribers or you don't get us at all".

So I'm not sure how this idea will actually go anywhere.

Re:Don't see the problem.

[bill_mcgonigle]

So why is this an issue? If I don't want to watch ESPN 9, why should I pay for it?

Because the people who do watch ESPN-9 want you to help them pay for it.

Re:Don't see the problem.

[alen]

if you RTFA you'll see that ESPN aka Disney is paying a huge premium to carry the sports games and will ask the cable operators for higher fees. of course they are trying to hide them by making the cable operators carry ESPN as part of the basic subscription

there is no way comcast or TW can keep paying higher fees and charge you the same amount of money

Re:Don't see the problem.

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Haha! Have you ever been a cable subscriber?

Re:Don't see the problem.

[s73v3r]

You're not going to pay less. And I could say the same damn thing for whatever channel you don't like to watch. And if you go to the whole "Then just let everyone pay for what they watch" thing, then I'm going to submit that what they watch is popular enough to survive on it's own. Odds are what you watch isn't.

Re:Don't see the problem.

[s73v3r]

And you want the people who do watch ESPN-9 to help you pay for whatever it is you watch.

Re:Don't see the problem.

[ByOhTek]

Hmmm. I might.

My cable company recently lowered the price of my plan (non contract) and called me to tell me they had done so. I can see them doing this again in the future, if their costs go down. They are one of the more expensive in the city, but it seems they are actually spending the money on customer service and a decent infrastructure, unlike Time Warner.

Re:Don't see the problem.

[X0563511]

I think you need to go back and re-read that last sentence alen posted.

Re:Don't see the problem.

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Do you feel they were being proactive and maintaining good customer service, or do you think they did this to give you the impression that they pass the savings on to you so they can more easily raise rates later?

Hmm I asked a question that's difficult to answer so I'll offer this alternative: What's the competition like?

Re:Don't see the problem.

[jank1887]

It appears you are in an area without a cable monopoly. Let us now introduce you to the rest of the country...

Re:Don't see the problem.

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

I think you need to read a little bit about what cable companies are like. You will not find many stories about how they pass the savings off to their customers.

Re:Don't see the problem.

[jpstanle]

whereas pricey sports channels (which cable companies have to pay for) will become HBO-like premium services.

So why is this an issue? If I don't want to watch ESPN 9, why should I pay for it?

Yeah, I mean if I choose pay full retail price for my smartphone, I don't have to subsidize cheap smartphones for people on 2 year contracts.

Oh wait...

Re:Don't see the problem.

[h4rr4r]

T-Mobile has/had such a plan. That system is also common outside the USA. In reality when you don't see that available you know the market is being distorted somehow, quite likely by a lack of competition.

Re:Don't see the problem.

[Unequivocal]

If I like to watch QVC I'll probably pay less!

Sorry - couldn't resist. There are some channels which pay to get access to viewers, whereas all the stations you want to watch are the other way around. If a station can make money by providing old movies which cost very little to license, then they are likely to make themselves free to cable, or even pay for a station. If content is expensive and/or if consumer demand is very high for something, then cable will pay to get it on their roster so as to have a competitive product.. Ugly business.

Re:Don't see the problem.

[ArhcAngel]

Back in the day...
Hulu had no ads
Pandora only had banner ads along the sides of the player
As a medium becomes more popular it also becomes more marketable.

Re:Don't see the problem.

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

No, it isn't, and you need to look at the history of this topic. Bonus points if you read up on Fox and Comedy Central.

Re:Don't see the problem.

[ByOhTek]

I felt they were being proactive. Rather than comparing the competition, I'd look at their previous history, which has always been good and considerate (i.e. I say "I'll install my own damn cable box" and they say "ok, then we'll waive the installation fee, when is a good time to drop it off?").

The competition overloads their subscribers (or under-purchases bandwidth/underdevelops infrastructure) in the case of internet. And their cable goes out as often as sateliite (as often as we have big storms), but unlike satellite, the circumstances aren't predictable.

Re:Don't see the problem.

[ByOhTek]

Actually, we only have two real cable providers, plus two satellite providers. There's a third cable provider, but it's more of a lamprey and TW is the shark.

I guess there's a fiber company here two. But regarding cable/fiber, we have only one of the Big Bad 3 (TW, Comcast, Verizon are what I call the Big Bad 3).

Most other cities of 1M+ also seem to have at least two cable providers, and both satellite companies. I wonder why where I live is so different.

Re:Don't see the problem.

[djdanlib]

I think you guys are in agreement, but you don't realize it.

NO, I AGREE!

NO, *I* AGREE!

Re:Don't see the problem.

[icebraining]

Unless they are losing customers en mass and really need to drop prices to avoid losing more/regain them.

Re:Don't see the problem.

[Cutting_Crew]

isn't this anti-consumer? How in the world can you charge $50 for a package, remove the most expensive part of that package and continue to charge the same amount?

Re:Don't see the problem.

[Miseph]

If you are paying to subsidize the cost of your phone, but purchased the phone at an unsubsidized price, then where is that money going?

I've sold cell phones, and I know several people who have made careers out of it. I am not aware of any provider in the US that will charge a lower monthly rate to customers who own their phones outright. Furthermore, due to the way in which salespeople are compensated in that in industry, I am not aware of anyone who would be eager to advertise, market, recommend, process or even acknowledge the existence of such a program.

Re:Don't see the problem.

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

They won't be dropping prices, they'll be slicing off extras you can elect to pay for. The difference is that you won't be able to reassemble the service you had for the same price or cheaper. You will have to pay more or give up something you like to keep it within your means.

This is why the title is about bait-and-switch and not about the cable companies negotiating tirelessly to reduce your rates. They won't let themselves get bullied by the networks again.

Re:Don't see the problem.

[im_thatoneguy]

Yeah, I mean if I choose pay full retail price for my smartphone, I don't have to subsidize cheap smartphones for people on 2 year contracts.

I get a discount every month on my T-Mobile contract since I provided my own phone.

Re:Don't see the problem.

[NotAGoodNickname]

T-Mobile US will charge a lower monthly fee if you bring your own phone. So does Metro PCS and some other prepaid carriers.

Re:Don't see the problem.

[roachdabug]

Free Pandora has banner ads

Paid Pandora cost me $35 for the entire year IIRC, I get no ads (banner or otherwise), a standalone player, and a higher bitrate stream. Worth every penny.

Re:Don't see the problem.

[hawaiian717]

I thought a few years ago that one of the providers (I want to say either T-Mobile or Cingular since it makes most sense with GSM phones) offered a lower plan price if you brought your own phone to them.

The no-contract/prepaid market seems to be the best way to get a lower, unsubsidized plan price. Virgin Mobile's smartphones cost more upfront than the equivalent Sprint phone (Sprint owns Virign Mobile USA) since you're buying the phone up front, but the monthly plan prices are lower.

Re:Don't see the problem.

[bill_mcgonigle]

And you want the people who do watch ESPN-9 to help you pay for whatever it is you watch.

No I don't - I want to pay a la carte and let the market decide what lives and dies.

Re:Don't see the problem.

[hawaiian717]

I wonder how many of those "1M+ cities with two cable providers" have two companies that actually compete with each other. In San Diego, there are two, Time Warner and Cox, but they don't really compete since they each have separate territories within the city (more or less, Cox covers areas south of the San Diego River while Time Warner covers areas north of the river). So the only way to switch from one to the other is to move.

So there's still only one "cable" option in any given location, the competitors are the satellite companies and AT&T U-Verse.

Re:Don't see the problem.

[Coren22]

As far as Verizon, their land line service is wonderful, why do you call them big and bad? I love my symmetric FiOS 25/25, and have never experienced any issues with them, but that could be along the same lines as your situation, I have a massive selection of companies in my area, causing real competition.

Re:Don't see the problem.

[Toonol]

They can charge whatever they want. If they charge too much, they'll end up making less money. If they rip out the most expensive part of a $50 package, charge $50 +$25 for the combination, and make more money, then they'll be happy and stay that way. If it reduces sales, they'll be unhappy and change it back.

The determining factor is how unhappy customers are with the changes. If it's too high, they'll leave. If it's not too high, they'll continue buying the product. That's how the marketplace works.

Re:Don't see the problem.

[BattleApple]

isn't that what alen said? If the cable companies have to pay higher fees, they'll jack up the customer rates?

Re:Don't see the problem.

[X0563511]

You're still not getting it. Slow down and parse the sentence.

There is no way Comcast or TW can keep paying higher fees... AND charge you the _SAME_ amount of money.

In other words, what he's saying is that it cannot possibly stay status-quo. The charge to the end user must go up or down. Going down doesn't make any sense at all in context, so he's saying it could only go up. Not down, not stay the same... it must rise.

Re:Don't see the problem.

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Great, now you stop and listen to my point: These aren't victims of a major injustice, these
are guys feeding you this story so you'll be okay with them feeding you a new plan that'll cost more.

The very article he told me to read does not support his statement. Go read it.

Re:Don't see the problem.

[X0563511]

Uh, no. We already agree, the problem is that you don't seem to be able to comprehend the expression of this idea, and so you think everyone else disagrees with you.

Re:Don't see the problem.

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Okay, so you finally read the article and agree that his statement isn't true, right?

Re:Don't see the problem.

[ArhcAngel]

We'll see how long they can keep that up once ClearChannel relaunches IHeartRadio. I love Pandora but fear ClearChannel will be victorious.

Re:Don't see the problem.

[flimflammer]

I'm starting to think you have a serious reading comprehension problem.

Re:Don't see the problem.

[Obfuscant]

No I don't - I want to pay a la carte and let the market decide what lives and dies.

You realize that this attitude is what results in the broadcast channels being filled with stuff like "Dancing with the Stars... starring Bristol Palin" and "American Idol" and "The Bachelor(ette)" and "Cops" and "Cheaters" and "The View" and "The Talk" and "Dr. Oz" and "Oprah" and "Dr. Phil" and "Steve Wilkos" and eight hours a day of "Today" and such.

Re:Don't see the problem.

[bill_mcgonigle]

You're proving the opposite by citing the broadcast channels, which everybody has to pay for, regardless if they like the programming or not, and denouncing the result of that as crap (I assume - I don't watch those shows).

Since they're guaranteed a revenue stream they make shows as cheaply as possible, which drives a reality TV model.

Compare that with HBO series.

Re:Don't see the problem.

[tsotha]

Or not. If I only watch channels that the cable company gets for free or gets paid for by the broadcaster, how is the ESPN-9 watcher helping me pay? This isn't the case of fixed overhead getting split amongst the total subscriber base, since ESPN is charging the cable company to provide customers with that channel and the channels I watch are not.

So I would expect my bill to go down and that of the sports fans to go up. Which seems quite reasonable. My suspicion is ESPN (and by extension professional sports leagues) will have more trouble imposing large price increases since that cost will fall more directly on the people who watch it.

Re:Don't see the problem.

[unitron]

isn't this anti-consumer? How in the world can you charge $50 for a package, remove the most expensive part of that package and continue to charge the same amount?

By having a geographic monopoly as most cable franchises do.

Re:Don't see the problem.

[Obfuscant]

You're proving the opposite by citing the broadcast channels, which everybody has to pay for, regardless if they like the programming or not, and denouncing the result of that as crap (I assume - I don't watch those shows).

I'm speaking directly to market driven programming. If a show on broadcast doesn't make money, it goes away. If it doesn't make money in the first three weeks it goes away. This is purely market driven. The stuff that Joe Public watches when he comes home and pops a beer is what stays. Things that make him think or put him to sleep go away.

The exception that proves the rule is public broadcasting. They get money from people who pay directly. As long as the costs are covered for their artsy stuff, they'll keep playing it.

Another exception that proves the rule is Nightline. You may not remember how Nightline started, but when it did, nobody was doing latenight news programming. ABC only started the precusor to Nightline to cover the Iranian hostage crisis under Carter. Every night, an update on the crisis. "Day 45", etc. Only because they had a significant number of viewers, they decided to continue the news programming as an experiment. Had that program not been getting eyes, we wouldn't have nightline or any of the other late night news programs that came from it. And are slowly dying out.

Since they're guaranteed a revenue stream

I don't know where you get this idea from. Nothing on broadcast TV is guaranteed a revenue stream. If the advertisers don't think enough people are seeing their ads, they don't advertise. Poof goes the revenue stream. Sometimes in as little as half an hour. One show.

Compare that with HBO series.

HBO series are not broadcast TV and fall squarely into the niche cable-package marketing paradigm. There are not one but ten channels with the name "HBO" on my cable system, of which 7 are unique. You may want to buy "HBO", but you get ten (at least) channels when you do. Probably more, but I can't find a description of just what you do get when you buy HBO on Comcast.

When you start doing ala carte marketing, you will enter the same market driven world that broadcast operates in. If there aren't enough people who want to watch your program, the advertisers who support it will stop and the programs go away. If there aren't enough people who pay for the channel, eventually the entire channel will go away and nobody watches it anymore. You are left with what the majority wants, which is what we get on broadcast. Cable was meant to be so much more than that.

Re:Don't see the problem.

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Err... I think I misread your post. Im sorry man.

Re:Don't see the problem.

[ByOhTek]

I've had horrible experience with their customer service, and most few people I've known with their wire service have not much positive to say.

That's the other thing, many of these companies are very location dependent. I've heard of areas where TW is great, just not the city I live in.

Re:Don't see the problem.

[bill_mcgonigle]

Nothing on broadcast TV is guaranteed a revenue stream.

Broadcast stations are guaranteed carriage on Cable TV systems by law. They get either of a) free carriage or b) paid for carriage. They don't have to pay for carriage or earn subscribers like other stations on Cable TV.

If the advertisers don't think enough people are seeing their ads, they don't advertise. Poof goes the revenue stream. Sometimes in as little as half an hour. One show.

Agreed. But the shows only have to be good enough to earn a marginal profit. They can appeal to the least common denominator and still be guaranteed an audience because nobody has to opt-in to getting the stations. The costs of carriage are either zero or negative, so that doesn't have to figure into the shows' budgets. Put another way, the low-quality shows are subsidized by government mandate.

HBO series are not broadcast TV and fall squarely into the niche cable-package marketing paradigm.

Right. The long-tail is where real variety of programming can exist. It may not be cheaper, but it's better.

Re:Don't see the problem.

[nelsonal]

Each channels fees would massively rise, take a really cheap channel like Bloomberg under a quarter per sub in a basic or premium tier, but $2 if you want it a la carte on C-Band. Most channels would probably be $3-10 and sports channels would be $5-$20. And even with that pricing, many smaller channels wouldn't be able to make up the difference on ads (now they can't show we're in 80million households) and would fold. An awful lot of the small channels with niche audiences are viable because they ride the coattails of ESPN, USA, Bravo, Discovery etc. Take away those coattails and they'll have a much harder time surviving.

Re:Don't see the problem.

[Cutting_Crew]

the viability of stability of small channels is not my problem to solve. If it folds it folds. No where should we be forced to subsidize any tv channel. When people are trying to save a buck here and there people should have more choices. I was recently able to lower one tier on comcast and now i save $20 a month just for that. Most people out there think what is on tv is junk anyhow and a lot of the same channels some the same syndicated crap that we have all grown to hate so much. In my case i would only want ESPN during college football season(Sept to January), a couple of live news channels year round. wife likes lifetime and HGTV and Food Network. That about the only channels we watch. Discovery is worthless now. Animal planet shows nothing but reruns. Even if ESPN were to cost $10 a month and the others $2 a month I would be looking at $10 a month for all the local channels(2-13), about 3 channels at $2 each and during the fall $10 for ESPN. So thats $16 a month Feb to August and $26 during football season with the addition of ESPN which is 2/3 less than what i am paying now for the cable package that i have. I'll gladly take it.

Re:Don't see the problem.

[s73v3r]

No, because without the current setup, those channels would likely be much, much, much more expensive per subscriber than they are. Not to mention that the market is an AWFUL decider of what should live and die when it comes to quality programming. Leave it up to the market, and everything will be lowest common denominator. Everything.

Re:Don't see the problem.

[s73v3r]

WRONG. Broadcast channels are free.

Re:Don't see the problem.

[Rakarra]

And you want the people who do watch ESPN-9 to help you pay for whatever it is you watch.

No I don't - I want to pay a la carte and let the market decide what lives and dies.

These days I want to pay a la carte by -show- instead of by network. 15-20 years ago I would have been happy to pay by network, but then Network Decay happened, and SyFy has little to do with Sci-Fi, MTV has nothing to do with music, the History Channel has almost no history-related shows, A&E dropped all pretence at being Artsy, etc. Every channel is trying to show the same shows as every other channel now. What station still tries to serve its core mission? Comedy Central?

Re:Don't see the problem.

[bill_mcgonigle]

WRONG. Broadcast channels are free.

Free like how and to whom? You mean it's not itemized on your bill?

Re:Don't see the problem.

[bill_mcgonigle]

No, because without the current setup, those channels would likely be much, much, much more expensive per subscriber than they are.

Perhaps. You want cheaper and better?

Leave it up to the market, and everything will be lowest common denominator. Everything.

So, pay-TV channels don't exist, right?

Re:Don't see the problem.

[Obfuscant]

Broadcast stations are guaranteed carriage on Cable TV systems by law.

That is not a guaranteed revenue stream for the programming that is carried on that station, it may be a revenue stream for the station itself. A station still decides which programs to carry based on MARKET forces. And those choices are increasingly towards shows like Cops and Cheaters and even unending infomercials.

But the shows only have to be good enough to earn a marginal profit.

You really don't understand market driven consumerism, do you? If a network or station thinks that another program will earn them MORE money during the same timeslot, the one they were carrying is gone. It isn't an issue of "enough". They're in business to make money, within the nebulous constraints of serving the public interest. And that's why even their "public interest" programs like news are dumbing down and filled with fluff pieces about local people.

However, that IS all that a non-profit station like public TV has to worry about. Cover the costs is the prime goal. That's why they are not market driven like the broadcast stations are, and can broadcast "better" stuff. At least "less popular". They are the exception to the market driven consequences of broadcast TV.

They can appeal to the least common denominator and still be guaranteed an audience because nobody has to opt-in to getting the stations.

Nobody is guaranteed an audience just because they are on cable. The reason they HAVE an audience as large as they get is because they DO cater to the lowest common denominator -- getting the most number of viewers. More viewers, more ad revenue. Market driven television, catering to the lowest common denominator, which is EXACTLY MY POINT. The latter is due to the former.

Turning all of cable into ala carte will create the same market driven results that broadcast has gone through. Broadcast has to serve the lowest common demoninator because there is no guaranteed revenue stream. The advertisers pay for programming, and if nobody watches they don't pay. For cable networks, the ones who are subsidized by being part of a package don't feel the full effects of that market pressure and can afford to do "less popular" programming. Make them fully ad supported and ala carte (viewer selected) and they'll go away, and their "less popular" stuff goes with them.

Sounds like what most people would want

[John Napkintosh]

ESPN, for example, is watched by 10%-15% of subscribers in any market. Yet every last customer pays for it.

Re:Sounds like what most people would want

[what2123]

If that is true, I'm sure that's much higher than a lot of the other "news" outlets on the cable market.

Re:Sounds like what most people would want

[pak9rabid]

ESPN, for example, is watched by 10%-15% of subscribers in any market. Yet every last customer pays for it.

You're joking, right? You do realize that this is the US, and football season has started, right?

Re:Sounds like what most people would want

[Anonymous Coward]

football

I believe you mean handegg.

Re:Sounds like what most people would want

[jpstanle]

Can you cite a reference for that? That assertion sounds unrealistic to me. I'm working entirely on anecdotal evidence, but I'd be willing to bet the ESPN is by far the single most watched cable-only channel in the US.

For me as a sports fan, ESPN is the only thing that could have enticed me to pay for cable over the past 5 or 6 years. Live sports are the only thing these days that you can't get online or over-the-air.

Re:Sounds like what most people would want

[John Napkintosh]

It's different to HBO in that you don't get HBO unless you specifically request it. It's also different to a lot of networks, local and educational programming in that the FCC doesn't require ESPN to be carried as it does with many channels.

Re:Sounds like what most people would want

[Fned]

He's not joking.

Football is gigantically popular compared to many other sports, and indeed compared to many other forms of entertainment.

But it's nowhere near as popular as portrayed by football fans and the media companies that cater to them.

Re:Sounds like what most people would want

[s73v3r]

You're gonna need to break out something to back up your assertion that ESPN is required to be carried by the FCC.

Re:Sounds like what most people would want

[John Napkintosh]

Reread. DOESN'T require.

Re:Sounds like what most people would want

[networkBoy]

For me it is discover/science channel not ESPN. I don't think I've ever watched ESPN except at a friends house....

Re:Sounds like what most people would want

[residieu]

And network TV usually covers the local teams' games, you don't need ESPN to watch football.

Re:Sounds like what most people would want

[jpstanle]

32 Billion US dollars say it's called Football here.

Re:Sounds like what most people would want

[quintus_horatius]

I'd be willing to bet the ESPN is by far the single most watched cable-only channel in the US.

Even if it is the single most-watched channel, that doesn't mean that a large fraction of people watch it.

Re:Sounds like what most people would want

[Hatta]

The superbowl is watched by about 100 million Americans, or 1/3 of the population. That's the biggest game of the year, on free to watch over the air TV. About 50% of US homes have cable TV, so 1/3 * 1/2 = 1/6 = 16%.

He's not that far off.

Re:Sounds like what most people would want

[jpstanle]

This may have been true for me a few years back, but Discovery Channel isn't compelling anymore. Most of it is scripted "reality" show drivel... Hardly any good documentaries like the good old days. MythBusters is good, and I still like Modern Marvels on the history channel, but most of that is available online through netflix or some other avenue. Nearly all new documentaries worth watching come from PBS or the BBC. These days the only 'documentaries' on the Discovery channel are pipedream speculation about absurd engineering projects that will never be built.

Re:Sounds like what most people would want

[WraithCube]

Monday Night Football is covered by ESPN and holds the record for most watched series on cable television with the 2008 season

The 2009 game of Favre playing against the packers is highest-rated cable program to date.

As somebody who has their television turned to espn more than most other channels (gotta keep up with my fantasy football team), there are plenty of other channels I could care less about having, but fork over cash for the whole package with HD. And for those of you who are fond of your high-definition programming keep in mind that the NFL and other sports are one of the main things that actually pushed out the widespread adoption.

Re:Sounds like what most people would want

[Attila Dimedici]

I usually watch the local NFL team, yet I rarely watch ESPN. I would happily give up ESPN if it was not bundled with other channels I want.

Re:Sounds like what most people would want

[vlm]

The superbowl is watched by about 100 million Americans, or 1/3 of the population

That would be closer to 1/4 now. Which makes your result 1/8 or about 12.5%. However you're assuming the distribution of SB watchers is both random and uncoordinated with the distribution of cable subscribers, which is probably big time incorrect. I would estimate dramatic overlap.

Doesn't really matter because only a relatively small percentage of those watching the SB consider themselves "sports fans". For many viewers, that might be the only sporting event they watch all year...

Re:Sounds like what most people would want

[Cut]

Uh, so I disagree with using the Super Bowl and OTA to determine ESPN viewership, but regardless, check that math - you shouldn't be multiplying by 1/2 there since the original statement was 15% of subscribers, not 15 of overall population.

Re:Sounds like what most people would want

[Amouth]

or you could just go down to the local stadium.. i hear meatspace is quite interesting this time of year.

Re:Sounds like what most people would want

[masman]

The difference is that I'm paying about $4 a month for ESPN even though I watch zero minutes, ever. At least with the other channels I don't watch, I'm paying maybe 25 cents, if that.

Re:Sounds like what most people would want

[Grishnakh]

What's the problem? If you don't like the service the cablecos are providing, or you think it's overpriced, you're free to get service from someone else, or just go without. You don't need TV to survive.

If this were an article about Bentley raising the prices of its cars by 40%, and how a bunch of millionaires are annoyed by this, and I said "doesn't bother me, I wouldn't buy a Bentley anyway, and I think it's funny these millionaires are getting screwed over. My [Honda|Chevy|Hyundai|Ford] works just fine for me. Besides, if they don't like it, they can go buy a BMW or Mercedes.", would you be saying the same thing? You'd probably be agreeing with me.

I don't see anything wrong with people being "screwed over" when their luxury products get their prices jacked up. You don't need luxury products; they're luxuries. If you want to blow your money on them, then fine, more power to you, but don't complain that they're too expensive, or when the prices go up, because no one's forcing you to buy them.

Re:Sounds like what most people would want

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

What channels have a higher percrentage?

Re:Sounds like what most people would want

[Miseph]

According to that article, the four most valuable football clubs are Manchester United, Real Madrid, Arsenal and Bayern Munich, with respective valuations of $1.86B, $1.45B, $1.19B and $1.05B. There are 32 NFL teams, with an average value of $1.02B each.

For a sport played and watched almost exclusively in 1 country (I'm not counting Canada because they play by different rules... and also because they don't seem so into the sport anyway) that's a pretty strong comparison.

Re:Sounds like what most people would want

[grandpastackhouse]

Live sports are the only thing these days that you can't get online or over-the-air.

If you're trying to follow the team in your local market you should have no problem getting it over the air assuming they sold enough tickets. Even MNF is simulcast locally if a team from your market is playing.

Re:Sounds like what most people would want

[nelsonal]

But how many people are in the opposite boat as you, who don't watch the channels you want yet pay $0.50-$1.00 per month for them. You might be made worse off by losing their subsidy. The cost of running a channel doesn't decline with fewer subscribers. The most likely result is specialists would be about equal (similar pricing for the channels they watch) but generalists (people who watch a little of many channels would be much worse off). If there were enough generalists who decide to forego the now very expensive bundle, everyoone could be made worse off.

Re:Sounds like what most people would want

[the_fat_kid]

you will have to excuse the readers from foreign lands. They believe that soccer is a sport and like to pretend that Football is somehow inferior.

Re:Sounds like what most people would want

[Toonol]

ESPN, for example, is watched by 10%-15% of subscribers in any market. Yet every last customer pays for it.

You're joking, right? You do realize that this is the US, and football season has started, right?

I think this is one of those cases where a non-sports fan finds it inconceivable that as many as X% people watch sports regularly, and a sports fan finds it inconceivable that as few as X% people watch sports regularly. Both sides are extrapolating from their own experience and social groups.

Anybody got real stats?

Re:Sounds like what most people would want

[tsotha]

The vast majority of people don't follow sports at all, and of those who do NASCAR actually has the biggest audience in the US. Worldwide, soccer is the 900 lb gorilla.

Re:Sounds like what most people would want

[unitron]

You are aware that for most people their only choice is cable from the only cable company with a franchise where their house is or no cable from anybody? That they can't dump cable company "A" for cable company "B" if they don't like "A", because "A" has a geographic monopoly?

Re:Sounds like what most people would want

[Grishnakh]

Yeah, so? There's other options for TV:
1) Satellite. You have two options here that I know of, Dish and DirecTV.
2) Internet. Here, there's lots of choices: Hulu, Netflix, network websites, and BitTorrent.
3) OTA. In or near any metro area, you can just put up an antenna (rabbit-ears will work, but specially-designed HDTV ones work better and are cheaper than a month of cable TV) and get literally dozens of channels.
4) Go without. TV is not a requirement for modern living, unlike food, shelter, clothing, and transportation. Go buy a book (or e-reader), or just go to the library and check one out for free.

Re:Sounds like what most people would want

[Grishnakh]

I'd like to add: why is it that so many people like yourself think that cable TV is a necessity rather than a luxury? You can't even argue that it's a requirement to participate in modern culture and have a normal job, unlike, for instance, telephone service and internet access. I still remember the days when cable TV was a luxury and not many people had it, and most people were happy with rabbit ears. Of course, society's changed since then, and anyone without internet access and an email address is generally considered a throwback, but if anything, cable TV is on the way out thanks to the internet, and they probably profit mainly from morons who are so used to it that they refuse to give it up even if they're un/underemployed, finances are tight, they can't afford new clothes for their kids, etc. and keep their subscription even though the prices keep going up. Personally, I think they should double the prices. It's like jacking up the prices of cigarettes; why feel sorry for someone who's willingly wasting their money on trash?

Re:Sounds like what most people would want

[unitron]

...If you don't like the service the cablecos are providing, or you think it's overpriced, you're free to get service from someone else...

If you meant free to get a service other than cable from someone else, you should have said that instead.

Re:Sounds like what most people would want

[Grishnakh]

If you meant free to get a service other than cable from someone else, you should have said that instead.

I said only "service", not "cable TV service".

In just about everyplace in the US, there's only one monopoly provider of residential landline service. Why isn't anyone complaining about that? Oh yeah, it's because no one cares any more, as they've all switched to cellular service (which actually has some competition, though not enough). So, I could rewrite my prior statement like this:

"...If you don't like the service the landline telcos are providing, or you think it's overpriced, you're free to get service from someone else..."

which is true, and most people have done exactly that: they've dumped their landlines and switched to cellphones and/or Skype. I was a rather late convert myself, and I think it's been 8 years now since I had a landline.

Re:Sounds like what most people would want

[LordKronos]

Well, now it's just like the MTV evolution, where MTV became all non-music BS, so they created MTV2 to have actual music (disclaimer...I don't watch MTV2 so have no idea what its content is these days...probably non-music now also, which would explain the existence of MTV3). Likewise, Discovery Channel has become a lot of crap just like MTV, but Discovery also produces the Science channel, which actually has a lot of more interesting content on it. I've only had that channel for a month, but so far I've seen countless shows about:

Space exploration - Shows about all of the planets, their moons, and the satellites we sent to explore them. The Apollo missions, and all the steps that were necessary to get there to create the lunar rover, the space suits, the command modules, navigation systems, etc.

Astronomy/physics - Shows about blackholes, wormholes, relativity, parallel universes, string theory, etc.

Modern architecture - document the construction of all sorts of huge projects, such as skyscrapers, stadiums, bridges, etc

Ancient civilizations - I can't tell you much about these (my wife watches them), but there have been plenty of shows on ancient Rome, Greece, Egypt, etc.

Geography - Shows on volcanoes, earthquakes & mountain ranges (and all the science behind those things)

And in case that all hasn't sold you, I'll assume you are a typical slashdotter and tell you that they are having a Firefly marathon on Saturday.

The channel also has its fair share of crap too, but it's easily in the minority. So far, I'd probably rate the channel as 20% good shows I'm interested in, 20% crap shows, and 60% shows that appear to be (as far as I can tell) good quality shows that focus on topics that don't personally interest me.

Just looking at the statistics from my mythbox, in the last month we've recorded 100 episodes from that channel. About half of those we've watched (only a handful of which we didn't like), and the other half are sitting there waiting to be watched. I quickly had to become very selective with what I record from that channel just so I don't fill up the hard drive with a backlogs of shows I don't have time to watch.

You know... there is life without cable.

[cpotoso]

Who needs it? I can get about 10 channels over the air, for free, most of them in HD. Then there is the internet (which comes from my cable company, but with whom I do not have any service other than internet). Don't like their pricing schemes, don't buy it. It is not air, water, food, shelter, education or transportation. It is really optional.

Re:You know... there is life without cable.

[John Napkintosh]

And this is no doubt the driving force. Most people have a select few channels they would actually watch and pay for. Now that there are alternatives to subscribing to ridiculous $100/mo. bundles just to get the few channels you want, cable operators are going to have to subdivide their offerings to regain those customers who are leaving for more attractive alternatives.

Re:You know... there is life without cable.

[shadowsurfr1]

I gotta agree with this. I have an antenna that I got from a relative and it works really well, especially in HD. I have all the major networks (Fox, CBS, NBC, ABC) and some other channels, all over the air.

Re:You know... there is life without cable.

[Abstrackt]

I've actually been looking into going back to over the air myself. A few months ago we cut cable back to the bare minimum and hardly noticed the difference after a week. We live in a deep fringe area of Canada and can probably get six channels at most but for all the overlap in programming I doubt we'd need more. For everything else, we can just watch it online or wait for it to come out on DVD. The biggest bonus of course is that even the most expensive antenna would pay for itself inside of a year, bringing in ~$300 in savings annually after that.

Re:You know... there is life without cable.

[tepples]

Who needs it? I can get about 10 channels over the air, for free, most of them in HD. Then there is the internet (which comes from my cable company, but with whom I do not have any service other than internet).

For one thing, if you already pay your cable company for Internet only, it's probably willing to sell you TV for negligible additional cost. For another, if your favorite NFL team is playing in this week's Monday Night Football, then this week's game is off limits to you unless you have ESPN and all the other channels bundled with it.

Re:You know... there is life without cable.

[jellomizer]

Also right now these channels that are bundled are not really trying too hard to get viewers. So you get one channel in that bundle that is valuable then the rest are showing repeats, or those fringe anti-science science shows that Discovery puts on every once in a while about alien abduction... over and over again... If we can pick our channels then every station will need to fight for our viewing, and not just do reruns of their bundled partner.

Paying $100+ a month for TV is really too high.

Re:You know... there is life without cable.

[s73v3r]

Oh go to hell. Just because something is "optional" does NOT mean that the person offering it should be able to take advantage of their customers. This whole "don't buy it" meme is retarded, as it doesn't get any kind of solution to the actual problem.

Re:You know... there is life without cable.

[Bigbutt]

At least for me, every time I've paid for Internet service, I get basic cable for free as long as I don't get the digital box. So I get the main local channels along with a few stragglers. I think there are a few sports and Spanish language channels but I have them disabled on the TV.

[John]

Re:You know... there is life without cable.

[fr8_liner]

I haven't had cable or even a TV set for the last 8 years. Being an early adopter, I had cable before any of my friends and remember MTV having maybe 20 videos on rotation at the time. Then I moved to rural Pennsylvania where there is no cable TV and opted out of the ridiculously overpriced satellite packages. I'm somewhat shocked these days when I visit friends who have cable and see what's currently popular. It seems impossible, but to me, TV is even more of a vast wasteland than it was 8 years ago. You can keep it. I do miss NFL games but there's a sports bar only 11 miles down the road.........

Re:You know... there is life without cable.

[Abstrackt]

For one thing, if you already pay your cable company for Internet only, it's probably willing to sell you TV for negligible additional cost. For another, if your favorite NFL team is playing in this week's Monday Night Football, then this week's game is off limits to you unless you have ESPN and all the other channels bundled with it.

I strongly get the impression OP isn't interested in adding cable TV, especially since the cable company is competing with a free service.

Re:You know... there is life without cable.

[bill_mcgonigle]

We cut back too - for us the best deal was Dish Network's $20/mo DishFamily package, paying a la carte for PBS ($2), with a receiver from eBay ($80) and a dish from Freecycle ($0). We also have DSL ($45), a Roku ($80) with Netflix (who can tell, $15 maybe) streaming and Amazon Prime ($0, had it before streaming video) and a few 'private' news channels ($0).

Counting the VoIP provider's fee ($8), this gets us the 'triple play' for under $100./mo (including equipment amortization), which beats the basic cable offerings by about 30% (not that cable has the streaming options that Netflix+Amazon does).

So, yeah, cable needs to compete on its fees. If everybody is paying for channels they don't watch, that's one place to trim the fat.

Re:You know... there is life without cable.

[Chad Stansbury]

We turned off cable 1.5 years ago, and while we underwent some initial withdrawal, we soon figured out what to do with our newly-discovered "free time" and have not missed it since. Possible activities instead of watching TV:
- Go outside, throw a football/kick a soccer ball/shoot some basketball, etc. with friends and/or children.
- Go walking/hiking/running/biking.
- Meet your neighbors, invite 'em over for a beer.
- Rediscover your community center/health club/park. Play tennis, basketball, racquetball. Work out, swim, etc.
- Rediscover "crafts". Build paper mache stuff w/ your kids (free, and the kids love it). Build models.
- Play board games.
These are some of the many things that I used to do as a kid (except for the beer), and looking back now it's depressing to see how we let TV take their place.

Re:You know... there is life without cable.

[ChrisMaple]

the cable monopolies need to be regulated into the ground

Destroying all cable companies solves what problem?

Re:You know... there is life without cable.

[eggy78]

Probably the most informative thing I've said on Slashdot in years and I forgot to log in. How's that for Karma? An additional tip - sometimes you'll even get some non-local channels unencrypted, depending on your carrier. I get TBS and some cartoon network that aren't available OTA, but some smaller carriers may even have more clearQAM content.

Re:You know... there is life without cable.

[mr1911]

I quit paying for TV a couple of years ago. A cheap indoor antenna later and I have broadcast HD in every room in the house. A Roku with Hulu Plus, Amazon Prime, and Netflix Streaming (
Football is fun to watch, but since I'm not a rabid fan of any one team, whatever is broadcast is fine. If there is really a game I want to see, there are plenty of sports bars around town that have every game. I can't drink enough to consume the savings from ditching paid TV.

You would be amazed at what you find for free. My wife dreaded life without HGTV and some other channels, but it turns out the 4 HD PBS stations we get have plenty of content that is often better than the paid stations.

But some folks have a very strong allegiance to watching specific sports teams where there is a bond maintained only by spending lots of money to claim one has that bond, so the money will continue to flow.

Re:You know... there is life without cable.

[caturday]

The problem, then, is that the average American is easily duped into overpaying for limited utility. Going without and not giving the company money sends a much clearer message than letting them soak you and begging for a discount. In case you've not paid attention for the last, I dunno, 50 years, there is no such thing as "loyalty" any more.

Re:You know... there is life without cable.

[Amouth]

if your paying 100$ a month just so you can watch your favorite NFL team - i recommend trying a different approach.. trying going out for a local team and spend the money on season tickets..

just a suggestion

Re:You know... there is life without cable.

[cpotoso]

Indeed, I wish I could mod you up. The problem is that the last several decades the educational system has produced a bunch of MORONS that are unable to do simple math, think critically, or understand anything beyond what a 3rd grader grasps easily. Unfortunately this has consequences even for the less moronic ones like us the /. readers... Sigh!

Re:You know... there is life without cable.

[Unequivocal]

The thing that chaps me is that I have to pay $60/month for internet from a cable company (and the phone company can't for whatever reason get optical or copper internet of any kind to me -- I live in downtown DC). For $70/month I could get basic cable and internet, but I don't want it. Since basic cable alone costs $40, it's clear that this pricing is b/c cable co's don't want internet service to be cheap, so they are artificially holding the price high, to retain cable subscribers, who are far, far more profitable than their internet customers (even when either customer is paying the same dollar value).

Re:You know... there is life without cable.

[mooingyak]

For another, if your favorite NFL team is playing in this week's Monday Night Football, then this week's game is off limits to you unless you have ESPN and all the other channels bundled with it.

If it's a local team, it'll be broadcast on a free channel in addition to ESPN. If it's not a local team, then unless they're playing in the Sunday night game it's a crapshoot as to whether or not you'll see that team anyway without some kind of sports package.

Re:You know... there is life without cable.

[lgw]

If somthing is optional, then any price charged by the seller and agreed to by the buyer is a fair price. "Don't buy it" is, in fact, how price negotiation is supposed to work.

Sellers sell for as much as they possibly can, and buyers buy for as little as they possibly can. That's how a market works. What could be simpler?

Re:You know... there is life without cable.

[antdude]

So how do you get Discovery (MythBusters), sports (not the ones on local channels), SyFy, etc. legally then?

Re:You know... there is life without cable.

[Charliemopps]

Most areas of the country get less than 2 or 3 channels over the air.

Re:You know... there is life without cable.

[Anomalyst]

MythBusters season DVD from netflix or maybe even your local library
sports Do Not Want to watch overpaid undereducated apes exercising in spandex
SyFy Do Not Want to watch scripted "wrestling", I can see Bill Mumy in "Lost in Space" and "Babylon 5" reruns and have "FireFly" series on DVD

Re:You know... there is life without cable.

[antdude]

Netflix show the latest episodes? I watch latest episodes.

Re:You know... there is life without cable.

[mldi]

Also right now these channels that are bundled are not really trying too hard to get viewers. So you get one channel in that bundle that is valuable then the rest are showing repeats, or those fringe anti-science science shows that Discovery puts on every once in a while about alien abduction... over and over again... If we can pick our channels then every station will need to fight for our viewing, and not just do reruns of their bundled partner.

Paying $100+ a month for TV is really too high.

Hey! Maybe then NBC Universal will fire whoever the hell is in charge of SyFy (that name change = fail) and we can get some serious programming on again to attract viewers instead of letting that cancer fester. I don't think many people are willing to pay for 72hr marathons of Ghost Hunters and it's counterparts every single damn week. The filler? Wrestling... what the hell.

Re:You know... there is life without cable.

[cpotoso]

Yeah, mythbusters I do miss... but for sports nothing here beats ESPN3.com, it has the best FOOTball (the one played with the foot) coverage and the best tennis coverage. I do not care for the other kind of football (the one that is seldom played with the foot).

Re:You know... there is life without cable.

[antdude]

ESPN3.com is blocked for me due to its ISP requirements. :(

Re:You know... there is life without cable.

[cpotoso]

That s*cks. Same thing happens to me on the ipad app... (but fortunately not on the pc/mac version).

Re:You know... there is life without cable.

[swb]

Is it that clear?

I hate the cable companies like everyone else does, but:

Cable internet has the same cable plant costs to your house that cable TV does. It's not any cheaper or different to provide you with a broadband connection that only uses DOCSIS assigned frequencies. Plus it has a more elaborate infrastructure cost than just one-way television.

And their pricing is structured -- basic cable may be a loss leader to get you into the product; they may actually be pricing at or below what it costs them to deliver it to you.

Re:You know... there is life without cable.

[Unequivocal]

That's very fair - good points. My thinking is that if AT&T can get me 3mbps DSL over copper for $30/month, the physical plant costs can't be the driver in pricing (and I'd think physical plant costs are probably lower for cable since the infrastructure is way less screwed up than copper pairs that the phone cos deal with)? Granted the phone co infrastructure is fully paid for so maybe that's an issue?

Of course DSL is less mbps but check out comcast pricing: you pay $60/month for 16mbps on cable. If you don't want 16mbps you can get 6mbps $50/month or 1.5mbps for $27/mo. The discontinuity in pricing could be related to loss leaders or physical plant (invariant) costs as you suggest, but given how cheap they are willing to bundle two or three services together, it smells like they are doing everything they can to encourage you to keep your cable subscription and not try to cut the cord and go internet only.

That makes sense if Comcast makes more money on cable subscribers than on internet subs? And why would they buy NBC if they weren't worried about cable subs cutting the cord? If they aren't in the content business then when their fat revenue from cable dries up, they become just another earthlink - big whoop.

I'm not saying I have the answers but the way they are running their business seems to suggest this line of thinking (and folks inside the FCC took this as common knowledge when I was there -- not that they necessarily have the inside track).. Curious what you think..

Re:You know... there is life without cable.

[PRMan]

Have you tried switching to WiFi instead of 3G?

Re:You know... there is life without cable.

[Sporkinum]

I just dropped cable about 2 months ago, as they were raising their rates from 45/month to 60 and going digital, which would require the use of a cable box, which would not allow me to use my media center pc for tv. Now I get a dozen or so ota channel, and use netflix, hulu, etc. If I want to watch the local college football team, I watch it via pirate stream.

An added bonus, I watch less TV!

Re:You know... there is life without cable.

[Antony-Kyre]

Or in other words, if there's a specific channel someone wants to watch, but is on a very expensive tier, that being the only way to get said channel, hence the problem.

I'm kind of curious how well Comcast MyTV is going to do in those markets available to receive it. Although I'm not sure if it's cheaper.

Re:You know... there is life without cable.

[cpotoso]

I'd laugh if it weren't so serious.

Re:You know... there is life without cable.

[Sporkinum]

Same here. Local cable company is a small town co-op and they didn't want to pay for it. I dropped cable anyway since they just increased the cost again.

Re:You know... there is life without cable.

[swb]

The only thing I can think of is that pricing for these kinds of products is incredibly complex.

With a physical widget you can determine the material costs of the inputs, the labor costs of assembly and the overhead costs of manufacturing plus the administrative costs of the business and come up with a reasonable cost per unit.

With internet access, it's a lot harder -- the product has no material costs, the subscribers have to pay the overall cost of the infrastructure even though their personal "product" may only use a fraction of it ($modern_medium_town may subsidize $ancient_derelict_city or $spread_out_small_town).

With cable internet, it's even more complicated because there are essentially two businesses (television and internet) sharing the same infrastructure and those businesses have totally different revenue models, competition, etc.

My guess is a big part of the business is still dominated by entertainment, movies -- the tv part. The internet part is huge growth and lots of infrastructure costs but probably narrower revenue streams because you've just got subscription fees, where TV has advertising as well as subscriptions, the channels that pay to be on cable, etc.

At this point, only bandwidth matters to me

[hsthompson69]

Forget ala carte channels - I've got a cable subscription for the 60mbps download, and if a TV channel wants my eyeballs, they'll need to have a website to stream from.

Of course, they keep calling me up asking me if I want to add a cable TV package for some low low price, but they just can't seem to understand that if I'm not going to use it, I'm not going to buy it.

Re:At this point, only bandwidth matters to me

[bemymonkey]

+1

It isn't a la carte until you can choose when, where and on what you want to watch your show.

Re:At this point, only bandwidth matters to me

[Existential Wombat]

+2

All I need is bandwidth. SickBeard and sabnzbd means that my XBMC is populated with all the programs we watch, sometimes before they are finished (or even started) broadcasting here on the west coast.

Re:At this point, only bandwidth matters to me

[cdrguru]

Streaming works fine until the total aggregate bandwidth for your neighborhood is exceeded. The absolutely most forward looking cable companies are running less than 1,000 homes per node and provisioning the nodes at up to 3Gb/sec. Which might give you as much as 6 Mb/sec to every one of the homes.

The less forward looking folks are stuck behind a node with 1000 or more homes and 1Gb/sec or less feeding them.

Streaming SD video is 1-2Mb/sec and HD requires at least 4Mb/sec. Have two streaming boxes in your house? Consider the bandwidth consumption doubled.

In either case, if streaming becomes popular with the masses it isn't going to last very long. The last time we upgraded the cable plant in the US to go from less than 100Mb/sec to a node with analog video delivery to the current digital delivery took around 15 years. Nobody is building out for streaming today, so it is going to be a good long while to supply that kind of bandwidth to every single home. The current infrastructure is built around burst use of the bandwidth - download a web page, grab a file, etc. Streaming is continuous demand and there just isn't the infrastructure to provide that to very many homes.

Yes, I have three Roku boxes and I figure they are going to last through maybe 2013 at best. After that they will be pretty useless.

Re:At this point, only bandwidth matters to me

[caitsith01]

And when it comes to sport, you should be able to pay for a particular league or match only at a proportionally reduced price. Preferally streamed live in HD.

Re:At this point, only bandwidth matters to me

[godefroi]

... but some of us have morals. What you're doing is illegal (whether or not you think it should be), and I'm not interested in participating.

Re:The Cable Industry

[hedwards]

Sure they can, they haven't quite sunk to the depth of cell phone carrier.

Doesn't know anything about the business

[vlm]

"allow all those hundreds of independent and semi-independent channels to stay alive"

The itworld guy doesn't know anything about the business. 99.99% of viewer hours are from around half a dozen big media corporations. Big annual or so contracts at the megacorp to megacorp level, not individual channel negotiation level. You'll have to change literally the entire business relationship structure with the upstreams before the downstreams (individual customers) can go a la carte.

The problem is not the hundreds of independent "local public access" and "local school district" channels.

The other problem is cablecos are not telecoms. A telecom company is a billing system designed to nickle and dime every little activity of each user at enormous cost, with a side effect of providing service; its a billing focused company. A cableco finds billing anything more complicated than $X/month to be kind of difficult for them. Major structural internal changes will have to be made to nickel and dime cable customers; I'm not sure on average that a nickle and dime relationship will save me any money anyway.

Re:Doesn't know anything about the business

[residieu]

So you haven't seen cable companies with premium channels, pay-per-view, on-demand programs, and DVR rentals before? They know how to collect more than a single flat fee.

Re:Doesn't know anything about the business

[vlm]

Yeah but they haven't got nickel and dime billing down to a science like a telco. Expect to see "1000 channel changes per month free, each after 1000 at only five cents each" deals. Per-minute billing for individual channels... "You can activate the mute button for only 50 cents each push, or $2 per month, or $1 per month on a two year service contract". Every time you hit "FF" on a cableco provided DVR to commercial skip, another line on the detailed bill for 25 cents... That's REAL nickel and dime billing, coming soon to a cable bill near you...

If no sports, then why not try Netflix?

[tepples]

I thought people who don't like sports had already migrated to services such as Hulu Plus and Netflix, and people who don't like sport had migrated to their own countries' counterparts.

Re:If no sports, then why not try Netflix?

[Technician]

The bundling is even worse. With Comcast, they dropped the Internet only option. I had switched to DSL for faster speed and less throttling. They recently pulled fiber and are knocking on doors offering Internet at 20 meg speeds for less than my 6 meg DSL, which was an upgrade from my 2 meg original Comcast. The catch is, it comes bundled with basic cable, no opt out. The nice thing is the bundle is currently less than my DSL. I'll be giving the DSL guys an option to match the offer before switching again.

Re:If no sports, then why not try Netflix?

[h4rr4r]

Netflix has actual high def programs. Hulu is lowdef for free, not sure about the pay version. Amazon Prime has HD video as well.

Works for me.

Re:If no sports, then why not try Netflix?

[ShavedOrangutan]

Comcast offers "Internet Only" in my area. It works like this:

Internet Only: $75

Internet + Basic TV: $45 + $35

So it's only $5 savings to turn off the TV. And they really do put the RF filter on the line at the pole.

Re:If no sports, then why not try Netflix?

[djdanlib]

No, because Hulu Plus and Netflix don't have all the shows you might want to DVR. So then you have to have digital cable with the DVR.

Re:If no sports, then why not try Netflix?

[PwnzerDragoon]

Have you seen Comcast's HD? It's compressed so much, some channels are barely any better than SD. I can't say anything about other cable providers, but if Comcast is your only option Netflix's HD is still far better.

Re:If no sports, then why not try Netflix?

[PCM2]

In my case, they really don't. My down-the-street neighbor and I both subscribe to an Internet-only plan and we both get basic cable on top of it. And $5 is $5.

I'm not sure the "RF filters" even really exist anymore now that cable has gone 100 percent digital. Or if they do, it's not worth it for Comcast to roll a truck out to remove the filters once a customer like me decides that I might as well get basic cable after all. How long will it take for that extra $5 a month I'll be sending Comcast to pay for the cost of sending out the truck a second time -- 18 months?

Re:If no sports, then why not try Netflix?

[ShavedOrangutan]

When Adelphia was around, internet was $45/month with or without TV. They didn't filter so basic channels came through whether paid for or not.

Then Comcast bought Adelphia. They actually sent out the bucket truck just to install the filter. That was the shape of things to come. It's been downhill since then.

Re:If no sports, then why not try Netflix?

[archen]

Wish I'd even save $5. That would be $60 a year to me. I haven't even had the cable hooked up to my TV in years. Where I'm at you get a $12 discount for having basic cable (which is also $12), or you pay the same price with internet only.

Re:If no sports, then why not try Netflix?

[RatherBeAnonymous]

The RF filters do exist, but the technicians are either too smart or too lazy (I'm not sure which) to install them. When I have spoken to the technicians, they have flat out told me that with Internet-only, if you have trouble with your connection and complain that they will come back and remove the filter.

Re:If no sports, then why not try Netflix?

[mattack2]

Maybe in your area it has gone 100% digital, but in most areas, cable has not gone 100% digital (and I am glad for that). Usually, there are at *least* a few tens of channels in analog.. Mostly the main channel of the broadcast networks, plus a few others.

Re:If no sports, then why not try Netflix?

[PCM2]

In places where it has gone 100 percent digital, the cable companies are required to carry any channels that are available over-the-air unencrypted. So all of the main broadcast channels plus a few others are available to anyone who has a digital tuner (you don't need a box or card from the cable company). The selection is better, too, because the digital channels make more efficient use of bandwidth. So the local PBS affiliate, for example, actually broadcasts about five digital channels instead of just one analog one.

Because we get what we ask for...

[__aasehi2499]

We just asked for a la carte, we didn't place our order at the same time, and they brought us the scraps from yesterdays blue plate special.

Why do people want a la carte?

[91degrees]

Do they think that they'll end up paying what the cable company pays per channel? It doesn't work like that. They charge the price that will maximise profits.

Ideally they want to charge the value of each channel to each customer. they can't do that though. They need fixed pricing. If the price is too high, people will stop subscribing, too low and the profits no longer make the channel viable. But different people assign different values to different channels. They can actually charge the average amount for each channel. Many of the customers who aren't willing to pay the average price for channel A are willing to pay above average for channel B so they subscribe.

People weren't exactly happy when netflix unbundled their services. why do they think cable companies would be any different?

Re:Why do people want a la carte?

[demonbug]

Do they think that they'll end up paying what the cable company pays per channel? It doesn't work like that. They charge the price that will maximise profits.

Ideally they want to charge the value of each channel to each customer. they can't do that though. They need fixed pricing. If the price is too high, people will stop subscribing, too low and the profits no longer make the channel viable. But different people assign different values to different channels. They can actually charge the average amount for each channel. Many of the customers who aren't willing to pay the average price for channel A are willing to pay above average for channel B so they subscribe.

People weren't exactly happy when netflix unbundled their services. why do they think cable companies would be any different?

People like me want a la carte because out of the 200+ channels (plus hundreds of music channels) available to me, I actually only watch about 5. While I'm sure I would be paying more than what the cable company pays for each channel (well, no shit - they do have to make money somewhere), it seems highly unlikely that it would cost more to get those five channels than the $60 per month I pay now.

So far, yes, I have been willing to pay it because I can afford it without any trouble. But my willingness to continue paying for large amounts of media I have absolutely no interest in is waning as other, more efficient (for my dollar) options become available.

And so what if a channel doesn't have enough interest to be sustainable in an a la carte market? If that's the case, the channel should fold. No reason for everyone to be subsidizing channels that only a relative handful of people are interested in. That might mean the death of a few channels I like, but so be it. Most of the niche channels I once liked have whored themselves out to such an extent that I don't watch anymore anyway (History, TLC, Discovery to name a few).

Re:Why do people want a la carte?

[vlm]

While I'm sure I would be paying more than what the cable company pays for each channel (well, no shit - they do have to make money somewhere), it seems highly unlikely that it would cost more to get those five channels than the $60 per month I pay now.

strongly disagree. Can you imagine the byzantine billing system required to select which of the thousands of channels you want? And the staggering cost of customer service as people call in to sign up for, or cancel, channels? Some people are going to demand only 3 channels or perhaps 6 channels, so that complicates the billing system even more, assuming non-linear cost. The people who "need" 6 channels but only pay for 4 and constantly change their lineup burning customer service hours will need some extra signup fees to discourage them.

Its easily possible to make the billing system the most expensive part of providing service. Look what happened in long distance telephone calls...

And so what if a channel doesn't have enough interest to be sustainable in an a la carte market? If that's the case, the channel should fold.

That won't happen. Upstream contracts are done at megacorp to megacorp level, not a la carte channel level. That is the entire point. There are only a handful of big media companies, therefore there can only be a handful of bundles for the end users, because the guys in the middle only sign a couple contracts with the big production companies.

Standard /. car analogy: There exists a custom, a la carte, hand built, individually designed, hot rod market where the buyer gets exactly every little detail how they want. That in no way invalidates the idea that 99% of the population is stuck buying off the lot from the "big three" dealerships (more or less).

Re:Why do people want a la carte?

[BradleyUffner]

strongly disagree. Can you imagine the byzantine billing system required to select which of the thousands of channels you want? And the staggering cost of customer service as people call in to sign up for, or cancel, channels? Some people are going to demand only 3 channels or perhaps 6 channels, so that complicates the billing system even more, assuming non-linear cost. The people who "need" 6 channels but only pay for 4 and constantly change their lineup burning customer service hours will need some extra signup fees to discourage them.

Its easily possible to make the billing system the most expensive part of providing service. Look what happened in long distance telephone calls...

There are these things called "web sites" and "check boxes" that might help with this.

Re:Why do people want a la carte?

[91degrees]

So, since you're not interested in the other 200 channels, presumably those 5 channels are worth $12 each to you, on average. Given the niche nature of most of the channels, I imagine a good number of their customers feel the same way.

why would they choose to charge you less than $12 for each channel when you are clearly willing to pay that for them?

stupid suckers

[Thud457]

Cable?
Is that where old people pay to get programming with ads?

Re:stupid suckers

[Tsu-na-mi]

Apparently.

I watch all my TV over the Internet, sans commercials. All hail Bittorrent and TV release groups.

I remember someone commenting on why sports figures get paid in the tens of millions, and it was 'because people are willing to pay to see them". Teams pay players because they can jack up prices on ticket sales and TV rights for ESPN. Because they in turn can jack up charges to cable providers, and they in turn can jack up prices to cable subscribers. Lebron gets a 50m paycheck because of the idiots who pay for ESPN. Count me out of that nightmare.

What cable companies need to do is not cave in to ESPN's $4/subscriber pricing, or anyone else's. Then ESPN can go back to the league and offer less for the rights. Then teams can pay their players less. Everyone wins except a few hundred pro athletes. Sure, some competing channel to ESPN will crop up, offer more, and hopefully fail when they cannot sell their channel, but that's how markets work.

But then I watch mostly Scripted television, documentaries, and anime, so what do I care. Channels are supposed to earn their revenue off of advertising sales. Cable companies are supposed to sell a service (high quality image distribution of content) not the content itself. Like many, I will either watch ads, or pay for content, but not both.

So now I download all the TV I watch off the Internet. Have been doing so for 10 years now. And I will never go back.

Re:stupid suckers

[AngryDeuce]

Yeah really. I follow everything I care to follow very easily via my internet connection. Legally if I can, illegally if I can't (or if the process to do it legally is utterly retarded, i.e., HBO GO).

Re:stupid suckers

[godefroi]

... and when everyone does it like you do, there will be no such thing as television.

You, however, will have hit your "three strikes" long before that, and will no longer have the option to have an internet connection, so the point will be moot for you.

Welcome to the future.

Re:stupid suckers

[Rakarra]

I remember someone commenting on why sports figures get paid in the tens of millions, and it was 'because people are willing to pay to see them"

It's three-fold, actually, it's because
1) People are willing to see them.
2) People are willing to buy their products (jerseys, logos, etc)
3) There is a small number of people with talent at the level that MLB, NBA, NFL, et all require. So scarcity drives up prices because most people want to watch the best available players. If you have tens of thousands of players able to compete at that level, salaries would likely go down since players would be more replaceable.

Now, they wouldn't go down all the way because players want a certain cut of what teams bring in, and teams are able to (and so will try their best to) bring a lot of money in, but some of the astronomical salaries we see for the highest-paid players would come down.

Oh wait!

[CrackedButter]

So Americans have willingly been participating in a socialist pay model when it comes to cable channels? Bummer, so who are the Communists and anti-Americans in this evil scenario.

Re:Oh wait!

[drooling-dog]

In my experience, conservatives typically bundle monopoly corporatism under their umbrella of "free enterprise". As long as wealth is being concentrated, they're fine with it.

Re:Oh wait!

[keith_nt4]

This isn't a socialist pay model: it's not mandated. There's choice. I can opt-in to channels I want like AMC and comedy central, opt-out of golf channel and all spanish-speaking channels. Or choose not to have cable at all. There's always Hulu/Netflix.

By contrast in socialist medicine for instance EVERYONE is mandated to buy health care...or the more politically correct phrasing "compulsory health insurance", ... thus subsidizing everyone else. No choices involved. In conclusion I don't really see the similarities.

Re:Oh wait!

[BJ_Covert_Action]

Bummer, so who are the Communists and anti-Americans in this evil scenario.

The folks who watch whatever the hell they want to watch over the internet, from what I can tell.

Re:Oh wait!

[Rakarra]

By contrast in socialist medicine for instance EVERYONE is mandated to buy health care...or the more politically correct phrasing "compulsory health insurance", ... thus subsidizing everyone else. No choices involved. In conclusion I don't really see the similarities.

It's pretty hard to draw parallels between insurance and voluntary luxury, since health care services -must- treat someone who is sick, even if they can't pay. Cable companies won't care if you HAVE to watch Queer Eye, if you're not paying, you won't see it (from them).

Mandatory health insurance is the only way a system that bans denying people for pre-existing conditions can work. Allow insurance companies to deny people for their pre-existing conditions, then health insurance doesn't -need- to be mandatory, though it's still an inferior system compared to the alternative.

But you can't have a health care system where it's possible for people to pay for insurance only when they need it. That is impossible to sustain.

How is this Bait and Switch?

[drb226]

The idea is to let you choose how much money you want to waste on TV. If you want the popular, lucrative channels, then you may pay for them. Or not. This is not a bait and switch. This is someone whining that they will now have to pay slightly more for the channels they want to watch, rather than forcing the rest of the viewership to subsidize them. Just because the cable companies will end up getting more money doesn't mean this is a bad thing for me; it just means that a lot of people are dumb enough to shell out more money for the dumb things they watch on TV.

Re:How is this Bait and Switch?

[sanosuke001]

It's a bait and switch because the channels nobody wants to pay for will now be bundled with the "required to support" channels and the base price for service will probably remain close to the same so that tier you used to pay $15 for will instead be split up into premium groups and all the cruft that was bundled in that tier will be moved to the base plan and it will still get subsidized. If I didn't want the cruft (ie. I want to choose which channels I get in the base plan as well) I have no choice here either. I don't particularly like paying for Disney, Lifetime, CNN, etc but they'll probably be a part of the base plan and I'd have no say in subsidizing them.

Re:How is this Bait and Switch?

[NoSig]

If the channels that pay to get to you are in the base plan, then the base plan would be more expensive without them. I don't hate those channels so much that I'd pay money to avoid having them delivered to me. I can just not watch them.

Re:How is this Bait and Switch?

[Attila Dimedici]

It is not bait and switch, the channels that are getting bundled with the "required to support" channels pay to be there. Therefore, the cable company has no justification to charge anything more than base price for including them. You are not paying for those channels. What I object to are the channels like ESPN that require the cable company to pay a fee for each subscriber the cable company has, even if those subscribers do not want ESPN. What really gets me is that ESPN has successfully moved this model to thier webpage (ESPN360, or somesuch). Either your ISP pays ESPN a fee for each subscriber they have, or none of their subscribers can navigate to ESPN360 (or whatever they call the website).

Re:How is this Bait and Switch?

[jmorris42]

No, it is actually more twisted. ESPN3 is only available for cable subscribers who have ESPN1 & ESPN2 and connect via their cable company's internet service. The cable companies are also pushing their bundle plan. I on on the fence on network neutrality but crap like this makes me want to lean towards letting the feral government bust em up just a bit. Then I realize once unleashed the monster can't be put back on the leash very easy and hesitate.

The base problem is neither telecom or cable industry is anything approaching a free market. In most towns you have the government sponsored entity telco 'competing' against the government granted monopoly cable company with token resistence from heavilly government regulated wireless and sat players, all kept on very short leashes by the FCC and the state regulating authorities. But of course those 'independent' regulators have already been mostly captured by the very industries we now want the FCC to assume even more authority over with network neutrality and rebranded fairness doctrine regs. Combine that with almost all cable content originating from one of a handful of 'providers' and the situation is even less a free market.

What are the Slashdot editors smoking?

[LWATCDR]

Just how is this bait and switch?
"That's why it was surprising to hear that major cable companies are privately working towards offering a la carte pricing. But when you look at the details, it seems more like a bait and switch: those lesser channels (which pay cable companies for their place on the dial) will still be bundled with the local stations cable companies are required to provide, whereas pricey sports channels (which cable companies have to pay for) will become HBO-like premium services.""

Okay so the channels that are cheap or that pay that cable companies will be "included" with the local channels. The channels that are expensive will be charged for! That is the single must fair and logical way of doing things that I have never heard.

For years the cable companies where subsidizing the cost of ESPN buy bundling it with other channels. I wonder how many people will pay for ESPN when they see the real cost. Heck I think it is great. I could get the channels I want and pay the real costs of those channels.
How the heck is this bait and switch. This is actually dumber than the summary that implied that using old missiles to launch satellites was something new.

Re:What are the Slashdot editors smoking?

[Anonymous Coward]

Working for the cable company, I can say one thing is true. ESPN is more expensive for us than any other non-premium channel and some premium channels. And their bundling and per subscriber charge organization is a complete and utter joke compared to any other channel, except for maybe.. the Big Ten Network.

Re:What are the Slashdot editors smoking?

[blackraven14250]

I think the assumption, which may or may not be correct, is that the cable company will be doing so while keeping the base price the same. If they do that, then they are switching two plans of the same price which have completely different sets of channels (one with desirable channels, and the other not so much); not quite a bait and switch, but would definitely be screwing some people over. However, if they lower price of the base package to be in line with their costs (closer to the $0 figure), it would surely be a move in the right direction.

Re:What are the Slashdot editors smoking?

[LWATCDR]

Well the cable companies have got to be feeling the pain.
Frankly anybody that lives in an area with good coverage is pretty dumb to pay for basic cable. The OTA digital picture is BETTER than what you get from the cable company and it is free.
People are dropping cable and that is going to hurt. People are also getting tired of the cable companies running amok and they can see regulations coming. The fact that the AT&T TMobile merger was not rubber stamped is the first sign.

unintentional humor alert

[waddgodd]

I've seen this issue from both sides, as a consumer, and as working as a CSR for a cable company. The absolutely hilarious part here is that most consumers that want ala carte channels think that their cable bills will go down with ala carte. Needless to say, they won't. What will end up happening is they'll look at the ten or so most popular channels, make them total $20-$30/month, then make the rest of the other 200+ channels total up to the remaining $30-$50 that cable customers know and dislike. THEN the premiums get thrown in. So basically, ala carte will raise your bills for less service. What's not to like from the Cable company's standpoint?

Re:unintentional humor alert

[sycorob]

That doesn't make sense to me. Let's assume the cable company won't outright gouge you (big assumption, sure). They'll want to keep overall revenues the same. The ESPN family is more expensive per user, so they can break that out into its own package. Every other channel that pays to be put on cable (to get ad revenues) will be cheaper. The people that absolutely must watch live sports will have to pay more, or ESPN will have to get cheaper. People not interested in sports will not have to subsidize ESPN any more just to get a couple of premium channels.

Cable is getting real competition from Over the Air and streaming content. They know they have to offer something compelling to get me to stay. If they can get me the basic channels + all of the science channels that are hard to find on streaming for a reasonable cost, I'll stay. If they can't, then I might leave. OTA is free, and free almost always beats better.

Re:unintentional humor alert

[Chirs]

Realistically, the cable company is not going to want to keep overall revenues the same. So they'll break out the expensive channels and charge slightly more than they need to for those people who really want them, and they'll make things slightly cheaper for the rest who don't. So people with the bare minimum may be able to save some money, but some people will end up paying quite a bit more. On average, people will likely end up paying slightly more--because realistically any change is an opportunity for the cable company to make more money and try to hide it in the changes.

Re:The Cable Industry

[Grishnakh]

And they haven't quite sunk to the depth of landline provider. Over here, pathetic Qwest is trying to revamp their image by changing their name to CenturyLink, hoping everyone will forget their horrible experiences with them.

Would be nice if I could get JUST sports

[jpstanle]

Live sports and racing are the only thing that could potentially entice me to pay for cable. Any scripted television I might be interested in watching is easily available streaming online or free OTA. I have no interest in actually keeping up with the kardhashians, and thus have no interest in paying $50+/month for crap like E network or MTV. I want to watch college football and motorcycle racing. If I could get all the sports channels for $20/month, I'd fork it over, even if that is a huge mark up.

Re:Would be nice if I could get JUST sports

[vlm]

If I could get all the sports channels for $20/month, I'd fork it over, even if that is a huge mark up.

LOL can't even pay the capital costs and maintenance costs for the wire into your house for $20/mo. Basic (usually about $10 to $15) is generally speaking a non-profit subsidized service.

Re:Would be nice if I could get JUST sports

[digitalride]

from TFA: "At around $4 a subscriber, ESPN is the most expensive channel in the cable business"

I would pay $5 for just ESPN and the online ESPN content that you can't get now without spending $50+/month. You can deliver it online, there is no reason to have $20/mo "capital costs and maintenance" for one company's dedicated cable running to everyone's house just for TV when the internet is already there.

I'm sure they really won't let people choose just the channels they want without first buying a package of basic crap that is available online or OTA for free and that few people really want. I'm not going to pay $50/month now to get ESPN, and I'm not going to pay $25/month for ESPN in some pseudo-a-la-carte plan either.

Re:Would be nice if I could get JUST sports

[glodime]

"At around $4 a subscriber, ESPN is the most expensive channel in the cable business"

That includes all of the non-sports fans paying for other channels in the same package. It is hard to estimate $ per sports fan subscriber and match it with value per sports fan subscriber, hence no a la carte, access how you want to ESPN offer.

Re:Would be nice if I could get JUST sports

[kevinNCSU]

You can get most college football from ESPN on an Xbox. I only use cable for the NFL. no idea about motorcycle racing but if it's on ESPN 3 you can get that via the xbox app.

I ditched cable to avoid "packages"

[sfranklin]

I don't have cable any more. The main reason is that I was paying $60/month for a package that had only three channels that I used. (MLB Network, ESPN, Versus in HD - I watch live sports but not much else.) If I could pay $15/month just for those channels, I'd be doing it. But since I can't, I just ditched the whole thing. I realize I'm not the typical customer, but it would be awfully nice if there was a company that could cater to those of us that really only want a few channels, and aren't willing to pay ridiculous amounts for them.

Re:I ditched cable to avoid "packages"

[fr8_liner]

In our area the only option is Dish network. In the small town of Quarryville, PA, the basic no-frills package includes the major networks and an equal number of religious channels. I laughed in the face of the Dish network sales guy because I thought he was kidding. Because he was a Mennonite and easily offended, I asked if they could provide a number of raunchy porn channels instead of all that "religious crap". The sales call ended badly of course.

who cares

[cornface]

Technology has already zoomed past the need for concepts like "channels" and "timeslots."

The cable companies trying to cling to this as a model will just produce ever more convoluted business plans attempting to delay the obvious and inevitable, much like the music industry before them, and the e-book industry now.

If their offerings don't compare favorably with ease of use, convenience, and features of the latest version of whatever the pirates and hackers have cooked up (xbmc, sickbeard, couch potato, etc) then they are going to have increasing trouble convincing people that their service is worth the ever inflating prices they are charging for it. I think that most people gravitate towards what is easiest and best before what is free, as evidenced by the success of itunes and other paid music and television services.

Meh.

Re:who cares

[Dorkmaster Flek]

I was going to reply "Cable? What is this cable you speak of?" but this pretty much sums it up exactly. I don't have cable. My brother recently moved out to his own place, and he doesn't have cable. I don't know anyone who has their own place under the age of 40 who has cable.

Re:who cares

[idontgno]

Probably because you can't afford it, given the mediocre economy and crappy job prospects.

Still, good job on prioritizing.

Re:who cares

[cornface]

The biggest killer for me is that what once made cable and satellite a decent proposition was that subscriptions to the popular channels helped to support a large number of niche channels that wouldn't otherwise be able to exist.

Unfortunately, years ago, advertising started to pop up on cable channels. I'm sure a lot of people don't remember that it wasn't always like that. As channels increasingly compete for ad dollars, they all dumb down to the same target demographic. The one that sells the most ads. So now you have shows on the History channel that aren't history, shows on MTV that aren't music, shows on "SyFy" that aren't science fiction. They are all basically interchangeable because they are all aiming at the same market and trying to do it as cheaply as possible.

Well, too bad for them. If they want to make their programming interchangeable, fine, but I'm not going to pay outrageous subscription fees for special access to your programs. The fees are no longer subsidizing the production of original niche content that isn't avaiable elsewhere, so why pay it?

Re:who cares

[cornface]

Most of the sports leagues offer a way to purchase seasons of streaming games. Basically Sunday Ticket without having to have a dish subscription. Some of them will even stream to your PS3.

Because I want at most two channels I can't get

[Shivetya]

I pay $12.95 for basic cable, which had all my locals and then all the government forced channels and some shopping networks I do not look at.

If I want SyFy I have to go to 54.95. I don't want the other channels they are offering, I have a very limited need for televised entertainment and see no reason I should subsidizes the channels someone else wants. Yeah I know it probably will cost more than it cost them, but I DON'T CARE. It certainly won't be the forty two dollar difference I am faced with now.

Pay Per View and Ala Carte is fine by me

Kill your TV!

[roc97007]

Ok, maybe not kill it, but wound it severely. We dropped cable a year ago and I tell ya, I really appreciate that extra $120 each and every month. It's like getting a raise.

If you're in a place that will support it, real TV antennas are making a comeback. The price is modest and the content is free! And just about everything else is available off the internet, especially if you don't insist on watching it the very moment it's broadcast.

I think cable TV is the dial-up service of this century. It's expensive, redundant and unnecessary, but is still popular for reasons that aren't entirely clear.

A Comcast salescreature comes by about once a month and tries to sell us on switching to a package deal. I say I'm happy with what I have (fibre to the house). He says but your carrier is getting out of the cable business!!! You're not going to get cable TV anymore!!! In the same tone of voice you'd say They're going to cut off your Oxygen!!! I tell him yes, I don't get cable TV , just internet. He looks at me like the refrigerator salesman looked at the Amish couple. They just can't understand not wanting cable TV. It's AOL all over again -- they couldn't understand why I didn't need them anymore when I switched to broadband. "But what about email?" Free. "Our content?" Crap. "How are you going to get to the internet??" Broadband includes the internet, that's kinda the point. And so on.

Re:Kill your TV!

[crossmr]

I think the problem was you were spending $120/month on cable.

Last time I had satellite I had 3 receivers setup and it only cost $40/month with more channels then I could watch and it included everything I wanted.

Re:Kill your TV!

[roc97007]

That must have been awhile ago; I was an early adopter of DirecTV and it was a little more than $40/month in the nineties for 2 receivers, and rapidly got more expensive.

As I recall, $120 a month included two DVRs (which never really worked right) east and west coast feeds and a bunch of premium channels. It was even more costly the year we had the football package, but I refused to pay for it after the first year.

That wasn't even for HD content, which would have been more.

I watch very little TV; I usually plan what I watch, see it without commercials, and turn it off when I'm done. Wife leaves the TV on all day and most of the night for background noise (or something). We originally got the premium channels as part of a package deal where you weren't going to be charged for them for a certain number of months, but when that runs out they quietly start charging you for them, and I think a significant number of people just pay it. It was awhile before I realized wife wasn't watching the premiums and I was in effect throwing money at the cable company for no damned reason.

I finally got fed up, cancelled everything, sent all the equipment back, put an antenna on the roof and strung wires to the two tvs in the house. I got a roku box to keep wife amused. Cost of roku box was less than one month of cable tv service. When Netflix changed their policy I immediately dropped DVD service and kept streaming only. Yes, the selection sucks, but we all have to make sacrifices in a down economy. I may switch to Amazon, or Hulu, haven't decided yet.

I have fiber internet to the house, and streaming works just fine, thank you. I keep internet speed provisioned to a point where streaming works well and *not* at the fastest rate my ISP can deliver, because that would be more money for very little gain. About every six months I play off the competing ISPs in my area which usually gets me an extension of the discount I currently enjoy.

It's important to remember, it's just TV. It isn't, you know, oxygen.

Re:Kill your TV!

[e_hu_man]

i realize i'm a little late to this by slashdot standards, but i felt compelled to reply anyway since you seem to be one of the more rational people on slashdot who has cut the cord. but, first, a huge, giant disclaimer: i work for directv. second huge, giant disclaimer: i speak for myself and am not representing directv in any official capacity.

i think it's great that there are people like you, cutting the cord. i myself did it for 2 1/2 years. it forces the cable and satellite companies to up their game. what everyone seems to be missing, however, is that they are. this is the principal reason cable and satellite have not died and, in fact, are doing quite well. the overall price range of various packages hasn't changed in 20 years. however, dvr's are practically universal, most of the channels are hd (it's weird to me your monthly charge would have been higher because of it), even remote locations get local channels and, generally speaking, you get more channels than you used to. this simply wasn't the case 10 years ago, or even 5. additionally, the on-demand choices are expanding, movies are becoming available on or before the dvd release date and while adoption hasn't been as rapid as hd, 3d is available. further, it's all the rage to be able to get content distributed throughout your entire home and to take it with you on the go. in retrospect, this all seems like a natural progression, but it isn't. cable and satellite companies had to push for all of it and invest in it.

so, while i applaud your effort to get just what you want and you don't find any of the above compelling enough to pay for, the fact is that in large numbers, choices different than your's are being made. i would venture to guess that it's because people do feel like they're getting more for the same money.

i will blatantly plug directv now and point out that our customer satisfaction numbers are actually increasing, unlike the rest of the industry. we're the only ones with energy star compliant set-top boxes. and, now that the dvr software development is largely in-house, the boxes themselves are quite reliable. as much as i'd like to say this was solely the result of fastidiously conscientious engineering, management demanded it to minimize support costs, which is, of course, closely tied to customer satisfaction.

sports is the only reason for cable

[JulianDraak]

It would be nice if I could just have Versus, ESPN channels, & my local sports cable channel (Root Sports, formerly FSN Pittsburgh.) Only reason I have cable is for hockey & football. If I could just get sport channels & then get a digital receiver for my local channels, I'd be pretty happy. Netflix & Hulu the rest.

You know... there is life without TV

[wall0645]

Why settle for not buying cable when you can just not watch TV period? All of a sudden I have time to learn guitar, read books, exercise, cook my own food, etc. Plus, I don't have advertisements constantly flashing before my eyes (which you pay to watch on cable; you "get them" for free on non-cable) telling me "consume, consume, CONSUME."

Re:You know... there is life without TV

[h4rr4r]

Have you heard of streaming video? Netflix and amazon both have advertising free video. Also I can cook and watch tv at the same time, I often read and watch as well.

Re:You know... there is life without TV

[sdguero]

Ugh. The "you don't need TV" guy. Seems like every department I ever worked in had one of you. ;)

Re:You know... there is life without TV

[Velex]

Here you go http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-man-constantly-mentioning-he-doesnt-own-a-tel,429/

Re:You know... there is life without TV

[sdguero]

Hahaha. Exactly!

Re:You know... there is life without TV

[wall0645]

Also this http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/01/26/28-not-having-a-tv/ But my favorite is this quote from Groucho Marx: "I find television very educating. Every time somebody turns on the set, I go into the other room and read a book."

all a matter of perspective

[FudRucker]

i dont like sports, i lock out espn in my TV, i find it boring and stupid to watch grown men run around on a field chasing a ball or whacking it with a stick or club, and if i can get my basic cable subscription a few dollars cheaper by excluding items i dont want to see is fine with me, same with MTV CMT and VH1 not interested in it, i watch maybe 5 to 8 channels out of 62...

Because "privately working" == "bait" on Slashdot

[Kohath]

It's "bait and switch" because someone found out about what they were "privately working on" and was disappointed it didn't fulfill his every wish. It's the age of entitlement. If someone doesn't get everything he wants, it can be anywhere from "bait and switch" to a hate crime depending on how entitled he is.

sports channels

[StuffMaster]

pricey sports channels (which cable companies have to pay for) will become HBO-like premium services.

If you don't want sports channels, this sound like a good thing.1/3 of a cable subscription goes to sports channels.

Cable TV is irrevelant anyways...

[Lumpy]

I used to have Cable and got rid of it, instead using streaming for TV. Hulu and Netflix. I ended up spending 1/3rd the cost even with doubleing my bandwidth for the Internet side.

Recently through work I was able to get Dish Network for our corporate rate of $29.00 a month for 300 channels. Guess what. I get 300 channels of nothing and a reminder of why I thought that Cable TV was a waste of money. At the end of the 2 year "contract" because I did not pay for my box and dish/install I will be dropping it as CableTV/Dish is not even worth $29.00 a month.

Traditional cable is already a dead business model. It's done and over with.

Go away, you're not 21

[tepples]

If there is really a game I want to see, there are plenty of sports bars around town that have every game.

Which is tough if, say, one's son wants to watch Monday Night Football too.

Re:Go away, you're not 21

[idontgno]

You realize you just hypothesized about reproduction to a Slashdotter, yes?

Talk about postulating the spherical cow.

Re:Go away, you're not 21

[mr1911]

There are plenty of choices here for sport's themed restaurants that are not just bars. Children are welcome in the restaurant area, where you can still watch the game.

Never mind that previous comment. Please continue bitching about paying for cable channels while you turn a blind eye to completely viable alternatives.

Nickel-and-dime will be the name of the game

[Bloodwine77]

This is how it will play out in the end:

Let's say you have a current cable package for $40/mo and you get 80 channels

The new system will only bundle the less popular channels in the cable package and the popular channels will be separate. Want FX? Extra. Want Comedy Central? Extra. Want Cartoon Network? Extra.

So now your cable package is still $40/mo, but you only get 50 channels, and not any good ones. Each of the other 30 channels are now an extra $1-5/mo each.

So you might not have to subsidize sports channels, outdoor channels, christian channels, and so forth if you don't care about them, but the de-bundling will end up costing you more.

At first they may lull you in with a discount on the basic bundles to make the a la carte seem like a better deal, but give them a year or two and you will be paying out the nose, and if you complain about it then people will defend the cable companies by saying that cable prices would have gone up anyways, maybe even more-so, if they still did the old bundle method. There would be no way to absolutely prove price gouging due to a la carte.

Also TVless

[h4x0t]

I have not needed a TV since I got out of uni a few years back.
Gamer here. LoL is way better than Survivor or whatever.
Hulu has tons of that content, foh free.
Slashdot, reddit, and a plethora of web comics/reviews (shout-out to Yahtzee) provide hours of entertainment daily as well.

Why would I pay money for something already paid for with ads? When the good stuff is online anyway for free? Nice try, Cable Co USA.

Could this be the end to ESPN?

[Anonymous Coward]

I work for the local cable company, Right now, we are paying about 7.15 per subscriber to carry the ESPN channels, five in total. This is almost what we are charged by HBO. If our EPSN subscribers slipped to the levels on HBO, and ESPN demanded the same money out of us to carry it, we would be looking at almost 13 bucks per subscriber. Wonder how many people would be willing to pay 13 bucks a month for ESPN?

Cable television companies won't support

[brainzach]

I might buy cable mainly for ESPN and the Discovery Channel, but I also watch the other channels as an added benefit. A la carte pricing can dramatically reduce viewership and advertising revenue for many of these channels.

It could also reduce the discovery process in finding out about new TV channels. How do you know that something is worth paying for when you have never even watched it to begin with.

Sports

[wzinc]

Fun to play; boring to watch.

Bwah? "Bait and switch?"

[Slartibartfast]

So... you get cheap channels, cheap, and pay for expensive ones.

Am I missing something? How, exactly, does this count as "bait and switch"?

Where is the bait and switch?

[grapeape]

If what they are offering is the "free channels" bundled and the ones that cost them money as optional isn't that pretty much what most people want. I'm not a big sports guy beyond my home teams which are nearly always on the local channels so the opportunity to drop 40%-50% of my bill to get rid of channels I dont want would probably encourage me to get cable tv again.

Your father reproduced

[tepples]

Your father reproduced. Otherwise, you wouldn't be here.

Re:Your father reproduced

[Anonymous Coward]

I think we can be certain his mother reproduced. I wouldn't be so sure about his father.

Good! I would rather pay for HBO than bundled ESPN

[sziring]

I would much rather put my money towards HBO than get ESPN for free. According to the rate chart below in 2009 cable subscribers were paying over $4 just for ESPN. I like watching the occasional sporting event but if people are willing to pay for every other sports channel, let them and stop charging me for it. http://allthingsd.com/20100308/hate-paying-for-cable-heres-the-reason-why/

Forget cable/satellite.

[plebeian]

I would be willing to pay for more good shows but nobody wants to sell them to me. It kind of sucks not being able to watch current HBO shows as they air. It does not suck enough that I will pay for outdated/overpriced Cable or Satalite TV technology. My message to the Cable Companies is that they should look into this internet thing for delivering their content, and ditch the legacy hardware as quickly as possible (to minimize costs). They need to worry that someone who does not have the cost of maintaining legacy equipment will appear and undercut their whole business. O wait didn't Dreamworks just sign a contract with Netflix? It may already be to late! I pay for TV service on Netflix and Hulu and that is it. I don't know the last time I turned on my TV. Everything is run through my computer or phone.

This.

[Radical Moderate]

Kill "cable" already. I don't need Comcast to negotiate with all these clowns, just let me go online and stream directly from each channel. And let me pay per show, or if I watch your channel a lot I'll pay a monthly subscription. Comcast, just connect me to the internet and stay the hell out of my way. Until then I'll stick with Netflix, it's far from perfect but it has tons of good stuff I haven't seen yet, and no frickin' commercials.

You thought differently?

[skyraker]

How could anyone realistically believe that there could be a pure a la carte cable setup? Cable companies are charged by the networks PER SUBSCRIBER, not per person who watches the channel. So it wouldn't matter if 100k of 300k watch ESPN, Time Warner would get charged for the 300k. To make a la carte work, Time Warner would have to pass the cost on to only those who pick ESPN in their lineup, meaning that those who would get ESPN would pay more than the $4 it costs Time Warner for that same person. The real solution, in my opinion, would be for cable companies to make more tiers of service (ie 50/100/200 channels), scale the rates their customers pay for the new tiers, then allow us to pick the channels we want in our tier. Because the cost to the subscriber essentially doesn't change much, the company still earns enough to pay the costs to the networks.

Too Little Too Late

[Maltheus]

Between my Dish receiver constantly failing and Netflix's incessant price/plan changes, I decided this month to take a hard look at how I receive my entertainment. After seeing all the other (better) options out there, along with my existing supplemental options, I'll be canceling Dish this month and I've already scaled back my Netflix plan (and will further scale it back further to 1-non-Bluray-DVD a month pretty soon). The only thing that was holding me back were the news channels, but with rtmpdump piped into mplayer, I now have more news channels on my htpc than I did before. I've signed up for Hulu Plus and if I want a premium movie, I'll go pay-per-view with Vudu (which has much better video and audio quality than netflix).

The only hole left is the Discovery channel, but if they don't want to stream it, if they want to continue to rely on the bundle model, then fuck those shows. Dish/cable just isn't worth the price compared to the alternatives (and for what you get). But I'm grateful to them and netflix for pissing me off enough to consider my options.

Re:still not what i want

[omnichad]

There's always CableCard, as long as you're not on a provider that managed to get a waiver on that requirement.

Yeap

[jerryjnormandin]

Well, if the cable companies don't smarten up they will end up making a lot less money in the long run. I dropped my cable package 6 months ago. I have basic cable + 6mb internet access. I added a rocku box to my tv and I'm not looking back. Works fine. My wife can watch her HGTV stuff when she wants, other shows are available on free Hulu or Crackle. I am thinking about dropping basic cable and just leaving internet. I will grab whatever channels I can localy. I only watch 2 shows really.. Big Bang Theory and Fringe. Most of the time I've been listening to my music through a tube amplifier. Wow what were they thinking when audio went to solid state. Tubes add texture to sound, I thnink solid state amplifier filter way too much of the original recording.

MSNBC: Here again, gone tomorrow

[MillionthMonkey]

We canceled Comcast, but with a big change of furniture and new equipment several weeks later, we decided to pick up Comcast again because my wife wanted to see something on MSNBC.

Too bad- it all came back a month later with an identical look as before, except for one copious absence: MSNBC. The digital box UI displayed a list that jumped from 59 (FOX) to 61 (weather channel).

The MSNBC signal was still on the wire, since the no-frills auxiliary box that they attached to the bedroom TV could still get FOX, MSNBC, and TWC with perfect reception when entering all of "59", "60", and "61" in manually. The main digital cable box accepts 59 as FOX and 61 as TWC, but rejects "60" as nonsense. It steadfastly pretends the MSNBC signal is not there and jumps back and forth between 59 and 61.

We called the Comcast phone farm to see WTF and they said that Comcast had simply decided to stop offering certain "politically biased" channels in its package lineups they offer. According to them, anyone ordering cable and getting new service from Comcast (in the middle of Silicon Valley, at least) wasn't going to see MSNBC anymore. They also aid that at some point in the future Comcast will eliminate the MSNBC signal entirely.

Re:MSNBC: Here again, gone tomorrow

[desdinova 216]

which is strange because MSNBC is if I'm not mistaken is a NBC channel which is owned by comcast

Re:MSNBC: Here again, gone tomorrow

[MillionthMonkey]

As long as I haven't cancelled this account I'll have your evidence right here in my living room and bedroom.

Unfortunately you're still not invited, jackass.

Re:MSNBC: Here again, gone tomorrow

[soundguy]

I want Fox News as well as ALL sports, bible-thumper, and home shopping networks removed so I don't have to pay for them. I'd pay extra if my provider (Frontier FIOS) would send a personal letter to the CEOs of each of those channels every month stating "We have X number of subscribers who want you to go fuck yourself and refuse to pay for your bullshit content"

Re:MSNBC: Here again, gone tomorrow

[MillionthMonkey]

When this happened (a year ago) Comcast still co-owned NBC with G&E. [shrugs]

Re:MSNBC: Here again, gone tomorrow

[unitron]

They're dumping MSNBC for being political but keeping Fox?

You might want to mention that to the FCC, and, although you'd think they'd know already, MSNBC themselves.

Are there any newspapers in the area that aren't hopelessly right wing?

Re:MSNBC: Here again, gone tomorrow

[desdinova 216]

did they also block Fox news? After all Fox news channel is as biased on the right as MSNBC is on the left.

Re:MSNBC: Here again, gone tomorrow

[Rakarra]

Although, if this were true, it would explain MSNBC's ratings.

MSNBC explains MSNBC's ratings.

Re:MSNBC: Here again, gone tomorrow

[swalve]

That's an excellent point. OK fine, we have to pay for the bundle. But I would like the option to refuse to be part of the "78 million households" that Fox News claims are watching them.

Re:MSNBC: Here again, gone tomorrow

[mattack2]

You're not paying for "bible-thumper, and home shopping networks". Those channels are paying the cable companies to carry their channels.

You *are/would be* paying for Fox News and sports, since those cost the cable companies money. (Well, I suspect long ago, when it started, Fox News might have been free to the cable companies.. but not anymore.)

TV is still relevant?

[Bysshe]

Since when do we really need TV anymore?

Re:The Cable Industry

[hedwards]

They aren't changing their name, CenturyLink is a different outfit that purchased them a while back. Same goes around here. I'm reserving judgement on the deal simply because the alternative is Comcast.

I doubt very much that the service will improve, but hope springs eternal.

Re:The Cable Industry

[Grishnakh]

That's odd, their commercials said they were changing their name, but of course you can never trust marketeers to tell the truth on anything. I didn't bother looking any deeper to see what the real deal was because I'd never willingly be a customer of theirs again.

Luckily, my alternative is Cox, which is actually pretty decent for internet service. I sure hope I don't have to move someplace where Comcrap is the cableco.

copy canada system with theme packs and buy box

[Joe_Dragon]

copy canada system with theme packs and being able to buy the box with no rent , mirroring or outlet fees.

Now espn should be like HBO a payed add price it at $5-$10 /m

Sky sports UK and NZ is a payed add on. Same thing with fox sports AUS.

also make Disney channel a payed add on like it used to be.

back in the day local rsn's stated as pay UHF channels. Now why must I buy MTV, Lifetime, A and E, golf channel, and more to see my local teams?

Re:copy canada system with theme packs and buy box

[geekoid]

hint:
You're paying for the sports, the other stuff is either paying to be there, or such a tiny amount the cost of breaking them out would raise there price even more.

Internet TV

[beerdini]

I've been a DirecTV customer for over a decade and this past year I finally purchased an HDTV that has apps for Netflix, Amazon Prime, and most recently Hulu Plus. Since I upgraded my receivers to DVR in the last year I have a little over a year now to my contract to try to figure out if I can get an antenna working for my locals, and seriously consider dropping satellite in favor of the 3 services.

I haven't had a problem with Netflix's policies lately, I was a streaming only customer anyway. I'll just be mindful of any price increases. I originally got Prime for the 2 day shipping, so the content plan there is just a bonus, and it is convenient as a substitute for rentals if I really want to see something new. I haven't tried Hulu yet, but have looked at their lineup. With the apparent lack of CBS shows, and for only having the last couple of episodes of things like Burn Notice, I could probably get by with it once I got used to how it works, but I do like saving shows on my DVR to rewatch episodes or the previous season before the new season starts.

Currently, I figure that I'd save about $50/mo after dropping satellite and picking up Hulu in addition to Netflix and Prime that I'm already paying for. To me, that makes it worth experimenting with the change when I get the time.

Re:Internet TV

[geekoid]

Build your own antenna. It's pretty easy, and almost always better then what the sell. I recommend going to a salvage yrad and get the black screen from on old refrigerator as a back plane.

I get great reception with mine, and it's in the house, behind a book shelf.

Re:Internet TV

[beerdini]

Thanks for the tip. Do you know of any DIY web references that describe anything similar to what you did with the refrigerator screen? A quick Googling only found me coat hanger or other copper tubing.

All critics assume bill will not go down

[boguslinks]

It seems like the fundamental assumption of all the critics of this is that there's *no way in hell* that the base price being paid is going to go down. Of course it will go down. The cable companies may be crazy, but they're not that crazy. I haven't had cable in six years, but if this all ends up in me being able to get enough stuff I want at say a $20-25/month price point I may just hop back on board. ESPN sucks so much blood from the cable bill - just ditching their stuff should result in a nice savings.

sports

[__aazsst3756]

Bernstein Researchâ(TM)s cable and satellite expert, Craig Moffett, also waded into the debate, pointing out that ESPN and ESPN2 alone account for almost 20 percent of the wholesale cost of the average pay-TV subscription -- but account for just under 2.5 percent of total viewership.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/pn_foes_grow_YIO92AxAE3kOE66mobOoUI

ESPN is currently charging $5.82 ($4.69 main channel, $1.13 other channels) per month, or about $70 a year for their channels for every cable or satellite subscriber in the US http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cable_television_in_the_United_States#Subscriber_fees.

To compete for sports content other networks like Fox are raising their prices as well.

How is this fair?

Personally we opted out, and watch local teams via a real antenna in beautiful uncompressed HD. We just don't watch Monday night football on ESPN, or the games on the NFL network. Their loss.

If the show

[geekoid]

pays the cable company to be on, I have no problem with them being included with a'la carte services.

If the show is paid to be carried, then I do have a problem with it being bundled with a'la carte.

Seriously, if not having sports lowers my cable bill, then by all mean, break them out and charge for them separately.

They Live!

[DragonHawk]

Plus, I don't have advertisements constantly flashing before my eyes (which you pay to watch on cable; you "get them" for free on non-cable) telling me "consume, consume, CONSUME."

Just take the special sunglasses back off.

Re:They Live!

[wall0645]

Crap, I always forget.

My Cable Company

[The Wild Norseman]

I have what I call Superluminous internet.

The speeds advertised are purely theoretical.

Be $15,000 richer...

[Fysiks Wurks]

...and drop your cable or dish. I estimate that is the money saved over the last 14 years I've lived without either service. For the cost of cable we can enjoy an additional night out with the family each week.

I decline comment on this.

[jafac]

I'm supposed to not be a dick about the things I don't like.