Unbundling Cable TV: Be Careful What You Wish For

schnell writes Consumers have long complained about the practice of "bundling" cable services and forcing customers to pay for channels they don't want — and an increasing number of "cord cutters" are voting with their wallets. But an article in the New York Times suggests that if cable companies are finally forced to unbundle their services it may actually result in higher prices and worse service. From the article: "there's another, more subjective dimension in which the rise of unbundled cable service may make us worse off. It's possible for a market to become more economically efficient while becoming less pleasant for consumers. For a prime example, head to your nearest airport."

Comments

And?

[Anonymous Coward]

$400 ticket
+$25 for luggage
+$25 for 2nd piece of luggage
+$50 for a seat that isn't between two 300 pound men who haven't showered yet this year.
+$75 for to not have your legs knees shoved in your face when the person in front of you reclines
+$15 for internet, 2G speeds only
+$5-15 to use the entertainment console at your seat
+$10 for a light snack
+$25 to sit near the front of the plane so you don't have to spend 30 minutes in your seat both before and after the plane lands

How about unburdening Cable services

[EmperorOfCanada]

Nearly everyone I know has dumped cable and in most cases it wasn't to make their budget better but that once they got Netflix that commercials became insufferable and the cost per cable hour watched then skyrocketed. In my area to have a half decent set of packages you will end up paying around $100 per month. So for people who were just watching the occasional news show and not much else they realized that they were paying pretty much the same per show as the entirety of their monthly Netflix cost.

But then I hear other complaints which is that the news is becoming wildly biased while the quality of most programming is in freefall. I hear that it is becoming clear that many of the new programs are being made on silly low budgets. For instance I was over at a cable using friend's house and the weather reporter was talking to a camera on a tripod. They had eliminated the cameraman. Plus some of the travel shows are basically all selfie shots with a selfie stick or a tripod.

And CNN really took the cake when they had 1000's of hours of reporting on the missing airliner when their only two real facts were that it was missing and that it turned left.

So while in 1994 I would have killed to get my channels a-la-carte at this point it is just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Re:Right Place

[Anubis IV]

Dish just introduced a $20/mo. streaming service that includes ESPN. Seems like the cord cutters have the final piece of the puzzle now.

Re:Airline anaolgy is incorrect

[DarkOx]

Right the airlines are not operating what is the model of an efficient market. They are actually trying to take advantage of inefficiency. As you say these 'unbundled' items are not really items at all. They have no value or even meaning outside the context of the other product.

A hour of content is an hour of content, independent of what transport protocol gets it to my display. Leg room on a flight to Dallas no so much.

The airline game is really about reducing your access to information and making it harder to price compare. So when you go to the travel website and see Airline A wants $200 and airline B wants $220 a ticket you can't immediately determine which is the better deal, because you first have to find out if they charge for checked bags, how much, is the first bag free, etc.

Unbundling cable has the opposite effect it will make it perfectly clear where you money goes (ESPN). Without the cross subsidy will the hangers on have the pricing power to be profitable. My guess is no, but really nothing of value will be lost.