Slashdot Mirror
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."
When one revenue stream goes away, corporations will gouge their customers in other ways to make up the difference, or make more money in the long run.
The cable companies are screwing us now, and will continue to screw us in the future using whatever means available to them.
It's a rigged game, played by people who feel entitled to the revenue, and who have more power than we do.
This isn't a surprise, nor should it be.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Worse service? Than a cable company? I'm 99.99% sure that is impossible.
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.
Food, drinks, legroom, checked baggage.
The thing about cable is that large majority of people don't want all the crap they force down our throat.
For example there are romance centered channels, sports centered channels, reality show channels, cartoon centered channels, science centered channels and fake science centered channels (which USED to be real science centered channels).
If you are a family with a wide array of interests than you might probably want all of that.
But I have zero interest at all on the sports channels (total geek), fake science channel (TLC, I'm looking at you), reality show channels, etc.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
With fewer channels on average the value of the advertising per channel should go up. So while Logo will probably end up with less money and cost more if you really want it or go away completely. Cartoon network, AMC, and other popular channels might actually drop in price so they can sell more ads.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
its only 7 days into the year, I dont smell that bad, lets give it another 3 weeks before you bully me.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Cable (and IPTV/satellite) is unbundled where I live. Guess what happened? People ended up getting less channels, paying more per-channel, and at the end their monthly bill ended up about the same. Now the CRTC is likely going to force unbundled cable to be required nationwide, and I expect to see the same thing happen in all other provinces.
Cable companies will set their prices so that their ARPU remains unaffected. The vast majority of people will save no money. A small number of people who pick an extremely limited number of channels might save some money.
Dish just introduced a $20/mo. streaming service that includes ESPN. Seems like the cord cutters have the final piece of the puzzle now.
Read the fucking article?
READ the fucking article?
THIS
IS
SLASHDOT!
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
The real problem with cable companies is not that they "bundle" to create fixed service packages - it is that they are effective monopolies providing an essential service, that escape any meaningful regulation that such a model absolutely requires for to protect the interests of the public. As long as this situation persists any service pricing scheme is going to gouge the customers for Internet access as well as TV access.
The weakness of regulation is nicely conveyed by the the FCC itself:
So no regulation by any government body for "non basic services". And "basic service" regulation is entirely optional, and left piecemeal to lower levels of government where it is always ineffective in exercising oversight for national corporations which practice cartel-like collusion to protect their margins and market share.
Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
But this is a weak analogy at best. I now pay for a bunch of sports channels and kids TV that I don't care about. Your example of internet access; if I'm not going to use it on the plane I don't have to pay for it. Same thing for the light snack or entertainment. I don't have to pay for it. Or I can bring my own candy bar. But with cable, if I want Channels X & Y, I have no choice but to get the package that offers Channels M through Z whether I want them or not. The idea that now you have to pay for a lot of things individually on airlines that you used to get for "free" assumes that I cared about any of those "free" things in the first place.
The problem is, getting rid of the things that you don't want and only getting the things you want, doesn't necessarily lead to lower prices.
People want unbundling of cable channels because they have done the following math:
200 channels for $100 a month = 50 cents per channel.
Therefore, if I pick only the 50 channels I might ever possibly care about, my bill will be 50 x 0.50 = $25, a substantial savings.
But there's nothing forcing the cable company to charge the same price for every channel. If you have odd tastes and most of the 50 channels you like are very unpopular, you might actually get your 50 channels for around $25.. But there's nothing stopping the cable company from charging much higher prices for the channels they know are the most popular, so, you could end up choosing your 50 channels and still end up paying about the same amount of money that you pay now for 200 channels.
You missed the point... again.
The "airport model" means that "normal" or base service is degraded into total uselessness, and you have to pay to add functionality until the service is no longer useless and/or intensely unpleasant. This may or may not be cheaper than what you had before... but you can't complain because you opened the door for a-la-carte pricing, which will inevitably be used to increase profits.
To ensure perfect aim, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target
However, what's wrong with bringing fewer bags, if you want to, or else paying the going price for the bags you really need?
The cognitive burden of facing all those "decisions" and the constant bombardment of the nickle and diming fees makes the entire experience less enjoyable for everyone.
Imagine a game where you paid a fee to unlock each level, each quest, each item. If you don't play the game much, its more economical this way.
However, the game itself isn't much fun because instead of playing it you spend all your time deciding whether its really worth another 50 cents for a bigger bag or whether that dungeon is going to be worth $2 or whether equipping this item is really worth another 25 cents...
I'd MUCH rather pay $30 for the game, and have it all available, even if I don't end up exploring every nook and cranny.
My problem with bundling is that your cable dollars *underwrite* crap like the Kardiashian shows, whether you watch them or not. I don't, but through my cable bill, I'm as responsible for the Kardiashians (as a media entity) as much as anyone.
I'm surprised more people aren't irked at this aspect, that as cable subscribers, they are funding any shows/channels they detest.
I have a couple friends who are senior people at Cable companies I am not sure it is always the Cable companies fault.
1. Cable companies have to pay distributors to license feeds
2. Those distributors bundle their channels. One or two popular channels, 8 - 10 undesirable ones. Cable company has to buy the whole block, it is priced as a monthly charge per subscriber to the tier that includes the block.
3. Distributors are always trying to raise the rates. Thats when you get the websites about "Tell Comcast you want to keep your channels", because the cable company is trying to hold the line on price increases
4. ESPN is the most expensive part of the cable bill. Last I saw the numbers, it cost the Cable company $5 per subscriber per month. It is probably higher now. That is why there has been an explosion of Sports Networks on cable. They are all trying to get that sweet sweet cash flow that ESPN gets.
5. The content providers have been fighting al a carte pricing. It will signal the death of a lot of channels that get few viewers. In the end, it may lead to less choice
My Cable company was very slow to get a lot of HD channels. My friend told me it was part of their strategy to hold the line on prices. They refused to pay extra to include HD feeds. Their belief was, the production company already had sunk the costs into producing the show in HD. It cost them extra to produce a non-HD feed. A customer who was watching the HD channel, was not benefiting from having the non-HD channel available too.
Maybe if I ever had Comcast, my attitude would be different, but I feel like my Cable company is doing what they can to control costs.