Slashdot Mirror
Cable TV 'Failing' As a Business, Cable Industry Lobbyist Says (arstechnica.com)
According to a cable lobbyist group, cable TV is "failing" as a business due to rising programming costs and consumers switching from traditional TV subscriptions to online video streaming. "As a business, it is failing," said Matthew Polka, CEO of the American Cable Association (ACA). "It is very, very difficult for a cable operator in many cases to even break even on the cable side of the business, which is why broadband is so important, giving consumers more of a choice that we can't give them on cable [TV]." Ars Technica reports: The ACA represents about 750 small and mid-sized cable operators who serve about seven million customers throughout the US. The ACA has also been one of the primary groups fighting broadband regulations, such as net neutrality and online privacy rules, and a now-dead set-top box proposal that would have helped cable TV subscribers watch the channels they subscribe to without a rented set-top box. "The cable business isn't what it used to be because of the high costs," Polka said, pointing to the amount cable TV companies pay programmers for sports, broadcast programming via retransmission consent fees, and other programming. When asked about cord cutting, Polka said, "it's the video issue of our time as consumers learn they have choice" from services like Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon Prime. "It gives consumers more choice, something that they've wanted for a long time, more control from the bundle of cable linear programming," Polka said. "Our members, however, I think are very aggressive in how they are trying to provide consumers that they serve with more choice through on-demand [channels], through availability of over-the-top services, making sure that their broadband plan is fast enough to support a consumer's video habits. So, yes, it's a thing that's happening today, cord cutting, cord shaving. But as an industry, our members are well primed to be able to serve their customers with their broadband service that allows them to consume the video they want."
Why do you people always single out sports channels and whine about them? I have no problem paying for ESPN, but I want to find a way to avoid paying for BET. It's racist that there's Black Entertainment Television but no White EntertainmentâTelevision. How can I combat this racism and avoid paying for BET while continuing to receive worthwhile channels like ESPN?
and I've only had cable for three weeks! Also, I originally called to order $39.95 per month Internet access, but they talked me into adding basic cable TV for only $10 per month more. After "HD Technology Fees," taxes, other fees, and HD cable box rental, my bill is now over $90 per month. That $10 per month is damn expensive. Cable companies are doing it to themselves.
There are alternatives to unlimited which work just as well. The provider I'm with offers a 200gb limit, but only measures your usage during the day. Any downloads scheduled between midnight and 8 am don't count towards your usage.
They also offer unlimited for an extra $10 a month on top of your normal plan, but if you're really only worried about going over your cap because of a few extra torrent downloads, you can save $120 a year by just scheduling your downloads outside of prime usage hours.
The cable company's can't. Disney insists they buy ESPN as well as a host of other channels as a package. Thus the cable companies do not have the option to skip ESPN unless they're willing to also lose a whole lot of other channels (such as ABC, A&E and it's descendants, Lifetime and its descendants)
Previously, this was used as leverage to force cable companies to carry those other channels if they want ESPN. But that leverage works both ways.
>> "Our members, however, I think are very aggressive in how they are trying to provide consumers that they serve with more choice..."
No they REALLY haven't, at least here in Phoenix. Cox pretty much have a cable TV monopoly and they haven't done diddly squat, other than renaming their same tired old shit to try and fool people into thinking its some new deal.
What people REALLY want is to be able to pick and choose individual channels, and not have a cable box at all.
Cable companies have known this for years, Its perfectly technically possible, but they STILL refuse to give us what we actually want to buy. Their ongoing stupidity/arrogance is exactly what opened the door to companies like Netflix and Hulu in the first place, and they STILL haven't learned.
Cable's crumbling TV business is ENTIRELY self inflicted.
But they don't talk about viewership - perhaps those prices are commensurate with how much those channels are viewed. I realize that a show like The Walking Dead on AMC will far exceed anything TNT offers, but perhaps there are more total hours viewed on TNT? I really don't know, but the chart, by itself, doesn't really give much of a complete story.
To be completely honest, I work in the television industry, and our parent company is fully aware of the trends. We're not a cable company, though, and you notice that while Hulu and Netflix have some good originals, most of the shows watched start on a network. The TV industry is not standing still, we're just slowly losing cable as a means of delivery... Look who owns Hulu: Disney, Fox, Turner, and even Comcast (through NBC). I do not think Comcast, in particular, is very scared. The networks seem to be adapting. I don't think any of this is surprising to anyone.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
How about they start pitching a version of cable, stripped down to a few channels, each actually meaningful and with varied programming, with NO COMMERCIALS in exchange for the subscription costs... you know, like it all started out?
Is that how it started out?
I thought it started out as a way to provide community access to television initially in rural areas far from broadcast towers. When it hit my area the big advantages that I remember being touted were a perfect picture and not having to fiddle with the antenna anymore. We also got a few more channels like TBS and WGN but those still had commercials.
The channels that didn't show commercials were always premium channels like HBO and Cinemax.
Maybe this commercial free cable utopia existed before my time, but I've never seen evidence of it.
Who is going to curate these commercial free channels? Well, obviously it's companies like Netflix and Amazon. (TV that I actually am still willing to pay for).
I can't think of any reason for cable TV to exist anymore. The most common reason cited is content, but that's not a technical problem. Can cable do anything that a good internet connection cannot?
I had a few ideas about why Cable TV is failing, and of course others had the same idea.
On cable, commercials are even more frequent, totalling 15 minutes and 38 seconds of each hour. Commercials on cable took 14 minutes and 27 seconds of each hour in 2009.
Basically, it's all in the pursuit of the almighty dollar. Commercials have gotten longer and more expensive, while production costs have been driven lower and lower. If only there was some way en masse to stop making stupid people famous...