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."

Comments

Speed is less important than no data caps

[garcia]

From the article (emphasis mine):

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.

As someone with 100/60 service at home (via cable) and 1.3/384k at my lake home, both with no data caps, I can offer up the tidbit that speed is far less important than the extra revenue stream cable providers are attempting to get through bandwidth capping.

Netflix works just fine at 1.3/384k (Amazon less so) but I certainly don't need to have 100/60 service just to watch VOD while knowing I may hit my cap if I decide to download 5 or 6 concert torrents on top of my regular usage levels.

Let's dispel with the notion that cable companies know anything about what their customers want and understand all they care about is profit for their shareholders. We don't necessary need faster, we just need truly limitless, like it always has been.

Re:Speed is less important than no data caps

[Anonymous Coward]

You hit the nail on the head. Of course if you call your local cable company they'll swear up and down that even 20 megabit is insufficient for anything more than email... Funny though I can have 3 different devices streaming netflix at a time on that connection without issue? Data caps will become an issue long before speed will.

They will not upgrade our infrastructure here in the US. There is no competition, there is no incentive to upgrade the infrastructure. We are stuck with the speeds we have. They will continue to lose business. When they lose enough business they will find a way to make up the profits and you better believe it will be on our internet.

Re: Speed is less important than no data caps

[c6gunner]

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.

Re: Speed is less important than no data caps

[tepples]

Any downloads scheduled between midnight and 8 am don't count towards your usage.

Which major PC and mobile operating systems' network connection settings provide a way to express this metering policy, such that your Ethernet connection to your router becomes metered at 8 AM and no longer metered at midnight?

Re:Speed is less important than no data caps

[Anonymous Coward]

It depends on the number of people in your household who are simultaneously using broadband. If you're the Duggars or Mormon, you probably do want a multigigabit connection.

Re: Speed is less important than no data caps

[Jeremi]

Which major PC and mobile operating systems' network connection settings provide a way to express this metering policy, such that your Ethernet connection to your router becomes metered at 8 AM and no longer metered at midnight?

None, because the metering would be done by the ISP's own hardware, not by the customer's computer (for reasons that should be obvious).

Re: Speed is less important than no data caps

[techno-vampire]

The OP mentions, among other things, using torrents to download recordings of concerts. Every torrent client I've ever used includes configuring it to work only during specified hours, along with putting a cap on the bandwidth used at certain times of day. Using that, you can throttle your client to a rate low enough to avoid the cap, except between midnight and 8 AM, to work around your carrier's data limits.

Re: Speed is less important than no data caps

[tepples]

I was referring to the policy option in Windows and Android not to perform some background downloads over connections that the operating system believes to be metered. (See metered connections in Windows and metered connections in Android.) Which operating systems offer a way to make the operating system believe the connection to be metered only during certain hours?

Re: Speed is less important than no data caps

[tepples]

the metering would be done by the ISP's own hardware

What service does the ISP offer to subscribers to query the metering schedule that its own hardware applies to a particular connection?

Re: Speed is less important than no data caps

[AvitarX]

I'm one person, I use 300 gb/month, mostly not between midnight and 8.

It's all HBO, Hulu, Netflix, YouTube, a few Hours a day while I cook, do chores, etc.

Re: Speed is less important than no data caps

[EETech1]

Don't most of the downloaders have a setting for this? Transmission does.

Re:Speed is less important than no data caps

[No Longer an AC]

We also expect it to work.

This is why I am no longer a Comcast customer and put up with DSL which at least where I live seems to work 10 times more reliably.

Of course, the DSL is a bit slower, but it's more than enough to support my needs.

Re: Speed is less important than no data caps

[knorthern knight]

> Which major PC and mobile operating systems' network connection settings
> provide a way to express this metering policy, such that your Ethernet connection
> to your router becomes metered at 8 AM and no longer metered at midnight?

Linux and BSD, i.e. "man cron" and "man at".

Re: Speed is less important than no data caps

[AmiMoJo]

I avoid ISPs with any kind of cap because in my experience even if you don't exceed the limit, they are total crap in terms of consistency and latency. The reason they need a cap is because they are selling a bargain basement low cost service with the absolute minimum provision they can get away with.

I pay very slightly more for an unlimited provider and the difference is night and day. I get full speed and low pings all day every day.

Re: Speed is less important than no data caps

[tepples]

The cron tool can be used to run a command at a given time, provided that the computer is on and the command exists.

The computer is on This answer by jeff on Server Fault states that cron runs only if the computer is on, not if it is shut down or asleep. This means that if the computer is on at midnight but off at 8 AM, the policy will get set to not metered at midnight but not set back to metered at 8 AM. A tool that runs missed jobs after restart or resume exists, called anacron, but it doesn't handle tasks that must execute on a schedule more precise than once per day. The command exists What is the command to change a particular network connection's policy between assuming upstream is unmetered and assuming upstream is metered? This answer by philsf on Ask Ubuntu claims that this feature didn't exist as of January 2016. Has it been implemented since then?

  set a connection as metered. W

Re: Speed is less important than no data caps

[tepples]

Please see my reply to techno-vampire.

Re: Speed is less important than no data caps

[c6gunner]

Your advice is often correct, however it doesn't apply in this case. I switched over from an "unlimited" provider which was throttling my bandwidth every day between 6pm and 11pm. With the new provider in getting speeds slightly higher than advertised, and never throttled.

The other side of the coin is that I find "unlimited" providers often throttle at prime times, or if you exceed some unlisted daily limit. They do this because they're overselling their capacity and don't actually expect you to download at full throttle 24/7.

Re:Speed is less important than no data caps

[nine-times]

Netflix works just fine at 1.3/384k... We don't necessary need faster, we just need truly limitless, like it always has been.

At the same time, if you're happy with low-bitrate streams, that can also help to take care of the "limitless" part. If cable companies cap your bandwidth, Netflix could just give you the option to watch streams at a low enough bitrate that you're unlikely to hit your cap. You could listen to all your concerts at 64 kbps audio to cut down on your usage, since you don't care about quality.

That's not to say caps are ok, just to say that your post is short-sighted. The amount of data we shove around is ever-increasing, and it's not just about entertainment media. I tend to move around a lot of big files for my work, and having transfers take a long time wastes my time, and makes my clients unhappy. We don't just need our Internet to be limitless, we also need it to be fast. And reliable on top of that. The traditional problem is that these companies have not wanted to invest in improving internet speed and reliability, since it enabled customers to use competing services. The introduction of data caps has only arisen as a method of blocking use of those competing services as they increase speed.

Re: Speed is less important than no data caps

[AmiMoJo]

I guess you get what you pay for - so stay away from the cheapest options.

Re: Speed is less important than no data caps

[Rockoon]

Which major PC and mobile operating systems' network connection settings provide a way to express this metering policy

My current router, which is low end, offers settings like this out of the box (no replacing the firmware.) You can throttle by time period, day of week, mac address, even by the underlying ip protocal (tcp or udp.)

300M Wireless N Router Model No. TL-WR940N / TL-WR941ND

In any event, the choice to not use bandwidth during certain times is a lifestyle choice and should be easy to maintain if you really want to do it. If in actuality you think that the extra $x per month is worth less than the "costs" of living that lifestyle, then thats ultimately where you are going to end up and no router rule is going to save you.

Re:Speed is less important than no data caps

[Rockoon]

Exactly.

In bandwidth terms, 3 mbps is easily enough for a single video stream at a "full" 1080p. Of course homes often have more than 1 person living in them, so lets say 12 mbps is enough for 4 "HD" video streams. It wasnt so long ago that the only video you could get inexpensively on or off the internet was more like 480p. Surely DVD quality is good enough for the low end consumer, right? A couple "DVD quality" streams can easily be done in under 4 mbit with todays codecs.

Low end connections are supposed to be... wait for it.... low end. DVD quality is a pretty good low fucking end. I grew up on first generation VHS and rabbit ears. I still watch the DVD's that I own from time to time.

Of course people want faster connections. Duh. Want isnt need tho.

Re:Speed is less important than no data caps

[nine-times]

Of course people want faster connections. Duh. Want isnt need tho.

Ehhh... I mean, we don't "need" very much, in hunter/gatherer terms. Do I need a fast Internet connection? I suppose not, in that I wouldn't suddenly starve to death. But I also don't "need" any Internet or TV whatsoever.

But once you get past that kind of argument, the distinction between "want" and "need" get really fuzzy. Do I "need" a fast Internet connection? Well no, I could give up on the idea of 4K video. I could be completely unproductive at work. I could forget about streaming an kind of media, and go back to a 56K modem. I could.

But on the other hand, yes, I absolutely do need a fast Internet connection. Because I want to be able to stream high-quality media in real time. Because I want to be able to get my work done. Because I wan to be able to protect all my data with an online backup. Because, god damnit, all of us are dealing with large data sets, and this isn't 1998 anymore.

Re: Speed is less important than no data caps

[KingMotley]

Windows, just use at or schtasks to periodically modify HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\NetworkList\DefaultMediaCost\Ethernet.

Done.

Re: Speed is less important than no data caps

[tepples]

Would such scheduled tasks continue to toggle the DefaultMediaCost even if the computer is shut down or in suspend when the threshold time is crossed?

Re: Speed is less important than no data caps

[KingMotley]

If you use Task Scheduler, of course. Just check the box that says "Run task as soon as possible after a scheduled start is missed".

Yup.

[Anonymous Coward]

So it goes. Few people want to pay for 50 channels that they won't watch delivered via outdated technology. Death is a part of life, but life goes on.

VOIP pattern

[Tablizer]

It's the same pattern as VOIP: it's redundant to have one infrastructure network for one kind of information and a different for another. The Internet is clearly more flexible than cable (at least potentially more flexible) because you can select from myriads of content providers rather than just the forced bundles of channels that oligopolies love to offer.

Cable co's should get with the times rather than play games to hold the clock back. The cable co's can rework their strategy to provide local buffering services for content providers, for example, so that the bytes of popular shows don't have to travel as far.

Re:VOIP pattern

[Known Nutter]

you can select from myriads of content providers rather than just the forced bundles of channels that oligopolies love to offer.

For the moment.

Re:VOIP pattern

[starblazer]

So let me get this straight.....

Communications on a dedicated wire to a plant within 10 miles solely for that purpose are great? Communication on a protected signal area of 9 or so miles but without the dedicated path or signal quality are less reliable?

Oh? You say that voice communications over a shared network path with multiple devices, users, and and content streams, aggregating to a server that may be thousands of miles away isn't as good? COLOR ME SHOCKED!!

Re:That's great!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, youngins like BeauHD don't know what Slashdot used to be before a bunch of thugs bought it and ran it into the ground.

Stop buying the expensive sport then

[jonwil]

If cable companies stopped buying the expensive sport (or put it into a "sports" package and charged extra for it) then maybe they might not be loosing money on their cable operations as much as they do now.

Re: Stop buying the expensive sport then

[EvilSS]

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?

Why? Because of this: https://bwi.forums.rivals.com/threads/how-much-cable-subscribers-pay-per-channel-2014-2018.156845/

Re: Stop buying the expensive sport then

[tepples]

Why do you people always single out sports channels and whine about them?

Because ESPN's retransmission fee is by far the largest among basic cable channels, and because sports are among the few things that people prefer to watch live rather than on-demand.

Re: Stop buying the expensive sport then

[mallyn]

Hold on!!!!

Do I see you volunteering to create WET???

As my father told me when I was a little boy. . . .

Stop complaining and do something!!

In my case, I wanted to get dressed in lighted clear plastic clothing. I could complain up the flag pole all about it and nothing would happen. So I did something about it.

I took the time and effort to make my own. It was a lot of work and very rewarding. You can see the results here: My web site at www.clearplastic.com.

So, please remove yourself from that chair and get to work!!!!!!

Re:Stop buying the expensive sport then

[jeff4747]

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.

Re: Stop buying the expensive sport then

[gfxguy]

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.

Re: Stop buying the expensive sport then

[sconeu]

I don't give a crap one way or another about BET.

I want to drop all those frickin' religious channels and shopping channels.

Re: Stop buying the expensive sport then

[Shoten]

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?

Why? Because I also get CourtTV. With that, I get all the coverage of the NFL I need :)

Re: Stop buying the expensive sport then

[Opportunist]

Besides, it's blatant false advertising and a total rip off. I watched that channel for a whole week, how can you call it Black Entertainment and not run a single Minstrel Show?

Re: Stop buying the expensive sport then

[EvilSS]

The price for ESPN is high because the cost of their content is ridiculous. They are charging 7-10x what a normal cable channel charges and currently losing money. Since they are the main national sports channel available on cable, with the biggest name recognition, they can demand placement in basic tiers. Add to the fact that they are owned by Disney, which just increases their negotiating power. L

So yea, ESPN gets brought up a lot because the price per subscriber is way higher than any other channel. By contrast BET is probably in the $0.25-$0.50 range.

Re:Stop buying the expensive sport then

[Sloppy]

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)

Sound like you're saying they can; they just need to try it. Have an offering which excludes all of Disney's stuff. Then have "add all of Disney's channels for $n" optional add-on. This puts the information and choice in the right place, and gets people voting with their wallets. Watch Disney squirm as ABC becomes thought of as a premium channel (which it's totally not worth) whose ads don't really reach all segments anymore. I think that'd result in ABC-ESPN unbundling pretty damn quick.

Re:Stop buying the expensive sport then

[nephilimsd]

The way that the contracts are written, ESPN takes a cut for every subscriber to the network, regardless of the network package. This means that Comcast can not offer or charge a customer for access to ESPN, but Comcast would still be paying for that subscriber regardless.

http://fortune.com/2015/04/27/espn-verizon-bundle-lawsuit/

He's up to something

[rsilvergun]

nobody just comes out and says their business is failing. He's up to something. Something awful enough to throw his entire industry under the bus.

Re:He's up to something

[Narcocide]

Interesting... you're probably on to something here. So we should be keeping an eye out for a new Netflix competitor to appear soon perhaps?

Make ESPN an HBO like add on local RSN as well.

[Joe_Dragon]

Make ESPN an HBO like add on local RSN as well.

Make it like HBO and MAX. Where at times you can get a deal for HBO + MAX but you can also just get HBO or MAX.

Allow us to pick channels we actually want

[Anonymous Coward]

And not add 30+ bullshit channels we know we will never watch. I haven't had cable for years because of this.

Re: Allow us to pick channels we actually want

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen! I would like to continue to receive ESPN but stop paying for BET.

Re:Allow us to pick channels we actually want

[guacamole]

Do you really think that ala-carte channels will actually reduce your cable fees? Please. Those BS channels you talk about, most of them are commercial driven and don't cost the cable company much. It's the prime channels that cost the money.

Retransmission costs and ads?

[mveloso]

Here's a strange thing: cable companies pay for the content on their wire (retransmission fees).

Why are there ads on that wire if the subscriber is paying for the content already?

Re:Retransmission costs and ads?

[Zaelath]

Yeah, cable companies competed up the price of television, particularly sport.

NFL players would play for less than $155 million per team, and they will in the future...

Re:Retransmission costs and ads?

[Vermonter]

Because it's more profitable to have ads on top of subscriber fees. Cable in the very early days was commercial free, but that idea died once they realized people would tolerate paying fees while watching ads.

Re:Retransmission costs and ads?

[EvilSS]

Here's a strange thing: cable companies pay for the content on their wire (retransmission fees).

Why are there ads on that wire if the subscriber is paying for the content already?

Because the channels they are retransmitting are not charging 100% of their cost+ profit to the cable nets in retrans fees. If you are up for paying double to triple for your cable then cool, let the cable companies know right away and they will pass it on to the networks!

Re:Retransmission costs and ads?

[tepples]

If you are up for paying double to triple for your cable then cool, let the cable companies know right away

Both Hulu and CBS All Access offer an ad-free option at not quite double the price of the pay-to-watch-commercials tier. When I quote the prices of Hulu and CBS All Access to others considering cutting the cord, I mention the ad-free price, not the paying-to-watch-commercials price.

Re: Retransmission costs and ads?

[AvitarX]

It's unsustainable long run though, or there will be much less content.

It's been a while, but Grey's anatomy came out to $0.75/viewer/episode when I did the math.

$12.99 for all Hulu offers is a big drop.

Cutting seasons in half will help, and probably improve quality. But the industry is going to shrink, and that's gonna cause a lot of crying (from those involved).

Re:Retransmission costs and ads?

[EvilSS]

If you are up for paying double to triple for your cable then cool, let the cable companies know right away

Both Hulu and CBS All Access offer an ad-free option at not quite double the price of the pay-to-watch-commercials tier. When I quote the prices of Hulu and CBS All Access to others considering cutting the cord, I mention the ad-free price, not the paying-to-watch-commercials price.

Those don't work as counter-examples because 99% of the content on both has already run on their respective networks and captured their ad revenues. However if you want to consider CBS All Access, consider the fact that it is one channel out of dozens that are on most even basic cable packages. The ad free tier is $10 a month, and that is for a service that is showing all but 2 shows that already have their first run ad capture.

Crazy idea!

[RyanFenton]

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?

Hey, I said it was a crazy idea. But why is it crazy? I mean, they're mostly internet companies now anyway, so any television income could be small, and they'd be fine, as long as they cut back enough for expenses to be below income.

That proposal would be crazy, because of stockholders. The demand for increased return, increased promises, increased control, guaranteed income with increasing percentage numbers. It's what makes all US publicly traded companies turn to crap over time.

It's basically the wisdom of mutual fund managers that demand cable, and other companies act like they do. And the giant pile of investment money behind them, looking for safe, guaranteed returns, and pushing everything to serve that, and only that.

It's also why commercials suck so much too, and why so many folks like me stopped watching/subscribing to cable years ago. It really is dumbfounding to visit folks watching commercials, and see those messages celebrating the happiness of paying rent to those companies paying for airtime.

Ryan Fenton

Re:Crazy idea!

[No Longer an AC]

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?

Re:Crazy idea!

[Simulant]

Or maybe they could just stop double dipping. The cable is already run to my house and I already pay a substantial amount for internet access. Why insist on charging me more just to watch commercials? Charge extra for a set top box if you like but don't require it.

Not that I, personally, will ever go back to watching commercials..... But it seems like it would help retain some cable customers, esp. sports fans.

Re:Crazy idea!

[drinkypoo]

TV without commercials would cost more, the only way people will pay for that is a la carte, but neither the content owners nor the cable companies want that. Therefore they will kick and scream right up until the point they get thrown out the door.

Re:Crazy idea!

[geekmux]

TV without commercials would cost more....

Or, it could actually cost less in the long run.

I seriously struggle to understand the value-add of commercials these days, with all of the (commercial-free) cord cutting going on, as well as a large majority of consumers watching time-shifted content in order to fast forward through the damn commercials they now despise. Where and how exactly is revenue still being generated from commercials to justify the effort or the cost involved?

Personally, I can't wait until the industry gets a financial gut-check from this consumer shift, and broadcasters understand that they no longer have the power or justification to charge insane amounts of money for air time, which could cut costs considerably for all involved.

...the only way people will pay for that is a la carte, but neither the content owners nor the cable companies want that. Therefore they will kick and scream right up until the point they get thrown out the door.

Adapt or Die. Greed refuses to budge, so fuck 'em. They get what they deserve.

Re:Crazy idea!

[ausekilis]

I had a few ideas about why Cable TV is failing, and of course others had the same idea.

1. Commercials - Time has an article about the trend over the years for more commercials per hour. The article has a 2014 date, so we're talking an increase in almost a minute per hour over 5 years.

   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.

2. Content - We've all complained about how much Reality TV just plain sucks. There's a nice write-up onOregon State's sociology 499 class site (of all places) that mentions ER set a record for $13Mil per episode, while a half hour reality show can cost more like $150k.
3. Cost - Of course we the consumer complain about a steady increase in cost for little gain (another grass growing channel? really?), we don't often look at how much things cost for companies. Sports Illustrated has a nice breakdown of costs to run a 30 second ad during the super bowl. The growth is damned near exponential and was somewhere on the order of $5mil this year, and $3mil in 2010.

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...

Re:Crazy idea!

[nine-times]

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?

I find it funny, now, to think about how it all started. The reason you had channels called things like "The SciFi Channel" or "Comedy Central" or "Music Television" was cable packages basically had a scifi channel, a comedy channel, and a music channel. It's like, "Oh, you want some comedy? Put on Comedy Central. It's recordings of stand-up comedy, 24x7. You want music? We have a channel of music videos, again, 24x7."

Sorry, I'm going off topic.

I think the real change is going to be when they simply get rid of channels altogether. I mean, think about it. Channels don't make sense. Everything should be on-demand. If you want people to be able to watch the latest episode of a show at a specific time, just make it available at that time. Even for live events, make a stream available when the event starts, but allow people to start at the beginning at any time they like. But why bother with channels and time slots, when you can just watch what you want to watch, when you want to watch it?

I think the future has been obvious for years, though the industry is going to fight it tooth and nail. You don't need cable companies, and you don't need channels. Basically, you need dumb-pipe ISPs, and then you need services like Netflix/Amazon Prime/Hulu/iTunes. I think Amazon Prime is actually a good model of where things are eventually going. You have one base service that provides certain content on-demand, and then you have "rentals" where you pay a certain premium for the newest content, a la carte. Then, you can also subscribe to other "channels", were you pay $x a month, and now you can watch Showtime's content, or HBO's content, all on demand and ad-free. Ideally, you should be able to go through a single service, subscribe to what you want, and through that, get all the content you want.

Re:Crazy idea!

[avandesande]

even MTV was commercial free at one point

Already received two wrong bills from Comcast...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Just sell me what I want.

[jcr]

I'd become a cable subscriber again tomorrow if they just gave up on the fucking bundling. Sell me the channels I want, and don't try to charge me for a bunch of shit that I don't want. It's the lesson that every single content provider should have learned from iTunes, for fuck's sake.

-jcr

Re:Just sell me what I want.

[freeze128]

Maybe they're hoping for a "too big to fail" bailout.

56 Channels

[darkain]

I'm about 35 miles outside of Seattle, and get 56 Digital OTA channels. Tell me again why I would want cable? I already have decent content with what is available for free. I was curious about CenturyLink's PrismTV service (TV over IP), but they won't offer it in my area for some reason, despite the fact I'm on their gigabit fiber connection. I can't be their TV customer if they won't let me!

Re:56 Channels

[tepples]

I'm about 35 miles outside of Seattle, and get 56 Digital OTA channels. Tell me again why I would want cable?

You might not. Someone who doesn't happen to live where 56 distinct OTA channels can be received with a store-bought stationary indoor antenna might. I live in Fort Wayne, Indiana, and I get about a dozen. Do you want me to list them?

No, false. This is fake news.

[Narcocide]

The real reason the cable TV industry is failing is because they're a bunch of greedy usurious jackasses who are also collectively too incompetent to maintain adequate network service even if they actually wanted to. And they don't. And this has been common knowledge amongst consumers for decades. What's new now is that there's finally better things to spend your money on.

Re: No, false. This is fake news.

[AvitarX]

Exactly this.

Just like the Music Industry, they're hated by all sides. The users and the creators hate them.

I'm sure, like the Music Industry, they'll find a new way to succeed, but they're gonna cry a lot as it happens.

Maybe not as much, as recording was twice as old as cable when their whining happened.

Re:not anyones fault but actors

[Narcocide]

Don't fool yourself. Most TV actors don't even make that much in a month. This is all about big cable math justifying big cable greed.

7 years and going

[ClimbRocks]

I gave up cable television 7 years ago. A few years with nothing, 5 years hulu, 2 years netflix. I'm at a point where i can't stand watching regular cable. Combine the obscene amount of advertising with the inability to pick what show i want to watch and when, and mix it into 600 channels of i can't be bothered to try and wade thru all this bulls**t... and you have something I will never ever see the value in again.

Retransmission fee and ads cover portions of cost

[tepples]

Retransmission fees pay for only a portion of the cost of acquiring programming. Advertisements also pay for only a portion. Only when combined do they cover the entire cost. If there were no ads, retransmission fees would rise to make cable TV bills several times larger than they are.

Y'all know you can get DVDs from the library

[Snotnose]

Pretty much every show, every movie, might take 6 months to get it but you've got it for a week and it doesn't cost a cent.

Cut the cable, pay the bandwidth cost for the stuff you have to watch *Right Farking Now*, hit the library (or, cough, pirate's bay cough), and fuck paying $5/month to ESPN for a channel you've never watched in your life.

Re:Y'all know you can get DVDs from the library

[mallyn]

Walk or ride your bike. If you live in a small town and your library does not have it, there is interlibrary loan. I borrowed a book here in Bellingham, Washington that was interlibrary loaned from somewhere in Ohio.

OS updates, not torrents

[tepples]

Every torrent client I've ever used includes configuring it to work only during specified hours

I was referring to the lack of such a setting for things other than torrent clients, such as operating system updaters. See, for example, how caps affect users of Windows.

Re: OS updates, not torrents

[tepples]

Were you referring to cutting off the Internet completely from 8 AM to midnight, the period during which access is metered, or cutting off access only to Windows Update? If the latter, how does the router determine whether a particular connection is associated with Windows Update, especially when the operating system uses its own resolver to find Microsoft's server?

Re: OS updates, not torrents

[Rockoon]

Routers can also simply limit the bandwidth of particular devices, at particular times, etc..

Limit the allowed bandwidth to 1KB/s in the daytime. This allows devices and software to continue to "function"/download all day long, but each at a significantly reduced speed (dialup-like.) Keep the exceptions exceptional and its all easy. If the exceptions turn into tedium then you are making too many exceptions.

For instance, only give one smart-tv/media device significant bandwidth in the day time and everybody in the house just has to deal with no roku in their bedrooms until after dark.

GOOD.

[Gravis Zero]

Cable TV deserves to fail. Those assholes have overcharged everyone for decades because they had a monopoly on access to content. In another century, every last one of them would be tarred, feathered and run out of town only to die slowly from infection. I have no sympathy for people who gleefully exploit the general population.

Re:GOOD.

[MerlTurkin]

Agreed! AND they KNOW they got people by the short hairs. Not for much longer. More people are cancelling every day. I LOVE IT!

My cable company

[SETY]

My cable company takes all content makes it 720p and compresses the shit out. They then send it out to my 1080p tv and it looks like shit. Netflix looks great. And they wonder why they lose customers? Theyhave a very simple job and They can't even do that right.

Re:My cable company

[mentil]

So every switch between commercials, or from commercial to program or back again, causes your TV to switch resolution/framerate? Older TVs go blank for a few seconds when that happens, causing viewers to miss the first few seconds of whatever is now showing. It makes more sense for your cable box to scale to whatever resolution it detects your TV is (or that you set it to use).

Re:My cable company

[JustNiz]

Yep I totally agree. I can get many of the same channels for free, OTA with an antenna, plus they look MUCH better than the same channel coming in via cable that costs like $50/month.

Re:My cable company

[guacamole]

And netflix of course, can deliver all the same content such as news and sports channels, food and travel shows, or say all the shows that AMC or FX have..

Re:My cable company

[guacamole]

Let's start by noticing that vast majority of cable providers do not ever promise to deliver 1080p. What they promise is 1080i, which needs to be deinterlaced. 720p and a deinterlaced 1080i basically have the same level of compression. The 1080i basically delivers your TV 1080p at 30fps, and then let the processing to make up the other 30 fps.

Re:Too many homosexual sitcoms

[MightyMartian]

It must be tough to navigate network tv with your latent homosexual urges. It disgusts and titillates you in equal measure, and so you must lash out and attack any homosexuals who gave the temerity to be comfortable in their skin.

I really do feel sorry for you

Cable TV biz pain is ENTIRELY self inflicted

[JustNiz]

>> "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.

Re:Cable TV biz pain is ENTIRELY self inflicted

[sunderland56]

Cable's crumbling TV business is ENTIRELY self inflicted.

Amen to that. I'm throwing a huge party the day Comcast goes bankrupt.

>> "Our members, however, I think are very aggressive in how they are trying to provide consumers that they serve with more choice..."

Your members are, indeed, very agressive. But not in a good way.

comcast is not rate shaping all but locales to 720

[Joe_Dragon]

comcast is not rate shaping all but locales to 720P

Re:That's great!

[LifesABeach]

"Cable TV 'Failing' As a Business"? I find myself rubbing my nipples. Apologies to South Park.

Cable TV is Killing Cable TV

[theshowmecanuck]

Reality TV and bullshit program quality is the problem. People can find better quality shows online for the same price or cheaper. The learning channel is now the shit reality TV channel. Same with all of them. Provide a decent product and people will buy it. TV likes to fuck themselves though. Nevermind cancelling Firefly, fix isn't the only one. NBC had a great police procedural called Southland that they cancelled. It was perhaps the best example of that type of show is ever seen. Nope. They put some jackoff talent show instead of some other reality bullshit. Prime examples of network TV failing. Blame shareholder mentality I guess. End of rant.

Re:Cable TV is Killing Cable TV

[geekmux]

Reality TV and bullshit program quality is the problem. People can find better quality shows online for the same price or cheaper. The learning channel is now the shit reality TV channel. Same with all of them. Provide a decent product and people will buy it...

The proliferation of Reality TV is driven by ratings.

When looking for a decent product start demanding society favor an intelligent audience instead of catering to the Honey Boo Boo generation of Kartrashians demanding shit content today.

Re:Cable TV is Killing Cable TV

[dj245]

Reality TV and bullshit program quality is the problem. People can find better quality shows online for the same price or cheaper. The learning channel is now the shit reality TV channel. Same with all of them. Provide a decent product and people will buy it...

The proliferation of Reality TV is driven by ratings.

When looking for a decent product start demanding society favor an intelligent audience instead of catering to the Honey Boo Boo generation of Kartrashians demanding shit content today.

Potentially untrue depending on the show. Some reality TV shows are basically long-form advertising. "Undercover Boss" is one example, the companies have to pay to be on the show. As long as companies feel they are getting good return on their marketing dollars, such shows will continue to exist. Ratings are still important but only half of the equation. A tv show does not need to survive purely on commercial break advertising if the show itself is sponsored!

Additionally, sometimes people watch TV to get inspiration or education, not entertainment. HGTV is a good example of this. Low-budget programming, tons of sponsored content and product tie-ins, and yet people will tolerate it if they are planning a home improvement project and need some ideas.

Re:Cable TV is Killing Cable TV

[Neuronwelder]

Why don't they just lower their prices? Even if they went down to 10% of what they make now, they would still make a profit with the multitude of commercials they have.

O Rly?

[TheSync]

This article from January 2017 says: "Comcast Corp. reported better-than-expected financial results and added cable TV customers in the fourth quarter, culminating a strong year in which it added net video customers for the first time in a decade...In the fourth quarter, net income rose to $2.3 billion, or 95 cents a share, up from about $2 billion, or 79 cents a share, a year ago. Revenue grew 9.2% to $21 billion."

Re:O Rly?

[enjar]

Ten years of decline, one year of add. That's a trend that's not Comcastic.

Re:O Rly?

[Hydrian]

Don't worry, Comcast will make it back. Especially now that Tom Wheeler is gone and we have this corporate cronie running the FCC.

Re:That's great!

[Visarga]

They are implicitly saying TV is not failing as a manipulation device, though. Only as a business.

Re:The cord-cutting problem

[Opportunist]

So because you can't be assed to come out of your safe space and cut the umbilical cord, too, I should be required to suffer with you?

TRUMP to the rescue!

[Opportunist]

He's opening up those coal mines again and should fuel your steam engine for the foreseeable future!

(yeah, now mod this into oblivion, but how could I let such a cue go unused?)

OMG Not Competition???

[dcw3]

And this is why cable should have been treated as a monopoly for so many years, as they've been gouging consumers. Now they've got to compete, and don't know how. Competition is good.

Re:OMG Not Competition???

[sabbede]

You mean "should have been treated as a utility"? They are monopolies. A cartel really, as they collude to avoid competition.

These aren't major cable companies, small business

[turp182]

750 cable providers with 7 million customers works out to 9,333 customers per cable company.

These are small businesses trying to get by.

They don't have the influence of the majors, even 7 million customers combined isn't anything compared to Charter, with over 30 million customers.

I can certainly understand small players being crushed, it's the American way...

"in many cases"

[sabbede]

"It is very, very difficult for a cable operator in many cases to even break even on the cable side of the business"

I wonder how many is "many cases". Four?

Boo Effing Hoo

[BadTuna]

And tears were shed by no one. Well, except for shareholders and CEO's.

Creative Destruction

[zifn4b]

Why is this news? We've known this has been in progress for years. Like the Ice Industry and tailor industry before it, Cable is becoming obsolete because a new, more advanced form of media has superseded it. This is a pattern that repeats itself and John Schumpeter coined the term Creative Destruction to describe the process. When Netflix first came about, Blockbuster had a choice, adapt or not adapt. Blockbuster chose not to adapt and now it's part of human history along with the Ice Industry. It's all a very natural part of the process of evolution of technology and services. Cable was successful for 30 years-ish. They had a good run at it and will be remembered as such.

Cable doesn't deliver good value

[enjar]

Nearly a decade ago when my wife got laid off we went through the bills and prioritized. The obvious like food, water and shelter were near the top. Cable TV didn't make the cut, but we were more bummed out about losing the house cleaning service. When things turned around, we brought back the house cleaning but have no real need to bring back cable TV. On vacation we have had access to cable TV again and it's done nothing to change our minds. The combination of TiVo and streaming services provides entertainment when we want it and to our taste with far less commercials. Why in the world am I going to shell out $100-130/month for a bunch of crappy reality shows, re-runs and so on? If I want a movie or series, it's probably on Netflix or Amazon, and I'd need to watch a lot to even approach what the cable used to cost.

Re:Cable doesn't deliver good value

[Cro Magnon]

I haven't cut my cord yet, but I was looking at my expenses the other day. Cable wasn't my highest, but everything higher would be hard to cut. Netflix + Hulu doesn't replace everything I currently watch, but it replaces most of it, at a much lower cost. At this point, a few stray shows, the local news, the fact that I'll still be dealing with the same company for internet, and plain old inertia are the only things keeping me on Time-Spectrum.

Re:Cable doesn't deliver good value

[enjar]

We have an antenna to fill in the local shows thing, that feeds right into the TiVo. The TiVo also covers most of the streaming services, and an XBox covers any outliers.

Decrease your price?

[p51d007]

Instead of making a "large" (if any) profit on a few, cut your rate, and perhaps you will get more subscribers? Does any business not know "econ 101"?

And a good riddance

[kilodelta]

Well the content providers are being super greedy so I cannot shed any tears there. And then the cable companies themselves, I mean a giant like Comcast owns it's own production. So what negotiation is there really?

So what happens when catv providers lose revenue, then stop carrying channels? Those broadcasters aren't going to have very favorable returns when that happens and maybe we'll see the retransmission horse shit disappear.

In other news.......

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

"Cable TV 'Failing' As a Business, Cable Industry Lobbyist Says"

In other news, sales of buggy whips have decreased dramatically and the Buggy Whip Lobby is demanding that Congress introduce legislation to correct this economically disastrous state of affairs.

Brilliant!

[cashman73]

They have apparently found a way to get all those rednecks to hate cable TV by giving it the same acronym as the Affordable Care Act (ACA), or ObamaCare,. . .

Overpriced

[fox171171]

due to rising programming costs and consumers switching from traditional TV subscriptions to online video streaming.

Media producers overvalue their content and want too much for it. They'd probably make more selling it for less, as more people would be willing to pay.

I can't stand watching commercials any more. I rarely watch our cable. I'd get rid of it, but a combination of other family members wanting it, and the "bundling" with internet, etc means they jack the price up on my internet if I ditch cable. Go somewhere else? Yeah right, I have one choice for broadband, and that is it.

Love to ditch all the sports and other crap we don't watch too. Would be nice to reduce the contents of the guide to channels we actually watch, instead of scrolling through a sea of crap.

Re:That's great!

[MerlTurkin]

Yup! They are killing themselves off each time they raise prices. I love it! I'm cancelling the TV portion of my service shortly. Enough is enough.

Re:Too many homosexual sitcoms

[MerlTurkin]

It's coming and you know it. Fucking SJW pussies. HATE those people.

Tivo

[bagofbeans]

But you are paying the Tivo recurring charge...

Re:Tivo

[enjar]

We have lifetime membership/All In One on all our TiVos, so we paid once and promptly forgot about it. To put that in perspective, the oldest in-service device was bought and activated in 2010, so seven years in service and still going fine. We recently bought a new Bolt to upgrade from our old Series 3 HD when they did a $100 "transfer your lifetime subscription" promotion, that ended up being about $300 all in.

Re:Tivo

[bagofbeans]

That's pretty good. Current Bolt AIP costs $549.99, and you have to use their hard drive which effectly sets the lifetime of the unit.

Re:Tivo

[enjar]

Not necessarily. I've replaced/upgraded TiVo hard drives and power supplies by getting parts from Weaknees ( https://www.weaknees.com/). The subscription is not tied to the hard drive. You can also add a external unit for more space. Difficulty level was about the same as swapping a hard drive or power supply in a desktop PC -- take the case off, unscrew a few things, disconnect cable, put back together. I've done it in a Series 1, Series 2 and Series 3. I'm kind of amazed I haven't needed to do it in the Premier yet, although it would probably be snappier with a SSD.

Lifetime subscriptions are also transferable, so if you can pick up a used unit that has one it's a quick call to TiVo support to transfer it. I got my Series 3 HD from a co-worker who upgraded for $100. Transfer went quick and easy.

Re:Tivo

[bagofbeans]

Hmm. Tivo suggest that you have to use their HDD for the Bolt....

Re:That's great!

[RenderSeven]

I just changed my service from Internet/Phone/TV for $99 to just Internet for ... $99. Filed a complaint with the FCC, and they dropped it to $49, and billed me $165, and just filed another complaint with the FCC. I dont mind paying a fair price, its their business model of blatantly screwing people that I object to.

Re: Already received two wrong bills from Comcast.

[TheCastro1689]

So you took off 3 days, in 24 years and you took off more vacation than any of your coworkers? What slave camp do you work in?

Re:That's great!

[LifesABeach]

Manipulation, and Profit, in the same sentence. Maybe these are tv-chickens coming home to roost?

Scheduled Tasks catch-up race condition

[tepples]

Does "Run task as soon as possible after a scheduled start is missed" in Windows Task Scheduler ensure that the missed tasks run in order, so that the missed "turn metering off" task that had been scheduled for midnight doesn't incorrectly run after the missed "turn metering back on" task that had been scheduled for 8 AM? Microsoft's page about "Run task as soon as possible after a scheduled start is missed" makes no mention of any ordering guarantee.

Re:Scheduled Tasks catch-up race condition

[KingMotley]

Probably not. Just make an "Update metering" task instead and run it at 8AM and midnight.

Re:Scheduled Tasks catch-up race condition

[tepples]

Thank you. I'll be sure to cite you when I write a guide about this.

Now are "Run whether user is logged on or not" and "Run with highest privileges", as mentioned in this answer on Super User, enough to give the task permission to write to HKLM without a UAC prompt?

Re:Scheduled Tasks catch-up race condition

[KingMotley]

Sorry, I'm afraid I don't know the answer to that one. I believe you might have to change the security on that particular key as normally it is pretty locked down. Once that is done, I believe you shouldn't get a UAC prompt when trying to change it, but I could be wrong.

Just Put One of These in Your Attic

[tmjva]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/culture/tv/how-to/a6608/build-your-own-digital-tv-antenna/

Or if you don't have an attic, somewhere nearby.

I've had cable cut for years now.  Didn't miss it.  (Broadcast shows weren't any better or worse.)

However when newer TVs could connect to my LAN, that made a difference.

Re:Too many homosexual sitcoms

[naubol]

There's a big difference between having a character who happens to be gay, than a token who is gay for the sake of being gay.

You watch sitcoms and complain there are stereotypes?