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."
From the article (emphasis mine):
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.
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
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
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
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/
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
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.
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.
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.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.