Slashdot Mirror
Comcast Pressures Local Cable Firms to Curb Low-Cost TV Packages (bloomberg.com)
Gerry Smith, reporting for Bloomberg: Comcast is trying to restrict cable operators' sales of low-cost TV service to ensure its regional sports networks don't lose too many subscribers, according to a trade group of about 750 smaller companies that have taken their complaint to regulators. Comcast has tried to limit the availability of sports-free offerings in contract talks with pay-TV operators, according to the American Cable Association, whose members have about 7 million subscribers. In addition to being the largest U.S. cable provider, Comcast owns regional sports channels in markets such as Boston, Chicago and Philadelphia. The claim shows programmers are fighting back as more consumers seek TV options that don't include sports. Cable operators are trying to stem subscriber losses by offering a "basic" service with just a few channels and internet access for fans of Netflix or Amazon.
I wanted to watch game 4 of the Red Sox vs Astros the other day and it was only on some random cable channel... would have watched it if I had it on my very very basic cable. Ended up turning on the radio instead. I have no interest in paying even $15 more per month for a bunch of channels I might want to watch once or twice a year. Might have paid a couple dollars to watch pay per view... or even five dollars if people were coming over. But would have preferred it just being on a broadcast advertising supported channel.
So MLB and the teams missed out on a viewer and the channel missed out on an advertising viewer, but I got to keep my money and be more productive around the house by listening to the radio rather than sitting on the couch.
It's an important distinction, because what they're engaging in is basically a gentle form of extortion. You accept something you don't want and probably don't want to support
That's a valid perspective, but here's why I don't think of it that way:
If I am to have internet access, then right off the bat I have to accept something I don't want to support: Comcast. So that becomes the baseline, and is true independent of issues around fees. Since I have to accept that, being able to pay less for it is a relative win.
Any bets on whether or not the stats on people like you are a secret closely guarded by your cable company?
I am very well aware that the entire reason they have this deal is to be able to count people like me as if we are "cable subscribers" to artificially inflate their subscriber count. That doesn't bother me, actually.
Your cable provider has oh-so-kindly given you a choice between paying, and paying twice. That's not the same as "not paying for basic service", and not even close to "being paid to have basic cable".
Yes, this is correct -- but since I'm paying the first (or second?) time no matter what, that's the baseline I'm measuring from.
while people like me, who are more careful about our privacy, pay even more money to fund the discounts that others enjoy.
When it comes to loyalty cards (which I don't use for the same reason as you), I avoid the issue by shopping at stores that don't offer loyalty cards. Interestingly, the normal prices as those stores tend to be about the same as a "discount with a loyalty card" at loyalty card stores!
it's something you might want to think about the next time you look at your 'internet' bill.
I think about these issues a lot. I have a serious question for you, though -- what action do you think I should take about the internet service? Since only other option is to go without it, I'll take whatever discounts I can so I can at least minimize the amount of money that goes into the pockets of a company that I loathe.