Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Comcast Pressures Local Cable Firms to Curb Low-Cost TV Packages (bloomberg.com)

Posted by msmash on from the when-there-is-smoke dept.

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.

17 of 98 comments (clear)

  1. One of the reasons by JohnFen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The main reason I stopped bothering with cable was the endless sea of crappy programs and commercials, and the terrible video quality.

    But an important secondary reason was the insane "sports tax". Making me pay for expensive programming that I have zero interest in was just pouring salt into the wound.

    1. Re:One of the reasons by JohnFen · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There are such taxes, yes, and they're all objectionable. However, the sport fee is the only one that is significantly large. Paying an extra $0.60 because of religious channels? Not enough to get worked up about. Paying an extra $5 because of sports? Screw that.

      But, truly, cable isn't worth it to me even if it's free -- which it is! I get basic cable with my internet because my total bill is lower that way than with internet alone. I'm effectively being paid to have basic cable. But watching it is painful, so I don't do it. Instead, I returned the cable box to save that rental fee.

    2. Re:One of the reasons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    3. Re:One of the reasons by ebyrob · · Score: 2

      Which is pretty funny considering no self-respecting sports fan is going to want to pay their "sports tax" either because they don't actually show the games people want to watch. Take the NFL for instance. At most you can choose to watch 1/3 of all the games played. So depending on your favorite team you may only get to see 1/3 of all their games. Even with DirectTV's competing service you can get most of the NFL games, but not all of them.

      They put up with this garbage from the sports associates then wonder why no one wants to buy their service...

    4. Re:One of the reasons by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You should see the politics sphere in the US now. Everyone is being loud about dropping the NFL for this whole kneeling thing, yet we've been hearing the NFL and ESPN were dying for a decade now.

      Sports channels are overbought. CableTV providers bundle ESPN with everything, so everyone pays for NFL and MLB and MASN. Now we've found a way out, and they're crying that Kapernick has sabotaged their empire--instead of admitting that nobody wanted their damned tyranny in the first place.

      It's hard to tell if they're protesting the wave of police brutality in the media and the states or mourning the death of the sports bubble.

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
    5. Re:One of the reasons by jenningsthecat · · Score: 2

      I'm effectively being paid to have basic cable.

      No, you're effectively having a penalty withheld in return for accepting basic cable.

      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, (the advertising ecosystem, which rewards your cableco with more dollars for more subscribers), in return for a lower price on the thing you DO support and want. (It's kind of like "ad impressions" on the Web - they're largely meaningless, but they help lubricate the greater Ponzi scheme that's in force).

      Instead, I returned the cable box to save that rental fee.

      Any bets on whether or not the stats on people like you are a secret closely guarded by your cable company?

      Also, note that you ARE paying for your basic service. The payment is invisibly built into other markets, where prices are set higher in order to fund advertising. 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".

      It's all a shell game - but then again, pretty much our whole economy is. BTW, it's a similar deal with almost all 'customer loyalty' programs. In return for surrendering your personal data, you supposedly 'pay less' by spending the fruits of your loyalty, i.e. 'rewards'. (Interesting word that - we reward children and dogs for doing what we want, in other words for submitting to manipulation). Those who submit, still pay - both in data and in higher prices to offset the 'discounts' - while people like me, who are more careful about our privacy, pay even more money to fund the discounts that others enjoy. Some people think I'm crazy or stupid. I still think I'm making the better, freer, more moral choice. I think if we ALL made that kind of choice and told corporate manipulators and sleight-of-hand artists to fuck off, the world would be a better place. YMMV, but it's something you might want to think about the next time you look at your 'internet' bill.

      --
      'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    6. Re:One of the reasons by rickyslashdot · · Score: 2

      OMG - YES. There IS a portion of humanity that can take a break, get coffee, eat a snack, and make it back to the desk WITHOUT TALKING (or even THINKING) . . . SPORTS ! ! ! !

      --
      redneck geek
    7. Re: One of the reasons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      One of the American values you defended was the right to freedom of expression.

    8. Re:One of the reasons by JohnFen · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    9. Re:One of the reasons by jenningsthecat · · Score: 2

      All very valid points - especially the last one, and especially since I'm currently paying Bell for my Internet service. Guess it's time for me to get off my high horse now...

      I'm glad you replied - we need more discussions like this, so people will be consciously aware of the choices they make and the impacts of those choices. If more people are more aware of the corporate dickery that goes on, maybe more of us will find ways to push back against it.

      --
      'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
  2. Gee, isn't this what MONOPOLIES do? by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Comcast is sure sounding a lot like a monopoly right now.

    1. Re:Gee, isn't this what MONOPOLIES do? by OffaMyLawn · · Score: 2

      The problem is in areas such as where I live, there is no alternative. Nothing viable, anyway.

      And any anti-monopoly cases brought against them are not likely to change anything for quite some time, so I'm stuck.

    2. Re:Gee, isn't this what MONOPOLIES do? by JohnFen · · Score: 2

      Me too. And yet the FCC says it's a competitive marketplace.

  3. Such dissonance... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If a person is online, they don't pay for anything. Always try to get around the ads with blockers etc. The biggest web services don't directly charge their customers (Facebook, Google) because they would lose 99% of their customer base in a month trying such a thing.

    But as soon as that same person turns the TV on, they find it totally normal somehow that they are paying $70 or so a month...to watch ads they can't block, in order to see content that half the time is beamed over the air for free. Just bizarre dissonance that will crumble sooner or later.

    1. Re:Such dissonance... by JohnFen · · Score: 2

      If a person is online, they don't pay for anything.

      My bank statement proves this wrong. I pay real money to a number of online services and websites.

  4. "basic" by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 2

    Don't feed the "basic" troll: man up and just cut the cord completely to starve the cable beast.

  5. Problem solved by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 2

    Local cable providers. When Comcast calls you, just route the call back through Comcast customer support.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .