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.

Comments

One of the reasons

[JohnFen]

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.

Re:One of the reasons

[JohnFen]

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.

Re:One of the reasons

[bluefoxlucid]

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.

Re:One of the reasons

[JohnFen]

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.

Gee, isn't this what MONOPOLIES do?

[Rick Schumann]

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

Such dissonance...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.