• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

article: you pay cable a lot for channels you don't watch

gregg75

gregg75

You also pay taxes for a lot of services you don't use. You pay for insurance that you'll probably never use. Lot of similar situations actually. Most utility bills are based on averages, not actual usage. So you're paying an electric bill based on what you SHOULD be using, not what you really use.
 
TheBigA said:
Most utility bills are based on averages, not actual usage.
So you're paying an electric bill based on what you SHOULD be using,
not what you really use.
Click to expand...

Dang, Hoss. You live in a neighborhood where they don't have electric meters?

Even here at the edge of Appalachia we have them. And we're really "up town" with the newest technology that lets them read the meter remotely rather than having that guy tromp through my landscaping looking the the meter. And I can go on line and see what the current meter reading is via the power company computer.. Even ** I ** don't have to disturb the bird nest in the shrubbery to read my own meter.

And I have a gas meter and a water meter. Looks like the gas meter has a remote reader on it now. I haven't gone out front to see if the water folks have remote reading on my meter yet. (They started out installing them first on the water meters of folks who have an 'estate fence' of some kind between the meter and the street here in the neighborhood.)
 
The only channel from the above list I receive is TBS. I have Com-crap's limited basic service here in New Britain, CT. My bill comes out to about $27.50 after taxes. Mysteriously, it went up about $1.50 on the last bill and had no warning about it.

On the bright side, I'm glad I don't get ESPN! :p
 
TheBigA said:
Sure we have meters. And they're outside the house. The power and water companies decided it costs too much to send people to read them. I haven't seen a meter reader in more than five years.
Click to expand...

Almost every major utility company in America has updated all utility meters to enable them to be read remotely. That's simply modern technology.
 
Most states require a notation on your bill if it is prepared using an estimate and further limit estimated bills to two billing periods after which the meter must be read. If yours is not then you are indeed a special case.

Contrary to your statement I very much doubt "most people" are receiving estimated bills on a regular basis.
 
They used to give me a bunch of postcards. I would read the meter, write it down on the card and mail it back.

Currently, on "level pay" or equivalent. Don't really need to read the meter at all.

But getting back on topic. Of the top 10 networks, I actually watch but one of them. I want my $5.40 a month back from ESPN since I don't watch that at all.
 
K6JHU said:
I want my $5.40 a month back from ESPN since I don't watch that at all.
Click to expand...

Good luck with that. Just as I want my money back from Disney and Nickelodeon. As I said, we all pay for a lot of things we don't use.

We pay for roads we don't use, we pay for mass transit we don't ride, we pay for snow removal in states where we don't live, schools for kids we don't have, we pay for lots of things like that.
 
K6JHU said:
Currently, on "level pay" or equivalent. Don't really need to read the meter at all.
Click to expand...

"Level pay" is simply taking your annual bill and dividing it by 12 giving equal monthly payments. Your meter still needs to be read to obtain the annual usage. Equal payment plans are usually established during the season of low usage so that you build up a positive balance in your account before the high usage season begins.
 
TheBigA said:
As I said, we all pay for a lot of things we don't use.

We pay for roads we don't use, we pay for mass transit we don't ride, we pay for snow removal in states where we don't live, schools for kids we don't have, we pay for lots of things like that.
Click to expand...

The difference is that most of what you reference is the cost of living in a communal society. Cable/satt services do not fall under that umbrella.
 
Technology has changed to where maybe today, "a la carte" pricing would be workable. The cable industry began in an era, and marketing practices were developed, when the technology did not exist for the cable company to sell me SEVEN channels, and my next door neighbor FIVE totally different channels and the guy four doors down the street, 13 channels that the first two choose not to subscribe to.

"We can sell you our package, but we don't have a way to break down the package."

I have become a bit familiar with the way U-verse delivers content and under this new computerized/digitized method, selective selling might be practical. But for that part of the population that still receives cable with older technology, how do you explain to them why they can't get the same deal their brother-in-law in St. Louis gets?
 
Goat Rodeo Cowboy said:
Technology has changed to where maybe today, "a la carte" pricing would be workable.
Click to expand...

Maybe the technology has changed, but the business hasn't. ESPN has grown used to having a budget based on getting $5.40 for every cable customer. They pay huge rights fees to the teams and leagues for the games they broadcast. Consider if there are 50 million cable customers, and they make ESPN optional, the per user cost would jump from $5.40 per user to over $50. That's outrageous, and very few people would use it, causing the price to go up even more. Same with a lot of these other channels. Their budgets are based on the user fees for required basic channels. Take away the requirement, and something has to change. Either they have to cut costs by 75%, or users have to pay ten times as much. Neither are very workable. ESPN is locked into long term deals with sports teams, and so they can't easily change those fees.
 
Goat Rodeo Cowboy said:
Technology has changed to where maybe today, "a la carte" pricing would be workable. The cable industry began in an era, and marketing practices were developed, when the technology did not exist for the cable company to sell me SEVEN channels, and my next door neighbor FIVE totally different channels and the guy four doors down the street, 13 channels that the first two choose not to subscribe to.

"We can sell you our package, but we don't have a way to break down the package."

I have become a bit familiar with the way U-verse delivers content and under this new computerized/digitized method, selective selling might be practical. But for that part of the population that still receives cable with older technology, how do you explain to them why they can't get the same deal their brother-in-law in St. Louis gets?
Click to expand...

I disagree with your conclusion. Big satt systems had the ability in the early 1980's to sell both packages and ala carte channels. If cable systems don't now have that ability it is because they chose not to support it.
 
TheBigA said:
Maybe the technology has changed, but the business hasn't. ESPN has grown used to having a budget based on getting $5.40 for every cable customer. They pay huge rights fees to the teams and leagues for the games they broadcast. Consider if there are 50 million cable customers, and they make ESPN optional, the per user cost would jump from $5.40 per user to over $50. That's outrageous, and very few people would use it, causing the price to go up even more. Same with a lot of these other channels. Their budgets are based on the user fees for required basic channels. Take away the requirement, and something has to change. Either they have to cut costs by 75%, or users have to pay ten times as much. Neither are very workable. ESPN is locked into long term deals with sports teams, and so they can't easily change those fees.
Click to expand...

Major league sports are not stupid. They know to the penny what ESPN and the other sports distributors are paying to carry their programs. If ESPN were suddenly made optional by the cable systems and their revenue fell by a significant amount the sports providers would have no choice but to lower their fees accordingly. They are not going to give up a lucrative outlet like ESPN.

Sports providers are like any other business. They will charge as much as the market will bear.
 
landtuna said:
If ESPN were suddenly made optional by the cable systems and their revenue fell by a significant amount the sports providers would have no choice but to lower their fees accordingly. They are not going to give up a lucrative outlet like ESPN.
Click to expand...

You've obviously never dealt with rights holders. They'd rather make nothing, or put their content on their own channels, than take a pay cut. No one ever takes a haircut. If ESPN's revenue is cut, the leagues see that as ESPN's problem, not theirs. It's not a very pleasant business. I've dealt with music rights holders, and they're not unlike the IRS.

If channels are made option, the power will reside in the channels with maximum distribution. That could mean that certain play by play sports events may move to channels that might traditionally carry other kinds of programming. So Disney might move the baseball playoffs to the Disney Channel or some other channel that gets better distribution. Turner might become more powerful because everyone wants CNN and TBS. NBC might have more options with Bravo. It would completely change the marketplace. It wouldn't surprise me if the broadcast networks get more powerful as a result.

It is the fiduciary responsibility of a rights-holder to get the highest price for its content. That could mean that ESPN loses Monday Night Football to MSNBC. Unless the money is there, you'd have a lot more games on the NFL, MLB, and various regional sports networks.
 
Last edited:
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom