CABLE TV RATES

[Kenny Atkinson]

I would really like to know why cable tv is so high in prices when you can get Netflix, Hula TV etc for as low as 8.99 a month.
I got a Nintendo WII system for Christmas and the 8.00 a month I pay for Net Flix is so worth it.
Everything that is on Cable networks is on Netflix.Law and Order, Rosanne,Documenteries, you name it. On when you want to see them(on demand).
The other thing that kills me is Premium channels, HBO, Showtime etc.15.00 a month now
Netflix gets releases quicker than these premium channels at no extra cost with such a wide variety of movies on every one.
Did I mention comercial free and you can speed through a movie or TV show if their is a part you don't like.

So why is basic cable services approching the 70.00 a month range when an outfit like Netflix can offer it so inexpensive and very big piont here. No commercials.So Netflix is'nt even making a dollar on ads.

Some Cable TV tycoon who may read this may want comment.....The American TV consumer is plainly being ripped off.

 

[WPPCProductions]

My Pet peave is .For starters.I blame channels like ESPN for charging the cable providers up to $5 dollars per subscriber.to carry their content.People like that dont watch ESPN or orher sports programming have to get ripped off for a channel that we dont view.Let the people that like sports pay for the clannel and let us that dont .We can .op out.nevermind other channels we can do without.

 

[azumanga]

But then again, in order to enjoy Netflix or a similar service, you'll need a broadband connection from your favorite cable company. While they may end up feeling the pinch where traditional cable services are concerned, no doubt its other services, including broadband internet, will remain popular.

 

[Irishfl]

Sports is the really killer. It use to be just ESPn, which as already mentioned wants near $5 per subscriber. Now however everysport has launched its own network. Both Big10 & NFLN wanted deals similar to ESPN a few years ago. NFLN even aired ads spouting about how we have to pay for those home shopping networks women like, which isn't true. They infact pay the cable companies a commission on sales.

Anyway sports is the main reason. The 2nd reason is news. CNN, Fox news, MSNBC, CNBC, weather channel all charge alot under the excuse of needing to for costs.

kids channels would probably be next. Nickelodeon is one of the highest rated networks, which leads into reason #4, & the final reason. All cable channels have about 15 owners total. As a result inorder to pay for something you want, you have to pay for stuff you don't want. A cable company wants to keep Nick, so they have to add nick jr, teen nick, & nick toons to their cable lineup.

 

[Kenny Atkinson]

Sports is the really killer. It use to be just ESPn, which as already mentioned wants near $5 per subscriber. Now however everysport has launched its own network. Both Big10 & NFLN wanted deals similar to ESPN a few years ago. NFLN even aired ads spouting about how we have to pay for those home shopping networks women like, which isn't true. They infact pay the cable companies a commission on sales.

Anyway sports is the main reason. The 2nd reason is news. CNN, Fox news, MSNBC, CNBC, weather channel all charge alot under the excuse of needing to for costs.


kids channels would probably be next. Nickelodeon is one of the highest rated networks, which leads into reason #4, & the final reason. All cable channels have about 15 owners total. As a result inorder to pay for something you want, you have to pay for stuff you don't want. A cable company wants to keep Nick, so they have to add nick jr, teen nick, & nick toons to their cable lineup.

I understand if a cable or satelite provider carrys lets say wants to carry USA.NBC/Universal ok you can carry USA but you have to carry SYFY,Universal HD, and Chiller.

I could get away with my locals, TBS,USA,SYFY,FX, SPIKE,TNT FOX NEWS and maybe one other news channel.As for the rest of them I dont need them.
MTV is awful,VH1 has gone to the dogs along with VH1 classics.Weather channel under NBC sucks now.

 

[wprt949]

see if i did not like sports i would not have cable i would just get cable modem serivice from comcast and do netflix

 

[dave73]

The industry doesn't want A La Carte, because many of the channels that are on cable systems now would disappear, due to declining viewership on the least popular channels. I would only get cable or satellite (DirecTV) again if I could choose the channels I want, instead of being forced to have channels I have no interest in. All religious channels would not be in my A La Carte package, along with Sports (not a big sports fan), MTV, VH1, and so on. I would have PBS channels PBS East & West (found on DirecTV), Create (found on some local digital subchannels), World (not sure if DirecTV carries this one or not), Nickelodeon, Boomerang (love the classic Hanna Barbera cartoons), TBS, WGN America (not available on cable in the Chicago market, but is available on satellite), and some others I can't think of at the moment. For local digital subchannels, I'd want WTTW Prime, MeTV, MeToo, U Too, & Antenna TV (though technically it's nationwide, but currently not on satellite & not on all cable systems).

On Demand streaming services are becoming popular, but AT&T & Comcast want to limit the amount of bandwidth you use, or you might pay just as much, or more than if you have cable TV.

 

[TheBigA]

The industry doesn't want A La Carte, because many of the channels that are on cable systems now would disappear, due to declining viewership on the least popular channels.

Depends on who you mean by "the industry." Because the big channel operators aren't worried about that. Disney, Universal, Fox, CBS, and the other big owners will make money no matter what the system is. And who really cares about those smaller channels? Keep in mind there are two groups in this industry: The channel providers and the local MSOs. Cable MSOs will be required to carry religious channels, they make money from the shopping channels, and they can justify TLC and Discovery as educational channels. No problem. The reason we don't have ala carte is because it'll end up costing the same. This way they can give the impression we're getting a bargain. Even though most consumers feel they're getting a lot of nothing....channels they don't watch. It's like computer companies dumping more features we don't use on computers to justify inflating the price.

 

[azumanga]

The reason we don't have ala carte is because it'll end up costing the same. This way they can give the impression we're getting a bargain.

Except that consumers can choose any channel they want, other than the ones mandatorily required by law and/or station contract.

 

[landtuna]

The reason we don't have ala carte is because it'll end up costing the same.

You don't know that but let me give you an example of what was long ago and far away.......

Back in the C-band days programmers all offered a la carte. Additionally, you could subscribe to an individual service by month, quarter, bi-annually or annually. They did this via online sites where you checked off what you wanted and a service center in San Diego made the changes to your receiver. Exactly the same process can be used with DISH and DirecTV. Cable systems with addressable boxes could also use the same system.

But there is more money, and less complexity, using the tier system so that's what exists today. There is no other reason. Should a la carte ever be mandated (and it would have to be) it would also provide improved signal quality as there would be many fewer services (a good portion of the least viewed services would disappear) and it would encourage existing services to improve their programming quality as they could be dropped if viewing decreased. That scenario is unlikely using the tier system so, predictably we've got dozens of clone services all offering the same crap.

 

[TheBigA]

That scenario is unlikely using the tier system so, predictably we've got dozens of clone services all offering the same crap.

But "the same crap" is what's popular. It's the experimental, risky, and unconventional programming that will end up getting canceled. So I believe that ala carte would be bad for small content providers and unconventional programming, and would instead lead to more sameness on cable TV, because that's what's popular.

But I don't expect ala carte to be mandated, just as I don't expect FM on cell phones to be mandated, because it's so hard to get a consensus on these kinds of things.

 

[PTBoardOp94]

Nice to see you back, A.

If ESPN is getting $5 per household per month, and they are in 110 million households (an estimate, I didn't look it up), what's to prevent the Mouse from increasing their fee to $7, 10, or $12 per month under an ala carte scheme where they might have 80 million, 55 million, or 45 million subscribers? ESPN gets roughly the same revenue under all of the scenarios.

 

[fybush]

ESPN gets roughly the same revenue under all of the scenarios.

From subscribers, yes - but they also have the revenue stream from advertising, which would be substantially lower in a universe of 45 million potential viewers than in a universe of 110 million viewers.

 

[Starbucks]

They'll be ways to start getting around the big Comcast companies. I suggest you drop 2/3rds of the Comcast bundle like me this month, and purchase a Roku box and start picking and choosing. For 80.00 one time...you pick Hulu, Netflix and if you want sports like MLB, you subscribe for a one time fee for their channel...you pick who you want to subscribe too. As far as the phone..if you use cell as your primary ...you don't need to do anything, but Magic Jack or Ooma as your home phone...there all one time fees, and the rest is no monthly. Hulu and Netflix both are 16.00-18.00 ( let's just see reasonable). I can subscribe to sports on the internet, and for Baseball, just a one time charge for the season , is the same or as much you pay a month for the Bundle package.
Cable channels work similiar like Clear Channel radio. It's like if you want to carry our primary channel, you have have to take our 5 other tier 2 channels. Example...NBC, MSNBC, SNBC, CNBC, Bravo etc. I don't watch all those channels, but I'm force to have have most of them. We are charged for bandwidth and station charges , even though we don't watch, use or subscribe to them. The charge is pass to us from Comcast. Even the local affiliates in your market hit Comcast with a high charge (Just like Music Exchange with the publishers and copyrights for streaming) and we pay them. The thing is , we barely need the local affiliates these days, (even with the news) and just go to ABC, Fox.Com and watch your shows and anytime you like. I have a comcast DVR and I'm usually behind watching the shows that aired this week...So i mine as well watch and subscribed to HULU. I'm building a computer with a fast processor, HDMI ports, HD and wireless card with Hapauge and then connect to the flatscreen...there you are.

 

[landtuna]

But "the same crap" is what's popular. It's the experimental, risky, and unconventional programming that will end up getting canceled. So I believe that ala carte would be bad for small content providers and unconventional programming, and would instead lead to more sameness on cable TV, because that's what's popular.

In this day of copy-cat programming on the networks and on cable (according to many such comments on this very board) it is unlikely that a la carte would increase the number of generic services. What it would do is remove a ton of people who now are forced to pay for sports programming from having to pay for something they don't watch. Cable is not the new PBS and does not have an obligation to bill all subscribers so that unpopular or experimental services can continue to air.

But I don't expect ala carte to be mandated, just as I don't expect FM on cell phones to be mandated, because it's so hard to get a consensus on these kinds of things.

Given the current operation of the FCC I do not think they would seriously consider a la carte either but if cable bills continue to rise without a noticeable increase in programming quality/quantity there might be a crack in the wall.

 

[landtuna]

ESPN gets roughly the same revenue under all of the scenarios.

From subscribers, yes - but they also have the revenue stream from advertising, which would be substantially lower in a universe of 45 million potential viewers than in a universe of 110 million viewers.

I fail to see what algorithm advertisers are using to measure actual viewers of a specific cable service like ESPN. Does the ad rate depend on the number of household subscribers or is there some formula that can determine what percentage of subscribers do or do not watch ESPN?

 

[TheBigA]

Cable is not the new PBS and does not have an obligation to bill all subscribers so that unpopular or experimental services can continue to air.

Nor do people have an obligation to subscribe to cable. Subscriptions to cable services are voluntary. If people don't like paying for channels they don't watch, they can watch OTA channels. Congress went out of its way to ensure that OTA transmission would continue after the transition to digital. And I'm seeing an increase in people doing just that.

 

[fybush]

Cable networks get Nielsen ratings, just as broadcast networks do, and they're all measured the same way. But it's still in ESPN's interest to be in as many households as possible. Consider: I might or might not be willing to pay $7 or $10 or $12 a month to get the ESPN networks a la carte, and if I choose not to pay, there's no way ESPN would ever get ratings from my household. (If I were a Nielsen household, which I'm not.) But since I do get the ESPN channels in this non-a-la-carte world, I'll drift over there from time to time if there's a Red Sox game on that I want to see. It is very much in ESPN's best interest (if not necessarily mine as a consumer) to have ESPN bundled in as part of my cable service, even if it results in a lower per-subscriber fee than ESPN might get as a pure-play a la carte service.

Note that the networks that do survive as pricey a la carte offerings are either not advertiser-supported (HBO, Showtime, Disney in its premium-channel era) or are so deeply niched (channels appealing to one specific immigrant ethnic group) that they don't have to depend on ratings to sell their ad time. For everyone else, there's a very strong incentive to keep the universe of potential viewers as large as possible, which is one reason nobody on the industry side wants to shake up the status quo.

 

[landtuna]

Nor do people have an obligation to subscribe to cable. Subscriptions to cable services are voluntary. If people don't like paying for channels they don't watch, they can watch OTA channels. Congress went out of its way to ensure that OTA transmission would continue after the transition to digital. And I'm seeing an increase in people doing just that.

You are absolutely correct and I am one of those people who decided $70/month was too much money to watch 5 cable channels part-time. Since dropping cable (actually DirecTV) and going OTA I have discovered even less reason to watch TV at all and spend most of my viewing time on the Internet. In this respect it appears TV is going the way of radio.....driving its viewers away to alternate sources.

As an addendum....although I could easily afford it, the sorry state of both OTA and cable (except for sports programming) has convinced me not to spend big bucks for an HD TV - at least not yet. Once the Internet can support HD reliably I might reconsider.

 

[TheBigA]

In this respect it appears TV is going the way of radio.....driving its viewers away to alternate sources.

I disagree with that sweeping generalization. The TV companies are simply providing multiple platforms, all of which they own, for viewers to use. If you don't pay for Comcast on cable, you watch NBC TV. Same with radio. Those who don't listen via the airwaves are choosing internet stations, many of which are owned by the same companies.