Is Cable Television Worth The Money We Pay For?

[hammondo]

Mr Reason said;
From television’s inception back in the 1950s to today, there are a number of programs that cable could air. For example, why isn’t The Fugitive on? What ever happened to the Adventures of ? Where are those programs and why are they not on cable? The numerous variety shows like Flip Wilson, Carol Burnett, Red Skelton, The Hollywood Palace, Dean Martin.
_________________
Here is the answer to your WHY, What and Where.

The Fugitive is probably not on because Quinn Martin or David Janssen's family or (maybe the familyy of "the one-armed man" do NOT want it shown, or they are asking too much residual money for a b&w program.

Superman, Lost in Space, all those westerns that aired during the late 50s and 60s - may NOT be be on because (certainly in the case of the westerns) the prints are not too good. Have you seen Bat Masterson or the old Gene Autry shows on the Westerns channel?

The writing and acing are really great, but the sound is quite bad. Those programs you mentioned are all quite old.

See paragraph above for other possible reasons.

The variety shows you listed (You forgot Sullivan, Sid Caesar, Garry Moore, Jack Parr, the Tonight Show w/Johnny Carson too) all had GUESTS (and today their heirs) who (rightfully) want to get PAID when they appear on tv.

Just think of how cool Ed Sullivan would be on tv again. It won't happen because the people or the heirs of Frank Sinatra, Red Skelton, Louis Armstrong, Alan King, Senior Wenses, the Beatles, Elvis, Liberace, the Banana Man all those jugglers and dog acts, all the spinning plate people and 10 thousand others who appeared on those shows WANT TO GET PAID FOR THEIR PERFORMANCE. They are WHY you would watch. That's why.

Also the paperwork, legal fees and other details are too ENORMOUS for a project like that to be financially successful.

MONEY is always the reason.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

The Fugitive is probably not on because Quinn Martin or David Janssen's family or (maybe the familyy of "the one-armed man" do NOT want it shown, or they are asking too much residual money for a b&w program.

Superman, Lost in Space, all those westerns that aired during the late 50s and 60s - may NOT be be on because (certainly in the case of the westerns) the prints are not too good. Have you seen Bat Masterson or the old Gene Autry shows on the Westerns channel?

The writing and acing are really great, but the sound is quite bad. Those programs you mentioned are all quite old.

See paragraph above for other possible reasons.

The variety shows you listed (You forgot Sullivan, Sid Caesar, Garry Moore, Jack Parr, the Tonight Show w/Johnny Carson too) all had GUESTS (and today their heirs) who (rightfully) want to get PAID when they appear on tv.

Just think of how cool Ed Sullivan would be on tv again. It won't happen because the people or the heirs of Frank Sinatra, Red Skelton, Louis Armstrong, Alan King, Senior Wenses, the Beatles, Elvis, Liberace, the Banana Man all those jugglers and dog acts, all the spinning plate people and 10 thousand others who appeared on those shows WANT TO GET PAID FOR THEIR PERFORMANCE. They are WHY you would watch. That's why.

Also the paperwork, legal fees and other details are too ENORMOUS for a project like that to be financially successful.

MONEY is always the reason.

While I agree with your writings about the quality of some TV shows from the 50s and 60s, I would also like to mention that some of those programs, IE: The Adventures of Superman, have been digitally enhanced and look quite good. I know since I have the B&W episodes from 1951 and 1952 in my CD collection. When it comes to residuals for people or the families of talent that appeared on TV in years past, how then can some cable channels afford to pay the estates of the late Carroll O’Connor (All in the Family), Esther Rolle (Good Times) Isobel Sanford (The Jeffersons) or still alive actors like James Arness (Gunsmoke) and many others? Remember that many of the TV shows sitting on shelves were made BEFORE residuals, therefore they can be aired without having to pay the actors, or their heirs a dime. They were good shows too. The point I am trying to make is that there are plenty of programs that cable channels could broadcast if they so desire. Instead they give us constant repeats of reruns. Of course let’s not forget to leave time so that Lindsey Wagner can sell us a comfortable bed (price never mentioned) or we can have a full head of hair by transplanting it from other parts of our bodies. (You ever notice that the people who appear in the ‘before’ and ‘after’ pictures when it comes to hair replacements never look alike?

 

[hammondo]

Mr Reason stated; how then can some cable channels afford to pay the estates of the late Carroll O’Connor (All in the Family), Esther Rolle (Good Times) Isobel Sanford (The Jeffersons) or still alive actors like James Arness (Gunsmoke) and many others?

It is because those estates/actors WANT the program in syndication. If you go to a TV Programmers convention (used to be Chicaqgo - now they're in Las Vegas) you'll note a ZILLION available shows. Availability is not the problem. The cable networks spending MONEY is the problem.

You and I are program geeks and probably watch more tv than most people. The repiition of shows is irritating to US - but NOT to the average viewer.

 

[Grindlfan]

I am glad to read that others feel the same disdain and feeling of being ripped off by these channels selling off their time to paid programming spots. I am so sick of turning the TV on to find nearly every channel between the hours of 1-6 AM filled with infommercials, and even more during the weekends. I recently found out that the local cable companies receive a % of all area sales from the paid programming spots and the shopping channels. Comcast is my local cable operator. They have placed all the shopping channels in their basic cable package (channels 2-30) They have also strategically placed the ION network at channel 3. That channel is paid progamming 18 hours a day! So whichever package you sign up for you are going to get the channels the cable operators receive the biggest kick back from. I called Comcast last year to complain about the shopping channels and got come line of crap from the customer service rep telling me that they are required by law to carry the shopping channels. She even told me that the FCC gets a % of the sales from those channels! Does anyone know if that is true? It sounded like BS to me, a smoke screen.
The cable channels are selling off the time that we are paying companies like Comcast for. We pay the cable company. The advertisers pay the channels and give the cable companies a % of the sales. So basically the cable companies are double dipping. Cable subscribers should receive a monetary rebate or credit for every 1/2 block of time that any channel carried by the cable operator sells off to paid programming. When the cable companies start losing money they'll put the pressure on the channels to quit selling off their time.
We seriously need to put pressure on our legislators to correct this problem. God damn the FCC for relaxing the television commercial regulations in 1984. That is when all this crap started with s*** like Amazing Discoveries.

Unfortunately, there are stupid people out there buying the crap from these spots. The more you see the spots running in your area is a gauge on how successful they are. If they aren't getting sales they pull the spots. Idots are buying. I remember seeing Bette Midler in concert a few years back and she had a great line about Joan Rivers hocking her ugly jewelry on QVC. Bette said: "it makes me wonder...who's buying that s**t?"
So true.

Another thing that kills me are these dumb ass shows like Deal or No Deal that give away $10,000 to a lucky viewer. All you have to do is text message your answer to a question....Yeah, at only 99 cents per text message! How many hundreds of thousands of viewers are doing that and how much money are these shows making on these text messages? Probably more than enough to cover the production costs and the prize money they're giving away on the show. They even have developed bogus game shows around that entire concept. Ever watch that idiotic Playmania on GSN? They have simple puzzles that viewers have to figure out and then call in or text in at 99 cents per call to win $150. They probably have 20,000 people calling in. They earn thousands of dollars and only give away $150. And people are calling in. They're too stupid to figure out it is a total money making scam.

 

[sack]

Just a thought,

Cable opened up more avenues for programming. Then corporations created more channels where they could sell advertising,, and run some programs,,, they didn't have to worry about channel allocations, because it is cable, not broadcast. So now you have all these channels with time to fill. But it costs money to create or even buy programs,,, so they run what they have over and over again to fill the time. And half hour commercials fill time and generate income. Corporations saw the opportunity to sell advertising, but didn't really consider the programming between the commercials. Why should they,, they are in it to make money.

So we complain 500 channels and nothing to watch,,, yet we still pay for cable. SO who is to blame for the crap on TV? The accountants that program the channels, or the lemmings that continue to pay for it. We don't need the clowns in DC to be wasting their time telling networks what to program,,, its up to us,,, we pay, they play,,, if we don't pay,,, they have to change what they play if they want our money. It just takes a little sacrifice on our part,,,,, (yeah, I know, it aint gonna happen)

 

[w9wi]

channels and got come line of crap from the customer service rep telling me that they are required by law to carry the shopping channels. She even told me that the FCC gets a % of the sales from those channels! Does anyone know if that is true? It sounded like BS to me, a smoke screen.

Systems are required by law to carry those with a full-power over-the-air signal. Also, in very limited circumstances, those with a low-power over-the-air signal. This includes channels (like ion) that carry something else some (or most) of the time but run shopping late at night.

I am hard-pressed to think of a market that has more than one over-the-air full-time shopping channel. There aren't many over-the-air stations left running shopping part-time either, though there are a LOT of infomercials.

No, the FCC does NOT get a cut of the sales. Unless you consider the fact that the shopping channels pay taxes into the U.S. general fund (along with what all the rest of us pay on April 15th) and the FCC is supported from that fund.

We seriously need to put pressure on our legislators to correct this problem. God damn the FCC for relaxing the television commercial regulations in 1984.

That wouldn't help, (much) as the regulations applied only to over-the-air signals. The Commission and Congress have been very reluctant to regulate cable systems, since they don't use public airwaves.

 

[BRNout]

I am hard-pressed to think of a market that has more than one over-the-air full-time shopping channel. There aren't many over-the-air stations left running shopping part-time either, though there are a LOT of infomercials.

In the Philadelphia market, WMCN and WTVE both air informercials and/or shopping full time. With respect to wasting bandwidth an channel space, it doesn's matter which is which - they are the same to me. Most other major markets have at least one full time shopping and infomercial channel. Not to mention that you local ion (formerly PAX) channel probably carries shopping for a good percentage of the day. Combine that with the two cable shopping channels that most systems carry on basic (HSN and QVC) and two others frequently carried on digital (Shop at Home, Shop NBC) and it sure seems like there are far too many such channels.

By the way, its not the FCC that gets a cut of the profits from such "programming" - it is the cable system that does. Which is why these channels are so often carried on basic, even when other - more desirable - channels are relegated to digital.

On the whole, cable is probably not worth what we pay for it. However, they have a good thing going because most of us really enjoy between 4 and 8 channels and sometimes watch another two dozen. But, to get those, you need to buy the rest. Sure, it's tempting to pull the plug. But, doing so would cause a revolt in my house. Not to mention that Comcast still has the best internet service in the area.

It's like everything else, we don't like it but we are stuck with it. And, it can be pretty tough to bail out. The clear answer to all of this can be summed up in one word: competition. There's not enough of it and there needs to be more.

 

[jcs]

Let me go on record as saying I decided to "disable the cable" in 2001. The main reason was moving; I moved into a complex with higher rent and decided the one item I would sacrifice would be cable television.

I think this was one of the best decisions I ever made. I am a supporter of "a la carte" programming in which I watch--and pay for--only the channels I want instead of being forced to subsidize programming with which I disagree. When I first got cable in October 1997, the company was Media One; by the time I ditched it it was the far more worldly Time Warner. For those who want "a la carte" programming, check out the Parents Television Council's website, ParentsTV dot org, and you can write your representatives in Washington.

 

[dhett]

Cable television is worth every cent I pay for it - NOTHING!! I refuse to subscribe to cable or satellite. It's a rip-off to pay a subscription fee to receive channels, then to have to sit through non-stop commercials on them also.

Fortunately, I'm in a city where I can receive 20+ OTA stations, even if almost half of them are "en español". Also fortunate is that even if I should move to one of the more rural towns, there is a good translator network in the state; most towns of any size have 5+ OTA translator stations; many have 10-15.

 

[vibe]

The idea of a la carte cable is something I support since the cable companies seem to air a ridiculous number of shopping and religious channels which only a appeal to people intent on spending/wasting their $$'s.

 

[imhomerjay]

Since most over-the-air shopping and religious stations have to be carried, blaming the providers for any of those is misdirected anger. Blame for those belongs squarely on the FCC for sticking its nose in once again where it doesn't belong.

Beyond those, you're talking about for-profit ventures. Economics 101 would be a handy course to take--if you can carry a channel that makes you money via a revenue sharing agreement, any businessperson with an an ounce of business acumen will do it.

Isn't it interesting that you have something like hundreds of cable companies, two major national satellite companies competing with them, now two telephone companies competing with all of the above, and some of the companies like WOW out there competing too. They're not in cahoots with each other. Yet none of them deviates from the packaged approach. You may like one company's package better than another, and that's great--but they're still all some kind of package. Do you think maybe, just maybe, there's a business reason for that?

 

[Grindlfan]

Since most over-the-air shopping and religious stations have to be carried, blaming the providers for any of those is misdirected anger. Blame for those belongs squarely on the FCC for sticking its nose in once again where it doesn't belong.

Beyond those, you're talking about for-profit ventures. Economics 101 would be a handy course to take--if you can carry a channel that makes you money via a revenue sharing agreement, any businessperson with an an ounce of business acumen will do it.

Isn't it interesting that you have something like hundreds of cable companies, two major national satellite companies competing with them, now two telephone companies competing with all of the above, and some of the companies like WOW out there competing too. They're not in cahoots with each other. Yet none of them deviates from the packaged approach. You may like one company's package better than another, and that's great--but they're still all some kind of package. Do you think maybe, just maybe, there's a business reason for that?

So are you saying that the FCC does indeed make money on those shopping channels? That sounds like corruption to me.

 

[TexasTom]

Isn't it interesting that you have something like hundreds of cable companies, two major national satellite companies competing with them, now two telephone companies competing with all of the above, and some of the companies like WOW out there competing too. They're not in cahoots with each other. Yet none of them deviates from the packaged approach. You may like one company's package better than another, and that's great--but they're still all some kind of package. Do you think maybe, just maybe, there's a business reason for that?

Yeah, there's a business reason for it: the large media companies generally will only sign contracts that place their networks on the most widely distributed tier of service (excluding so-called "lifeline basic" for cable). In other words, if you're running a cable or satellite company and want to carry ESPN, TNT, USA, etc...in order to get the contract, you must agree not to offer those channels on an a la carte or limited tier basis.

Since almost every major cable network is owned or partially owned by one of five big media companies, this is hardly the robust, open marketplace that you seem to believe that it is.

 

[Tom Wells]

Steve Dahl, a Chicago radio fixture for 30 years, is now also the Vice columnist (personal vices) for the Chicago Tribune,
and his column today was on this very subject, something like," 500 channels and nothing to watch", and discussing whether it was worth it.

 

[MikefromDelaware]

You want to see cable improve? I believe most cable systems offer just the broadcast stations for about $10 a month, then you go from there to their basic cable and digital offerings, etc. If everyone who thinks cable is a rip off simply lowered their service to the broadcast only stations for $10 a month, think of how much money the cable company would quickly lose. That might get their attention, but as long as folks are shelling out at least $50+ a month and most folks spend more why should they make an effort.

 

[Grindlfan]

I just did exactly that. I now only get channels 2-30, and of course Comcast places the channels they get a kick back from in that package. ION, OVC, HSC, Shop at Home etc.
But I am only paying 13.70 a month as opposed to the $60 I was paying before to see all the same movies over and over and other channels that sell off a large chunk of their broadcast day to Paid Programming spots.
I am content with limited channels. It gets me off my ass and doing other things.
Supposedly they are required to carry the shopping channels? Hmmmm. You'd think they'd be required to carry news channels rather than shpping channel. I sure would rather have MSNBC and CNN over QVC and HSN. They can keep FOX News for all I care.

 

[vibe]

Actually the local package MIGHT work for those who like to make huge impulsive purchases at 3 AM or sending one's life savings to the teleevangelist on work release.
I do believe that cable is addictive; once you get it, it's hard to go back to OTA.
If one is young and can forego cable for the 1st 5 years after graduation from H.S. or college, one can save about 4K which if invested, should yield about 12-15K by the time their 1st child is ready for college.
Not a bad nest egg for such a small "sacrifice." My point is that when one spends $60 a month for cable (particularly if they are young) the real cost of having cable is a multiple of that $60.

 

[imhomerjay]

They're not required to carry the cable shopping channels; that's simply business 101, and I doubt most of us if running a business would turn away a steady revenue stream. If so, maybe we shouldn't be running a business.

What they are required to carry is over the air channels, including shopping (assuming said channels meet the FCC requirements to get must-carry status).

And to the earlier poster who misunderstood that to mean the FCC gets some of the profits, you linked two things together that have no bearing on one another. There's no FCC cut of shopping channel revenue.

 

[imhomerjay]

Yeah, there's a business reason for it: the large media companies generally will only sign contracts that place their networks on the most widely distributed tier of service (excluding so-called "lifeline basic" for cable). In other words, if you're running a cable or satellite company and want to carry ESPN, TNT, USA, etc...in order to get the contract, you must agree not to offer those channels on an a la carte or limited tier basis.

Since almost every major cable network is owned or partially owned by one of five big media companies, this is hardly the robust, open marketplace that you seem to believe that it is.

A free market allows big companies to own multiple assets. Disney can own as many cable channels as they want, and as the seller, can set the price and terms they think they can get. That is the very epitome of an open market. Sometimes little guys get squeezed. Though unfortunate for them, the alternative is to veer towards socialism, and that’s hardly a desirable model (at least to most people).

I don’t want the government wasting my tax money regulating an optional, luxury service. I don’t care if Rupert Murdoch buys every cable channel there is, there’s no Constitutional right to satellite or cable TV. I can choose to subscribe, I can choose not to.

 

[Grindlfan]

Well, what we need is comptetion in the cable industry. I have one choice for cable in my area and that is Comcast. If another cable company offered me a channels 2-30 package at double the price but minus the shopping channels, and ION, I would jump on that in a flash. Even better, I'd pay tripple what I am paying now if I could choose my non OTA channels from an a'la cart menu. I would replace everything from channel 14-29. Of course, if there were competition, the prices would probably be drastically lower and we probably wouldn't care about all the junk channels anyway.