Is Cable Television Worth The Money We Pay For?

[mjlarochelle]

Cable would be fine if one didn't have to pay for channels they don't want. All the locals should be provided since you'd be getting those anyways (in most cases) without cable, and maybe a couple extra channels. Otherwise, if you want ESPN and other sports channels but no movie channels and no ABC Family, for example, then you'd pay accordingly.

As it stands right now, cable throughout North America is far too expensive to be worth it, unless you actually watch most of the channels offered, including QVC.

 

[vibe]

This probably dates me but wasn't cable originally for the purposes of importing stations (local and non local) that one could not receive OTA with any degree of clarity? I remember gettting cable in New Britain Ct in the 1970's and we had a lot of NYC stations from about 100 mi away that few people, if any, could receive. From what I understand those stations are gone and have ben replaced by a bunch of crappe. I remember the Las Cruces NM cable system had the 4 majopr LA independents from over 600 mi away as well as a distant (250 mi) Albuquerque station.
It was fun to watch the nightly local news from a number of out of the area stations. Now cable is a huge cash cow where the operators get their $$ with little/no competition from both sides. It stinks but most of us have it since we have cable lumped with the phone, lights, heat etc as a necessity.
FWIW: if people can order what they want in a restaurant, why not with their TV stations via cable?

 

[KML0224]

Vibe? You are indeed correct! WGBY-TV (PBS) channel 57 from Springfield, MA is the lone out-of-market station carried by Comcast here in New Brtain (and Hartford). We get YES (Yankees/Nets), NESN (Red Sox/Bruins) and FOX Sports New England (Celtics) full time. However, we only get MSG Network if a Rangers or Knicks telecast is taking place (usually placed over C-Span 2 on cable channel 23). We have never had SportsNY here at all. We also get NECN (New England Cable News) from Newton, MA (Boston market).

 

[dhett]

Actually, cable was originally for the purposes of getting the local stations to locations that couldn't receive them due to terrain.

 

[BlueHen]

I just did exactly that.
I am content with limited channels.
They can keep FOX News for all I care.

Same here for the basic package. I dumped all the tiered services and now pay only $15/mo. The only reason I kept it at all was for the better reception.

When we first signed up for cable back in the '80s, we did so because we were led to believe it was commercial-free since we were paying for it. That had to be one of the biggest dupes on the American public. Over the years, we just got tired of having more & more channels dropped from the lineup, and then seeing channels like American Movie Classics obliterated with 5-minute long commercial breaks every 10 minutes. (Not to mention the selection of movies are hardly 'classics' anymore).

They must've heard you about FOX News. Our Comcast carrier must be working on a complete channel shuffle or something because we haven't had it for the last month... unless it's another case of a channel being moved up to a more expensive tier.

Just wondering... Does anyone know if the 'M' in MTV still stands for Music Television, or if the 'VH' in VH-1 still means Video Hits??

 

[vibe]

I just turned on the idiot box this AM (9) and on Fox Sport Net and NESN (a New England regional sports station) they were running infomercials.
That ain't what we're mortgagging our first born's child education for...

 

[TexasTom]

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).

Antitrust regulation is not socalism, unless you want to label the original "trust buster", Teddy Roosevelt, as a socialist. Furthermore, a concentrated market is not a free market. Basic economic theory recognizes that free market theory only works in a robust marketplace that has a large number of buyers and a large number of sellers.

That certainly doesn't describe the cable industry. And the sad thing is that cable & satellite TV is an environment where the free market would actually work quite effectively if it was actually given a chance. But don't kid yourself: it's the big media companies that keep it from being a free marketplace, not the government.

 

[BRNout]

Antitrust regulation is not socalism, unless you want to label the original "trust buster", Teddy Roosevelt, as a socialist. Furthermore, a concentrated market is not a free market. Basic economic theory recognizes that free market theory only works in a robust marketplace that has a large number of buyers and a large number of sellers.

That certainly doesn't describe the cable industry. And the sad thing is that cable & satellite TV is an environment where the free market would actually work quite effectively if it was actually given a chance. But don't kid yourself: it's the big media companies that keep it from being a free marketplace, not the government.

Very, very well put! We have a quasi-monopoly going in cable TV right now. There truly isn't real competition. If there were, you'd have at least 3 cable companies to choose from and at least 3 DBS providers. And, they would have a matrix of entertainment providers to offer you. What we see now is the product of conglomeration. And, they collectively have a stranglehold on the marketplace.

If I get po'd at Comcast for their bad service, it's not like I can fire them and go elsewhere. This is not like the wireless phone market (which has issues too). I can't just flip from Comcast to Time Warner or to a little company like Metro Cast. It isn't possible. No, you're stuck. Sure, you can put in a dish. But, that involves limitations. In my case, I would lose my broadband internet service. Plus, we rent our townhome, so the installation of equipment would cause issues there too. It just isn't feasible.

So, no, we do not have a free and open marketplace. And, with big conglomerates like Viacom, Disney and TW offering programming, the cable companies don't really benefit from an open marketplace either.

It has become a mess.

 

[toby]

In most places, cable television is treated like a monopoly with access given by the local government.

As for ala carte pricing, it would really pear down the offering of channels that only exist because the media conglomerate that owns one network that is popular or a broadcast television station group (think Scripps, for example) that ties the carriage of that to several other channels. This is why there are crap channels with horrid low budget programs like say, HGTV.

 

[4dude]

Cable isnt as bad a DTV has gotton!

12 channels @ least with NOTHING BUT SPAM!!!!!!! (and they keep adding more)

 

[imhomerjay]

Economic theory also accounts for natural monopolies, duopolies and oligopolies in a truly free market. Artificially restricting free commerce, in this case for some nebulous number of “major” channels controlled by an equally nebulous number of "different" groups is most certainly more socialist than capitalist. What constitutes enough ownership variance? What constitutes “major” channels?

The underlying problem is that we, as a country, act like a bunch of spoiled brats, always asking the government to step in and let us have our cake and eat it too. I’ve read the Constitution, and for the life of me I don’t see where there is a clause that can be interpreted to say there’s a right to Battlestar Galactica or The Real World, let alone to have it at a certain price from an arbitrary number of providers.

Instead of accepting the consequences of our choices—a.k.a. trade-offs—we run whining to Big Brother in Washington, or the state capital or wherever, to remedy some perceived unfairness. If you choose to live in a location where you can’t get satellite for whatever reason, that is the trade off for your choice or residence. Unless you’re a guest of the corrections system or are in public housing (in which case pay TV should be the least of your worries), you have a choice about where to live. If proximity to your job or good schools or a nice neighborhood or whatever other criteria are the most important thing(s) to you, great. Maybe the trade off is that satellite doesn’t work for you. The same applies in reverse for people who live in areas where cable doesn’t run. That’s their choice, and choices on one front sometimes mean less choices on another. It’s life, get over it.

Every time the government gets involved in this kind of juvenile pacification, it sucks tax dollars out of all of our wallets to create a self-perpetuating monster of red tape and bureaucratic waste. Certainly it extends beyond just TV topics, but for the sake of this board, we can stick to those. The FCC is wasting our money on making reams of rules to regulate a luxury service.

 

[Grindlfan]

imhomerjay, I am guessing that you're either a Republican or you work for the cable industry....or both.

 

[imhomerjay]

Try a libertarian who works in an editorial related field. (Nor as someone said once in an email am I on Tiger Woods' payroll because I expressed similar views about personal responsibility in another thread.)

 

[KeithE4]

Cable would be fine if one didn't have to pay for channels they don't want. All the locals should be provided since you'd be getting those anyways (in most cases) without cable, and maybe a couple extra channels. Otherwise, if you want ESPN and other sports channels but no movie channels and no ABC Family, for example, then you'd pay accordingly.

If ala carte was allowed, most, if not all, cable channels would be forced off the air since they'd lose money. I'll use ESPN as an example. The numbers are estimates since I didn't research the latest Disney quarterly/annual reports for the exact figures. Hopefully I'm close.

There are approximately 80 million households in the U.S. with cable or satellite. Disney charges cable companies $2 or so per subscriber per month for ESPN and its sister-channels. That's $160 million a month. Let's say 25% of cable viewers watch ESPN at any time and will pay for it (and I think I'm being generous).

If only those 20 million people pay the $2 a month, that cuts severely into Disney's bottom line. They won't let that happen. They'll want (actually, need) $8 or more a month to maintain that revenue since they have to pay those expensive rights fees to the NFL, NBA, MLB, and the colleges. How many people will pay that? Not 20 million, I'll bet. Advertiser rates couldn't be raised enough to make up the difference. Indeed, if the actual number of ESPN viewers were known, I think the rates would plummet, making Disney's financial situation even worse.

And if ESPN would have trouble, so would the other majors like CNN and MTV. The smaller networks wouldn't survive at all.

As it stands right now, cable throughout North America is far too expensive to be worth it, unless you actually watch most of the channels offered, including QVC.

It depends on you and your situation. If you're a sports fan like me, you pay for cable or watch the dwindling sports coverage on the OTA channels. Outside of football, college hoops, golf, and NASCAR, I think sports will be at least 90% cable in the next few years. Hockey's already gone there. Baseball and the NBA are heading in that direction.

 

[vibe]

But w/ a la carte cable some people would want say. a movie network like HBO, ESPN at $8 mo, a news channel (CNN or Fox News depending on their political ideaology), in addition to the local channels. A lot of empty nesters don't want or need all the children's programming.
People who don't need ESPN shouldn't have to pay for it. I would pay $8-10 a month if it were an a la carte choice. It's sad our politcians don't relly believe in a true market/free enterpprise system where people can pay to get exactly what they need/want.
As a consumer our only freedom of choice is to take the whole package or leave it. Not much choice.
One potential pitfall to a la carte, more black boxes/theft of services.
Actually I'm going to start a seperate thread on a la carte cable.

 

[Grindlfan]

[If ala carte was allowed, most, if not all, cable channels would be forced off the air since they'd lose money. I'll use ESPN as an example. The numbers are estimates since I didn't research the latest Disney quarterly/annual reports for the exact figures. Hopefully I'm close.]

I cry B/S on that. I hardly think cable companies like Comcast will go out of business with an ala carte option. They could still offer their tier packages to non descriminating cable subscribers, but at least offer ala carte as well to those of us who would rather choose. It is a racket. Cable channels are paying the cable companies (per subscriber) to carry their channel. We are paying the cable companies a premium to receive their service. The cable companies receive a percentage of sales from all the shopping channels and Paid Programming spots. Seems to me the cable companies are making out like bandits, and I mean that literally. Tripple dipping! They're opposed to ala carte because they know many of us would dump QVC, HSN, ION and the Jesus channels in a heartbeat.

 

[vibe]

Probably 1/2 of the whole system is a boom to the operator and crappe for the consumer.

 

[TexasTom]

Economic theory also accounts for natural monopolies, duopolies and oligopolies in a truly free market. Artificially restricting free commerce, in this case for some nebulous number of “major” channels controlled by an equally nebulous number of "different" groups is most certainly more socialist than capitalist. What constitutes enough ownership variance? What constitutes “major” channels?

Apparently, all that libertarian theory that you've imbibed has made you ignorant of what "socialist" means. In any event, I find it fascinating that you consider Theodore Roosevelt to have been a socialist. As I noted in my previous post, he was the first president to aggressively work to bust up the big monopolies of his day.

You can prattle all you want about "natural monopolies" (a term that has historically been applied mostly to utilities such as phone, electric, and water service), but the fact is that more competition generally benefits customers, while less competition generally benefits the companies offering the services (or products) in a non-competitive environment. That gives the companies a strong incentive to seek to minimize competition through whatever legal means are available. Absent government regulation, a capitalist system is thus likely to tend towards oligopolies and monopolies as bigger companies buy out or otherwise suppress the competition. That it is an appropriate role for the government to try to alleviate this process is something that is accepted in our legal system -- and there is nothing socialistic about it.

Now if I suggest that the governments should buy or take over local cable companies, that would be socialism. Interestingly, from what I've read, a city operated (socialist!) cable system in Tacoma, WA is apparently working quite well -- but I tend to think that this is not an appropriate solution to the failings of the marketplace in the current cable/satellite business. Breaking up the companies is a better solution.

 

[imhomerjay]

And the government has done such an outstanding job of instituting things like Medicare reform under the outright lie of being free-market driven. That was an utter disgrace—mismanagement, incomprehensible and illogical plans, and the idiotic “donut hole” system. Every bit of it a was special-interest bought-and-paid-for sham that the political whores in D.C. held up as free-market economics when nothing could be further from the truth. If the government wants to be a health care provider then do it all, top to bottom. If we want a free-market system, then let the market forces work; this half-a**ed system is a recipe for disaster.

This is the same government that has regulations leading to thousand dollar toilet seats. This is the government that funds roads to nowhere because the system is so filthy and corrupt that paid-for political favors outweigh fiscal discipline.

We don’t need more of the government in anything. There is virtually nothing the government touches in the private sector that it doesn’t make significantly worse by doing so—wasting a heck of a lot of our money along the way. The probelm is no one in Washington has any b---s whatsoever.

I don't question your statement that more competition has consumer benefits. I said it is not an appropriate, nor Constitutional, role of the federal government to intrude in the private sector when there is no public welfare, theft or deception issue at play (all of which are covered by existing law). As you rightly point out, companies seek to minimize competition--that's what success is all about. Why strive to succeed if that effort is rewarded by an arbitrary line, chosen by political prostitution, at which point your work is broken up? The sellers of products--I don't care what those products are, from hamburgers to Hummers, or from software to satellite dishes--should have rights as well. They have invested in the creation and development of said products, and to place artificial controls over how they may try to sell them is most certainly not the free market at work.

 

[vibe]

If you don't like a burger from one chain, there's lots of other choices, same with hummers. With cable, it's a take it or find something else proposition. That's why cable may be "necessary' but not worth the $$'s we pay for it. I