On the subject of a-la-carte...

[KeithE4]

Not particularly. The major football games will be on ESPN and/or ABC, and I'm mainly a Big Ten fan anyway.

I thought you said you were a college football fan. ;D

Yeah, but we have to have something to watch before basketball season starts. ;D

Anyway, there are a number of sources to watch college games other than ESPN/ABC and the regional cable outlets. I have just finished building a new PC for the upcoming season because my lovely wife would want to use the PC on Saturdays. It is not as convenient as turning on the big screen in the living room but it isn't that difficult either.

Those "sources" are illegal and not very reliable. And, not knowing what Radiodiscussions' policy is, I would suggest not mentioning them. Other broadcasting-related boards have been known to ban users for even mentioning that they exist.

I tried a couple of them a few years ago, one major site having been busted by the Feds in early 2011. Besides, the picture quality wasn't very good, but WatchESPN is pretty horrid, too.

 

[LKellerIII]

Let's try again, with Discovery. According to SNL Kagan in 2009, they charge $0.25 per subscriber per month, with around 100 million subscribers. That's $300 million in subscriber revenue per year.

Much the same happened to History. AMC used to have good movies but then they added commercials, cut up the movies and then began showing junk. I have a better personal collection than they do.

The only worthwhile non-sports service I would buy would be TCM but I will not pay big bucks for the other 200 channels I would never watch.

"Different strokes for different folks," as Sylester (Sly) Stewart used to say. I agree with your assessment of the History Channel. As for AMC, I was never a particular fan of old theatrical films - I spent much of my youth watching old movies on commercial TV in the 60s and 70s. However, I am into AMC's original dramas - Breaking Bad, The Killing, and Walking Dead. They have another one - Hell on Wheels that I don't care for, and a new series called Low Winter Sun that I haven't tried yet.

Also showing excellent original dramatic series are FX, A&E, TNT, Showtime and HBO. And there are some great comedy series - Louis CK, Mark Maron on IFC, and others. The point is - most of the best scripted television is now on basic cable. IMO, the shows on the 4 major OTA networks (with very few exceptions like The Good Wife) are far inferior. And the 4 big networks have their schedules filled with fake reality programming, which I despise.

Much of this programming is available soon after the original air date on the internet (iTunes, Hulu Plus, etc.) but they ain't giving it away - it's pay per view. My techologifcally minded son manages to find ways to get all this free on his computer, but I don't have the know-how, and feel guilty about pirating.

So my entertainment life would be much poorer without the programming carried by basic and premium cable. When this pie-in-the sky future time comes that I can stream it all for free, I'll be happy, but in the meantime, Comcast will be getting my money.

 

[landtuna]

What would it mean if we treated cable as a utility like telephone or electricity?

Isn't it pretty much that way already? My city council administers the franchise granted to the local cable company although I don't think they have anything to do with rate setting.

When the cable company first came to my town there were several who wanted the franchise but the city didn't want every Tom, Dick and Harry digging up the streets so they chose one company and essentially gave them a monopoly and it has been that way for more than 30 years now. Just recently the telephone company has been laying fiber cable for the purpose of Internet and TV programming so now there will be two but that still isn't very much competition.

 

[landtuna]

Because 90% of their current subscribers don't actually watch Discovery (per Nielsen), even though essentially everyone has Discovery in their package. Under an ala carte regime, who would subscribe to Discovery and not watch it? Only people who have way more $2.50s than sense.

When I had cable (way back when...er, in my day......ah years ago) I subscribed to five channels and those were the only ones I watched. It cost $60/year and I was happy as a clam. Then came the pizza pan sats and tiered services and the price shot up about 10X and you suddenly had hundreds of channels filled with bullshoot. Then the product began deteriorating and once great channels became uninteresting or copies of others (FX, TVland, AMC, etc.) and suddenly the price wasn't worth it any longer.

One of the great things about ala carte is that people get to support the channels they like and the ones that are not good enough to attract viewers will whither and die. You would not eventually have hundreds of channels of crap because people won't pay for it.

 

[KeithE4]

What would it mean if we treated cable as a utility like telephone or electricity?

Isn't it pretty much that way already? My city council administers the franchise granted to the local cable company although I don't think they have anything to do with rate setting.

One huge difference: An apartment complex can't refuse to install electric, water, or landline phone service. They can and do refuse to allow the local cable company in. In the case of the complex I live in, some residents have complained to the City of Phoenix but they refuse to do anything, saying that unlike a lack of electricity or water, a lack of cable is not life-threatening.

 

[landtuna]

Those "sources" are illegal and not very reliable. And, not knowing what Radiodiscussions' policy is, I would suggest not mentioning them. Other broadcasting-related boards have been known to ban users for even mentioning that they exist.

I tried a couple of them a few years ago, one major site having been busted by the Feds in early 2011. Besides, the picture quality wasn't very good, but WatchESPN is pretty horrid, too.

I understand the difference between legal and illegal sources and I was not advocating the illegal type. I have never used tunneling or VPN to hide my IP address and will watch only what is "in the clear" and available to my geography (hence my recent problem trying to watch HNIC legally).

Many foreign (which is to say non-USA-based) broadcasters carry US programming (of all types) and many are available over the Internet. Those that are not restricted distribution are legal to watch. It's similar to DXing a foreign radio station - the signal isn't meant for you but there it is. The best thing about some of these sources are the commercials which we usually don't see in the States. And sometimes you get to watch/listen in a foreign language which has its own educational properties.

 

[landtuna]

One huge difference: An apartment complex can't refuse to install electric, water, or landline phone service. They can and do refuse to allow the local cable company in. In the case of the complex I live in, some residents have complained to the City of Phoenix but they refuse to do anything, saying that unlike a lack of electricity or water, a lack of cable is not life-threatening.

I'm not disputing you but I wonder why an apartment that wants to attract responsible tenants would restrict something like cable. It would seem to me that potential tenants, should they want to hook up, would find the lack thereof to be a deal-breaker.

As the only options are to go without (cable) or fasten a pizza pan to your outside railing why would any apartment manager want a plethora of dishes sprouting from every patio wall? If I was running a building I would much rather have invisible cables in the walls than dishes mounted everywhere.

 

[KeithE4]

One huge difference: An apartment complex can't refuse to install electric, water, or landline phone service. They can and do refuse to allow the local cable company in. In the case of the complex I live in, some residents have complained to the City of Phoenix but they refuse to do anything, saying that unlike a lack of electricity or water, a lack of cable is not life-threatening.

I'm not disputing you but I wonder why an apartment that wants to attract responsible tenants would restrict something like cable. It would seem to me that potential tenants, should they want to hook up, would find the lack thereof to be a deal-breaker.

The explanation to us was that the owner had a serious beef with Cox (but who hasn't?) and absolutely refuses to let them in. As the property owner, he has that right.

As the only options are to go without (cable) or fasten a pizza pan to your outside railing why would any apartment manager want a plethora of dishes sprouting from every patio wall? If I was running a building I would much rather have invisible cables in the walls than dishes mounted everywhere.

I think the owner would love to ban those as well, but Federal law prohibits him from doing so. We've also heard rumors about him owning stock in Ygnition Networks, the company that provides Dish Network (a dish on the roof of each building wired to all apartments) and internet service to the complex. The service was so bad, I switched to CenturyLink for internet a few months ago.

I did without (just antenna and internet) for 3 1/2 years, and now I'm getting DirecTV. But I'm moving out of the city next January anyway, so I won't care after that.

 

[PirateJohnny]

What would it mean if we treated cable as a utility like telephone or electricity?

Isn't it pretty much that way already?...

I think he means pay for what we watch, like pay for how much water or electricity we use. That's what I mean when I say the same thing.

 

[landtuna]

The service was so bad, I switched to CenturyLink for internet a few months ago.

I've been real happy with CL internet. My total downtime over the past three years has probably been in the neighborhood of 20 minutes. I recently switched my email from MSN to CL and found out CL's mail servers are much faster as well.

I initially had Cox but got tired of all the unexplained outages and the inability to contact anyone when it went down. The final straw was an outage that lasted an entire weekend. I won't go back.

And, if you live in a pre-internet home like I do there is another advantage to having DSL as opposed to cable. All older homes going back to the 60's were usually wired for phone but only the newest ones have coax. Internet over the phone means I can move computers and modems almost anywhere in the house using existing wiring.

 

[landtuna]

What would it mean if we treated cable as a utility like telephone or electricity?

Isn't it pretty much that way already?...

I think he means pay for what we watch, like pay for how much water or electricity we use. That's what I mean when I say the same thing.

If you look at your city services (water) bill you will notice a flat service fee in addition to the consumption fee. That flat service fee is to pay for the system itself (pipes, meters etc.) and is a shared cost among all subscribers. Same for phone and electricity and gas. That is kind of the same as supporting stations you don't watch because they are billed in the same tier as the ones you do.

 

[mjlarochelle]

Timely that this thread should come up.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/business/1147568-eastlink-signals-demise-of-digital-theme-packs

Eastlink may well be the first major cable company in North America to dissolve theme packs and offer a la carte pricing. There are, of course, channels that will be available to everyone due to government regulations.

 

[landtuna]

Timely that this thread should come up.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/business/1147568-eastlink-signals-demise-of-digital-theme-packs

Eastlink may well be the first major cable company in North America to dissolve theme packs and offer a la carte pricing. There are, of course, channels that will be available to everyone due to government regulations.

This is exactly the type of pricing scheme that used to be available in the States and should be again. Too bad Eastlink is in Canada.

 

[Morgan Wick]

What would it mean if we treated cable as a utility like telephone or electricity?

Isn't it pretty much that way already?...

I think he means pay for what we watch, like pay for how much water or electricity we use. That's what I mean when I say the same thing.

I wasn't sure what I meant, only that you never hear about how overpriced those other things are.

 

[landtuna]

I wasn't sure what I meant, only that you never hear about how overpriced those other things are.

I don't complain about electric rates where I live because virtually everything I do depends on electricity and I'd be SOL without a good, steady supply. You might hear SoCal people griping a lot though because theirs is a lot higher than ours.

My landline phone (that IS what you meant, right?) costs $14/month (plus all the fees and taxes that multiple gubmint agencies add). I think $14 is not too much for the excellent service I have received all these years. Now cell phones are another story.......

 

[PirateJohnny]

What would it mean if we treated cable as a utility like telephone or electricity?

Isn't it pretty much that way already?...

I think he means pay for what we watch, like pay for how much water or electricity we use. That's what I mean when I say the same thing.

If you look at your city services (water) bill you will notice a flat service fee in addition to the consumption fee. That flat service fee is to pay for the system itself (pipes, meters etc.) and is a shared cost among all subscribers. Same for phone and electricity and gas. That is kind of the same as supporting stations you don't watch because they are billed in the same tier as the ones you do.

If the water company can supply 50,000 gallons a month and I only use 1,300 gallons, I should only pay for the 1,300 gallons, not the 50,000 gallons that i could use. That's how I feel about cable/satellite TV. If I could only pay for what I watch I might be interested.

 

[pab]

Those "sources" are illegal and not very reliable. And, not knowing what Radiodiscussions' policy is, I would suggest not mentioning them. Other broadcasting-related boards have been known to ban users for even mentioning that they exist.

Not at all! When we decided to cut the cord we did the math. Other than the networks, we found we were really only watching six shows on the "cable" side of the spectrum. Through iTunes we can get a year of "The Walking Dead" for $30.00, "Teen Wolf" for $21.00, "Mad Men" for $23.00, "Drop Dead Diva" for $23.00, and "Being Human" for $23.00. All perfectly legal, above board, etc. etc. We can watch them on our TV or (even better in some cases) on our phones. We just have to wait until the morning after it airs "live" to download it, but we probably would have time-delayed it on our TiVo anyhow.

And the sixth show? MSNBC has free podcast downloads of "The Rachel Maddow Show." Free. So we can get - completely legally - the six shows we were actually watching "on cable" for $120.00 a YEAR.

For the other shows we would like to watch, like "Game of Thrones" or "Dexter," we had already dropped the "pay" channels years ago and just wait for them to be available through Netflix.

In exchange, our cable bill went from $120.00 a month for "Digital Starter" and internet to just $50.00 a month. So we saved $840.00 in cable bills, spent $120.00 in program subscriptions, for a net savings of $720.00.

Not bad. And completely legal.

If we could pick and choose the channels we subscribe to through cable, we might have stuck with it. Even if it would have cost us more than the online subscription model for just our shows. But I see no point in subsidizing Fox News, ESPN, foreign language programming, Lifetime, all the religion channels, and the music channels we never listen to.

 

[KeithE4]

Those "sources" are illegal and not very reliable. And, not knowing what Radiodiscussions' policy is, I would suggest not mentioning them. Other broadcasting-related boards have been known to ban users for even mentioning that they exist.

Not at all! When we decided to cut the cord we did the math. Other than the networks, we found we were really only watching six shows on the "cable" side of the spectrum. Through iTunes we can get a year of "The Walking Dead" for $30.00, "Teen Wolf" for $21.00, "Mad Men" for $23.00, "Drop Dead Diva" for $23.00, and "Being Human" for $23.00. All perfectly legal, above board, etc. etc. We can watch them on our TV or (even better in some cases) on our phones. We just have to wait until the morning after it airs "live" to download it, but we probably would have time-delayed it on our TiVo anyhow.

I wasn't talking about those. Of course those are legit. I was talking about the sites that illegally stream live sports over the interwebs, mostly overseas but there have been some in the US - a federal crime - most of which have been busted now.

 

[Morgan Wick]

As would have been evidenced by actually looking at the post he was replying to...

 

[landtuna]

If the water company can supply 50,000 gallons a month and I only use 1,300 gallons, I should only pay for the 1,300 gallons, not the 50,000 gallons that i could use. That's how I feel about cable/satellite TV. If I could only pay for what I watch I might be interested.

A public utility like a phone company or electric company has to provide capacity in addition to specific usage. That is, the phone company has to build enough central office capacity so that new businesses or residents can order new lines. The electric company has to have enough capacity to do the same and also so they don't brown-out or black-out when a hot streak hits their service area. That extra (unused) capacity costs money and that is why you pay a flat "to be connected" fee. Then you pay for your individual consumption on top of that.

Some utilities also charge different rates for the potential use you could place on their system. For instance, most residential water meters are fed from a 3/4" supply. You can order a larger one if you wish but because you potentially put a larger demand on the system they have to be able to meet that demand. You may never actually use it but you could and as a public utility they are required to meet the demand.

It is a bit different than cable service as (a) cable isn't considered life-supporting and (b) cable companies are not ruled by the utilities commissions (they are elective services).