Report: Cable Prices to Double by 2020

[PTBoardOp94]

From the New York Post:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/report_cable_month_by_znd9R7wovueqksw5Cm0DjO

Currently, households spend an average $86 monthly for basic and premium cable offerings — not counting Internet or phone service, said the NPD report.

That’s expected to climb to $123 by 2015 — and then hit $200 a month by 2020, the report said.

I didn't dive into the actual business group report, so I don't know the definition of "basic and premium." HBO and Starz would account for a big chunk of that $86 bill, if they are included in the survey...

 

[OldNumber7]

From the New York Post:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/report_cable_month_by_znd9R7wovueqksw5Cm0DjO

Currently, households spend an average $86 monthly for basic and premium cable offerings — not counting Internet or phone service, said the NPD report.

That’s expected to climb to $123 by 2015 — and then hit $200 a month by 2020, the report said.

I didn't dive into the actual business group report, so I don't know the definition of "basic and premium." HBO and Starz would account for a big chunk of that $86 bill, if they are included in the survey...

I think it's premature to speculate on where cable rates will be 3 and 8 years from now. The industry is in tremendous flux, and consumer behaviors are changing rapidly. Plus, the dirty secret is that many cable providers are offering non-stop promotional rates to hold on to subscribers (and eyes for the cable advertisers). The published rate may say one thing, but lots of customers are negotiating better deals.

 

[FreddyE1977]

With the rate at which their new sources of competition are proliferating, I'd say that is highly doubtful.

Once again the mainstream press reveals it's near-total ignorance of basic economics.

 

[LKellerIII]

From the New York Post:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/report_cable_month_by_znd9R7wovueqksw5Cm0DjO


I think it's premature to speculate on where cable rates will be 3 and 8 years from now. The industry is in tremendous flux, and consumer behaviors are changing rapidly. Plus, the dirty secret is that many cable providers are offering non-stop promotional rates to hold on to subscribers (and eyes for the cable advertisers). The published rate may say one thing, but lots of customers are negotiating better deals.

I wish somebody would give me a lesson on how to "negotiate a better deal." I've had Comcast for cable TV for years, but whenever I've called them to negotiate something better, all I'm offered at a discount is the introductory rate for internet or phone, if I want to add those (I still have AT&T for those) - and that deal would expire in 6 months and I'd end up paying the same or more compared to what I now pay AT&T.

The only way I can see to get a truly better rate is to quit Comcast for awhile - then try to go back...and that's a big hassle...I don't have decent OTA reception, so I'd have to get Dish or Direct in the interim.

 

[gregg75]

I'd tend to believe $123 by 2020.....sounds more like it.

 

[Markxxx]

This article is all over the place, without seeing the facts behind it, it's hard to say. One thing the article does make clear is the other options are not free.

It makes little difference to Comcast if you stream and pay them or get the shows via cable. With datacaps growing and more people using phones and iPad (cloud) devices to stream, it all costs.

I lost all my OTA when the DTV came in and I must say I don't miss it much. I can go to the gym, where they have networks and cable news to see things I want to see or other less legal means to view them.

I'm sure in time those will be shut as companies, for better or worse, tighten things up.

The real problem comes if OTA is downgraded while consumers are happy with pay options. Then by the time they get sick of the high bills, it'll be too late

 

[KML0224]

My last bill from Com-crap here in New Britain, CT was $23.82. I have a 26" Sanyo LCD HDTV. Without a converter, I get the locals, QVC, TBS and The Weather Channel [national feed] in HD, some of the local sub-channels, P-E-G access and NECN (New England Cable News) in SD.

 

[Darth_vader]

Good old QAM! Sounds like what we have around here (with the exception of Northwest Cable News instead of New England C.N.); all anybody really *needs* on cable, period. My Mum uses free-to-air QAM exclusively and hasn't given the cable company a penny since about the late 90s.

[size=8pt]She's in a crappy spot for ATSC reception, and the Vancouver cable companies have always been very bad about actually disconnecting the physical lines from the junction boxes. I suppose they must feel a few QAMmers aren't hurting their bottom line too significantly, especially considering the increasingly ridiculous amounts of money they want people to give them, oi.

The public access channels are my personal favourite.

 

[CrankyYankee]

Methinks sports channels could be a reason for much of possible higher rates.
The price for broadcast rights seems to go up-Up-UP regardless of anything.

 

[OldNumber7]

I wish somebody would give me a lesson on how to "negotiate a better deal." I've had Comcast for cable TV for years, but whenever I've called them to negotiate something better, all I'm offered at a discount is the introductory rate for internet or phone, if I want to add those (I still have AT&T for those) - and that deal would expire in 6 months and I'd end up paying the same or more compared to what I now pay AT&T.

The only way I can see to get a truly better rate is to quit Comcast for awhile - then try to go back...and that's a big hassle...I don't have decent OTA reception, so I'd have to get Dish or Direct in the interim.
[/quote]

Maybe it depends on the market, but I live in a major East coast market, have a major cable provider, and I haven't paid the "regular" rate for my TV-Internet bundle for two years. It DOES take some negotiating every six months.

 

[FreddyE1977]

I wish somebody would give me a lesson on how to "negotiate a better deal." I've had Comcast for cable TV for years, but whenever I've called them to negotiate something better, all I'm offered at a discount is the introductory rate for internet or phone, if I want to add those (I still have AT&T for those) - and that deal would expire in 6 months and I'd end up paying the same or more compared to what I now pay AT&T.

There's your first mistake...calling Comcast and expecting that you'd be dealing with a human being who
had functioning brain cells.

 

[mnradiofan]

I actually don't see this outside of the realm of possibility. In 1997, when I first got cable, I was paying about $30 a month, and got everything except the movie channels. Today, that same package is $80. I think there is a limit as to how much people will be willing to pay, but as every channel (including broadcast) now demands rate increases on a per subscriber basis every year, these costs have to be passed on to the consumer somehow.

Again, the assumption I'm making is that the price would double IF I want to keep the current channel lineup I have now. What I predict is that customer deflections will cause the cable companies to start offering per channel, or more tiered pricing. Comcast already tried to do that with the extra sports channels that were jumping on the bandwagon, and pretty much every cable company now offers a basic package with no sports for around $30 per month.

Of course, others are right, the model is shifting to a model where we may start buying our content directly from the creator.

 

[ansky212]

Of course, others are right, the model is shifting to a model where we may start buying our content directly from the creator.

If many customers drop cable over time, I wouldn't be surprised to see the networks start charging for watching their programming online or through other sources. They need to make that money back somehow.

 

[carolinaradio]

I think cable/satellite needs to adapt by offering smaller, more customized packages for programming. I'm willing to pay for cable, but am sick of paying for more and more channels I don't watch. I recently adjusted my Dish Network package to a leaner package with about 60 of the mainstream channels....they didn't have it when I originally signed up, it excludes the kids channels, movie channels, music channels (save for CMT), and just has ESPN/ESPN2 as far as sports go. Good for households without kids. It's refreshing to not have to pay for all of that junk I never watch. I believe there are several tiers of this overall package.

 

[vibe]

If the prices double it's mainly due to sports...

 

[kilamanjero]

I blame this on sports and the sport channels always beckoning for higher rates, hence why I stop watching ESPN, FSN, or any other sports channel years ago.

 

[landtuna]

When my almost-basic sat bill reached $65/mo three years ago I took a long look at what I was watching and it came to about five channels. Three of those are available free over the Internet and the other two I could buy on DVD for less than half the price of a one-month subscription. It was a no-brainer. I dumped cable.

 

[Robnoxious]

Everytime a carriage negotiation squabble breaks out that should be a huge red flag upon your wallet because that will be the thing that has to open a bit wider when the two bickering parties come to an agreement. These things seem to be happening with a lot more frequency lately so it goes without saying that cable could be considerably more by 2020 is not just fantasy.

 

[rwells2265]

Maybe ... just maybe ... cable providers are beginning to listen. A year ago, we dumped the regular digital tier in favor of barebones "lifeline basic" service -- just to keep a reliable picture of the local affils. But over the weekend I discovered Comcast offers what they call "Digital Economy" -- zero sports channels, none of the Viacom-owned nets, but it DOES have the two channels my wife likes the most (Food TV, and especially (!) Hallmark). It's buried in the bowels of their website, so you have to really dig for it.

She agreed with me about the price of regular cable, with all the sports channels that neither of us give a flying hoot about, but still missed her channels. At what amounts to an additional $20 a month above the $12 stripped-down basic, we called and bit. I still don't like 99% of what's on TV these days, but this makes my wife happy: the most priceless deal of all. ;D

--Russell

 

[carolinaradio]

I think smaller packages are definitely going to become more popular and could keep customers that are tempted to pull the plug. When I researched cable for my area, the amount of channels in the cheapest digital package was insane, add to that all of those useless music channels - IMO, that's an area where satellite is better than cable...there are more choices as far as packages go.

I think cable should be more tiered - have a basic package with the general entertainment/news/mainstream specialty channels, maybe ESPN and Nickelodeon, THEN have "optional" tiers to add on like Sports (include NFL, MLB Networks, NBA TV, Speed, extra ESPN channels, etc), Kids (The Hub, Sprout, Disney, extra Nick channels, etc), Specialty channels (Military, ID, Discovery Health/Fit, Science, Cooking Channel, DIY, OWN, etc), Movies (AMC, LMN, Hallmark Movie Channel, IFC, TCM, FOX Movies, etc). I think such a strategy would cut back on the complaints about channels that go unwatched.