What we pay for cable channels

[jal41]

http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20100308/hate-paying-for-cable-heres-the-reason-why

Chart: http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/files/2010/03/cable-sub-fees.png

ESPN now charges well over $4.00/month/subscriber. The regional Fox Sports Net channels charge over $2.00/month/subscriber. The next highest, TNT, is less than $1.00.

Take a look at the chart. The sports channels are to blame for this.

 

[pab]

And yet the cable companies keep fighting a-la-carte.

The high cost of the sports channels is their excuse to keep gouging us. I'd gladly drop all the EPSN's and all the local sports channels to save $6.00 a month.

 

[BRNout]

If I could pay "a la carte", I'd immediately dump the Fox Sports Net which I NEVER watch.

And HD Net? That's another channel that I have never ever stopped at. It too would be Gone.

This is an abuse and we should have the option of picking and choosing.

 

[DToTheJ]

I'm sure if all cable subscribers had their druthers, they'd choose not to have the 24-hour infomercial stations - and there are some systems that carry such channels with round-the-clock infomercials...

Tell 'em, Marc.

 

[Markxxx]

Is this for satellite users too? Or just cable TV users?

 

[imhomerjay]

I'm sure if all cable subscribers had their druthers, they'd choose not to have the 24-hour infomercial stations - and there are some systems that carry such channels with round-the-clock infomercials...

Tell 'em, Marc.

And since the 24-hour infomercial stations are almost--if not entirely--broadcast channels, it would save people...um, nothing.

 

[turkeydance]

y'all still watch TV? i thought i was behind the curve.
ovguide.com and others offer FREE TV. watch TV on
your laptop/desktop/whatever. drop that cable thingie.
even LIVE sports are online....of course, there's a
significant delay vs. radio...but it's a FREE picture.
naked DSL is my ticket. no, it's not porn.
but it could be.

 

[Silkie]

http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20100308/hate-paying-for-cable-heres-the-reason-why

Chart: http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/files/2010/03/cable-sub-fees.png

ESPN now charges well over $4.00/month/subscriber. The regional Fox Sports Net channels charge over $2.00/month/subscriber. The next highest, TNT, is less than $1.00.

Take a look at the chart. The sports channels are to blame for this.

Are the sports channels to blame, or is Congress to blame for making it impossible to get a signal without cable?

 

[imhomerjay]

Whatever else they've done/not done, they didn't make it "impossible" to get a signal without cable.

 

[landtuna]

Whatever else they've done/not done, they didn't make it "impossible" to get a signal without cable.

Not to take this thread off subject but you are welcome to visit my house and see what a *lovely* OTA digital signal I've got.

In the old analog days nothing but a full-fledged thunderstorm would have any effect upon FP TV signals (and that was with indoor rabbit ears). My digital signal (with large outdoor roof-mounted antenna) now pixilates in wind, cloudy (but not stormy) skies, when the sun sets behind the towers (summertime) and in clear weather for no apparent reason.

I won't say it is *impossible* to get a digital signal without cable but it sure wasn't an improvement!

 

[FreddyE1977]

Unfortunately, the prevailing attitude of our government seems to be to limit/deny us choice wherever possible.

Eventually I suppose pirate bitstreaming sites on the internet (or legitimate ones that surpass cable networks in audience and popularity) will eventually make this all a moot point.

 

[KeithE4]

And yet the cable companies keep fighting a-la-carte.

The only reasons I can think of why cable would fight it would be administrative costs of keeping track of all the millions of combinations of a la carte cable channels that customers would have (each customer's channel list would be unique) - that and the fact that they charge us (probably) double for each channel whether we watch or not, so their revenue would drop if they went a la carte and we only paid for what we want.

It's the networks (or more correctly, their parent companies) that have the most to lose if a la carte is allowed. Most, if not all, the cable networks (including ESPN) would go out of business if they didn't get their per-subscriber fee times 85 or 90 million subscribers. They don't have enough viewers to be able to sustain a broadcast-style business model without having to become over-the-air networks.

The high cost of the sports channels is their excuse to keep gouging us. I'd gladly drop all the EPSN's and all the local sports channels to save $6.00 a month.

The sports channels plus CNN are the only channels I would want. I don't want to pay for all that other garbage! That's why I dropped cable.

 

[landtuna]

The only reasons I can think of why cable would fight it would be administrative costs of keeping track of all the millions of combinations of a la carte cable channels that customers would have (each customer's channel list would be unique) - that and the fact that they charge us (probably) double for each channel whether we watch or not, so their revenue would drop if they went a la carte and we only paid for what we want.

In the "old days" of the Big Ugly Dish (C-band) it was commonplace for service providers to sell their channels ala carte. You went to their web site (or telephone), checked off the services you wanted, the authorization center piped them in to your receiver and you got a bill. Piece of cake.

No, administration is not the reason cable and sat companies do not sell ala carte. The primary reason is the deals they have with the programmers who provide the service to them to resell. For instance, a programmer selling a popular service (say Fox News) will offer it to the reseller for a price BUT will discount that price if the reseller also takes Fox's other services which are not popular (bundling). Better deal for the programmer (they get to sell more ads on more channels) and better deal for the reseller. Bad deal for any customer who does not want the extra services and worse deal for the customer who is giving up picture quality due to the greater compression required for more channels.

Programmers have said their prices for individual channels would increase if sold ala carte. Maybe so, but would they increase to the point where you are paying for 200+ channels to get the 7-8 you actually watch?

I think not.

 

[KERCAlum]

I think I'd prefer to do a mix of OTA and cable to get the channels I truly want, because AT&T U-Verse does not carry the digital subchannels (and it would be very nice to have a local weather radar to look at that didn't take ten minutes to download - are you listening, Weather Channel?). I have a little Hauppage USB ATSC tuner stick for my laptop which brings in a majority of the D/FW DTV channels (off rabbit ears, yet), but it'd be nice to have the locals (plus their subchannels) plus some a la carte cable channels like ESPN, FSN, and a couple of others. Would I pay $20 a month for that? Sure! Do I enjoy paying $90 a month for 250 channels, 10% of which I may watch at any given time? No.

 

[LKellerIII]

Programmers have said their prices for individual channels would increase if sold ala carte. Maybe so, but would they increase to the point where you are paying for 200+ channels to get the 7-8 you actually watch?

I think not.

Is the average viewer only watching 7-8 channels? I think not. This isn't 1975.

Without sitting down to make a list, I'm confident that over a week's time, I regularly watch programs on a couple dozen channels. There are probably two dozen more that I watch a program or two on over a month's time. If you add my wife's and kids' individual preferences, I think it would probably total close to 80 or more channels watched per month. If I was charged only $1.50 per month per channel, it would equal my current cable bill. Any per-channel charge over that would cost me more than I'm paying now.

Could I do without some of those channels? Sure - a few. But those channels are added value to my viewing experience. I doubt "a la carte" would save me any money.

 

[justpassingthough]

Ugh. The complaining about no a-la-carte option again. Its getting old and the idea is not in the best interests of the customer. The thought that paying a-la-carte would drive down your cable costs is absurd. As above posters have mentioned, programmers like Fox or Comcast or whomever bundle their channels for resell to the cable systems. If a-la-carte were in effect, the programmers would simply charge more for the channels that people are actually watching. Maybe even much more for popular networks like ESPN and Fox News. The little channels like ESPN Classic and Fox Business News go away. Then we end up with limited choice at the same price. How free market is that?

We need this subsidization of smaller networks through the packaging of channels, so we are offered the greatest variety amongst channels.

The other common complaint seems to be the idea that customers must even pay for television programming in the first place. What other services are left that are free? Everything in this world costs money (the passing exceptions being broadcast TV and radio- which had somewhat high investments in equipment ownership at their outset). TV has finally caught on to the way that music is produced and sold, books are written and sold, newspapers, etc. Every other medium charges for their content. Why should television be any different? If you want a-la-carte, disconnect your cable and start buying DVDs of TV shows or single episodes or season passes through iTunes or a million other places that peddle television shows now.

 

[Skynet74]

I don't have cable. I canceled a year ago because I refuse to pay for garbage I don't watch. I get so much more joy from the internet and that cost less than half the price of basic cable. The one channel I care about most is available online 24 hours a day via another website. I won't say from where. But I will say that there is no shortage of weather coverage at my house. I also like CNN and Fox News. All information that I can get online. I've got Sirius radio which sumulacasts the audio from CNN and Fox News as well. In addition, I already pull in 30 Free HD channels on my TV. Full local coverage. Networks from two different cities! All without being a slave to the cable company. I'm off the grid and I pay ZERO DOLLARS to watch Television. More people should try it. It's not bad at all.

 

[landtuna]

I think I'd prefer to do a mix of OTA and cable to get the channels I truly want, because AT&T U-Verse does not carry the digital subchannels (and it would be very nice to have a local weather radar to look at that didn't take ten minutes to download - are you listening, Weather Channel?).

D/FW may be a lot different than Phoenix but I can't really get excited over the digital subs we have here.

Two "movie/classic TV show" channels - mostly B-list Made-for-TV or public domain junk with the RTV channel being out-of-sync on audio the majority of the time.

Three weather/traffic subs that tend to be loops (Weather Underground on the web has more accurate data) and AZ DOT has a web site with current traffic.

Multiple religion/infomercial/craft channels in both Spanish and English - poor PQ (LPTV).

The single worthwhile addition, IMHO, is PBS World. Pretty small pickings for all the hoopla surrounding the DTV transition.

 

[LKellerIII]

Justpassingthrough is right. I don't read the sports section or the gossip colums. Can I ask my newspaper to charge me only for the news sections and editorials? Subscribers to XM/Sirius have to pay for the whole package - even if they don't like Howard Stern or 60s Oldies.

But everybody is free to take their business elsewhere. If you want, you can watch TV shows on the internet now, or just get your signal over the air with an antenna. Personally, I wouldn't want to be limited to the broadcast channel world. I'm spoiled - my tastes and expectations have changed.

I'm also a big user of the On Demand feature. For example, I like the scripted series Damages on FX. I had no idea it had returned for a third season. Frankly, there are so many choices now, I lose track. But I was able to catch up by watching the 4 episodes I'd missed On Demand.

Would I like my cable bill to be lower? Absolutely. But I also want $1.00 per gallon gasoline, a 75 cent loaf of bread, and a new car for $5,800 - what my new 1979 Honda Accord cost. That was then, this is now. Cars are safer, faster, and more reliable now. Cable TV is better, too.

 

[landtuna]

The thought that paying a-la-carte would drive down your cable costs is absurd.

Except that is exactly the way it used to be on the big dish. Some providers sold ala carte and others sold packages. A few offered both. It was always less costly to choose the ala carte option unless you wanted all services in the package.

If a-la-carte were in effect, the programmers would simply charge more for the channels that people are actually watching.

As noted above, that is probably true, however the total cost would still be less (again....assuming you didn't want ALL services).

The little channels like ESPN Classic and Fox Business News go away. Then we end up with limited choice at the same price. How free market is that?

Services that are little-watched probably deserve to disappear versus being subsidized involuntarily. But in reality the people who wanted those services could pay for them. That is the true free market.

We need this subsidization of smaller networks through the packaging of channels, so we are offered the greatest variety amongst channels.

Only if you are a Socialist.

The other common complaint seems to be the idea that customers must even pay for television programming in the first place.

Funny but I didn't see this 'complaint' anywhere in this thread.

What other services are left that are free? Everything in this world costs money (the passing exceptions being broadcast TV and radio- which had somewhat high investments in equipment ownership at their outset). TV has finally caught on to the way that music is produced and sold, books are written and sold, newspapers, etc. Every other medium charges for their content. Why should television be any different?

"Free" TV and radio are advertiser supported. That's one business model. Others, like premium services (HBO) are fee-supported. Then there are the hybrids which have ads but also charge fees. Since we can assume that most of the hybrids content is paid for by advertisers the fee part is most likely to provide the cable or sat transmission service.

If you want a-la-carte, disconnect your cable and start buying DVDs of TV shows or single episodes or season passes through iTunes or a million other places that peddle television shows now.

Yeah.....except that statement makes no sense. We are not talking about content ownership here but rather viewing only.