If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Consumerist)   Cablevision decides it no longer wants to pay for bundling of channels that no one watches   (consumerist.com) divider line 65
    More: Ironic, Cablevision, Viacom, product bundling, Nick Jr., core network  
•       •       •

3616 clicks; posted to Business » on 27 Feb 2013 at 7:31 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



65 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-27 07:38:24 AM  
Would Cablevision or TWC then be passing on the a la carte payment structure to their customers?

Unless they announce plans to do so, it's really hard to give a shiat about big companies pissing at each other.
 
2013-02-27 07:42:20 AM  
After looking at the lineup I realized that the only Viacom channel I watch is Comedy Central and the only thing I watch there is South Park which I can get free on the South Park Studios website, so can I drop Viacom completely and save some money?
 
2013-02-27 07:44:07 AM  
Many distributors take advantage of these win-win and pro-consumer arrangements.

Man, their paradigm is way outside the box!
 
2013-02-27 07:47:41 AM  
Oh just go eat the biggest bag of dicks in the world, Cablevision.
 
2013-02-27 07:56:21 AM  
Dying content delivery model enforced by lawyers.
 
2013-02-27 08:03:55 AM  
www.antennasdirect.com
CUT THE CORD.
 
2013-02-27 08:14:52 AM  
I like Palladia.  There are weekends where that is the only channel I have one because there is nothing else worth watching and the concerts make good background music.  They also have pretty decent music ducumentaries that are not on Netflix.
 
2013-02-27 08:15:24 AM  
Am I the Weeners I don't have a TV?
 
2013-02-27 08:19:31 AM  
Nick Jr, Nicktoons, VH1 and CMT? Really? These are not watched channels? I'd guess many homes with young children have at one of these channels on several times a day.
 
2013-02-27 08:29:07 AM  

bluenote13: I like Palladia.  There are weekends where that is the only channel I have one because there is nothing else worth watching and the concerts make good background music.  They also have pretty decent music ducumentaries that are not on Netflix.


I agree. Palladia is the only Viacom channel I watch. It is what MTV would be if MTV was about music and not teen-aged commercials.

I really dig Later with Jools. Daryl's house can get a little douchey but at least it plays more music than chatter.

Not the biggest foo fighters fan but the documentary was a good watch. The Rush doc was sweet too. The Heart Dreamboat Annie concert was great.
 
2013-02-27 08:29:34 AM  

GardenWeasel: Nick Jr, Nicktoons, VH1 and CMT? Really? These are not watched channels? I'd guess many homes with young children have at one of these channels on several times a day.


Yeah, my 8-year-old enjoys him some Nicktoons. I'd happily trade in every kids channel for HD versions of BBC America and Fox Soccer, neither of which are on my package.
 
2013-02-27 08:31:50 AM  

GardenWeasel: Nick Jr, Nicktoons, VH1 and CMT? Really? These are not watched channels? I'd guess many homes with young children have at one of these channels on several times a day.


And you are welcome to those channels, they should just be on a higher tier.

Why should childfree people have to pay for kids entertainment?
 
2013-02-27 08:34:28 AM  
Yeah, yeah, yeah, but why are there so many religious channels and shopping channels in my lineup?
 
2013-02-27 08:42:02 AM  

SBinRR: Yeah, yeah, yeah, but why are there so many religious channels and shopping channels in my lineup?


If your serious, it's because the provider doesn't have to pay anyone for those channels - they get paid TO carry them.
 
2013-02-27 08:53:43 AM  

Derfroberts: GardenWeasel: Nick Jr, Nicktoons, VH1 and CMT? Really? These are not watched channels? I'd guess many homes with young children have at one of these channels on several times a day.

And you are welcome to those channels, they should just be on a higher tier.

Why should childfree people have to pay for kids entertainment?


How are you paying extra for it if it is part of your standard package? The cable companies know you will pay $X for service. Do you really think your rates will go down if they get a better deal? No, their profits will just go up, and you will get less product for your money.

People pay $60 for 500 channels now because the content providers get a low amount of $ spread across a high subscriber base, and they can then use that subscription rate to sell advertising rates. If we ever went to a complete ala-carte system, you would pay $60 for just 3 channels, and the cost for Netfilx, Amazon, and Itunes would skyrocket to make up for the lost revenue. No thanks.
 
2013-02-27 08:59:14 AM  

GardenWeasel: Derfroberts: GardenWeasel: Nick Jr, Nicktoons, VH1 and CMT? Really? These are not watched channels? I'd guess many homes with young children have at one of these channels on several times a day.

And you are welcome to those channels, they should just be on a higher tier.

Why should childfree people have to pay for kids entertainment?

How are you paying extra for it if it is part of your standard package? The cable companies know you will pay $X for service. Do you really think your rates will go down if they get a better deal? No, their profits will just go up, and you will get less product for your money.

People pay $60 for 500 channels now because the content providers get a low amount of $ spread across a high subscriber base, and they can then use that subscription rate to sell advertising rates. If we ever went to a complete ala-carte system, you would pay $60 for just 3 channels, and the cost for Netfilx, Amazon, and Itunes would skyrocket to make up for the lost revenue. No thanks.


Look who has bought the PR of the cable industry.
 
2013-02-27 09:05:31 AM  
this is why I use netflix and torrents.   Cable is a huge waste of money.

/cable net paid for by company WOOHOO
 
2013-02-27 09:06:35 AM  
Of the 14 channels they are wanting to lose, i watch 1, Palladia and even that is pretty rare but now and then something good is on it.

Never even heard of some of the others. MTV TR3s? Logo? Do i even want to know?
 
2013-02-27 09:06:38 AM  
GardenWeasel:
People pay $60 for 500 channels now because the content providers get a low amount of $ spread across a high subscriber base, and they can then use that subscription rate to sell advertising rates. If we ever went to a complete ala-carte system, you would pay $60 for just 3 channels, and the cost for Netfilx, Amazon, and Itunes would skyrocket to make up for the lost revenue. No thanks.

Yea people always think some sort of a la carte cable thing is going to save them money. I don't think so since it is still being run by the same jerkass cable companies, who still like to make money. So yea if you just went down to 10 channels as long assuming they were popular channels (ESPN, Food Network) you would probably still pay the same. But if you went to some more obscure channels you would pay even more since those channels wouldn't be propped up by the popular channels.

Plus if more people started dropping cable in exchange for things like netflix, expect ISP rates to increase (either by increased monthly rates or more data caps), since at least where I live the cable companies and the internet companies are pretty much the same company. And if the cable division is losing money they will have to make that money back some how.
 
2013-02-27 09:19:16 AM  
"The carrier considers the following 14 stations to be "ancillary" - Centric, CMT, MTV Hits, MTV Tr3s, Nick Jr., Nicktoons, Palladia, Teen Nick, VH1 Classic, VH1 Soul, Logo, CMT Pure Country, Nick 2, MTV Jams. Not all of these channels are currently available nationwide via Cablevision"

My cable companies has those channels on a higher tier which I got rid of ages ago to just get basic. My kid does miss the Teen Nick, Nicktoons and Nick 2. The way that schedule seemed to work he was always able to find something he wanted on one of those channels.
 
2013-02-27 09:20:14 AM  

YodaBlues: [www.antennasdirect.com image 300x208]
CUT THE CORD.


Hell No.  I like paying a reasonable rate for cable to my municipal fiberoptic network.  It also gives me an incredible rate on actual high-speed internet.

/$35 per month, 10/10Mpbs
 
2013-02-27 09:20:24 AM  

YodaBlues: CUT THE CORD.


That's what I am doing. I am switching to Netflix, Hulu and whatever I can get through streaming. I prefer cable, but it just costs too much
 
2013-02-27 09:41:06 AM  
brendonfoulke.com

YodaBlues: CUT THE CORD.


Is the Ocho available on Roku yet?
 
2013-02-27 09:47:29 AM  
I did the Netlix/Hulu+ switch long ago. It's not quite the same as having a TV that you can always leave on, but honestly, who actually watches sh*t that's playing in the background - and you're paying $80 a month for?

/local sports teams come on OTA, and if we play on a Monday night (cable) I can just waltz one block to the local watering hole
 
2013-02-27 09:50:03 AM  

YodaBlues: [www.antennasdirect.com image 300x208]
CUT THE CORD.


Only if MLB loses the MLB.TV local blackout lawsuit.  Even then, I'll need to watch the playoffs at a sports bar since they're only on cable.

Also, I'd be illegally downloading television shows since they don't show up on reputable streaming services until the season is over.

If they fix this shiat, that channel on your Roku will magically cost the same as your cable bill did.
 
2013-02-27 09:54:04 AM  

StrikitRich: After looking at the lineup I realized that the only Viacom channel I watch is Comedy Central and the only thing I watch there is South Park which I can get free on the South Park Studios website, so can I drop Viacom completely and save some money?


I was reminded of my age when I saw that South Park has 13 or 14 seasons on their site. I'm back down to season 2 and trying to finish the whole series as a matter of principal. No commercials! You can pack in a good 5 episodes per night, especially when smoking.

/authoritah
//you get by, one day at a time
 
2013-02-27 09:59:23 AM  

tricycleracer: Only if MLB loses the MLB.TV local blackout lawsuit.  Even then, I'll need to watch the playoffs at a sports bar since they're only on cable.


I don't care for sports, so admittedly, it's easier for me. I know friends who have said the same, if it wasn't for Hockey/Football, they would've cut the cord already.

UNC_Samurai: Hell No.  I like paying a reasonable rate for cable to my municipal fiberoptic network.  It also gives me an incredible rate on actual high-speed internet.

/$35 per month, 10/10Mpbs


I didn't mean entirely, just cable tv. I only have FiOS internet and live on streaming services. Pretty happy with it so far. Curious, does the $35 include television or is it just internet?
 
2013-02-27 10:02:30 AM  
my ISP tried to get me to buy the emergency storm channel package for 15 a month.  It's all the major broadcast channels and the Weather Channel.   I bought a Leaf antenna and converter,   That was about 80 total, so now I get the channels without a monthly charge.   fark you cable company.
 
2013-02-27 10:08:54 AM  

GardenWeasel: Derfroberts: GardenWeasel: Nick Jr, Nicktoons, VH1 and CMT? Really? These are not watched channels? I'd guess many homes with young children have at one of these channels on several times a day.

And you are welcome to those channels, they should just be on a higher tier.

Why should childfree people have to pay for kids entertainment?

How are you paying extra for it if it is part of your standard package? The cable companies know you will pay $X for service. Do you really think your rates will go down if they get a better deal? No, their profits will just go up, and you will get less product for your money.

People pay $60 for 500 channels now because the content providers get a low amount of $ spread across a high subscriber base, and they can then use that subscription rate to sell advertising rates. If we ever went to a complete ala-carte system, you would pay $60 for just 3 channels, and the cost for Netfilx, Amazon, and Itunes would skyrocket to make up for the lost revenue. No thanks.


$60 for 500 channels? What cable service offers that?

I was paying $160 (and yeah, that included internet) for channels that went up into the 600s or so, but there were a LOT of empty spaces as in there were huge gaps where channels simply didn't exist. I got almost nothing in the 400 range because those were mostly Spanish language channels that I didn't pay for. The 500 range was mostly premium channels and I only got HBO and IFC.

Even if you count all the BS channels like Home Shopping Network and Univision (which might be okay if I were fluent in Spanish), I'd bet it was closer to about 150 channels.

I would actually only watch about a dozen of those channels. PBS (which broadcasts over the air anyway), FX, History, Discovery, AMC, BBC America, NatGeo and HBO....I can't even name a dozen channels that I watched regularly.

The thing is, we WON'T pay $X for cable because it is bullshiat.

It's been about a year since I told Comcast to fark off because they couldn't deliver the OnDemand service that I was promised.

I've been doing just fine with OTA broadcasts, Netflix, Crackle, Hulu (not even Hulu Plus) and whatever I can find on the internet.

I'll get less product for my money? Oh noes - you mean I won't get BET or TNT or ESPN?

In the last 20 years I think there was one show I watched on TNT and I didn't even watch the whole first season. BET? Meh - I'd rather watch uncut versions of the movies they show on that and the sticoms suck. ESPN? Fark that. I don't care.

Comedy Central? Nah - don't care about that either. South Park was about the only thing good on it and they obviously burned themselves out a few years ago.

MTV? The only thing I've enjoyed on that in the last 20 years was Jackass and I've seen it already.

I saw History, Discovery and even NatGeo sink to new lows every year I had cable.

I was paying a LOT more just to get IFC, HBO, BBC America and NatGeo. Those aren't in the basic package. I don't even think FX was in the basic package and while I really liked Sons of Anarchy (at least for the first couple of seasons) and It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia FX had nothing else to offer (Sorry, I think Archer is crap).

I look forward to catching up on the latest seasons of SOA and Sunny when they finally hit Netflix. I can wait.

The same thing for Boardwalk Empire and The Walking Dead. I'll watch those when they're on Netflix or available at my local Blockbuster - yeah - Blockbuster still exists and if they don't by the time the latest season of Boardwalk is released I'll still probably be able to rent the discs - or even buy them somewhere.

I mean even if they want to sell discs of Boardwalk for $100 for a whole season, that will be a bargain compared to paying for HBO via Comcast.

There's a lot of stuff I haven't seen and that's just fine with me because it gives me lots of opportunities.

While cable TV is flooded with crap shows, there has also been a fair amount of good shows that you can watch without cable TV. I may have to find the discs somewhere or wait for it to be on Netflix, but I don't need to see it the second it comes out.
 
2013-02-27 10:13:23 AM  
I don't subscribe to cable anymore, so I have no skin in the game, but I do want to point out that it will be virtually impossible for any new thematic channels to gain enough momentum from scratch without being bundled in. Plus a lot of channels that a few people currently watch and value highly would almost certainly disappear. The Science Channel can pack up for sure.
 
2013-02-27 10:16:19 AM  

YodaBlues: tricycleracer: Only if MLB loses the MLB.TV local blackout lawsuit.  Even then, I'll need to watch the playoffs at a sports bar since they're only on cable.

I don't care for sports, so admittedly, it's easier for me. I know friends who have said the same, if it wasn't for Hockey/Football, they would've cut the cord already.

UNC_Samurai: Hell No.  I like paying a reasonable rate for cable to my municipal fiberoptic network.  It also gives me an incredible rate on actual high-speed internet.

/$35 per month, 10/10Mpbs

I didn't mean entirely, just cable tv. I only have FiOS internet and live on streaming services. Pretty happy with it so far. Curious, does the $35 include television or is it just internet?


We pay $125/month for digital cable, the DVR box, HBO, and the lowest tier internet package.  So our cable bill alone is technically $90/month.  However, Wilson Greenlight went to all its customers last fall and warned us cable rates were going to go up nationally (the head tech said it was almost entirely due to four or five networks increasing their cost to the providers - first and foremost ESPN).  They offered all of their customers a rate freeze for two years if we signed a two-year contract.  However, they allow you to break that contract at no cost if you have to cancel your service because you are moving out of the county.
 
2013-02-27 10:25:08 AM  

dickfreckle: I did the Netlix/Hulu+ switch long ago. It's not quite the same as having a TV that you can always leave on, but honestly, who actually watches sh*t that's playing in the background - and you're paying $80 a month for?

/local sports teams come on OTA, and if we play on a Monday night (cable) I can just waltz one block to the local watering hole


I think you're a fellow NOLA farker, right?  Maybe I'm wrong, but I believe the NFL has a deal where if a game is on cable, it also allows a local network (OTA) channel to carry it too.  Maybe that's just the Thursday NFL Network game.  But I'm positive WDSU (channel 6, NBC affiliate) will carry it as well.
 
2013-02-27 10:38:05 AM  

Tommy Moo: I don't subscribe to cable anymore, so I have no skin in the game, but I do want to point out that it will be virtually impossible for any new thematic channels to gain enough momentum from scratch without being bundled in. Plus a lot of channels that a few people currently watch and value highly would almost certainly disappear. The Science Channel can pack up for sure.


That's the thing most people don't realize.  Even the most watched cable networks (ESPN and The Walking Dead aside) rarely, if ever, crack 5 million viewers.  They subsist on the $.35-$1 carriage fees which, when coming from 60 million cable subscribers, is enough to live on (with ad revenue).  Take away those 60 million subscribers and cut it to, say 5-10 million subscribers and now they have to increase their carriage fees 5-10x in order to keep the same revenue.  Either that or they have to increase the number of commercials in programs.

A la carte is great for people who only watch one or two channels.  But for people who watch more (and the average adult aged 18-49 watches 20-35 hours of TV each week) it would be a terrible system resulting in higher prices and less choice.
 
2013-02-27 10:51:27 AM  
If Comcast wins that would be great, then some of these networks would be knocked down a few pegs and have to have quality programming to win viewers not the carriage fees of the cable or satellite companies to keep them alive and brainless.  Might help channels realize that being a niche channel has its advantages again.
 
2013-02-27 11:07:21 AM  

Pumpernickel bread: YodaBlues: CUT THE CORD.

That's what I am doing. I am switching to Netflix, Hulu and whatever I can get through streaming. I prefer cable, but it just costs too much


Saved $60/mo. doing that, and there's nothing of which I used to watch that I miss enough to ever go back.
 
2013-02-27 11:10:23 AM  

Derfroberts: Why should childfree people have to pay for kids entertainment?


You're on a site where adults constantly talk about My Little Pony and you feel the need to ask that question?
 
2013-02-27 11:47:53 AM  
I haven't had actual cable in almost a decade, and it's been almost 6 years since I had satellite. I used to get satellite mostly free(i paid like $10 a month for EVERY channel, including premium sports packages) through my job, but when I left that job, I cancelled the service. I could never find anything I wanted to watch when I wanted to watch it, and using the DVR got annoying to me.

Been Netflix/Hulu since. Haven't run out of things to watch yet.
 
2013-02-27 11:53:11 AM  

The Goon Show: If Comcast wins that would be great, then some of these networks would be knocked down a few pegs and have to have quality programming to win viewers not the carriage fees of the cable or satellite companies to keep them alive and brainless.  Might help channels realize that being a niche channel has its advantages again.


WTF are you smoking? The article doesn't even mention Comcast and I just can't imagine how Comcast winning could ever be good for the consumer.

You know who deserves money? The actual content producers. I don't even know their names, but it's the people who bring us the shows we like. And they do generally get paid well, but if I want access I have to pay Comcast.

No choice, pal. AMC may have gotten $1 or something thereabouts out of the $160 cable bill I used to pay every month but Comcast also split my bill among a bunch of worthless crap like ESPN and BET and Nickolodeon and Comedy Central.

Okay, we all have different tastes but I bet most of that actually just went to Comcast.

/Glad to be rid of them - for TV anyway....still have internet
 
2013-02-27 11:54:59 AM  

timswar: Would Cablevision or TWC then be passing on the a la carte payment structure to their customers?

Unless they announce plans to do so, it's really hard to give a shiat about big companies pissing at each other.


Except that even if Cablevision doesn't pass it on, this could be what starts the move towards A la' Carte, maybe the next guy will. Dish, DirecTv, etc. Once the customers hear that it's not bundled, it's only a matter of time before demands start rolling in and someone gives up on the fight.
 
2013-02-27 12:50:27 PM  

Generation_D: GardenWeasel: Derfroberts: GardenWeasel: Nick Jr, Nicktoons, VH1 and CMT? Really? These are not watched channels? I'd guess many homes with young children have at one of these channels on several times a day.

And you are welcome to those channels, they should just be on a higher tier.

Why should childfree people have to pay for kids entertainment?

How are you paying extra for it if it is part of your standard package? The cable companies know you will pay $X for service. Do you really think your rates will go down if they get a better deal? No, their profits will just go up, and you will get less product for your money.

People pay $60 for 500 channels now because the content providers get a low amount of $ spread across a high subscriber base, and they can then use that subscription rate to sell advertising rates. If we ever went to a complete ala-carte system, you would pay $60 for just 3 channels, and the cost for Netfilx, Amazon, and Itunes would skyrocket to make up for the lost revenue. No thanks.

Look who has bought the PR of the cable industry.


What PR? It is basic economics. OTA TV is free to the consumers, and is paid for by advertising dollars. However, content is not free to Cablevision, and they require a physical/technical/labor/support infrastructure that costs money to maintain. Ala-carte doesn't shrink the infrastucture, it just decreases the subscriber base, there-by increasing the costs per consumer.
 
2013-02-27 01:03:24 PM  
So if they win, cable prices will go down, right? Right? Hello?
 
2013-02-27 01:07:50 PM  

Happy Hours: GardenWeasel: Derfroberts: GardenWeasel: Nick Jr, Nicktoons, VH1 and CMT? Really? These are not watched channels? I'd guess many homes with young children have at one of these channels on several times a day.

And you are welcome to those channels, they should just be on a higher tier.

Why should childfree people have to pay for kids entertainment?

How are you paying extra for it if it is part of your standard package? The cable companies know you will pay $X for service. Do you really think your rates will go down if they get a better deal? No, their profits will just go up, and you will get less product for your money.

People pay $60 for 500 channels now because the content providers get a low amount of $ spread across a high subscriber base, and they can then use that subscription rate to sell advertising rates. If we ever went to a complete ala-carte system, you would pay $60 for just 3 channels, and the cost for Netfilx, Amazon, and Itunes would skyrocket to make up for the lost revenue. No thanks.

$60 for 500 channels? What cable service offers that?

I was paying $160 (and yeah, that included internet) for channels that went up into the 600s or so, but there were a LOT of empty spaces as in there were huge gaps where channels simply didn't exist. I got almost nothing in the 400 range because those were mostly Spanish language channels that I didn't pay for. The 500 range was mostly premium channels and I only got HBO and IFC.

Even if you count all the BS channels like Home Shopping Network and Univision (which might be okay if I were fluent in Spanish), I'd bet it was closer to about 150 channels.

I would actually only watch about a dozen of those channels. PBS (which broadcasts over the air anyway), FX, History, Discovery, AMC, BBC America, NatGeo and HBO....I can't even name a dozen channels that I watched regularly.

The thing is, we WON'T pay $X for cable because it is bullshiat.

It's been about a year since I told Comcast to fark off because t ...


Just like in every other service, individual people can do better off by following certain scenarios. (Think grocery game, extreme couponers) However, if popularity in skirting the system reaches a certain critical mass, it will get either 1) shut down or 2) costs to consumers will explode.

Case in point, when Hulu started it was free, now there is Hulu Plus if you really want to watch anything that isn't crap.
 
2013-02-27 01:46:07 PM  

GardenWeasel: Case in point, when Hulu started it was free, now there is Hulu Plus if you really want to watch anything that isn't crap.


Which is why I mentioned above that in a lot of places the internet provider is also the cable provider. So if there revenues for cable start to drop significantly and they see internet usage increase significantly then i think it is pretty obvious that internet rates would increase. I mean it is not like these huge companies would be ok with losing a bunch of revenue. Shareholders and executives aren't really ok with that sort of thing. It is kind of compounded by the fact that the companies that own the cable/internet are also the companies that produce the content Comcast owns NBC universal for example (it is even worse in Canada). So one way or another those dudes will find a way to get money out of people.
 
kab
2013-02-27 01:48:03 PM  
The double edged sword here of course, is that without bundling, these channels simply wouldn't exist at all.

/Palladia is what MTV should be, but never will.
 
kab
2013-02-27 01:52:46 PM  

Derfroberts: Why should childfree people have to pay for kids entertainment?


Same reason they wind up having to pay public school taxes.

They're paying for the shows they watched when THEY were kids.. or something.
 
2013-02-27 02:05:02 PM  
Happy Hours
2013-02-27 11:53:11 AM
The Goon Show: If Comcast wins that would be great, then some of these networks would be knocked down a few pegs and have to have quality programming to win viewers not the carriage fees of the cable or satellite companies to keep them alive and brainless. Might help channels realize that being a niche channel has its advantages again.

WTF are you smoking? The article doesn't even mention Comcast and I just can't imagine how Comcast winning could ever be good for the consumer.


Sorry about that, sometimes I get the names of evil companies confused while typing.
 
2013-02-27 03:09:49 PM  

GardenWeasel: Derfroberts: GardenWeasel: Nick Jr, Nicktoons, VH1 and CMT? Really? These are not watched channels? I'd guess many homes with young children have at one of these channels on several times a day.

And you are welcome to those channels, they should just be on a higher tier.

Why should childfree people have to pay for kids entertainment?

How are you paying extra for it if it is part of your standard package? The cable companies know you will pay $X for service. Do you really think your rates will go down if they get a better deal? No, their profits will just go up, and you will get less product for your money.

People pay $60 for 500 channels now because the content providers get a low amount of $ spread across a high subscriber base, and they can then use that subscription rate to sell advertising rates. If we ever went to a complete ala-carte system, you would pay $60 for just 3 channels, and the cost for Netfilx, Amazon, and Itunes would skyrocket to make up for the lost revenue. No thanks.


I personally think most of that is fearmongering BS from cable distributors set up to protect the status quo.  After all, Comcast owns the Comcast networks that they sell in bundles (E!, Style, Golf, G4, plus NBC stations like Bravo, CNBC, MSNBC), Time Warner is partnered with the Turner networks (TNT, TBS, CNN, Cartoon, Boomerang, etc), and even Cablevision has AMC, IFC, We, and Sundance.  They don't want to kill bundling because they are guilty of bundling

Still, you are right in that the problem is less these little channels, its the sports channels. ESPN costs BY ITSELF over $5 a month.  I almost never watch ESPN or other sports networks  including RSNs.  I should shave $20+ off my bill when you count the total cost plus distributor profits.

Bottom line is, I would rather pay $60 for the 3 channels I actually watch than my current $75 for the pack that has those 3 channels I'm forced to get (plus a hundred some others)
 
2013-02-27 04:57:59 PM  

Derfroberts: GardenWeasel: Derfroberts: GardenWeasel: Nick Jr, Nicktoons, VH1 and CMT? Really? These are not watched channels? I'd guess many homes with young children have at one of these channels on several times a day.

And you are welcome to those channels, they should just be on a higher tier.

Why should childfree people have to pay for kids entertainment?

How are you paying extra for it if it is part of your standard package? The cable companies know you will pay $X for service. Do you really think your rates will go down if they get a better deal? No, their profits will just go up, and you will get less product for your money.

People pay $60 for 500 channels now because the content providers get a low amount of $ spread across a high subscriber base, and they can then use that subscription rate to sell advertising rates. If we ever went to a complete ala-carte system, you would pay $60 for just 3 channels, and the cost for Netfilx, Amazon, and Itunes would skyrocket to make up for the lost revenue. No thanks.

I personally think most of that is fearmongering BS from cable distributors set up to protect the status quo.  After all, Comcast owns the Comcast networks that they sell in bundles (E!, Style, Golf, G4, plus NBC stations like Bravo, CNBC, MSNBC), Time Warner is partnered with the Turner networks (TNT, TBS, CNN, Cartoon, Boomerang, etc), and even Cablevision has AMC, IFC, We, and Sundance.  They don't want to kill bundling because they are guilty of bundling

Still, you are right in that the problem is less these little channels, its the sports channels. ESPN costs BY ITSELF over $5 a month.  I almost never watch ESPN or other sports networks  including RSNs.  I should shave $20+ off my bill when you count the total cost plus distributor profits.

Bottom line is, I would rather pay $60 for the 3 channels I actually watch than my current $75 for the pack that has those 3 channels I'm forced to get (plus a hundred some others)


mediamemo.allthingsd.com

Cable companies still make a butt load of money off of you.
 
2013-02-27 05:01:02 PM  

GardenWeasel: Happy Hours: GardenWeasel: Derfroberts: GardenWeasel: Nick Jr, Nicktoons, VH1 and CMT? Really? These are not watched channels? I'd guess many homes with young children have at one of these channels on several times a day.

And you are welcome to those channels, they should just be on a higher tier.

Why should childfree people have to pay for kids entertainment?

How are you paying extra for it if it is part of your standard package? The cable companies know you will pay $X for service. Do you really think your rates will go down if they get a better deal? No, their profits will just go up, and you will get less product for your money.

People pay $60 for 500 channels now because the content providers get a low amount of $ spread across a high subscriber base, and they can then use that subscription rate to sell advertising rates. If we ever went to a complete ala-carte system, you would pay $60 for just 3 channels, and the cost for Netfilx, Amazon, and Itunes would skyrocket to make up for the lost revenue. No thanks.

$60 for 500 channels? What cable service offers that?

I was paying $160 (and yeah, that included internet) for channels that went up into the 600s or so, but there were a LOT of empty spaces as in there were huge gaps where channels simply didn't exist. I got almost nothing in the 400 range because those were mostly Spanish language channels that I didn't pay for. The 500 range was mostly premium channels and I only got HBO and IFC.

Even if you count all the BS channels like Home Shopping Network and Univision (which might be okay if I were fluent in Spanish), I'd bet it was closer to about 150 channels.

I would actually only watch about a dozen of those channels. PBS (which broadcasts over the air anyway), FX, History, Discovery, AMC, BBC America, NatGeo and HBO....I can't even name a dozen channels that I watched regularly.

The thing is, we WON'T pay $X for cable because it is bullshiat.

It's been about a year since I told Comcast to fark off because t ...

Just like in every other service, individual people can do better off by following certain scenarios. (Think grocery game, extreme couponers) However, if popularity in skirting the system reaches a certain critical mass, it will get either 1) shut down or 2) costs to consumers will explode.

Case in point, when Hulu started it was free, now there is Hulu Plus if you really want to watch anything that isn't crap.


I think the big problem for cable are the young people not signing up.

None of the recent college grads I work with have cable. $120 is a weekend at the bar for them.
 
2013-02-27 08:29:39 PM  

kab: The double edged sword here of course, is that without bundling, these channels simply wouldn't exist at all.

/Palladia is what MTV should be, but never will.


That's the point.  Enabling the makers of crap only encourages them to make more crap.  Enabling drunks and meth junkies doesn't work.  Why should we tolerate it when it comes to commerce?
 
Displayed 50 of 65 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report