moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
1 edit | Figures don't lie but you can lie with figures......
nuff said.
The cable companies are partially correct in that you get more channels but you don't have a choice whether or not to accept them as part of your package. |
|
hopeflicker
Capitalism breeds greed
Premium
join:2003-04-03
Long Beach, CA
| said by moonpuppy  :nuff said. The cable companies are partially correct in that you get more channels CRAP but you don't have a choice whether or not to accept tham as part of your package. I fix4 U 
--
An Atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church.
An Atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said.
An Atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death.
--Madalyn Murray O'Hair |
|
Mchart
Super Joe
join:2004-01-21
Gurnee, IL
 ·AT&T Yahoo
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to moonpuppy
said by moonpuppy :nuff said. The cable companies are partially correct in that you get more channels but you don't have a choice whether or not to accept tham as part of your package. I get more channels? Thats a new one. Every year my digital cable package through comcrap gets more and more channels PULLED from the basic lineup, and inserts more advertising channels! WOO! Now I have 30+ channels selling me new nose hair trimmers! |
|
N3OGH
Bear patrol must be working like a charm
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
 ·Verizon FIOS
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to moonpuppy
Good point..
Problem is, I don't watch %99 of those channels to start with.
Let's see..
Discovery
History
G4 (for Star Trek TNG reruns)
FX
FNC
CNN Headline
The Weather Channel
Local networks.
That's it. Why should I have to pay for channels that charge the cable co's a mint like ESPN, when I don't watch them?
I'm no fan of my cable co (Comcast), but I do have to admit, one of the reasons rates go up is that "must carry" channels like ESPN charge more year after year.
Of course, that all goes back to my royal pet peeve, the salaries of professional athletes. But that's so incredibly off topic, I'll just creep away from it...
--
Never ask what sort of a computer a guy drives. If he's a Mac user, he'll tell you. If not, why embarrass him? -Tom Clancy |
|
manfmmd
Premium
join:2003-01-14
Earth
clubs:
| reply to moonpuppy
If you were to be allowed to go ala carte, pricing would be higher, and your channel selection would go down the tubes. Content delivery may change this a bit, but for cable and satellite, you are stuck for now.
I'm not going to re-type it, so here is my last response to "ala carte channels": »Re: That Didn't Take Long!
For instance..on DISH Network, the Baby Channel is an ala carte subscription channel that is $9.99 a month, if bundled with other ala carte subscription channels that are more widely desired then it would drive the price down as there would be more subscribers to cover the cost that the cable/sat provider is paying.
Dang it, I said that I wasn't going to re-type it again.. At least it's worded a bit differently.
--
huh? | AIM | Speaker Pelosi?!?...OH THE HUMANITY! |
|
N3OGH
Bear patrol must be working like a charm
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
·Verizon FIOS
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to Mchart
said by Mchart :said by moonpuppy :nuff said. The cable companies are partially correct in that you get more channels but you don't have a choice whether or not to accept tham as part of your package. I get more channels? Thats a new one. Every year my digital cable package through comcrap gets more and more channels PULLED from the basic lineup, and inserts more advertising channels! WOO! Now I have 30+ channels selling me new nose hair trimmers! And don't forget the ad in the channel guide!
I'm paying those bums $100/mo and I'm stuck looking at ads in the channel guide 
--
Never ask what sort of a computer a guy drives. If he's a Mac user, he'll tell you. If not, why embarrass him? -Tom Clancy |
|
SD6
join:2005-03-26 | reply to manfmmd
It sounds like you are assuming that the cable/sat company pays a fixed price for the channel. That is not correct in my experience the price paid is calculated based on the number of subscribers. |
|
GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| reply to moonpuppy
said by moonpuppy :nuff said. The cable companies are partially correct in that you get more channels but you don't have a choice whether or not to accept tham as part of your package. Yes, I am paying for all those Spanish language channels; non-stop commercials channels; 50 music channels; 5 versions of PBS channels(all showing the same programs); music video channels; the Soap Opera channels; and 15 kids channels. None of which I ever watch. So maybe the price per channel is down, but so are the number of worthless channels that only 1% of the viewers ever look at.
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
compton
join:2002-02-08
Brooklyn, NY
| reply to N3OGH
Actually prices may have gone down when you compare quantity and quality of channels. Back in the nineties, I used to pay $84 dollars for my Time Warner analog cable service. For that price, I had a 3 TV hook up, Basic Plus, 2 premium channels (HBO and Showtime) and 2 PPV channels. In all I had about 80 channels, but quite a few of those channels were community access channels, C-Span, shopping network and other public access networks. All in all, out of 80 channels about 60 of them had the type of programming that the average person and family watched. Now for that $84 (more or less) I can get 180 digital channels with about 15 premium channels, 10 PPV channels, video on demand plus many music radio channels. Today you are getting more bang for your buck; so, it is essentially a price decrease. |
|
N3OGH
Bear patrol must be working like a charm
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
·Verizon FIOS
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to GOLFnSUN
Ahh, but..
"If PBS wouldn't do it, who would?"
No one you lunkheads, no one watches it!
The local PBS station here in Philly is "WHYY".
I say exactly: Why?????
--
Never ask what sort of a computer a guy drives. If he's a Mac user, he'll tell you. If not, why embarrass him? -Tom Clancy |
|
viperlmw
Premium
join:2005-01-25
·Qwest.net
| reply to N3OGH
said by N3OGH :Problem is, I don't watch %99 of those channels to start with. Let's see.. Discovery History G4 (for Star Trek TNG reruns) FX FNC CNN Headline The Weather Channel Local networks. Now you're gonna need Sci-Fi channel for Enterprise re-runs starting tonight! |
|
N3OGH
Bear patrol must be working like a charm
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
·Verizon FIOS
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by viperlmw :said by N3OGH :Problem is, I don't watch %99 of those channels to start with. Let's see.. Discovery History G4 (for Star Trek TNG reruns) FX FNC CNN Headline The Weather Channel Local networks. Now you're gonna need Sci-Fi channel for Enterprise re-runs starting tonight! For real? I saw G4 was going to start running that "Trek 2.0" thing with the TNG re runs, and I have no interest in that.
Guess I'll have to change my DVR settings...
--
Never ask what sort of a computer a guy drives. If he's a Mac user, he'll tell you. If not, why embarrass him? -Tom Clancy |
|
manfmmd
Premium
join:2003-01-14
Earth
clubs:
| reply to SD6
This is an assumption on my part, but an educated assumption:
Let's imagine for a moment and use fake numbers:
The cost that the cable/sat provider pays to say, ABC for example, is based on blocks of subscribers, not per subscriber so say the cable company is paying:
$100 per month for 0-1000 subscribers
$200 per month for 1001-2000 subscribers
$300 per month for 2001-3000 subscribers
etc.
If you have the channels bundled up and there are 1000 people "paying" the monthly cost even though they don't watch the channel, it is being spread across the group of subscribers versus if only 500 people are "paying" the monthly cost. The cost to the cable/cat provider just doubled (and the cost is passed on to other subscribers that are not paying for those channels..you expect the cable/sat company to pay the difference ). The cost that the cable/sat provider is paying versus the cost that the subscriber base is paying is not linear.
I realize that the above numbers are not correct, but it gives a good idea of how broad based bundled cable/sat tv offerings benefit every subscriber. The same goes for obscure channels that you may watch that others do not. They help pay for you to be able to watch that channel.
Clear as mud?
--
huh? | AIM | Speaker Pelosi?!?...OH THE HUMANITY! |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
| reply to compton
If you get 15 premium channels for $84 you're stealing the service...or know someone at Time Warner.
The only bang any cable customer is getting is the one from behind, as they are bent over.
The NCTA is the cable industry equivalent of the RIAA. They represent both the MSOs and the program suppliers. There is no incentive for them to ever even consider lowering the costs and (*gasp*) the rates charged. So, they just artificially jack up the "costs" while winking in the general direction of Congress.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange.
Save the Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus! |
|
JTRockville
Data Ho
Premium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD
clubs:
 ·LINGO
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·surpasshosting
·Verizon FIOS
| reply to moonpuppy
said by moonpuppy :nuff said. The cable companies are partially correct in that you get more channels but you don't have a choice whether or not to accept tham as part of your package. More channels? Yes.
More programming? No.
What used to be 1 channel is now 5. Big deal. The same shows are broadcast over and over so you have more chances to view them than before. But you don't get more programming.
Not really worth the enormou$ price increa$e. |
|
roamer1
sticking it out at you
join:2001-03-24
Atlanta, GA
clubs:
1 edit | reply to GOLFnSUN
said by GOLFnSUN :Yes, I am paying for all those Spanish language channels; non-stop commercials channels; 50 music channels; 5 versions of PBS channels(all showing the same programs) The Spanish channels are probably must-carries, and the PBS stations certainly are...which means the cable company a) is not paying for them and b) has to devote capacity to them whether they want to or not. 
-SC
--
said to me: "it seems like all you ever buy is Abercrombie and cell phones"  |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
| reply to manfmmd
That all works in a macro sense that there are more channels available being subsidized by lots of eyeballs that never ever see them.
However...
You can't take that and turn it backwards to say that because there are 500 channels now the cost is lower. If you only watch 10 of them and only have watched 10 of them since 1996 and your bill has increased 193% in the last 10 years, your cost per channel watched has certainly not gone down.
Otherwise the NCTA could use 950 throw-away channels to claim that even with a 100% rate increase cable TV rates are now only 10% of that when there were only 50 channels.
Even Enron would have balked at that math.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange.
Save the Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus! |
|
ke4pym
join:2004-07-24
Charlotte, NC
·Verizon BroadbandA..
·Packet8
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to viperlmw
said by viperlmw :Now you're gonna need Sci-Fi channel for Enterprise re-runs starting tonight! Actually, you REALLY want HDNet so you can see said re-runs in High Def |
|
roamer1
sticking it out at you
join:2001-03-24
Atlanta, GA
clubs:
| reply to RadioDoc
said by RadioDoc :The NCTA is the cable industry equivalent of the RIAA. They represent both the MSOs and the program suppliers. That, of course, is largely because the MSOs have their hands in networks... (This is most obvious with Time Warner, but Comcast and most of the other big MSOs have their hands in programming, too.)
-SC
--
said to me: "it seems like all you ever buy is Abercrombie and cell phones" |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | Yep, and that's why the usual excuse of "higher program costs" is a shill. |
|
