BosstonesOwn
join:2002-12-15
Everett, MA
clubs:
 ·Comcast
·Comcast Formerly ..
| reply to matcarl
Re: Raising Rates
Yeah well programming costs can only be absorbed for so long before it has to be passed on.
Don't really know who u can blame for this.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" |
|
UncleDirtNap
join:2006-08-26
Pittsburgh, PA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| >Yeah well programming costs can only be absorbed for so long >before it has to be passed on.
Ahh blam Congress, especially the current crop of Democrat leaders who are raking in huge amounts of money from media and content providers for continuing to block efforts to end forced bundling.
Verizon and other "cable" operators are still being forced to carry channels, and pay the increasing costs, that nobody wants in order to get access to those we do and their competition like Comcast, Time Warner and other "cable" operators that have ownerships stakes in the content providing companies are reaping the benefits.
Want lower rates and more options write your representative and demand an end to forced bundling. |
|
majortom64
join:2004-09-12
Skokie, IL
| said by UncleDirtNap  :>Want lower rates and more options write your representative and demand an end to forced bundling. Moving to a la carte channel selection will not decrease bills, it will just decrease choice. ESPN (one of the most expensive basic tier channels costs MSOs about $2-$2.50 per subscriber per month). Smaller channels that are bundled with that tier usually get under $0.30 per subscriber per month.
Consider a system with 100,000 subscribers. ESPN earns $200,000 (low end estimate) and small channels earn $30,000 a month. If cable companies are forced to offer a la carte pricing and 50% of subscribers decided that they did not want to pay for ESPN, Disney would either have to make less money (cutting all other costs of running this network) or raise its price. Given that those who wanted to keep ESPN are probably somewhat less price sensitive, doubling their price to make up their revenue shortfall is Disney's most likely response. That means, those subscribers who continue to receive ESPN, will pay more, either raising their overall bill or causing them to drop other channels to make up for it.
Smaller channels will be even more drastically affected. If they are not getting bundled customers their prices will have to increase much more and many will just cease to exist.
/carmi |
|
