 baineschile2600 ways to livePremium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI | reply to Mactron
Re: Ya Right Rates go up for all TV providers, because the network content providers rates go up. Its not as complicated as most people think. |
|
Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | said by baineschile:Rates go up for all TV providers, because the network content providers rates go up. Its not as complicated as most people think. That is the main truth of rate increases ignored by many.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
| reply to baineschile
Rates go up because people will pay. Content costs go up because the providers see that people are willing to pay and want their share.
It isn't complicated. |
|
 SLDPremium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA | reply to Romney2012
What is ignored by your statement is that when multiple networks compete in an area, they have a higher incentive to fight rate increases by their content providers.
Since many networks enjoy gov't sponsored monopolies, they have little incentive to pressure content providers to keep prices low, they just pass it on to their customers. |
|
beaups
join:2003-08-11
Hilliard, OH | Unfortunately the carrier competition can cause the exact opposite effect as what you describe. Let's use the big10 network in central ohio.
Big10 comes in and wants an unreasonable amount of money and requires the cable company to put it on the basic tier so everyone pays. IIRC it was about $1.10/mo/subscriber.
Now if there was only one provider here they'd have a ton of leverage to fight this. But we have WOW and TW. TW fights it, and no surprise WOW picks up the channel right away and uses it to snag customers with commercials "IF you'd like to see the next OSU game" switch to WOW today!
So TW caves in ad now we all pay for this crap channel. |
|
SLDPremium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA
1 edit | Isn't this more of a bundling vs. a la carte than cost of services? Sure, if you consider purchasing unwanted content to be a cost, but compared to rate-hikes, I'm not sure this is the same arguement. |
|
|
|
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC | reply to travelguy
heheh, I'm not willing to pay, but plenty of people are. |
|
 imrfPremium
join:2002-06-06
Utica, MI | reply to SLD
said by SLD:What is ignored by your statement is that when multiple networks compete in an area, I disagree. I have 3 cable companies in my backyard plus AT&T U-Verse, DirecTV and Dish Network all as options. All 5 raised the rates last year, and the year before all 4 raised the rates(the year before U-Verse was non-existent here).
Since many networks enjoy gov't sponsored monopolies, Where would those be? There hasn't been anything stopping another cable company to come through in any area for well over a decade. The problem is, is that no company wants to overlap an already served area. It costs way to much to build a network. It's a loosing battle. |
|
| reply to travelguy
I've not had a rate increase since last year. In January I cancelled cable. Haven't missed it one bit.
I suggest others do the same. Your life isn't enhanced by television, and it certainly isn't worth $100 a month to watch it. There are a lot more alternatives out there than you think. |
|
pandoraPremium
join:2001-06-01
Outland
kudos:1 Reviews:
 ·ooma
·Google Voice
·Future Nine Corp..
 ·Comcast
| reply to imrf
You make an excellent point. Almost anywhere in the U.S. a consumer can subscribe to Dish or DirecTV. There is no cable monopoly for programming IMO.
Currently telco's are competing with cable for both cable content and internet access. Additionally some are finding wireless acceptable for internet (though these 5GB wireless caps should be raised IMO).
In addition to traditional offers, there is VOIP provided by many companies in many pricing structures. There is also IP TV via Hulu, Youtube, even Netflix. Today even many cell phones can play TV programs.
Overall, we seem to have more competition than ever for phone, internet and cable program services.
--
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." |
|
