dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
830
tim92078
join:2010-07-15
San Marcos, CA

2 edits

tim92078

Member

Enough of the program provider vs. distributor disputes!

»www.change.org/petitions ··· disputes

Please read and consider signing my change.org petition aimed at BOTH content providers and signal distributors. Now that DirecTV and Viacom have polluted forums with banner ads, I posted a change.org petition.

I know full well it's not aimed at anyone by name - but that's the point. I'd like to see the industry in general find a new way to solve its disputes and stop raising prices year after year after year.

Cox will do something like this to us eventually, somewhere. Consumers will be dragged into it in the name of raising prices.
davidhoffman
Premium Member
join:2009-11-19
Warner Robins, GA

1 recommendation

davidhoffman

Premium Member

A petition means nothing to either side. What matters is money. But this is tricky. Notice how neither side ever discloses exactly the existing or previous contract per subscriber rate. Notice how neither side states exactly what the proposed increase is. If they did that, the subscribers could figure out the television retailer's wholesale cost for content in the existing and future contracts. Subscribers could make intelligent mathematically based judgments about the value of the service the satellite system operator or cable system operator provides. It would also reveal the massive variation in content costs per subscriber for different system operators. Imagine if Comcast found out it had been charged 15% more per subscriber for certain content than Cox, and that this had been going on for decades. Very unhappy system operators. The system operators might do something rash, like demand laws to create only open public pricing for content. We, the system operators, do not care what your prices and value offers are, but they must be published and be the same for every system operator. Right now the biggest system operators each think they might have negotiated the best value from the content providers. They cannot know, because there is no reasonably open market system. The little system operators already know they are not getting great deals

The content producers figure they can get away with raising prices, because the viewers of certain content will switch television service providers fairly quickly, if they cannot view the content they want from their present television service provider. This is where the viewer can really make an impact. Do NOT switch. If the content producers actually have a significant long term reduction in viewers, they might decide to control content production costs more than they do today. The shows designed around a few "stars" with big salaries and expense accounts may be replaced by shows featuring a slightly larger group of much lower compensated actors and actresses. The overall labor costs for that part of the show might be reduced. The stories could be more about content and less about "stars". The directors who need 15 retakes to get scenes done could be limited to 5 retakes. Ridiculous costly special effects and stunts, especially those that violate the laws of physics and the real world, would be cut. For example, since in the real world building fires produce lots of smoke, those ridiculous long fight scenes in burning buildings would be cut short because the fighters would die of smoke inhalation in a couple of minutes. Lots of money saved. The characters die or get out of the building quickly. Either way filming time is reduced. Imagine the money that could be saved if all content had to be based on the real laws of physics, biology, and thermodynamics. You could cut 50% off the cost of some films and television shows.

bdnhsv
join:2012-01-20
Huntsville, AL

bdnhsv to tim92078

Member

to tim92078
I agree with Hoffman on a lot of his points, and I'd also add this comment about your petition. Even if the providers and distributors reached some long standing deal (say 20 years) you'd still see price increases for cable and satellite each year. They have other costs like rent, utilities, vehicles, employees, etc that get more costly from year to year and tighten their margins. Their answer to their rising costs is to raise the prices they charge their customers. All of the cable and satellite companies watch each others prices and when one increases the other typically follow suit shortly thereafter. There's really just not enough competition in most areas to force the cable/satellite/phone companies to truly compete on price.
ajwees41
Premium Member
join:2002-05-10
Omaha, NE

ajwees41 to tim92078

Premium Member

to tim92078
it has already happened with cox and they reslove many without any channel outages.
brad152
join:2006-07-27
Chicago, IL

brad152 to tim92078

Member

to tim92078
I honestly think that Cox is the only cable co i've had to not have channels "pulled" to disputes.

Direc, Dish, Time Warner, WoW, and Comcast have all had channels pulled when i've subscribed to them at one point or another. I remember when CBS was fighting with Time Warner back in Ohio - the OTA station trying to charge the cable co like they were a premium cable station.

TWC just quickly cut em off and sent pretty much everyone an OTA antenna that needed it. nobody missed CBS and they eventually just caved in and TWC got em back in about a month.
davidhoffman
Premium Member
join:2009-11-19
Warner Robins, GA

davidhoffman

Premium Member

Oh, that is sweet. Reminding the OTA how they are supposed to operate, as an ad supported station.

digiblur
Premium Member
join:2002-06-03
Louisiana

digiblur to brad152

Premium Member

to brad152
said by brad152:

I honestly think that Cox is the only cable co i've had to not have channels "pulled" to disputes.

Direc, Dish, Time Warner, WoW, and Comcast have all had channels pulled when i've subscribed to them at one point or another. I remember when CBS was fighting with Time Warner back in Ohio - the OTA station trying to charge the cable co like they were a premium cable station.

TWC just quickly cut em off and sent pretty much everyone an OTA antenna that needed it. nobody missed CBS and they eventually just caved in and TWC got em back in about a month.

Cox charges their customers with enough padding so they can pay the providers whatever they want.

bdnhsv
join:2012-01-20
Huntsville, AL

bdnhsv

Member

Here we go. I hope you have your asbestos jumpsuit handy.
tim92078
join:2010-07-15
San Marcos, CA

tim92078 to bdnhsv

Member

to bdnhsv
Well, I'm not going to write a point-by-point rebuttal. I said what I had to say and if people don't agree, that's fine.

About the only reason I justify spending on multichannel video is the convenience factor - I don't have to research what shows are popular and go figure out where the content is. But the monthly bill for it has my undivided attention - it costs me more each month for cable TV and internet than it does for electricity.

The value-for-dollar proposition that had been established in my mind for video is rapidly evaporating and stories like Viacom vs. DirecTV really underline that.

bdnhsv
join:2012-01-20
Huntsville, AL

bdnhsv

Member

Tim - please don't take my comments to mean that I disagree with you about CATV costing more than what seems appropriate. I too feel the pain each month when I get my bill.

Anonguy
@cox.net

Anonguy

Anon

Yo guys see this....

»www.latimes.com/entertai ··· 27.story

merlock
Premium Member
join:2003-04-05
Warner Robins, GA

merlock to tim92078

Premium Member

to tim92078
Wouldn't "A La Carte" choices solve this? I'd happily pay for Nat Geo if it means that none of my money goes to MTV.
tim92078
join:2010-07-15
San Marcos, CA

tim92078

Member

A La Carte might solve it... if the channel you want is still around.

The program provider usually says, OK, if you want (heavily viewed well known channel) you have to include these three others.

Of course, it's the program providers themselves that state the others would likely go out of business were it not for the flagship "brand" carrying them all, so maybe that's B.S. But I tend to believe it.