dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
10
share rss forum feed
« wth
This is a sub-selection from Just a question


JigglyWiggly

join:2009-07-12
Pleasanton, CA
reply to 88615298

Re: Just a question

no
we already pay the cable bill

either that or just netflix



tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:4
Reviews:
·Comcast

said by JigglyWiggly:

either that or just netflix

And where will netflix get MOST of what they show?

Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY
reply to JigglyWiggly

Ah, but the cable bill only covers part of the costs. If you want advertisement free programming (i.e., HBO, Showtime, etc.) it comes at a premium. Are the masses prepared to pay extra money for Mythbusters, DWTS, SVU, NCIS, Ice Road Truckers and the litany of other shows that aren't produced by the premium channels? If the answer is 'No' then why should the many (people without DVRs) subsidize the few (people with DVRs)?

Mind you, I don't think DVRs are or should be illegal. It's just a thought exercise: If people aren't willing to pay HBO prices for original programming AND refuse to even pretend to watch advertisements (remember the days of running to the fridge during a commercial break?) how does original programming get produced?

If you were given a free hand to run a major cable channel or one of the big networks how would you change the business model to remain viable in an advertisement free environment while still continuing to produce quality programming at the prices currently being charged?


rradina

join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
reply to JigglyWiggly

I'm not sure the cable bill fully funds the content providers. It used to when there were just a few broadcast networks. Before the Internet killed print media, recall that there used to be a magazine for every every sport, hobby or special interest. Today there's a video channel for a lot of special interests. Most cannot support themselves purely on advertising because they don't have enough viewers so they get a reach-around from the cable company and advertising dollars to make ends meet.

While this may be a PITA, we should pay the cable company for their network and we should SEPARATELY pay the content providers for their content. If you like sports network, buy all you want. If you like science programs, buy all you want. Love to watch game-show reruns? Buy all you want. Just cannot live without Oprah's network? Buy it.

Of course this will work best when the network folks just accept that the consumer wants them to deliver bits and the content providers get a direct relationship with their consumers.



fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:2
reply to JigglyWiggly

said by JigglyWiggly:

no
we already pay the cable bill

either that or just netflix

You aren't paying the true cost of running a TV channel or producing programming, otherwise you'd be paying $10-$15 per channel.

b10010011
Whats a Posting tag?

join:2004-09-07
Bellingham, WA
Reviews:
·Comcast Formerl..

1 recommendation

reply to Crookshanks

Truthfully the shows you mentioned should not even be on the air. I would be willing to lose 99% of the crap that is on cable for having the remaining 1% be commercial free.
--
Bellingham Scanner Kicks Ass! »bhamscanner.kicks-ass.org/



coldmoon
Premium
join:2002-02-04
Broadway, NC
Reviews:
·Windstream
reply to Crookshanks

quote:
...Ah, but the cable bill only covers part of the costs. If you want advertisement free programming (i.e., HBO, Showtime, etc.) it comes at a premium. Are the masses prepared to pay extra money for Mythbusters, DWTS, SVU, NCIS, Ice Road Truckers and the litany of other shows that aren't produced by the premium channels? If the answer is 'No' then why should the many (people without DVRs) subsidize the few (people with DVRs)?...
If I get to select what channels I get ala cart and not have other channels thrown in to add to the cost, then I would be willing to pay extra for those channels I select in my personal line-up. I would even pay a little more over that for the ability to change that line-up on the fly whenever I want to as I go without penalties.

Give me what I want, when I want it and I will do the math and decide. I don't need the cable/sat companies doing the math for me. Put the channel list out there with the price for each channel and we can talk - otherwise, the push-back will get stronger with no one winning in the end...
--
Returnil - 21st Century body armor for your PC

balur

join:2010-04-28
kudos:1

said by coldmoon:

Give me what I want, when I want it and I will do the math and decide. I don't need the cable/sat companies doing the math for me. Put the channel list out there with the price for each channel and we can talk - otherwise, the push-back will get stronger with no one winning in the end...

This. If I could pay for HBO HD without having to pay for Basic, digital, premium, hd, and hd plus as well... I'd pay for HBO (and Stars HD, Space HD, Teletoon, and the main american networks...) and that's it.


joako
Premium
join:2000-09-07
/dev/null
kudos:6
reply to Crookshanks

So they should sell the content for the correct price. Currently it is sold at one price. Maybe as you suggest there could be one price for DVR and another for non-DVR programming. Arguably that already happens with the typical DVR fees running $20/month per DVR including bogus fees such as "digital access fee" or "mirroring fee."
--
PRescott7-2097


UncleDirtNap

join:2006-08-26
Pittsburgh, PA
reply to Crookshanks

No actually cable bills cover 100% of the cost of those shows people actually watch. Through forced bundling on consumers the media companies the produce the content on TV/CATV/SATV actually generate enough revenue to produce by subsidy hundreds of others nobody actually cares about.

The average SATV/CATV customers only watches about 12 of the hundreds of channels they're forced to pay for under the current scam being operated by media companies.

»www.howcableshouldbe.com


UncleDirtNap

join:2006-08-26
Pittsburgh, PA

1 edit
reply to rradina

Sorry but it's not even an open question. CATV/SATV not only fully funds content providers for the shows and channels people actually watch it provides billions in subsidizes for the companies to create content virtually nobody watches.

»www.howcableshouldbe.com


UncleDirtNap

join:2006-08-26
Pittsburgh, PA
reply to fifty nine

Not even close to being accurate or true. The cost of any one channel would be a function of how many people are willing to pay to watch it. It's no different than any other product or service. If a channel has many people willing to pay for it the cost of production is split by many more customers.

There's really some very fundamental economics in play here that the media companies don't want people to realize so they can continue to reap billions is forced subsidies for the crap they produce that nobody watches.



fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:2

said by UncleDirtNap:

Not even close to being accurate or true. The cost of any one channel would be a function of how many people are willing to pay to watch it. It's no different than any other product or service. If a channel has many people willing to pay for it the cost of production is split by many more customers.

There's really some very fundamental economics in play here that the media companies don't want people to realize so they can continue to reap billions is forced subsidies for the crap they produce that nobody watches.

That's wrong. There are several FIXED costs and this business is stupendously expensive. You people don't realize what a bargain you're getting...


GlennAllen
Sunny with highs in the 80s
Premium
join:2002-11-17
Richmond, VA

Thanks to this "bargain", everything we buy costs 10 times more than it should. (OK, I exaggerate... but only a little.)



tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:4
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to UncleDirtNap

said by UncleDirtNap:

There's really some very fundamental economics in play here that the media companies don't want people to realize so they can continue to reap billions is forced subsidies for the crap they produce that nobody watches.

The really fundamental economics are that there is NOTHING on TV that NOBODY watches.
There are people that ENJOY 1 hour long infomercials and look how many shopping networks there are making money hand over fist.