 golfgeek
join:2005-11-21
Bryans Road, MD | good news And each year that goes by it will get lower and lower....It's actually great news for the consumer. Lower prices based on more competition. | |
|  | 
Chiyo
Save Me Konata-Chan
Premium
join:2003-02-20
Minneapolis, MN
clubs:
 ·Comcast
1 edit | Re: good news If I wasn't forced to have Comcast cable in the house I'm staying in I would get Directv again it's cheaper, better picture quality and if you have an issue with the wind killing your picture then realign your dish.
I'm not posting to whore DirecTV or anything but I find it funny when people say "Oh I hate sat TV it always goes out on me" I just tell 'em to realign your dish and get better signal strength.
Comcast has been raising prices of it's cable TV every year and rarely do you see Dish and DirecTV raise their prices although it DOES happen so i'm not saying anything is perfect. Maybe this will start to get the notice of Comcast and the rest of the Cable CO's finally people are speaking with their wallet saying "were not taking it anymore"
--
"Sure there have been injuries and deaths in boxing - but none of them serious."
- Alan Minter, Boxer
"I get to go to lots of overseas places, like Canada."
- Britney Spears, Pop Singer
| |
| | | 
supergirl
join:2007-03-20
Pensacola, FL | Re: good news Those caps they put on cable probably won't affect prices. Eventually even sat will have caps on the # of subscribers. | |
| | | | | | Chao284
join:2006-01-08
| Well also you have to understand that some states like Oregon and Washington currently have the highest Low Incomes to this date, as well as more subscribers for Direct TV and Dish Network,
Since having Expanded Basic with the packages Comcast has would total up to $175 a month with Cable, Phone, and Internet, some counties may charge it at $200, and that alone is for the upper class income or higher, not the middle class or low class. | |
| | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| 2 million subscribers nationwide is hardly "we're not taking it any more"...
.. and if you weren't forced... um, don't you like with a comcast employee who gets cable for free?
If you think the cable in MPLS is bad.. why don't you go out into the rest of the world and see what people have. Cable in the twin cities is stellar compared to other areas.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-reitchous and lazy ... those who also never take the time to point out a good fortune when the opportunity presents itself. It says a lot about one's moral character." - Unknown | |
| | cbrain
join:2000-05-21
Silver Spring, MD | I love having a choice but have not seen any downward pressure on price. Comcast, DirectTV and Verizon video have all raised prices this year. I don't know about Dish. | |
| mlbSAE
join:2000-08-01
Dayton, OH | cable sucks I dropped Time Warner about a year ago and went to dish... more HD, cheaper price, better customer service (that goes to show how bad TWC's service was). Thus far I have not been disappointed... | |
| 
johndoe303
join:2003-01-01
Boca Raton, FL
| Verizon FiOS whenever FiOS is available I'll be jumping ship.. Superior HD programming, superior PQ, superior HSI, and most importantly of all SUPERIOR price.
but it's going to be a long while.. 
--
TCHRacing.com - Florida's Ford & Mustang Forum | |
| | | | | smcallah
join:2004-08-05
Home
| Re: Verizon FiOS said by supergirl  :I also don't see how their HSI or TV is so cheap considering they've spent $6 billion on FIOS so far and programming is not that cheap. It's so cheap now so that they can inflate customer numbers to show investors that it is working.
And when they need to make money on it, when people are used to having the services bundled together, and their copper phone lines are gone, they'll raise the prices.
If they charged what they should be charging now, their customer numbers wouldn't grow fast enough to justify the capital expenditures to the stock holders. | |
| | | |
supergirl
join:2007-03-20
Pensacola, FL
 ·Cox VOIP
·Skype
·Cox HSI
 ·AT&T Southeast
·magicjack.com
| Re: Verizon FiOS said by smcallah :said by supergirl :I also don't see how their HSI or TV is so cheap considering they've spent $6 billion on FIOS so far and programming is not that cheap. It's so cheap now so that they can inflate customer numbers to show investors that it is working. And when they need to make money on it, when people are used to having the services bundled together, and their copper phone lines are gone, they'll raise the prices. If they charged what they should be charging now, their customer numbers wouldn't grow fast enough to justify the capital expenditures to the stock holders. That's why I said they'd jack rates eventually. | |
| | | | | smcallah
join:2004-08-05
Home
| Re: Verizon FiOS said by supergirl :That's why I said they'd jack rates eventually. And that's why I was replying to your "I also don't see how..."
To give a reason for "how." | |
| | | 
RideRed
Vista needs a popup blocker for Vista
Premium
join:2005-06-18
USA
| Big dish proves a la carte way cheaper.
And even prices between C-band programming resellers is different.
I'm looking at a la carte pricing (from callnps) for C-Band and here is an example of some popular channel pricing
Bravo $1.11/mo or $11.12 per year
Cartoon Network $1.17/mo or #11.65 per year
CNN/CNNi/CNN-HN/Fox News $2.12/mo or $21.19/yr
Discovery + TLC $2.12/mo or $21.19/yr
USA + SciFi $1.80/mo or $18.01 /yr
Starz Pack $12.72/mo or $127.19/yr
So you're looking at less than $1/mo per channel even if you pay monthly.
--
There's only 10 types of people in this world. Those who understand binary, and those who don't. | |
| | | | 
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs: | Re: Verizon FiOS wow. i may have to reconsider c-band. a la carte pricing is nice! | |
| | | | |
RideRed
Vista needs a popup blocker for Vista
Premium
join:2005-06-18
USA | Re: Verizon FiOS I would but I live in an HOA that doesn't permit C-Band dishes. | |
| | | | 
John T
@verizon.net
| Those don't look like less than $1/mo per channel monthly. Of course, those are fairly popular channels-- but no ESPN or Lifetime. I looked at their website, and I see that WGN and TNT cost closer to $2/month monthly, and the big networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX) cost more like $5 or $6/month monthly.
I don't see how "you're looking at less than $1/mo per channel even if you pay monthly" unless you're getting unpopular channels that mostly pay for themselves with ads.
And, of course, those prices are far above what the companies charge the cable networks to bundle channels rather than provide them a la carte. | |
| | | | |
RideRed
Vista needs a popup blocker for Vista
Premium
join:2005-06-18
USA
2 edits | Re: Verizon FiOS said by John T :
Those don't look like less than $1/mo per channel monthly. Of course, those are fairly popular channels-- but no ESPN or Lifetime. I looked at their website, and I see that WGN and TNT cost closer to $2/month monthly, and the big networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX) cost more like $5 or $6/month monthly.
I don't see how "you're looking at less than $1/mo per channel even if you pay monthly" unless you're getting unpopular channels that mostly pay for themselves with ads.
And, of course, those prices are far above what the companies charge the cable networks to bundle channels rather than provide them a la carte.
They're less than a $1/mo when you prepay, otherwise yeah, some are a buck & a quarter. Others are part of a 2 or 3 channel pack for $2/mo so those are less than $1/mo even when paying monthly.
I get my locals and HD locals OTA or can get regulated broadcast basic from the cable company for fairly cheap (I think TWC has it for $10/mo). I consider ESPN a premium channel like HBO and personally I would drop them if I could. MNF isn't worth the other 164 hrs a week of Poker, world strongest man and Austrailian dick wrestling. ESPN2, News and Classic are even more worthless to me.
Personally I think sports should be on their own tier and the overpriced ESPN shouldn't be part of any basic package.
--
There's only 10 types of people in this world. Those who understand binary, and those who don't. | |
| | | | | |
John T
@northgrum.com
| Re: Verizon FiOS said by RideRed :Personally I think sports should be on their own tier and the overpriced ESPN shouldn't be part of any basic package. Yes, you do. Problem is that many people think that ESPN is the only reason to get cable in the first place, and that any basic package without ESPN is totally worthless. I'd never watch pro wrestling, but it's almost always the highest rated cable program, and routinely leads USA to cable ratings victories. I don't have kids, so I don't watch Nickelodeon, but again it has plenty of the highest rated cable programs.
A la carte would almost assuredly lower some people's costs and raise others. My hypothesis is that people with unusual tastes will mostly get cheaper cable, since they're subsidizing for all the expensive popular channels like ESPN. Certain people with "normal" tastes would probably pay around the same amount or even slightly more to get the channels that they like to watch. It might well be "fairer," I agree, in that some people would not be subsidizing others. It's really not clear that it's as simple as people make out. | |
| | | | | |
John T
@northgrum.com
| said by RideRed :They're less than a $1/mo when you prepay, otherwise yeah, some are a buck & a quarter. Others are part of a 2 or 3 channel pack for $2/mo so those are less than $1/mo even when paying monthly. And TNT is $2.76/month monthly and $27.55 yearly. TBS is more than a $1/mo on the yearly rate. Discovery is $2.12/mo monthly and $21.19 yearly. HD channels are even more. Discovery HD a la carte is a crazy $5.83/month or $58.29 yearly for a channel that looks nice but doesn't have all that much programming. (Lots of reshowings of the same thing.)
And even callnps offers package deals as well. Granted, a really nice variety. Browsing around the packages, you can really see which networks are cheaper than others. People who don't like sports really do subsidize everyone who wouldn't subscribe to cable if ESPN wasn't in expanded basic. | |
| | | | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
1 edit | There is NOTHING cheaper about callnps.
One thing that many people forget to mention is the price of the dish, the cost of the installation, and the price of the box(es) when talking about these prices. You can't selectively leave those out. You don't think cable, satellite, and phone providers keep equipment, installation, and maintenance in mind to programming?
Also, their per price charges are not cheaper than current package price. Some channels in packages cost more than others. Fox News, for example, raises more than $1.00 per channel while lifetime may only cost $0.25. You can't average the cost of a channel by dividing the number of channels into the monthly package price... it's not how it works.
Also, to say "it's even cheaper to prepay annually".. tell me how many 'common people' would do that? They don't even like or can afford the monthly rate of their packages at $110.00 a month much less dropping $1200 at one time.
Distant networks between $3.18 and $4.77?? EACH?!?! Discovery HD almost $6 per month? About 16 networks to choose from and premiums that are horrendous in price and don't really come with the multiplex offerings?
If this is what people want.. I say go for it.
.. but all I say is make sure, when looking at the grass on the other side of the fence, that you also include the cost of equipment and install.
Additionally - Ala Cart
Why does a customer have to buy the entire 4DTV package? Why can't NPS sell a-la-carte digital channels?
We apologize that we cannot offer Digital a la carte. We would like to. We believe in choice, as that is reflected in our analog offerings. The programmers (like FOX, the owners of Fox Sports Network) are now requiring NPS to sell their digital programming in packages and are stopping us from selling these services individually. When we negotiated with them to carry the programming, they stipulated that we could only sell the digital services in a digital package. This was our only option or we would not be allowed to provide the service at all. Since our customers wanted Fox Sports and other digital services, NPS had no choice but to agree to this rule. We will continue to offer our current list of analog selections as they are. The good news about the situation is that when NPS recently added the Food Channel and Do It Yourself Network to our Absolute Digital Package, we did not raise the price at all. Since inception we have added Classic, FOX Movie Channel, Lifetime Movie Network, National Geographic Channel, Outdoor Life Network, and Toon Disney.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-reitchous and lazy ... those who also never take the time to point out a good fortune when the opportunity presents itself. It says a lot about one's moral character." - Unknown | |
| | |
John T
@verizon.net
| said by supergirl :A la carte programming would significantly reduce rates. I can think of 10-15 stations I watch on my 70+ stations. You figure $50/70=$.72 a station. I would pay 17.85 for 25 stations. Even $20 for that is better than $50 for 45+ stations that are nothing but ads. A la carte might help, but nothing so dramatic as what you're saying. First, there's a fixed cost for access and service at all. The marginal cost of adding a new station is much lower than the cost of connecting someone (and offering support, etc.) to start with. Something more like $15 to have a connection at all and then $35 for the 70 stations is more reasonable.
Secondly, it's reasonably likely that the 10-15 stations you watch cost considerably more than the average rate. Those "nothing but ads" stations with low ratings are often offered to cable companies absolutely free, or at least for much cheaper than the popular stations. Now, this does mean that if you have unusual tastes there might be room for savings, as certain popular networks like ESPN have charges well over $1/subscriber for the station. But...
Third, the content provider might easily change the rates if people are buying a la carte. If the only people who purchase a channel are the ones who want to watch it, then the conten providers can actually charge a higher rate than the low rate necessary when all subscribers are paying for it. Essentially many channels might convert to a more premium HBO-type model. As an extreme example, the Disney Channel was much more expensive as a premium cable channel than it is now to providers as a basic cable channel. Or consider how expensive the a la carte international feed channels are on most cable system, like RAI from Italy, or various Arabic or Asian networks.
This is especially true of channels that most people wouldn't subscribe to a la carte. Everyone only watches 10-15 channels-- but those are a different 10-15 channels for everyone. I never watch Lifetime, but it's routinely the highest rated cable channel. I know plenty of people who love particular channels-- ESPN, Food Network, SciFi (for Battlestar Galactica), Comedy Central, Cartoon Network, the Soap Opera Network-- that other people don't watch at all.
If everyone subscribes to a quarter of the channels but the channels then quadruple their rates (knowing that the people subscribing are mostly big fans of those networks) then there's no savings.
You currently are willing to pay $50 for those 10-15 stations you watch. That suggests that maybe you'd pay $50 for those 10-15 stations on an a la carte pricing scheme. Maybe you'd pay $30, or $40, or even more. It's hard to say. But there's certainly no guarantee that the price per channel would be the same as now. Right now most channels (except for the free ones making their money off ads alone and not subscriber fees) are subsidized by the people who don't watch them. | |
| | | | | | | | |
John T
@northgrum.com
| Re: Verizon FiOS I got those numbers from exactly the same place, callnps, in the message I replied to:
»www.callnps.com/alacarte.htm
ABC East is $4.77/month on a monthly basis.
Of course, you can get the Denver station feed for $3.18/month, a la carte. | |
| | | | | | | | |
John T
@northgrum.com
| Re: Verizon FiOS said by morbo :channels that can't support themselves then die. so be it. Yes, but my point is that they wouldn't die. The proportional argument doesn't make sense. It's like people think that cable companies and content providers are some sort of charity that price based on liking the customer, as opposed to wanting to maximize profit. Prices are not set on some absolute sense of value, but in whatever maximizes profit.
If everyone only watches 10-15 channels (and for the vast majority of people I know this is true; even if they branch out some there are only a few core networks that they really want), and the cablecos can get the subscription numbers that they currently get with $50 for 70 channels, of which you only watch 10-15, why wouldn't they charge a la carte rates (together with a base subscription fee) that would cause you to pay $40 or $50 for the 10-15 channels that you watch (plus any ad supported only channels)? Because they like you? Because of some sense of fairness? Why?
They're out for all of your money that they can get. If people (not you, apparently) are willing to pay $50 for 10-15 channels that they watch, with 50 not counting at all because they "never watch them," why wouldn't they be willing to pay $50 for those same 10-15 channels but with the 50 they "never watch" turned off? After all, if you "never watch" them, then there's no difference if there's programming at all. And if people are willing to pay, then the cable monopolies will definitely charge it.
It's possible, of course, that what people really mean is that they "barely watch" those other 50 channels. Even so, they might still be willing to pay $40, instead of $50, for those favorite 10-15 channels.
Yeah, everyone who subscribes to expanded basic does it for only a few channels. But those are different for everyone. The packages are a way to split those costs around. Some people, particularly those who watch an unusually low number of popular, expensive channels with loyal followings, get the shaft and subsidize other people. Some people on net are subsidized, though.
It just doesn't make sense to me that the cable companies would keep channel prices the same as in a bundle, when now everyone subscribing to the channel would want it instead of half (or more) taking it as part of a bundle to get another channel. They'd raise prices on each individual channel. Exactly how much each channel would go up is a different matter. | |
| | | | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| said by supergirl :A la carte programming would significantly reduce rates. Do you, or anyone for that matter, have proof of this?
The more important question is, for who? For WHO would it reduce rates? A handful? Maybe.. for the masses? they'd see an increase.
Please.. try to read and pay attention. The NETWORKS set the price and requirements on their networks - EVEN to Verizon - not the providers... The MOMENT they are FORCED (which is largely an-American) it would RAISE rates for most people and would also make certain channels a premium, or mini-premium, network.
Your opinion is very selfish, to be honest. You are in a minority which is selfish. You want to pick and choose a few networks which forces that on everyone. There are smaller channels, like History International, Discovery Times, Discovery Health, and others that people DO want. Under ala carte, those channels either go WAY up in price, or they go all together, to which you probably don't care because you only watch 10 to 15 stations. (to which maybe the 8' dish is more your thing) So, for YOUR desire, those people that want all those channels, they either loose out or pay far more, so you can pay less. If you're not a TV watcher, then cable and satellite is not for you anyway.. YOU are NOT what the industry wants as a customer - blunt truth, but it's the truth none the less.
ALL providers need to make a certain amount of money to operate their networks.. that won't change - and there is no way any law or congress will change that. If they need $45 a month per sub to operate the system, just like energy, they justify it, and it will be tariff. So, your 10 to 15 channels will still cost you a CONSIDERABLE amount of money anyway. What also happens is that your group will piss off the masses who DO see that 130 channels at $59 a month IS a good value. Ala cart will cut those channels way back.. less channels higher price, more people will see cable as an even WORSE value.
Also, legislating ala cart (which will never happen) WILL ultimately hurt YOU. Laws are two sided.. not one. If they were, we'd live in a dictatorship and we don't. The operators, cable, satellite, and phone, have just as much right as you do and they aren't going to go silently through any laws that hurt them. When the people cried for reform back in the 90's and got cable prices regulated because they were "too high".. do you have ANY idea what happened to about 70% of the cable subscribing population??? THEY SAW A PRICE INCREASE! The average price increase was near $4 per month.
Government is NOT your friend and they will not do anything to make it right for you. When people learn that and stop running to "them" for everything, then maybe we will have our freedoms back.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-reitchous and lazy ... those who also never take the time to point out a good fortune when the opportunity presents itself. It says a lot about one's moral character." - Unknown | |
| | | |
supergirl
join:2007-03-20
Pensacola, FL | Re: Verizon FiOS Note: I'm female.
Has Cable ever tried to prove they can't offer a la carte because of costs?
The NPS website is for satellite. I doubt seriously Cox is paying $15.37 for HBO (when I get 7 of them)? | |
| | | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: Verizon FiOS I touched on that, with all providers, in my post:
1) Providers don't really have full control over the rates or packaging.. it's a negotiated process. Usually in the end, the networks have the upper hand. ex: Customer wants Sci.. networks knows it. Sci network sets a price based on demand, cable takes it or leaves it. They usually take it because customers will flee for Sat that carries it. Cable is forced to carry it and the terms.. terms can be $0.50 per sub and it must be on Tier2 service.. not digital. (Just an example)
2) Providers generally have to take a package of channels to get one.
It's just a game of negotiation. The nets all want their networks carried and will put stipulations on carriage.
Further, the providers still need X amount of money per sub to operate the system. Basic cable, so you know, doesn't make a profit - it generally breaks even as it is.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-reitchous and lazy ... those who also never take the time to point out a good fortune when the opportunity presents itself. It says a lot about one's moral character." - Unknown | |
| | 
ofacesig
join:2007-01-23
Carrollton, TX | Verizon FiOS is ONLY available where Verizon is the local telephone company. Are you gonna move to Tampa, Dallas or Central california? | |
| | | | | | | jtel
join:2005-06-28
Bristol, RI | Re: Verizon FiOS FIOS isn't overbuilding out of area anywhere and I doubt that will ever happen. | |
|
RideRed
Vista needs a popup blocker for Vista
Premium
join:2005-06-18
USA
1 edit | Good Competition is good. Cable is doing the same to telcos (taking POTS customers over quality and price). | |
| | 
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Re: Good I agree... however, in the long run prices don't _really_ go down much, they just shift the pricing (i.e. long distance cost drop, but local costs rise, a la carte typically rises). | |
| 
Titus Pullo
I came, I saw, I slept
join:2004-06-26 | Cable Penetration Hits 17-Year Low I'll be sure to mention this headline to my buddy having a colonoscopy today  | |
| tmc8080
join:2004-04-24
Floral Park, NY
| what it really means.. two million people simply cannot afford, or do not want cable-tv service from any provider.. satellite, fiber or coax.
end of story, now whether that will signal a sea-change towards a-la carte / cheaper pricing, and better programming is in the cable industry's court. | |
| patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY | peak When did it peak? Someone have a graph? | |
| 
kyler13
Is your fiber grounded?
join:2006-12-12
Arnold, MD | Prices won't go down I don't see prices ever going down. If they do, the level of service/quality/offering will go down with it. | |
| | whocares
Premium
join:2003-07-26
..
| Re: whats driving customers away is In this part of tx, if you HAD cable tv, (tried them for a month-2 yrs ago) bill was resonable,(under $100.00 p/month) then went to Directv.
Called time warner back, to ask about re joining time Warner was told,
you'll have to put a $150.00 deposit,then pay for the instillation,then pay for the 1st months rental in advance
tried to explain that i had them befor & never paid a deposit,or installation, thats our new policy
Needless to say,I don't have RoadRunner nor cabletv...
--
Some PPLE never see the good things in the world or pple,because they are usually looking for ONLY looking for the bad things,& usually they will find them | |
| OB Kenobi
join:2005-05-29
Brooklyn, NY
| Cable company mafias must be brought to justice Cable subscriptions going down is great news. It's about time the cable mafia faced market demands. No thanks to the FCC ofcourse, which has repeatedly sided with these monopolist crooks.
Cable companies have been justifying their increasingly outrageous prices by claiming that they offer more channels compared to older packages, but what they don't want to admit is that most customers DO NOT WANT those extra channels! Customers aren't given a choice of channels, they're sold packages that include up to HUNDREDS of unwanted channels and then they are charged for those superfluous channels!
Why don't cable companies offer more flexible packages? From a premium cable package the average consumer could probably eliminate 50% of the channels included, and they should be charged 50% less or more.
Cable is losing subscribers because it is a RIPOFF! | |
| |
John T
@northgrum.com
| Re: Cable company mafias must be brought to justice said by OB Kenobi :Cable subscriptions going down is great news. It's about time the cable mafia faced market demands. No thanks to the FCC ofcourse, which has repeatedly sided with these monopolist crooks. Boy, no matter what the FCC does people hate it, huh? The cablecos have being whining about the FCC being unfair to them for quite a while. I thought that the latest complaint was the FCC being unfair to the cable companies but "repeatedly siding" with the telcos. (At least the big ones-- the FCC has stepped in to stop small local monopoly telcos from blocking cable VoIP.) | |
| 
gwion
wild colonial boy
Premium,ExMod 2001-08
join:2000-12-28
Pittsburgh, PA
| Cable's been gouging... ... for years. The price of a basic plus, ~55 channel analog package has gone from ~$29 to ~$55, here, in 10 years. That's around 80%, in a virtually flat inflationary environment, otherwise. The only other industries you could have seen this kind of price-inflation with, that come immediately to mind, are housing and trading crack-spread on RBOB (that is, trading commodity markup on refined gasoline). Difference is, though, that the housing market inflated on easy money from the Fed, and crack-spread is a function of NYMEX oil price versus NYMEX RBOB price. CTV pricing is a function of the whim of the CTV operator. Few communities have the audacity to stand up to them, and exercise rights of review and/or rejection of rate increases. The franchise terms grant a percentage of revenues, after all, so CTV rate increases act as a de facto tax revenue increase, for most franchising authorities. It's a win-win proposition, for the provider and for the municipality; provider gets his rate increase virtually automatically, in most towns, and the town gets a stealth increase in a revenue item that amounts to a virtual tax.
I have friends, now, and they're entertainment junkies, too, who have no (antenna) or "basic" basic cable (local channel package), NO satellite, and rely on their DVD as their primary medium. One family I know minces no words in suggesting that the local CTV has priced themselves right out of their marginal utility analysis... their budget's no problem, it's just that they're not watching the cable channels, preferring movies on DVD for their evenings at home.
I'm nearing the end of my tolerence, too. If it weren't for CNBC, CNN, and a few other news channels, I would probably be a basic subscriber, or using an antenna.
CTV is just plain too expensive, if you don't marinate yourself in mindless entertainment day and night. The marginal utility is being outweighed by the cost. Simple Econ 101. Either improve the content, or lower the price, or the outflows will probably continue. There are alternatives, and they're becomming more and more practical alternatives, as the times and technology progress. I lay my cards on the table, if FIOS TV rolls out, here, and the price to content ratio is attractive, I'm dropping Comcast the next morning, before my coffee's ready. I'm entirely tired of paying 55 bucks a month for three or four channels (that I actually watch), and their commercial content (noticed that commercials are pretty much at the saturation level, too, and that a lot are second-market commercials, sold by the CTV op you pay for monthly service? I digress... the Slowskies, admittedly, are almost amusing, far better than the old "assault and ambush" self-promos we were treated to, in the past...  ).
Simplest solution, elimoinate these antique franchjise relationships, that are artifacts of the embryonic days of CTV, regulate uniformly and centrally, provide for local taxation that's a little less opaque than these franchise fees, provide for local control over the things that need local control, and throw this market open for providers to compete on a level, open playing field. This "preferred provider" virtual monopoly encourages an incestuous relationship between franchisees and franchising authorities, and encourages providers to engage in poor business plans and practices, by allowing them to subsidize their excesses and failures with virtually automatic rate increass, with no alternative in town, for those unwilling to pay. Real competition is the consumer's best friend. Absent real competition, the only alternative I see for consumers is to leave, in droves, when the price reaches the saturation point, at which it's just not worth paying for the content that's being provided.
--
Semper Eadem
--
Graffiti on the walls, just as the sun was going down
I see graffiti on the walls - for the Celts! for the Celts!
Graffiti on the walls says we're magic, we're magic... graffiti on the walls... | |
| | whocares
Premium
join:2003-07-26
..
| Re: just to add to comments,Csumer Info which a lot may not know,
& I'am not "pushing DIRECTV", just comsumer information.
On cabletv when i had both ROADRUNNER/cabletv vs. DIRETV & SBC DSL side by side for a month,to see which was better
On cable tv with all the channels,plus HBO & starz,
YOU could not EDIT my GUIDE list to take out or not list the channels i wasn't interested in,(the soap operas***,or sports channels or HSN,religious channels) ect.
where as DIRECTV guide you can edit its guide so you see ONLY the channels you want or are subscribing to
jazzy
*** NOTHING against you ladies here,
but frankly
I don't care if "Paul is in love with Jacks wife,who has a crush on Tom,her neighbor,who is gay for Jack,who is having an affair with his secretary,who has fallen in love with the boss, who likes to dress up in a cat costume & led around by a leash.
--
Some PPLE never see the good things in the world or pple,because they are usually looking for ONLY looking for the bad things,& usually they will find them | |
| | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| Re: Cable's been gouging... That's 6.6% per year, compounded. (Thanks HP12c!) 2-3x the level of inflation. Or a little less than the cost of college increases every year. The S&P 5 went up more than twice that amount last year...
I agree that franchise rules should be made more uniform, somewhere in the middle of the extremes. I do think they should include coverage requirements however, because you can't have competition when an indispensable business asset has limited reproducibility. (Public ROW space) Every new entrant CAN'T build their own network.
Really what would solve all the issues, would be locally owned networks. Allow private entities to compete on service provided alone, with the municipality charging a flat fee for maintenance costs. Then you don't need franchise contract AT ALL, just a flat charge for providing service in a given geography.
It weren't for my wife/kids I would only have an HD antenna, and biggest baddest HDTV that my saved monthly cable fees would provide. When FIOS does finally get here from one of our neighboring towns I'll probably drop Comcast and go Verizon/Dish or DTV. | |
| | | whocares
Premium
join:2003-07-26
..
| Re: Cable's been gouging... In this part of tx, if you HAD cable tv, (tried them for a month-2 yrs ago) bill was resonable,(under $100.00 p/month) then went to Directv.
Called time warner back, to ask about re joining time Warner was told,
sounded like being punished for leaving,
you'll have to put a $150.00 deposit,then pay for the instillation,then pay for the 1st months rental in advance
tried to explain that i had them befor & never paid a deposit,or installation,thats our new policy
Needless to say,I don't have RoadRunner nor cabletv...
--
Some PPLE never see the good things in the world or pple,because they are usually looking for ONLY looking for the bad things,& usually they will find them | |
| ricep5
Premium
join:2000-08-07
Jacksonville, FL
·AT&T Southeast
·AT&T CallVantage
·VoicePulse
·Comcast Formerly ..
| It's the content thats driving the price Cable price increases have been driven primarily by content providers who are milking the cable market share cow. (ie: ESPN)
So just who is the low cost provider in delivering content?
Is it cheaper to launch a satellite and service millions or wire several millions homes, with each group of them requiring unique franchise requirements and must carry provisions?
At the risk of framing an analogy, this is 1952 all over again. The upstart airlines, requiring significantly less dollars per passenger, began the process of catching and eventually overtaking rail and bus, (matching them by 1956). Today, rail is primarily a freight business.
Today's cable, with its huge local infrastructure will become the high cost provider and be unable to absorb the increasing content costs. It will increasingly promote its internet access, not unlike how rail promotes bulk freight.
Satellite will be able to absorb the content costs easier and become the low cost content provider, just like the airlines. | |
| | | |
|
|
Cable Penetration Hits 17-Year Low
