 
TK Junk Mail
Golf season has returned - hurrah
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
 ·Comcast
edit:
September 21st, @12:30PM
|  Lawsuit at least names the content providers .....
The lawsuit names the worst offenders in the bundling of unneeded channels that nobody watches - the content providers. Any attempt to force a la carte will fail if there are no sanctions on the content providers and only go after the cable companies like Martin from the FCC is trying to do.
The companies named in the suit are NBC Universal Inc., Viacom Inc., The Walt Disney Co., Fox Entertainment Group Inc., Time Warner Inc., Comcast Cable Communications Inc., Cox Communications Inc., The DirecTV Group Inc., Echostar Satellite LLC, Charter Communications Inc. and Cablevision Systems Corp.
--
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page | |
|
 | 
Ralph22
@comcast.net
| Re: Lawsuit at least names the content providers ..... Make no mistake - the purpose of this lawsuit is not for the common good, but for some money-hungry, overzealous barristers to get their names in the paper, and maybe make a few sheckels. And the AP, with their ultra-liberal anti-corporate attitude, gives them what amounts to little more than a slipshod press release. We don't know, for instance, what negotiations took place before this suit was filed, or what good faith efforts were made to reach some kind of accommodation or understanding.
Sue now, get publicity now, ask questions later.
What no one realizes is that price increases are largely due to sports coverage, and specifically ESPN. This, really, is what you are paying for.
An argument can also be made that by bundling these channels, you ensure these channels survival. Yeah, you may not watch Lifetime or Versus or HGTV. But, guess what, someone else does, and who knows, the Next Big Thing may come from one of these channels.
Bundling keeps these fringe channels available. But, just like in the supermarket where only products that move stay on the shelves, only the channels that enough people care about stay available. And like at the supermarket, competition is fierce for one of those very limited, rare slots.
I think it is always a good idea to keep the cable companies and providers on their toes and remind them of who pays the freight. This to me is not an effective or good-faith way to do that.
Now if you'll excuse me it's Saturday night and my boys are at the front door so I'm gonna wrap up here. | |
|
majortom1029
join:2006-10-19
Lindenhurst, NY | hmm Why is verizon not included in this. In a lot of cases they are actually more expensive then cablevision . So why arent they included in this? | |
|
| Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | Re: hmm Not a large enough TV foot print, plus then you've got Verizon's deep pockets involved as well. Not that the current cast of characters is anything to sniffle at. | |
|
lew_jean
join:2005-05-13
Marietta, GA | Let me pay for what I want Why should I have to pay for the shopping channels, sports channels, all the other channels I do not want or care for and lets not forget all the music channels.
we may watch about 15 channels it that much
| |
|
| 
Jmartz
join:2000-07-20
Tenafly, NJ
edit:
September 21st, @12:48PM
| Re: Let me pay for what I want Just think about it:
Everyone SHARES the cost of channels, even channels they don't watch.
A La Carte... 1/4 the number of people share the same cost (prices wont come down)... so that means the cost for the channel will increase to maintain the same revnue... so you're going to be paying the same, if not more, for LESS.
And, a lot of channels will go out of business if people don't subscribe. So you will have less to chose from, at a higher price.
It doesn't make sense to do a la carte. I prefer the packages, if Cable wants to do that, then give people a choice... people who want A La Carte can have it... but I want to keep my programming bundles. | |
|
| | 
swhx7
Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Let me pay for what I want The only way ala carte would help subscribers is if all the channels were priced the same. The same as each other, that is, regardless of popularity. That way, the cablecos would make less profit as a percentage on more popular channels (because their payments to content providers are higher) and more on less popular channels. So, on ESPN and HBO they would make pennies or take a loss; on golf channel they would make more. But with larger volume on the popular channels it might almost even out.
This would be good for subscribers because it would provide an incentive for the cableco to keep the smaller channels available; and they would have to keep the bigger channels to keep customers.
If they have to offer ala carte but prices are not required to be the same for every channel, they will charge according to demand, and drop less-watched channels, and cable will descend to the lowest common denominator - just sports, big Hollywood movies and those so-called "reality" shows. | |
|
| | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
edit:
September 21st, @02:05PM
| Re: Let me pay for what I want Or what they pay to content provider's could be tied to the number of subscribers selecting a channel. {shock} Then the providers could set the rates to what the market would actually bear, and comcast would rake some off the top for maintaining the infrastructure.. Sounds a little too free market though.. :P | |
|
| | bamabrad
join:2006-01-27
Port Orange, FL | This type of business model is going the way of the dinosaurs-wait and see! | |
|
| 
Jim Gurd
Sorry Roger, you tiger now.
Premium
join:2000-07-08
Plymouth, MI
·Comcast
| said by lew_jean  :Why should I have to pay for the shopping channels, Actually you don't. The shopping channels pay the cable companies to carry them. I can live with that if it brings down the monthly fee.
--
We don't care. We don't have to. We're the phone company.
-- Ernestine | |
|
| | travelguy
join:1999-09-03
Albuquerque, NM
| Re: Let me pay for what I want said by Jim Gurd :said by lew_jean :Why should I have to pay for the shopping channels, Actually you don't. The shopping channels pay the cable companies to carry them. I can live with that if it brings down the monthly fee. You're making the same mistake lots of people make - assuming that what a cable or sat companies pays (or receives) for a channel has anything to do with how they price a channel or package a channel.
Channels and channel packages are priced by what people are will to pay - not by what they cost the distributor. | |
|
| | | 
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| Re: Let me pay for what I want said by travelguy :Channels and channel packages are priced by what people are will to pay - not by what they cost the distributor. Except for basic cable (where the shopping channels are carried), which by law must be priced according to the cost to the distributor.
Since basic cable is the only package that a cable provider can force you to carry, this is an important aspect.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher | |
|
| | | | travelguy
join:1999-09-03
Albuquerque, NM
| Re: Let me pay for what I want said by marigolds :said by travelguy :Channels and channel packages are priced by what people are will to pay - not by what they cost the distributor. Except for basic cable (where the shopping channels are carried), which by law must be priced according to the cost to the distributor. Since basic cable is the only package that a cable provider can force you to carry, this is an important aspect. Interesting - given the large number of shopping channels on most basic tiers, I'll bet the law was written to ignore those... Still - all these people who think ala cart is going to reduce their cable bill are in for a rude awakening.
The industry is built around average revenue of over $50 per customer. The huge capital investment requires that kind of revenue - not just the program providers. | |
|
| | | | |
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| Re: Let me pay for what I want said by travelguy :said by marigolds :Except for basic cable (where the shopping channels are carried), which by law must be priced according to the cost to the distributor. Since basic cable is the only package that a cable provider can force you to carry, this is an important aspect. Interesting - given the large number of shopping channels on most basic tiers, I'll bet the law was written to ignore those... The law does include those. The problem with the law is the franchise authority is responsible for enforcing the provisions. I've never heard of a state enforcing this provision, and municipalities only rarely enforce it. It is not that uncommon for the price of basic cable to decrease in municipalities that do actively monitor basic cable prices (and the companies are required to turn over the information in aggregate).
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher | |
|
|
mrfuzzy
@comcast.net
thumbs down from:
TK Junk Mail
| So if you bought your fifteen channels you watch say at a reasonably price of $5 per….. That’s $75.... Now for *extended basic* (80 channels) generally goes for $53 | |
|
| | 
BuriedCaesar
It's Not Polite To Stare.
join:2004-03-27
Richardson, TX
 ·AT&T Yahoo
| Re: Let me pay for what I want $5 per channel? Still not worth it.
Try $2-$3 max per channel. That might entice me to consider getting cable. Maybe.
Then again, taxes and fees and whatnot else they want to try to tack on below the line will still probably push it close to $5 per channel anyway.
What am I missing by not having cable? Not much.
--
That was preposterous! Utter Nonsense! Totally unsupportable drivel! You can't be serious!....Um, what did you say? | |
|
| | |
| | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | Using C-band as a guideline MOST channels will be MUCH less than $5's. | |
|
| | |
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| Re: Let me pay for what I want said by Ahrenl :Using C-band as a guideline MOST channels will be MUCH less than $5's. C-Band is not a good pricing good for future a la carte cable. The pricing model is based on the assumption that there is a small number of c-band customers who will not subscribe through other means (because they already invested in a big dish).
Essentially, c-band is subsidized by everyone else.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher | |
|
| | | | clickie
join:2005-05-22
Monroe, MI
| Re: Let me pay for what I want You can use C-band pricing as a model to find a relative relationship of what channels cost, but you can't ignore that there are some substantial costs attributed to running a cable TV or satellite "head end in the sky" system. If a la carte pricing becomes a reality, cable and satellite customers won't get around those costs. | |
|
| | | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
| So C-band is subsidized by everyone else, because their customers are locked into the service through the large up front costs? Sense, that does not make.
If anything you'd think that cable a-la carte would have to be lower, otherwise, why wouldn't I switch to C-band? | |
|
| | | | |
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
edit:
September 26th, @04:35PM
| Re: Let me pay for what I want said by Ahrenl :So C-band is subsidized by everyone else, because their customers are locked into the service through the large up front costs? Sense, that does not make. If anything you'd think that cable a-la carte would have to be lower, otherwise, why wouldn't I switch to C-band? You wouldn't switch to C-Band if cable a la carte was more expensive because you have to shell out a ton of money up front and you have to have room for a big dish (which is not covered by the same FCC regs that allow small dishes).
The assumption is that c-band subscribers have highly elastic demand for individual channels. When they have paid such high upfront costs, they will not tolerate significant increases in the cost of an individual channel and will instead drop that channel for the free channels.
Since the group is so small, there is little revenue to be made in increasing their channel cost, or even in bother to lock them out of a channel. If there were more of them, then it might be worth it to develop a higher revenue pricing model.
Instead, it is a group with small numbers who are not willing to spend very much, but will be pretty vocal when they get cut off.
Solution: Leave them on their cheap packages and eat the very small loss.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher | |
|
| | | | | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
edit:
September 26th, @05:01PM
| Re: Let me pay for what I want Alright that does make sense.
So what would your opinion be on a DTC per channel charge? Where Comcast simply tacks on a carrier fee to whatever the content owners want to charge the customers, who pay the content owner directly (through their monthly comcast bill). This way Comcast acts as a service organizer, billing agent, and infrastructure servicer; and collects fees on all three. They no longer have to worry about the basis risk from what content owners charge them, and what customers are willing to pay. Of course they've been winning on this basis risk for their entire existence, but with a la carte, it (the risk) would increase. | |
|
| | | | | | |
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| Re: Let me pay for what I want It is a feasible system (would not even require that much billing adaptation), but I think the content providers would fight it every way they could.
It seems the last thing they want is for consumers to know the real costs of individual channels. | |
|
| | | | | | | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | Re: Let me pay for what I want Well, this would be the easiest way for a la carte legislation to proceed then. Require content providers to bill by customer if that customer opts into the a la carte program. | |
|
Toadman
Hypnotoad
join:2001-11-28
Medina, OH | Sue the solution Great, now my cable operator will have another reason to raise the bill. Legal fees to defend themselves from this yahoo and his (undefined $$$ damages). He takes millions, forces us to pay more. Good Job! | |
|
Chuckles
Premium
join:2006-03-04
Saint Paul, MN
·Comcast
edit:
September 21st, @01:41PM
| How about... A la carte taxation?!
My job would suck even more if there was a la carte pricing. Imagine the calls... 400 people in queue all wanting to change their lineup. Please remove channels a,b,c,d and e and add on w,x,y and z. Whattaya mean everytime I change my line up I have to pay $1.99? Why does channel a cost more than channel b. Your company is ripping me off! Why do I have to hold for 10 minutes?
HAAAAAAAHA! | |
|
| chemaupr
join:2005-06-06
Alexandria, VA | Re: How about... So you are complaining becouse a la carte will give you more job security? | |
|
| | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | Re: How about... Can't you add channels now through the menu in your cable box? I imagine it would more like a live on-demand. | |
|
| | | lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL | Re: How about... Or it could be done through a web interface. | |
|
| | | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | Re: How about... Not all TV watchers have the web. | |
|
| 
DOStradamus
MVM
join:2003-11-04
Santa Rosa, CA
| said by Chuckles :A la carte taxation?! That taken literally, would be a Good Thing.
There's be a "Schedule FU" too attach to your 1040, listing every Federal Governmment department and program, with a field for how much of your money (it's all your money!) you wish to fund it with.
Even though the "Schedule FU" would consist of several pages, it wold be easy to properly fill out; with your copy of the U.S. Constitution in hand, fund *only* those programs enumerated that it authorizes the Federal Government to run.
-NK | |
|
| 
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| said by Chuckles :A la carte taxation?!My job would suck even more if there was a la carte pricing. Imagine the calls... 400 people in queue all wanting to change their lineup. Primitive technology.
The set-top box/reciever/CableCard/media center etc could do it all.
IE every box has every channel on it. Customer merely selects which ones they want. Can turn them on and off at will. Nothing needs to be done, no truck rolls, etc. Only thing is someone will have to program a nice slick billing system to interface with the user database.
Problem is, I'm betting the providers will make fees for changing programming. They'll try and make changing channels prohibitively expensive so people won't do it and oversubscribe.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
|
wentlanc
You Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH
| Lets face it..... Consumers in EVERY market are becoming fed up with being strong-armed by these industries to purchase enhanced services that are strategically designed to make people spend more money. It all stems from the desire to appease stockholders greed, rather than offering truly competitive services, and return some value to the customer. This is true for wireless services, telephone, broadband, broadcast services, the list goes on and one. Guess what corporations, people are starting to really feel the pinch, and won't take it forever.
Ah well... This will be interesting..
CW | |
|
|
Chuckles
Premium
join:2006-03-04
Saint Paul, MN
·Comcast
| Re: Lets face it..... said by wentlanc :Consumers in EVERY market are becoming fed up with being strong-armed by these industries to purchase enhanced services that are strategically designed to make people spend more money. Now that people know businesses are strategizing to get their money do you think they'll stop spending? No.
Isn't that what a business is? A concept to get money.
People think they need cable television and that they need cell phones and expensive clothes, etc...
No one is being strong armed. People just can't stop spending.
--
kustomerservice.net | |
|
| |
bob saget
@comcast.net | Re: Lets face it..... Have we all forgotten that cable is a “LUXUARY” service? | |
|
| | | Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Pittsburgh, PA | Re: Lets face it..... Actually the reason there are PEG access channels and "must carry", etc. is because at it's most basic level it is considered essential communications rather than a luxury. | |
|
| | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Navarre, FL | Re: Lets face it..... For those PEG access channels. Everything else is still a luxury and always will be. | |
|
|
| |
| JSRoman
Premium
join:2005-03-10
Callahan, FL
·Windstream
| Re: spanish said by i1me2ao :why cant all the Spanish channels be bundled in one area instead of spread out.. On Directv all the spanish channels are bundled together and you only purchase them if you want those channels. Who is your tv provider that has them all spread out.?
--
»www.seabee.navy.mil | |
|
| | chemaupr
join:2005-06-06
Alexandria, VA
 ·SUNROCKET
·AT&T CallVantage
| Re: spanish said by JSRoman :said by i1me2ao :why cant all the Spanish channels be bundled in one area instead of spread out.. On Directv all the spanish channels are bundled together and you only purchase them if you want those channels. Who is your tv provider that has them all spread out.? COX | |
|
| | 
i1me2ao
join:2001-03-03
TEXAS | time warner and now comcast.. | |
|
JSRoman
Premium
join:2005-03-10
Callahan, FL
·Windstream
| Here if the future if they get what they want. Customers thing they are paying a lot now, just wait if this crap ever happens. You will get less channels and the ones that are left will be more expensive.
Bravo,AMC,Discovery,Biography,History,Currentv,SCIFI, would probably all be in trouble just to name a few. Shopping channels which I hate but little old ladies love, would go adios.
--
»www.seabee.navy.mil | |
|
| Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | Re: Here if the future if they get what they want. I say it will be cheaper than now, and all those channels will be wildly more popular because people won't have to shift through the crap to get them. | |
|
| |
Chuckles
Premium
join:2006-03-04
Saint Paul, MN | Re: Here if the future if they get what they want. You know you can enter in a channel number instead of pressing channel up/down. 
--
kustomerservice.net | |
|
| | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
| Re: Here if the future if they get what they want. said by Chuckles :You know you can enter in a channel number instead of pressing channel up/down. I was simply stating broad assumptions as if they were fact to counter the OP's original nonesense. Move along. | |
|
| | soccerguy
join:2004-06-28
Seattle, WA | But then they'll rip you off $5-15/month for a new "upgraded" cable box that you have to have to use al la carte.
In the end, I doubt you'll pay less. | |
|
n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY
·Optimum Online
| Bye Bye ESPN! I would love to not have to pay for the sports channels; ESPN, ESPN 2, ESPN whatever, Yes!, SNY, etc. Being the most expensive "Basic" channels currently running, removing them alone would probably cut the content cost by 30%-40%.
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears. | |
|
| 
wdoa
join:2001-10-16
Spencer, MA
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Bye Bye ESPN! I spoke with a Charter mucky muck a few years back and he told me that something like 50% of their programming costs went to the ESPN's, NESN's etc. I say let the folks who want to watch their NFL Mookball and such pay for it. Currently "extended basic" at $60 a month is just too damn expensive. All I have is the "mini-basic", broadcast channels, public access, and C-Span. If I could cherry pick other channels like History, Discover, etc. I would if I didn't have to subsidize the meathead channels. | |
|
| |
No to ESPN
@sbcglobal.net
| Re: Bye Bye ESPN! The high prices for cable and satellite resulting from carrying ESPN and like are funding the high salaries of professional sports players. In order to stop the insanity the industry should be forced to go to ala carte. Then we can just say "NO TO ESPN" and the sports mafia.
Ask yourself who is fighting against ala carte and you might not like the answer. | |
|
MrMoody
Sittin downtown in a railway station
join:2002-09-03
Clayton, NC
·Embarq
| Cartels I guess it's good they're starting to notice, but there are plenty of cartels ripping people off in this country besides the entertainment and cable industries, some much worse. Telcos, banks, oil, drug companies, the list goes on and on, and we've been letting them join up freely for about 15 years now.
--
"It is a future in which globalization really does work ... and everybody winds up getting to be part of the third world." - William Gibson | |
|
|
See 9 replies to this post |
|
|
Rexxriot
join:2004-05-29
Danvers, MA | How many would lose their jobs? If they offer a la carte, stations will go under and people will lose their jobs. Is it really worth saving a few bucks if hundreds or thousands of people will be unemployed? | |
|
| 
justbits
More fiber than ATT can handle
Premium
join:2003-01-08
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Midwest
·AT&T Yahoo
| Re: How many would lose their jobs? A few bucks is all you'll save if the cable companies have it their way.
On the whole, the savings is more like millions or billions of dollars across the entire US. Just think of it, right now that excess money you pay is feeding the cable TV operators and their content providers. If the majority of people don't have a choice to not watch particular channels, those channels are providing useless content that is being subsidized by other channels. Instead of the money going to the cable industry, the money would be back in the consumer's hands and be used to fuel other markets that are more important to consumers.
This isn't the end of the cable industry or a permanent loss of jobs. It just may be the kick in the pants that content providers need to start innovating instead of continously finding ways to charge you less (but more overall) for more content that you don't want or need or even can possibly use. | |
|
| 
captnhook
join:2001-02-20
NY
| said by Rexxriot :If they offer a la carte, stations will go under and people will lose their jobs. Is it really worth saving a few bucks if hundreds or thousands of people will be unemployed? That's BS
If a network fails it is because they aren't doing a good job providing content that viewers want to watch. Why should we be subsidizing a network that's doing a crappy job that nobody watches???
I for one don't want to be personally insuring (and subsidizing) Bubba's job down at Spike TV or some such hack Netwerk.
Your argument about their job security is nonsense. | |
|
Eric Martin
join:2005-06-19
66308 | Espn Costs the most from what I read.
As long as you people want 'BRANDED'(disney,discover) channels then prices won't come down really.
There needs to be competition also. | |
|
zapper
@verizon.net | zap the channels... zap the channels who take money from commercials that go:
"HEAD ON, APPLY DIRECTLY TO THE FOREHEAD"
a-la-carte would make simple work of that... | |
|
The High Price Cable TV 'Cartel'
·