 kdwycha join:2003-01-30 Riverview, FL Reviews:
·Bright House
·Verizon FiOS
| Well... I think MSG is full of crap. Weather it is a small local broadcaster or a larger network they are all raising prices at an alarming rate and the cable/satellite companies are really having no choice but to pay them.
Everyone complains about their cable/satellite bills going up constantly for the same channels but when the broadcasters decide to raise rates 53% of is certainly difficult for the cable/satellite companies to no raise rates.
Take DirecTV for instance, recently with the FOX/News Corp dispute the pricing of the contract to carry many FOX/News Corp channels was raised nearly 47%. That means rather then paying 1 BILLION for the channels DirecTV had to pay 1.4 Billion for the *SAME CHANNELS* they always had.
Now taking a 400 million dollar hit isnt going to happen. You know that usually gets passed on to the customers.
People need to write their elected representatives and try to get these broadcasters regulated. If not your cable/satellite bills will end up being 200-300-400 dollars a month if this keeps going this way every couple years for the same channels.
So it is not the Cable/Satellite companies just deciding that it would be a good time to raise your rates every so often just to make more money, it is the broadcasters raising rates multiple times more then inflation.
As for ala carte that will never happen either unless you write elected officials. The cable/satellite companies have to buy their channels in bundles just like the consumer does. It is take it all or none when it comes to broadcaster offerings. | |
|
 |  cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM join:2003-05-14 Fort Wayne, IN kudos:5 Reviews:
·Frontier FiOS
| Re: Well... said by kdwycha:If not your cable/satellite bills will end up being 200-300-400 dollars a month if this keeps going this way every couple years for the same channels. No they won't. People will cut the cord long before those prices are the norm. If they continue to drive the prices higher to that point the whole industry will collapse in on itself. | |
|
 |  |  pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD | Re: Well... said by cdru:No they won't. People will cut the cord long before those prices are the norm. If they continue to drive the prices higher to that point the whole industry will collapse in on itself. Many people will cut the cord before those prices get that high, but there will always be a few who remain who can pay those higher costs. If the cable companies make more money by charging higher rates to fewer customers, they won't care.
It is weird how entertainment seems to be the only industry that hasn't lowered its prices in this continued depression. Cable TV bills continue to go up, movie and concert prices continue to go up, ticket prices to professional sporting events continue to go up. Who can afford to keep paying for these things? -- "Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. | |
|
 |  |  |  | | Re: Well... Its not weird. Its stupid. Too many peoiple keep paying them. just stop!!
This depression isnt that bad. This "depression" has nothing to do with it. Depression or no depression the cost of cable tv is too high. The rates go up and the product gets worse. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  Dude111An Awesome DudePremium join:2003-08-04 USA kudos:10 | quote: Its not weird. Its stupid. Too many peoiple keep paying them. just stop!!
Couldnt have said it better myself bud! | |
|
 |  |  acid343211Hallo lisa Aus AmerikaPremium join:2001-08-31 Byron, GA | said by cdru:said by kdwycha:If not your cable/satellite bills will end up being 200-300-400 dollars a month if this keeps going this way every couple years for the same channels. No they won't. People will cut the cord long before those prices are the norm. If they continue to drive the prices higher to that point the whole industry will collapse in on itself. My bill went up from $65.00 to $103.89 in 2 years. Am sick of these companys did my wage go up no. -- Support »www.minutemanproject.com/ | |
|
 |  |  |  | | Re: Well... My Directv bill has gone up very little in two years. Last year, because I am on the Everything Plan it didn't go up. However DVR fee did. Now it will go up $5 this year. Yeah its $60 but I can deal with it. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  acid343211Hallo lisa Aus AmerikaPremium join:2001-08-31 Byron, GA | Re: Well... said by Big Dawg 23:My Directv bill has gone up very little in two years. Last year, because I am on the Everything Plan it didn't go up. However DVR fee did. Now it will go up $5 this year. Yeah its $60 but I can deal with it. First am on directv and there's no such thing as a everything plan. My bill doubled in 2years as stated above your post and am getting sick of directv and their increasing rates. -- Support »www.minutemanproject.com/ | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  NWOhio join:2011-10-25 Toledo, OH | Re: Well... could be an old plan that is no longer offered. also if you call in and ask for a "promo" they'll give you a plan that isn't shown online that saves $$$ and still gives you what you want. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  acid343211Hallo lisa Aus AmerikaPremium join:2001-08-31 Byron, GA | Re: Well... said by NWOhio:could be an old plan that is no longer offered. also if you call in and ask for a "promo" they'll give you a plan that isn't shown online that saves $$$ and still gives you what you want. I have a old plan Grandfathered in from the 90's.
my plan back then Started out @ $27.97 now its $103.99 you do the math adjusted with inflation etc. -- Support »www.minutemanproject.com/ | |
|
 |  pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD | said by kdwycha:People need to write their elected representatives and try to get these broadcasters regulated. If not your cable/satellite bills will end up being 200-300-400 dollars a month if this keeps going this way every couple years for the same channels. What is regulation going to accomplish? Look at the costs of electric, water, sewer and other regulated utilities. Those still continue to increase.
But beyond this, people need to seriously reassess their need for cable TV. If they can't cut a deal with the cable company to provide service at a reasonable cost, then it might be time to pull the plug and find other forms of passive entertainment. -- "Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. | |
|
 |  |  | | Re: Well... If you cant see whats totally obvious then thats your problem I guess. Regulation keep those utilities affordable and inline with the cost to produce such services. The entertainment industry charges way more than whats acceptable or needed.
regulation would only halp but really is unnecessary because the power to control this industry is in our hands. Just stop paying them! | |
|
 |  |  |  pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD | Re: Well... said by FLATLINE:Regulation keep those utilities affordable and inline with the cost to produce such services. Hah.
I'm sure this example applies to other states, but the same regulation of the electrical industry resulted in the average Marylander seeing a 75% jump in their electric bills a few years back. I'm not suggesting that the electrical industry not be regulated, but the idea that regulation, especially for an item that is not life-critical, is going to fix things is wrong. -- "Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  1 edit | Re: Well... I would point out that the large jump in Maryland electric prices a few years ago was due to electric deregulation, not regulation. »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland_E···gulation
But....I would be opposed to regulating Cable TV. Water, power, sewer, etc are all services needed in modern society. Living without them would be an extreme hardship, and thus I have no problem with the government stepping in to keep those prices in line. But cable TV, despite what some may believe, is nothing more than a luxury. People can and do live without it, and in some cases even lead more fulfilling lives away from their couches. I have no objection to cable companies charging as much as people are willing to pay. And obviously, people are willing to continue paying it. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  | | Re: Well... Haha! shut's them up quickly now doesn't it when they can't backup their BS. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD | Simply calling something "deregulation" doesn't make it so. If you lived here, or if you had read the article beyond the title, you would have known this.
There was nothing "deregulatory" about capping prices for 8 years and then having them sharply rise (nearly double) for most people. -- "Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  | | Re: Well... Prices were locked at a fixed point for several years, after which the rate lock was removed, allowing companies to charge whatever they wanted. That is, by very definition, deregulation. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD | Re: Well... said by Camelot One:Prices were locked at a fixed point for several years, after which the rate lock was removed, allowing companies to charge whatever they wanted. That is, by very definition, deregulation. Incorrect.
Deregulation would be the government simply telling the utilities they can set whatever prices they wish, with no objection whatsoever from the government. A concrete example of this would be the actual price deregulation that occurred in 1978 with the airline industry. The authority that the federal government then had over airfares was removed.
How does "locking a price" equal "deregulation?" In this situation, the government is telling a company that it must charge $X for a product. That is the quintessential definition of regulation. -- "Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | | Re: Well... said by pnh102:How does "locking a price" equal "deregulation?" In this situation, the government is telling a company that it must charge $X for a product. That is the quintessential definition of regulation. Locked price = regulated Market price = deregulated
The increase you saw was because your rates were previously locked, by regulation, below market rate. When the "regulated" period ended, the prices adjusted to market rate, a "deregulated" price, which was considerably higher than what you had been paying. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD 1 edit | Re: Well... said by Camelot One:When the "regulated" period ended, the prices adjusted to market rate, a "deregulated" price, which was considerably higher than what you had been paying. Which isn't what happened in this state. The electrical price, albeit higher, is still highly regulated. Electric companies here are supposed to purchase a certain percentage of their power from more expensive "green" sources that cost more than traditional coal-fired power plants. Citing my own bill as a reference, the power we purchase from one power plant in western Maryland actually has a surcharge attached to it because of regulations imposed by the State of Maryland.
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrior_Ru···_Station
Personally I think they called the process "deregulation" because it sounded sexy. Of course, now the word "deregulation" is more connected with higher, not lower prices, and far more hassles.
But being the evil conservative I am, I still fail to see what the problem was with the old system of regulated prices that (what was called) "deregulation" was supposed to solve... but of course this just reasserts my original point that subjecting cable TV to the same sort of policies won't automatically equal a win for consumers.
I'll have to go with FLATLINE's approach of simply cutting the cord if Comcast radically raises my rate for TV service. I can't print money, and I can't look at my kids and tell them that spending close to the equivalent of a car payment for television is a good use of money. -- "Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. | |
|
 |  mmay149qPremium join:2009-03-05 Dallas, TX kudos:48 | said by kdwycha:I think MSG is full of crap. Weather it is a small local broadcaster or a larger network they are all raising prices at an alarming rate and the cable/satellite companies are really having no choice but to pay them.
Everyone complains about their cable/satellite bills going up constantly for the same channels but when the broadcasters decide to raise rates 53% of is certainly difficult for the cable/satellite companies to no raise rates.
Take DirecTV for instance, recently with the FOX/News Corp dispute the pricing of the contract to carry many FOX/News Corp channels was raised nearly 47%. That means rather then paying 1 BILLION for the channels DirecTV had to pay 1.4 Billion for the *SAME CHANNELS* they always had.
Now taking a 400 million dollar hit isnt going to happen. You know that usually gets passed on to the customers.
People need to write their elected representatives and try to get these broadcasters regulated. If not your cable/satellite bills will end up being 200-300-400 dollars a month if this keeps going this way every couple years for the same channels.
So it is not the Cable/Satellite companies just deciding that it would be a good time to raise your rates every so often just to make more money, it is the broadcasters raising rates multiple times more then inflation.
As for ala carte that will never happen either unless you write elected officials. The cable/satellite companies have to buy their channels in bundles just like the consumer does. It is take it all or none when it comes to broadcaster offerings. Yeah everyone write to people like this to help fuel the lowering of entertainment company bills!!!
»www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4o-TeMHys0 -- I am no longer an AT&T Employee. Check out my kudos! »/profile/1626573 Have U-verse questions? Please email uversecare@att.com and they will assist you!!  | |
|
 Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium join:2002-03-03 USA kudos:4 | Court forcing Cablevision to offer MSG means nothing now
The FCC and the courts could force Cablevision to provide MSG to other cable companies & telcos, but ultimately they can't set the price. Cablevision has ZERO incentive to negotiate to a lower price considering they have no desire to provide the service at all. What will Verizon & AT&T do when it is their turn to pay higher prices? | |
|
 |  kdwycha join:2003-01-30 Riverview, FL Reviews:
·Bright House
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: Court forcing Cablevision to offer MSG means nothing now said by Romney2012:The FCC and the courts could force Cablevision to provide MSG to other cable companies & telcos, but ultimately they can't set the price. Cablevision has ZERO incentive to negotiate to a lower price considering they have no desire to provide the service at all. What will Verizon & AT&T do when it is their turn to pay higher prices? These cable companies need to grow a pair and say no to the broadcasters. Once MSG is dropped from TWC, Verizon and AT&T who will be watching it?
The problem is when consumers lose channels such as these it is the cable/satellite companies that take the backlash.
What customers do not understand is no company is immune to these outrageous hikes by the broadcasters so moving from one provider to another doesnt fix the situation for the long term. | |
|
 |  |  | | Re: Court forcing Cablevision to offer MSG means nothing now Did you grow a pair? Did you cut the cord? Why not? Thats the only solution here? There will be no regulation. There will be no change at all. It all rests on us. Its interesting how many of you overlook your roles in this. Your the worst of all of this because you continue to pay. | |
|
 |  DaveDudeNo Fear join:1999-09-01 New Jersey kudos:1 | Cable companies should go ala carte in retaliation. Make it a condition of sale, then the customer can choose to pay. | |
|
 |  |  pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD | Re: Court forcing Cablevision to offer MSG means nothing now said by DaveDude:Cable companies should go ala carte in retaliation. Make it a condition of sale, then the customer can choose to pay. Why would they do that? These disputes are nothing more than dog-and-pony shows that give both the content companies and the cable companies cover to raise prices. "Greedy evil content companies" are a nice scapegoat for a cable company to raise rates, and "stubborn cable companies" provide a nice scapegoat for costly bundling deals. It is a win-win for both of them. -- "Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. | |
|
 |  |  |  DaveDudeNo Fear join:1999-09-01 New Jersey kudos:1 | Re: Court forcing Cablevision to offer MSG means nothing now Not when they loose subscribers. Which i am on the edge of cutting the cord. | |
|
 |  RARPSL join:1999-12-08 Suffern, NY | said by Romney2012:The FCC and the courts could force Cablevision to provide MSG to other cable companies & telcos, but ultimately they can't set the price. Cablevision has ZERO incentive to negotiate to a lower price considering they have no desire to provide the service at all. What will Verizon & AT&T do when it is their turn to pay higher prices? I had the impression that the dispute and FCC/Court situation was about the MSG HD Feed not supplying any MSG feed. CV WAS, if I remember correctly, supplying the MSG SD feed to whoever wanted it but holding back the HD feed for only CV customers. This differs from Comcast who was/is not allowing ANYONE except their customers to see their sports teams. The HD feed is an extra offering separate from the SD feed so a price increase is IMO appropriate. Since they are only charging 53% extra for it not 100% it seems that they are giving a discount from the current rates. If that discount is too high is a different issue. Remember that TWC unlike CV charges for HD feeds so some increase for supplying them with HD seems to be something that CV is entitled to (since TWC would otherwise be getting a free ride from the ability to supply the HD feed). | |
|
 gigahurtzPremium join:2001-10-20 Palm Coast, FL | Same story from Time Warner/Brighthouse It's the same story from both TWC and BHN. They drop channels people actually like, keep the ones that no one even watches and still raise rates.
I know not many companies are much better, but it's part of the reason that pushed me away from BHN for my TV service. | |
|
 | | so MSG is a channel then Good to see that this article at least implies that MSG is a TV channel and not, say, a vitamin or food preservative. The last article was completely uninformative and assumed everyone already knew what it was. Yes I could have looked it up on Google but I shouldn't need to. | |
|
 | | This is getting way past pathetic! So whos still paying these clowns? Anyone cutting now? Hasnt this gone on long enough? | |
|
 |  See 10 replies to this post |
|
 rradina join:2000-08-08 Chesterfield, MO | Just Be A Dumb Pipe We just need a dumb pipe that moves the entire equation to OTT video. This would eliminate the fight with the middle man and let MSG deal directly with the consumer. If they raise the rates and consumers find the content has value, so be it. Market-driven decisions are what this great nation cherishes. Let's get back to the basics and stop writing laws and regulations that "protect" dead business models. | |
|
 |  kdwycha join:2003-01-30 Riverview, FL Reviews:
·Bright House
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: Just Be A Dumb Pipe said by rradina:We just need a dumb pipe that moves the entire equation to OTT video. This would eliminate the fight with the middle man and let MSG deal directly with the consumer. If they raise the rates and consumers find the content has value, so be it. Market-driven decisions are what this great nation cherishes. Let's get back to the basics and stop writing laws and regulations that "protect" dead business models. And why would MSG or the cable/satellite industry go for that? MSG can charge about 2 dollars per subscriber with the current model weather the customer wants it or not. When it comes to millions of subscribers that is a TON of cash.
If they went to a view over the internet option they would have to charge you in the high 100's of dollars per month for the same content. How would that be a working business model? | |
|
 |  |  DaveDudeNo Fear join:1999-09-01 New Jersey kudos:1 | Re: Just Be A Dumb Pipe They might have to, smart content providers are going online, hbo go etc. If Msg doesnt get online content then its will be left in the dust. | |
|
 |  |  |  patcat88 join:2002-04-05 Jamaica, NY kudos:1 | Re: Just Be A Dumb Pipe Its viewers dont know what a computer is. | |
|
 KearnstdElf WizardPremium join:2002-01-22 Mullica Hill, NJ | Sports channels should go premium Really this is one possibly solution. most carriers already do have a sports package that costs extra.
However the broadcasters seem to demand their sports channels be in the lower tiers(via contract wording) rather than stuffed into an extra charge optional tier. So really the broadcasters like to screw the consumer and the MSO. -- [65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
 |  | | Re: Sports channels should go premium Theme packs / premium.
In the UK, NZ, AUSTRALIA, others sports is premium.
In Canada sports is in a Theme pack. | |
|
 | | Charging time warner the same as verizon. Its what happens when verizon and att all of a sudden are allowed msg hd.
Cablevision is now going to charge everybody else what they are charging verizon and att. | |
|
 | | Why are you posting a false headline? Time Warner Cable explicitly announced that THEY would not be the ones pulling the plug if it came down to it. They would leave it up until it was turned off by MSG.
So it is MSG that has pulled the plug on Time Warner Cable, not the other way around as you state.
Why so misleading in the characterization? Trying to make the cable company look like the bad guy again. | |
|
 not @comcast.net | More Overcharging BS ESPN is even worse when it comes to overcharging cable companies and inturn you, the customer, for their programming. There should be a law that prevents these companies for double-charging (and even tripple-charging) both rebroadcast operators and viewers for the same content if viewed via different platforms.
Did you know ESPN charges Comcast and other cable providers separately for TV/Cable, Internet, and mobile broadcast deals? In the end, the content is exactly the same, but they seem to think they should warrant extra charges for access to those programs from various forms of data devices. That's not right considering a lot of that bandwidth is provided by the cable and/or mobile network company to begin with. All this does is drive up our costs and put more money in the already overpaid CEOs of these companies. When will it stop!!?!?! | |
|
 |  patcat88 join:2002-04-05 Jamaica, NY kudos:1 | Re: More Overcharging BS Lets talk about sports salaries first. | |
|
 DaveDudeNo Fear join:1999-09-01 New Jersey kudos:1 | Time to kick channels off I support cablevision , if MSG wants a hike that high, then just knock them off. Cable needs to start working to have channels lowering costs, rather then double hikes yearly. Soon people will only stream. | |
|
 CptGeminiInside your computerPremium join:2004-11-29 Corpus Christi, TX kudos:6 | Don't forget.. Those of us in south texas that have had NBC and FOX blacked out for a little over four weeks already. | |
|
 | | vz who cares I got msg on fios now yeah baby | |
|
 | | Simplest solution Make MSG PPV, problem solved. | |
|
 |  | | Re: Simplest solution That's the problem, MSG doesn't want that. In their now former deal, they got money from EVERY TWC subscriber in NY, because it was on the standard tier of service.
MSG won't allow them to put in on PPV.
You, like a lot of people every year this comes up, do not understand that the carriage rules are not up to the cable companies who want these channels.
TWC can't just put it on PPV or a sports tier, because MSG wants their high fees for TWC to send it to all subscribers.
If it was only on sports tier or PPV, MSG would get a lot less money, or the sports tier would be outrageously priced to make up for the lost money to MSG for taking if off standard tier. | |
|
 aztr0 join:2007-10-28 Brooklyn, NY | On the bright side.... Well look at it this way. On the bright side, if you are a Knicks fan, the Knicks are playing very ugly basketball, so you aren't missing out on anything :P. | |
|
 hgraul join:2005-12-04 Saint Louisville, OH | MSG So those of us who don't live in Jersey or New York still don't know what MSG is except for a food flavorant that restaurants deny using. Some sort of sports network, I think, but don't really know. Oh yeah, our local CBS outlet is trying to extort more from TWC, and subsequently us, the users. We have to pay more for what they provide OTA for free. (Everybody knows that, but it's still crappy. | |
|
 |  | | Re: MSG said by hgraul:So those of us who don't live in Jersey or New York still don't know what MSG is except for a food flavorant that restaurants deny using. Some sort of sports network, I think, but don't really know. Here's a clue. No, it's not Britney! | |
|
 | | let it die I would let it die. | |
|
 |
|