Comcast XFINITY TV → Re: Think your bill is expensive now??

I think what has only been alluded to is that Comcast doesn't care whether you get 5 channels or 500 channels. There will be a huge resistance to your monthly price going down because they'll experiment with finding out the most that the market will pay for the least that they can supply.

A la carte, although a reasonable idea, won't be viable. Comcast is currently like a department store. A la carte pricing starts to turn them into "the Scotch Tape Boutique". They'll sell fewer items and have to charge more for each of them to make the same profit.

In the end, Comcast wants to be the Wal-Mart of media delivery... not that there's anything wrong with that.

Many would disagree with the 'goodness' of that statement.... »www.google.com/search?so ··· oq=&aqi=

If Comcast wants to be the Wal-Mart of media delivery, they they'd better lower prices by about 15-20%. Wal-Mart has the lowest prices in their industry. The supermarket I work for won't even try to compete with them on prices, preferring to beat them on customer service, which we do by a mile. I don't understand how Wal-Mart is competition for a Supermarket since food is like 10% of Wal-Mart's products, but whatever.

That's not antithetical to a la carte. When a customer's only choices for reducing the cable bill are: complete service cutoff, tier cutoff, outlet cutoff, or channel cutoff, channel cutoff represents the least disruption to the cableco revenue. If the cableco were really interested in the biggest check possible from each customer, they'd seriously be thinking about this. Unless, of course, it's the cableco's own lunch (i.e., channel) that's getting eaten.

Right now, you can't get DVR service in our market without subscribing to a package/tier which includes "Value Pack": a little ol' thing with only three channels, including [drumroll, please] Versus, owned by [drumroll...] Comcast. "Value Pack" is laughingly listed as an "a la carte" service on the official price list for the region (at $1.49), but you apparently can't have your DVR lunch without also buying VP (incl. "Versus").

(I was going to invoke an elaborate metaphor about trying to run a restaurant and getting shaken down by Big Tony for linen service on napkins you don't want, but why bother, when I can just whip out the Comcast price list??)

So when someone on this forum takes pains to point out (rightly so) that the cableco will continue their thuggish ways, whatever the current regulatory environment, and that prices will continue to rise, that person is doubly absolutely right. It truly is the circle of life. As a weapon against high prices, a la carte is moot because at the end of the day, this is the cable company we're talking about. Heads they win, tails you lose. Nonetheless, a la carte is a good strategy to protect the public interest from what is basically a network of trusts.

Anyway, one of the foundations that has been true for many many years, and made the cableco "linen service" model viable is changing: competition and choice. Whether it's due to telcos, Fiber, the attention spans of the next generation, or the fact that the old cable through the wall is one of only a half-dozen entertainment sources in the home, and actually has to compete now for TV inputs with game consoles, networked streams, $130 Blu-Ray players, ipod docks, etc. it's no longer the case that the only alternative to your local friendly cableco - Big Tony's linen service - is a dark TV.

That cudgel is beginning to disintegrate. Before they know it, a la carte will be the only way to stop hemorrhaging cash on the TV side of their business. They better treat those bars and football fans with $200 a month to blow on TV service reeeal nice.

There are two flavors of a la carte: Wholesale a la carte and retail a la carte.

Wholesale a la carte would prohibit content providers (like Fox) from bundling different services together. Rather, they would be required to offer each service independently, letting service providers to pick and choose which services they wish to provide to their subscribers.

Retail a la carte is directed at what service providers would be allowed or forced to offer subscribers.

I suspect that there is no reason that we'll ever see retail a la carte -- why bother? Episode-by-episode a la carte is practically already available. Amazon already offers individual episodes for immediate download. The only thing necessary is to start making those episodes available the same day that those episodes would be broadcast.

Objections to the episode-by-episode approach (and the insistence on retail a la carte) really shine a light on why retail a la carte is not forthcoming. Those objections assume that value will be provided without people having to pay for that value, as would be the case with the episode-by-episode approach, and of course, that's unreasonable.

"People" (and I'm reading viewers) in the quote above should be changed to "companies" unless all of those episodes run without commercial interruption.

You can find a nearly limitless number of improvements in products sold to consumers that provide greater "value" at no cost. The value to the seller is that more people will buy it thus generating more profit.

Television and radio owes their existence to advertisers that are paying for access to viewers. Episode by episode a la carte is really providing more value to the content provider by providing more viewers. More viewers means they can charge higher ad rates.

In regards to cable companies, theoretically they can "charge" the content providers more by providing more eyeballs (by paying them less for their product)... although just to argue all sides, the content providers are trying to end run the cableco's by providing that service directly and cutting out the middle man. That's a better deal for the content providers and the consumers.

Episodes from Amazon do indeed run commercial free.And you can find a nearly limitless number of improvements in products sold to consumers that provide greater "value" at significant additional cost.If you're not willing to pay anything close to what Amazon is charging, then you're not a serious participant in the marketplace.And what is becoming clear is that they've been fools for many years, paying more for our entertainment than our attention to their advertising was worth to them.

That means things are going to change. Get ready to accept it, or get ready to be continually bitter and disappointed about it.

of course they do, if I had to pay for them I'd expect they would be. If I'm paying $1.99/episode I'd also want it to be similar in quality to watching it via cable.Non-buyers are still participants in that they are sitting out by choice.Really??? You're saying that the market was malfunctioning for 60+ years and the way things work now are a "correction?" The marketplace of products to reach consumers is different now than 20 years ago and will be even more different 20 years from now. Get used to change.

If you went back a few years and told people that you we're paying $1.99 for each TV show that you wanted to watch, you'd be labeled a fool... same as if you went back in time and told people that you were paying for bottled water that was available for free from your tap.... or get ready to remain wildly indifferent about it like most consumers are.

How many consumers right now will go to Amazon, Hulu, Fancast or whatever and pay money to download an episode to watch on their computer screen right now (or a computer hooked up to their TV)? Very, very few... advertisers aren't going to sit on the sidelines until the market finishes evolving for fear of being labeled fools? They'll all be bankrupt and then of course there's the fact that the market will never "finish evolving".

I don't need to say it... the FCC said it in the November 2006 fact sheet I posted the link to earlier.

Folks can rail against reality as much as they'd like. It doesn't make reality change.Yes, you've very effectively justified charging people per television episode.Given that the current choice won't exist, there will be no way to be absolutely indifferent. People either will be indifferent to the increase in their costs, or they'll change (reduce) their consumption. Those will be the choices. I don't really have a strong feeling about saying people will go more one way or the other.

Pay-per-episode neither lives nor dies by someone on a web forum "justifying" it.

It's all about service, how people watch "TV", and the what-ifs, what-ifs, what-ifs.

If I spent 2 hours on a train each day, and had to spend my evening hours attending to, oh, I don't know, let's say my children, for one, I'd be paying itunes right now on a per-episode basis to have my TV shows on my toy, ready to grab from the dock and run for the station each morning, as I avoided the gaze of fellow cattle (er, human beings) on my ride each day.

If I were a rabid fan following a cult TV show which the network is about to axe, and that show moved to web-distribution, I could probably be persuaded to part with maybe $2.99 an episode.

If, if, if...

None of this requires an overworked imagination.

But this does: I imagine a dedicated circle of hell for Cableco execs, where they eternally develop business plans based on customers being stopped from doing something else, so they have to be hostage. Then, Satan is all, "Nobody cares." then they have to go back to the drawing board.

Wow, you're trying to weasel out of what you said, because you don't like what you ended up saying in-fact.Utterly completely ridiculous. You are basically saying that you want the world to be the way you want it without any regard for anyone or anything other than you own personal preferences.

Not true, I made the original comment not yhp. He can't weasel out of what I said.I believer yhp was engaging in hyperbole. You're basically saying that cable companies want the world to be the way they want it without regard for anyone or anything other than their own personal preferences.

Poorly run companies can try to force people to buy what they want to sell at the price they want to sell it for, but under no obligation are consumers required to buy it (or even like it).

Well run companies develop a sustainable business model. Wired cable access to the home may be as relevant as buggy whips in 20 years.

Using our *Imaginations* we could perhaps think of a single pipe delivering media to us wherever we are, wirelessly. I don't even think that it takes that much imagination.

Media companies need to embrace the wave and not try to stand against it. TV stations battled against HD and digital. Radio stations are doing the same thing. Newspapers and magazines are an unfortunate casualty to modern media delivery (is there really a solution to their problems?)

Newspapers held out as long as they could, soaking their classified advertisers as long as they could. First they took a beating thanks to monster.com, then craig's list.

Comcast seems to be doing a pretty great job at being innovative in a lot of things (taking market share from other media delivey companies). As long as they can keep their core customers fat and happy (tv, internet, voice) and no other big challengers come along (like full wireless delivery of those services) they're in great shape.

Indeed -- it's hard to tell you two apart sometimes.Bull. I'm saying that the world is the way the world is, as is defined by the laws and regulations that have been established by our society, not as a reflection of your personal desires. The cable companies operate in accordance with those laws and regulations, and respecting their overriding fiduciary responsibilities, while what you're pushing for is just your own preference for consumption.First, we're not talking about any poorly run companies. Second, consumers are not obligated to buy -- that's the point I keep making to you but you keep rejecting. If you don't like what is offered, do without it. Why not live up to the words you yourself have put forward here?Indeed, and the service providers do. Glad you finally recognize that.With respect, I think your argument has become unhinged.

Bull. Those "laws and regulations" did not drop out of the sky and are no more "the way the world is" than any polluted river just somehow got itself that way one day.

The "laws and regulations" are hand-crafted by well paid lobbyists, and if something doesn't go the way cablecos want, they just go over heads until they do do get what they want (e.g., the separable security waiver granted by the courts after being initially denied by the FCC).

They operate "in accordance" with laws they basically write themselves the way a sandlot bully sets the rules and tells everyone else how important it is they be followed.We're talking about purchase/consumption of a largely non-essential product. What is wrong with someone expressing their "preference for consumption"? Responding to a "preference for consumption" is how truly free markets work.

Functioning under the seller's "preference for distribution" is the way dead-but-they-don't-know-it-yet companies work. Jeez, even the Pennsylvania State Stores grabbed a clue many years ago and just amped up everything about the way they work and interact with customers.

Funny story.

The excellent documentary "Tattooed Under Fire" is one of the recordings currently trapped on my Motorola 3416, a reliable and loved box which I nonetheless hope to ditch for a roomier model in the coming weeks. (Because, of course, the Philly office will have plenty of 300GB DCX3400s on hand. LOL.)

Anyway, Amazon VOD has it for $1.99/view. I wanted my brother-in-law to see it. All I had to do was send him a gift credit (min. $5) and a recommendation/URL. Hell, he can watch it twice if he wants, with $1.02 left over - enough to buy an MP3. And no one has to bootleg anything or schlep to the post office.

What's the current fixed cost to be a part of the "Xfinity" platform? TV and Internet service? LOL. If Comcast offered it On Demand for "free" in his market, what's the minimum TV package he'd need in his home? Digital Starter? That's $63/month where I am.

Anyway, I'm no longer a virgin. I've never paid $1.99 for an individual, one-time video stream in my life, and I always swore the occasion would never arise, but there was just no way I was not going to plunk down $5 and gift the chance to view this extraordinary film.

The future has arrived even for me.

So you deign to declare your own personal preferences over the laws of our land. Sorry, bub, but I don't live in your kingdom -- you live in our shared country where the way things are are outlined by the laws of our society. If you don't like them, tough. Accept that you're just one person and don't get the dictate to the rest of us how things should be.

Things are the way they are. Get over it.You're not just "expressing your preference". You're attacking the reality. You're attacking the balance our society has struck between the various interests. You're not just expressing a preference.

And consumption is not a respectable pursuit. Production, employment, protection, creation -- these are respectable pursuits that you can perhaps defend advocacy for. Consumption is petty, and your demand for consumption, at the expense of the rule of law, of the fair administration of society, is indefensible.I've already outlined how that works in mass-markets: Purchase or don't purchase what is offered.

20+ years of data and marketing show one thing: TV and movies are resilient to economic downturns. Look at 2009, the economy was in the tank, yes? Anyone disagree that 2009 was an economic downturn? Box-office sales are near an all-time high in 2009, TV entertainment was rapidly rising all year long. It's funny to me, because the prediction of movie theater's no longer existing was strong and believed. Netflix and other pay-per-view models other than theaters were going to kill them off by 2015, damn recessions, they screw up everything by returning us to the purchasing status-quo that has existed longer. The model has been true and proven for decades. TV is increasing in demand, cost will accelerate as long as this is true and has yet to be anything but true since TV was introduced. "Internet" is no different, it will either fizzle away or turn into the logistic replacement for linear stations, but the pricing model will continue. You'll pay a bulk monthly payment for unlimited access to "web sites" instead of "TV stations". yay? Why? Because the studios need the money before the camera is turned on.

You can not buy Mad Men directly from Lionsgate, because Lionsgate is a business trying to make profit. The idea that Mad Men = AMC station is directly in line with why the current model is in place. Comcast needs to purchase the right to distribute Mad Men to you as CHEAP as they can. The model has lent itself over years of practice, Lionsgate charges a flat sum of money to AMC, a price that is predictable, covers all cost, and includes profit. AMC lumps this cost into it's other distribution costs and then charges a flat sum of money to distributors. This price is predictable, covers all cost, and includes profit. Comcast lumps AMC cost in with the other channels from the same distribution entity. This cost for all of these channels is predictable. Then they either add profit or add loss (as is the case with Digital Starter as offering it at a slight loss just to get On-Demand in your home is worth it: it's the "cell phone" model) and sell it to you. If a-la-carte comes along, suddenly the pull of Mad Men's ratings is even more valuable than today, and AMC's offered price to buy Mad Men may not be able to match that from Time Warner, Disney, or Newscorp. Mad Men moves to ESPN. Remember, Lionsgate pitched the idea to Showtime and HBO first. After rejection, it was going to be cancelled, but one last push for less was made and AMC offered more than USA and TNT. The cost to Lionsgate was covered BEFORE production. Lionsgate is not going to abandon this model, selling to you to recover cost is not considered an option as long as there is an AMC or TNT who will pay up front.

This seems to be the fail point repeated year after year, post after post, that a notion of claiming "free market" creates one. Failed half-understood economics classes have droned an army of consumers in this country that incorrectly identify that splitting the actors, but still leaving an oligopoly in place, is a "more free market". It isn't. There is nothing, nothing, more "free" about an a-la-carte system. For a decade now, I've asked the same questions without a single person providing an answer:

How does a-la-carte cable break the oligopoly price structure in the USA?
How does breaking the oligopoly price structure create higher quality products?
How does moving from a business to business free market to a direct to consumer free market lower cost to consumer?

A-la-carte gives a false sense of direct to consumer, as you have removed one middle man for another. Unfortunately, it is not a better model. For the middle man you have removed had millions and millions and millions of "consumers" in weight. You do not. Having 56 million individuals "decide" to buy ESPN is not the same as ONE buyer 56 million individuals strong. The lack of understanding this is astounding. This is why ESPN is cheaper than it's market value. This is why all TV is cheaper than it's market value. The idea of removing Comcast as a middle man to purchase distribution rights is intriguing when morals are more important than value, as a more politically correct system would be forced upon the content. Upsetting 1.5 million people today is no big deal, as the "buffer" of Comcast is between the content and the individual. Under a-la-carte, morals would be detrimental as 1.5 million people is no longer 5% of the buyer, but 1.5 million buyers!

All I can say is be very careful what you wish for. If your viewing habits (habits, not choices), political make-up, sensitivity to race/creed/sex/religion/etc. is not in tune with the majority; you will either lose the ability to have the product or pay more than today for it. In an a-la-carte world, every station will offer homogenized "shows" that fit the majority. Experimental ventures would be higher risk than today. "It might be a home run" wouldn't make it to TV, as the loss can not be easily covered from multi-year static income streams that would no longer exist. We would wind up with 40 channels to choose from that show sports and reality shows with rare breaks to show movies and highly-charged-emotional documentaries. This is the current high-profit model in TV. Asking each channel to offer itself to individuals will force their hand to becoming high-profit models. If 300,000 cult followers are willing to pay as much as $50/mo for one station, it will abandon them and offer homogenized TV to reach out to 255 million potential customers for $1/mo. Free market is mob rule, sometimes, when it borders anarchy instead of the true intent: free market is the freedom for a manufacturer, let's say Lionsgate, to offer a product, let's say Mad Men, to a consumer. Lionsgate chose to sell Mad Men to AMC, not you. How does a-la-carte change the behaviour that Lionsgate will be looking to sell to a distributor, not a viewer? How does a-la-carte change the behaviour that Disney will spend what it needs to in acquisition of the highest demanded TV moving Mad Men from AMC to ESPN?

Do I believe that value of TV is appropriately priced? NO. Do I believe that the current market price is correct? YES. How can that be? Simple, there is no competition. While alternatives exist; the quality, convenience, and diversity of cable/sat TV is superior to the alternatives. They are "worth more" in market price.

Do you really think that if Amazon was a threat to Time Warner that it would be allowed to purchase products from Warner Bros. television? Currently Amazon is a secondary income source. If the model it provides could become a primary income source, Amazon won't be selling it unless it becomes a subsidiary in a buyout. In addition, if we as a society move our purchasing model from linear TV to internet download (stream or purchase view), Comcast will shift it's model as well. Comcast is in a position to offer you TV entertainment in any digital broadcast form you choose to buy it in. Currently, the most demanded form is linear channels. Amazon revenued 19.16 BILLION in 2008, but only had a profit of 645 MILLION. This is attractive to no one, currently. If that changes, Amazon will assimilate to another Comcast/Cox/Dish/DirecTV like purchaser or be unwilling to find a seller to buy products from worth selling. That is free market. Lionsgate is free to sell Mad Men to anyone they choose. They chose a bulk-sum-payout from AMC. If someone else is willing to offer more, then that is who gets Mad Men. Is it you? Can you offer more than AMC? Is it Amazon? Until a buyer steps up that offers more than the stations, the shows will be sold to them. The stations are stopping a-la-carte. They need a predictable revenue stream in order to purchase these shows. A-la-carte is more anarchy than structure and has no bearing on a "free market", because the vendor is free to sell to whom they choose today. They choose to package diversified "stations" into packages and sell them in bulk to Comcast. Comcast sells these "blocks" to you.

The free market has chosen a-la-carte is not wanted. Forcing a-la-carte upon the manufacturer is NOT FREE MARKET. Lionsgate is free to sell Mad Men to whom they choose, the market has decided who that buyer is and the market was free to come to that conclusion. Cablevision is free to sell it's channels to whom they choose, including AMC. It would take government intervention to force a-la-carte, this is in the name of "free market"? Really? Government imposed markets are considered free now? Is this being taught to the youth today?

I do agree a shake-up is forthcoming, I disagree that any of it will allow consumers to receive the same-to-more product for less money paid. The demand for TV is increasing, we will pay more for as long as this is true. Choice is at the highest level it has ever been. Want the most diversity at high quality? Sat/Cable. Interested in just a small market? Netflix/Amazon/etc. Interested in a small diversified market? Sat/C-band/IPTV. Most, if not damn near all, consumers will find they are receiving the same cost-value under all offers as long as dollars is the metric.

Excellent summary with excellent, on-target insights.

What you're really asking here is if I think TW sees Amazon as a threat or not, since you're asking me to evaluate in light of TW's (re)actions. Since I don't run TW, I have no opinion on the matter.

I do, however, know what threatens my long-term patience with Big Tony's linen service, and that competition and choice are making it possible to go in a different direction. TW's boardroom orgies matter not a whit to me, but then, I'm not a day-trader.Yeah, and I'm sure that at one point, buying the Beatles' record company was a great idea. In 1967. Probably still in 1987. In 2007? Not so much. Ask Guy Hands if you don't believe me.

After all, the teenagers sure did love that rock and roll for a good 30 or 40 years. Marketing reports said so!So let them keep using the model that works for them. Once again, no one's talking about dismantling packages from either a retail or wholesale perspective. Yet you keep railing as if someone had (I keep forgetting whether that's a strawman or a Red Herring....)

I'm not going to respond as if the conversation you imagine we're having is the one we're having.Please. I'm 46. The content which fits me philosophically/morally/sexually/politically has been rarer and more expensive than the mainstream for the 30+ years I've been pursuing it. I don't say that in search of a gold star for my collar, but just to point out that I'm pretty sure I can handle things going forward without becoming an emotional wreck.

But I thank you for your concern.

I'd hardly call "Prices gonna keep going up." insightful.

It's also a rhetorical sleight of hand. I've not suggested that a la carte means we are looking at a chance for getting same-to-more for less $$.

I never have. Not once. Ever.

Mark wrote a heck of a lot more than perhaps you're willing to admit. His comments were very insightful, even though you didn't like what he wrote. You do seem to judge the validity of comments based on your own personal preference, instead of how much validity the comments actually have. That's a very bad habit.

Then the fault is yours for badly choosing a summary line which you felt was representative.

You keep returning to this hectoring "YOUR PRICES ARE GONNA GO UP! YOUR PRICES ARE GONNA GO UP!" theme, to which I can only say "Duh!".

I'm not surprised you highlighted the idea that you did. I don't think it did his whole generous explanation justice, but it's the hobby horse you seem to be riding, and it's your post I'm responding to. If "Prices are gonna go up" was your takeaway from what he said, then so be it. I read a lot more there. I didn't care about most of it, because they're not my problems he's talking about for the most part. I'm not saying they're wrong just because I don't agree. (That's your latest accusation hurled at me). I'm saying I don't care. Big difference.

But Mark's articles are definitely much more nuanced than "Your prices are gonna go up." I wouldn't dare summarize his contributions like that. You did.

No, the fault is your for grasping at straws to try to find some way to spew more hateful, self-centered nonsense.