how-to block ads
|
Comments on news posted 2004-05-31 18:32:07: Another breakdown of the battle behind "A La Carte" cable television pricing, this one in today's New York Times. ..
| |
 
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO |  GAO Report
»www.gao.gov/new.items/d048.pdf
In particular read pages 20-29 (pricing factors) and 30-38 (programming tiers) | |
| | 
Justin Playfair
@198.231.x.x
| Re: GAO Report Thanks for the link. Yes, it is enlightening, such as the part that reads:
"Almost all of the cable operators we interviewed cited sports programming as a major contributor to higher programming costs."
Then it goes on to say that sports programming costs increased 59% over three years while non-sports costs only increased 26% and that the average fees for sports channels were "substantially higher than the average for other networks."
I also noticed this:
"A 2000 Nielsen Media Research Reported indicated that households receiving more than 70 networks on watch, on average, 17 of these networks."
It does also say:
"it is possible that cable rates could actually increase for some consumers" (with a la carte)
No doubt that's true -- people who watch a lot of different channels and / or expensive (e.g., sports) channels probably would pay more, but that seems much more fair than having the rest of us pay part of their cable bill every month. | |
| |
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| Actually, the effect works out in the opposite way.
Despite being expensive, sports channels have wide viewership, so the monthly fees for sports will increase only slightly if at all (they may bring in more add revenue since they will carry a larger percentage of viewers). That still means that the sports channels will add a hefty chunk to the a la carte bill, but that chunk is already taken into account in current billing.
The currently less expensive channels with significantly smaller viewerships are the ones most likely to increase dramatically. Those consumers who watch smaller, specialized channels are the ones most likely to see a price increase (or lose the channel altogether). What will be interesting is that HSN and similar channels -pay- per subscriber, so you might actually be able to get a discount by subscribing to those channels (most likely in the form of a package deal).
On the bright side, the 17 networks per household was somewhat unexpected. The numbers were thought to be lower. So maybe the a la carte situation would not be so bad after all.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://whip.isca.uiowa.edu
Member: American Association of Geographers, American Geophysical Union, American Water Resources Association | |
|
Justin Playfair
@198.231.x.x
| People buying the cable companies' party line What has surprised me about this thread is how many people believe the argument that prices would go through the roof, but I guess P.T. Barnum was right about one being born every minute. Would individual stations cost more than they do now? Quite possibly, but the amount most people would spend would be less because they'd be paying for far fewer channels. Notice what was said by the only objective person quoted in the article: "Their fear is that consumers would not spend as much as they do now" (with a la carte). That's right: most people would wind up spending less money than they do now, and presumably would still be getting the stations they want (otherwise they'd probably spend as much as or more than they do now).
I currently pay $65 per month to get 300+ stations, but the number of those I ever actually watch is around 10-15 at most, and many of those I could receive for free with an antenna. Out of the 300 available, the majority fall into one of these categories that I don't care to receive:
•Sports
•Spanish language
•Digital Music (DMX)
•Shopping
•Religious
And so on. You like sports channels? Good for you, but don't insist that I should pay for them too so that you can pay less. You want your MTV? Fine, but none of us is obligated to subsidize your viewing habits. Maybe your mommy and daddy led you to believe that the rest of the world owes you the things you want, but it just isn't so.
P.S. If MTV is an important part of your viewing schedule, you may want to be careful labeling others as "morons" because you're probably throwing stones from a glass house. | |
| | 
MPScan
Premium
join:2001-08-24
Boston, MA
| Re: People buying the cable companies' party line said by Justin Playfair:
P.S. If MTV is an important part of your viewing schedule, you may want to be careful labeling others as "morons" because you're probably throwing stones from a glass house.
Now, that is funny. I'm willing to bet $50 there are more than a few Real World fans with Ph.D.'s in Biochemistry. | |
| | | sparks
join:2001-07-08
Little Rock, AR
| Re: People buying the cable companies' party line cable has been a rip of for years. Nothing new.
notice how sports channels are the highest priced
on the list ?
as the cable guy said we can't charge each person for sports.
IF the sports people had to pay for it they could not afford it ????????????
if it goes pay channels on everything sports will loose a lot of people...to me BIG DEAL let all the $10 million a yr pros get a real job. | |
| | 
rtcy
FACTS only please
Premium
join:1999-10-16
Beverly Hills, CA
 ·Verizon west (ex G..
 ·Verizon FIOS
| said by Justin Playfair:
What has surprised me about this thread is how many people believe the argument that prices would go through the roof, but I guess P.T. Barnum was right about one being born every minute. Would individual stations cost more than they do now? Quite possibly, but the amount most people would spend would be less because they'd be paying for far fewer channels. Notice what was said by the only objective person quoted in the article: "Their fear is that consumers would not spend as much as they do now" (with a la carte). That's right: most people would wind up spending less money than they do now, and presumably would still be getting the stations they want (otherwise they'd probably spend as much as or more than they do now).
I currently pay $65 per month to get 300+ stations, but the number of those I ever actually watch is around 10-15 at most, and many of those I could receive for free with an antenna. Out of the 300 available, the majority fall into one of these categories that I don't care to receive:
•Sports
•Spanish language
•Digital Music (DMX)
•Shopping
•Religious
And so on. You like sports channels? Good for you, but don't insist that I should pay for them too so that you can pay less. You want your MTV? Fine, but none of us is obligated to subsidize your viewing habits. Maybe your mommy and daddy led you to believe that the rest of the world owes you the things you want, but it just isn't so.
P.S. If MTV is an important part of your viewing schedule, you may want to be careful labeling others as "morons" because you're probably throwing stones from a glass house.
WOW common sense in a world so low on it.
I just wonder if these guys saying the prices will go up are shills for the cable companies or actually getting paid to say it. either way any well read person in here can read about the multi houndred million dollar contracts for sports channels , just look at that fiasco DISH network went thru recently being hijacked into signing a new deal
if we only had a HONEST congress body and people with brains, but that is to naive of me.
if some of these clowns had been around the turn of the century we would still have 5 to 15 phones in the house one each to call someone using THAT particular company, until consumer rights were enacted that's how it was playing out.
soon you will have one cable/dish bill ALL or nothing, and your mortgage payment will seem like peanuts compaired to it . | |
| | | sparks
join:2001-07-08
Little Rock, AR
| Re: People buying the cable companies' party line I honestly believe that they started talking about cable regulation to get kickbacks.
THAT is what I think of our lawmakers.
Sports let the (fill in)ball nuts pay for their sports.
HOW about we all pay for HBO it should be $1.00 a month if everyone paid for it.
Discovery channel .25 cents if everyone paid .
FUNNY how we pay for commercials
weeeeeee now when will congress jump on dish people?
right after they spend all the kick back money they got from cable and have a new limo payment?
sparks | |
| 
ReVeLaTeD
Premium
join:2001-11-10
San Diego, CA
| What a racket... I would like to comment that the cable industry is a racket in of itself.
I have to pay $40 for my cable...an extra $30 just for "Expanded" Basic...and all because ONE CHANNEL, the channel I probably watch more than any other, is in the "Expanded" lineup, and that's SpikeTV.
I watch:
Spike (Expanded)
XETV (Limited)
USA (Limited)
UPN (Limited)
KSWB (Limited)
And that's it. If it weren't for SpikeTV, I could be paying $10 for my cable. My internet is only $29, my phone is about $20-25. It's ridiculous that my cable is the most expensive component because of one channel. | |
| | | |
|
