Cable Industry: Cable Prices Have Actually DroppedYou say tomato, I say tomato.... ( old news - 03:58PM Monday Jan 08 2007) tags: prices · business · cableRight after Christmas, the FCC issued its annual cable price survey, which stated that basic cable prices "increased more than 5% last year and by 93% since the period immediately prior to Congress' enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996." According to the cable industry, however, the FCC's measurements are junk, and cable prices have actually gone down. If you look at the data the way the cable industry would like you to, then "the data clearly shows that the real price per channel over 10 years has gone down, not up." Of course, consumers are not offered channels a la carte, and cable bundled prices are clearly rising.
Related:- Cablevision Joins Rate Hike Season Festivities
- Time Warner Cable Also Raising TV, DVR Rates
- Remember How 'Franchise Reform' Was Going To Lower Cable Rates?
- FCC Launches Investigation Into High TV Prices
- Comcast Offers 'Bare Bones' 768kbps VoIP Double Play
- Martin, Comcast, Continue Lover's Feud
- Comcast Speeds Up Economy Tier
- Time Warner Cable Raises Standalone Broadband Prices
|
 moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
edit:
January 8th, @07:18PM
| Figures don't lie but you can lie with figures...... nuff said.
The cable companies are partially correct in that you get more channels but you don't have a choice whether or not to accept them as part of your package. | |
|  | 
hopeflicker
Capitalism breeds greed
Premium
join:2003-04-03
Long Beach, CA
| Re: Figures don't lie but you can lie with figures...... said by moonpuppy  :nuff said. The cable companies are partially correct in that you get more channels CRAP but you don't have a choice whether or not to accept tham as part of your package. I fix4 U 
--
An Atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church.
An Atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said.
An Atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death.
--Madalyn Murray O'Hair | |
| | 
Mchart
Super Joe
join:2004-01-21
Gurnee, IL
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·AT&T Yahoo
| said by moonpuppy :nuff said. The cable companies are partially correct in that you get more channels but you don't have a choice whether or not to accept tham as part of your package. I get more channels? Thats a new one. Every year my digital cable package through comcrap gets more and more channels PULLED from the basic lineup, and inserts more advertising channels! WOO! Now I have 30+ channels selling me new nose hair trimmers! | |
| | | 
N3OGH
Will it all be Obama's fault now?
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Figures don't lie but you can lie with figures...... said by Mchart :said by moonpuppy :nuff said. The cable companies are partially correct in that you get more channels but you don't have a choice whether or not to accept tham as part of your package. I get more channels? Thats a new one. Every year my digital cable package through comcrap gets more and more channels PULLED from the basic lineup, and inserts more advertising channels! WOO! Now I have 30+ channels selling me new nose hair trimmers! And don't forget the ad in the channel guide!
I'm paying those bums $100/mo and I'm stuck looking at ads in the channel guide 
--
Never ask what sort of a computer a guy drives. If he's a Mac user, he'll tell you. If not, why embarrass him? -Tom Clancy | |
| | | | 
RadioDoc
Sortofadog
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Midwest
| Re: Figures don't lie but you can lie with figures...... said by N3OGH :I'm paying those bums $100/mo And there's the problem. Until you stop paying those bums $100 a month they'll keep treating you like one.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange.
Save the Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus! | |
| | | | | | 
idjk
@embarqhsd.net | Anybody remember when cable 1st came out it was ad free- that was the reason for the monthly charge. | |
| |
N3OGH
Will it all be Obama's fault now?
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
·Verizon Online DSL
| Good point..
Problem is, I don't watch %99 of those channels to start with.
Let's see..
Discovery
History
G4 (for Star Trek TNG reruns)
FX
FNC
CNN Headline
The Weather Channel
Local networks.
That's it. Why should I have to pay for channels that charge the cable co's a mint like ESPN, when I don't watch them?
I'm no fan of my cable co (Comcast), but I do have to admit, one of the reasons rates go up is that "must carry" channels like ESPN charge more year after year.
Of course, that all goes back to my royal pet peeve, the salaries of professional athletes. But that's so incredibly off topic, I'll just creep away from it...
--
Never ask what sort of a computer a guy drives. If he's a Mac user, he'll tell you. If not, why embarrass him? -Tom Clancy | |
| | | compton
join:2002-02-08
Brooklyn, NY
| Re: Figures don't lie but you can lie with figures...... Actually prices may have gone down when you compare quantity and quality of channels. Back in the nineties, I used to pay $84 dollars for my Time Warner analog cable service. For that price, I had a 3 TV hook up, Basic Plus, 2 premium channels (HBO and Showtime) and 2 PPV channels. In all I had about 80 channels, but quite a few of those channels were community access channels, C-Span, shopping network and other public access networks. All in all, out of 80 channels about 60 of them had the type of programming that the average person and family watched. Now for that $84 (more or less) I can get 180 digital channels with about 15 premium channels, 10 PPV channels, video on demand plus many music radio channels. Today you are getting more bang for your buck; so, it is essentially a price decrease. | |
| | | |
RadioDoc
Sortofadog
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Midwest
| Re: Figures don't lie but you can lie with figures...... If you get 15 premium channels for $84 you're stealing the service...or know someone at Time Warner.
The only bang any cable customer is getting is the one from behind, as they are bent over.
The NCTA is the cable industry equivalent of the RIAA. They represent both the MSOs and the program suppliers. There is no incentive for them to ever even consider lowering the costs and (*gasp*) the rates charged. So, they just artificially jack up the "costs" while winking in the general direction of Congress.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange.
Save the Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus! | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
RadioDoc
Sortofadog
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
Chicago, IL | Re: Figures don't lie but you can lie with figures...... Yep, and that's why the usual excuse of "higher program costs" is a shill. | |
| | | viperlmw
Premium
join:2005-01-25
·Qwest.net
| said by N3OGH :Problem is, I don't watch %99 of those channels to start with. Let's see.. Discovery History G4 (for Star Trek TNG reruns) FX FNC CNN Headline The Weather Channel Local networks. Now you're gonna need Sci-Fi channel for Enterprise re-runs starting tonight! | |
| | | |
N3OGH
Will it all be Obama's fault now?
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Figures don't lie but you can lie with figures...... said by viperlmw :said by N3OGH :Problem is, I don't watch %99 of those channels to start with. Let's see.. Discovery History G4 (for Star Trek TNG reruns) FX FNC CNN Headline The Weather Channel Local networks. Now you're gonna need Sci-Fi channel for Enterprise re-runs starting tonight! For real? I saw G4 was going to start running that "Trek 2.0" thing with the TNG re runs, and I have no interest in that.
Guess I'll have to change my DVR settings...
--
Never ask what sort of a computer a guy drives. If he's a Mac user, he'll tell you. If not, why embarrass him? -Tom Clancy | |
| | | | | | 
manfmmd
Premium
join:2003-01-14
Earth
clubs:
| If you were to be allowed to go ala carte, pricing would be higher, and your channel selection would go down the tubes. Content delivery may change this a bit, but for cable and satellite, you are stuck for now.
I'm not going to re-type it, so here is my last response to "ala carte channels": »Re: That Didn't Take Long!
For instance..on DISH Network, the Baby Channel is an ala carte subscription channel that is $9.99 a month, if bundled with other ala carte subscription channels that are more widely desired then it would drive the price down as there would be more subscribers to cover the cost that the cable/sat provider is paying.
Dang it, I said that I wasn't going to re-type it again.. At least it's worded a bit differently.
--
huh? | AIM | Speaker Pelosi?!?...OH THE HUMANITY! | |
| | | SD6
join:2005-03-26 | Re: Figures don't lie but you can lie with figures...... It sounds like you are assuming that the cable/sat company pays a fixed price for the channel. That is not correct in my experience the price paid is calculated based on the number of subscribers. | |
| | | |
manfmmd
Premium
join:2003-01-14
Earth
clubs:
| Re: Figures don't lie but you can lie with figures...... This is an assumption on my part, but an educated assumption:
Let's imagine for a moment and use fake numbers:
The cost that the cable/sat provider pays to say, ABC for example, is based on blocks of subscribers, not per subscriber so say the cable company is paying:
$100 per month for 0-1000 subscribers
$200 per month for 1001-2000 subscribers
$300 per month for 2001-3000 subscribers
etc.
If you have the channels bundled up and there are 1000 people "paying" the monthly cost even though they don't watch the channel, it is being spread across the group of subscribers versus if only 500 people are "paying" the monthly cost. The cost to the cable/cat provider just doubled (and the cost is passed on to other subscribers that are not paying for those channels..you expect the cable/sat company to pay the difference ). The cost that the cable/sat provider is paying versus the cost that the subscriber base is paying is not linear.
I realize that the above numbers are not correct, but it gives a good idea of how broad based bundled cable/sat tv offerings benefit every subscriber. The same goes for obscure channels that you may watch that others do not. They help pay for you to be able to watch that channel.
Clear as mud?
--
huh? | AIM | Speaker Pelosi?!?...OH THE HUMANITY! | |
| | | | |
RadioDoc
Sortofadog
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Midwest
| Re: Figures don't lie but you can lie with figures...... That all works in a macro sense that there are more channels available being subsidized by lots of eyeballs that never ever see them.
However...
You can't take that and turn it backwards to say that because there are 500 channels now the cost is lower. If you only watch 10 of them and only have watched 10 of them since 1996 and your bill has increased 193% in the last 10 years, your cost per channel watched has certainly not gone down.
Otherwise the NCTA could use 950 throw-away channels to claim that even with a 100% rate increase cable TV rates are now only 10% of that when there were only 50 channels.
Even Enron would have balked at that math.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange.
Save the Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus! | |
| | 
TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
·Comcast
| said by moonpuppy :nuff said. The cable companies are partially correct in that you get more channels but you don't have a choice whether or not to accept tham as part of your package. Yes, I am paying for all those Spanish language channels; non-stop commercials channels; 50 music channels; 5 versions of PBS channels(all showing the same programs); music video channels; the Soap Opera channels; and 15 kids channels. None of which I ever watch. So maybe the price per channel is down, but so are the number of worthless channels that only 1% of the viewers ever look at.
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page | |
| | |
N3OGH
Will it all be Obama's fault now?
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Figures don't lie but you can lie with figures...... Ahh, but..
"If PBS wouldn't do it, who would?"
No one you lunkheads, no one watches it!
The local PBS station here in Philly is "WHYY".
I say exactly: Why?????
--
Never ask what sort of a computer a guy drives. If he's a Mac user, he'll tell you. If not, why embarrass him? -Tom Clancy | |
| | | | | | | | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD | Re: Figures don't lie but you can lie with figures...... 500 channels and nothing to watch.
 | |
| | donaldk
Premium
join:2000-10-19
Thunder Bay, ON
| oh I love watching american cable companies advertise cause its stupid. Wow get triple play Comcast for $33/month each (so $99/month at the end of it).
In a very faded almost overscanned bottom of the commerical it says only for the first year and it does not say full price. f*** that I keep my dish thank you very much (which is full of this nonsense cable co ads btw). I seriously wonder what the regular price is (which I bet is what the FCC uses... no I am not glorifying the FCC either, it has its own problems... you could always have the rogue style CRTC which needs a bitch slap in parlament... ). | |
| | 
crischen
join:2000-11-07
Anderson, IN
| Give me a la carte. I probably only watch 15 channels.
Local NBC/ABC/CBS/FOX Affiliates (Don't watch CW and actually only watch Boston Legal on ABC.)
Sci-Fi
Food Network
Discovery
USA
Cartoon Network
TBS/TNT
A&E
History
Comedy Central
SpikeTV (For Star Trek)
My Cable Company (Insight) used to offer three packages for their digital boxes at $5 each, but recently (Nov.) combined them into one $12 pack and added about a dozen new channels nobody will watch. I called and cancelled it and told them I wasn't going to pay it til they added Boomerang.
I mean, yes, you can argue the per channel cost is lower (because of must carries that cost nothing getting averaged in), but 90% of the channels are garbage.
Someone mentioned ESPN costing $2.50... to be honest, if the channels I watch (that aren't free must carries) were that much, I'd still save money.
--
-Kinsey
Geeky chix0r | |
| | | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Figures don't lie but you can lie with figures...... said by crischen :Give me a la carte. I probably only watch 15 channels. It's funny. Some of the same people who yell "let the market decide" are the same people who don't want ala carte pricing.
I'd venture to say that a good portion of the channels out there would not survive if they weren't packaged wth other channels. Maybe they need to charge more for ads and pay their way onto a cable system. | |
| Hellrazor
join:2002-02-02
Abyss
| bah humbug! Yes sir.. the 2 spanish channels, 6 shopping channels, local college BS scrolling channel and another 10-15 useless channels sure make it worthwhile. The rates went up $2/m a few years ago. 3 new channels.. 1 spanish, 1 Shopping and whatever that channel is with the reruns from 20+ years ago.
I want ALA CARTE! | |
| patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY | title Do you love Creative Statistics? | |
| Steve B
join:2004-08-02
Seattle, WA
edit:
January 8th, @04:31PM
| They Can't Be Serious Prices have gone down!?!?!?!?!?!? I'm sorry, I just checked Comcast for my area and it has gone up $5. Who in the hell does the cable industry think they're fooling? Especially since those individual channel pricing schemes don't apply to us. All we get is the bundle packages.
Here is another thought to, if the pricing for individual channels has actually gone down, that clearly means that with these yearly price hikes that they are only doing it to raise rates and screw the customer because there is no valid reason for those price hikes. | |
| | 
Steely
I used to have OOL
Premium
join:2000-10-15
Princeton Junction, NJ | Re: They Can't Be Serious "Cable Prices Have Actually Dropped"
Actually, NOT. | |
| 
xerxes3642
join:2006-02-24
Saint Charles, MO | why hasen't the FCC forced cable to offer ah la cart? | |
| |
See 9 replies to this post | |
WangFubar
join:2003-10-02
Paradise, CA
·AT&T DSL Service
·Comcast
| What? Yes creative statistics, "the inflation adjusted price per channel...blah blah blah"
Id be happy to pay for channels I want, Id also be happy to see less commercials (remember that cable tv? yes the commercial free programming... slipped your mind did it?)
Ok back to my ranting that corporate bullies are making us pay too much for crap.... and we will continue to take it from behind because we like it too much to walk away  | |
| mc_365
join:2004-07-29
Brooklyn, NY
|  cable prices have actually gone down; Bullsh@t
Out of 300 Channels They've got it worked statistically you have to have all the channels to get the 5 you are actualy intrested in.
The other 295 channels are a mixture of low res crap and free network stations over cable lines and shopping channels.
The shopping channels pis me off the most.
Think about it your paying the cable company to give some QVS HSF TV sales person the oppurtunity to come directly into your house and try to sell you some crap. | |
| | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| Re: cable prices have actually gone down; Bullsh@t said by mc_365 :Not only do you not get a choice of which channels you want to pay for. Out of 300 Channels They've got it worked statistically you have to have all the channels to get the 5 you are actualy intrested in. The other 295 channels are a mixture of low res crap and free network stations over cable lines and shopping channels. The shopping channels pis me off the most. Think about it your paying the cable company to give some QVS HSF TV sales person the oppurtunity to come directly into your house and try to sell you some crap. About remember the endless stream of infomercials. I should just start a channel with 2 hours of non-infomercial programing, sell rest airtime to infomercials, and walk away a rich man. | |
| keyboard5684
join:2001-08-01
Youngsville, PA
 ·WestPAnet Inc.
·WestPAnet Inc. CA..
·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Vonage
| Cable or Satellite Those are our options, cable or satellite. Maybe even a little IPTV in some places.
So overall, have satellite prices not also gone up? Mine has.
Who is to blame? I blame ESPN, all the sports channels. They charge a huge amount which gets past on to you. I think those channels are worthless, completely worthless. But you see few people actually say "I do not want sports". So WTF?
I do not watch what you watch, you do not watch what I watch, so how does ala-cart actually solve that problem? It would require a whole new way of doing things. The problem is not someone like Directv doing more, the problem are the networks doing things differently. Ala-cart means less money for the networks (I mean groups of channels like ABC, ESPN, and all the crap that comes with them). Content providers are not going to give up profit to make the consumer happy. | |
| 
BillRadio
join:2007-01-08
Aurora, CO
·Qwest.net
| Must Carries & Bad contract terms! With the risk of jumping up onto a soap box, the contracts forced on carriers now are real doozies! Not only is a carrier required to carry, say, The Hallmark Channel if they want to carry A&E, they are also required to show it on their cheapest tier, even if the costs don't warrant it.
Dish Network goes through this each year, and to their credit, they drop the channel instead of giving in to such heavy-handed tactics. And that even included dropping CBS network affiliates for a time.
Television shows will most likely soon be delivered on the internet. In that scenerio, we will have "a la carte" service, however I'll bet most customers will download many more channels than they really want to watch, "just because". But I bet HSC, QVS, etc, will not be part of most downloads. | |
| Lineage
join:2006-10-19
USA | Lol Talk about false advertising. | |
|
orldf
@comcast.net
| Yeah not buying that bridge Are they insane? per channel costs my *ss...
The cable companies charge through the nose, and deliver customer service that is abysmal at best. 30 years of technology and they can't yet detect on their own when their service has gotten hosed. Network engineers who lack High School diplomas, and have about as much knowledge as same. They stifle competition, cherry pick what markets get upgrades then accuse others of doing these things to influence media and the law. Upgrades and service improvements in areas that lack competition almost never arrive. Ever had an appointment for service where the person never showed? 4 hour service window? Hey, how bout I give you a 4 week window of when you'll get my check? Bet that wouldn't be very popular. You know why they need those "service windows"? Because even with 10's of 000's of contractors, they still don't have enough people (who can stay awake mind you) to fix the crap that is broken, poorly maintained and generally junk from the get go. If they didn't have a captive market they'd have been out of business 10 years ago.
Lower prices? They lower service. They lower quality. But the only thing the price does is go up, and it ALWAYS exceeds the cost of living base. Your wages should go up as much in % as your cable bill, you'd all be millionaires.
Not that the pathetic people we have in government would ever step in on our behalf. No they are bought off. Lawmakers stifle the competition but give the crap we get from the cable companies free reign.
It's enough to make you puke. | |
| 
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ | NO! Last time i checked "52" was a lower number than "79"! | |
| DadCooks
Premium
join:2005-02-28
Kennewick, WA
| The FCC must have inhaled Just got my Happy New Year letter from Charter.
In essence a 10%+ hike across the board and less channels in each of the packages (the did some creative repackaging of the tiers so now you have to but two or three extras to get what you used to get). | |
| | 
Jodokast96
R.I.P Bassman442
Premium
join:2005-11-23
Erial, NJ
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: The FCC must have inhaled said by DadCooks :Just got my Happy New Year letter from Charter. In essence a 10%+ hike across the board and less channels in each of the packages (the did some creative repackaging of the tiers so now you have to but two or three extras to get what you used to get). Almost exactly what I got with Comcast. About a 6% hike, and less channels than I had last year. 69 channels (no premium) for $56 a month. Funny, I remember paying $35 for the same package in '98, which had about the same number (and selection) of channels. How am I paying less again? | |
| claudeo
join:2000-02-23
Redmond, WA | Er.... Same here with Comcast (non digital). Price hike, fewer channels. A number of the channels are "shopping" channels -- they should pay me to watch that crap. | |
| 
batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
clubs: | Not mine. The New Jersey BUP is having a mutual masturbation session and has not as of yet approves the state wide TV franchise agreement. | |
| 
hamman_4
Premium
join:2003-04-10
96003-6602
·AT&T Yahoo
edit:
January 10th, @12:53PM
| Cable TV is a joke The old bait and switch appears to be a common trademark of Charter Communications here in Northern California. While on Satellite, I got a call from Charter basically giving me all the channels I had on Satellite for $30/month less than I was paying now. It sounded to good to be true but when they put it in writing it was hard to pass by.
However, I should have known better as exactly 12 months after my first day with them I saw a significant rise in my bill and many channels were no longer viewable. When I called they referred me to a tariff like page that said the deal I got was good for only one year then their regular rates and the channel feed to my home could change at their discretion. Not only did my TV go up but my internet as well. My monthly bill for both was now reaching $160 when prior I was paying just under $100.
When I demanded to speak to management he basically told me that is the way it is. I sent a letter to the local paper (Dear Editor page) and showed him what they were doing. The letter appeared in the paper. Needless to say, there was a little bit of an uproar in the area so much so that it was brought up at a city council meeting. Franchise terms and length of their rights within the City we discussed. I got a call back from Charter offering me the same deal back, but when I inquired how long it would last they said a year. I think you can imagine what my answer was.
I no longer have charter internet and the satellite people have been scheduled to come out next week after I get back in town. Goodbye charter, I am one customer that won't fall for a bait and switch once I get to the bottom line. I hope you loose your franchise rights or at least competition is allowed into the area.
Cheers
--
"Gordie Taught Them All Howe" | |
| | Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Pittsburgh, PA | Re: Cable TV is a joke To paraphrase Bruce Springsteen "570 channels and nothing on"! | |
|
Small Cable
@comcast.net
| Price per channel... Speaking as a small cable operator, there's a lot of misconceptions being floated here as gospel truth. Since I'm contractually not allowed to tell my customers what I pay for a particular channel, it's difficult for me, as an operator to justify what I am forced to charge for programming.
To address a few things that have been raised:
1) Cable companies absolutely DO pay per subscriber for a particular channel, whether you watch it or not. There is a discount for exceedingly large numbers of subscribers, but it barely approaches 10%. Companies also usually tie lower rates on one channel (ESPN, say) to carriage of (and, eventually, payment for) a less valuable property (like ESPNU, Toon Disney, or the like).
2) Small cable operators (we still represent about 10% of the customers in the US) lobbied for the RIGHT to offer programming a la carte. The programmers (including larger cable companies that play "both sides of the fence") fought it tooth and nail. Requiring a la carte introduces a logistical nightmare (see below) but the right would let a cable company bump any channel that charged too much (*cough*ESPN*cough*) from the basic tier to a pay service like HBO.
3) A la carte, as sweet as it sounds, would create a logistical nightmare for cable companies. With thousands (or tens or hundreds of thousands) of subscribers, the monthly billing reports if everyone was allowed to pick from a menu of 600 services would be astronomically ridiculous. Would you like to have to file and read through a 10,000 page report?
4) High rates due to escalating programming costs are driven higher by rises in gas prices (trucks need fuel), electricity (cable plants need power), pole attachment leases (lines have to hang somewhere), insurance (everyone needs insurance), and employee salaries (people have to be paid). Just to keep pace with the market, cable companies have to raise prices about 5-10% per year. They try to compensate customers by getting more channels, in the hopes that more options will soften the blow.
5) Most cable companies have built their plants with their OWN money. They are not like the phone company in getting subsidies from tax dollars. In fact, in most cases, cable companies also pay local and city governments for the (non-exclusive) privilege of selling you programming (which you can refuse to take).
6) As more people switch to other providers, the fixed costs of running a cable plant (like power, employees, pole rentals, and the like) have to be covered by a smaller number of customers. Which forces companies to raise rates just to pay their bills.
I don't really expect to change anyone's mind, but maybe the next time someone raises the issue of cable rates, you'll be better informed. | |
| | | |
|
|
·
·