Endless Cable TV Rate Hikes Not Sustainable Something has to give, according to Sanford Bernstein analyst Sanford Bernstein analyst Craig Moffett is a prodigious telecom industry quote machine and, as a stock-jock concerned with short-term gain, a frequent poo poo'er of network upgrades. This week, Moffett is warning the cable industry that they won't be able to simply keep raising rates (often bi-annually). Discretionary consumer spending is falling, and will continue to do so for several years. Despite the recession people keep paying for TV services -- though that's going to change, says Moffett: "The media industry is "intractably addicted to price increases," he argued...."If you are a serious student of history, you ought to be thinking pretty hard about the fact that, for the first time in 25 years incomes are stagnant and savings rates are rising and the available pool of funds is shrinking materially." Of course, Moffett has also stated he believes cord cutting (or people dumping cable for Internet video) is "the most over-hyped and over-anticipated phenomenon in tech history." So that raises the question: what happens when people tired of high cable prices and force channel bundles suddenly have the option of a la carte Internet video? It doesn't take a highly-paid Sanford Bernstein analyst to see where this is going. Last quarter, TV operators started seeing real, significant subscriber losses for the first time, though these losses were largely thanks to the economy. TV operators aren't even seeing a real impact from Internet video yet, though such an impact is inevitable for all programming except perhaps live events -- even if it takes the better part of a decade. Still, there's a sense of over-confidence from a TV sector that believes that can endlessly jack up prices with no repercussion -- and as such it's a sector that's absolutely begging for disruption.
|
 axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC | Price goes up, demand will drop At some point, people will not sign up if the cost is too high. It happens with illegal drugs, surely it can happen with cable TV as well.
I haven't had cable TV since college, and that was because Comcast built a stadium in exchange for forcing the school to include cable in the price of housing.
I was off cable before internet video existed, to save money. I think it works the other way, once you stop paying for cable, then you seek out internet video. If I could afford cable, and liked TV enough, I wouldn't switch to internet video to save a buck.
I think the illegal music downloading is similar, the people who couldn't afford CDs turned to the internet for music, people who can still afford CDs will buy them... but since they can't afford every CD they download the ones they don't have. | |
|  |  LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5
1 edit | Re: Price goes up, demand will drop said by axus:At some point, people will not sign up if the cost is too high. It is called supply & demand. If prices keep going up, then customers will downgrade to lower tier pkgs(which I did) or drop it altogether. Then the cable companies will end the constant price increases and they will stop paying Hollywood's outrageous price demands for content. | |
| | | Host:
Time Warner Intern..
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
4 edits | Re: Price goes up, demand will drop Then the cable companies will end the constant price increases and they will stop paying Hollywood's outrageous price demands for content. I'll believe that when I see it. Broadcasters want their money, and cable TV operators won't eat those costs, and both face the pressure of expected quarterly revenue bumps. It's a dance of death that opens the door wide for a disruptive, low-cost, a la carte Internet video alternative.
The only thing stopping Internet video right now is the broadcasters' restrictive licensing, and if cable operators stop being willing to shell out the cash, guess where the broadcasters turn instead? The very Internet video services they've been constricting for fear of cannibalizing revenue they'd now be losing...
It's all set up like a bunch of bowling pins over the next ten years. I bet cable execs see it but respond late in the game by finally lowering prices or offering a la carte or much smaller channel bundles. | |
| | | |
1 edit | Re: Price goes up, demand will drop It seems to me that producers, broadcasters, cable tv operators, and every other distribution operator would want things just as they are as that is where the money is.
Look at ESPN 360. You can tap an ISP with 10,000,000 subscribers for $1 per subscriber or you can try to get individual subscribers at $10 a piece. Maybe you get 1,000,000 people to sign up, maybe you only get 10,000. Look at it from production too. Want to produce a prime time network show at a cost of millions per week and sell it over a network of millions or put it up a la carte and hope millions sign up. Cable operators can maintain their networks and overhead selling $10 a la cart per subscriber with a $3 gross profit or $75 package with a $20 gross profit.
I like American Idol and watch it anxiously every season. But I only watch it because it is included, so to speak, in my programming. I wouldn't sign up and pay to watch it. Some would I'm sure. But the 10's of millions that watch it now? It seems to me that every producer down to the in home distributor wants things just the way they are.
The money, from every angle, seems to be in the numbers. Big numbers of subscribers. a la carte seems to be contrary for everyone involved in producing and providing content. Unless, of course, you and I want to pay $10 for every little thing we watch like today's pay per view porn or $30 wrestling show, or $30 Blue Ray. | |
| | | | | Reviews:
 ·Mediacom
| Re: Price goes up, demand will drop There is a slight flaw in your comment which actually rather invalidates your example - American Idol is on a broadcast television station, which you can watch for free over the airwaves, and sometimes even in considerably better quality than through a cable box.
So why do you pay for cable?
--
»/im/82288374/5591.png | |
| | | | | |  thenderScreen tycoonPremium
join:2009-01-01
Brooklyn, NY
kudos:1
1 edit | Re: Price goes up, demand will drop Because I still want TV reception when it rains or is cloudy.
As a child who grew up learning how to get on the roof with a ladder for the sole purpose of fucking with the antenna just to watch channel 7, 9, or 11 on a cloudy day, I value internet video, usenet, & FIOS/cable TV.
OTA can bite me hard.
--
If you're going to repair your own Macbook, benefit from my experiences. | |
| | | | | | |  MrMasterjetsetterPremium
join:2000-12-16
St Thomas, VI
 ·Sprint Mobile Br..
| Re: Price goes up, demand will drop said by thender:Because I still want TV reception when it rains or is cloudy. As a child who grew up learning how to get on the roof with a ladder for the sole purpose of fucking with the antenna just to watch channel 7, 9, or 11 on a cloudy day, I value internet video, usenet, & FIOS/cable TV. OTA can bite me hard. rainy and cloudy messes with satellites. I grew up on OTA TV. Never went on my roof to adjust. Neither did any of my family.
Besides, the picture quality of OTA digital is sooo nice now. I like it.
My stations growing up were 2,5,11, then 26 and eventually 32. I loved watching scooby do on the black and white tv.
--
One never notices what has been done; one can only see what remains to be done. -Marie Curie | |
| | | | | | | | thenderScreen tycoonPremium
join:2009-01-01
Brooklyn, NY
kudos:1 | Re: Price goes up, demand will drop A good television provider doesn't compress much over OTA, if at all.
It may have worked for you, but it doesn't work for everyone. A blanket statement on why everyone doesn't use OTA doesn't apply to people who live in areas where OTA is a joke.
--
If you're going to repair your own Macbook, benefit from my experiences. | |
| | | | | | | | | LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5
1 edit | Re: Price goes up, demand will drop said by thender:It may have worked for you, but it doesn't work for everyone. A blanket statement on why everyone doesn't use OTA doesn't apply to people who live in areas where OTA is a joke. the reason cable TV even came into existence was because OTA TV was so limiting and even giant rooftop antennas couldn't bring in good signals in many areas. Digital TV makes pictures better, IF YOU CAN GET A SIGNAL. But it also cuts off much faster than the old analog signals. With analog you could get fair to poor pictures in weak signal areas. With digital you either get a picture or you don't - often you don't. | |
| | | | | | | | | | thenderScreen tycoonPremium
join:2009-01-01
Brooklyn, NY
kudos:1 | Re: Price goes up, demand will drop Precisely.
The beauty in FIOSTV is never having to miss a show because of a cloud. | |
|
| | | | | | | Idol flourishes over broadcast (free to view), and rebroadcast over cable and satellite (included in a package). The question remains: Would it survive a la carte, where people had the choice whether to subscribe and pay for the network. | |
|
| | | | | As long as the cowsumers do little more than bitch about the rate hikes they will continue. If a large majority take a stand and vote with their feet the Cable Cos will take note. Until the masses do that it will be business as usual. | |
| | | |  SLDPremium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA | Yep, just like manufacturers that refused to sell online for fear of upsetting the stores that carried their products either started online sales or mostly died. | |
|
| | | | said by Linklist:said by axus:At some point, people will not sign up if the cost is too high. It is called supply & demand. How is it just a market condition (supply and demand) when cable uses public easements and rights of way to reach its customers? In a true "market" they would have had to negotiate with every customer along the path to purchase the right to use their property to reach other customers (and neighborhoods).
Those easements and rights of way are finite resources. It's not like anyone can just jump in and use those resources to provide a service to their neighbors.
I remember when cable companies came into existence, and were discussed as a "franchise." They were knowingly given monopolies to cities, with conditions that they use their positions for the public good (such as public "access" channels).
Today, it seems like they're just accepted as a naturally existing entity. Beyond questioning whether they serve the public interest. Beyond questioning whether they are competitive (in the absence of competition). | |
| | | | | | Re: Price goes up, demand will drop My city has a non exclusive franchise agreement with Comcast. But we don't have any other takers trying to offer cable or compete with Comcast. Easements and right of ways aren't barriers to entry if the franchise agreement is setup right. | |
| | | | | | | Re: Price goes up, demand will drop said by wkm001:Easements and right of ways aren't barriers to entry if the franchise agreement is setup right. I disagree. I'm pretty sure that if I dig up the street to run a cable to my neighbor's house, I'm going to be in trouble.
There is tremendous overhead to gaining access to easements and public rights of way. Worse, the more they're used, the less they can be used without risk of damaging what's already there.
I.e., when Cox laid its cable here a few decades ago, they had the advantage of not having to negotiate around competitors lines. It's much less lucrative now that Cox's cable is in the ground. | |
| | | | | | openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | Re: Price goes up, demand will drop said by amigo_boy:I disagree. I'm pretty sure that if I dig up the street to run a cable to my neighbor's house, I'm going to be in trouble. I'm sure that if you pay relevant fees, obtain the proper permits, conduct an engineering study, and have your plan approved by your municipality, to include detouring traffic as necessary, that you can have your street dug up to bury a cable. | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Price goes up, demand will drop Most municipalities require that if you bury something in the ROW that it be a "public" utility in that you offer service to everyone you can. Amigo_boy digging a cable across the street to his neighbor wouldn't qualify and he likely wouldn't be issued the permits.
What Amigo_boy and most of the people like him with zero knowledge of infrastructure don't know is that the digging up the street is damn expensive. I seriously doubt you could trench a 2 lane road in this country for less than $1500 in construction costs. The Labor, Equipment and material will easily exceed that, not even including the inspection fees, permits and testing. Now if you wanted to deploy a real utility, not only do you have all the construction costs, but you have engineering, plant development, marketing and Billing and customer related expenses.
There is a reason there are only a few over-builders in the market and it's mostly related to the inability to recover the cost of installation.
A build-out in a single average American city of more than a million is going to cost several billion dollars. That's a lot of money to pay back with interest. And because most municipalities require that Utilities be buried these days those costs are even more astronomical. | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Price goes up, demand will drop said by rahvin112:And because most municipalities require that Utilities be buried these days those costs are even more astronomical. How is a new user of easements and rights of way affected by existing users? I've heard they're required to purchase bonds and pay for any disruptions to existing users.
That's my point. When Cox laid its cable 30 years ago it had one less risk to insure against (compared to anyone who may wish to lay cable and "compete" today).
For that reason, I doubt that it's possible to get access to easements and public rights of way. That's a finite resource. Each new users creates a barrier to entry for any new users. I suspect the city has a responsibility to govern that resource with future generations in mind. (Even if someone could raise the money navigate existing users of that finite resource.). | |
| | | | | | | | | rody_44Premium
join:2004-02-20
Quakertown, PA | Re: Price goes up, demand will drop Just plain incorrect. As FIOS is a perfect example. You as a single person could go and open a corporation and start. Any corporation with money is free to overlay on easements. Sure its expensive which is why you dont have many takers. | |
| | | | | | | | | | SLDPremium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA | Re: Price goes up, demand will drop And you are all forgetting that the existing corporations will use their existing capital to unfairly keep you from doing business in their territory. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | said by amigo_boy:How is a new user of easements and rights of way affected by existing users? I've heard they're required to purchase bonds and pay for any disruptions to existing users. That's my point. When Cox laid its cable 30 years ago it had one less risk to insure against (compared to anyone who may wish to lay cable and "compete" today).rchase bonds and pay for any disruptions to existing users. Existing utilities complicate installation, but it's not like this is a business that's just been created. They've been installing utilities in existing ROW for more than 200 years. Most states have dig laws that if you give at least 2 days notice you aren't responsible if you dig up an unmarked utility and that significantly reduces costs. The only time a new installation would be hit with costs for cutting an existing utility would be if they didn't call the dig service.
To answer your real question, yes it does cost more to install into existing ROW rather than greenfield development. But baring unmarked utilities other than slowing things down a slight bit it's not really a big deal. As for your second question, I've never heard of a situation where installation is hampered by the number of existing utilities where communication lines are concerned. In the installation of water or sewer there are spacing requirements to avoid cross contamination and as a result existing utilities can severely hamper installation, but with communication lines it's simply not an issue.
Fiber is routinely buried in the same trench with other utilities in green field development and even in brownfield installations we are talking lines that are at most inches in diameter where the existing ROW is typically, in most states, back of walk to back of walk (30' or more). Different states handle things differently but even if there were like 30 lines in the area from curb to back of sidewalk making a new installation exceedingly difficult it's not unheard of to simply install under the Curb or under the street itself, although costs will go up dramatically because of the additional number of hard surface repairs needed.
I've personally never heard of a situation where a telecom line couldn't be installed because of existing utilities. Again, you are dealing with cables that are inches in diameter, digging and installing new utilities is a common practice and there are many ways to skin the same cat, between trenching, directional drilling, microtunneling and a few dozen other construction practices it's simply not a big deal to install around other utilities (the only ones that are scary are high pressure (80-1200psi) gas lines because of the danger of an accidental breach). Insurance and bonding has little to do with cutting utilities because as I said most states have laws that if you call the dig line and it's not marked in the time period specified it's not your fault for cutting it and there isn't a single cost to the installer for breaking an existing utility. The purpose of insurance and bonding is to make sure the contractor doesn't walk away with the clients money, repair the ROW with substandard material or walk away without paying his employees and to cover unemployment and workplace injuries. Marked utilities are extremely easy to avoid, you need to understand that nearly every single time a roadway is widened most of the existing utilities are moved that would end up under the pavement because of the cost to repair anything under pavement. This is done routinely, the only reason greenfield is cheaper is because they typically dig one trench in greenfield and put all the utilities in it at the same time, saving the cost of individually trenching every single line. In addition in greenfield developments they don't typically have to worry about repairing pavement or concrete as it's not been installed yet. That's the only reason greenfield development is cheaper for utilities. It has nothing to do with the ROW or government.
said by amigo_boy:For that reason, I doubt that it's possible to get access to easements and public rights of way. That's a finite resource. Each new users creates a barrier to entry for any new users. I suspect the city has a responsibility to govern that resource with future generations in mind. (Even if someone could raise the money navigate existing users of that finite resource.). And that is statement is exactly why your entire line of argument is complete BS. No municipality, state or county can restrict use of the ROW by public utilities for any reason such as there is existing utility already there. There is an entire body of law on this subject that has been built over the 200+ years this country has existed. Government arbitrarily restricting the use of the ROW would be a major violation of all kinds of constitutional protections, not the least of which is the equal protection clause.
Yes government regulates the use of the ROW, they set conditions on it's use (for example that it must be a public Utility or serve the public good), and they manage the ROW by requiring that companies file permits in advance detailing what will be done, and they require that the installer provide protections during construction (traffic control and safety procedures), that the ROW and surfaces are repaired afterwards and repaired properly (testing and inspection) and they charge fees for the permits for this to cover the costs incurred making sure these things are actually done.
But the key point here is that unequivocally no government agency can prohibit overbuilding. It's been ruled against in court numerous times. There is no such thing as a monopoly franchise agreement where they can legally block overbuilding. Sure the city can write the agreement and even sign it, but they can't block the overbuilder. The best they can do is erect a lot of red tape and increase costs for the overbuilder.
You argue cox has some natural advantage because they are already there, but the fact is that hampers them as much as it helps them. The reason is simple, Cox has likely rebuilt that network at least once and probably twice since installing it (and still carries the debt from all installations). Technology and requirements have changed twice since they originally installed the cable and they likely dug up and replaced significant portions of their cable network to meet expanding needs. They also have ongoing maintenance as copper is quite expensive to maintain and it has a LOT of problems. This the reason most baby bells and cable companies have billions of dollars of debt. Comcast has nearly 30 billion in debt, Verizon was pretty close to that total before the fairpoint and other deals that shed large amounts of debt and ATT and all the cable companies have similar levels of debt (unless they have gone through bankruptcy and shed most of the debt). RCN and WOW also have that level of debt and because they are over-builders they are also faced with very low profit margins.
It might make a good conspiracy to say that public ROW is the reason there are very few over-builders, but you are lying yourself if you believe it. The reason there are so few over-builders is that every single over-builder barely makes money and almost all of them have gone bankrupt. RCN is in probably the best markets and highest density municipalities in the US and they are lucky to survive every year.
Even after going through bankruptcy and shedding nearly all their debt they can barely make a profit. Consider that for a moment, they have no debt, a fully installed modern network and they can barely make money. You think creditors are lining up to loan money with that prime example of the value of over-building? Especially when the creditors take into account that the creditors that loaned RCN all the money to over-build got maybe a few cents on the dollar for all the money they loaned the company when it went through bankruptcy and the debt was vacated by the court?
No, there isn't overbuilding because there is no financial benefit to doing so. Would you loan a company money knowing you would get back a few cents for every dollar loaned? Stop blaming some fictitious ROW advantage for what is clearly a clean financial reason.
And finally, the ROW isn't some resource to be preserved like an endangered species. It's not going to be all used up some day. It's land, things are installed in or over it, in time those things are replaced and repaired and other things are built but at no point is the ROW ever going to be used up. It's so silly to even speculate that government is trying to preserve it for future generations. Preserve it from what? Being dissolved? Contaminated? Alien invasion? You appear to be arguing it's going to be used up and some day all the ROW will be gone.
Utilities don't use up the ROW, thousands of utilities could be installed in a single 2 lane Roadway by digging a single trench 20' or even 100' deep and installing everything vertically. Then adding another utility would be as simple as some direction drilling, micro-tunneling or other trench-less construction method. It's not the issue you make it out to be and by making these arguments you make your ignorance of infrastructure very very public.
Being ignorant of something isn't something to be embarrassed about, but don't turn around and take my explanation of why you are ignorant as an attack. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Price goes up, demand will drop said by rahvin112:To answer your real question, yes it does cost more to install into existing ROW rather than greenfield development. Which makes it not like just a "market" of competing services. It's not like someone can grow a competing business organically. For example, competing with Target by opening a web-based business from their home, then a small retail front at their local strip mall, then.....
There is no such organic entry into entertainment/broadband delivery. I can't string a line to a dozen of my neighbors, and grow from there.
said by rahvin112:And that is statement is exactly why your entire line of argument is complete BS. No municipality, state or county can restrict use of the ROW by public utilities ... Yes government regulates the use of the ROW, they set conditions on it's use (for example that it must be a public Utility or serve the public good), Except for that small exception, it's almost like a thriving, "free" market.
I'm going to call my city tomorrow and find out how someone can become a "public Utility." I've got a feeling that they'll say that since there's already a cable service occupying public easements and rights of way, it wouldn't serve the "public good" to use that finite space for another.
And, certainly an organically driven business (me serving a dozen neighbors) wouldn't.
I'll let you know what I find out. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Price goes up, demand will drop said by amigo_boy:Which makes it not like just a "market" of competing services. It's not like someone can grow a competing business organically. For example, competing with Target by opening a web-based business from their home, then a small retail front at their local strip mall, then..... There is no such organic entry into entertainment/broadband delivery. I can't string a line to a dozen of my neighbors, and grow from there. You could do exactly what you newly claim you couldn't. Your original premise is that you couldn't trench a line across the public ROW to your neighbor. I agreed to that single case (and clarified (proving of course that you either didn't read what I wrote or fail at reading comprehension) because it wouldn't be a public utility. BUT, and here is the key point if you are going to act like a public utility and offer service to everyone you can and provide service to more than a single secondary building you can get the permits to install in the ROW quite easily. Growing a business "organically" (what a stupid term BTW) is actually how businesses start and there is no ROW restriction that says small businesses are excluded. Do you realize how stupid it is to argue that small businesses can't use the public ROW? You might as well argue that minority or women owned businesses aren't allowed to use the ROW either.
There are tens of thousands of small business offering communication services using cables in the ROW.
said by amigo_boy:Except for that small exception, it's almost like a thriving, "free" market. Ignore the reality, keep making your failed argument, continuously alter your line of argument, use completely different examples and apply the same result to each, and setup a few more strawmen.
said by amigo_boy:I'm going to call my city tomorrow and find out how someone can become a "public Utility." I've got a feeling that they'll say that since there's already a cable service occupying public easements and rights of way, it wouldn't serve the "public good" to use that finite space for another. Call your city, those minimum wage employee manning the phones aren't going to know anything about it, but feel free to post back here about how they didn't know anything about it, or even better if like you they speculate about it without knowledge. The definition of what make a company a public utility is going to be defined in your states' code. That very simple fact escapes you.
The ROW is NOT EVER GOING TO BE USED UP. You don't know anything about infrastructure or Right-of-way laws in your state or anywhere else, if you truly want to educate yourself talk to a lawyer or an infrastructure based civil engineering consultant. They can educate you on your ignorance of right-of-way law and infrastructure based businesses.
said by amigo_boy:And, certainly an organically driven business (me serving a dozen neighbors) wouldn't. Yes, it would. But you would have to prove you actually know what you are doing and that would be a challenge. I'd suggest again that if you are actually considering such a move that you hire a civil engineering consultant to actually plan your infrastructure and a lawyer to set up your business because you clearly don't understand either.
The stakes are quite high in the infrastructure business, most states will require a professional engineers seal on any construction plans so there is a chain of liability and a minimum level of assurance that multiple people aren't going to be killed or millions of dollars of infrastructure ruined by some Fool installing a telecom cable to his neighbors.
said by amigo_boy:I'll let you know what I find out. You do that, but I don't actually expect you will do so. Your goal here isn't to actually learn anything or educate yourself. You will continue your ignorant speculation about ROW law unabated though, that I'm sure of. The funniest part is were what you were saying actually true, it would be trivial to prove it. Where's the proof? | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Price goes up, demand will drop said by rahvin112: BUT, and here is the key point if you are going to act like a public utility and offer service to everyone you can and provide service to more than a single secondary building you can get the permits to install in the ROW quite easily. That's not what I was told. I called two city offices and was told a cable service wouldn't be considered a desirable use of the public's property (in the "public's interest," as you termed it) because the public is already served by a cable provider.
The problem with your reasoning is, even if I could get access to the public property (like the incumbents did), it's a chicken-egg thing. I can't serve "everyone" without starting with "someone."
That is a significant barrier to the competition which you insist exists. (And, according to my city, even if I wanted to serve everyone, they would claim that, since there already is a cable service serving everyone, mine wouldn't be a use of finite public resources for a purpose that is in "the public's interest," as you put it.).
said by rahvin112:Growing a business "organically" (what a stupid term BTW) (Chuckle.).
Stupid because it doesn't support your argument? Even though it is how the majority of business in the US starts? Small? Instead of "poof! dozens of franchises across the city."
said by rahvin112:there is no ROW restriction that says small businesses are excluded. That's exactly contrary to what you said earlier, when I suggested that I'd like to trench across the street to my first 10 customers. You said that can't be done. A person has to be prepared to trench the entire city.
But, as I already noted, my city says either is a no-go.
said by rahvin112:There are tens of thousands of small business offering communication services using cables in the ROW. I guarantee you there are not tens of thousands of cables in the ground in my area. There is exactly 1. From what I can gather, there will only be 1 in the foreseeable future. Largely due to the public's right of way not being available for widespread use.
said by rahvin112:said by amigo_boy:I'll let you know what I find out. You do that, but I don't actually expect you will do so. Your goal here isn't to actually learn anything or educate yourself. You will continue your ignorant speculation about ROW law unabated though, that I'm sure of. The funniest part is were what you were saying actually true, it would be trivial to prove it. Where's the proof? Or, I'll get the education you don't want me to have? | |
|
| |
1 edit | said by Linklist:said by axus:At some point, people will not sign up if the cost is too high. It is called supply & demand. If prices keep going up, then customers will downgrade to lower tier pkgs(which I did) or drop it altogether. Then the cable companies will end the constant price increases and they will stop paying Hollywood's outrageous price demands for content. It's not going to happen. Consumers want the content and the first person they get angry at is the cable company.
And today, many people have multiple choices - cable, dish, fios, OTA. Verizon in fact takes full advantage of contract disputes with cable companies and encourages people to switch. The only way for your theory to work is if they all band together against the networks.
It won't happen because they're all fighting against each other. Verizon in particular sees it as an opportunity to soak up disgruntled subscribers. | |
|
| | | I dropped my cable tv when comcast did a channel flop and moved some of the tier channels around forcing me to pay 15 dollars more to get one channel I watch the most. Now with Hulu and other sites that we all know about, I watch them online. I have to wait an extra day, but that saves me 90 bucks per month!!!!
And all this economy jazz is BS. Its all hype from the communist government of the USA! | |
| | | | I agree! It took Comcast's constant raising of my rates and my special "Triple Pay" pricing to get me motivated. I cut the cord and between TV and Phone service I save *over* $100 per month. After realizing that over the air and Internet video is more than adequate replacement, I don't miss Cable TV at all!
Here is my experience and I built a better box than my Comcast DVR ever was!
»www.cuttingthebills.com/2010/04/···ord.html | |
| | | SLDPremium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA | Re: Price goes up, demand will drop A few years ago, we got tired of Comcast's DVRs problems and built an in-home RAID server that doubles as a media center. PBS has so much great content, I became a member. We watch a few other channels' shows too, but I'm more-than-happy getting cable content from Netflix. Most of the recordings are watched on my Eliptical each day. | |
|
| | | Why do you people continue to give this guy attention? Like seriously. | |
| | Reviews:
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| yes. i'm now paying $80/month for digital cable connected to a cable card on a tivo. lots of channels... none of them premium.
i'm going to cut the cable cord. i looked the price of video on demand at amazon. it works great on my tivo and i can get a hell of a lot of content for $80. i also have about a twenty over the air hd channels and netflix.
also, we spend more time on our laptops than watching tv.
if the cable company charged me about half of what i'm now paying, i'd keep it. it's just not worth it, especially when money is tight.
things are tight for me and every other freelancer like myself that i know. | |
| | | ncbillPremium
join:2007-01-23
Winston Salem, NC | Re: Price goes up, demand will drop Did that last year - a dozen channels OTA here, plus Amazon Unbox (99 cents ABC/FOX/BBC for shows in HD), plus Netflix (unlimited streaming for $9/month)
You will be very happy w/o digital cable (also $80/month here) | |
|
| | | | Re: Yup
The serious infraction isn't bi-annual or semi-annual, it's Karl's repeated use of "begs the question".
In my best Indigo Montoya voice; "I do not think it means what you think it means. " | |
|
Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·Optimum Online
·EarthLink
| Bi-annually? Bi-annually is every 2 years.
Semi-annually is every 6 months.
Which did you mean?
Regardless, I got fed up with Cablevision's overpriced TV service and disconnected a year ago today. I've saved almost $700.
--
Critics are asking if Megyn Kelly blows goats. | |
| |
See 9 replies to this post | |
 DragasoniWe're All Mad HerePremium
join:2001-12-14
Palm Bay, FL | Waste of money... If my wife and roomate didn't watch TV, I'd cut the cord. Other then a baseball game here and there, I haven't watched TV in years and have no interest in it whatsoever. It kills me to pay $85 a month for mindless crap you can get online for free, but at least our roomate pays half of the bill.
I don't even need the cable for interne because 2 of my neighbors have wide open access points. A simple knock on their door, and I know they'd be willing to share for a small fee.
-Dragasoni-
--
»www.youtube.com/user/dragasoni | |
| |
See 8 replies to this post | |
 newviewEx .. Ex .. ExactlyPremium
join:2001-10-01
Parsonsburg, MD
kudos:1 | Natural Evolution I dropped Comcast cableTV for DirecTV back in 2003 because of a price / value comparison. I'm currently re-purposing an unused computer as a streaming media box to take advantage of Netflix and internet video and will probably substantially reduce my DirecTV subscription as a result.
--
The Rules of Spam | |
| | | | Re: Natural Evolution yeah, DirecTV needs to listen up as well. Our rates have gone from just over $100/month a few years ago to over $160 and we're seriously considering reducing our intake. | |
| | | | | Re: Natural Evolution said by kernelpanic:yeah, DirecTV needs to listen up as well. Our rates have gone from just over $100/month a few years ago to over $160 and we're seriously considering reducing our intake. $160 what do you have HBO, CINEMAX, SHOWTIME and STARS? | |
| | | | | I call bullshit. DirectTV's BEST package is $115/mo + tax for 2 tvs, unless you have 6 tvs, you are full of shit. No offense. | |
| | | |  badtripI heart the East BayPremium
join:2004-03-20
Albany, CA | Re: Natural Evolution Could be an old agreement. I used to pay directv 150 a month for thier top tier package.
I'm all ota and internet video now for well over a year. I don't miss the programming or the bill. | |
|
Reviews:
 ·ooma
·Optimum Online
 ·Verizon FiOS
| evolving consumer habits the couch potato syndrome that used to happen during the first two waves of (moving) video in the home (pre-digital, for the most part) had millions of consumers addicted to the product. consumers are in the process of evolving with the multitude of choices for delivery of content which competes for consumer's attention. cable-tv's take it or leave it blocks of channels are getting attacked on all sides from free alternatives. the internet as the medium of transport and wired/wireless utilization will put cable-tv as we know it onto the ash heaps of history.
pricing, value and competition are more important every day as a tech savvy consumer says I've got choices.. to the providers.. some of you also say, I don't watch all that much tv, so I can "DOWNLOAD" the parts I want and NOT SUBSCRIBE to the rest. one can successfully argue that you don't need to be as technology literate as you did even 5 years ago and the broadband access is around millions more consumers. along comes google tv, apple tv ver 3.0, and other alternatives which now STREAM content via ethernet, wifi or other wireless tech. competition for the old set-top $$ RENTAL $$ boxes are being challenged by the internet. If a tv experience can happen from the internet for PENNIES instead of $$ HUNDREDS $$ of dollars, the cable-tv industry is due for a course correction of it's business model.
IMO, the cable-tv industry is losing consumers under 25 and may never get them back. a generation which feels entitled to virtually free entertainment. | |
| |
See 12 replies to this post | |
| | Internet Video The more you go to Internet Video and kill cableTV the more your internet will go up. The MSOs and the Telcos know this and will be ready to raise those prices when they need to off set that cost.
--
www.twopugsbrand.com Kosher, Vegan, and Organic Certified Dog and Cat treats/foods and other products! www.etsy.com/shop/snakx4u/ Organic, Kosher, Gluten Free, Vegan Human Baked Goods | |
| | | | Re: Internet Video said by hottboiinnc:The more you go to Internet Video and kill cableTV the more your internet will go up. The MSOs and the Telcos know this and will be ready to raise those prices when they need to off set that cost. how long befor alot of VIDEO goes pay on line? But if you buy TV then that video is free? | |
| |  dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | said by hottboiinnc:The more you go to Internet Video and kill cableTV the more your internet will go up. The MSOs and the Telcos know this and will be ready to raise those prices when they need to off set that cost. or just drop the cap to a point where cutting the cord and going internet video vs. cable video is a wash pricewise.
--
The shortest distance between 2 points adds 1.5 stars to T. want $25? solve »coord.info/GC20A37 for me | |
| | | | | Re: Internet Video naaa...just raise the price to off set the difference. HSI has already gone up this year with RR. It will go up again before ya know it. T and VZ will do the same along with Comcast (already done).
--
www.twopugsbrand.com Kosher, Vegan, and Organic Certified Dog and Cat treats/foods and other products! www.etsy.com/shop/snakx4u/ Organic, Kosher, Gluten Free, Vegan Human Baked Goods | |
|
 andybPremium
join:2003-05-29
SW Ontario
kudos:1 | TV sucks People are not cutting cords for internet.Its costs or they find seeing the same shit on every station boring.There is nothing "new" on tv.Just like the Movie people they just rehash shit and want big bucks for it. | |
| | | Don't get it So I cut the cord. My Internet now goes up by $10 or more since I get a bundle with FIOS (or Comcast).
Now I have to buy my shows at $1/episode. Watch more than 1 show a day and you're up to $30 a month. And I don't get the glorious HD I've become accustomed to. If I subscribe to Hulu or watch the shows online and get commercials. My DVR ensure I never see commercials.
So now my cost is pretty much the same as if I kept my FIOS + Internet + DVR.
Then there's the additional box I have to buy (be it a computer or Apple or Google TV), configure and use. I'm certainly not going from a 50" Plasma to a 15" laptop or a 4" Droid X.
So tell me again why I would cut the cord?
FIOS + DVR + Slingbox + Droid X = TV anywhere and the cost is pretty reasonable as we pay $122 a month for FIOS Internet 25/15, HD Extreme HD with better and more HD than CrapCast, 1x HD-DVR, 1x HD Box, and 1x SD Box.
If I were to cut the cord, my Internet would jump to $65/month or 1/2 what I am paying now. I would get commercials and be tied to my laptop.
Tell me why I would cut the cord? | |
| | dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | Re: Don't get it said by itguy05:Tell me why I would cut the cord? Eventually DVR's are going to disable FF over commercials then what are you going to do?
--
The shortest distance between 2 points adds 1.5 stars to T. want $25? solve »coord.info/GC20A37 for me | |
| | | | | Re: Don't get it said by dvd536:said by itguy05:Tell me why I would cut the cord? Eventually DVR's are going to disable FF over commercials then what are you going to do? Use an open source DVR like MythTV. | |
| | | | | quote:
Eventually DVR's are going to disable FF over commercials then what are you going to do?
Roll my own or get rid of it. There's no point in a DVR that I have to watch commericals. | |
| | | | | | Re: Don't get it said by itguy05:Roll my own or get rid of it. There's no point in a DVR that I have to watch commericals. So the convenience of watching TV on your own schedule is pointless? I think not. | |
| | | | | dogtem
join:2009-01-28
Simi Valley, CA | Re: Don't get it said by fifty nine:said by itguy05:Roll my own or get rid of it. There's no point in a DVR that I have to watch commericals. So the convenience of watching TV on your own schedule is pointless? I think not. I don't even watch TV (I cannot remember the last time I turned the TV on for a tv show in at least 10-15 years) and I know this. Hell, my mom has not watched commercials if she's paying attention to the TV for YEARS. At least two decades. If it wasn't DVR it was VCR.
And frankly, I don't know why you'd have to watch commercials with DVR. My mom does not. At best fast forward ? I don't watch TV but I cannot imagine that VCR would have this and then DVR - you know, newer technology - not have this. Plus, I've seen it done lack this feature. I'd be curious though, how or why you would not be able to just zip through the commercials... | |
|
| | I just ordered Comcast cable (I'm moving) While there's a certain appeal to cutting the (television) cord from my provider, I can't. I thoroughly enjoy my Giganews subscription but I still can't bring myself to kill my cable bill. Live sports are still a complete failure on the internet - I dare anyone to try NHL's online video product. The streams are all 20 fps and the quality feels like it was shot on a wide screen cell phone.
Plus, how do you present entertainment options when guests come over? Sorry, I threw out my cable box. Here's Binsearch instead! There's something to be said for passive entertainment. Even Apple's new TV product still requires you to find "what you want" versus "what's on right now".
Despite my negative opinion of Craig Moffett, Craig's right here. Cable has many free and non-free competitors and raising prices in a crappy economy is going to cost you subscribers.
In a dream world a third carrier would be the answer to Cable/Satellite/ILEC's non-price competition. Unfortunately, the FCC is too busy being stocking with former industry executives...
Jason | |
| | Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·Optimum Online
·EarthLink
| Re: I just ordered Comcast cable (I'm moving) said by sherman06810:Plus, how do you present entertainment options when guests come over? Sorry, I threw out my cable box. My in-laws know we have no TV service and they won't be watching any TV here. No hockey games for you! If they have a problem with that, then don't visit. See there's another advantage of no TV!
--
Critics are asking if Megyn Kelly blows goats. | |
| | | | | | | Re: I just ordered Comcast cable (I'm moving) Damn, it sounds like I need better guests!  | |
|
guppy_fishPremium
join:2003-12-09
Lakeland, FL
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
1 edit | Point the finger in the right direction It 100% the content providers, every thing else is just a distribution and even the most out of the way location gets two satellite providers, In my area I have four choices and they all pretty much cost the same when you dig through the bundling and equipment costs over a years time
Al La Cart? never, the cable company's would be happy to do it, its the content providers that have everything locked up tight
Cord Cutters, well only if you want to be a torrent-freak and don't care about the MPAA
The money is in the content, and no amount of whining about price makes any difference to those people, say you won't buy as much, they could care less, they will just charge you the same amount for half the content
the saying "It's good to be King" comes to mind | |
| | | And again! And again ONLY the cable companies are blamed for this, not the actual owners of the content that force the channel bundling. The content owners that threaten to turn off channels if they don't get a rate increase as well to make up for their ad revenue loss.
Yep, it's only the cable companies' fault again. | |
| | andybPremium
join:2003-05-29
SW Ontario
kudos:1 | Re: And again! If you check closly mosy of the big cable/telco companies own the content providers too | |
| | | newviewEx .. Ex .. ExactlyPremium
join:2001-10-01
Parsonsburg, MD
kudos:1 | Re: And again! said by andyb:If you check closly mosy of the big cable/telco companies own the content providers too . . . and incorporate THAT part of their business as a "new" or "different" company, and then sell the content to other cable/telcos at inflated prices, all the while complaining of content providers jacking prices up . . . but then passing on these artificially inflated prices to their subscribers.
--
The Rules of Spam | |
| | | | | said by andyb:If you check closly mosy of the big cable/telco companies own the content providers too With Time Warner Cable spun off that's not really the case anymore. | |
| | | | andybPremium
join:2003-05-29
SW Ontario
kudos:1 Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
1 edit | Re: And again! said by fifty nine:said by andyb:If you check closly mosy of the big cable/telco companies own the content providers too With Time Warner Cable spun off that's not really the case anymore. Spun off to what a shell company?They still get the $ dont kid yourself.When you own something there is no such thing thing as separation except on paper.Otherwise it is business as usual with better tax benefits | |
| | | | | | | Re: And again! said by andyb:said by fifty nine:said by andyb:If you check closly mosy of the big cable/telco companies own the content providers too With Time Warner Cable spun off that's not really the case anymore. Spun off to what a shell company?They still get the $ dont kid yourself.When you own something there is no such thing thing as separation except on paper.Otherwise it is business as usual with better tax benefits That's not how it works. Go google the spin off before you continue to embarrass yourself. | |
|
| | Only a matter of time Its only a matter of time. As others have said as Cable revenue goes down, internet costs will rise. I can see a lot of sites going to a monthly pay schedule as well. When that happens I can see my internet usage going down as well. Currently I pay around $180/month for TV, Internet, and home phone. I can see that rising every year until I say uncle. Sooner or later I am not going to see the value in $200 per month when I watch maybe at most four channels. I like the home DVR and everything else, but it is not like i have to have it. Guess I'll go back to sitting out by the campfire like I am camping. | |
| Reviews:
·DSL EXTREME
| Cut that cord! Ack, please don't say "begs the question" when you really mean "raises the question"--they're two totally different things.
I haven't had cable TV since 2001 and I really don't miss it. I fill in a bit with hulu...but with digital TV I now get four PBS stations (15 channels of it!) in perfect picture and sound. Between DVR'ed episodes of "Masterpiece Mystery", podcasts, and all the library books I could want, I have a lifetime of entertainment at my fingertips for a total DSL bill of $35 per month. | |
| | | My family cut the cord. Using Netflix to my blu-ray player on the 46" and some hulu on my 32" monitor.
We are happy with the change. If Hulu Plus ever becomes worth a damn, we'll probably subscribe to it. It isn't yet though. | |
| Reviews:
·Comcast
| One's Habits can change I was on a project in the sumner of 2009 for 4 months.
Internet was dialup at 26.4 to 33.6. Unless I went to town to a coffee shop. Basic e-mail was ok in firefox with images turned off and could do banking and some other essentials. But not surfing like I am doing now.
As to TV- there was no cable and in a 'geographic hole' so OTA was only option got CBS, FOX, PAX, PBS and if the weather was correct - NBC. The CBS affiliate had the Retro TV channel.
I had gone back to my childhood - the big 3, an independent channel and Public TV.
I made good money and did not die. Plus my viewing habits changed. Have not watched any ABC program since I got back on cable. Prior to the project around December 2008, there was a disagreement between the regional ABC affiliates and Dish, so Dish dropped ABC. It has been a year and a half since I have watched a program on ABC.
Since finishing the project and moving to another city, I can see the TV antennas from where I live. I am seriously considering dropping Comcast to Basic and keeping HSI to 12/2. Watching more online and getting Netflix.
Cable is eating up too much of my budget. And there are far too many crap Reality shows on right now that do not interest me.
my $.02 and experience | |
| | | | Re: One's Habits can change said by hortnut:I was on a project in the sumner of 2009 for 4 months. Internet was dialup at 26.4 to 33.6. Unless I went to town to a coffee shop. Basic e-mail was ok in firefox with images turned off and could do banking and some other essentials. But not surfing like I am doing now. As to TV- there was no cable and in a 'geographic hole' so OTA was only option got CBS, FOX, PAX, PBS and if the weather was correct - NBC. The CBS affiliate had the Retro TV channel. I had gone back to my childhood - the big 3, an independent channel and Public TV. I made good money and did not die. Plus my viewing habits changed. Have not watched any ABC program since I got back on cable. Prior to the project around December 2008, there was a disagreement between the regional ABC affiliates and Dish, so Dish dropped ABC. It has been a year and a half since I have watched a program on ABC. Since finishing the project and moving to another city, I can see the TV antennas from where I live. I am seriously considering dropping Comcast to Basic and keeping HSI to 12/2. Watching more online and getting Netflix. Cable is eating up too much of my budget. And there are far too many crap Reality shows on right now that do not interest me. my $.02 and experience It's tough, I love some of the HBO shows, but like others have said, $100/month or more to watch a few of your favorite channels is tough to swallow. I went OTA, and haven't looked back. I get most of our favorite shows except Discovery (Mythbusters) and HBO (Dexter, True Blood)....and save enough money to take my boat out a few extra times every month...it was a decision I can easily live with.
Besides...there are other ways to get those shows if you really really want them. The fall TV season is about to start, and am happy to get my favs for free...in HD.
Ian | |
|
ebubman
join:2002-01-17
Mechanicsburg, PA | don't need cable 20+ year cable subscriber here. we sold our house & are moving. good bye comcast, hello fios. fios offered a far lower price for more service and locked the price for 2 years. comcast has shot themselves in the foot w/ the semi-annual price hikes which are aimed solely at profits. somehow they forgot the part about customers; that's why i'm now an ex-customer. | |
| bn1221
join:2009-04-29
Cortland, NY | TWC rates The emailed me about ESPN Disney wanting to raise rates. I say, drop them from the lineup and drop my bill 3 bucks. But of course they won't do that. | |
| | | | Re: TWC rates ESPN is more like $4+ per sub.
Put it in a $5 /m hbo like pack!!! | |
|
 RickPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT | I couldn't disagree more with this whole discussion of "endless price hikes" and that cable prices are expensive.
For starters..there hasn't been biannual price hikes in cable tv prices that i'm aware of. Perhaps a cable operator raised the price of another service or piece of equipment..ie: Comcast raising their modem price from 3.00 to 5.00 but along with that came a massive nationwide upgrade to docsis 3.0 and doubling of peoples speeds. Not to mention free routers along with that. But that doesn't mean they raised their tv prices twice in one year in any year that I've known.
And second..the services that companies like Comcast provide are NOT expensive. They are one of the best values out there that any consumer purchases on any day.
You can take an entire family..Mom, Dad and all the kids..
and give them 24/7 internet access..unlimted calling nationwide with all the calling features..and 24/7 television with hundreds of channels..hd..on demand..dvr..all the premium channels...and for that ENTIRE FAMILY..you are talking about a service that costs maybe 5 or 6 dollars a day.
Folks.you aren't going to go out and buy one happy meal for the little kid for that kind of money anymore.
Much less what an entire family can use and enjoy.
Someone thinks nothing of stopping in the corner store and dropping 2 dollars MORE than that...on a pack of cigarettes.
Put 2 gallons of gas in your tank and you arrive at that figure.
Buy a loaf of bread and gallon of milk...and you're at that amount as well.
But what we are talking about is 24/7 access for an entire family..half the price of even one movie ticket..to give someone not only ONE service..but all of these.
For everyone to use and enjoy all day long.
These services are NOT expensive. They are one of the greatest values out there that consumers can buy.
Some people spend so much time trying to find cost "savings" around that fact and wind up spending more trying to piece everything else together from different places and providers..rather than looking to a Comcast or whomever for their bundle offerings. And I'm not just saying Comcast here..I'm saying Time Warner..Verizon fios..AT&T Uverse..and whomever.
They ALL have a very good deal going for consumers. And they ALL represent a very good value in this economy....compared to so much else that we as consumers spend our money on.
Is your internet connection worth about the 2.00 a day that it costs not only you..but your ENTIRE family? In my mind it certainly is. And that's what it costs when priced into these bundles. And it's the same across the board..from tv to phone.
These providers are not expensive. Not at all.
In fact..it can be argued that they're inexpensive when looking at so many other things. How about that 100.00 a month cell phone bill? People think nothing of dropping that for some 3 inch screen but somehow think that phone..tv and internet in a bundle at 150.00 is a rip off.
It's not. It's downright one of the best consumer values going today.
~Rick | |
| |
See 14 replies to this post | |
 MashimaroProblematic
join:2003-09-25
Alexander City, AL | ha ha Why do you think cable companies have bait and switch pricing schemes. They draw people in with reasonable prices, and then they switch to higher rates after the fine print time limit expires. I can't even find the actual rates on charter's website or advertisements anymore. You can't even tell if you are being overcharged for service anymore. | |
| | elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | Re: ha ha said by Mashimaro:Why do you think cable companies have bait and switch pricing schemes. They draw people in with reasonable prices, and then they switch to higher rates after the fine print time limit expires. I can't even find the actual rates on charter's website or advertisements anymore. You can't even tell if you are being overcharged for service anymore. Its not bait and switch - the expiration of the teaser rate is fully disclosed. It may be in fine print - but any seasoned consumer knows that's what you read first.
I don't like teaser rates or rebates, but they are the norm, and we aren't going back to the regulated model. If you can't mark your calendar once a year to schedule the annual middle-east-bazaar renegotiation session with CableSatelCo, then you probably can afford to pay their "switch" rate. | |
|
| |
|
|
·
