Albany,n.y. Posted November 28, 2009 Posted November 28, 2009 Time Warner Cable has a message on the front page of Roadrunner that talks about Networks raising the costs of cable. They have two arrows for you to click 1)Roll Over 2)Get Tough. When you hit the Get Tough page, they ask you to send a message. I guess they plan on forwarding these angry messages to the stations they're negotiating with. I decided to turn the tables on them, since they won't give us NFL Network. Anyone else who wants the NFL Network should let them know and respond to their Get Tough invitation. Here is what I wrote: There are tons of stations currently on my cable that I'm paying for that I never watch. Meanwhile you put out things like this, yet refuse to give me the option of watching the one network I want the most, the NFL Network. You have NBA, MLB & NHL-a league that I never watch, but you won't give me my football. Well, you made it through this season with me as a customer, but my patience is wearing thin. I might not be a customer by the next NFL season unless you give me the NFL network. I don't want to hear all your excuses. You're charging me for things I'd never watch, while failing to get me what I do want. It's about time for NFL fans to stop rolling over for Time Warner Cable. Your time to fix this without losing us is running out.
Just Jack Posted November 28, 2009 Posted November 28, 2009 But didn't you see, they're moving the NBA channel from the sports tier to free tier.
UConn James Posted November 28, 2009 Posted November 28, 2009 It is a failure of congressional regulation that there is no a la-carte system for cable. Set up a checklist for every channel offered, set a price for that channel, and then let customers pick what they want and pay for what they want. Cable's package deal is like a supermarket forcing you to buy 10 gallons of cod liver oil so you can get the pumpernickel bread that you really want. We quit cable 15 years ago and went OTA-only. I am miraculously still alive, and count myself the better for not being exposed to the utter dreck of all of these channels.
Fingon Posted November 28, 2009 Posted November 28, 2009 It is a failure of congressional regulation that there is no a la-carte system for cable. Set up a checklist for every channel offered, set a price for that channel, and then let customers pick what they want and pay for what they want. Cable's package deal is like a supermarket forcing you to buy 10 gallons of cod liver oil so you can get the pumpernickel bread that you really want. We quit cable 15 years ago and went OTA-only. I am miraculously still alive, and count myself the better for not being exposed to the utter dreck of all of these channels. Are you seriously advocating Congressional involvement in cable television?
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 28, 2009 Posted November 28, 2009 Are you seriously advocating Congressional involvement in cable television? Haven't they always been?
Acantha Posted November 28, 2009 Posted November 28, 2009 It is a failure of congressional regulation that there is no a la-carte system for cable. Set up a checklist for every channel offered, set a price for that channel, and then let customers pick what they want and pay for what they want. Cable's package deal is like a supermarket forcing you to buy 10 gallons of cod liver oil so you can get the pumpernickel bread that you really want. We quit cable 15 years ago and went OTA-only. I am miraculously still alive, and count myself the better for not being exposed to the utter dreck of all of these channels. I'm moving in a few months and have already decided I'm not getting cable/Sat. in my new place. Between what you can watch on-line or get on DVD after the seasons are over, the only thing I'd miss is sports, and really just all of the college football options. Have to find a good sports bar.
UConn James Posted November 28, 2009 Posted November 28, 2009 Haven't they always been? Yes. That's probably why it's as effed up as it is. Cable companies are a patchwork of regulated monopolies. Certain areas are restricted to certain carriers. E.G. In my area, there is only Charter. Several towns over, it is only Cox. Congress could fairly easily order the companies to institute an a la carte system, or at least break it into smaller tiers. McCain, for example, supported this when it was facing scrutiny back in 2004-5. But... money talks, and big cable forcefeeds. Face it, many channels would not make it on their own if people were not forced into paying for them.
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 28, 2009 Posted November 28, 2009 Yes. That's probably why it's as effed up as it is. Cable companies are a patchwork of regulated monopolies. Certain areas are restricted to certain carriers. E.G. In my area, there is only Charter. Several towns over, it is only Cox. Congress could fairly easily order the companies to institute an a la carte system, or at least break it into smaller tiers. McCain, for example, supported this when it was facing scrutiny back in 2004-5. But... money talks, and big cable forcefeeds. Face it, many channels would not make it on their own if people were not forced into paying for them. Nice explanation!
Fezmid Posted November 28, 2009 Posted November 28, 2009 Face it, many channels would not make it on their own if people were not forced into paying for them. MOST channels would not make it -- which would then raise the cost of the channels you DO want to watch, making them nearly unaffordable. It's an idea that sounds GREAT on paper, and will utterly collapse television in reality (which some may say is a good thing ). For a good writeup of the situation: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/business...;pagewanted=all From the article: Take, for instance, ESPN, which charges the highest amount of any cable network: $3 per subscriber per month. (I'm borrowing this example from a recent research note by Craig Moffett, the Sanford C. Bernstein cable analyst.) Suppose in an à la carte world, 25 percent of the nation's cable subscribers take ESPN. If that were the case, the network would have to charge each subscriber not $3, but $12 a month to keep its revenue the same. (And don't forget: with its $1.1 billion annual bill to the National Football League alone, ESPN is hardly in a position to tolerate declining revenues.) Cable's package deal is like a supermarket forcing you to buy 10 gallons of cod liver oil so you can get the pumpernickel bread that you really want. Wouldn't a similar example be people without kids having to pay school taxes in order to own a home...? If everyone didn't subsidize the school system, the cost for people with kids would skyrocket.
Dan Posted November 28, 2009 Posted November 28, 2009 MOST channels would not make it -- which would then raise the cost of the channels you DO want to watch, making them nearly unaffordable. It's an idea that sounds GREAT on paper, and will utterly collapse television in reality (which some may say is a good thing ). For a good writeup of the situation: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/business...;pagewanted=all I see what you're saying. But, what if they found a proper price point for each channel. Let's just say at $3/channel. You'd have to select 20 channels to hit $60/month. I think that's a decent nationwide average (maybe not though). I'm guessing, here, but most people would probably select a feww less - maybe 15 channels. Given that scenario, you could charge $4/channel and the cable compnay still make the same. Of course some people would save money because they only want 5-10 channels. But, many would also want well more than 15 channels. So, they might even out. IMO, they'd probably make more money because people are dumb and they'd still want all the channels they've always gotten and watch only once a year. In the end though, I say screw it. If cable doesn't give you want you want, go satellite. I know not everyone can, but if that's the case... move. Wouldn't a similar example be people without kids having to pay school taxes in order to own a home...? If everyone didn't subsidize the school system, the cost for people with kids would skyrocket. Yeah, but as a persosn without kids, I don't mind that so much because having smart kids makes the world a better place - theoretically. However, having people strung out on the couch does nothing to help society.
Acantha Posted November 29, 2009 Posted November 29, 2009 MOST channels would not make it -- which would then raise the cost of the channels you DO want to watch, making them nearly unaffordable. It's an idea that sounds GREAT on paper, and will utterly collapse television in reality (which some may say is a good thing ). For a good writeup of the situation: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/business...;pagewanted=all From the article: Wouldn't a similar example be people without kids having to pay school taxes in order to own a home...? If everyone didn't subsidize the school system, the cost for people with kids would skyrocket. There are a lot of holes in the scenario you've brought up about this before. For this particular argument, you're forgetting supply and demand. If the price structure changed, stations would have to play around and find a price that their customers would be willing to pay. Would people pay 12 bucks a month for ESPN? Probably not. They'd have to lower price in order to get customers. Also, stations could work together to promote deals. Groupings that customers could put together, not be forced to accept.
Steely Dan Posted November 29, 2009 Posted November 29, 2009 Time Warner Cable has a message on the front page of Roadrunner that talks about Networks raising the costs of cable. They have two arrows for you to click 1)Roll Over 2)Get Tough. When you hit the Get Tough page, they ask you to send a message. I guess they plan on forwarding these angry messages to the stations they're negotiating with. I decided to turn the tables on them, since they won't give us NFL Network. Anyone else who wants the NFL Network should let them know and respond to their Get Tough invitation. Here is what I wrote: There are tons of stations currently on my cable that I'm paying for that I never watch. Meanwhile you put out things like this, yet refuse to give me the option of watching the one network I want the most, the NFL Network. You have NBA, MLB & NHL-a league that I never watch, but you won't give me my football. Well, you made it through this season with me as a customer, but my patience is wearing thin. I might not be a customer by the next NFL season unless you give me the NFL network. I don't want to hear all your excuses. You're charging me for things I'd never watch, while failing to get me what I do want. It's about time for NFL fans to stop rolling over for Time Warner Cable. Your time to fix this without losing us is running out. The NFL is being unreasonable. IIRC, they want $.75 for every subscriber and they demand it be on the basic tier. For one time I actually support the cable companies. Yes. That's probably why it's as effed up as it is. Cable companies are a patchwork of regulated monopolies. Certain areas are restricted to certain carriers. E.G. In my area, there is only Charter. Several towns over, it is only Cox. Congress could fairly easily order the companies to institute an a la carte system, or at least break it into smaller tiers. McCain, for example, supported this when it was facing scrutiny back in 2004-5. But... money talks, and big cable forcefeeds. Face it, many channels would not make it on their own if people were not forced into paying for them. In my area it's only Time Warner. I have the all in one package. The problem is that they only have two tiers the basic next to nothing tier or the everything and more you don't want tier. Soon I'm turning off my landline with them, going basic and roadrunner only. I was talking to an operator the other day and he offered me a tremendous deal. I found out later they wouldn't honor it because he never told me that deal was available and I had interpreted it in a way he never meant. There are a lot of holes in the scenario you've brought up about this before. For this particular argument, you're forgetting supply and demand. If the price structure changed, stations would have to play around and find a price that their customers would be willing to pay. Would people pay 12 bucks a month for ESPN? Probably not. They'd have to lower price in order to get customers. Also, stations could work together to promote deals. Groupings that customers could put together, not be forced to accept. I think the networks would make up the lost revenue by stuffing more commercials into their broadcasts.
Fezmid Posted November 29, 2009 Posted November 29, 2009 There are a lot of holes in the scenario you've brought up about this before. For this particular argument, you're forgetting supply and demand. If the price structure changed, stations would have to play around and find a price that their customers would be willing to pay. Would people pay 12 bucks a month for ESPN? Probably not. They'd have to lower price in order to get customers. Also, stations could work together to promote deals. Groupings that customers could put together, not be forced to accept. That's exactly my point -- ESPN wouldn't be able to get $12/customer. In turn, less people would have ESPN, which means advertisers would not pay as much money for commercials. They just paid over a billion for NFL games -- they wouldn't be able to afford that anymore. That means ESPN could very well go out of business. And let's skip ESPN - what about ESPN Classic? ESPN2? You really think BET would survive? The article I linked said no. SciFi? Sorry, not that many SciFi fans, so that network would probably be gone. Lifetime? Forget about it. You'd have maybe 10 channels to choose from. Well, in that case, why even pay extra for it at all? Now there's no more cable TV. The article also mentions that it would be near impossible to get any new channels -- because nobody's going to sign up for a channel that they know almost nothing about. Ala carte just doesn't work in the real world.
Acantha Posted November 29, 2009 Posted November 29, 2009 That's exactly my point -- ESPN wouldn't be able to get $12/customer. In turn, less people would have ESPN, which means advertisers would not pay as much money for commercials. They just paid over a billion for NFL games -- they wouldn't be able to afford that anymore. That means ESPN could very well go out of business. Everything would trickle down. They wouldn't pay a billion dollars for NFL games because that money wouldn't be there anymore. And it would be the same for all of the other stations, so they would still probably be able to outbid everybody. And let's skip ESPN - what about ESPN Classic? ESPN2? If it they were wanted, they would survive. You really think BET would survive? The article I linked said no. SciFi? Sorry, not that many SciFi fans, so that network would probably be gone. Lifetime? Forget about it. You'd have maybe 10 channels to choose from. Well, in that case, why even pay extra for it at all? Now there's no more cable TV. Who cares? Right now there are dozens of stations that have 1 or 2 good shows each. Sci-Fi maybe has 2 shows on at one time that get any ratings at all. Get rid of the majority of those stations, and those good shows get picked up by the few stations that make it. You could go from a few good shows on each station throughout the year to good shows every day. With more good shows, comes more money from commercials. More money from commercials means decent prices for viewers. The article also mentions that it would be near impossible to get any new channels -- because nobody's going to sign up for a channel that they know almost nothing about. And again, if they have shows that people want to see, they will survive. I don't understand the problem with making stations have decent programming in order to stay in business. Ala carte just doesn't work in the real world. It very well may not. But IMO the reasons given by these articles leave too much open to be decisive.
stevestojan Posted November 29, 2009 Posted November 29, 2009 I would pay: $11 for espn $10. For showtime (weeds, united states of tara, Dexter) $5 each for nbc, cbs, abc and fox $7. For msnbc for lockup. That's all.
Jim in Anchorage Posted November 29, 2009 Posted November 29, 2009 I would pay: $11 for espn $10. For showtime (weeds, united states of tara, Dexter) $5 each for nbc, cbs, abc and fox $7. For msnbc for lockup. That's all. Seeing how the homeys doing?
Steely Dan Posted November 29, 2009 Posted November 29, 2009 The channels I'd want are; ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, HBO, Showtime, CNN, HLN, ESPN, PBS, AMC, DSC, AETV, Comedy, TRUTV, MSNBC, TBS, Cartoon Network, TCM, History, FX, Animal Planet, VS, WGN. I'd pay about $50 for that lineup.
Just Jack Posted November 29, 2009 Posted November 29, 2009 And let's skip ESPN - what about ESPN Classic? ESPN2? I believe they should be included with the purchase of ESPN. I would pay: $11 for espn $10. For showtime (weeds, united states of tara, Dexter) $5 each for nbc, cbs, abc and fox $7. For msnbc for lockup. That's all. I'm paying $6/month for Showtime currently
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 29, 2009 Posted November 29, 2009 Wouldn't a similar example be people without kids having to pay school taxes in order to own a home...? If everyone didn't subsidize the school system, the cost for people with kids would skyrocket. I don't think that is a good example. What vital role does TV have on making society better: ZERO. Well except for maybe the emergency broadcast system.
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 29, 2009 Posted November 29, 2009 I would pay: $11 for espn $10. For showtime (weeds, united states of tara, Dexter) $5 each for nbc, cbs, abc and fox $7. For msnbc for lockup. That's all. Really? When it is over the air free. To me paying for TV just goes to show how a society is progressing and throw money down the drain... Much like the use of toilet paper. Yes, I use and pay for both.
Recommended Posts