Cost of Cable Continues To Rise Despite Technological Advances - Industry says you get more viewing value for your dollar
Links: home · search · speed test · login · more ·
Links: New Topic
Forums »
page: 1 · 2
anon @ 24th May 03:12PM:
Are you really getting more for your dollar?
If the consumer was getting more for their dollar, prices would not be increasing but remaining consistent. How can you possibly get more for your dollar when you are giving them more dollars? Sounds like the exact opposite to me...
reply
Joe12345678 @ 24th May 03:13PM:
Direct Tv and dish have better deals
Direct Tv and dish have better deals then cable more channels and lower box fees $5 per box first free vs $6-$7 on cable with drv fees at $14-$15 vs $5 or less fees for drv on sat.
reply
TK Junk Mail @ 24th May 03:19PM:
Link to see article if you dont subscribe to NYT
»news.google.com/news?as_q=indust···any&aq=f
And then just click on the 1st item. Google gives authority to read news item.
Or you can just register for free at nytimes.com
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
reply
anon @ 24th May 03:23PM:
Re: Are you really getting more for your dollar?
said by VZ FiOS :
If the consumer was getting more for their dollar, prices would not be increasing but remaining consistent. How can you possibly get more for your dollar when you are giving them more dollars? Sounds like the exact opposite to me...
What do you mean by consistent? Not changing? Prices are always going to rise due to inflation with a service like this. As any operator adds more channels there are more content partners to pay for each channel and you'd better believe they will adjust their fees for inflation. The NFL network wants everyone to have their channel so that everyone can pay the additional fees for it (because they want to make money!)
I think the cable co's point was that compared to 1998 you are getting many more channels and services that weren't available then such as VOD and HD.
reply
Morac @ 24th May 03:24PM:
More channels = higher price
Just because the "stuff" to price ratio is better now than it was 10 years ago, doesn't mean it's a better value.
10 years ago, I watched a handful of channels and didn't use VOD. Today, I watch a handful of channels and rarely, if ever, use VOD.
So I don't care if there are tenfold more (mostly crappy) channels compared to a decade ago. That doesn't make cable a bargain.
--
The Comcast Disney Avatar has been retired.
reply
TK Junk Mail @ 24th May 03:30PM:
Re: More channels = higher price
said by Morac :
10 years ago, I watched a handful of channels and didn't use VOD. Today, I watch a handful of channels and rarely, if ever, use VOD.
An interesting stat from the story:
watch only a fraction of what they pay for — on average, a mere 13 percent of the 118 channels available to them.
The debate is - would a la carte, where you pay only for that 13%, cost less than the whole package of channels. The FCC says a la carte would be cheaper. The cable companies and Hollywood say it won't.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
reply
Bobcat @ 24th May 03:36PM:
A pack of lies
quote:
the cable industry says that you’re really getting more for your money.
That's a lie. Cablevision just took away approx 10% of my channels, with no decrease in rate. So cable is giving me LESS for my money.
reply
dadkins @ 24th May 03:37PM:
Provider cost vs subscriber cost
When POS networks charge more, are the cablecos supposed to absorb those costs?
Is it Comcast's fault that ESPN or (insert channel/network here)__________ charges more for their channel(s)? :huh:
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera
reply
anon @ 24th May 03:37PM:
Just to be fair...
It depends on the cable service.
HSI price has held steady for the last 4 years while the speeds have increased from 4000/256 to 16000/2000. No price increase.
Comcast Digital Phone is cheaper than equivalent phone company service and the sound quality is much better.
The TV portion of my cable bill has increased but I have a lot more channels available and the picture quality has vastly improved.
Would I rather have Jones, TCI or AT&T back? HELL NO!
reply
Bobcat @ 24th May 03:39PM:
Re: Are you really getting more for your dollar?
said by Anon123 :
I think the cable co's point was that compared to 1998 you are getting many more channels and services that weren't available then such as VOD and HD.
The cable companies lie through their teeth. In 1998 my cable bill was $34.18. Now it's $51.12, and I get FEWER channels. We had VOD in 1998, but I never used it. And I don't care about HD.
reply
wifi4milez @ 24th May 03:55PM:
What a dumb comparison
It doesnt make sense to compare the prices of a non-tangible service to that of a tangible good. The price for consumer electronics has dropped because they are now being mass produced in China (among other places) in the millions. The market is now flooded with cheap goods made overseas, and there are so many options to chose from that the price naturally drops. A service on the other hand (such as cable), is not something you can mass produce in a factory someplace in Asia. A service is worth exactly what a person will pay for it, and thus the demand for that service drives the price. Look at it this way, the cost of a space flight currently sits at around $1 million because thats what people who can afford to do it think its worth. Cable service is no different, and simple economic principles will drive how much the operators charge, and therefore what we pay. Count on the New York Times to draw an apples to kiwis comparison, and then try and spin the results.....
--
Have YOU thanked a soldier today? If not, think about doing it as you speak ENGLISH this memorial day. God Bless America, and God Bless our troops.
reply
RARPSL @ 24th May 04:01PM:
A semi al a carte Method
The cable companies and media providers claim that if there were no bundles the cost of the individual channels would go up and "niche" channels would not be supported/available. I say there is a middle ground that would make al a carte and Bundles possible.
Right now I get X channels from Media Suppler Y for $Z. If I only want X/2 half of them than I should be able to get them al a carte for $Z/2. There is no $Z1 for channel 1 and $Z2 for channel2 (with the prices different based on popularity/etc.) but a flat $Z/X PER CHANNEL which is the same method as now (the Niche Channels are subsidized by the Popular ones).
Each Media Suppler sets their own bundle price now and would charge THE SAME BUNDLE PRICE under my system.
reply
tmc8080 @ 24th May 04:05PM:
On the DL(down-low)
Just between us... Newspapers are not worth the paper or online websites their made of either. You never see stand-up honest reporting anymore.. just airing what the corporate mouthpiece line is on everything... CNN, ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC.. gone are the days of doing the right thing. Reporting after 9/11/2001 DIED A SAD DEATH. Journalism is a dead industry. Cable TV is not what it used to be because they are advertising WHORES and they make more and more revenue from that source than anything else. They could even PAY you to watch it and they'd still eek out a profit if you changed nothing else. Alot of it is secret back room deals that isn't reported to the fcc, irs or anybody else. You won't see it on a stock earnings report, nor on Ronco's rotisserie express infomercial. So for that, you pay an arm, a leg franchise fees, surcharges, rental fees and are gouged beyond belief. However you are glad to pay for this nonsense. Then again, your grumbling right along with $4 gasoline so... a sucker will buy anything at a high price these days, so let the games begin. I think they should raise the rates by 40% it's not high enough.
Yes, there are tid-bits of sarcasm here.. but alot of truth subscribers just don't want to hear- or do anything about, such as unsubscribe. That would be too difficult. After all, you must be addicted to some of the programming to still be watching & paying for it.
reply
TK Junk Mail @ 24th May 04:07PM:
Re: Just to be fair...
said by Just2bfair :
HSI price has held steady for the last 4 years while the speeds have increased from 4000/256 to 16000/2000. No price increase.
I have paid the same for HSI since 2001 - $42.95/mo.
And the speed went from 1500/128 to 6600/1000 during that time.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
reply
RARPSL @ 24th May 04:12PM:
Re: What a dumb comparison
said by wifi4milez :
A service on the other hand (such as cable), is not something you can mass produce in a factory someplace in Asia. A service is worth exactly what a person will pay for it, and thus the demand for that service drives the price.
ONLY if I can choose whose service I can buy (as I can with the physical goods). So long as I have only one cable source (my local monopoly cable company) I must pay what they want to charge me. If I could choose my cable company (ie: I have access to a cable feed from my home to a peer point such as occurs on the Internet) and all the cable companies feed into the peering point and I choose whose feed flows over my Home-to-Peering_Point path, THEN the DEMAND for TWC's vs CV's vs Comcast's feed would set the price.
reply
RARPSL @ 24th May 04:17PM:
Re: Provider cost vs subscriber cost
said by dadkins :
When POS networks charge more, are the cablecos supposed to absorb those costs?
Is it Comcast's fault that ESPN or (insert channel/network here)__________ charges more for their channel(s)? :huh:
If I want ESPN then I pay what their fees cause the cable company to charge me. I only pay this IF I want ESPN unless the cable company forms their own artificial bundle by grouping ESPN with other suppliers channels and sells it to me as a take-all-or-none bundle/tier.
reply
supergirl @ 24th May 04:18PM:
Re: Are you really getting more for your dollar?
said by VZ FiOS :
If the consumer was getting more for their dollar, prices would not be increasing but remaining consistent. How can you possibly get more for your dollar when you are giving them more dollars? Sounds like the exact opposite to me...
Hell no I'm not. 40-50 of the 100+ channels I get could easily go away and never be missed by me. All of them seem to have informercials on them when you can't sleep in the middle of the night as well.
--
Saving the world keeps me busy. However, I find Earth very primitive from my home planet of Krypton.
-Supergirl
reply
dadkins @ 24th May 04:38PM:
Re: Provider cost vs subscriber cost
said by RARPSL :said by dadkins :
When POS networks charge more, are the cablecos supposed to absorb those costs?
Is it Comcast's fault that ESPN or (insert channel/network here)__________ charges more for their channel(s)? :huh:
If I want ESPN then I pay what their fees cause the cable company to charge me. I only pay this IF I want ESPN unless the cable company forms their own artificial bundle by grouping ESPN with other suppliers channels and sells it to me as a take-all-or-none bundle/tier.
Welcome to cable TV!
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera
reply
openbox9 @ 24th May 04:54PM:
Re: Provider cost vs subscriber cost
said by RARPSL :
unless the cable company forms their own artificial bundle by grouping ESPN with other suppliers channels and sells it to me as a take-all-or-none bundle/tier.
Which Disney seems to like to force their carriers to do.
reply
openbox9 @ 24th May 04:56PM:
Re: What a dumb comparison
said by RARPSL :
ONLY if I can choose whose service I can buy (as I can with the physical goods).
You mean like choosing service from Dish Network or DirecTV instead of your cable company?
reply
S_engineer @ 24th May 05:01PM:
Re: More channels = higher price
Well think of it this way, if the cablecos are saying these "package deals" are cheaper, and we see 15% annual increases on them, then you know they'd rape on ala carte!
--
"Anything worth having is worth cheating for." WC Fields
reply
pokesph @ 24th May 05:02PM:
Re: Provider cost vs subscriber cost
said by dadkins :
When POS networks charge more, are the cablecos supposed to absorb those costs?
Is it Comcast's fault that ESPN or (insert channel/network here)__________ charges more for their channel(s)? :huh:
we should just go back to the 'networks pay the cable co's to carry' model.. it would solve all the insane pricing problems and remove the crappy networks that no one watches anyway.
--
Webmaster - Steve
- - - - - - - - - - - -
»www.1-gb.net
»www.ppnstudio.com
reply
RARPSL @ 24th May 05:12PM:
Re: Provider cost vs subscriber cost
said by openbox9 :said by RARPSL :
unless the cable company forms their own artificial bundle by grouping ESPN with other suppliers channels and sells it to me as a take-all-or-none bundle/tier.
Which Disney seems to like to force their carriers to do.
What? Disney is a supplier. How are they forcing the Cable Companies to merge their bundles with the bundles from OTHER suppliers (which is what I was talking about in reference to ESPN)?
reply
RARPSL @ 24th May 05:18PM:
Re: Provider cost vs subscriber cost
said by dadkins :said by RARPSL :said by dadkins :
When POS networks charge more, are the cablecos supposed to absorb those costs?
Is it Comcast's fault that ESPN or (insert channel/network here)__________ charges more for their channel(s)? :huh:
If I want ESPN then I pay what their fees cause the cable company to charge me. I only pay this IF I want ESPN unless the cable company forms their own artificial bundle by grouping ESPN with other suppliers channels and sells it to me as a take-all-or-none bundle/tier.
Welcome to cable TV!
Your statement that cable companies can bundle channels/bundles from different suppliers into an artificial bundle has nothing to do with my comment about ESPN wanting a large fee for their bundle (which is what I was commenting about). Just because they do it, it has nothing to do with what the suppliers charge.
reply
RARPSL @ 24th May 05:25PM:
Re: What a dumb comparison
said by openbox9 :said by RARPSL :
ONLY if I can choose whose service I can buy (as I can with the physical goods).
You mean like choosing service from Dish Network or DirecTV instead of your cable company?
Yes but this is ONLY a valid alternative IF I have access to Dish and/or DirectTV. So long as they are not available to me, then this option does not count.
reply
siouxmoux @ 24th May 05:40PM:
And ATT raise their prices of U-Verse as well.
For anyone signing up for U-Verse now. You will be paying $20 dollars more a mouth since they have discontinued their $10 bundle discount and the free 2 stbs early adopter offer.
So What next price hikes for U-Verse, No more free DVR and Free Installation. And Will ATT tack on addition fees for WHDVR, Muli HD Streams, Media Room And those stb Apps like flickr, yahoo games, peg channels.
reply
EPS @ 24th May 05:43PM:
Re: Provider cost vs subscriber cost
Easy. They can threaten to pull their supply, and then promote the opposition. ("Big Cable doesn't want you to get ESPN! Switch to satellite!")
Plus, Disney can pull not just ESPN (and its myriad of spinoffs), but Disney Channel, ABC Family, and (if they control the local affiliate) ABC if they really want to play hardball. The cable companies have a lot less control than it seems at first glance.
reply
zed260 @ 24th May 05:46PM:
Re: Link to see article if you dont subscribe to NYT
you can read it without going though googgle or registering
reply
en102 @ 24th May 05:57PM:
Re: Are you really getting more for your dollar?
Currently there are marketed bundles to attempt to make it appear less expensive.
Eg. Broadcast basic = $13 (~40 channels)
Standard Analog = +$50/month for ~75 channels
Digital = $60/month for ~100 channels
'bundled' with HSI/VoIP then there are 'promos' for ~100/month + fees. :uhh:
I am on DTV, and in 2004, I paid $45/month +5 extra/tuner
Now its $10/month higher, unless I purchase DVR service.
There's no lowering prices... just adding more services with a slight increase in price.
--
Canada = Hollywood North
reply
EPS @ 24th May 06:12PM:
Re: What a dumb comparison
How would this work? Cable networks are not designed to give different feeds to each home, they give the same television feed to every home.
reply
Kearnstd @ 24th May 06:16PM:
Re: Provider cost vs subscriber cost
Disney corp. has the cable companies by the balls, you MUST carry espn in your basic lineup if you want to carry their other channels. basicly they do the same to all content providers and its why mega conglomerates like to own true high demand networks. the ones like ESPN are semi nich to sports fans, but if you want the ABC channels you gotta have it in the normal package and cant shove ESPN off to the sports package.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports
reply
BF69 @ 24th May 06:21PM:
Re: Are you really getting more for your dollar?
said by Anon123 :
The NFL network wants everyone to have their channel so that everyone can pay the additional fees for it (because they want to make money!)
Get off that crap. Hell ESPN charges $5 for ESPN and ESPN 2. Comcast forces other cable companies to have Golf Chanel on a basic tier AND pay for it if those companies want to carry their other channels like E! and G4.
I think the cable co's point was that compared to 1998 you are getting many more channels and services that weren't available then such as VOD and HD.
There isn't any VOD in my area. HD is extra. So is VOD if I had it. Charter has actually REDUCED channels while raising prices. How am I getting more for my $?
reply
BF69 @ 24th May 06:29PM:
Re: More channels = higher price
said by TK Junk Mail :said by Morac :
10 years ago, I watched a handful of channels and didn't use VOD. Today, I watch a handful of channels and rarely, if ever, use VOD.
An interesting stat from the story:
watch only a fraction of what they pay for — on average, a mere 13 percent of the 118 channels available to them.
The debate is - would a la carte, where you pay only for that 13%, cost less than the whole package of channels. The FCC says a la carte would be cheaper. The cable companies and Hollywood say it won't.
Per channel cost no it wouldn't be cheaper. But since I would be paying VASTLY fewer channels yes it would be cheaper.
reply
wifi4milez @ 24th May 06:30PM:
Re: What a dumb comparison
said by RARPSL :said by openbox9 :said by RARPSL :
ONLY if I can choose whose service I can buy (as I can with the physical goods).
You mean like choosing service from Dish Network or DirecTV instead of your cable company?
Yes but this is ONLY a valid alternative IF I have access to Dish and/or DirectTV. So long as they are not available to me, then this option does not count.
Unless you dont have access to the southern sky, you should be able to get either DirecTV or Dish as an alternative.
--
Have YOU thanked a soldier today? If not, think about doing it as you speak ENGLISH this memorial day. God Bless America, and God Bless our troops.
reply
russotto @ 24th May 06:45PM:
Raise your masts!
And fly an antenna from them. Cable's gotten ridiculous, and while they provide you with a ton of channels, there's _still_ nothing on. Over the air TV is still free, and digital TV is the same or better quality than cable.
reply
justbits @ 24th May 07:11PM:
Flat compared to inflation?!
The fact that they're purposely matching inflation is deliberate and likely so regulators and economists can't easily determine that the market isn't competitive.
My theory is that people are willing to pay a higher price for cable because they are too lazy to find an alternative service, they have been bamboozled into thinking that there are no equivalent alternatives, and/or the customers are stuck in a non-competitive marketplace.
reply
Luko @ 24th May 07:33PM:
Re: Flat compared to inflation?!
See how long Comcast let you keep your subscription to High Speed internet if you use Internet TV. I know they would have a cow if my wife start using the NetFlix online account.
reply
dadkins @ 24th May 07:52PM:
Re: Provider cost vs subscriber cost
How does ESPN come up with their cost?
WHY does ESPN insist on their bundle - at their imposed cost.
What do you think the cablecos are going to do when ESPN raises their cost, suck it up and keep *our* price down? Fuck no! :huh:
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera
reply
tlp95129 @ 24th May 07:57PM:
Re: Provider cost vs subscriber cost
said by EPS :
Easy. They can threaten to pull their supply, and then promote the opposition. ("Big Cable doesn't want you to get ESPN! Switch to satellite!")
Plus, Disney can pull not just ESPN (and its myriad of spinoffs), but Disney Channel, ABC Family, and (if they control the local affiliate) ABC if they really want to play hardball. The cable companies have a lot less control than it seems at first glance.
IMO, it's all a cozy little cooperative game between Hollywood and the Cablecos. They're both interested in the same thing - maximum profits. Fine, welcome to capitalism. The only way to defeat them is to not play the game. Either switch to satellite (save maybe $10-$15) per month, or go over-the-air with an antenna. But then there's no ESPN, just the broadcast channels. But hey, there's plenty of sports on them too, and movies and dramatic series, whatever. Cable is an optional expense.
reply
EPS @ 24th May 08:22PM:
Re: Provider cost vs subscriber cost
Well, it gets more complicated when you factor in that the cable companies own channels- Comcast owns E! for example, and Time Warner owns a crapload of things (to the point where they now see cable as a distraction to be sold off).
I myself use Verizon's TV, but I wonder if the telcos will soon join in the media game- they certainly have enough money to buy out someone.
I'd use over-the-air, but the Boston Red Sox have put nearly all games on their team-owned cable channel, and I want to be able to watch more games than just the local FOX affiliate has occaisonally... other than that and the occaisonal Law and Order rerun on TNT, everything I watch is from the broadcast channels anyway.
reply
n2jtx @ 24th May 08:46PM:
Re: A semi al a carte Method
I would love to have al a carte. Forgetting broadcast basic since that would be the base, I would pick Comedy, SciFi, TVLand and the various news channels such as CNN, CNN Headline, Fox News, MSNBC and CNBC. I might go for A&E, History. FX, Spike, Family and AMC but they would have to make me a good offer to take those. Otherwise, there is nothing else in the standard package that I would be interested in. My sister and brother-in-law have the top tier of service available and I have sat there with the remote control and just skipped from channel to channel completely disinterested. Mostly it is repeats from basic TV or it is a run of commercials. It still bugs me the number of commercials you see on basic cable channels. Heck, there are more than on commercial TV and at least that is "free".
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears.
reply
Joe12345678 @ 24th May 09:28PM:
Re: Raise your masts!
said by russotto :
And fly an antenna from them. Cable's gotten ridiculous, and while they provide you with a ton of channels, there's _still_ nothing on. Over the air TV is still free, and digital TV is the same or better quality than cable.
but they don't have most of cable channels on Over the air TV digital TV.
reply
jpl931 @ 24th May 09:49PM:
Charter cable digital service out again
As of 8:46 Pm in the Jefferson county area (Missouri) Charter Digital is out again and the 1-888-GETCHARTER is busy cannot get thru.......I am shocked and amazed. They really are circling the drain you can almost hear the sucking sound...oh no that is their service how silly of me!
reply
majortom1029 @ 24th May 11:26PM:
Re: A pack of lies
IF your going to play dirty atleast state it was your analog channels and that you get more channels by getting a box. Also if you get an hd box(which still works on non hdtv's) then you also get channels that are available only for hd.
reply
dvd536 @ 24th May 11:55PM:
Re: More channels = higher price
said by Morac :
Just because the "stuff" to price ratio is better now than it was 10 years ago, doesn't mean it's a better value.
10 years ago, I watched a handful of channels and didn't use VOD. Today, I watch a handful of channels and rarely, if ever, use VOD.
So I don't care if there are tenfold more (mostly crappy) channels compared to a decade ago. That doesn't make cable a bargain.
Look at your program guide after 10pm. most are "paid programming". hardly more value per dollar than years ago[unless you're an advertising exec]
Ala carte would show the true number of channels people ACTUALLY watch. the others would just die out[must carry needs to go]
--
When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee
reply
dvd536 @ 24th May 11:56PM:
Re: Provider cost vs subscriber cost
said by dadkins :
When POS networks charge more, are the cablecos supposed to absorb those costs?
Is it Comcast's fault that ESPN or (insert channel/network here)__________ charges more for their channel(s)? :huh:
NO, but neither should i have to pay for a sports channel that i dont even watch[or want!]
--
When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee
reply
dvd536 @ 24th May 11:58PM:
Re: Just to be fair...
said by TK Junk Mail :said by Just2bfair :
HSI price has held steady for the last 4 years while the speeds have increased from 4000/256 to 16000/2000. No price increase.
I have paid the same for HSI since 2001 - $42.95/mo.
And the speed went from 1500/128 to 6600/1000 during that time.
its well known that video subs subsidize HSI.
--
When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee
reply
Rob A @ 24th May 11:59PM:
Like anyone is...
Surprised, cable rates will continue to rise.
reply
anon @ 25th May 12:15AM:
Cable Costs
Cable costs more because cable companies have offices all over the place and have to pay for them. The people that work there, their salaries, medical benifits, etc... Then consider how many MILES of cable every cable company has in every city, town and county and how many trucks they have to have to roll to fix problems and how many techs they need to have and how much gas costs to put in those trucks and how much tools cost for each one of those trucks... Its a lot of cost to do cable business. They pass that off to us.
Satellite is cheaper because the guy comes to your home, puts up a dish, installs a few wires and leaves.
Very little cost because nothing to maintain unless there is a service call and they are usually pretty quick....connectors, broken cable, batteries in the remote.
Less expense with satellite
reply
anon @ 25th May 08:14AM:
Re: Are you really getting more for your dollar?
i have charter and i get 10/1 internet and every thing on cable and also phone for 140.00 a month now when i had att i was paying 65 for phone and 45 for internet and 85.00 for sat.
reply
qworster @ 25th May 01:54AM:
Better image quality?
Is that what they call this pixxellated crud that I see on my TV set these days? Whenever it goes to black all you see are squares! It's almost impossible to watch hockey and basketball....the screen pixxellates to an extreme.
Channel 7 (KABC) has had a right sided ghost on it the past year (multipath due to a poorly aimed receive antenna). I've called a dozen times and it still remains. My 24 dollar (after tax and coupon) Zenith DTV converter doesn't have any ghosts-why not buy one TW and use THAT video feed?
Right now my cable and Internet is out (I'm in the middle of Hollywood). I called TW and after being on hold for 25 minutes was told there wasn't any outage-until all of a sudden there was. They figure it'll be fixed by tomorrow. TV goes out right in the middle of prime time on a weekend, and the best they'll commit to is to have it fixed within a day!
HUH?????
reply
anon @ 25th May 01:57AM:
I'm sick of the cable companies
I'm just sick and tired of the all you can eat mentality of the cable television companies. Just give me the 10-15 channels I like to watch in digital format and high speed Internet (at least 5Mbps) for $40.00/month and I'm happy.
But they won't do that. Everything is bundled in packages with all sorts of garbage I don't want or need (and in many cases don't even want in my home).
Throw telephone service in the bundle for another $20.00/month, and now I think you have a winning combination.
reply
rid0617 @ 25th May 02:45AM:
Re: Are you really getting more for your dollar?
When I signed up with directv in 1997 the price was $29.95. Since then they have added a few more junk channels, a lot more shopping channels, outsourced their customer service to a foreign country to save labor costs and still raised the basic package to $52.95. Do not miss cutting the cord a bit.
reply
Bobcat @ 25th May 06:29AM:
Re: A pack of lies
said by majortom1029 :
IF your going to play dirty atleast state it was your analog channels and that you get more channels by getting a box.
At a 50% INCREASE in rates, to get the SAME channels I used to get. So again, "getting more for my money" is an outright lie.
It's either a 10% cut in service at the same rate, or a 50% increase in rates for the same service. Scumbags.
reply
ebubman @ 25th May 08:11AM:
comcast usury...
i've written often here that if comcast could concoct a way to charge me for the air that i breathe while i'm online, they would do it in a heartbeat...
reply
Gts @ 25th May 08:34AM:
Does this really matter?
Cable co's will always price gouge the living hell out of their subscribers. The pricing model for services in this country is insanely absurd.
reply
supergirl @ 25th May 10:35AM:
Re: Provider cost vs subscriber cost
said by dadkins :
How does ESPN come up with their cost?
WHY does ESPN insist on their bundle - at their imposed cost.
What do you think the cablecos are going to do when ESPN raises their cost, suck it up and keep *our* price down? Fuck no! :huh:
ESPN has high costs due to the billions being paid each year to NBA, NFL, MLB, etc. Economists found a sports team made little or no impact on a city. So, you pay twice for sports--once in taxes to build stadiums to contract their prima donnas and in cable fees. So, cities are balking at building new stadiums.
Eventually, all cable outfits are gonna balk at the NFL, like Comcast and Cox did to the NFL Network, and ESPNs. Why did ABC drop their MNF show? It was losing $1+ million a game. And, with small audiences, advertisers are already balking. The last Superbowl gave away some ads to keep the money grail going. Hence, the Superbowl is becoming a money loser.
So, expensive sports like the NFL and NBA are going to be PPVs. $10 million a year for a NBA player that scores 4.5ppg?
Hate to tell you but about 50% of the cable channels would go bankrupt without your cable bill. Ads cover about 30-45% of their budgets. Cable covers the rest.
When digital cable hits, how many people will drop it? I see tiers to keep them stay. Eventually ala carte is coming.
--
Saving the world keeps me busy. However, I find Earth very primitive from my home planet of Krypton.
-Supergirl
reply
Joe12345678 @ 25th May 10:38AM:
Re: Are you really getting more for your dollar?
You do get NFL and BIG 10 in the base package unlike comcrap
reply
fuziwuzi @ 25th May 10:59AM:
Fact is fact
The hard fact is that I'm getting less and paying more. Comcast continues to reduce the number of channels I receive, yet increases the price of my package. So, I pay more money for less content. In order to get the channels I used to receive, I would have to upgrade to a higher priced package and pay an additional fee for a box rental.
So, currently it is more money for less service. There is no valid dispute to that.
reply
aparis99 @ 25th May 11:04AM:
Re: Better image quality?
said by qworster :
Channel 7 (KABC) has had a right sided ghost on it the past year (multipath due to a poorly aimed receive antenna). I've called a dozen times and it still remains. My 24 dollar (after tax and coupon) Zenith DTV converter doesn't have any ghosts-why not buy one TW and use THAT video feed?
im sure they already have the equipment in place to receive KABC's digital feed... so thank the FCC or somethin else, not the cable co
reply
funchords @ 25th May 12:36PM:
Re: More channels = higher price
said by TK Junk Mail :
The debate is - would a la carte, where you pay only for that 13%, cost less than the whole package of channels. The FCC says a la carte would be cheaper. The cable companies and Hollywood say it won't.
If the Internet is allowed to be unfettered by interference, then a la carte doesn't matter anymore. I could subscribe directly to any single content provider (or package) that I wanted. (I probably wouldn't sign up this way, as I like TV delivered the way it is.)
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
HTTP is the new Bandwidth Hog...
reply
funchords @ 25th May 12:40PM:
Re: Just to be fair...
said by TK Junk Mail :
]I have paid the same for HSI since 2001 - $42.95/mo.
And the speed went from 1500/128 to 6600/1000 during that time.
No, your modem configurations went to 6600/1000, your bandwidth has probably stayed the same. (Actually, that's not fair either because we don't know whether or not you've had node splits meaning that your pooled bandwidth is shared between fewer neighbors).
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
HTTP is the new Bandwidth Hog...
reply
funchords @ 25th May 12:42PM:
Re: Provider cost vs subscriber cost
ESPN is becoming so expensive that it deserves its own premium status. I never watch it, and I have to pay $5-$6 a month for it (I forget what the wholesale charge ended up being, but it's in that neighborhood).
reply
KrK @ 25th May 01:54PM:
Re: More channels = higher price
said by BF69 :
Per channel cost no it wouldn't be cheaper. But since I would be paying VASTLY fewer channels yes it would be cheaper.
It *SHOULD* Be cheaper. A lot cheaper. But it won't be. It will be like at&t and unbundled DSL. Sure you can get DSL only with no POTS. For $5 MORE a month then it costs for POTS + DSL.
I expect they'll deliberately price ala carte that way. Make the price if a few ala carte channels so high that it would be cheaper and more economical to stick to some tier or package.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!)
reply
en102 @ 25th May 02:19PM:
Re: Are you really getting more for your dollar?
Channels that I don't watch
--
Canada = Hollywood North
reply
anon @ 25th May 04:03PM:
Re: What a dumb comparison
said by wifi4milez :
Unless you dont have access to the southern sky, you should be able to get either DirecTV or Dish as an alternative.
That describes tens of millions of us.
And even then, satellite and telco-pay-tv options fail to compete on price or service offerings.
reply
anon @ 25th May 04:05PM:
Re: Provider cost vs subscriber cost
said by dadkins :
When POS networks charge more, are the cablecos supposed to absorb those costs?
Is it Comcast's fault that ESPN or (insert channel/network here)__________ charges more for their channel(s)? :huh:
Comcast is a huge corporation. They have the legal staff to negotiate rates and contracts that favor their customers. They have lobbyists on the payroll.
They could offer ala-carte, and they could force the issue. But they prefer the status quo, where they can blame someone else for their pricing.
Obfuscation works every time.
reply
ftth_freak @ 25th May 09:46PM:
Re: Are you really getting more for your dollar?
Do have cable or dish?
reply
Madness @ 26th May 10:32AM:
Re: Fact is fact
Just to put this in perspective: In 1984, when Cablevision went into service in Boston, basic cable was $2/month, the cable channels had NO commercials, and MTV actually played music videos! :D Adding HBO, in 1985, pushed the bill up to (God help us!) about $7/month!
Even when I last had cable about 10 years ago, the only channels I liked to watch (not including the locals) were Sci-Fi, TV Land, MuchMusic & Cartoon Network. I could care less about such things as the Food Network or the home shopping channels.
reply
Thank you for using lo-fi dslreports.com - report bugs
© 99-2008 silver matrix LLC