If Everything Was Bundled Like Cable

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
This video is funny only because all of us that are paying for cable know exactly how this guy feels. Can't we just pay for cable packages with 25 / 50 / 100 / 200 slots and let us chose our own channels? ?
 
I hate cable but ... I can tell you that cable companies have different margins for different channels.

It helps their bottom line / profits when they give you some of the not so popular channels. If people could pick channels, they certainly are not going to pick some of these lesser known channels, thus, hurting their profits.

Things are not so black and white. What seems like a simple consumer choice isn't really so simple on the back-end.
 
More poignant than funny.. would have helped if the actor was doing his "Sports with Champ Kind" character..

anchorman.jpg


Wish the original "Anchorman" was "À la carte" and I got $4 back as half of it was awesomely funny, the other half a bad, last one of the night SNL skit.
 
Let's accept the fact that this is only a problem because of price. If Comcast gave you 200 channels for $5 nobody would complain. But instead they give you 100 channels at low def for like $40, and then if you want those same channels in HD you have to pay $120, so then everybody's like WTF.

But regardless, thing is nobody really knows what would happen, and how the market would change if things went ala-carte. Would smaller channels really disappear, or would there be a huge new number of them? Would prices go up or down? Would programming change?

One thing is for sure, the TV structure has been really rigid pretty much since the beginning - with little to no innovation up until the time netflix and youtube came along. Now prices are out control and people are fed up with it.
 
SixFootDuo said:
I hate cable but ... I can tell you that cable companies have different margins for different channels.

It helps their bottom line / profits when they give you some of the not so popular channels. If people could pick channels, they certainly are not going to pick some of these lesser known channels, thus, hurting their profits.

Things are not so black and white. What seems like a simple consumer choice isn't really so simple on the back-end.
Click to expand...

Hmm You Hate Cable & I Hate Satellite that petty much cover it
 
It all boils down to Espn. They are the bulk of what you pay even if you don't watch it. It really sucks for those of us who don't like sports.

I just finally cut my cable outside internet. I do some things, but then I remember I'm basically saving $80 a month.
 
"I don't like your way!" LOL!

I tell ya what I do like; the funbags on that elevator blonde. Whatever floor is her floor is the right floor.
 
The thought of a "slots" pricing for ala-carte would be nice. But I think it's like beating a dead horse. The way people watch is much more on-demand, or streaming now that it has been. Even with an ala-carte offereing, "cable" as we know it can't be saved.

How it could work is there are plans with like Steve said 25 / 50 / 100 / 200 slots. You have that many "points' to use. Each local channel could be 1 point, along with other channels Premium channels would be 2, 3, or maybe up to 5 "points: -- HBO for example. You may pay for 25 slots, but only get 10 channels depending on how you spend your points.

It wouldn't be enough for me to come back. I really like the flexibility to be able to watch what I want, when I want - so I stream. Fits with my schedule to. I don't like being tied down to a day / time to see a show. yeah, I know there's DVRs and what not, that cost extra usually...
 
Too confusing. I'd just rather purchase size allotments.

100gb/250gb/500gb/1TB a month etc, just like you buy minutes for your phone, and you can watch whatever the hell you want on demand and pick the resolution you want. The bigger it is, the more you use up of your space and visa versa.
 
Dekoth-E- said:
It all boils down to Espn. They are the bulk of what you pay even if you don't watch it. It really sucks for those of us who don't like sports.
Click to expand...

I see this a lot (usually on tech sites...), but if that's true, then why can Sling offer a small package of channels including ESPN for only $20/mo?

I had heard before that it's not ESPN that is so expensive, but all the other channels that ESPN/ABC/Disney force the cable companies to include in order to get ESPN...
 
I mean honestly I dont think Comcast could stay in business if they offered you 2 channels for $10/month. It's sorta like thinking that ferrari's should be cheaper than a corolla because they only make 100 per year. The only way to run an entertainment complex like they do is through $40/month memberships everywhere they can.
 
McFry said:
I mean honestly I dont think Comcast could stay in business if they offered you 2 channels for $10/month. It's sorta like thinking that ferrari's should be cheaper than a corolla because they only make 100 per year. The only way to run an entertainment complex like they do is through $40/month memberships everywhere they can.
Click to expand...

My guess is that their internet and voip services are far more profitable than the tv side of the business. I have nothing to back that statement up with..
 
mjcutri said:
I see this a lot (usually on tech sites...), but if that's true, then why can Sling offer a small package of channels including ESPN for only $20/mo?

I had heard before that it's not ESPN that is so expensive, but all the other channels that ESPN/ABC/Disney force the cable companies to include in order to get ESPN...
Click to expand...

Espn itself or the channels they force it all boils down to the same thing. They are built into every package if you want it or not.

That said the idea above where channels have a point value and you purchase point packages would be pretty ideal. I would love to get hbo and still be under $40 a month because there is so little else I care to watch. I know it won't happen but I don't want 200 channels, I want like 5 of my choosing.
 
I think the best solution is to just all unsubscribe. The best way to fight such a ridiculous business model is to not give them any money.
 
When it comes to saving money, I make a sport of it. And I think I do pretty damn good.

It's easier to save money than to make it. Think a bout that.

Let's face it, most people are idiots when it comes to money. For convince, they just go along what's put in front of them ... not always but most of the time.

I know a lot of people that have bundles and don't even need VOIP.

When I was a kid, there were about 40ish channels on cable, and it cost $28 to $35 dollars. 0 - 10 were normally local channels and the rest were channels like BET, MTV, CNN, History, etc etc. HBO and Cinemax, Showtime were premium channels and for those they handed out little in-line filters. I think HBO was $5 a month extra. Maybe $10 a month for all three. I think at most with premium channels it was around $45 if I remember right.

Now, you pay $150 on average. I know a lot of people that pay $180 - $200+. That's why cable sucks. You have nothing but additional fees, rental fees, taxes, etc on top of cable. premium channels, VOIP or bundled deals. It's insane.

My GF and I moved to Kansas City going on 4 years ago just to get Google Fiber and to stop with the madness that the industry has become. We have 1gb internet and cable / dvr for $120 a month.

Is the 1gbit speed really 1gbit? Yes, pretty damn close on average
POMuxqe.png


I won't even go into my $5,000 solar setup that supplies 75% of my daily power needs or the Sysco Food Neighborhood Coop I am apart of that saves me 40% over what people pay at the grocery store AND I get better quality of food.

I haven't got my Google Fi invite yet but when i do, I'm going down to $30 a month vs the $80 - $120 you guys pay. Right now I'm paying $37.50 a month.

Anyways.
 
SixFootDuo said:
I hate cable but ... I can tell you that cable companies have different margins for different channels.

It helps their bottom line / profits when they give you some of the not so popular channels. If people could pick channels, they certainly are not going to pick some of these lesser known channels, thus, hurting their profits.

Things are not so black and white. What seems like a simple consumer choice isn't really so simple on the back-end.
Click to expand...

Why are you defending these business objectives? Look, I understand how business works, I'm an accountant - but when the world says they are tired of your shit you need to adapt or die.

Right now, they are dying to streaming. Netflix, etc... is killing them off. They are hemorrhaging and can fix the wound if they just conformed to society. Instead, they are going to lose BUCKETS of cash because they are too stupid. It's just like the RIAA. Adapt or die.
 
I'm not defending anyone. I am explaining why they don't give you guys choices. A lot of you see in black and white and that's it. The problem is, not everything is in black and white.
 
SixFootDuo said:
I hate cable but ... I can tell you that cable companies have different margins for different channels.

It helps their bottom line / profits when they give you some of the not so popular channels. If people could pick channels, they certainly are not going to pick some of these lesser known channels, thus, hurting their profits.

Things are not so black and white. What seems like a simple consumer choice isn't really so simple on the back-end.
Click to expand...

I'll tell you what is simple and perfectly Black and White ... and Yellow ..... and even Porto Rican. The customer doesn't care about the provider's back end or that it's cheaper for the provider. The only thing the customer cares is if he is getting a fair price for what he want's to buy, and that he isn't forced to buy what he doesn't want.

And that is why the customer is cutting the cord and why once cut, the customer learns he never wants to go back.

There ain't no putting the Genie back in this bottle.
 
SixFootDuo said:
I'm not defending anyone. I am explaining why they don't give you guys choices. A lot of you see in black and white and that's it. The problem is, not everything is in black and white.
Click to expand...

It's actually quite black and white. Their subscriber levels have plummeted. The number of reports on cable cutters is skyrocketing and definitely isn't going down anytime soon. News articles, etc... is all exposure to what they SHOULD be shitting their pants over.

Any real business person, CEO, CFO, etc... would see it clear as day. You. Must. ADAPT to the market.
 
Like I said, I hate cable, I even moved because of it ( who can say they've done that? ) not many ... but you're still missing the point, which is ok I guess, most people do. I've told all of you many many times before ... move and find a better long term solution. It's not that hard to save money and find much better solutions. The real problem is people are raised to be good little consumers.
 
SixFootDuo said:
Like I said, I hate cable, I even moved because of it ( who can say they've done that? ) not many ... but you're still missing the point, which is ok I guess, most people do. I've told all of you many many times before ... move and find a better long term solution. It's not that hard to save money and find much better solutions. The real problem is people are raised to be good little consumers.
Click to expand...

What point are we missing exactly here? That we need to move?


Uhhhh thats quite alright. I cut the cable, haven't looked back - and don't even need all the streaming garbage to go with it. I just simply don't watch much TV anymore. If a game is worthy of seeing I might have to go socialize.
 
FYI the video does not work do to copyright infringement. Have to go to the website to watch it. Go figure.
 
Cyraxx said:
Why are you defending these business objectives? Look, I understand how business works, I'm an accountant - but when the world says they are tired of your shit you need to adapt or die.

Right now, they are dying to streaming. Netflix, etc... is killing them off. They are hemorrhaging and can fix the wound if they just conformed to society. Instead, they are going to lose BUCKETS of cash because they are too stupid. It's just like the RIAA. Adapt or die.
Click to expand...

It isn't that simple though ... the cable companies are 3rd party providers ... they have to lease their content from the 5-10 companies that own almost all the video IP in the USA ... those companies have a lot of negotiating clout (look at when CBS and other networks have pulled their content over price disputes ... people get upset with the cable provider, not the network ... which usually forces the cable provider to cave to the IP owners terms)

The best long term solution is to buy your content directly from the source ... it won't be cheaper but it at least puts the accountability with the IP owner ... I think as the cable market continues to decline you will see the providers who are both cable and ISP just switch over to an ISP only model (internet is usually far more profitable for the dual model companies anyway)
 
Cable company bundle channels so you don't realize how much some cost and how little other do.

If they let you get just 5 or 10 channels you may only pay a few dollars a month. Other times you pay 5-6 a month for just a single channel (like ESPN).
 
bigdogchris said:
Cable company bundle channels so you don't realize how much some cost and how little other do.

If they let you get just 5 or 10 channels you may only pay a few dollars a month. Other times you pay 5-6 a month for just a single channel (like ESPN).
Click to expand...

There is no way that high profile channels like ESPN, HBO, etc would go for $5-6 as a standalone purchase ... they may very well give the cable company a rate as part of the bulk package but if they were to allow individual subscribers it would similar to the $15 HBO now rate ... even networks charge $5+ per month for their web channels
 
kbrickley said:
There is no way that high profile channels like ESPN, HBO, etc would go for $5-6 as a standalone purchase ... they may very well give the cable company a rate as part of the bulk package but if they were to allow individual subscribers it would similar to the $15 HBO now rate ... even networks charge $5+ per month for their web channels
Click to expand...

That just means these companies might not survive long. That's ok.
 
Dekoth-E- said:
It all boils down to Espn. They are the bulk of what you pay even if you don't watch it. It really sucks for those of us who don't like sports.

I just finally cut my cable outside internet. I do some things, but then I remember I'm basically saving $80 a month.
Click to expand...

ESPN, NBCSN, FS x10, NHL Net, NFL Net, MLB Net, USA, NBC, TBS, TNT, ABC, NBC, Fox, ... ESPN is worthless, but plenty of networks that make their money off sports... you don't watch them, but you get subsidized for what you do watch. If no one watched sports, then your Cartoon Network or whatever you watch would be subsidizing sports. Silly argument from the minority that is a minority for a reason. :rolleyes:
 
I guess I didn't get far enough. I guess you guys don't understand how it works. If all you watch is Big Ban Theory and Cartoon Network then you would have to pay MUCH higher subscription fees since fewer people watch that. You get bundled because the most popular channels (eek sports) subsidize the rest of the viewing public. I'm sure that cable would be more than willing to a la carte their channels, but I don't think the most vocal whiners understand what that means... ESPN would be cheap, because more people want it - what you want will not be cheap because you are looking for niche market channels.
 
Dekoth-E- said:
It all boils down to Espn. They are the bulk of what you pay even if you don't watch it. It really sucks for those of us who don't like sports.
Click to expand...

This.

I really hate that the channel that adds the most cost to my cable bill is a channel I never watch.
It's now possible for me to drop ESPN from my cable, but if I do, I'll lose half the other channels the family watches. Of course I'd still get the other 120 channels we never watch.

They should group the channels in tiers based on price, and let you choose channels from different tiers based on the package you buy. Maybe 30 channels, with 5 high priced tier (or lower), 10 from the mid priced tier, and 15 from the low priced tier. They could also provide additional "free" channels, so if a company wants their channel to be available to everyone, it needs to be free :)

I won't hold my breath waiting for this to happen.
 
haste. said:
I guess I didn't get far enough. I guess you guys don't understand how it works. If all you watch is Big Ban Theory and Cartoon Network then you would have to pay MUCH higher subscription fees since fewer people watch that. You get bundled because the most popular channels (eek sports) subsidize the rest of the viewing public.
Click to expand...

Not really. Almost everyone who has cable is subsidizing ESPN

ESPN requires the cable companies to provide ESPN to ALL their customers, and of course pay for everyone to have it available. If enough people drop ESPN, then ESPN would have to raise the price to make up for the lower revenue. Since it's already the most expensive basic channel, it could end up costing as much as a premium channel like HBO if enough people dropped it. And the higher the price, the more people would drop it.

That's why they are fighting to stop the cable companies unbundling the channels.
 
Cyraxx said:
Right now, they are dying to streaming. Netflix, etc... is killing them off. They are hemorrhaging and can fix the wound if they just conformed to society. Instead, they are going to lose BUCKETS of cash because they are too stupid. It's just like the RIAA. Adapt or die.
Click to expand...

Dinosaurs don't adapt, instead they eventually become extinct :)
 
lcpiper said:
And that is why the customer is cutting the cord and why once cut, the customer learns he never wants to go back.

There ain't no putting the Genie back in this bottle.
Click to expand...

General business rule they seem to have forgotten:
It's much cheaper to keep and existing customer than it is to get a new one.

I see my cable company offering huge discounts for new customers, yet my cost (20 year customer) keep going up. It's only by calling and threatening to drop the service that they will offer a small discount, maybe half of what they offer new customers.

I've also like to read the newspaper, but the cost has gotten so high, I recently switched to Sunday only just so we can get the ads.

The renewal is $35 for 3 more months.
However, if I'm a new customer I can get a 2 year subscription for only $39
Why would any company treat their long term customers this way?

Since their definition of a new customer is someone who hasn't had a subscription for the last 30 days, I'm just going to cancel, and after 30 days, take advantage of the "new" subscriber discount.
 
nutzo said:
Not really. Almost everyone who has cable is subsidizing ESPN

ESPN requires the cable companies to provide ESPN to ALL their customers, and of course pay for everyone to have it available. If enough people drop ESPN, then ESPN would have to raise the price to make up for the lower revenue. Since it's already the most expensive basic channel, it could end up costing as much as a premium channel like HBO if enough people dropped it. And the higher the price, the more people would drop it.

That's why they are fighting to stop the cable companies unbundling the channels.
Click to expand...

That may be true, but if people keep unsubscribing, they'll keep losing money(and raising rates doesn't help things).

I'm fully aware that the 400 channels I pay for won't end up costing me $5 a month if I were to choose the 5-10 channels that I do watch. But hell, even paying 50% of my current rate for 500 channels of garbage is better than nothing.

I don't want 40 channels of music, another 20 channels that are nothing but local radio stations, 30 channels in languages I can't understand(and I don't even pay for the "premium" non-English channel package, that's another 20 or so), the 80 sports channels(yes, 80, I just counted, and that doesn't include the premium sports packages that let you watch 15 games at once) that I never watch, the non HD versions of 50+ channels that have an HD alternate up in the 700's range. The 5 home shopping channels. The 21 kids channels(counted that too, it's ridiculous). The 10 encore and retro movie channels that are included in my package that I never watch.

Instead I keep getting told that if I didn't have 8 varieties of ESPN I'm stuck paying for, that the other channels couldn't afford content... bull. If ESPN costs so damned much then let the people who want their content pay for it.

These business models may have been fine up through the 90's and early 2000's, but they need to change. I don't mind paying for content, but I hate paying for crap that I don't want and so do a ton of other people.
 
It's wasn't just the cost of cable programming that caused me to cut cable a few years ago. It was the cost of all the 'add on fees' (boxes, government fees, special taxes, etc.) that finally put the nail in the coffin. Every month my 'package' bill kept going up a few $$ more. When it hit $155 I called TWC and asked them to give me the new customer rates or I was walking.... They said no and I can honestly say that I'm glad they did. Now I just pay for internet only and because I own my own modem, my monthly bill hasn't gone up once in over 3 years. With Google fiber now in Austin, it's only a matter of time before they build into my neighborhood and I'll be rid of TWC completely.
 
Actually that's exactly right, i work for a cable company, internet and phone is the is where they make the money, tv side is only like 10% of there revenue because all that money goes to the networks that own the channels, and every year they have to re-negotiate those prices. when the networks demand more money those cost gets passed onto the consumer and your bill goes up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top