(05-16-2013 02:32 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  The real fallacy here is that you are "paying" for all those channels you don't want. When in fact, you're really not. Many of those superfluous channels are part of a bundle - and are really only part of the bundle because the network couldn't get them carried any other way. They're throw-ins and most consumers are paying nothing extra to get them. Bundling is the only way those networks can even get enough distribution to make even meager ad revenue. Without it, most of those netowrks would die anyway.

And as others have pointed out, dropping sports channels from those that don't watch means the networks charge more for those that do.

So which channels out of the 300 out there are we actually paying for? Well, not me, but people that have cable.

(05-16-2013 01:53 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-15-2013 05:53 PM)goofus Wrote:  The real test is going to be when/if HBO starts offering their HBO GO package to non-cable subscribers. I am someone who is getting cableTV just so I can get HBO. IF I could get HBO GO independently, I would cut the cord. It is exactly what I want from a pay TV model. lots of content on demand without comercials.
This model has spoiled me so much that I can not watch sports live anymore at home. I record a game on the DVR and start playing it 1 hour into the game. I can not imagine why anyone would want to watch a long game with all those comercials. Nobody can sit through that many comercials. Nobody.

Netflix apparently is afraid of that. One of their executives said they are racing to become HBO before HBO becomes Netflix.

That's why they are trying to develop compelling content.

The folks at Netflix are trying to get carriage agreements though. I suspect if they do they will face a tough choice. Sell it to cable and satellite at half the current price to get more subscribers or bump the price across the board to represent the cut given the providers.

HBO has a big advantage in the game. They charge around $18 a month with the providers getting half but the providers often pick up the tab for consumers just to keep them from cord-cutting.

If HBO chooses to offer 2GO independently they can go out at their current price point and most people won't blink because that is the price of HBO that consumers know.

Honestly I'm not sure I'd ever cord cut unless ala carte came into being.

When I told ATT I wanted rid of UVerse because I didn't watch enough TV (truth was I had picked up Direct who got me my channels at a big discount compared to ATT) but said I might consider keeping internet they made me a fantastic deal. Their most basic TV package, bumped my internet speed, and gave my a phone deal that left me paying less for TV, internet, and phone than I had been paying for UVerse and Vonage and that's with TWO TV providers. When my free movie pack expired I called to cancel all but HBO and they threw in Cinemax, Showtime, Movie Channel, and Flix for $9. They've given me three months of their HD pack (HD Net, Universal, etc) for free and in 2 months 28 days I'll call and cancel.

This thought has crossed my mind. Netflix and HBO GO should team up. One of the arguments why HBO won't go independent is that they don't want to deal with the headaches of being their own billing and collection agency. If they add HBO GO to the Netflix family, then Netflix can handle the billing and collection for HBO. It almost makes too much sense.

(05-16-2013 03:57 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-16-2013 02:32 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  The real fallacy here is that you are "paying" for all those channels you don't want. When in fact, you're really not. Many of those superfluous channels are part of a bundle - and are really only part of the bundle because the network couldn't get them carried any other way. They're throw-ins and most consumers are paying nothing extra to get them. Bundling is the only way those networks can even get enough distribution to make even meager ad revenue. Without it, most of those netowrks would die anyway.

And as others have pointed out, dropping sports channels from those that don't watch means the networks charge more for those that do.

So which channels out of the 300 out there are we actually paying for? Well, not me, but people that have cable.

Pretty much the ones the ones on basic cable. The other additional channel packages are largely gravy for the provider.

(05-16-2013 02:32 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  The real fallacy here is that you are "paying" for all those channels you don't want. When in fact, you're really not. Many of those superfluous channels are part of a bundle - and are really only part of the bundle because the network couldn't get them carried any other way. They're throw-ins and most consumers are paying nothing extra to get them. Bundling is the only way those networks can even get enough distribution to make even meager ad revenue. Without it, most of those netowrks would die anyway.

And as others have pointed out, dropping sports channels from those that don't watch means the networks charge more for those that do.

Another fallacy is that people's entire cable bill is based upon what the cable company pays to the Corporations that produce those channels. Cable companies often pay the power company in their area to rent a portion of the power line poles. There is a section of it that they use because they PAY for it. There is all the equipment that is used, infrastructure and fees to be paid to the city. Folks focus all their ire on the channel line up but as you say, most of those channels they don't even pay for. The one's they do pay for that are obscure they are actually choosing to pay for because they choose the premium packages that cable companies offer.

I wouldn't be surprised if a good portion of the folks "for" a la carte are also folks that don't pay for channels like HBO or Showtime because they never liked having to pay for just one channel considering how much they are. The price for HBO and Showtime now is less than what some of your main cable channels would force people to pay if they went a la carte. Hell, even HBO and Showtime now bundle multiple channels to sell directly to consumers through the Cable Companies. HBO and Showtime are direct examples of why absolute a la carte will not happen. Even those companies have moved to the bundle method.

(05-16-2013 08:48 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(05-16-2013 02:32 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  The real fallacy here is that you are "paying" for all those channels you don't want.

Another fallacy is that people's entire cable bill is based upon what the cable company pays to the Corporations that produce those channels. Cable companies often pay the power company in their area to rent a portion of the power line poles. There is a section of it that they use because they PAY for it. There is all the equipment that is used, infrastructure and fees to be paid to the city. Folks focus all their ire on the channel line up but as you say, most of those channels they don't even pay for. The one's they do pay for that are obscure they are actually choosing to pay for because they choose the premium packages that cable companies offer.

That's an interesting question. I wonder how the unbundling charges will be broken down. Electric bills have been deregulated and broken into multiple parts, wholesale energy charges, delivery charges, municipal charges, taxes, etc.
I wonder how the cable bills will be broken up. Will the delivery charges be a flat rate no matter how many channels are ordered? Will it be a flat rate for each channel? Will it be a percentage of each channel's price? Would it just get rolled into your internet service? What would the wireless and dish services do?

All things change. Cell phones took over. The internet practicly killed the Newspaper industry and technology like Google fiber and 3d printers will change the internet and the tool & die industry. Your local machine shop could very well be in your garage in a decade. It's getting easier to provide network content to people without having to deal with a middleman or several middlemen.

(05-16-2013 08:38 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(05-16-2013 03:57 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-16-2013 02:32 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  The real fallacy here is that you are "paying" for all those channels you don't want. When in fact, you're really not. Many of those superfluous channels are part of a bundle - and are really only part of the bundle because the network couldn't get them carried any other way. They're throw-ins and most consumers are paying nothing extra to get them. Bundling is the only way those networks can even get enough distribution to make even meager ad revenue. Without it, most of those netowrks would die anyway.

And as others have pointed out, dropping sports channels from those that don't watch means the networks charge more for those that do.

So which channels out of the 300 out there are we actually paying for? Well, not me, but people that have cable.

Pretty much the ones the ones on basic cable. The other additional channel packages are largely gravy for the provider.

But there's a whole bunch of junk on basic cable too, so it must be a subset of those. And don't the other channel packages have a few channels (decent ones, I guess) that they moved there to get people to pay for the extra package, in addition to the ton of useless channels?

(05-16-2013 08:48 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(05-16-2013 02:32 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  The real fallacy here is that you are "paying" for all those channels you don't want. When in fact, you're really not. Many of those superfluous channels are part of a bundle - and are really only part of the bundle because the network couldn't get them carried any other way. They're throw-ins and most consumers are paying nothing extra to get them. Bundling is the only way those networks can even get enough distribution to make even meager ad revenue. Without it, most of those netowrks would die anyway.

And as others have pointed out, dropping sports channels from those that don't watch means the networks charge more for those that do.

Another fallacy is that people's entire cable bill is based upon what the cable company pays to the Corporations that produce those channels. Cable companies often pay the power company in their area to rent a portion of the power line poles. There is a section of it that they use because they PAY for it. There is all the equipment that is used, infrastructure and fees to be paid to the city. Folks focus all their ire on the channel line up but as you say, most of those channels they don't even pay for. The one's they do pay for that are obscure they are actually choosing to pay for because they choose the premium packages that cable companies offer.

I wouldn't be surprised if a good portion of the folks "for" a la carte are also folks that don't pay for channels like HBO or Showtime because they never liked having to pay for just one channel considering how much they are. The price for HBO and Showtime now is less than what some of your main cable channels would force people to pay if they went a la carte. Hell, even HBO and Showtime now bundle multiple channels to sell directly to consumers through the Cable Companies. HBO and Showtime are direct examples of why absolute a la carte will not happen. Even those companies have moved to the bundle method.

Doesn't the basic package have E$PN, Discover, etc? You're definitely paying for those in addition to any premium channels. And that package has a ton of junk channels too. And the basic package isn't that cheap.

Great article on Yahoo! today. Why fears of cord cutting are over blown: http://homes.yahoo.com/news/people-arent...20635.html

One interesting point: "You Could Save More with Bundling Than Cord Cutting"

Save money bundling vs. what? You can get a good deal for 6 months or at most a year before they jack up the rates. Unless you're calling them up to threaten cancelling all the time in order to get a better rate. And they can't switch you to a different package if you already have the basic package, so they won't do anything for you there. I'm no longer bundled but I'm paying less than I was when I was bundled.

(05-17-2013 09:28 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-16-2013 08:38 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(05-16-2013 03:57 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-16-2013 02:32 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  The real fallacy here is that you are "paying" for all those channels you don't want. When in fact, you're really not. Many of those superfluous channels are part of a bundle - and are really only part of the bundle because the network couldn't get them carried any other way. They're throw-ins and most consumers are paying nothing extra to get them. Bundling is the only way those networks can even get enough distribution to make even meager ad revenue. Without it, most of those netowrks would die anyway.

And as others have pointed out, dropping sports channels from those that don't watch means the networks charge more for those that do.

So which channels out of the 300 out there are we actually paying for? Well, not me, but people that have cable.

Pretty much the ones the ones on basic cable. The other additional channel packages are largely gravy for the provider.

But there's a whole bunch of junk on basic cable too, so it must be a subset of those. And don't the other channel packages have a few channels (decent ones, I guess) that they moved there to get people to pay for the extra package, in addition to the ton of useless channels?

There are a lot of those channels where the customer is only paying a few pennies per month. The major staple channels are what are the real revenue drivers - OTA networks, TBS, TNT, CNN, ESPN, MTV, etc. The others get small amounts of revenue. Most of the channels in the digital spectrum or other packages cost some as well, but most are either free or very very cheap.

Basically, Comcast/NBC, Viacom, Disney/ABC/ESPN, Fox, CBS, and Turner are the major ones that bundle all their channels.