Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hardly. We cannot even rely on people actually being honest about their actual viewing preferences. Sometimes the complaints make it seem like there are more viewers who claim that they don't watch reality television than viewers in total. The reality is that there is a lot of programming out there that millions of people watch: Trashy housewives reality programs, dumb sitcoms, reruns of ridiculously unrealistic family dramas from the 1970s, etc. They are valuable offerings because other people find them valuable even if you or I do not.
This much is true, and it is shocking how often people whining about cable television fail to realize this nor understand it when it is explained to them. Let's say you like ESPN and want it. It adds about $10 to your cable bill, even though it's ostensible cost per subscriber is about $6. That means it actually costs $10, not $6! All the rest of the Disney package offerings are effectively "free" for you, because you have decided to purchase into the Disney consumption environment. If you could just get ESPN, it would still cost $10, because the cost of customer acquisition dwarfs the cost of distributing content to one more subscriber. In other words, the same phenomenon that gets you upset about how much cable television costs explains why retail a la carte is a foolish expectation.
Even if we eventually can get people to realize and understand that what they're really upset about is wholesale packaging, and what they really want is wholesale a la carte, it won't matter much, because ESPN will still cost $9.50 alone, and there will still be a "package deal" giving you ESPN, Disney, Freeform, etc. for $10. Trying to micromanage how commercial enterprises price their offerings is pointless in a capitalistic context. So beyond realizing and understanding that what they're really upset about is wholesale packaging, people would also have to realize and understand that what they really want isn't just wholesale a la carte but also the re-institution of price regulation, which will be referred to in advertisements opposing such re-institution as "socialism", and therefore such an effort is unlikely to prevail.
I still believe that many channels receive very little viewership, bUU. There are channels I can't even remember the name of from when I had cable that were so far down the channel list, with their content being virtually unwatchable.
Personally, I'm not big on a la carte at this point simply because certain channels are getting way too much per subscriber. When the executives who run networks are willing to take much less for the channels, then a la carte might work. But knowing how execs would rather drive businesses into the ground taking as much profit as possible until the business fails, I'm realistic enough to know that the ESPN's of the world will have to fail before that happens. They are paying out a lot of money to broadcast sports programming, and that's all going to come crashing down at some point.
Many channels actually receive very little per subscriber, less than $.10 in some cases, and others much more. Fox News doesn't get as much as ESPN but I believe they receive over $1 per subscriber. They don't exactly have a large number of news reporters out covering stories in the field, they often get facts wrong that they hurriedly put together stories when real breaking news hits, and they pay their anchors way too much. Shep gets something like 7 or 8 million/year. Pay more realistic salaries Fox News and offer the service for a fair price or risk going to the same place ESPN will eventually go. Big difference is Fox News doesn't have billiion dollar contracts with sports leagues so they have financial room to change. Consumers are tired of getting fleeced and they have streaming options now for entertainment and news. Not to mention OTA free tv.
Many channels actually receive very little per subscriber, less than $.10 in some cases, and others much more. Fox News doesn't get as much as ESPN but I believe they receive over $1 per subscriber. They don't exactly have a large number of news reporters out covering stories in the field, they often get facts wrong that they hurriedly put together stories when real breaking news hits, and they pay their anchors way too much. Shep gets something like 7 or 8 million/year. Pay more realistic salaries Fox News and offer the service for a fair price or risk going to the same place ESPN will eventually go. Big difference is Fox News doesn't have billiion dollar contracts with sports leagues so they have financial room to change. Consumers are tired of getting fleeced and they have streaming options now for entertainment and news. Not to mention OTA free tv.
Those prices are based on a customer base of over 100mil subs between all of the carriers. Without question Fox News would charge more than $1 per susbcriber of they went a la carte. They would have to find a way to recoup the $100million lost
I still believe that many channels receive very little viewership, bUU.
There is one very specific set of channels I know of that do receive very little viewership, those being Byron Allen's Entertainment Studios networks. They give their programming away to cable companies - it costs you nothing. As a matter of fact, there is a lawsuit against AT&T DirectTV charging: "Of the approximately $4 billion in fees that AT&T pays annually to license video programming via channel carriage agreements, zero dollars are paid to 100% African American–owned media. ... Although AT&T granted Entertainment Studios a carriage agreement for Justice Central, the agreement provides that, for at least 10 years, AT&T will pay no license fees to Entertainment Studios."
So putting aside the networks owned by Byron Allen, like Justice Central, since they cost nothing, which networks are you referring to? Please be specific.
I am guessing you cannot name any, or if you do, that I can show that either hundreds of thousands of Americans watch those channels, or they serve minority populations that if left unserved would constitute a sanction-able pattern of unjust discrimination in programming offered by MSOs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioJB
Personally, I'm not big on a la carte at this point simply because certain channels are getting way too much per subscriber. When the executives who run networks are willing to take much less for the channels, then a la carte might work.
Executives will be willing to take less when consumers value their offerings less. Consumers need to stop blaming suppliers for things that are our own fault, attributable to our own purchasing behaviors. It's childish to claim that Mommy's bad and Daddy's bad because they respond to our conduct in a rational manner.
I have neither cable nor satellite, but Netflix and rabbit but even at that I much prefer the movies I buy and own .
My collection is in the thousands DVD and VHS and terabyte and remote hard drive, and only about a quarter are duplicates.
I've been recording and buying commercially made recording since the 1980s when VHS first came out.
I'm not into blue ray yet until I have to but , I much prefer to watch what, when, and where, I want with no commercial interruption even fast forward and or edit the junk out I don't want.
I usually wait till a movie I like is on sale for about $5. and watch for deals where stores go out of business and sell every thing cheap. I use to maintain a little book of what I had and what I want ,I got out of practice after I retired not having the same income so I don't buy so much any more but it 's OK, I have plenty to enjoy. That's why I bought them when I did.
There is one very specific set of channels I know of that do receive very little viewership, those being Byron Allen's Entertainment Studios networks. They give their programming away to cable companies - it costs you nothing. As a matter of fact, there is a lawsuit against AT&T DirectTV charging: "Of the approximately $4 billion in fees that AT&T pays annually to license video programming via channel carriage agreements, zero dollars are paid to 100% African American–owned media. ... Although AT&T granted Entertainment Studios a carriage agreement for Justice Central, the agreement provides that, for at least 10 years, AT&T will pay no license fees to Entertainment Studios."
So putting aside the networks owned by Byron Allen, like Justice Central, since they cost nothing, which networks are you referring to? Please be specific.
I am guessing you cannot name any, or if you do, that I can show that either hundreds of thousands of Americans watch those channels, or they serve minority populations that if left unserved would constitute a sanction-able pattern of unjust discrimination in programming offered by MSOs.
Executives will be willing to take less when consumers value their offerings less. Consumers need to stop blaming suppliers for things that are our own fault, attributable to our own purchasing behaviors. It's childish to claim that Mommy's bad and Daddy's bad because they respond to our conduct in a rational manner.
There was a news report probably about a year ago that described how cable execs were frustrated with how their customers only watched a few channels out of a couple hundred, and how some channels received very little viewership, they speculated because of how far down the channel listing they were. I suspect it was due to poor programming.
You believe execs will take less when consumers value their offerings less? This thread is about cord-cutting soaring, and they haven't changed their prices yet. Time and time again its been proven execs are only concerned about getting what they can out of a company for the time they are there, and could care less what happens after they leave. That's one reason why so many companies have moved factories to China and other countries. "Hey, look how much I saved the company in employee cost! Now give me my HUGE bonus before I leave the company."
No, companies do not respond to our conduct in a rational manner. It's all about what execs can squeeze out the company, everything else is secondary. It's extremely short-sighted. It's all about ME, ME, ME, for the grossly overpaid frat boys and girls.
There was a news report probably about a year ago that described how cable execs were frustrated with how their customers only watched a few channels out of a couple hundred
Perhaps you need to be more specific. What news report? Which "cable execs"? What did they actually say? I cannot respond to what you'll invariably demand is perfect recollection despite how vague it is. Such recollection underscores what I said earlier: People hear things, casually, but don't realize that there are different (many different) parties who not only aren't all thinking things the same as each other, are often in violent disagreement with each other. You could recall something that "the FCC said" when in reality it was one of the FCC commissioners in the minority, promoting his/her political opposition to what the FCC actually ends up saying. Who said it matters. It makes the difference between in meaning one thing and meaning practically the opposite.
Regardless, let's assume that it was Brian Roberts who said it, and that your recollection was accurate. Wouldn't you be disappointed if you were a grocer, and the only lettuce available for you to distribute was limp, bug-nibbled or rusted lettuce from any of the dozens of local organic growers or higher quality lettuce from one of the few environmentally-unfriendly, insecticide-using produce conglomerates? At the grocery, when consumer behaviors reduce the need to display dozens of sources for lettuce, they turn half the produce aisle into a place to sell high-markup sundry items. Similarly, MSO shrink the shelf-space allocated for the less-popular offerings (compress the bandwidth, employ SDV, switch to MPEG-4, etc.) and add premium services such as Gigabit Internet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioJB
You believe execs will take less when consumers value their offerings less?
Absolutely. It's micro-economic 101.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioJB
This thread is about cord-cutting soaring, and they haven't changed their prices yet.
Because consumers value their offerings as much as ever. You're confusing the desire to pay less with valuing what you're buying less. If you get mustard "Buy One Get One Free" is one of the bottles worth something to you and the other one worthless? Of course not.
If anything, cord-cutting demonstrates that consumers value their own convenience less, since for many of us cord-cutting would represent convenience compromises, that, on average (by definition) reflect the difference in price for the same thing between cable and streaming.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioJB
Time and time again its been proven execs are only concerned about getting what they can out of a company for the time they are there, and could care less what happens after they leave.
Brian Roberts has been President of Comcast Corporation since 1990.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioJB
No, companies do not respond to our conduct in a rational manner.
Our Best Buy has Roku 2 on sale for $60, so I'm planning to pick it up, and dropping the crap TV bundle. Just upgrading my internet speed and keeping the phone, will subscribe to Netflix, Hulu Plus, Sling and still save $50 per month!
My son did internet speed test and it's only 1.25 upload/2.55 download,so I really need to upgrade my internet, right? He gets aggravating lag, playing COD on X-BOX 360-Live.
Last edited by i_love_autumn; 01-30-2016 at 03:10 AM..
Keep the receipt on the Roku. It may not work well at those speeds and the tricks used to lower the image quality and need for high speed seem to have been engineered out of the last software upgrade.
A majority of cord cutters do so for purely economic reasons, over half have a household income under 50k a year. Of that percentage, a plurality would sign up again if their incomes increased. Also, millennils will often sign up for cable or dish when their incomes rise to a certain point. Also, someone mentioned that cable programming is inferior to other sources. I would ask that your review Emmy wins and critics awards over the last few years. Many industry observers actually say we are in a new golden age for tv programming.
Keep the receipt on the Roku. It may not work well at those speeds and the tricks used to lower the image quality and need for high speed seem to have been engineered out of the last software upgrade.
Thanks for that info, but I already planned to upgrade my internet to 30Mbps. When I called today I was told that our Time Warner does not even offer pkg with just internet and phone.
So I downgraded the TV pkg to just the starter pkg, upgraded the internet and got free Nationwide Wi-Fi for $30 less than I was paying! Went and picked up the Roku and will pick up the new modem from the cable company Monday, and try it out.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
