If the largest fraction of their cost is the fees paid to the networks, isn't that exactly what you'd expect?

 

Not when a lot of the networks are owned by them, no. You'd expect to see certain variance based on the number of viewers those channels command, in what they can ask for in terms of group pricing, etc.

 

For example:

 

ESPN+CSN+CSNPlus+Disney+AMC would cost more than FOOD+HISTORY+, etc., and being that Comcast owns CSN/CSN+, you'd think their own subscribers would get slightly better prices for them, but they don't.

 

I don't think they're going out of their way to "price fix" with artificially high prices, because they'd get caught, but I don't think they're doing much to lower them, either.

Edited April 2, 201312 yr by Y2HH

Not when a lot of the networks are owned by them, no. You'd expect to see certain variance based on the number of viewers those channels command, in what they can ask for in terms of group pricing, etc.

 

For example:

 

ESPN+CSN+CSNPlus+Disney+AMC would cost more than FOOD+HISTORY+channels nobody cares about here>, etc., and being that Comcast owns CSN/CSN+, you'd think their own subscribers would get slightly better prices for them, but they don't.

 

I don't think they're going out of their way to "price fix" with artificially high prices, because they'd get caught, but I don't think they're doing much to lower them, either.

 

I have to care about it, I think they broadcast like 2 Sox games a year, and they're ALWAYS the games I'm home to watch for some reason. :/

You aren't really paying the same at all, that's the point.

 

Netflix + Hulu + Amazon Prime + MLB.TV costs a COMBINED less than Basic Cable. I'm not claiming their serving the same content, but taking those 4 services and having all the functionality of them can, for some people, serve everything they need to the point where they don't need Comcast or DTV, etc. And they WILL save money.

 

I'm not disputing that people who only watch a few shows or channels could easily get by. What i'm arguing is that (1) for the average viewer, it's still probably more cost-effective to buy a 300+ cable channel package than to opt for an al-la-carte option at the prices that the 10-15 channels will most likely be able to demand in the market, and more importantly, (2) that the networks themselves make out better with our current system.

 

IMO the future is pay-per content, not pay-per network. And we're going to get stuck with $5 episodes with ads to cover the shifting costs.

I'm not disputing that people who only watch a few shows or channels could easily get by. What i'm arguing is that (1) for the average viewer, it's still probably more cost-effective to buy a 300+ cable channel package than to opt for an al-la-carte option at the prices that the 10-15 channels will most likely be able to demand in the market, and more importantly, (2) that the networks themselves make out better with our current system.

 

IMO the future is pay-per content, not pay-per network. And we're going to get stuck with $5 episodes with ads to cover the shifting costs.

 

Eh, most things have commercials no anyway. I think I've grown immune to commercials.

 

Back when cable first started, it's entire selling point was no commercials...ever...

I find that if I am not watching tv, I am usually wanting to go out...and if I am going out a lot, I am spending s***loads more than $4-5 that the tv programming is costing me a day.

I get that it seems like money that could be better spent, but if you consider it part of your overall entertainment budget, in-home tv is one of the smaller culprits in my monthly budget.

 

This ultimately is why my wife and I ended up getting cable again. When we moved to the burbs we spent over a year without anything and were pretty happy. Then the Bulls made a run in the 2010-2011 season and we ended up going to a bar 3-4 nights a week spending 60-70 bucks on beer/food, on top of the 20 bucks we spent on catching up with other shows through PSN.

Eh, most things have commercials no anyway. I think I've grown immune to commercials.

 

Back when cable first started, it's entire selling point was no commercials...ever...

 

I dropped Hulu Plus because of the ads.

Netflix, Hulu and Amazon will just become another Comcast or DirecTV, or an HBO depending on if they want to create their own content.

Comcast/nbc/hulu are all owned by the same company.

Comcast/nbc/hulu are all owned by the same company.

Pillsbury?

Comcast/nbc/hulu are all owned by the same company.

 

Yes, Sheinhardt Wig Company

Got my Roku set up. I wanted to run an eathernet cord to my modem in the basement but the holes in the floor are too small and I'm not drilling or making them bigger. Hope wife signal works.

Got my Roku set up. I wanted to run an eathernet cord to my modem in the basement but the holes in the floor are too small and I'm not drilling or making them bigger. Hope wife signal works.

 

Your wife provides the internet around your household?

Your wife provides the internet around your household?

 

Your wife provides the internet around your household?

 

Ha. Damn you, autocorrect. *wifi

I'm leery of the pay-per-channel model. Someone used AMC as an example of a channel that has benefited by more or less being forced on us, and it's a fine example. If you think you know what you want, you are unlikely to just find a channel that has revamped their programming like AMC. Likewise, they are unlikely to be able to afford to revamp their programming when they have about 7 subscribers.

 

It is worth asking whether the customers will benefit in a pay-per-channel model because many channels will die if they aren't attached to a group of others. New channels would have to come from the big conglomerates who can afford to risk a loss, which again can't be good for the customer.

 

This isn't to say the current system is perfect or benefits me perfectly, but I'd certainly rather have too many choices than too few.

I'm leery of the pay-per-channel model. Someone used AMC as an example of a channel that has benefited by more or less being forced on us, and it's a fine example. If you think you know what you want, you are unlikely to just find a channel that has revamped their programming like AMC. Likewise, they are unlikely to be able to afford to revamp their programming when they have about 7 subscribers.

 

It is worth asking whether the customers will benefit in a pay-per-channel model because many channels will die if they aren't attached to a group of others. New channels would have to come from the big conglomerates who can afford to risk a loss, which again can't be good for the customer.

 

This isn't to say the current system is perfect or benefits me perfectly, but I'd certainly rather have too many choices than too few.

 

The point is you don't really have choice to begin with. You either take everything they give you, or you take nothing.

 

I agree that pay for specific channels will never work in this system for multiple reasons, some of which you covered, but, they CAN break them into better tiers with better choices. For example, a package where you HAVE to pick 10 channels from group A, 10 from group B and 10 from group C, but they're still your choices from those groups, tailor made for you by you. As a parent, I would flood my choices with cartoon/kids channels, where a non-parent may want other channels in that tier that they'll actually watch. If anything, a system like this could even increase viewership, because people would have channels from each tier they chose and would actually take a look at them.

 

Also, pay per channel isn't necessarily what people like myself are really looking for, I'm more interested in pay for content. The only show on watch on AMC is Walking Dead, so I'd like to purchase walking dead, nothing else. And if/when I decide to try a different show on AMC, perhaps they give away an episode along with my walking dead subscription and if I watched it and enjoyed it, I can then purchase that show, too.

Edited April 3, 201312 yr by Y2HH

The providers aren't going to go for that, though. If you're carrying Viacom, I'd imagine that they will only agree to an all-or-nothing basket for their channels.

The providers aren't going to go for that, though. If you're carrying Viacom, I'd imagine that they will only agree to an all-or-nothing basket for their channels.

 

Just like how telcom providers would never, ever give a 3rd party company control over their phones/software/baseband.

 

Until Apple did exactly that.

More importantly, why is the only AMC show you watch the mediocre Walking Dead and not the one-of-the-best-shows-ever Breaking Bad?

 

edit: at least through xbox, they've been offering "season pass" options for TV shows. I know Archer was one, and WD might have been another. $25/season, which is a little steep imo, but the model's out there.

Edited April 3, 201312 yr by StrangeSox

More importantly, why is the only AMC show you watch the mediocre Walking Dead and not the one-of-the-best-shows-ever Breaking Bad?

 

edit: at least through xbox, they've been offering "season pass" options for TV shows. I know Archer was one, and WD might have been another. $25/season, which is a little steep imo, but the model's out there.

 

I don't know, I never got into Breaking Bad...I watched the first episode and didn't care for it.

I quit Breaking Bad during the third season IIRC. Too many times they recycled the plot and had stupid crap happening.

 

Mad Men is far and away the best on AMC anyway. Are there any ways to catch that online during the present season?

you guys are both fools

I don't know, I never got into Breaking Bad...I watched the first episode and didn't care for it.

 

 

I quit Breaking Bad during the third season IIRC. Too many times they recycled the plot and had stupid crap happening.

S3 was probably the slowest up to that point but it was still good and S4 is some of the best TV ever.

 

Well done.