Forget gas prices, how about TV cable prices??

[Rizon]

What I've paid for BASIC fucking TV cable (all living in the same location):

12/1997-5/1998: TCI: $31.57
6/1998-5/1999:TCI: $33.08
6/1999-9/1999 :TCI: $35.40
10/1999-1/2001 :AT&T: $35.40
2/2001-12/2001 :AT&T: $36.35
1/2002-4/2002 :AT&T: $38.04
5/2002-12/2002 :AT&T: $39.06
1/2003-2/2003 AT&T: $40.83
3/2003-4/2003 :AT&T: $44.97
5/2003: AT&T: $47.34
6/2003-2/2004: Comcast: $42.58
3/2004-12/2004: Comcast: $45.04
1/2005-current: Comcast: $47.64

I told my wife that if this shit gets up to $600 a year, I'm not going to watch TV. I could fry my brain better for less than $600 a year.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

I have cox and I pay $ 111.00 per month for basic cable and 3mb cable internet connection. Thinking about heading back to basic dial up too.

[daedalus]

We're paying ~$20 per for BASIC cable. I mean B - A - S - I - C. Like, no ESPN or FoodTV (watch as I twitch and drool through my withdrawal symptoms). Not even the friggin' Weather Channel. I get basic local TV (with better reception than sans cable) and, well, quite a few shopping channels (yippee). To get the "luxury" of such channels as ESPN, FoodTV, CNN or Weather Channel, I'd be looking at ~$40 for, ahem, "Basic" Cable. I have no idea how that works. If I wanted to move into the proverbial "apartment in the sky" territory, I'd be looking in the ~$60-80 per. Don't. Think. So. As soon as we move to an apartment where getting DirecTV installed won't be quite an anesthesia-less root canal, we will SOOOOOOO be going that route.

I hate the cable company.

The really sad part is that I'm thinking of going to them for broadband. How f'ed up is THAT?

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

My cousin lives in the phillipines and pays $ 10.00 for ALL CHANNELS!!!!!

[Loren]

Originally Posted by daedalus

If I wanted to move into the proverbial "apartment in the sky" territory, I'd be looking in the ~$60-80 per. Don't. Think. So. As soon as we move to an apartment where getting DirecTV installed won't be quite an anesthesia-less root canal, we will SOOOOOOO be going that route.

I hate the cable company.

what are you expecting to pay once you get Directv??we have total choice plus and HBO pckg and we pay approx 72 bucks with taxes(more soon here in TX) and their freaky billing,(i HATE Directv billing I can make sure a huge national company's accounts are in order but hell if ill ever understand a directv bill, NM having one of their reps explain it) anyways.. plus then 4 times a yr($49) we have to pay for the NFL pkg..and im wanting to get the MLB one...it's like not being able to have just one chip[

[Peregrine]

Heh you must be getting ripped off by DirecTV, or else you have a different package than you said. I have the normal Total Choice + HBO and it's $56 a month with taxes, the Plus package should only cost $3-4 more than that. Also it's not like you HAVE to pay for Sunday Ticket, that's your choice. I recently cancelled mine.

[Flasch186]

i called in an attempt to cancel my sunday tix. since I work on sundays anyways, but she offered a $20 discount / month for the next six months, "Since they hijacked my HD games out, but proceeded to auto charge me the same amount this year as last." SOOOO, ill get the package and tivo one game in one room and another game in the other.

oh, cable modem through comcast, those fuckers. like 160/month for all!!!!! those fuckers!@!!!!

[Ksyrup]

I've got DirecTV, but I've still got basic cable for about $13 a month. You might remember the thread I started a few months back about how I couldn't really cancel my basic cable because then Comcast would jack the price of my internet up to more than I am currently paying for both basic cable AND internet. Anyway, in the back bedroom, we can only get channels 2-13. In the living room, however, we get a few more channels. I still don't know what I'm supposed to be paying for, but since channel 77 is our local weather, I ain't calling to find out I'm getting more than I should on that one TV and losing our only TV lifeline during a hurricane.

[rafini]

It's not great, but it's not too bad in Va Beach with Cox. I pay around $110 a month for cable (around 70 channels), cable internet and basic phone service. Got the package deal.

[flere-imsaho]

We cancelled cable (Comcast) because of this. Just too expensive for what we get out of it. We've gone to an antenna for TV and $20.00/month DSL, which has worked out fine.

[PilotMan]

We get 13 channels with the antenna. A couple are duplicates, from other cities. But sometimes they have shows that are not on here, like Bengals blackout games. One is religous, and one is shopping. At least I get to watch cable when I am on the road, but the savings at home is worth it.

[sterlingice]

My cable is paid for by my apartment complex and the local cable company costs $30 a month for cable modem

SI

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

My cable bill is passed on to me in an increased rent I pay to my apartment complex...

Fixed that for you.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Fixed that for you.

Which would almost be true, except that I only pay (half of) $450 a month for a 2 bedroom (that's not a rat's nest) so there's not much room there to squeeze the cost in. It's on par, if not cheaper, than other places around here. Sure, I realize it's worked into rent, but doing the math, I still come out ahead because I'm paying less than I would in rent+cable than I would somewhere else. They buy the cable bulk from the cable provider and pass the savings onto the tenants so that people will move here.

SI

[pennywisesb]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Which would almost be true, except that I only pay (half of) $450 a month for a 2 bedroom (that's not a rat's nest)

$225 for rent! Must be nice. At my place we pay like $90 bucks a month through Charter for our internet and digital cable which seems pretty steap but since I split it three ways with my roomates it makes it almost bearable.

[DanGarion]

In defense of cable companies.

They have pay to broadcast all the channels they provide you. So if FOX or ESPN or Discover up their per subscriber cost they cable company has to pass that on to the subscriber. Another thing lots of channels do nowdays is force cable companies to air all of their channels (like both MTVs) and then charge for both of them. Some people question why we don't just let people subscribe to only the channels they want. It's possible to do that, but the logistics of dealing with it would be ridiculous. Customers would call daily to just change ONE channel, and call times would increase as customers would want explainations of what such and such channel is (trust me people call in about the craziest things).

DirectTV isn't much better since my understanding is you are signing a contract, which you will be penalized for if you cancel early. Plus there is no local service tech that will come out free of charge because you are having a service issue.

Cable TV can provide a lot of value if you have the right cable company. I work for Time Warner Cable and I think overall what we provide our customers, especially if they get a cable box because then there are numerous free on demand channels we provide.

We also have telephone service we have started to provide and I can't believe that we actually go above and beyond trying to fix someones service. If a telephone customer has no dial tone and calls by 4PM we will have a tech out there the same day, try getting that from a phone company.

We do well over 300 service calls a day at no charge to our customers, and each of those trips cost us around $100 bucks, that's $30,000 a day in cost. You aren't just paying for the channels you are paying for the service. Our call center takes over 6000 calls a day locally.

I'm biased since I work for the company, but I'm not blind I would rather have my companies cable service then DirectTV anyday.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by dangarion

In defense of cable companies.

They have pay to broadcast all the channels they provide you. So if FOX or ESPN or Discover up their per subscriber cost they cable company has to pass that on to the subscriber. Another thing lots of channels do nowdays is force cable companies to air all of their channels (like both MTVs) and then charge for both of them.

DirectTV isn't much better since my understanding is you are signing a contract, which you will be penalized for if you cancel early. Plus there is no local service tech that will come out free of charge because you are having a service issue.

Cable TV can provide a lot of value if you have the right cable company. I work for Time Warner Cable and I think overall what we provide our customers, especially if they get a cable box because then there are numerous free on demand channels we provide.

We also have telephone service we have started to provide and I can't believe that we actually go above and beyond trying to fix someones service. If a telephone customer has no dial tone and calls by 4PM we will have a tech out there the same day, try getting that from a phone company.

We do well over 300 service calls a day at no charge to our customers, and each of those trips cost us around $100 bucks, that's $30,000 a day in cost. You aren't just paying for the channels you are paying for the service.

I'm biased since I work for the company, but I'm not blind I would rather have my companies cable service then DirectTV anyday.

To put any meaningful strength behind this argument, I'd need to understand that this somehow connects to the alarming increases in rates, not just the fact that rates are high. Is there evidence that the channels have, in some widespread fashion, been jacking up their prices in recent years -- enough that substantiates the cable rate increases documented here?

If not... then your argument has essentially nothing to do with rate increases.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

To put any meaningful strength behind this argument, I'd need to understand that this somehow connects to the alarming increases in rates, not just the fact that rates are high. Is there evidence that the channels have, in some widespread fashion, been jacking up their prices in recent years -- enough that substantiates the cable rate increases documented here?

If not... then your argument has essentially nothing to do with rate increases.

My arguement is that I work for the cable company and we are notified when channels up their price. I'm merely providing feedback since I'm in the industry. If you don't want to beleive me you don't need to. Also how much of that bill going up has been increases in taxes and franchise fees?

And how about this, I know for a fact that a specific local sports channel forced us to carry them as a basic channel and increased the price on us over $2.00 a subscriber (in recent years). They would not allow us to provice the channel as a premium service. If we hadn't provided the channels our customers would have been livid.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by dangarion

In defense of cable companies.

They have pay to broadcast all the channels they provide you. So if FOX or ESPN or Discover up their per subscriber cost they cable company has to pass that on to the subscriber.

ESPN is pretty notorious for doing this to the cable companies. They usually suceed in hiking their rate--since ESPN are one of those killer-app type channels that cable companies cannot do without...

[stkelly52]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

To put any meaningful strength behind this argument, I'd need to understand that this somehow connects to the alarming increases in rates, not just the fact that rates are high. Is there evidence that the channels have, in some widespread fashion, been jacking up their prices in recent years -- enough that substantiates the cable rate increases documented here?

If not... then your argument has essentially nothing to do with rate increases.

Actually, there has been a fair amount of evidence that channels have been jacking there prices. I remember about a year and a half ago DishNetwork stopped carrying Nickelodeon (and I think MTV) because they were increasing the price too much. It only lasted a week or so before the two came to an agreement and children could start watching Dora the Explorer again.

Me personally, I have "limited cable" through comcast (which they don't advertise anywhere, you just have to know to ask for it). I get all of the local channels plus cspan, Halmark, Fox Sports NW, and ESPN (though espn is not supposed to be included, I just somehow get it anyway). I pay $15 per month.

[Easy Mac]

Well, last I heard, ESPN charges at least $2 per subscriber each month, and since they're generally the class of the normal cable, thats probably near the high. Most are probably $.50-1.00. Even so, for about 75 channels, my bill is about $48 including their idiotic additional fees. So thats about $.64 a channel.

[DanGarion]

And lets remember the cable companies do have to report to their share holders, which means they do have to make money.

[QuikSand]

Dangarion... when I posted this question:

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Is there evidence that the channels have, in some widespread fashion, been jacking up their prices in recent years -- enough that substantiates the cable rate increases documented here?

Originally Posted by dangarion

If you don't want to beleive me you don't need to.

You seem to believe that I am attacking you, or disputing your assertion. I'm not. I'm asking a question whether this is something that really does explain the recent substantial increases in cable rates. It is an honest question.

Yes, I am aware that some of the costs of delivering cable services are pass-through costs. If, in fact, these pass-throughs really have increased so much in recent years that we could translate those cost increases to cable rate increases (or at least in large part) then I think you'd have a pretty solid argument that the target of our ire ought to be the ESPNs and Nickelodeons of the world. (And perhaps whoever is responsible for not allowing practical a la carte channel selection to the majority of customers)

And I would also agree that, to the extent tax rates and other charges have increased over this period of time, that too is outside the fair range of criticism for the cable companies.


But don't try to pass off arguments like "we provide a lot of wonderful services" as a reason why rates have increased. Unless there's some new type or level of service required or provided now that wasn't a few years ago, then it's not a meaningful contributor to the recent increase in costs. We got that same service a few years ago for $31, now we pay $48.

As for your argument about shareholders -- I have no basic problem with a company trying to maximize profits. However, cable companies, by and large, are granted franchise rights by government authorities, along with the rights to use public rights-of-way. Establishing a virtual monopoly in your exact kind of service comes with responsibilities under our general form of government -- and as long as cable companies are going to play under those rules, one of their responsibilities is to not bilk the hell out of the customers. So far, it's hard to argue that this is an unfair charge.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by dangarion

Some people question why we don't just let people subscribe to only the channels they want. It's possible to do that, but the logistics of dealing with it would be ridiculous.

I'm intrigued by this because I don't think it's true. In a day and age where I can, as an example, trade shares of publically-held stock on my cellphone and have all the various of bits of the transaction (including fees, adherence to SEC rules, etc...) sorted out by technology, I find it hard to believe this this is a technologically insurmountable obstacle for cable companies.

Now, if you're saying that the cable companies can't do this because there's an insufficient ROI, I'll believe that.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Yes, I am aware that some of the costs of delivering cable services are pass-through costs. If, in fact, these pass-throughs really have increased so much in recent years that we could translate those cost increases to cable rate increases (or at least in large part) then I think you'd have a pretty solid argument that the target of our ire ought to be the ESPNs and Nickelodeons of the world. (And perhaps whoever is responsible for not allowing practical a la carte channel selection to the majority of customers.

I would be really surprised if they weren't almost exclusively pass-through costs. Cable has been facing pressure from satellite and that has done nothing but grow over the past few years and encroach on their monopoly. Inherently, you'd think the costs would drop in the face of increasing competition and better technology (ala DSL costs over the past few years in the face of Cable competition) to try and retain or even grow market share, but that hasn't been happening. Then again, there are many externalities like business mergers decreasing local competition and the like which also have affected this.

This is a gut feeling with no scientific basis to it whatsoever, but I think due to increasing competition between satellite and cable, the profit for cable has gone down substantially, relative to what they got. The superchannels like ESPN and MTV have gotten more and more of the profit pie, bidding the two services against each other, while the percentage cable gets has actually decreased and they've had to decrease what they get profitwise to retain customer base.

SI

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I would be really surprised if they weren't almost exclusively pass-through costs. Cable has been facing pressure from satellite and that has done nothing but grow over the past few years and encroach on their monopoly. Inherently, you'd think the costs would drop in the face of increasing competition and better technology (ala DSL costs over the past few years in the face of Cable competition) to try and retain or even grow market share, but that hasn't been happening. Then again, there are many externalities like business mergers decreasing local competition and the like which also have affected this.

If we were seeing true competition with perfectly equivalent products, then i think this would stand to reason completely.

However, there is the power of incumbency, and it's every bit as strong in marketplaces as it is in politics.

Here, what we may be seeing is the fact that people who are open to a change in their TV service delivery being changed (getting a new company, paying for setup, learning new channels, getting a new remote -- all the things that add up tpo "change" here) may have already done so. Those would would be willing to go for a better deal have done so. That leaves behind those who really aren't interested in buying a dish or getting their service from some other source generally -- they just prefer to stick with the source they have.

If that's true, then the cable companies are essentially dealing with a market for their own product that is increasingly price-insensitive. And if so, then it stands to reason that they can (and perhaps even should, in the name of maximizing profits) start to increase prices -- since they will find the loss of customers to be smalle rthan the increase in revenues from those who remain. In a market where there is very little marginal cost associated with more customers (within a service area already covered by infrastructure) this becomes prety simple math. Your self-selected group of loyal customers won't go without your service and aren't likely to leave you for a cheaper alternative ... so go ahead and screw them with rate increases.

This is a competing, and also perfectly logical, explanation for what might be happening in this emerging semi-competitive market.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Dangarion... when I posted this question:





You seem to believe that I am attacking you, or disputing your assertion. I'm not. I'm asking a question whether this is something that really does explain the recent substantial increases in cable rates. It is an honest question.

Sorry, that's what happens when you respond on message boards while you are working .

My answer was more tongue in cheek then how it sounded when I said "If you don't want to beleive me you don't need to."

As for some other points. In recent years cable companies have had to upgrade their infrastructure in order to provide additional services ie, High Speed Data, Digital Cable, On Demand Services, Telephone, these costs are of course pass onto all customers, not just those that subscribe to the services (since it's the cable network as a whole that gets upgraded).

The reason DSL has decreased in price is because they cannot currently compete with the speed cable provides so they cut their prices (IMO) 5 Mbps down 512 Kbps up for Time Warner here..

DirectTV took years of loss as they tried to gain market share, this is why recently they have raised their prices. - Just an observation.

[ShaqFu]

Get DirecTV (even with the price hike) or Dish Network instead. It's a little bit cheaper.

As for switching back to dial-up. Never. I've tried dial-up since getting broadband. Yuck. However, I'm considering switching to alternative forms, like DSL or Wi-Max.

[ShaqFu]

Originally Posted by dangarion

DirectTV isn't much better since my understanding is you are signing a contract, which you will be penalized for if you cancel early. Plus there is no local service tech that will come out free of charge because you are having a service issue.

That's not 100 percent true. If you're withing your contract window, they will send out a technician. I've had them send technicians out even outside of a contract window. However, I now am fully covered. I pay a few dollars more each month and they'll now send a technician out for any problem. This is all a lie from the cable company.

FWIW, many cable companies now use local contract companies. You used to be able to call the local cable office. No more. The local office here is a fortress and the guards refer you to a call center in another part of the country.

Cable TV can provide a lot of value if you have the right cable company.

You're right. The best deal is when you can get one of the smaller cable companies. There are some small ones out there which service a small area, yet offer many of the services as the big guys. That's actually how cable started. CATV stands for Community Antenna Television, though it now is used to refer to Cable Television.

[ISiddiqui]

I'm paying like $150 or so for Comcast's Digital Cable Silver (with HBO channels), Dual Tuner DVR / HD (so they charge me twice for it... bastards), Digital Sports Tier and their high speed internet service.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by ShaqFu

That's not 100 percent true. If you're withing your contract window, they will send out a technician. I've had them send technicians out even outside of a contract window. However, I now am fully covered. I pay a few dollars more each month and they'll now send a technician out for any problem. This is all a lie from the cable company.

FWIW, many cable companies now use local contract companies. You used to be able to call the local cable office. No more. The local office here is a fortress and the guards refer you to a call center in another part of the country.

I didn't know about the technician thing, but then I've never had Dish or DirectTV. Heck I didn't have cable till I work for Time Warner.

Some cable compines work that way others do have local offices. Time Warner for the most part has local offices which handle most everything.

Originally Posted by ShaqFu

You're right. The best deal is when you can get one of the smaller cable companies. There are some small ones out there which service a small area, yet offer many of the services as the big guys. That's actually how cable started. CATV stands for Community Antenna Television, though it now is used to refer to Cable Television.

There are very few small ones left, and most don't have the leverage or buying power to upgrade their systems like the larger companies I would think.