03-09-2010, 02:59 PM | #1 | ||
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Here
|
A la carte cable? how much it could cost...
Well, maybe/maybe not. These are wholesale prices offered to cable companies. I somehow think the prices would change if it were pay for what you want. A quick review of the channels puts my total around $16.35 a month. Some of the channels I don't get, and some I do currently get I don't want. I could probably drop it even more, as I hedged that something might appear on a channel or two that I might someday watch. My list: ESPN FSN TNT Disney NFL HDNet USA ESPN2 CNN/HLN TBS HDNet Movies Nickelodeon Fox College MTV Discovery MLB Syfy E! Bravo CBS College Fox Sports Espanol ESPN Classic ESPN News ESPNU FSC TLC ESPN Deportes SOAPNet Comedy Central HGTV Gol Weather Food Network G4 Animal Planet |
||
03-09-2010, 03:01 PM | #2 |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Georgia
|
But I wonder how many channels would fold under this format.
__________________
Top 10 Songs of the Year 1955-Present (1976 Added) Franchise Portfolio Draft Winner Fictional Character Draft Winner Television Family Draft Winner Build Your Own Hollywood Studio Draft Winner |
03-09-2010, 03:07 PM | #3 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2003
|
Quote:
Just shows you how many pointless channels there are.
__________________
Why choose failure when success is an option? |
|
03-09-2010, 03:13 PM | #4 |
Pro Rookie
Join Date: Jan 2005
|
Wish I could add GolTV to my Time Warner plan for 11 cents a month. I'm pretty sure they don't offer it no matter what your plan is though.
Last edited by Big Fo : 03-09-2010 at 03:14 PM. |
03-09-2010, 03:14 PM | #5 |
College Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Bay Area
|
I suspect those prices are much lower than the end consumer could ever get. The cable companies would charge some amount for distribution - maybe a flat fee for access and then an additional percentage on top of the cost for each channel.
|
03-09-2010, 03:14 PM | #6 |
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Here
|
oh, and if Jon sees this, maybe he could answer it for me:
Why is ESPN Classic not part of the sports package for Charter? ESPN U and News are, and its lumped into the same channel range for all of the other sports channels I do get, but I don't get the channel. It makes no sense. Last edited by Easy Mac : 03-09-2010 at 03:15 PM. |
03-09-2010, 03:15 PM | #7 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Here
|
Quote:
If they charged me a flat fee of say, $25, then let me pay for the channels I want, I'd do it in a heartbeat. |
|
03-09-2010, 03:20 PM | #8 |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Wisconsin
|
Wedding Central? Really?
What do they do, play Bridezilla 24/7?
__________________
You, you will regret what you have done this day. I will make you regret ever being born. Your going to wish you never left your mothers womb, where it was warm and safe... and wet. i am going to show you pain you never knew existed, you are going to see a whole new spectrum of pain, like a Rainboooow. But! This rainbow is not just like any other rainbow, its... |
03-09-2010, 03:21 PM | #9 |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Green Bay, WI
|
My hunch is what you'd be more likely to see is that you'd have to buy a 'core' package of some kind first, and then the à la carte would go on top of that.
I mean, I can't imagine Time Warner would allow me to cherry pick the channels I'd watch (TCM, AMC, Fox Sports, ESPN, maybe Sci-Fi) for $7/month. They'd look for a way to offer à la carte and still get their $20-30/month out of it. |
03-09-2010, 03:23 PM | #10 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: the yo'
|
Still dumb that I can't add NFLN for .75 cents because of the tw/nfl pissing match.
|
03-09-2010, 03:25 PM | #11 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
Quote:
Undoubtably. The wholesale prices are so low because they have a guarenteed market of everyone the cable company serves (for basic tier channels). Take that guarentee away and the prices shoot up to make up for people who would be paying for their channels but don't watch it. And yes, a lot of channels, especially niche channels (hello SyFy) would fold.
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams |
|
03-09-2010, 03:26 PM | #12 |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Tulsa
|
$12.77 for me. Yes, please.
|
03-09-2010, 03:29 PM | #13 |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Cary, NC
|
$45/month for RoadRunner, $11/month for Netflix with Blu-Ray, maybe a one-time $40 fee for PlayOn, and maybe $2/episode for Amazon VOD for some shows.
That's my price tag for a la carte viewing.
__________________
-- Greg -- Author of various FOF utilities |
03-09-2010, 03:53 PM | #14 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Back in Houston!
|
Quote:
Exactly- it's like the insurance debate. You're subsidizing all those other stations. You may only watch 10 stations, but think about your cable bill- you're paying for somewhere between 30 and 300 of them. It's also not a completely accurate chart for price, for everyone licking their chops at their theoretical $15 cable bills. Again, add up all your stations on your cable provider and see how much they cost compared to your cable bill. I have a feeling that you're paying double what the stations cost on the chart. Clearly they aren't broadcasting things to you at wholesale prices. They're marking up the price to make a profit. And this doesn't just apply to *evil* cable but also Verizon/AT&T and satellite, too. SI
__________________
Houston Hippopotami, III.3: 20th Anniversary Thread - All former HT players are encouraged to check it out! Janos: "Only America could produce an imbecile of your caliber!" Freakazoid: "That's because we make lots of things better than other people!" |
|
03-09-2010, 04:01 PM | #15 | |
High School Varsity
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Boston, Ma
|
Quote:
I'm not saying that things would not be cheaper in an a la carte world (they might) but that $0.33 is not a real number. |
|
03-09-2010, 04:02 PM | #16 | |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: St. Louis
|
Quote:
Agree 100%. On the other hand I will say this. Before the cell phone rage our local phone company used to tack on an additional $25/month fee to call the St. Louis metro area. There was really nothing we could do to fight this either even though it was from like the 1950's. (Unless of course we wanted to be limited to about 10% of the people I talk to that live near my house) Eventually cell phones got cheaper and I dropped them all together. The lesson? Eventually other technologies are going to come around and if cable companies don't try and do something to change their outragous pricing structure they will be left with the landlines, VCR's, and Blockbuster video. (Of course I didn't read the article so maybe this was what they already said. ) |
|
03-09-2010, 04:04 PM | #17 | |
Roster Filler
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Cicero
|
Quote:
The problem is that for most people, tv and internet are from the same provider. As soon as a significant number of people get wise to the idea that they can access most of their television programming over the internet and start getting internet only, the providers will start blocking domains for non-tv subscribers, or some such thing. One thing I am fairly certain of - they are not going to sit idly by while their customers switch from accessing cable tv programming in a manner by which they profit (by reselling the programming to you as a tv package) to one they lose money on (increasing the internet bandwidth per customer).
__________________
http://www.nateandellie.net Now featuring twice the babies for the same low price! |
|
03-09-2010, 04:49 PM | #18 |
Coordinator
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: San Diego via Sausalito via San Jose via San Diego
|
I have no problems with a company wanting to make a profit. With cable, I just wish I could pick and choose what I want. I have no problems paying 45 to 50 bucks a month to watch the maybe 30 or so channels (from the list above) that I watch on a regular basis. I don't count the channels you can get over the air though.
__________________
I'm no longer a Chargers fan, they are dead to me Coming this summer to a movie theater near you: The Adventures of Jedikooter: Part 4 |
03-09-2010, 06:01 PM | #19 |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2003
|
I'm just waiting for Jon to see this thread.
|
03-09-2010, 06:07 PM | #20 | |
lolzcat
Join Date: May 2001
Location: williamsburg, va
|
__________________
Text Sports Network - Bringing you statistical information for several FOF MP leagues in one convenient site Quote:
|
|
03-09-2010, 06:32 PM | #21 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Behind Enemy Lines in Athens, GA
|
Eh, looks like I've done my job, more than one person already pointed out how these numbers have pretty much nothing on earth to do with what individuals would have to pay ala carte. And we haven't even gotten into the whole "fewer households = fewer total viewers = less advert revenue = even more costs passed directly to the end user" part of it.
__________________
"I lit another cigarette. Unless I specifically inform you to the contrary, I am always lighting another cigarette." - from a novel by Martin Amis |
03-09-2010, 06:54 PM | #22 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
|
Quote:
|
|
03-09-2010, 07:40 PM | #23 | |
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
|
Quote:
I can answer this for you. It's because ESPN negotiates it that way. Similar to other providers like Viacom (MTV, Comedy, VH-1) they use their flagship channel to leverage carriage on basic tiers for their lesser channels. |
|
03-09-2010, 07:57 PM | #24 | |
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
|
Quote:
On your first point...this is not only illegal, but is just isn't done in large operator networks. There was a time when some operators were doing this with p-2-p in some markets...but those were local decisions being made by local engineers to manage traffic (more cost effectively). Just saying it isn't policy nor implied policy of any of the major cable ops. On the second point...cable ops profit marginally from video programming and actually make the majority of profit from internet access. It's much easier to be a "dumb pipe" than an intelligent one with moving parts, special restrictions, tiers, billing interfaces, and the whole host of technology updates required every 2-3 years to maintain a modern video system. |
|
03-09-2010, 08:41 PM | #25 | |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Cary, NC
|
Quote:
Actually, there are typically at least two options for internet, with the phone companies also running DSL, and in many cases fiber that is FASTER than the cable company. Yes, I get my high speed Internet from my cable company, but I could switch to DSL tomorrow if I wanted to (and take my phone with it), plus AT&T is currently running fiber for U-Verse service. I am strongly considering a switch since AT&T has much faster Internet speeds. Keep in mind that AT&T is getting into TV to keep customers / lure the ones they've lost to cable back, not as their primary income stream or reason for their network. I'm sure they'll be happy to have me back getting phone and Internet from them. And if they want to play games about Internet service, I'm sure Google or Cisco would be more than happy to step into the gap, or other providers will step up. Or I'll just keep building up my physical media collection, buying the TV shows on DVD/Blu-Ray with all the money I'm saving from my cable bill, and not worry about the streaming part. There are people who don't watch TV much at all because they think it's crap. With the current pricing scheme, a second group of folks (which I fall into) is just starting to realise it's too expensive for what they get. In the other threads we've discussed this in, it's been pointed out that BOTH sides of this pricing equation are squeezing folks out. Sure, I can get broadcast cable for $20-something, but how much longer will that last with the networks starting to get uppity about their prices? Otherwise you're looking at typically $60+/month for a fairly basic digital cable package, and that's just absurd. Go to two rooms with DVRs and you're up approaching $100. Screw that. FWIW, even my parents are starting to gripe about how much cable costs for what they want to watch. This is a growing undercurrent that the people involved in this pricing war really need to start paying attention to, or all of a sudden they'll find a whole host of people that decide they really didn't need traditional TV that bad after all.
__________________
-- Greg -- Author of various FOF utilities |
|
03-09-2010, 10:03 PM | #26 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Behind Enemy Lines in Athens, GA
|
Quote:
Most likely because Classic is expected to be dropped from the network lineup pretty much at any time, although it has lasted longer than expected (rumors of its impending demise began as far back as 2007). Mostly Classic has been used as a swap item as ESPN sacrificed it with providers in order to get U bumped up a tier. Deals like that with Direct TV and Comcast led to Dish Network filing a federal lawsuit against ESPN last fall because they weren't offered the same terms.
__________________
"I lit another cigarette. Unless I specifically inform you to the contrary, I am always lighting another cigarette." - from a novel by Martin Amis |
|
03-09-2010, 10:03 PM | #27 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Behind Enemy Lines in Athens, GA
|
Quote:
Umm ... yours are only starting to gripe? WTF? I've been hearing my parents, grandparents, and in-laws bitch to the high heavens about the cost of cable for as long as I can remember.
__________________
"I lit another cigarette. Unless I specifically inform you to the contrary, I am always lighting another cigarette." - from a novel by Martin Amis |
|
03-09-2010, 11:19 PM | #28 |
College Benchwarmer
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Amarillo, TX
|
Looking at those rates, my intuitive guess is that we would end up with a la carte pricing of about a buck a channel for anything under MTV. Then two or three channels would decide to get together and bundle to split a dollar, and before you know it you're back to essential tier pricing, with the decision whether or not to pick up the ESPNs for $15-17 being the only meaningful distinction. Easy Mac's opening post list of shows he'd want to watch, for example, I would guesstimate at closer to $55-60 per month.
The apartment complex I lived in the first year I was married decided to leave the local cable company and buy a channel lineup individually for internal broadcast so that they could essentially bring all utility bills in-house and offer a comprehensive price for each tenant. They found that only 15% of the units watched ESPN regularly and figured they'd cut it from the channel lineup. This, needless to say, didn't fly. The cost of getting all the ESPN channels (since the contract was all or nothing), plus the cost of switching to a higher number of channel slots that this entailed, ended up costing us an additional $20 per month over the initial estimates, which ended up making it more expensive than the local cable provider. Eventually, I think they just threw dishes on top of each building and sprang for DirecTV for the whole complex. So, yeah. Basically, a la carte programming is really only going to be a money saver if you don't watch news or sports. In this forum, I feel pretty confident we're all going to be watching sports, so I don't think we really need to be thinking too hard about the idea around here. Last edited by Shkspr : 03-09-2010 at 11:22 PM. |
03-10-2010, 12:38 PM | #29 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Exton, PA
|
Great thread. My friend and I were discussing this very subject today over e-mail.
For me, my only real hangup would be over watching live sports (specifically local sports). Does anyone see any way around this? I have an MLB.TV subscription, but I believe the only workaround is to connect via a Proxy Server. I'd love to drop my $120/month cable bill. |
03-10-2010, 12:57 PM | #30 | |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Cary, NC
|
Quote:
A good old fashioned antenna for OTA service works. And in the digital age it works much better than it used to.
__________________
-- Greg -- Author of various FOF utilities |
|
03-10-2010, 01:05 PM | #31 | |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Exton, PA
|
Quote:
That's a good point for NFL games, as they are generally broadcast on CBS or FOX, but what should I do for Phillies games, which are broadcast on a local cable affiliate? |
|
03-10-2010, 01:10 PM | #32 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
|
So Comcast went to war in my area with the NFL Network over $0.75 a subscriber?
|
03-10-2010, 01:14 PM | #33 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
Quote:
That's a great post. Especially about trying to do it without the bundling of cable companies.
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams |
|
03-10-2010, 01:27 PM | #34 | |
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
|
Quote:
Well...to put into perspective. Assuming the number Comcast could get is $0.75...that's for every Basic Subscriber. Comcast has approx 22mil customers...likely about 75% of which are Basic subs (likely higher). That comes out to $12m per month or $144m per year. I know most people on this board (including myself) would say, "so what" to that cost/mo increase (which likely would be higher that $0.75) but it isn't necessarily an easy cost to justify in addition to all the other rate increases from programming. |
|
03-10-2010, 01:48 PM | #35 | |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Cary, NC
|
Quote:
Well, I decided Carolina Hurricanes NHL games weren't worth the exhorbitant fees I was paying, so I'm just not watching them. With all the exclusive and broadcast deals going on, and with cable companies getting involved and hoarding the signals, you have to decide how much those are worth. If enough people stop watching, they'll have to make them more widely available, but if that's too painful for you you'll have to keep paying their demands. NFL would be more painful for me if the fact that age-inappropriate commercials kept being shown during the day meant that I had to give most of that up a few years ago thanks to having kids around.
__________________
-- Greg -- Author of various FOF utilities |
|
03-10-2010, 01:49 PM | #36 |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: non white trash MD
|
mine would be .42
__________________
Dominating Warewolf for 0 games! GIT R DUN!!! |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
|
|