And the cable providers wonder why things like BitTorrent, Hulu, Netflix and the rest are so popular.
Love grousing about cable TV? Then I’ve got a list for you. It comes from industry analyst SNL Kagan, and I came across it via a research note Barclays Capital’s Anthony DiClemente sent out last week. DiClemente was arguing that the bundled approach to cable TV–whereby subscribers get dozens or even hundreds of channels for one big fee, no matter how many networks they actually watch–wasn’t going anywhere for quite some time. If ever.
But if you’re the kind of person who thinks we’re headed for an a la carte model in which programmers compete directly for consumer dollars, you can use this as fodder for your argument. Because you can see just how much you’re paying for stuff you don’t want.
[Click here to view the chart]
Obviously these are wholesale prices, not retail. But this gives you a very good idea of where the money goes–to a lot of channels you likely never, ever, look at.
You’ll find this particularly upsetting if you don’t watch sports. Because sports channels account for about 40 percent of cable fees.
And you’ll also be upset once you realize that the broadcast networks–GE’s (GE) NBC, News Corp.’s (NWS) Fox, Disney’s (DIS) ABC and CBS (CBS)–are going to get added to this list over the next year or so. Even though anyone who doesn’t pay for cable gets them for free.
![[Click here to view the chart]](http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/files/2010/03/cable-sub-fees.png){kind=link}
I have cable modem service, but not cable TV…
Same here in the UK, Virgin media charge silly money for the complete package.
Sky is better ~£16 monthly, then £1 monthly for themed channel packs.
Ala carte is a pipe dream. The cable and satellite providers won’t do it because it puts too much power in the hands of consumers.
Ala Carte means cable channels would be forced to deal with consumers having issues with:
1. Objectionable Material (i.e. minors watching MTV or Adult Swim)
2. Material not consistent with theme of channel (i.e. wrestling on Sci-Fi)
3. Material not aimed at a particular customer (subsidizing Ethnic / Religious channels by making EVERYONE pay for it).
I would rather pay more per individual channel just so I can have the right to vote with my wallet to cancel channels that tick me off. That would be FAR MORE accurate than what any Nielsen rating could tell you about what people want to watch.
The problem is there is a conflict of interests between the consumers and the cable and satellite companies. Bundling is much more profitable for the cable and satellite companies.
Do you really think they’ll give in to ala carte? Highly unlikely.
It would take on of two things.
Scenario 1: People canceling their service en masse.
Scenario 2: Government forcing cable and satellite companies to offer ala carte.
Libertarians and Conservatives will go with scenario 1 (since they realize that cable / satellite TV is not a necessity)
Liberals will feel cable / satellite TV is a necessity of sorts and would feel that government needs to step in force the providers to change their business model (since it’s absurd to think people can / should cancel their service if they’re dissatisfied).
I have an internet bill but no cable TV usage but I am sure that it is illegally supplementing the cost of TV!
I have only high speed Internet. I dropped cable TV last summer and I still don’t regret it. It also saves me $50/month.
The only reason this situation exists is because the cable companies (and satellite) have a monopoly. If there were true competition then most consumers would use a provider that sold them the few channels they actually watch. Congress talked about changing this practice but unfortunately they are in the pockets of the telecommunication companies so the consumer rip-off will continue.
Easy solution, DON’T WATCH TV! We have DU to get our highs at, why bother with TV.
The problem with the alacarte model is that the little watched channels will go away. Then the cable companies can’t offer 100 channels of nothing on.
I’ve become fed up with broadcast and cable TV, especially since you have to watch every episode of a show from season one to understand it. If I buy a box set DVD a month, I still spend less than I would on cable. I have a TV that is connected to a DVD player and nothing else.
If it isn’t on the Internet or on DVD, I am not watching it.
#7: I’m curious why people still buy DVDs given things like Netflix if you want to be legal and not use BitTorrent. You can reorder a film or show from Netflix if you want to see it again. And do you actually rewatch tv shows in those boxed sets you buy?
And I prefer the serialized shows over standalone shows. One long story is more interesting than everything neatly wrapped up in one hour.
Many of the niche channels on cable would not be economically viable if not for bundling. Individual channels would be much more expensive, with greater uncertainty and fluctuation in the prices. The a la carte model also loses the value of being able to spontaneously discover shows of interest on channels that consumers may not have thought to purchase ahead of time; of course you could spend a lot of time doing research about what shows are scheduled to be on what channel from month-to-month to plan your purchase ahead of time, but the transaction costs end up being more than what you would pay for the bundle.
I gave up cable over a year ago, with the content online (Hulu, Justin.tv, Netflix, Amazon, etc.) and over-the-air digital broadcasts I have no need for the high priced cable.
I wouldn’t mind paying a small monthly fee to stream, via the internet, content like HBO…
I gave up on broadcast TV in my truck when the US went digital and have not missed it. I use Hulu a lot, but get ticked off if I hear of a show mid-season and have to jump in with only the last couple of shows available. Still better than CBS which refuses to put the full shows I’d watch (The Big Bang Theory, The Mentalist) up on the web. Also, a fringe 3G signal leaves Hulu a challenge.
What I noticed on the cable lineup is the Brand slicing. ESPN/ESPN2/ESPnews/ESPNClassic, MTV/MTV2/MTVjams/MTVhits, etc. And how many times can TNT show the “Bourne” movies? Every weekend apparently.
Also, does the cable company pay the shopping channels or does the shopping channels pay to be on the cable lineup? The number of them and their predominance on some cable companies lineups leads me to believe this is a real revenue stream for the cable companies.
Found this about Raleigh, NC cable provider mistakenly airing Playboy Preview on two KIDS channels.
I haven’t had cable TV for years and my life is much better for it. Stop watching sports and go play sports. We’ll all be healthier and happier.
I currently watch 12 channels out of about a 120. On a regular basis, more like 5 out of 120.
Worse, I get IPTV on a streaming media box that is locked down with no access to the IR so that pretty much rules out the ability to hook-up a Tivo. It does have the ability to record, but the company will not turn it on (because the feature has not been tested).
Model: Scientific Atlanta IPN603MCG
Anyone got any suggestions?
If restaurants set prices like cable companies, each time you ordered a steak you would have to buy an entire cow.
90% of TV is advertising.
They use programs to DRAW you, so they CAN advert.
If a program isnt doing the job, they drop it.
90% of advertising, is SELLING the advert, getting them to ADVERT on your show.
The more popular your show, the MORE you can CHARGE for the advert.
the MORE popular the SHOW, the more they ADD ADVERTS..
If the Cable/sat corps had to only SELL you the channels you wanted, those channels would have to FIGHT over what channels they could get on, insted of seeing 100 channels, ALL being displayed.. and needing to advert on MOST of them, they could/would goto those YOU WERE ON..about 20 that most people watch..those channels would be getting TONS of money and the OTHERS would fail..OR cable would have to PAY them to stay..
ALSO that list does not show..
Some channels PAY to be on cable
SOME channels are PAID to be on cable.
Once you are a POPULAR channel, CABLE wants you ON CABLE..they will PAY you to be on cable.
Looking at that Price list, 3/4 is under $0.20, BUT the avg is $0.20..and those FEW that are over the $1 are blowing the chart OFF..
What ever happened to all la-carte?
What a waste of bandwidth and electricity!
TOTAL CRAP.
I’m a CSR for a small cable co – small enough that I can chat with the CEO occasionally. This chart makes me angry because of what it leaves out; it isn’t the cable co’s that do the bundling, it’s Hollywood. If we want to carry the twelve channels that you (and I) actually watch, we MUST buy the 60 that nobody watches. When you get pissed, you ream ME a brand new a#%hole even though I completely agree with you.The fat cats who are getting rich on this deal escape all notice, let alone blame. Congress tried a fix but gave up – Comcast and Cox don’t have that much juice, but Hollywood does.What really gets to me is that this same behavior has been illegal in other industries for years – auto co’s have tried it and been busted.
FOX News costs .56/month:
MSNBC costs .16/month:
FOX News gets 3.5X MORE MONEY than MSNBC!
HAR!!
I would pay good money to get FX & BBC individually, but most of the rest suck. DISC, which used to be good, is half infomercials. A&E has become “watch the lower class at work channel.”
Since I can source my own cutlery and cubic zirconium without watching TV it seems pretty pointless to have cable.
DVD sets are the way to go.
#21–Ah Yea==whats yer point? People pay more for porn too. Seems if you enjoy being pandered to, you will pay for it.
#16 Eric
The cable company getting a % of the sales explains a lot. I have spent weekends in some motels in the sticks that have the whole cable lineup and always thought 50% of the channels were either shopping or infomercials.
I still don’t have cable, and neither does a guy down the street. Digital free TV brings in enough to watch, and if I need baseball, there’s MLB.tv, and for movies, there is Netflix (on disc).
Unless “pick my own” becomes a model, I won’t be getting cable, sat, or whatever they want to call it.
I understand this is a blog that aggregates other peoples articles by trying to put your own spin on it. But not referencing the original article is just plain plagiarism and theft.
http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20100308/hate-paying-for-cable-heres-the-reason-why/
#26, the source article is linked to, even if it’s not done in a way that’s as obvious as a 2×4 to the face.
My sentiments exactly. The source article is ALWAYS linked to.
Every 6 months or so I’ll calculate buying shows off Amazon and iTunes, throw in a Roku and the up and coming Boxee Box. It’s never worth changing from DIsh, since it includes a DVR and 2 simple to use receivers. Pick your battles. When my wife comes home annoyed, and thats most days, her vegging out on TV saves me xanax.
Something else to consider is all the over-compression and multi-plexing Cable and Satellite does do with SD channels makes the SD video look absolutely terrible. However, when I play a DVD on my HDTV, the picture quality is rather good. So good in fact, that I’m in no real rush to buy a Blu-ray player.
But I guess doing too good of a job on SD would mean less revenue from consumers for HD channel packages.
If they have the bandwidth for HD programming, they should be able to have the bandwidth for good SD quality.
29, RTaylor, On the matter of changing from Dish, I have a co-worker who continually switches between Dish & DirecTV as his contracts expires all the time. He gets the best pricing and newest hardware every time he switches. It’s worked so far.
175 channels = $35 wholesale. It must cost a fortune to operate a local cable company because I’m not getting 175 channels for $60. Thank goodness the municipalities gave them all that free right of way or my cable bill would be in the hundreds. 8-|