Explanation of unbundleling Cable Channels

[coloradoatheist]

Here is an article about why unbundling cable channels won't save you any money

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-03-17/the-fault-in-john-green-s-cable-logic

 

[ksen]

long on rhetoric light on facts

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Lets Smartsplain:

Here's the truth: You don't want your cable to be unbundled. You just want to pay less for it.
Bloomberg is against consumers wanting lower prices apparently.

Seriously, guys, you like bundling. You know how I know this? You seek it out in your consumer products. You want your hotel to give you free Wi-Fi and you don't want it to charge you by the towel.
Bloomberg has never stayed in a hotel room with a minibar.

Many of you go on all-inclusive vacations and cruises.
So this obviously relates 100% to cable bundling. -- Great insight! "Many" people like gay porn therefore all people want their cable bundled!

And I won't even get started on your agonized wails when airlines started charging you to check a bag and stopped providing a "free" plate of congealed mystery meat.
Yeah you lazy fuckers, what the hell is wrong with you? GET A JOB!

Why do you like bundling? Because you don't want to have to think about it.
Yeah, you don't really know what you want. You don't want to spend any effort.

Now think about cable bundling. The Great Unbundling Fallacy is the belief that if you pay $150 now for 1,000 channels, you ought to be able to pay, say, $25 a month for the channels that you watch.
Yeah you ungrateful fuckers, why do you only want to pay for what you use? Why do you want to pay for the Goats and Grease Channel? They cable company is practically paying to offer it to you!

I'm not arguing that literally no one would save money under an unbundling arrangement, because that would be ludicrous.
a.k.a. "Forget what I wrote about above. Don't read my words. Read the meanings behind the meanings."

 

[Nice Squirrel]

In the interests of transparency, I have never had or wanted cable and the bundles they offer make it even less distasteful. If I could pick and choose the stations I wanted, I may have considered it.

 

[coloradoatheist]

But if you went to a restaurant where you paid $10 for 4 items from a buffet or $10 for a buffet of 25 items, of which 4 you like mostly but 10 that you somewhat like, which is better for you as a consumer? The argument is that unbundling won't make it cheaper because you really aren't subsidizing the parts you don't like.

 

[dismal]

In the interests of transparency, I have never had or wanted cable and the bundles they offer make it even less distasteful. If I could pick and choose the stations I wanted, I may have considered it.

They sell channels individually. The ones they know some material subset of people will pay a premium to get. For example I used to get BeiN network as part of a bundle until they figured it had enough standalone value to a few people that they'd make more selling it separately.

Others they throw into a bundle with 40 others you get for 10 bucks which you buy on the theory if you watch any of them a few hours a month it's OK.

I would imagine if they unbundle them they would be treated more like a premium channel of limited interest and priced accordingly. So, you might find yourself paying $7.99 for the Food Network if you really want it and losing the other 39 channels it is currently bundled with for $10.99.

 

[Axulus]

Why do I have to pay for access to every website, even the ones I don't visit? I wish I could unbundle my internet and pick only the websites I want and save a ton of $$$.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

But if you went to a restaurant where you paid $10 for 4 items from a buffet or $10 for a buffet of 25 items, of which 4 you like mostly but 10 that you somewhat like, which is better for you as a consumer? The argument is that unbundling won't make it cheaper because you really aren't subsidizing the parts you don't like.

Actually it's like going to a restaurant and being required to order everything written on the menu and then picking through only the foods you want to eat. If you want to have corn on the cob with cole slaw, you will need to order everything from menu "A" and everything on menu "B" and then you can have both.

 

[dismal]

But if you went to a restaurant where you paid $10 for 4 items from a buffet or $10 for a buffet of 25 items, of which 4 you like mostly but 10 that you somewhat like, which is better for you as a consumer? The argument is that unbundling won't make it cheaper because you really aren't subsidizing the parts you don't like.

Actually it's like going to a restaurant and being required to order everything written on the menu and then picking through only the foods you want to eat. If you want to have corn on the cob with cole slaw, you will need to order everything from menu "A" and everything on menu "B" and then you can have both.

You can go to McDonalds and order the #1 combo or order each item separately. Is this the dream?

Is the proposal to ban bundling or to require selling channels individually in addition to bundles?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Actually it's like going to a restaurant and being required to order everything written on the menu and then picking through only the foods you want to eat. If you want to have corn on the cob with cole slaw, you will need to order everything from menu "A" and everything on menu "B" and then you can have both.

You can go to McDonalds and order the #1 combo or order each item separately. Is this the dream?

Is the proposal to ban bundling or to require selling channels individually in addition to bundles?

I guess I'll never understand the appeal of cable.

 

[coloradoatheist]

But if you went to a restaurant where you paid $10 for 4 items from a buffet or $10 for a buffet of 25 items, of which 4 you like mostly but 10 that you somewhat like, which is better for you as a consumer? The argument is that unbundling won't make it cheaper because you really aren't subsidizing the parts you don't like.

Actually it's like going to a restaurant and being required to order everything written on the menu and then picking through only the foods you want to eat. If you want to have corn on the cob with cole slaw, you will need to order everything from menu "A" and everything on menu "B" and then you can have both.

No, it's like going to an Amusement Park where you pay to for all the rides, but only 4 of the rides. So if you wanted it so you only rode the ferris wheel, then the the Amusement Park would have to find the land, put up a ferris wheel and only have people pay for that ride.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually it's like going to a restaurant and being required to order everything written on the menu and then picking through only the foods you want to eat. If you want to have corn on the cob with cole slaw, you will need to order everything from menu "A" and everything on menu "B" and then you can have both.

You can go to McDonalds and order the #1 combo or order each item separately. Is this the dream?

Is the proposal to ban bundling or to require selling channels individually in addition to bundles?

It would be the requirement of selling channels individually.

 

[bleubird]

Does it really matter?Cable TV must change or die.Like Blockbuster.Like a surfer that missed the wave.

 

[Juma]

Why do I have to pay for access to every website, even the ones I don't visit? I wish I could unbundle my internet and pick only the websites I want and save a ton of $$$.

Ahem. You do. It is just that most sites are free.

 

[Ford]

Actually it's like going to a restaurant and being required to order everything written on the menu and then picking through only the foods you want to eat. If you want to have corn on the cob with cole slaw, you will need to order everything from menu "A" and everything on menu "B" and then you can have both.

No, it's like going to an Amusement Park where you pay to for all the rides, but only 4 of the rides. So if you wanted it so you only rode the ferris wheel, then the the Amusement Park would have to find the land, put up a ferris wheel and only have people pay for that ride.

Continuing the Amusement Park analogy, what we've got right now is a park with 20 really cool rides that everyone wants, 20 rides that people will go on if they're bored, and 60 rides that nobody wants, but the owner's son made a business deal with a vendor that the company can't back out of. So in order for the park to make any money, they've got to charge as if you were getting 100 really cool rides.

 

[ksen]

lookit all deez pandoricals

 

[KeepTalking]

But if you went to a restaurant where you paid $10 for 4 items from a buffet or $10 for a buffet of 25 items, of which 4 you like mostly but 10 that you somewhat like, which is better for you as a consumer? The argument is that unbundling won't make it cheaper because you really aren't subsidizing the parts you don't like.

How about if I had the option to go to a restaurant that actually cooks the food I order, when I order it? That would be awesome, and someone who wants to spend the rest of the evening expelling the contents of their digestive system into a toilet from one orifice or the other can still eat at the crappy buffet of their choice.

In other words, cable companies could still offer massive buffets bundles to their lazy non-discriminate customers who don't want to have to think about their choices, and give those who truly only want to watch a handful of channels the option for a la carte programming. It would be win-win for both sets of customers, and then Bloomberg wouldn't have to go to these lengths to tell us what we actually want. But then the cable companies couldn't overcharge everyone, and just maybe their short-sighted actions wouldn't spell their ultimate collapse as more and more young people become cord-cutters. So, best to cash in now, I suppose.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Here is an article about why unbundling cable channels won't save you any money

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-03-17/the-fault-in-john-green-s-cable-logic

Oh for fuck sakes. Why is every single pro-corporate bullshit position embraced by the right-wing?

Unbundled channels would cost more if you get all of them. Kind of like how if you go to a restaurant and go only a la carte, but order a full meal that would have cost less if you just bought the meal.

Unbundled channels would cost less if you only get what you absolutely want to have. For instance, suppose I wanted football and children's programming. I can subscribe to Dishworld ($10 a month) and Nickelodeon ($6 a month). I get football and children's programming... for $16 a month instead of $100.

See how that works? Now if I wanted Netflix, Amazon Prime, CBS, Hulu Plus, Nick, HBO, Starz, Showtime, FoxSoccer2Go, etc... it'll cost more if you went to each party and spent money individually. That isn't a surprise. You save buying in bulk. The problem is, I don't want bulk, many people don't want bulk. A la carte allows people to be more picky about what they can watch, which means they receive only what they really want.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually it's like going to a restaurant and being required to order everything written on the menu and then picking through only the foods you want to eat. If you want to have corn on the cob with cole slaw, you will need to order everything from menu "A" and everything on menu "B" and then you can have both.

No, it's like going to an Amusement Park where you pay to for all the rides, but only 4 of the rides. So if you wanted it so you only rode the ferris wheel, then the the Amusement Park would have to find the land, put up a ferris wheel and only have people pay for that ride.

You mean like Nickelodeon Universe which offers both an unlimited pass and ride tickets?

 

[KeepTalking]

Actually it's like going to a restaurant and being required to order everything written on the menu and then picking through only the foods you want to eat. If you want to have corn on the cob with cole slaw, you will need to order everything from menu "A" and everything on menu "B" and then you can have both.

No, it's like going to an Amusement Park where you pay to for all the rides, but only 4 of the rides. So if you wanted it so you only rode the ferris wheel, then the the Amusement Park would have to find the land, put up a ferris wheel and only have people pay for that ride.

They are called carnivals, maybe you've heard of them?

 

[ksen]

It'd be nice to have some hard numbers instead of all these dueling analogies that may or may not have numbers anywhere close to reality.

 

[dismal]

So, to be clear, people here are also demanding amusement parks unbundle the price of amusement park rides?

I mean, if I just want to ride the roller coaster once why should I have to pay $40 bucks?

(Other than the tired corporate apologists argument that it's their amusement park and they can charge how they want and if I don't like it I don't have to go.)