• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Explanation of unbundleling Cable Channels

They certainly don't do it to meet the desires of the market.

So when Dish or UVerse or FIOS comes into a new market you imagine the discussion goes something like this:

Dish Guy 1: So, we're getting ready to enter the East Podunk market. Our infrastructure costs are largely fixed. So we need to get lots of customers to switch or we'll all get fired. What can we do to take customers away from cable?
Dish Guy 2: Well, all of our research says customers hate bundles. I know, let's offer bundles!

When the options are to get fed, but only if you bend over for a horse, or to starve and die, you'll bend over for the horse.

Comcast rolls into town as the only show with cable internet, and as the ONLY provider of the three or four channels that people buy their service for. It just provides them with a better excuse to demand that you bend over for their horse.

Other providers have proven that you can turn a profit with higher bandwidth services and lower prices. It's called a monopoly.
 
So when Dish or UVerse or FIOS comes into a new market you imagine the discussion goes something like this:

Dish Guy 1: So, we're getting ready to enter the East Podunk market. Our infrastructure costs are largely fixed. So we need to get lots of customers to switch or we'll all get fired. What can we do to take customers away from cable?
Dish Guy 2: Well, all of our research says customers hate bundles. I know, let's offer bundles!

When the options are to get fed, but only if you bend over for a horse, or to starve and die, you'll bend over for the horse.

Comcast rolls into town as the only show with cable internet, and as the ONLY provider of the three or four channels that people buy their service for. It just provides them with a better excuse to demand that you bend over for their horse.

Other providers have proven that you can turn a profit with higher bandwidth services and lower prices. It's called a monopoly.

So how would unbundling reduce the massive prices that Comcast would charge on these three or four channels that people want? People seem to be confusing market power and pricing strategy, as if providing customers a package they don't want magically increases profits if it is a monopoly.

In reality, a monopoly would increases profits to a greater extent by unbundling - if there really was sufficient demand for it and saved the monopoly on costs.

I mean, if Comcast could save $7 in costs by offering an unbunded package that it could sell you for $8 cheaper, increasing profits by $1, and, at the same time, attract more customers in general, why wouldn't it do it even if it were a monopoly?
 
So when Dish or UVerse or FIOS comes into a new market you imagine the discussion goes something like this:

Dish Guy 1: So, we're getting ready to enter the East Podunk market. Our infrastructure costs are largely fixed. So we need to get lots of customers to switch or we'll all get fired. What can we do to take customers away from cable?
Dish Guy 2: Well, all of our research says customers hate bundles. I know, let's offer bundles!

When the options are to get fed, but only if you bend over for a horse, or to starve and die, you'll bend over for the horse.

Comcast rolls into town as the only show with cable internet, and as the ONLY provider of the three or four channels that people buy their service for. It just provides them with a better excuse to demand that you bend over for their horse.

Other providers have proven that you can turn a profit with higher bandwidth services and lower prices. It's called a monopoly.

So when I watch those Rob Lowe commercials about switch to DirecTV they aren't asking me to subscribe to DirecTV?
 
When the options are to get fed, but only if you bend over for a horse, or to starve and die, you'll bend over for the horse.

Comcast rolls into town as the only show with cable internet, and as the ONLY provider of the three or four channels that people buy their service for. It just provides them with a better excuse to demand that you bend over for their horse.

Other providers have proven that you can turn a profit with higher bandwidth services and lower prices. It's called a monopoly.

So when I watch those Rob Lowe commercials about switch to DirecTV they aren't asking me to subscribe to DirecTV?

Who is direct TV competing with? And are they really competing?
 
And their service sucks ass. It's notoriously unreliable, and as far as data goes, it's so.ewhere between DSL and dialup for speed. It's utterly useless for gaming.
 
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.

Yeah, I don't know a lot of people in my age group (I'm 26) who have cable, and I know many, including myself, who probably wouldn't even consider purchasing cable.
 
So when I watch those Rob Lowe commercials about switch to DirecTV they aren't asking me to subscribe to DirecTV?

Who is direct TV competing with? And are they really competing?

Cable, dish network, Apple tv, free over the air tv, the internets, Netflix, red box, FIOS, strip clubs, sports bars, going for a walk in the park, video games, and all other forms of recreation.
 
Yeah, I don't know a lot of people in my age group (I'm 26) who have cable, and I know many, including myself, who probably wouldn't even consider purchasing cable.

I'm 47 and I only have cable because my wife likes watching it.

I would cut the cord in a heartbeat and buy a Roku.

There's simply way too many other places to get what I want to watch . . . when I bother watching anything at all.
 
So does that mean you are taking your ball and going home because you can't defend your defenseless position?

Nope. I'm letting the Cable Companies decide what they think is the best strategy and if they fail they fail. You could always start your own cable company and offer a la carte services like the one you listed.
One minor tidbit, for those like you that appear to be grossly ignorant of this. The cable/sat companies don't choose whether to offer a la carte services. They deal with the channel providers and those contracts determine what tiers the channels go on and how much per sub the channel provider gets paid.

IE the cable/sat companies aren't the ones in the way of a la carte, it is the channel providers. You see, if you followed any of this stuff, you'd realize that channel providers want to get paid for a channel regardless if anyone watches it or not. Pretty good deal for the channel providers. The cable/sat companies don't get any benefit from this. Worse yet, channel providers hold popular channels hostage in order for other channels to get better rates, such as Fox's latest spat with Dish Network, where Fox held back on renewing the Fox News Channel with Dish to piss off FNC fans in order to get higher rates on their crap FS1, FS2, and FXX channels.

Of course, you'd know this already if you had paid a little bit of attention to a subject you ignorantly tried to bring up.

- - - Updated - - -

And some of them are, perhaps more importantly, not just a la carte but on demand.

If I want to watch House of Cards, I don't have to wait a week between episodes. If I want to watch Orange is the New Black at midnight without having to fire up a (rented) DVR, I can do that, too. There is no extra monthly fee for watching shows I want to watch when I want to watch them.

Right now, your cable or satellite provider will be happy to charge you for such a privilege. And give you 47 home shopping channels you don't want.

But Netflix doesn't give you the option to only watch House of Cards or Orange is the New Black, they require you to buy a bundle for a set monthly fee which includes a bunch of crap you'll never watch. Imagine all the savings you could obtain if you deselected the content from the license deals that Netflix made that you don't ever watch.
For fucks sake!
 
There's some truth to the article. If it simply were a matter of unbundling and offering the same lineup it wouldn't save money--you would get fewer channels but pay more per channel for the same (or probably a bit higher) total bill.

The elephant they don't want to mention is that the current system subsidizes stuff that couldn't stand on it's own. Unbundle the cable channels and those subsidized channels will go away--and your bill will go down by the amount of the subsidy.
 
There's some truth to the article. If it simply were a matter of unbundling and offering the same lineup it wouldn't save money--you would get fewer channels but pay more per channel for the same (or probably a bit higher) total bill.

The elephant they don't want to mention is that the current system subsidizes stuff that couldn't stand on it's own. Unbundle the cable channels and those subsidized channels will go away--and your bill will go down by the amount of the subsidy.

Unbundling, then, is the right wing option, and bundling is the left wing one.

Say 30,000,000 people want to watch a reality show about Kim Kardashian; 300,000 want to watch a film about Kim Jong Un; and 3,000 want to watch a documentary about Kimchi manufacturing, then the last group would have to pay much more per person to cover the costs of providing the program they want - and many might not be able to afford it. But with bundling, everybody pays the same price, and everybody gets to watch the programs they like.

Why are all the people who are usually in favour of this sort of approach, now against it? Normnally, the majority getting what they want and a minority being left out is the sort of thing they are against.
 
There's some truth to the article. If it simply were a matter of unbundling and offering the same lineup it wouldn't save money--you would get fewer channels but pay more per channel for the same (or probably a bit higher) total bill.
So the channel providers are doing us all a favor by forcing bundling on Sat and Cable companies?

The elephant they don't want to mention is that the current system subsidizes stuff that couldn't stand on it's own. Unbundle the cable channels and those subsidized channels will go away--and your bill will go down by the amount of the subsidy.
What channel is subsidized? There are currently two niche channels out there, TCM and Cartoon Network. All the other niche channels from Syfy to Sundance to Science to even The Weather Channel have lost the mission. What we have are channels that few people want, but channel providers forcing their carriage by holding their popular channels hostage.

The actual elephant, for the right-wingers here, is that companies like Disney want people to pay for channels that they don't watch. Sure, if channels were only paid for by people that actually watched them, maybe Disney wouldn't bid $200 million a MNF game to the NFL!
 
This is about baseball and a couple of years old, but it explains bundling.

http://www.citypages.com/2013-03-27/news/major-league-baseball-s-screwball-economics/full/

Television's Strong-Arm Racket
The collapse of baseball's TV revenue won't come from die-hard fans. There's no indication that the sport's truest disciples won't pay more and more until there's nothing left.

The problem is non-fans, who are picking up most of the check.

Here's how it works: Just six companies control 90 percent of America's TV programming. And they won't let your local provider simply carry the channels you actually want to watch to keep your bill modest.

When Disney negotiates contracts, anyone who wants ESPN is usually forced to buy a bundle that includes lesser fare like ESPN Classic or ABC Family, whether they want them or not.

The same goes for programmers like Viacom. If you want Nickelodeon or MTV, you're also required to buy Logo and VH1 Classic, among the lowest-rated channels in television.

"It's incredible," says Matthew Polka of the American Cable Association. "If you want one popular channel, they make you take 10."

Most contracts require that all channels be included as part of a cable company's "basic" package. That's why your TV menu is loaded with shows about tow-truck drivers and women who make bras.

"It causes us to basically be forced to provide a bloated, expanded level of basic cable service," says Polka. "Our customers know that these aren't channels watched on a regular basis, but they still have to pay for the monthly subscriber fee. Because of your market power, you are essentially forcing me to carry channels I don't want."

Baseball rides comfortably in the back seat of this strong-arm game. According to the research firm NPD Group, the average cable or satellite bill will reach $200 by 2020. Half of that fee will go to sports. And everyone pays, because most providers are barred by contract from moving sports to a premium package.

That's why Fox can double its payments to carry the World Series. Though only 10 percent of America will watch, the remaining 90 percent will cover the freight.

Yet consumers have clearly tired of picking up someone else's check. During a single quarter in 2012, Comcast lost 117,000 subscribers. While such figures are cyclical, cable and satellite have lost customers nine years running.

What's worse for baseball, the largest exodus involves the young, who increasingly turn to cheaper fare like Netflix and Hulu. They're not just turning away from the game; they don't even want access.

But neither television nor baseball seems to notice these darkening skies. Take the country's most obsessive TV market, Los Angeles, where a school of piranhas has attacked the city's cable bill.

Not long ago, L.A. hosted just two regional sports channels. Soon there will be seven. The Lakers charge $4 a month. Fox bills $5.40 for its two channels. The Dodgers are expected to add another $5. And Bevilacqua just negotiated a stunning 500 percent increase for the Pac-12's media rights.

"There are no new pro or college games being created," says DirecTV's Dan York. "But what used to be delivered via two regional sports networks now seeks to be re-sliced into [multiple channels and] more costs for consumers. That's not a sustainable model."

Yes, the die-hard Dodger fan will readily fire up his debit card to cover the impending $200 tab. But the team's broadcasts average just 100,000 viewers. That means the remaining 5.6 million L.A. households with cable must be convinced to pay the same to catch such searing drama as Vanderpump Rules and Confessions: Animal Hoarding.
 
So the cable companies are helpless victims to the Disney's of the world?

And ksen, Higgins et al have been arguing all along to help the cable companies make more money?

Should we pause a few minutes and start the thread over so they can get ideologically realigned with these facts?
 
"They are making us pay for the channels we don't want to see the channels we do want".

Does anyone else not see how profoundly illogical this sounds?

If they didn't also offer those channels you don't want, guess what, they could still charge you the same amount for the channels you do want because you are already willing to pay the amount to access them. They can only increase the price for those other channels to the extent that you find value in them.

Do the bundling critics imagine the conversation goes like this?

Fox Corporate: Pay us an extra $50 million to carry Fox Business channel, or we're pulling Fox News

Comcast: Just you try it!

Fox Corporate: OK (Fox News goes dark)

Comcast: OK, we give in!

Why on earth wouldn't the conversation go like this instead?

Fox Corporate: Pay us an extra $50 million to carry Fox News, or we're pulling Fox News

Comcast: Just you try it!

Fox Corporate: OK (Fox News goes dark)

Comcast: OK, we give in!
 
"They are making us pay for the channels we don't want to see the channels we do want".

Does anyone else not see how profoundly illogical this sounds?
If a household doesn't give a darn about sports, paying $6 to $8 for the ESPN slate is money they'd probably not want to spend. If you have cable or sat, you are almost certainly paying for ESPN.

If they didn't also offer those channels you don't want, guess what, they could still charge you the same amount for the channels you do want because you are already willing to pay the amount to access them.
Is that true? If it was, why don't they negotiate with sat/cable providers channel by channel? Why did Fox try to strong arm Dish over FS1 and FS2 which weren't up for negotiation by pulling FNC off of the air?
 
If a household doesn't give a darn about sports, paying $6 to $8 for the ESPN slate is money they'd probably not want to spend. If you have cable or sat, you are almost certainly paying for ESPN.

The $6 to $8 pays for the channels that the non-ESPNers watch that the ESPNers do not (in the aggregate). For the vast majority of households, the +/- differential isn't going to be much. Adding a more complex product and service selection system may not be worthwhile to implement due to the low number of expected people who would actually utilize it to save money.

Is that true? If it was, why don't they negotiate with sat/cable providers channel by channel? Why did Fox try to strong arm Dish over FS1 and FS2 which weren't up for negotiation by pulling FNC off of the air?

Why wouldn't Fox simply demand more $$$ for FNC if FNC is the channel that provides the value and holds all the bargaining power? However much additional money can be extracted by the threat of making FNC go dark can be extracted with or without adding FS1 and FS2.
 
This thread is utterly fascinating. Unbundling may or may not save an individual consumer depending on that consumer's preferences. Unbundling is coming via competition from the internet. HBO is just the start. And I strongly suspect that this unbundling will save most consumers, via the competitive effect on prices and the unbundling of undesired channels.
 
Another thing to consider, why stop at unbundling at the channel level? Why not unbundle on a program by program basis? Why should people who subscribe to ESPN to watch Sportscenter and don't like baseball have to pay for the spring training baseball game broadcasts?

Unbundled to this extent will end essentially with things like what Amazon Instant Video and Vudu offer. Is that what the unbundlers ultimately want, to pay on a per program basis? If not, why not?
 
Back
Top Bottom