Explanation of unbundleling Cable Channels

[Axulus]

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.

We've already had many unbundled options for awhile now - pay to watch an individual movie or TV show from the various premium streaming sites. Why do the anti-bundlers want to have several programs bundled into a channel?

 

[laughing dog]

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.

We've already had many unbundled options for awhile now - pay to watch an individual movie or TV show from the various premium streaming sites. Why do the anti-bundlers want to have several programs bundled into a channel?

Ask them. Probably convenience. I know it irks the hell out of me that I get channels that I will never have any interest in ever watching, and that my cable bill might be a tad lower if they were gone. Why do free marketers defend limiting choice via bundling?

 

[coloradoatheist]

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.

Are customers happy with the Airline unbundling?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

I'll type slowly so you can understand.
Cable
and
sat
companies
don't
choose
bundling
of
channels

The
channel
providers
do.

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.

See above for fifth reminder.

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?

Exactly. Oh.. I know why... because FNC only has a value of x which is generally agreed upon. Fox can't ask for more because sat/cable companies wouldn't pay it.

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.

The issue wasn't about FNC's rate, it was about raising rates for FS1 and FS2 and Fox using FNC as leverage.

 

[Axulus]

We've already had many unbundled options for awhile now - pay to watch an individual movie or TV show from the various premium streaming sites. Why do the anti-bundlers want to have several programs bundled into a channel?

Ask them. Probably convenience. I know it irks the hell out of me that I get channels that I will never have any interest in ever watching, and that my cable bill might be a tad lower if they were gone. Why do free marketers defend limiting choice via bundling?

"Defend limiting choice via bundling" - please explain what you mean by this statement.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Another thing to consider, why stop at unbundling at the channel level? Why not unbundle on a program by program basis?

Talk to the channel providers about why. They are the ones that insist on bundling.

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?

I'm so tired of the shitty extrapolation fallacy.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Ask them. Probably convenience. I know it irks the hell out of me that I get channels that I will never have any interest in ever watching, and that my cable bill might be a tad lower if they were gone. Why do free marketers defend limiting choice via bundling?

"Defend limiting choice via bundling" - please explain what you mean by this statement.

For people in ESL, that means consumers not being allowed to choose channels they want to watch. Instead, being forced to try and find a slate of channels that best represents what they want to watch. So people have to pay for ESPN, TNT, TBS, FX whether they want to watch it (and pay for it) or not.

Here is an analogy, going into a grocery store and having to select from pre-filled baskets that best represents what you actually want to buy.

 

[prideandfall]

here's what i really don't get about the positions being espoused by axulus, dismal, LP, et al:

your argument is basically that Corporations are better than anyone or anything and that anything done by a Corporation is automatically good regardless of what it is, and that anyone who questions anything a Corporation does is automatically and inherently wrong...
but at the same time, you defend your ideology by saying that "The Market" dictates what Corporations do - right? Corporations, The Market, and The Holy Capital are pretty much your trinity.

so here's what i don't get about your argument:
if "The Market" (which really is just 'the people') is what dictates what The Corporations do, and "The Market" (aka, the consumers) are pushing for a change in what they demand, how do you justify going against the will of "The Market" (aka, the consumers) in order to make the proclamations of The Corporations infallible?
it's just weird to me that you always instantly fall back on this position of The Market Knows All, Sees All, Controls All... and yet as soon as The Market starts getting uppity about having some ideas that the Corporations should change their business tactics, your assholes snap shut like a bear trap and you circle the wagons around codifying whatever The Corporations are doing at the time.

 

[prideandfall]

also, i find it utterly hilarious the extent to which the article in OP, and every right-wing hack posting in this thread, so utterly fails to understand the difference between 'bundling' as a general concept and 'bundling' in specific circumstances.

bundling in general is good, when a series of products that are all relevant and connected are put together into a single sales offering.
bundling can be bad in specific circumstances, like when you want to buy a particular product for a particular amount but can't because nobody offers the product without 300 addons and a 400% charge increase.

saying "i don't find this bundle to be good value and would like to have an a la carte option for the specific packages within the bundle i do want" is not the same as "bundling is bad mmmkay!"

the only thing more impressive than the size of the straw man that your argument is predicated on is the vigor with which you are humping its leg.

 

[Axulus]

Exactly. Oh.. I know why... because FNC only has a value of x which is generally agreed upon. Fox can't ask for more because sat/cable companies wouldn't pay it.
The issue wasn't about FNC's rate, it was about raising rates for FS1 and FS2 and Fox using FNC as leverage.

You're contradicting yourself here. What leverage does FNC provide if Fox has already extracted (or attempted to extract) the maximum value out of it?

Shall I spell it out for you point by point?

1. FNC provides X value to Comcast, Fox therefore wants to extract as close to X as possible for FNC from Comcast
2. FS1 and FS2 provide (X-Y) value to Comcast, Fox therefore wants to extract as close to (X-Y) as possible for FS1 and FS2 from Comcast
3. Therefore, the maximum that Fox can extract from Comcast for all the channels is X+(X-Y)

Let's add some numbers here
X = $2 billion
Y= $1.95 billion
Therefore X-Y = $50 million

Do you understand how threatening to pull FNC will never, ever ever ever, allow them to extract more than $2 billion for it? If they are demanding to pull FNC unless Comcast pays them more than $50 million for FS1 and FS2 (let's say $100 million), they only way possible this could ever work is if the amount they are demanding for FNC is less than $1.95 billion on its own. But why would they do that? Why wouldn't they just extract $2 billion from FNC and $50 million from FS1 and FS2, and threaten to pull each channel individually?

 

[coloradoatheist]

also, i find it utterly hilarious the extent to which the article in OP, and every right-wing hack posting in this thread, so utterly fails to understand the difference between 'bundling' as a general concept and 'bundling' in specific circumstances.

bundling in general is good, when a series of products that are all relevant and connected are put together into a single sales offering.
bundling can be bad in specific circumstances, like when you want to buy a particular product for a particular amount but can't because nobody offers the product without 300 addons and a 400% charge increase.

saying "i don't find this bundle to be good value and would like to have an a la carte option for the specific packages within the bundle i do want" is not the same as "bundling is bad mmmkay!"

the only thing more impressive than the size of the straw man that your argument is predicated on is the vigor with which you are humping its leg.

But look at what has happened with unbundling in the airline industry. People are upset about baggage fees, no meals, etc. Except with the airlines the option is for people not to fly or drive. For cable companies if they make the wrong choice, people forego cable or buy dish. So Comcast has to decide if people will be really happy when they buy 4 channels but it's the same price as as 100 channels.

- - - Updated - - -

Talk to the channel providers about why. They are the ones that insist on bundling.

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?

I'm so tired of the shitty extrapolation fallacy.

But this a bundling question too. Why don't they offer every single show as a cost and you just buy them at $.50 a show or whatever it will be? Would users of Internet be happy with paying per Mb they download instead of the buffet style of Internet speed?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Exactly. Oh.. I know why... because FNC only has a value of x which is generally agreed upon. Fox can't ask for more because sat/cable companies wouldn't pay it.
The issue wasn't about FNC's rate, it was about raising rates for FS1 and FS2 and Fox using FNC as leverage.

You're contradicting yourself here. What leverage does FNC provide if Fox has already extracted (or attempted to extract) the maximum value out of it?

Shall I spell it out for you point by point?

I wish you could.

1. FNC provides X value to Comcast, Fox therefore wants to extract as close to X as possible for FNC from Comcast
2. FS1 and FS2 provide X-Y value to Comcast, Fox therefore wants to extract as close to (X-Y) as possible for FS1 and FS2 from Comcast
3. Therefore, the maximum that Fox can extract from Comcast for all the channels is X+(X-Y)

Let's add some numbers here
X = $2 billion
Y= $1.95 billion
Therefore X-Y = $50 million

Do you understand how threatening to pull FNC will never, ever ever ever, allow them to extract more than $2 billion for it?

Only in your absurd example which doesn't actually result in anything that happens in the real world.

If they are demanding to pull FNC unless Comcast pays them more than $50 million for FS1 and FS2 (let's say $100 million), they only way possible this could ever work is if the amount they are demanding for FNC is less than $1.95 billion on its own?

*slams head into the desk*

But why would they do that? Why wouldn't they just extract $2 billion from FNC and $50 million from FS1 and FS2, and threaten to pull each channel individually?

It is like you think your hypothetical (putting it nicely) is somehow more relevant than what has actually happened. It explains how right-wingers continue to think as they do because their think their analogies and misunderstandings supercede actual events.

They are threatening to withhold FNC. The value in doing that is to make subscribers leave Dish. So Dish has to weigh the possibility of losing subscriber base because Fox is withholding a channel in order to gain higher rates for two unrelated channels. You are whining about how they wouldn't do that when several companies have already done exactly that!

 

[Axulus]

"Defend limiting choice via bundling" - please explain what you mean by this statement.

For people in ESL, that means consumers not being allowed to choose channels they want to watch. Instead, being forced to try and find a slate of channels that best represents what they want to watch. So people have to pay for ESPN, TNT, TBS, FX whether they want to watch it (and pay for it) or not.

Here is an analogy, going into a grocery store and having to select from pre-filled baskets that best represents what you actually want to buy.

I defend the concept of company being allowed to choose to sell their products bundled or unbundled or both. I defend the company not being _forced_ by government regulation into any of these.

Whatever the company ends up choosing is their own business. I don't take a position on whether its great or not. The only thing I am "defending" is illogical statements made by those who make claims in support of an unbundled option.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Talk to the channel providers about why. They are the ones that insist on bundling.

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?

I'm so tired of the shitty extrapolation fallacy.

But this a bundling question too. Why don't they offer every single show as a cost and you just buy them at $.50 a show or whatever it will be? Would users of Internet be happy with paying per Mb they download instead of the buffet style of Internet speed?

People already pay for individual episodes. No one offers an ability to buy episodes for a first run, however. So why are you even bringing it up, if not to obfuscate things.

 

[Axulus]

You're contradicting yourself here. What leverage does FNC provide if Fox has already extracted (or attempted to extract) the maximum value out of it?

Shall I spell it out for you point by point?

I wish you could.

1. FNC provides X value to Comcast, Fox therefore wants to extract as close to X as possible for FNC from Comcast
2. FS1 and FS2 provide X-Y value to Comcast, Fox therefore wants to extract as close to (X-Y) as possible for FS1 and FS2 from Comcast
3. Therefore, the maximum that Fox can extract from Comcast for all the channels is X+(X-Y)

Let's add some numbers here
X = $2 billion
Y= $1.95 billion
Therefore X-Y = $50 million

Do you understand how threatening to pull FNC will never, ever ever ever, allow them to extract more than $2 billion for it?

Only in your absurd example which doesn't actually result in anything that happens in the real world.

If they are demanding to pull FNC unless Comcast pays them more than $50 million for FS1 and FS2 (let's say $100 million), they only way possible this could ever work is if the amount they are demanding for FNC is less than $1.95 billion on its own?

*slams head into the desk*

But why would they do that? Why wouldn't they just extract $2 billion from FNC and $50 million from FS1 and FS2, and threaten to pull each channel individually?

It is like you think your hypothetical (putting it nicely) is somehow more relevant than what has actually happened. It explains how right-wingers continue to think as they do because their think their analogies and misunderstandings supercede actual events.

They are threatening to withhold FNC. The value in doing that is to make subscribers leave Dish. So Dish has to weigh the possibility of losing subscriber base because Fox is withholding a channel in order to gain higher rates for two unrelated channels. You are whining about how they wouldn't do that when several companies have already done exactly that!

There you go contradicting yourself again. You are claiming that they've both extracted maximum value for FNC

Fox can't ask for more because sat/cable companies wouldn't pay it.

and yet they can still use it as a bargaining chip to extract more value.

They are threatening to withhold FNC. The value in doing that is to make subscribers leave Dish.

If you can't figure out why that is a contradiction, you need to mull it over for a bit, because it's clearly not getting through.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

For people in ESL, that means consumers not being allowed to choose channels they want to watch. Instead, being forced to try and find a slate of channels that best represents what they want to watch. So people have to pay for ESPN, TNT, TBS, FX whether they want to watch it (and pay for it) or not.

Here is an analogy, going into a grocery store and having to select from pre-filled baskets that best represents what you actually want to buy.

I defend the concept of company being allowed to choose to sell their products bundled or unbundled or both. I defend the company not being _forced_ by government regulation into any of these.

Do you need help shifting the goalposts? Your posts have almost been exclusively about mocking unbundling channels via the shitty extrapolation argument. You haven't posted much about corporate choice.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Talk to the channel providers about why. They are the ones that insist on bundling.

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?

I'm so tired of the shitty extrapolation fallacy.

But this a bundling question too. Why don't they offer every single show as a cost and you just buy them at $.50 a show or whatever it will be? Would users of Internet be happy with paying per Mb they download instead of the buffet style of Internet speed?

People already pay for individual episodes. No one offers an ability to buy episodes for a first run, however. So why are you even bringing it up, if not to obfuscate things.

But buying the channel for the entire day instead of buying it per episode is a different type of unbundling. So why is this one okay but not the other bundled service?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I wish you could.

1. FNC provides X value to Comcast, Fox therefore wants to extract as close to X as possible for FNC from Comcast
2. FS1 and FS2 provide X-Y value to Comcast, Fox therefore wants to extract as close to (X-Y) as possible for FS1 and FS2 from Comcast
3. Therefore, the maximum that Fox can extract from Comcast for all the channels is X+(X-Y)

Let's add some numbers here
X = $2 billion
Y= $1.95 billion
Therefore X-Y = $50 million

Do you understand how threatening to pull FNC will never, ever ever ever, allow them to extract more than $2 billion for it?

Only in your absurd example which doesn't actually result in anything that happens in the real world.

If they are demanding to pull FNC unless Comcast pays them more than $50 million for FS1 and FS2 (let's say $100 million), they only way possible this could ever work is if the amount they are demanding for FNC is less than $1.95 billion on its own?

*slams head into the desk*

But why would they do that? Why wouldn't they just extract $2 billion from FNC and $50 million from FS1 and FS2, and threaten to pull each channel individually?

It is like you think your hypothetical (putting it nicely) is somehow more relevant than what has actually happened. It explains how right-wingers continue to think as they do because their think their analogies and misunderstandings supercede actual events.

They are threatening to withhold FNC. The value in doing that is to make subscribers leave Dish. So Dish has to weigh the possibility of losing subscriber base because Fox is withholding a channel in order to gain higher rates for two unrelated channels. You are whining about how they wouldn't do that when several companies have already done exactly that!

There you go contradicting yourself again. You are claiming that they've both extracted maximum value for FNC and yet they can still use it as a bargaining chip to extract more value.

What?

If you can't figure out why that is a contradiction, you need to mull it over for a bit, because it's clearly not getting through.

They aren't asking for more money for FNC, they are saying they won't allow it to be broadcasted at all unless you pay us more for a couple of our other products. Your talk about value is absurdly off target.

 

[prideandfall]

But look at what has happened with unbundling in the airline industry. People are upset about baggage fees, no meals, etc. Except with the airlines the option is for people not to fly or drive. For cable companies if they make the wrong choice, people forego cable or buy dish. So Comcast has to decide if people will be really happy when they buy 4 channels but it's the same price as as 100 channels.

so, wait... what? not a single word of this makes ANY sense in relation to what you're ostensibly responding to.
so is your argument basically that "once a bundle exists, doing anything to reduce the size or content of that bundle is inherently bad"?
are you saying that a bundle must always necessarily exist, in all circumstances, for all products, always? that's seriously your argument?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Talk to the channel providers about why. They are the ones that insist on bundling.

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?

I'm so tired of the shitty extrapolation fallacy.

But this a bundling question too. Why don't they offer every single show as a cost and you just buy them at $.50 a show or whatever it will be? Would users of Internet be happy with paying per Mb they download instead of the buffet style of Internet speed?

People already pay for individual episodes. No one offers an ability to buy episodes for a first run, however. So why are you even bringing it up, if not to obfuscate things.

But buying the channel for the entire day instead of buying it per episode is a different type of unbundling. So why is this one okay but not the other bundled service?

I can't take these awful strawman arguments anymore. Look, this amount of radiation therapy works, so why not just turn it up to 11?