Explanation of unbundleling Cable Channels

[Axulus]

So renegotiating FS1 and FS2.

FS1 and FS2 weren't up for renewal. The contract for those channels still had a bit of life left in it.

Now I know you are simply being dishonest as this was in direct response to what you wrote here:

But Fox wanted to renegotiate the FS1 and FS2 contract

To stubborn and too dishonest to acknowledge any points I've made. I'm done here.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

FS1 and FS2 weren't up for renewal. The contract for those channels still had a bit of life left in it.

Now I know you are simply being dishonest as this was in direct response to what you wrote here:

But Fox wanted to renegotiate the FS1 and FS2 contract

To stubborn and too dishonest to acknowledge any points I've made. I'm done here.

Being dishonest? Both statements are facts.

 

[coloradoatheist]

In addition, cable companies tend to be local monopolies (sometimes duopolies), so there is less competition from other possible sources of TV programming.

I see commercials all the time for Dish network and how cable the cable companies are. Why isn't Dish offering a la carte? And even though cables are a monopoly they can obtain new customers by saying, hey only buy the 2 channels you want?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

In addition, cable companies tend to be local monopolies (sometimes duopolies), so there is less competition from other possible sources of TV programming.

I see commercials all the time for Dish network and how cable the cable companies are. Why isn't Dish offering a la carte? And even though cables are a monopoly they can obtain new customers by saying, hey only buy the 2 channels you want?

Dish doesn't because the Channel Providers are the ones that force bundling.

 

[coloradoatheist]

I see commercials all the time for Dish network and how cable the cable companies are. Why isn't Dish offering a la carte? And even though cables are a monopoly they can obtain new customers by saying, hey only buy the 2 channels you want?

Dish doesn't because the Channel Providers are the ones that force bundling.

So when there was talk a while back about congress passing laws that said cable/dish operators needed to offer a la carte, it was misdirected and should have required the content providers to unbundle?

 

[ksen]

I thought you were peacing out?

 

[dismal]

I thought you were peacing out?

It's tough to sit here and listen to you defend the rights of the big evil greedy cable companies.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Dish doesn't because the Channel Providers are the ones that force bundling.

So when there was talk a while back about congress passing laws that said cable/dish operators needed to offer a la carte, it was misdirected and should have required the content providers to unbundle?

Yes. Of course, that talk comes up periodically, but much like immigration reform and social security reform, nothing is ever actually done about it.

 

[laughing dog]

In addition, cable companies tend to be local monopolies (sometimes duopolies), so there is less competition from other possible sources of TV programming.

I see commercials all the time for Dish network and how cable the cable companies are. Why isn't Dish offering a la carte? And even though cables are a monopoly they can obtain new customers by saying, hey only buy the 2 channels you want?

Why are you asking me? Two companies in a market (one cable and one dish) is not usually considered to be a very competitive market.

 

[Axulus]

I see commercials all the time for Dish network and how cable the cable companies are. Why isn't Dish offering a la carte? And even though cables are a monopoly they can obtain new customers by saying, hey only buy the 2 channels you want?

Why are you asking me? Two companies in a market (one cable and one dish) is not usually considered to be a very competitive market.

There's also DirecTV. FiOS is in some areas as well. Sony also just introduced a television streaming service. And close substitutes are available with internet streaming such as Netflix, Hulu, Youtube, Amazon instant video, other free streaming options (many news channels offer free live streaming), etc.

And, no surprise, Sony is offering various bundle options:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...nys-playstation-vue-will-start-at-50-a-month/

 

[ksen]

thank god for net neutrality

 

[coloradoatheist]

I see commercials all the time for Dish network and how cable the cable companies are. Why isn't Dish offering a la carte? And even though cables are a monopoly they can obtain new customers by saying, hey only buy the 2 channels you want?

Why are you asking me? Two companies in a market (one cable and one dish) is not usually considered to be a very competitive market.

But both of them are always trying to poach each others customers. What better way than offering a much better price for the a la carte if that is what consumers want?

 

[ksen]

You should ask them why they don't.

Not sure how this relates to customers wanting a la carte channel options.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Why are you asking me? Two companies in a market (one cable and one dish) is not usually considered to be a very competitive market.

But both of them are always trying to poach each others customers. What better way than offering a much better price for the a la carte if that is what consumers want?

This may be news to you, but they really don't want to do that. They want to keep their prices high and split the market. Cutthroat competition is dangerous for both. Each will offer something a bit different, but keep their prices the same. See: Coke and Pepsi.

 

[coloradoatheist]

But both of them are always trying to poach each others customers. What better way than offering a much better price for the a la carte if that is what consumers want?

This may be news to you, but they really don't want to do that. They want to keep their prices high and split the market. Cutthroat competition is dangerous for both. Each will offer something a bit different, but keep their prices the same. See: Coke and Pepsi.

Except if I can can get a million customers at $2 per profit or 50K customers at $4 per profit, which one is better? Both companies are always doing promotional pricing and the introductory offers are lower than what their normal rates are. People switch back and forth all the time. They would gain market share if they could do what people propose they could do.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Yeah, the kimchi documentary wouldn't be made if the costs were honest. What's wrong with that?

 

[Axulus]

But both of them are always trying to poach each others customers. What better way than offering a much better price for the a la carte if that is what consumers want?

This may be news to you, but they really don't want to do that. They want to keep their prices high and split the market. Cutthroat competition is dangerous for both. Each will offer something a bit different, but keep their prices the same. See: Coke and Pepsi.

They may not want to do it, but how can they stop it from happening?

 

[dismal]

But both of them are always trying to poach each others customers. What better way than offering a much better price for the a la carte if that is what consumers want?

This may be news to you, but they really don't want to do that. They want to keep their prices high and split the market. Cutthroat competition is dangerous for both. Each will offer something a bit different, but keep their prices the same. See: Coke and Pepsi.

When a new service comes into a market the spend a lot of upfront money and have 0.0% market share. The status quo doesn't work. They don't want to preserve it. They must actively take customers away, and this generally requires offering something better than customers currently have.

Conversely, when a new company enters a market the incumbent(s) have a lot of fixed costs and 100% of the market. They want to lose as little of their market share as possible. This generally requires them to offer something at least as good as the new guy is offering.

It seems odd it would occur to neither to offer customers what they like.

Plus Higgins says it's Disney.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

And you are rebutting me how???? You seem to be arguing my position!

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!

If the channels were of equal interest this wouldn't be a problem.

There are 10 channels, each of which is of interest to 100,000 of the 500,000 subscribers. You'll pay slightly less if what's offered is a bundle of all 10 rather than buying the two you want. If channel #10 is only of interest to 10,000, though, it should only get 1% of the money rather than 10%.

 

[coloradoatheist]

But to have the big savings for the channels that aren't being watched much would mean that the average subscriber is paying a whole lot for them. That's assuming a model that all TV stations cost the same. Except it's not. It's something like that the average person is paying $6 for ESPN but $.12 cents for the smallest station.