• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

(NYTIMES) Next Up on Cable TV, Higher Bill for Consumers

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ripclawe

Banned
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/04/business/media/04cable.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=print

Next Up on Cable TV, Higher Bill for Consumers
By BRIAN STELTER

The performances on “American Idol” may be erratic and the plot twists on “Lost” may be unpredictable, but one facet of television is certain: the costs just keep going up.

On New Year’s Day, the News Corporation, the media empire controlled by Rupert Murdoch, wrangled new payments from Time Warner Cable, including subscriber fees for the Fox Broadcasting network, which is free for viewers with over-the-air antennas.

The high-stakes deal reflected the scramble by media companies to reduce their dependence on advertising.


Something else also happened that day: Time Warner Cable put another rate increase into effect.

It will not be the last time. Along with Fox, other broadcasters say they deserve a share of the cable and satellite bills that roughly 100 million American households pay each month. At the same time, the cable-only channels that have lured viewers away from broadcast, with shows like “SpongeBob SquarePants” and “The Closer,” are lining up for further fee increases.

Viewers usually do not notice until the price goes up, but their pay TV bills are a battleground for media companies. “Content providers are testing the limits — hoping to raise the bar as high as possible,” said Steve Ridge, the president of the media strategy group for the consulting firm Frank N. Magid Associates.

These battles are playing out just as the television industry is coping with the wrenching changes brought on by new competition from the Internet.

Broadcasters have long envied the fact that their cable channel competitors are paid two ways, through advertising and subscriber fees. So now, the television networks are fighting for every penny they can.

Several years ago, CBS started asking for fees, and the News Corporation followed in negotiations last month, demanding a dollar for each subscriber every month from Time Warner Cable. The average digital cable customer already pays nearly $75 a month, the research firm Centris found last year.

The companies will not reveal what compromise they reached, but that figure will most likely become a benchmark for future deals. Disney is expected to ask for sizable fees for its ABC stations in negotiations this year.

In a twist, Comcast, the country’s largest cable provider, will soon own NBC Universal, if its acquisition is approved by the government, putting it in a position to pay out as well as collect fees for NBC.

Cable and satellite distributors are resisting the demands, but a “power shift,” as Mr. Ridge put it, is under way as broadband Internet becomes pervasive, putting a seemingly infinite variety of choices in front of consumers. Of course, broadband is not free, either, and it is often provided by the same companies that distribute television programming.

The News Corporation fight was unusual because it played out in public, with Time Warner Cable arguing that it wanted to hold the line on further fee increases. That looks impossible, however, as newly powerful cable channels seek to cash in.

They argue that they deserve more money for having invested millions in their original programming. Cable executives say privately that the demands, and resulting fights, are increasing in frequency. And every time they clash, there is a chance that viewers will miss out.

The sports network Versus, owned by Comcast, has been off of DirecTV’s satellite service for three months in a fee battle. More prominently, the Food Network and HGTV disappeared from Cablevision’s lineups in New York and New Jersey on Friday after talks broke down with the owner of the channels, Scripps Networks.

The Food Network costs distributors 8 cents a viewer on average now; Scripps wants a roughly 300 percent raise, according to people briefed on the negotiations. That might seem drastic, but 30 other channels, some with lower ratings, already earn that much. “We were really, really undervalued,” said Brooke Johnson, the president of the Food Network.

For ardent fans of “Iron Chef America,” the Food Network is undoubtedly worth 25 cents a month. But that logic, applied to dozens of channels, can become pretty expensive for viewers. For example, the owners of Oprah Winfrey’s cable channel, set to begin one year from now, are hoping that her star power will be worth 50 cents for each subscriber a month. The channel it is replacing, Discovery Health, gets only 12 cents now.

Consumers already pay dimes or quarters for most cable channels each month, whether they watch them or not. ESPN earns the most by far, $4.10 on average, and is forecast to receive more than $5 a month by 2012, according to the research firm SNL Kagan. Fox Sports Network gets $2.37 on average.

The next-highest paid channel, TNT, gets 96 cents. The Disney Channel, NFL Network, Fox News, USA and ESPN2 each get more than 50 cents. For every channel, the price per month is expected to rise each year.


“We hear from consumers that they are paying too much and getting too little for it. And there seems to be no end to the rate hikes in sight,” Mindy Spatt, a spokeswoman for The Utility Reform Network, said.

Even as consumers recover from the recession, there is little evidence that people are canceling cable en masse, although some know that calling up their local provider and threatening to cancel can quickly earn them a big discount.

Time Warner Cable is not alone in raising rates; higher prices go into effect for DirecTV and AT&T’s customers next month.

In Washington, where proposals for “à la carte” cable pricing were popular in recent years, some lawmakers and regulators now look to the Web as a more attractive, market-driven solution. Viewers will increasingly be able to bypass pay TV service and watch whatever they like online.

Distributors are trying to put a system into effect that will offer some TV shows online to existing subscribers only.

Time Warner Cable asserts that the power ultimately rests with the consumer. “They’re the ones who are going to resist these price increases that the programmers are trying to push,” said Alex Dudley, a spokesman for the company. “One need look no further than the music industry for an example of what happens when consumers feel taken advantage of by an entire industry.”

Lest anyone doubt that Americans, who watch an average of five hours of television a day, cannot part with their sets, look no further than Orange County, Fla., where two football fans sought an emergency injunction to avert a Fox blackout of their alma mater’s bowl game on Friday as the dispute with Time Warner Cable persisted. No one, not even Mr. Murdoch, was going to interrupt their viewing of the Sugar Bowl.

The fans lost the case but won their Fox, as the two companies committed to a new contract about 45 minutes before kickoff. Soon enough, though, those fans will be paying for it.
 

Silkworm

Member
NomarTyme said:
I wish I can pay whatever channel I only watch.
Well there's been talk of an iTunes type of TV service, now that everything is digital. Not sure if such an approach would work, but who knows. *shrug* Years from now with the convergence of the internet and cable, maybe some sort of pay per channel On-Demand TV service will be the way all TV channels are handled.
 

SnakeXs

about the same metal capacity as a cucumber
It's as if they want to drive every single tech savvy person away as fast as possible.
 

sharbhund

Member
I just dropped cable, and signed up for Netflix. With streaming Netflix, the only thing I'm really going to miss out on is cable-only sporting events, but that isn't worth $60 per month extra to me.
 

Stinkles

Clothed, sober, cooperative
GDGF said:
I don't watch sports channels. Why do I have to pay 4 bucks for ESPN?


Because the telecommunications industry lobbies your elected representatives very hard to avoid being prosecuted for bundling and monopoly practices.

Caveat: "Lobbying" used to be at least partially the practice of literally accosting representatives in the lobbies of their offices and demanding change. Now it means "bribing."
 

Draft

Member
I haven't had TV service in almost two years. I barely miss it.

But, I hate that I can't watch Football at home on my TV. And yes, I'm aware there are various goofball ways I could make that happen with antennas or streaming internet or whatever, but fuck that. I would pay $10 a month for ABC/NBC/CBS/Fox and ESPNHD. It's retarded the ala carte business model hasn't been put into place for TV yet.
 

GDGF

Soothsayer
OuterWorldVoice said:
Because the telecommunications industry lobbies your elected representatives very hard to avoid being prosecuted for bundling and monopoly practices.


And the terrorists win again :(
 

Aaron

Member
People still have cable? Why? Do you have a fetish for being forced to watch programs at specific times that are a third commercials? It's been years since I had cable, and I usually forget it even exists.
 

Tobor

Member
Draft said:
I haven't had TV service in almost two years. I barely miss it.

But, I hate that I can't watch Football at home on my TV. And yes, I'm aware there are various goofball ways I could make that happen with antennas or streaming internet or whatever, but fuck that. I would pay $10 a month for ABC/NBC/CBS/Fox and ESPNHD. It's retarded the ala carte business model hasn't been put into place for TV yet.

What's goofball about an antenna? I have a $15 antenna with one broken arm and I get perfect HD football every weekend for free.
 

Draft

Member
Tobor said:
What's goofball about an antenna? I have a $15 antenna with one broken arm and I get perfect HD football every weekend for free.
Spotty performance in my apartment, no ESPN.
 
Tobor said:
What's goofball about an antenna? I have a $15 antenna with one broken arm and I get perfect HD football every weekend for free.

I have the same set up. Cheap rabbit ears with one ear snapped in half. Broadcast HD comes in vividly.
 
sharbhund said:
I just dropped cable, and signed up for Netflix. With streaming Netflix, the only thing I'm really going to miss out on is cable-only sporting events, but that isn't worth $60 per month extra to me.

You probably get espn360.com with your internet package. And most new TVs make it very very easy to link to your computer.

There are also less legal outlets for other channels.


As for me, the only cable show I watch is Always Sunny, and thats on Hulu. I see no reason to pay for TV. Most sports I watch are on broadcast, for everything else theres espn360.com.
 

KGKK

Banned
Yay raise the prices because that will attract people to watch more cable over watching on the net. Soooo smart.
 
dropped cable on our new home now that i've convinced my wife to just watch her shows on Hulu with the laptop hooked up to the TV (looking for a cheap/used macmini to handle this in the future)
 
The problem is that if things go towards the internet, then the companies will just raise broadband prices even higher than they are now. We are on the losing end of this.

The wife and I gave up cable months ago since she went back to grad school, and its been nice not to have that distraction. Most of our shows are on Hulu, so we catch up there. For Christmas, her parents got us an HD antenna and digital converter box (my HDTV is going on eight years old now, no ATSC tuner built in) so now we can get broadcast stuff for free. (Too bad I dont have an HD tuner, but free SD is better than no TV).

I just want them to go a la carte. That would be so nice and also thin the herd of channels. I would be curious to see how that affects pricing.
 

arstal

Whine Whine FADC Troll
KGKK said:
Yay raise the prices because that will attract people to watch more cable over watching on the net. Soooo smart.

They just introduce broadband caps to stop that.
 

shintoki

sparkle this bitch
My parents still get cable even though I said to them it is useless...They barely watch anything not on basic outside of my dad and his gameshow network :lol
 

KGKK

Banned
Cable is such a waste of money. Fucken packages. Seriously my cable bill is like 150 a month due to all the packages my mom suscribes to. She only watches like one or two channels from each package too. So I'm stuck paying for about 400 channels or maybe more when only 10 are used and the others have never been touched. And fuck broadband caps. Just fuck my ass already will ya stupid cable companies.
 

TimeLike

Member
Is it possible to have DVR service without going through a cable company? I want to lose cable because I really only watch shows on the big networks anyway.
 

Xabora

Junior Member
Ripclawe said:
Blame this for the TWC price increase:
http://blogs.reuters.com/mediafile/...er-cable-retrans-dispute-could-get-political/
Fox wants to get paid for giving Time Warner Cable the right to carry its free-to-air Fox broadcast network for around $1 a subscriber every month. The talks also include negotiations for Fox’s bevy of entertainment cable networks including FX, Speed and Fuel but does not include its news networks. See Fox’s marketing campaign website keepfoxon.com here.
 

Kruhex

Member
To be honest, the only reason I keep cable is something for background noise and occasional glances while I work (I can't use music). So, in order for me to give up cable altogether, I could just find a stream of a channel on the internet and forward it through my PS3 (Tversity)...
 

FLEABttn

Banned
Kruhex said:
To be honest, the only reason I keep cable is something for background noise and occasional glances while I work (I can't use music). So, in order for me to give up cable altogether, I could just find a stream of a channel on the internet and forward it through my PS3 (Tversity)...

This is why I like cable. There are points where I just want some background noise and Hulu doesn't do that. Hulu is "I want to watch X and I want to watch X now." Cable is "I want to watch something entertaining on the animal planet maybe, oh, nothing's here, well let's go to Discovery, oh sweet, a Mythbusters marathon."

Untill Hulu can do that, I can't full kill off cable. However, I only watch 10 channels ever. Give me a la carte.
 

bozeman

Member
The problem with going a la carte is, when you think about it, who really needs Food Network? I mean REALLY has to have it? I like watching it, but do I really need to know how some diner in a place I'll never visit makes their burger on "Diners, Drive-ins, and Dives?" That applies to a lot of cable networks. A la carte would force people to make those decisions, leading many of them to choose not to subscribe. The problem being those networks know this and will be fighting for their lives lobbying Congress, killing any legislation in the process.

I'd get rid of cable, but then I enjoy things like I'm watching right now...an all day "House" marathon on USA. So far, my cable company, Bresnan Communications (which I think is owned by Comcast) has been pretty fair as far as rate increases. They did raise rates last summer, but it followed them adding a bunch of channels to their HD lineup, which they offer for no additional charge to their cable subscribers. The only HD channel I wish they'd offer is Spike TV so I can see Hogan in all his orange glory tomorrow night.

One thing Bresnan offers that I never use (and know no one who does, either) is a huge assortment of music channels that just play songs while flashing pics and bio info of the artists (think glorified last.fm). There are a LOT of them. It costs money to license music and the channels don't have ads, so it's being funded out of subscribers' pockets. It probably isn't much, but I'd take the minor savings.
 
i lived without cable tv for years and didn't miss it, to the point where i have it available now where i'm at and pretty much never watch it. as far as the people mentioning background noise, i've always used music for that...
 

Eggo

GameFan Alumnus
So I'm no longer a Time Warner Cable subscriber (ditched them months ago). Did they raise rates by $1 to pass on the FOX charge to consumers? Or did they raise it even further?
 

FLEABttn

Banned
bozeman said:
The problem with going a la carte is, when you think about it, who really needs Food Network? I mean REALLY has to have it?

Me. If I could only pick 10 channels, Food Network is in.

They did raise rates last summer, but it followed them adding a bunch of channels to their HD lineup, which they offer for no additional charge to their cable subscribers.

So, they raised their rates, but then added channels at no additional cost?

Perhaps you don't understand why they increased their rates.
 

demon

I don't mean to alarm you but you have dogs on your face
My cable bill went up recently......even though I only get internet.

Fuck these companies. This shit needs more regulation.
 

-COOLIO-

The Everyman
luoapp said:
I am seriously considering giving up cable all together.
so easy, i dont know why everyone hasnt already done this.

youtube/hulu
internet surfing
box sets

and everything plays media nowa days, your ipod, phone, ps3.

and you can hook all that stuff up to your tv.
 

Dot50Cal

Banned
Cable/TV free for about 8 months now. Don't miss it one bit. The only show I actually watch (Lost) will air the next day, so I'm cool with that :D
 

Raistlin

Post Count: 9999
NomarTyme said:
I wish I can pay whatever channel I only watch.

For years we were subsidizing the switchover to a digital, IP-based infrastructure with the promise of this.

Well, the changeover came and went, and instead of à la carte service, we got VOD :lol

Fuckers.
 

Fox Mulder

Member
FLEABttn said:
Me. If I could only pick 10 channels, Food Network is in.

They're basically subsidized by being on a tier, and they float on the ad revenue they get from that. If cable went a la carte, they'd be fucked, along with a bunch of other niche channels. They'd lose the subscriber base they have now, which drastically cuts out the ad revenue. It'll also be hard to find a subscription fee that allows them to operate how they do now.

A la carte is a cool idea for consumers, but content and cable companies will fight like hell to prevent it.
 

whitehawk

Banned
Draft said:
I haven't had TV service in almost two years. I barely miss it.

But, I hate that I can't watch Football at home on my TV. And yes, I'm aware there are various goofball ways I could make that happen with antennas or streaming internet or whatever, but fuck that. I would pay $10 a month for ABC/NBC/CBS/Fox and ESPNHD. It's retarded the ala carte business model hasn't been put into place for TV yet.
Dude, change your avatar. I read your whole post thinking you were A Master Ninja.
 

Bishman

Member
-COOLIO- said:
so easy, i dont know why everyone hasnt already done this.

youtube/hulu
internet surfing
box sets

and everything plays media nowa days, your ipod, phone, ps3.

and you can hook all that stuff up to your tv.
Agreed!

College forced me to adapted when I moved off campus. Cable is really expensive here in Houston.

PlayOn + Hulu + Internet Streaming + Netflix = Who needs cable?!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom