Is Your Cable Bill Too High? Ours is.
I don’t know about you but here at Independent Sources central we like to watch TV. However by watching TV we mean watching a lot of DVDs rented from Netflix and then about a half-dozen channels (particularly HBO, History Channel, OLN, Fox News, CNN, Comedy Central and the Fox Network). That’s about it so when I noticed that my monthly cable bill had crept up to $118.00 it was time to act. Why is it that I pay the cable company 800% of what I pay Netflix yet enjoy Netflix so much more? So I decided to call the cable company and reduce the number of channels that I’m getting. Turns out that is not so easy. I got rid of Starz/Encore and their associated channel and some other lame tier that my “Platinum” membership had me getting. This got me just under $100/month, still way too high but it turns out that cable bundling makes it very difficult for me to get much below that.
If I want the basic channels I need to get the basic line-up which is about $50/month. Fair enough but there are simply a whole lot of channels that I am paying for that I’ll never watch. Now to get OLN I need to pay for digital and get digital basic. Then I need to pay for a special tier of garbage channels to get OLN. It turns out that OLN costs me about $30/month. I then pay another $10 or so for HBO, which I’m doing only for the Sopranos. I’m still paying for Showtime but I really can’t think of a reason to keep it (and yes I haven’t forgotten that the L-Word is on Showtime) so dumping that will take me down to $90 or so. Still way too high.
I don’t think the solution is satellite, I think the solution is forcing the cable companies to unbundle their offerings (which will best come about as the result of competition in providing video services). This can either by forcing them to do so via regulation or via competition. As a libertarian, I prefer the the second method, however given what I’m paying per month right now I’m so mad I’m happy to support the former as well particularly knowing how hard cable companies are working to squash competitive efforts.
There is an organization called TV4US (www.wewanttvchoice.com) that is promoting this. They are funded by telecommunications companies planning on offering video services. Check it out and if you like it, then please forward on the link to your friends and family. It is about time that we only pay for TV channels that we are remotely interested in watching.
Now the cable companies will say that people’s bills will actually go up if they unbundle their services. Does anyone really believe this? I certainly don’t. I’d end up paying for far fewer channels and equally important more of the money that I pay would go to the channels that I care about thereby rewarding them for putting on programming that I enjoy. What’s clear is that cable companies have grown into behemoth organizations based on a business model of monopolized consumers paying for programming that they’ll never watch. It’s also clear that this is not a viable model for the long-term and at $118/month it’s not viable in the short-term either.
Update: This posting was updated to reflect errors in the original post pointed out to us by one of our “fans” at the Los Angeles Times.
Update: Say what you want about the problems with telcos and their history of anti-competitive, anti-consumer behavior, but imagine what your broadband Internet access cable bill would be without DSL (and visa-versa). More to the point of this post, AT&T has announced a content deal with Akimbo Systems to provide on-demand programming from the Akimbo sources. While these include some suppliers who will also be providing content to the cable companies VOD initiatives, Akimbo has been soliciting deals with providers that have been shunned by the cable company gatekeepers. For example the Anime Network which lost its chance to be on Comcast when Comcast elected to launch its own effort in this genre with its equally behemoth partner Sony. This is called choice and it is good. Now before the anonymous Nofanofcablecos jumps on board and insults us, we will acknowledge that this is the same AT&T that might give this very content priority treatment over other non-AT&T provided content. Nothing comes easy but our contention remains that the more companies in the mix the better.
Other stories to read relating to the debate between us and Nofanofcablecos:
-
Read this if if you will enjoy watching a liberal L.A. Times columnist get whacked over the head repeatedly by the facts
The Los Angeles Times’ Michael Hiltzik Abuses Web Stats For Fun and Profit
Did We Violate Our Privacy Policy When We Outed Commenter “NoFanOfCableCos?”
Los Angeles Times Suspends Hiltzik’s Blog for Ethics Violations
tags: cable tv TV God Damn Cable Company
Similar Independent Sources posts:
- Two Words for Cable Companies: Record Business: Consumers can be funny. They might allow an industry to walk all over them for decades and then all of a sudden they turn on them with a ferocity comp ...
- New Nielsen Report: Average U.S. Household is Getting Ripped Off Big Time; Bernard Parks is Helping Them: According to a news release released by the Nielsen Co. in 2006 the average U.S. home received watched only 15 or 16 channels with any regularity. ...
- Al Gore, Failed Salesperson: A good rule of thumb when hiring someone for your business is to exclude people who've pissed off your customers in the past. If only Current TV ha ...
- Is He The Same Guy Who Tried To Convince TV Manufacturers To Kill The Remote Control?: In our universe, we own a Tivo in order to watch shows on our schedule, without commercials. In the parallel universe inhabited by ABC's ad sales c ...
- Want To Start A Cable Channel? First, Become Vice President …: While diligently plugging away at our day job, we came across this great 2004 article from SF Weekly about Al Gore's new cable channel, INdTV. You may ...
April 15th, 2006 at 9:13 pm
Boy, you guys are stupid. Don’t you realize that wewanttvchoice.com is a front for the phone companies, which are pushing the State Assembly bill to deregulate their own TV service while keeping the cable companies regulated? You think it’s about UNBUNDLING?
You think the phone companies will buy into the same unbundling deal you’re favoring here? Good luck–they’re gonna bundle like hell. You won’t get video from them at a decent price unless you buy their internet, phone, wireless, too. Geez, get a clue.
April 15th, 2006 at 10:46 pm
Gee thanks for the obvious tip Mr. Know-it-all. It really doesn’t matter to me who’s pushing for something if I support it. And it was a surprise to you that foes of cable (like telcos) were supporting an anti-cable bill?
As for the phone companies, these will be the same phone companies who will be competing with the cable companies in my area if/when they are able to roll out a TV service. Last I saw competition was a good thing for consumers. I don’t even want to think about what cable broadband would cost without there being DSL and visa-versa.
Do I believe that competition will utilimately break-up the packages and introduce a la carte pricing? Yes. Am I interested in your perspective on that? Not really.
April 16th, 2006 at 6:51 am
“Obvious tip?” It’s obvious from your original post that you had no idea this website was a front for the phone companies. It’s obvious if you actually look at the website that it’s all about pushing for AB 2987, which is a handout to the phone companies. Is it about unbundling, like you seem to think? Yeah, there’s one mention of unbundling on the entire website. (Wionder if you can even find it.) The rest is ALL about this biill. To say that website is “promoting this” (unbundling) like you do in your post just shows you’re a dupe. Very sad.
Oh. You’re not interested in my perspective? Thjen shut down your comment function and stop pretending that you care.
April 16th, 2006 at 9:00 am
Yes it was obvious that much like organizations like “The Coalition-Americans Working for Real Change” and “Citizens for Better Medicare” are not what they appear–are they ever?
That said I made the changes to the original post that you pointed out.
By the way, when I’ve participated in discussions on your blog I’ve been quite a bit more respectful but you are probably just enjoying the fruits of anonymity that your day job does not provide.
April 17th, 2006 at 6:11 am
Nofanofcablecos sounds like he works for a cable cos, eh? So you don’t want choice for consumers? Sounds a cable company to me! You think it’s all some kind of clandestine telco scheme? Boy, sure sounds like a cable company to me. Calling people stupid for no reason? You darn sure ARE a cable company employee! Go triangulate elsewhere and peddle you anti-consumer crap where someone wants to hear it. Sheeesh!
April 17th, 2006 at 1:32 pm
The bottom line is that competition is almost always good for the consumer–no matter who supports it. Imho, it speaks volumes that the cablecos are fighting tooth and nail to stop competition.
April 17th, 2006 at 5:24 pm
Nofanofcablecos, your claims are so shortsighted. The only reason that we do not have a la carte cable is because there is no competition. If telcos are added to the mix, real market forces will have the opportunity to change the status quo. Cable companies have been soaking consumers for years, it is now time to “unbundle” their monopolies and give consumers exactly what they want.
April 17th, 2006 at 6:42 pm
To be fair Nofanofcablecos was correct in calling me out for being mistaken in the bill which in itself will do nothing with bundling (the context I was referring to was the “packaging” of networks and not of services but either way the bill doesn’t directly do anything about that). I should have been more clear in the original post that the bill does not address packaging and should also have acknowledged such when he first raised the point instead of getting into a spat with him.
Even though the bill does not specifically address this issue unless and until we get some competition in providing TV on a local basis we can expect the duopolistic pricing practices of satellite/cable to continue. There is simply no good reason that channels should not be offered a la carte except for the fact that the cable business model is based on consumers paying for what they don’t use.
All that said the fact that Nofanofcablecos’ first words in this blog were “Boy, you guys are stupid” shows what a bitter man he is. He was clearly worked up over his spat with Paterico and took it out on the first blog that came up in his Google blog search on his name (which is how he landed here). I’ll give him credit for working late from the office on a Saturday night, I though most of those guys worked from home and emailed in their stories and maybe he is pissed off about that too. Whatever it is he can’t be too happy about Senior Administration Official’s deconstruction of his Hewitt claims. No doubt our next visit from him will be under the name “nofanofAlexa”.
He’s always welcome here under any name he wants-especially pointing out errors but it’d be nice if he was as civil as I’ve been when I’ve contributed on his blog. My problem with him has almost exclusively been his subject manner he selects in the Business section at the expense of other more-relevant stories. I believe he belongs in the Times editorial section and not in the Business section. This suggestion infuriates him.
April 18th, 2006 at 4:31 pm
So, judging from your apparent campaign to attach a real name to my comment and link me to one of your pet targets just because I disagreed with something you wrote, I gather that this commitment in your privacy policy is bullshit:
“We also use other tools (such as Webalizer), provided by our ISP, that don’t place cookies but do track visitors’ IP addresses and collect other information about traffic (time of day, initial page visited, etc).
Our goal is to use this information to learn how to make our layout and content better. We do not and never will use this information for commercial purposes, sell or give away the data, or provide this information, except in gross form (’we had x visitors yesterday’), to anyone not involved in creating Independent Sources.”
April 18th, 2006 at 5:43 pm
Easy guys - let’s get back to the matter at hand, and that’s the cable is just too expensive for what we’re actually getting! Whether it’s a telco or someone else, just introducing another option (like Verizon did with FiOS in Texas and hopefully will in New Jersey) has proven to send cable prices shooting WAY down. That’s no coincidence. Competition, even if it just starts with a single competitor, makes a huge difference.
April 19th, 2006 at 8:23 am
Our problem here in NJ is local governments. Our local phone company can’t seem to get anywhere with municipal politicians who are stalling the buildout of FIOS for reasons that seem murky at best. I do wish we could get them in because I’m sure we’d get more choices and probably save some money as well.
April 19th, 2006 at 11:38 pm
[…] the story? No . . . the plot thickens further. The blog Independent Sources reports on a comment left on their site by someone called “Nofanofcablecos. […]
April 20th, 2006 at 4:37 am
I’m not about to sit around and claim that cable companies are any better morally than telephone companies. I think the argument about that is silly. But I do agree that what is best for the consumer is competiton in the market providing my television services. For that reason I applaud Verizon’s attempts to get FIOS into areas like New Jersey. Good for them and the consumer.
April 20th, 2006 at 12:52 pm
So Nofanofcablecos is in fact a writer for the LA Times! Golly Gee Whiz Fraudulent Media Hack! Hiltzik is a two-bit pedestrian reporter/writer to boot! Let’s make sure his superiors at the Times see this. (But this begs the even bigger question….why would a hack writer for the LA Times even care about this issue so much? Is he on the cable company’s dole also?)
April 20th, 2006 at 1:10 pm
Let’s not get into name calling and leave that for others (like those who call us stupid). Coincidently Hiltzik was working on a column that came out 2 days after he left the “you guys are stupid” comment here so he was well-researched on the topic. I guess it’s possible that he read this post first then did the Times column but my gut is that it was the other way around.
Hiltzik did point out an error in the post (which we subsequently corrected) which indicated that the bill would have an effect on the issue that I was complaining about (having to pay for channels that I don’t watch) which is not the case though we expect additional competition in providing video services will lead to consumer benefits.
I do believe him when he says that he is not a fan of cable companies since I think he is pretty much anti- any company that tries to make a profit. I don’t think he crossed an ethical line here and as you can see from the posting about our privacy policy our outting him is somewhat controversial and not something I’d likely do again (especially since we have no way of knowing who any of you are). There is no reason that his superiors at the Times should care what he does here other than perhaps point him toward some anger management classes. He certainly could have pointed out the errors and left it at that but that does not appear to be his style. Patterico has a thoroughly documented piece on the subject concerning comments left on his blog and where the ethics might be a little more blurry.
April 21st, 2006 at 7:51 am
[…] he post that got Patterico curious about Hiltzik’s pseudonymous comments, it’s here. A summary of our Hiltzik coverage is here. — * If you’re unfami […]
April 21st, 2006 at 10:02 pm
[…] top sucking up.” Masha sure reminds us of commenter we had here last week. Remember these? “Boy, you guys are stupid.” (”NoFanOfCableCos” aka […]
April 22nd, 2006 at 10:56 am
[…] a case for sock puppetry on Hiltzik’s part. Independent Sources got into the act when they outed a pseudonymous commentator, the snarling “Nofanofcablecos”, as […]
April 22nd, 2006 at 9:21 pm
Independent Sources. Insider and Senior Administration Official have had some really good stuff lately, starting with the Charlie Sheen conspiracy post and it’s follow-ups, and running up through the entireMichaelHitzik scandal (also here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here). Full Disclosure I have posted on Independent Sources, but not on these two subjects. I will be working on a conspiracy post with Insider and SAO soon. Not that the
April 30th, 2006 at 1:17 pm
Why can’t people stay on a topic? A post that talked about cable pricing being too high, and how unbundling along with choice of channels would be good for consumers, turned in to an off topic rant on a reporter using a fake name. Who cares what the reporter thinks? Is there actually a way to force cable monopolies to sell us the channels we want and trash the rest? Is there a way to force them to open up competition and let the phone monopolies like AT&T drive prices down? Why hasn’t the high speed internet competition between cable and DSL substantially lowered acccess rates? (And I don’t count discount rates)
Is there anything we can do or are people more interested in the gossipy, sidebar crap that I already get stuck watching on TV now?