If you’re like most people, you look at your “basic” cable line-up and think: “Why do I have all these stupid channels? Wouldn’t it be cheaper if I could just subscribe to the ones I actually like?”
You’re probably convinced that there’s a huge conspiracy going on to get you to pay for a bunch of crap you don’t want.
You might be right. According to the American Cable Association (an organization that is obviously quite biased toward the cable industry) it’s not your cable company’s idea to force “Lifetime Movies” on you, it’s the big media companies themselves that dictate cable line-ups through a technique called “tying and bundling.”
According to the ACA, big media companies “tie” certain less desirable channels to the “must have” channels. For example, if you’re a cable company and you want to offer ESPN, Disney says that you have to also offer a whole menu of other channels in order to get ESPN for a reasonable price. Big media companies will also mandate that these other channels be placed on the “basic” tier, regardless of how many cable subscribers are actually interested in the channel.
ACA says that in order to get the 13 most “desirable” channels, cable companies are obligated to distribute over 60 other channels. They say that this is preventing or limiting the cable company from offering more customizable options to the consumer. For example, if a cable company wanted to offer an expanded tier of kids programming, it might be prevented from moving certain stations away from the “basic” tier, because they had been bundled with a popular channel like Nickelodeon or The Disney Channel. The smaller the cable company, the harder it is to stand up to big media.
Here’s a few examples of bundled channels from the ACA’s FCC filing:
If you want: Disney Channel
You get: ABC Family, SoapNet, Toon Disney, ESPN Channels
If you want: USA
You get: MSNBC, CNBC, Sci Fi, Comedy Central, Bravo, Olympics surcharge
If you want: ESPN
You get:ESPN2, ESPN News, ESPN Classic, ESPN 360 (Internet), ESPNU
If you want: USA HD
You get: Chiller, Sleuth
If you want: Disney Channel HD
You get: ABC Family HD, Toon Disney HD, ESPN News HD
If you want: Fox Sports
You get: National Geographic, Fox Soccer, Fox Business, Fox Sports College, Fox Reality, Fuel, Big 10 Network, Fox Movie Channel
If you want: Food Network
You get: HGTV, DIY, Fine Living
If you want: CNN
You get: Headline News, TBS, TNT, WTBS
If you want: MTV
You get: TV Land, CMT, VH1, Nickelodeon, Noggin, VH1 Soul, CMT Pure Country, MTV Jam
If you want: Discovery Channel
You get: FitTV, Animal Planet, TLC, Travel, BBC America, Discovery Kids, Science Channel, Discovery Channel, Discovery Health, Discovery Home
The ACA argues that they’d be able to offer more cost-effective and consumer friendly cable packages if big media was forced to offer reasonably priced single channels and was prevented from dictating which channels they had to place on which tier.
What do you consumers think? Would you like to see more themed tiers? Do you trust the cable industry to provide more consumer friendly packages? Do you think things are fine the way they are?
More From Consumerist
-
Time Warner Cable CEO: "There Are Too Many Networks"
-
DOJ Reportedly Investigating Cable Companies For Squashing Online Competition
-
Cable Companies Should Be Worrying About Kids Who Have No Plans For Ever Getting Cable
-
Here’s The Most Honest Cable Commercial You Will Ever See
-
Time Warner Cable Charged Me Rental Fee For Modem I Returned Months Ago
Channels? Entertainment conglomerates must hate people like those in my house. We have favorite shows, to be sure, but my wife couldn’t tell you what channels played them. TiVo, iTunes and Netflix take care of shows and movies we want, when we want, without the hassle of worrying about the channel. In the future, sponsors might save some shows as channels become increasingly irrelevant. You can see it happening today with Top Chef (Glad), American Idol (Coke, Ford), 30 Rock (Verizon), The Office (Staples) and others. Products placements are just the start. In a few years I expect the sponsors will take over, just like college bowls. Great ready for The Texaco Star Theater or The Colgate Comedy Hour.
My wife and I lived for a few years never worrying about paying for cable until we purchased the “Basic” lineup for 12 bucks a month (this was for many reasons, most notably, it gave us a $10 discount on our internet, and where our house was situated, no channels would come in over the broadcast airwaves).
When we did this; the rogue cable operative, hooked up the standard cable channels (this was through Comcast, and I have my theories as to why he may have done this). We didn’t ask him to, he just did it, commented on my Kevin Smith movie collection and left. We enjoyed about 9 channels of the cable package, and then one day it went off and we only had the basic channels.
You really don’t miss it after about 2 days. Plus; I really enjoy watching “Corner Gas” on WGN
For 12 bucks a month we get all local channels (ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, CW) plus TBS, WGN, ABC Family, the Discovery Channel, CSPAN, and random crap stations that no one watches (EWTN anyone?).
That’s a pretty decent little lineup and more than you’ll ever really need.
My question for the media/distribution companies is: How many commercial-free channels do I get ? The answer is NONE. That mean I’m paying for something that’s already paid for unless the ‘content’ distributors are really stupid. So the basic bundle is mainly the pre-paid channels, maybe with more commercial interruption, that play repeats of previously aired content. I think it also means that ‘content’ creation and distribution is just a circular process for getting subscriber money… the sure sign of non-competitive monopoly.
Can I get rid of all that MTV, VH1 crap? Also any channel with reality shows…
That long list of Discovery tack-ons is insane. It particularly bugs me because while I actually like some of Discovery’s shows, I don’t like how they dilute the content to fill 10 channels.
For example, on Mythbusters (or really any Discover show), each segment goes something like this:
- The narrator recaps everything that has happened so far
- The hosts discuss what they’ve done
- They do the next step
- Narrator gives a “coming up next” teaser
- Go to commercials (most of which are for other shows on one of the bundled networks. To me that suggests that they aren’t able to sell their existing adspace, so why make 4x as much? But I digress).
After the commercial, the cycle repeats. In the end, the show has maybe 15 minutes of interesting content, but they pad, recap, tease, and repeat it until they fill an hour (OK, 45 minutes not counting commercials). What should be a half hour show is stretched to an hour. They double their amount of programming for free.
Then spill it over to create a new channel, and force the cable cos to bundle it. Ad infinitem.
Meanwhile shows become watered down versions of themselves, barely worth watching without a DVR to skip over the filler.
iTunes TV downloads are looking more and more appealing every day.
Ala Carte, baby. I bet there are dozens of channels that would wind up only charging 25 cents a month. Competition WORKS.
Off the topic just a bit, but calling Fox News “Faux News” makes you about as clever and hip as the other thousands of people who say it as well.
@artki: Why would they bother offering a channel for 25 cents a month? They wouldn’t. They would just cancel it and charge more for the rest of the channels. Competition is exactly why it’s 99% crap on network TV and drives us to get cable in the first place. TV shows on network tv are in huge competition with each other, and have to appeal to the broadest audience. Anything remotely innovative or interesting gets beat in the competition because it narrows the appeal. Why would we introduce that same competition to cable TV? We end up with fewer channels and higher cable bills after all that compeition. No thanks.
Sorry for the repeat posts, but I’m really having a hard time understanding why this idea appeals to people. Do you really think they’ll just let you have whatever channels you want and pay less? These are cable companies we’re talking about. In fact, I bet they love this idea, and it’s the content providers that are keeping them from doing it. This would be a huge boon for them. Offer fewer channels and charge everyone more for them. When people start crying that their favorite channel got shitcanned because not enough people wanted it, they won’t even care.
Personally, I would be happy enough if the cable box let me remove the 100 or so shopping, religious, spanish and infomercial channels from the on-line guide so I wouldn’t have to scroll through all of that bullshit in the first place.
Techdirt.com has a lot about this. Everyone should check it out.
@maristcf1:
You must have been out of the inudstry for a while. Fox News is $0.60-0.70/sub/month in most markets, and they’re getting about $1/sub/month in renewal contracts.
Also, ESPN2 isn’t carried in analog on most systems, but there are very few out there that carry ESPN that don’t carry 2 on digital.
Ironically, the channels bundled with the Discovery Channel are actually better than the Discovery Channel itself.
@sleepydumbdude:
This is exactly what I do; no cable, just the box seasons. I really wish the ACA would consider this problem with a more serious attitude, though.
Surprised that no one’s mentioned that the number one subsidized group of channels are the sports channels. I once read somewhere that if you could opt out of the ESPN lineup your bill would easily drop 1/4. Apparently the basic and standard cable tiers help to offset the costs from the people who get the sports packages. If those people were forced to pay for the true cost of their sports they’d never be able to afford it.
Why is everybody bashing just the cablecompanies, dish network, direct tv,att,and verizon fios tv does the same thing.
I have no idea why people don’t think the cable companies won’t STILL find a way to screw customers. Heck, they have the perfect example in how to in what they deal with from the media companies.
You want a la carte? Fine. But they won’t be priced the same. You want ESPN? Well, that’ll cost you some more. But, since you’re already paying so much for ESPN, why not get the ESPN package of channels for a little bit more.
Getting just the core channels will end up costing about the same as Basic cable does now. But you’ll get NO interesting or niche channels around it. So, you’ll pay the same for less product. All so you could have “choice”. As soon as they realize what a racket this is, they’ll eliminate full packages like they have now and force everyone to buy a la carte because it’ll be designed to further maximize revenue.
No thanks. I think the current system is fine and anyone who thinks it *would* be improved through a la carte are unrealisticly optimistic. And probably dirty hippies.
I torrent any programs I want to see, and with no commercials! TV industry gets nothing from me.
And it feels good.
@FilthyHarry: Great. You are being subsidized by the rest of us. If everyone was like you we would get no original programming ever.
Everyone else who is yelling “TORRENTS” as if they are the best solution, you are stealing. You are getting your TV for free, but the programs still cost the same amount to produce and distribute. If more people were like you you could kiss those shows you download goodbye, since there would be no profit in it for the networks.
@CurbRunner: I blocked Fox out on my Satellite Dish just so I wouldn’t even have to go past it when channel browsing. It would be the first channel I would drop.
Cablevision keeps taking away stations for people without the box. But I refuse to pay extra just for Soapnet which I had previously gotten included. Bring on ala carte and I can get rid of all these blocks of Spanish stations that I don’t watch nor understand.
Hm, how about all those GOD channels with preachers and ppl fainting… am I paying for that?
@WillScarlett: Because then there’s more of a chance you’ll enjoy all those channels you’re paying for. I used to hate bravo, but since they diversified their lineup, I’ve found great shows like Top Chef and Real Housewives (ok, really great trashy shows… but whatever). Wouldn’t it be great if FX had more than a couple really good shows? Or at least re-ran a variety of shows during the off-peak times?
I’d kill to be able to drop TBN and all the other religious channels.
However, I have a sneaking feeling that Food Network would die if a la carte pricing went into effect, and I need my Alton Brown fix.
I can think of a likely reason. Greed.
Very simple, just make the DVR interface have a delete channel button… Then the cable company can pass the buck, saying they aren’t in control of the OS…
Wanna tick ‘em off? Call them and cancel. When they ask why just speak those three little letters: FTA. They hate that.
Wait I could get rid of any fox television? Please dear God let me be able to delete every channel owned by Fox
@eury: lol…I wish I could help you out.
Everything I posted is freely available on the internet if you look in the right place. I’ve just taken an interest in educating myself about how the system works. But I’m kind of screwy like that…my idea of a fun way to pass the time is learning about things like SS7 and HFC networks just because I like knowing how the technology works, at least at some level
I live in Quebec. I have à la carte cable. If this exists in the heavily regulated Canadian broadcast industry I don’t get why it would be impossible in the US.
@Pithlit: While I can definitely see your side, I really don’t think cable providers would be quick too dump any niche channels offered Ala Carte. They offer even the most panned movies through On Demand, and people still get them. Even porn stations fare better as “24 hours for $12.95″ than as tiered offerings.
Every niche channel would always have SOME following that I’m sure a revised pricing structure could accommodate. An extra $5 to $10 a month per channel is $60 to $120 a year more in their pockets, than $0. Even a station with as little as 1000 viewers in a given city/system is sustainable.
As to people being locked in with no reason for expanding: I remember way back when the cable company used to offer “Free HBO Weekends” in an effort to get people to upgrade. If cable companies would reserve 10-15 stations for new and current offerings to be shown in a similar fashion, people will buy and add them.
@braindesign: (crosses off box on Consumerist Meme Bingo card)
Sweet, I’m just one “CREDIT UNIONS!” away from bingo.
Also, what if you actually do watch some of the bundled-in channels? I mean, I probably watch the Discovery-bundled channels more than Discovery Channel proper. And these bundles can’t be that binding, as I get Fox Sports, but no Fox Reality, Big Ten Channel, etc. (although we do get Fuel and Fox Soccer channel, we don’t get ANYTHING else in that bundle). Does Cox just have incriminating pictures of the Ailes clan?
They could always just offer ala carte pricing and force the bundled ones together. Set up some kind of online order form to automatically calculate the dependancies, and just let us pick and choose what we want as long as the dependancies are met.
Let the cable companies make the media companies’ annoying bundling transparent. If enough people decide they’re willing to forego, say, the Disney channel to not have to pay for ESPN, Disney might just get rid of the bundle.
@angelcake88: Comcast by me is doing this too. I hate the digital set-top boxes because they don’t work with TV features (like PIP) or VCRs and Tivos (non-cable card series Tivos aside).
Eventually when they move everything I like to the realm of “Above channel 71″, I’m sure I’ll have to make the switch.
@soke2001: No, but they’re paying for you to get everything else. Same with the home shopping channels.
@Libertariot: Yeah, all the cool kids are calling it “Fixed News” or “Fox Noise”.
The irony of this whole discussion is that each one of you paying for cable television are paying these bums a second imcome for their content. This is the huge scam of this whole enterprise! They are getting paid by the advertisers that slip ads into your “paid” content, then paid by you to watch it. Then they cry because they really want to open up their channel offerings to a a-la carte selection but BIG media won’t let them? Puleez. That’s the last thing they want because the more channels they force you to channel surf through the more ads you’re watching, and the more money they’re making from the advertisers.
Free-to-air T.V., sure I can agree to watch ads because I’m getting the content for free but paying someone that is already being paid to distribute it is insane.
Wow , SO i say something thats true and everybody ignores it?
Stop with this cable bashing. The telecom tv, and satellite companies do it also.
Most of you dont seem to know the truth. ITs the content providers that are preventing a-la- carte.
Companies like discovery and NFL Give the providers demands (ex you must carry a certain channel on a certain package or we wont allow you to have our channels)
Dont blame the cable companies. Blame the content providers.
Just look at the nfl network fiasco .that should be proof enough.
I actually wrote to the FCC about this.
What they would need to do, as well as mandating that channels be available individually, would be to set a maximum discount permitted for channel bundles.
That way, companies couldn’t charge outrageous prices for individual channels, unless they wanted to price all their customers away, including the ones who actually want the 200 channel package.
@dissolution: I’ve seen the cable TV available in Canada (my folks live in Winnipeg). While I would love to be able to subscribe to some of the Canadian stations down in the US in order to keep up with current events (CBC Newsworld would be great), I’m MUCH happier with the cable TV service I get in the US compared with what’s available to my folks.
@Com132: I believe that the a la carte option would not be channel by channel, but groups of channels that are offered by the same company as outlined in the article. This would be the only way that the media companies would not loose their less popular channels.
Yes, I’d love to have this kind of setup—I’d probably subscribe to a news tier (CNN, MSNBC, Fox, CBC Newsworld and other foreign sources if I’ve lucky), some kind of Science/Nature/History/Educational tier (Discovery, History, that sort of thing).
I almost never watch sports on TV, and when I do it’s almost always on a broadcast network, so ESPN and the like would go. I don’t have kids, so Nickelodeon and the like would go too (although I do enjoy Adult Swim on the Cartoon Network).
The tough one to figure out would be the one-offs…TMC (probably the best thing on cable), Sci Fi, Comedy Central, USA, TV land (I like the classics), BBC America…
-
TBH, I think we’re moving away from a model where content is delivered in TV channels and is moving towards an “on demand” setup, ultimately with any show you want available any time you want to watch it (this is obviously where Comcast is heading with the new services announced at CES).
I think we’ll see a similar setup in TV to the VoIP market today. Cheaper providers will operate over the public internet delivering content that way (like Vonage does with phone service). But there may be issues with how long it takes a show to download, the quality of that show, etc.
Meanwhile cablecos and telcos will continue to beef up offerings of on demand content, which will provide guaranteed quality with little or no delay while content downloads, just as they offer VoIP with better QoS over their own networks at slightly higher prices.
Charges will probably range from plans that charge by the show to “all you can eat” plans that offer unlimited service. Local stations may continue broadcasting for a while, but eventually they’ll move to streaming over the net as well. Tivo and similar devices will be a thing of the past, as will DVDs—you’ll just find that classic Doctor Who episode you want to watch and it will stream right then and there.
Just my guess for where things are heading…
A La Carte would result in most cable customers paying more for less. Only people who only want to get 4 or 5 channels or channels that are already premium channels would pay less (HBO and Showtime would benefit the most from a la carte, since customers could subscribe to them without paying for other channels) Customers who would subscribe to 10_ channels anyway don’t actually pay for the extra channels they currently get but barely watch; they actually have a lower bill because they “accept” those channels which they would not pay for if they had a choice. It’s a balancing act for all involved. If a la carte was forced onto cable companies, prices probably would go up overall, some channels would go out of business because they no longer had enough of a reach to attract advertisers, and people would – really – watch less tv overall.
What the ACA is talking about has more to do with which channels get to go into the most subscribed to tiers. Bug media companies with a lot of channels use their most popular channels to force cable operators to push the media companies’ new and/or less popular channels on populars. Companies which own only a single cable channel or two, though, face enormous obstacles on getting cable system owners to place those channels on any tier.
@angelcake88 & mercurypdx: As I mentioned above, this is nothing to do with cable having tiers and everything to do with the fact that your analog channels take up a lot more frequency spectrum on the coax cable than digital channels do.
While people like you are screaming whenever you lose another analog channel to digital, the cable companies have plenty more customers who are screaming at them to add more HD or increase internet connection speeds. Unfortunately the pipe can only hold so much (this is Verizon’s big advantage with FiOS).
It comes down to a question of economics: who would you risk losing? The customer buying just the basic analog tier at $40 or $50 a month? Or the customer who’s got HD everything, is paying you $150-$200 a month and is ready to jump to DirectTV to get more HD channels?
Incidentally, you are aware that your analog TVs won’t be able to even receive over-the-air signals from broadcasters without a digital converter after February 2009, aren’t you?
Unfortunately, analog TV, for better or for worse (and I personally think that it’s considerably for the better, although I understand where you’re coming from) is going away.
@Corydon: You won’t see tiers by news/spots/kids/etc, what you’ll get is the Turner tier, with CNN/TNT/TBS/etc, the Viacom tier with Comedy Central/MTV/Nickelodeon, the Universal tier with USA/Sci-Fi/MSNBC/CNBC, the Fox tier with Fox News/FX/Fox Sports, the Disney tier with ESPN/Disney/etc, and so on. The reason is because the only reason to offer these in bundles is to provide a discount, and you won’t see a discount for bundling CNN/Fox News/MSNBC since they’re all owned by different corporations, and none of those corporations are going to offer a discount on the premise that you’re also subscribing to their competitor’s content.
If you’re looking to drop specific sorts of content, what will happen is that you’ll have to buy channels by the channel, and you won’t see any discounts going that route. In fact, you’ll end up paying considerably more per channel doing it that way.
It sounds like everyone commenting lives in the city and has plenty of money to spare. For those of us not quite as fortunate as you, “rabbit ears” and local companies pretty much don’t exist. I vaguely remember having antennae on my tv, and it was spectacular shades of snow and Antique Roadshow. I don’t know where everyone else lives, but there’s hardly “local” anything around here.
The cable company offers us a billion channels I don’t want, too, sure. I don’t care for golf, ESPN, Weather Channel, or QVC but I like the option of finding new shows that I enjoy. I -need- every channel that shows Law and Order (at least 3 at any given moment), and a wide array of other random shows I like to watch. The cable company that I use is really a pushover about it. If you just tell them you’re gonna switch providers they’ll take 20 bucks off your bill. I called and told them my mom got cable internet and extended basic tv for 45 dollars, and they said no problem! Of course, she doesn’t, but don’t tell them.
@Corydon: Not screaming, just commiserating. I understand that’s why it’s happening. Like I said, when the day comes I will make the switch to digital, clunky set-top box and all.
And since I have cable, and I’m participating in a cable related discussion, I think I’m fine with over-the-air signals going away…. the cable will still work.
My family actually owns a small cable company, and I’ll have to say that this is true. Also the sport channels are adding $15+ to you cable bill each month (~$5 to ~$7 a month is charged to us per customer to carry them, a cost we have to pass on to you).
We ran into issues with Viacom in trying to do a limited deal when MTV first came out to make it a channel that you could chose not to get and thus not have to pay for (We’re in the south, people think it’s the Devil), but they would have none of it. They even tryed to pull Nick (the only real kids channel at the time) for not carrying MTV, but we called there bluf on that one.
We also had a demonstration of how some of these channels will die if it’s a pay for only what you want. When Disney said they wanted to be a basic cable only deal and we could no longer offer it as a premium channel, it was good by to them because there was not enough intrest in the channel to justify making everyone’s rates go up to git it if they liked it or not.
With the current analog channels, this isnt going to happen. The filters to notch out individual channels are just too expensive to implimente. Blocks are easy, but if the customer wants ones that are scattered aroun it might cost $5000 in filters just to give them what they want. When the cable systems are allowed to go all digital, this may happen. You’d probably have to pay a $20 access fee to cover basic operational expenses associated with having you as a customer (billing, plant upkeep, ect) that will get you the local channels and ones that the cable company gets for free, can then be able to pick and choose ones past that at a rate reflecting what it’s costing the cable company per-customer to server that channel. So, your ESPN will be in the $7 range, while your channel that just runs reruns might be $.10.
I’d love ala-carte channels. I would have switched over to AppleTV but they don’t have and HD television content.
But even more than ala carte channels, I want to see competition for cable. One cable company per area is a monopoly. I want to see as many cable companies in an area as the market demands. If cable companies had to really compete for your subscription, watch how fast things like lower prices and ala carte programming come about.
Break up cable!
I have not had television (not even farmervision) for over 4 years now. I have 2 small children (ages 4 and 6) that are not bombarded with crap from advertising and the networks. It feels good people, you should try it. We rent movies now and then, sit in front of the TV and watch as a family unit. Free your minds, unplug.
Ala-carte always sounds good with as few channels as we watch, but I’d just be satisfied to get all the channels that are listed in the bundles above. We get Discovery channel, but if you want Science channel you better bend over and give them the big bucks for digital.
See, I’d want all the ones that come with USA network, but without the USA channel. Seems backwards to me.
I’ll just stick to Hulu. I’ve come to like that site a bit.
@majortom1981: Hey. Guess what. YOU ARE WRONG. The whole NFL fiasco was they wanted to put in on basic cable and the cable networks wanted to bundle it with other sports channels in a special tier.
Try again.
digital tv lets CableCo push more channels through the net then analog did, shouldnt that bring down the price per channel?
channels should be a thing of the past anyway, we have the technology to do it all on demand.
of course if its all on demand, the pricing much like an a la carte option would only end up costing us more money, like itunes probably 2-5$ a show( if you watch 5 sitcoms at any given time of the year, 1 episode of each a week, 4 episodes of each a month is 20 episodes , thats $2-5 x 20 = $40-100 a month just to watch your favorite 5 shows, now thats 30mins-1hr of shows a day 5days a week, anyone with a tv watches more then 5hrs a week
a la carte: they arent gonna let a channel go for less then 5$ a month, currently i pay 50$ a month for basic cable, that would get me 10 channels at the most
i dont watch much tv, but the shows i do like are spread across every network, jus to help myself count: 14, 15, 21, 23, 31, 34, 37, 38, 39, 42, 43, 53, 55, 56, 62, 66
16 channels id be paying a min. of 80$ @ 5$/channel
its a sad world we live in when people care only about themselves, instead of bettering ourselves as a whole