 
VZ FiOS
@verizon.net | Are you really getting more for your dollar? If the consumer was getting more for their dollar, prices would not be increasing but remaining consistent. How can you possibly get more for your dollar when you are giving them more dollars? Sounds like the exact opposite to me... | |
|
 |
Anon123
@comcast.net
 from:
TK Junk Mail 
| Re: Are you really getting more for your dollar? said by VZ FiOS :
If the consumer was getting more for their dollar, prices would not be increasing but remaining consistent. How can you possibly get more for your dollar when you are giving them more dollars? Sounds like the exact opposite to me...
What do you mean by consistent? Not changing? Prices are always going to rise due to inflation with a service like this. As any operator adds more channels there are more content partners to pay for each channel and you'd better believe they will adjust their fees for inflation. The NFL network wants everyone to have their channel so that everyone can pay the additional fees for it (because they want to make money!)
I think the cable co's point was that compared to 1998 you are getting many more channels and services that weren't available then such as VOD and HD. | |
|
| | 
Bobcat
Verizon blows, Cablevision sucks
Premium
join:2001-02-04
Bedminster, NJ
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Are you really getting more for your dollar? said by Anon123 :
I think the cable co's point was that compared to 1998 you are getting many more channels and services that weren't available then such as VOD and HD.
The cable companies lie through their teeth. In 1998 my cable bill was $34.18. Now it's $51.12, and I get FEWER channels. We had VOD in 1998, but I never used it. And I don't care about HD. | |
|
| | |
astiyosti1
@charter.com | Re: Are you really getting more for your dollar? i have charter and i get 10/1 internet and every thing on cable and also phone for 140.00 a month now when i had att i was paying 65 for phone and 45 for internet and 85.00 for sat. | |
|
| | |
| | | rid0617
join:2003-07-20
Greer, SC
·AT&T Southeast
·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: Are you really getting more for your dollar? When I signed up with directv in 1997 the price was $29.95. Since then they have added a few more junk channels, a lot more shopping channels, outsourced their customer service to a foreign country to save labor costs and still raised the basic package to $52.95. Do not miss cutting the cord a bit. | |
|
| | | | Joe12345678
join:2003-07-22
Des Plaines, IL | Re: Are you really getting more for your dollar? You do get NFL and BIG 10 in the base package unlike comcrap | |
|
| | | | | 
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Re: Are you really getting more for your dollar? Channels that I don't watch
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
|
| | BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| said by Anon123 :
The NFL network wants everyone to have their channel so that everyone can pay the additional fees for it (because they want to make money!) Get off that crap. Hell ESPN charges $5 for ESPN and ESPN 2. Comcast forces other cable companies to have Golf Chanel on a basic tier AND pay for it if those companies want to carry their other channels like E! and G4.
I think the cable co's point was that compared to 1998 you are getting many more channels and services that weren't available then such as VOD and HD.
There isn't any VOD in my area. HD is extra. So is VOD if I had it. Charter has actually REDUCED channels while raising prices. How am I getting more for my $? | |
|
| |
| ftth_freak
join:2005-06-17
Ballwin, MO | Do have cable or dish? | |
|
Joe12345678
join:2003-07-22
Des Plaines, IL | Direct Tv and dish have better deals Direct Tv and dish have better deals then cable more channels and lower box fees $5 per box first free vs $6-$7 on cable with drv fees at $14-$15 vs $5 or less fees for drv on sat. | |
|
|
| zed260
join:2007-09-30
Cleveland, TN | Re: Link to see article if you dont subscribe to NYT you can read it without going though googgle or registering | |
|
Morac
join:2001-08-30
Riverside, NJ
 ·Comcast
| More channels = higher price Just because the "stuff" to price ratio is better now than it was 10 years ago, doesn't mean it's a better value.
10 years ago, I watched a handful of channels and didn't use VOD. Today, I watch a handful of channels and rarely, if ever, use VOD.
So I don't care if there are tenfold more (mostly crappy) channels compared to a decade ago. That doesn't make cable a bargain.
--
The Comcast Disney Avatar has been retired. | |
|
| 
TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
·Comcast
| Re: More channels = higher price said by Morac :10 years ago, I watched a handful of channels and didn't use VOD. Today, I watch a handful of channels and rarely, if ever, use VOD. An interesting stat from the story:
watch only a fraction of what they pay for — on average, a mere 13 percent of the 118 channels available to them.
The debate is - would a la carte, where you pay only for that 13%, cost less than the whole package of channels. The FCC says a la carte would be cheaper. The cable companies and Hollywood say it won't.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
|
| | 
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
| Re: More channels = higher price Well think of it this way, if the cablecos are saying these "package deals" are cheaper, and we see 15% annual increases on them, then you know they'd rape on ala carte!
--
"Anything worth having is worth cheating for." WC Fields | |
|
| | BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| said by TK Junk Mail :said by Morac :10 years ago, I watched a handful of channels and didn't use VOD. Today, I watch a handful of channels and rarely, if ever, use VOD. An interesting stat from the story: watch only a fraction of what they pay for — on average, a mere 13 percent of the 118 channels available to them.
The debate is - would a la carte, where you pay only for that 13%, cost less than the whole package of channels. The FCC says a la carte would be cheaper. The cable companies and Hollywood say it won't. Per channel cost no it wouldn't be cheaper. But since I would be paying VASTLY fewer channels yes it would be cheaper. | |
|
| | | 
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| Re: More channels = higher price said by BF69 :Per channel cost no it wouldn't be cheaper. But since I would be paying VASTLY fewer channels yes it would be cheaper. It *SHOULD* Be cheaper. A lot cheaper. But it won't be. It will be like at&t and unbundled DSL. Sure you can get DSL only with no POTS. For $5 MORE a month then it costs for POTS + DSL.
I expect they'll deliberately price ala carte that way. Make the price if a few ala carte channels so high that it would be cheaper and more economical to stick to some tier or package.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
|
| | |
| 
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| said by Morac :Just because the "stuff" to price ratio is better now than it was 10 years ago, doesn't mean it's a better value. 10 years ago, I watched a handful of channels and didn't use VOD. Today, I watch a handful of channels and rarely, if ever, use VOD. So I don't care if there are tenfold more (mostly crappy) channels compared to a decade ago. That doesn't make cable a bargain. Look at your program guide after 10pm. most are "paid programming". hardly more value per dollar than years ago[unless you're an advertising exec]
Ala carte would show the true number of channels people ACTUALLY watch. the others would just die out[must carry needs to go]
--
When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee | |
|
Bobcat
Verizon blows, Cablevision sucks
Premium
join:2001-02-04
Bedminster, NJ
·Verizon Online DSL
| A pack of lies quote:
the cable industry says that you’re really getting more for your money.
That's a lie. Cablevision just took away approx 10% of my channels, with no decrease in rate. So cable is giving me LESS for my money. | |
|
| majortom1029
join:2006-10-19
Lindenhurst, NY | Re: A pack of lies IF your going to play dirty atleast state it was your analog channels and that you get more channels by getting a box. Also if you get an hd box(which still works on non hdtv's) then you also get channels that are available only for hd. | |
|
| |
Bobcat
Verizon blows, Cablevision sucks
Premium
join:2001-02-04
Bedminster, NJ
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: A pack of lies said by majortom1029 :IF your going to play dirty atleast state it was your analog channels and that you get more channels by getting a box. At a 50% INCREASE in rates, to get the SAME channels I used to get. So again, "getting more for my money" is an outright lie.
It's either a 10% cut in service at the same rate, or a 50% increase in rates for the same service. Scumbags. | |
|
dadkins
Land of Confusion
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
·Comcast
| Provider cost vs subscriber cost When POS networks charge more, are the cablecos supposed to absorb those costs?
Is it Comcast's fault that ESPN or (insert channel/network here)__________ charges more for their channel(s)? 
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera | |
|
| 
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| Re: Provider cost vs subscriber cost said by dadkins :When POS networks charge more, are the cablecos supposed to absorb those costs? Is it Comcast's fault that ESPN or (insert channel/network here)__________ charges more for their channel(s)? If I want ESPN then I pay what their fees cause the cable company to charge me. I only pay this IF I want ESPN unless the cable company forms their own artificial bundle by grouping ESPN with other suppliers channels and sells it to me as a take-all-or-none bundle/tier. | |
|
| |
dadkins
Land of Confusion
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
·Comcast
| Re: Provider cost vs subscriber cost said by RARPSL :said by dadkins :When POS networks charge more, are the cablecos supposed to absorb those costs? Is it Comcast's fault that ESPN or (insert channel/network here)__________ charges more for their channel(s)? If I want ESPN then I pay what their fees cause the cable company to charge me. I only pay this IF I want ESPN unless the cable company forms their own artificial bundle by grouping ESPN with other suppliers channels and sells it to me as a take-all-or-none bundle/tier. Welcome to cable TV!
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera | |
|
| | |
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| Re: Provider cost vs subscriber cost said by dadkins :said by RARPSL :said by dadkins :When POS networks charge more, are the cablecos supposed to absorb those costs? Is it Comcast's fault that ESPN or (insert channel/network here)__________ charges more for their channel(s)? If I want ESPN then I pay what their fees cause the cable company to charge me. I only pay this IF I want ESPN unless the cable company forms their own artificial bundle by grouping ESPN with other suppliers channels and sells it to me as a take-all-or-none bundle/tier. Welcome to cable TV! Your statement that cable companies can bundle channels/bundles from different suppliers into an artificial bundle has nothing to do with my comment about ESPN wanting a large fee for their bundle (which is what I was commenting about). Just because they do it, it has nothing to do with what the suppliers charge. | |
|
| | | |
dadkins
Land of Confusion
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
·Comcast
| Re: Provider cost vs subscriber cost How does ESPN come up with their cost?
WHY does ESPN insist on their bundle - at their imposed cost.
What do you think the cablecos are going to do when ESPN raises their cost, suck it up and keep *our* price down? Fuck no!
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera | |
|
| | | | | 
supergirl
join:2007-03-20
Pensacola, FL
 ·Skype
·Cox VOIP
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southeast
·magicjack.com
| Re: Provider cost vs subscriber cost said by dadkins :How does ESPN come up with their cost? WHY does ESPN insist on their bundle - at their imposed cost. What do you think the cablecos are going to do when ESPN raises their cost, suck it up and keep *our* price down? Fuck no! ESPN has high costs due to the billions being paid each year to NBA, NFL, MLB, etc. Economists found a sports team made little or no impact on a city. So, you pay twice for sports--once in taxes to build stadiums to contract their prima donnas and in cable fees. So, cities are balking at building new stadiums.
Eventually, all cable outfits are gonna balk at the NFL, like Comcast and Cox did to the NFL Network, and ESPNs. Why did ABC drop their MNF show? It was losing $1+ million a game. And, with small audiences, advertisers are already balking. The last Superbowl gave away some ads to keep the money grail going. Hence, the Superbowl is becoming a money loser.
So, expensive sports like the NFL and NBA are going to be PPVs. $10 million a year for a NBA player that scores 4.5ppg?
Hate to tell you but about 50% of the cable channels would go bankrupt without your cable bill. Ads cover about 30-45% of their budgets. Cable covers the rest.
When digital cable hits, how many people will drop it? I see tiers to keep them stay. Eventually ala carte is coming.
--
Saving the world keeps me busy. However, I find Earth very primitive from my home planet of Krypton.
-Supergirl | |
|
| | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Navarre, FL
·AT&T Southeast
·Mediacom
| said by RARPSL :unless the cable company forms their own artificial bundle by grouping ESPN with other suppliers channels and sells it to me as a take-all-or-none bundle/tier. Which Disney seems to like to force their carriers to do. | |
|
| | |
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| Re: Provider cost vs subscriber cost said by openbox9 :said by RARPSL :unless the cable company forms their own artificial bundle by grouping ESPN with other suppliers channels and sells it to me as a take-all-or-none bundle/tier. Which Disney seems to like to force their carriers to do. What? Disney is a supplier. How are they forcing the Cable Companies to merge their bundles with the bundles from OTHER suppliers (which is what I was talking about in reference to ESPN)? | |
|
| | | | EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA
| Re: Provider cost vs subscriber cost Easy. They can threaten to pull their supply, and then promote the opposition. ("Big Cable doesn't want you to get ESPN! Switch to satellite!")
Plus, Disney can pull not just ESPN (and its myriad of spinoffs), but Disney Channel, ABC Family, and (if they control the local affiliate) ABC if they really want to play hardball. The cable companies have a lot less control than it seems at first glance. | |
|
| | | | | tlp95129
join:2007-07-30
| Re: Provider cost vs subscriber cost said by EPS :Easy. They can threaten to pull their supply, and then promote the opposition. ("Big Cable doesn't want you to get ESPN! Switch to satellite!") Plus, Disney can pull not just ESPN (and its myriad of spinoffs), but Disney Channel, ABC Family, and (if they control the local affiliate) ABC if they really want to play hardball. The cable companies have a lot less control than it seems at first glance. IMO, it's all a cozy little cooperative game between Hollywood and the Cablecos. They're both interested in the same thing - maximum profits. Fine, welcome to capitalism. The only way to defeat them is to not play the game. Either switch to satellite (save maybe $10-$15) per month, or go over-the-air with an antenna. But then there's no ESPN, just the broadcast channels. But hey, there's plenty of sports on them too, and movies and dramatic series, whatever. Cable is an optional expense. | |
|
| | | | | | EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA
| Re: Provider cost vs subscriber cost Well, it gets more complicated when you factor in that the cable companies own channels- Comcast owns E! for example, and Time Warner owns a crapload of things (to the point where they now see cable as a distraction to be sold off).
I myself use Verizon's TV, but I wonder if the telcos will soon join in the media game- they certainly have enough money to buy out someone.
I'd use over-the-air, but the Boston Red Sox have put nearly all games on their team-owned cable channel, and I want to be able to watch more games than just the local FOX affiliate has occaisonally... other than that and the occaisonal Law and Order rerun on TNT, everything I watch is from the broadcast channels anyway. | |
|
| | 
funchords
Robb
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Hillsboro, OR | ESPN is becoming so expensive that it deserves its own premium status. I never watch it, and I have to pay $5-$6 a month for it (I forget what the wholesale charge ended up being, but it's in that neighborhood). | |
|
| |
| Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
| Disney corp. has the cable companies by the balls, you MUST carry espn in your basic lineup if you want to carry their other channels. basicly they do the same to all content providers and its why mega conglomerates like to own true high demand networks. the ones like ESPN are semi nich to sports fans, but if you want the ABC channels you gotta have it in the normal package and cant shove ESPN off to the sports package.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
|
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| said by dadkins :When POS networks charge more, are the cablecos supposed to absorb those costs? Is it Comcast's fault that ESPN or (insert channel/network here)__________ charges more for their channel(s)? NO, but neither should i have to pay for a sports channel that i dont even watch[or want!]
--
When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee | |
|
|
Cable Me Not
@verizon.net
| said by dadkins :When POS networks charge more, are the cablecos supposed to absorb those costs? Is it Comcast's fault that ESPN or (insert channel/network here)__________ charges more for their channel(s)? Comcast is a huge corporation. They have the legal staff to negotiate rates and contracts that favor their customers. They have lobbyists on the payroll.
They could offer ala-carte, and they could force the issue. But they prefer the status quo, where they can blame someone else for their pricing.
Obfuscation works every time. | |
|
Just2bfair
@comcast.net
| Just to be fair... It depends on the cable service.
HSI price has held steady for the last 4 years while the speeds have increased from 4000/256 to 16000/2000. No price increase.
Comcast Digital Phone is cheaper than equivalent phone company service and the sound quality is much better.
The TV portion of my cable bill has increased but I have a lot more channels available and the picture quality has vastly improved.
Would I rather have Jones, TCI or AT&T back? HELL NO! | |
|
|
TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
·Comcast
| Re: Just to be fair... said by Just2bfair :
HSI price has held steady for the last 4 years while the speeds have increased from 4000/256 to 16000/2000. No price increase.
I have paid the same for HSI since 2001 - $42.95/mo.
And the speed went from 1500/128 to 6600/1000 during that time.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
|
| |
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| Re: Just to be fair... said by TK Junk Mail :said by Just2bfair :
HSI price has held steady for the last 4 years while the speeds have increased from 4000/256 to 16000/2000. No price increase.
I have paid the same for HSI since 2001 - $42.95/mo. And the speed went from 1500/128 to 6600/1000 during that time. its well known that video subs subsidize HSI.
--
When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee | |
|
| | |
wifi4milez
In Need Of Garbage Pail Kids 1st Series
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| What a dumb comparison It doesnt make sense to compare the prices of a non-tangible service to that of a tangible good. The price for consumer electronics has dropped because they are now being mass produced in China (among other places) in the millions. The market is now flooded with cheap goods made overseas, and there are so many options to chose from that the price naturally drops. A service on the other hand (such as cable), is not something you can mass produce in a factory someplace in Asia. A service is worth exactly what a person will pay for it, and thus the demand for that service drives the price. Look at it this way, the cost of a space flight currently sits at around $1 million because thats what people who can afford to do it think its worth. Cable service is no different, and simple economic principles will drive how much the operators charge, and therefore what we pay. Count on the New York Times to draw an apples to kiwis comparison, and then try and spin the results.....
--
Have YOU thanked a soldier today? If not, think about doing it as you speak ENGLISH this memorial day. God Bless America, and God Bless our troops.
| |
|
|
See 6 replies to this post |
|
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| A semi al a carte Method The cable companies and media providers claim that if there were no bundles the cost of the individual channels would go up and "niche" channels would not be supported/available. I say there is a middle ground that would make al a carte and Bundles possible.
Right now I get X channels from Media Suppler Y for $Z. If I only want X/2 half of them than I should be able to get them al a carte for $Z/2. There is no $Z1 for channel 1 and $Z2 for channel2 (with the prices different based on popularity/etc.) but a flat $Z/X PER CHANNEL which is the same method as now (the Niche Channels are subsidized by the Popular ones).
Each Media Suppler sets their own bundle price now and would charge THE SAME BUNDLE PRICE under my system. | |
|
| 
n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY
·Optimum Online
| Re: A semi al a carte Method I would love to have al a carte. Forgetting broadcast basic since that would be the base, I would pick Comedy, SciFi, TVLand and the various news channels such as CNN, CNN Headline, Fox News, MSNBC and CNBC. I might go for A&E, History. FX, Spike, Family and AMC but they would have to make me a good offer to take those. Otherwise, there is nothing else in the standard package that I would be interested in. My sister and brother-in-law have the top tier of service available and I have sat there with the remote control and just skipped from channel to channel completely disinterested. Mostly it is repeats from basic TV or it is a run of commercials. It still bugs me the number of commercials you see on basic cable channels. Heck, there are more than on commercial TV and at least that is "free".
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears. | |
|
tmc8080
join:2004-04-24
Floral Park, NY
| On the DL(down-low) Just between us... Newspapers are not worth the paper or online websites their made of either. You never see stand-up honest reporting anymore.. just airing what the corporate mouthpiece line is on everything... CNN, ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC.. gone are the days of doing the right thing. Reporting after 9/11/2001 DIED A SAD DEATH. Journalism is a dead industry. Cable TV is not what it used to be because they are advertising WHORES and they make more and more revenue from that source than anything else. They could even PAY you to watch it and they'd still eek out a profit if you changed nothing else. Alot of it is secret back room deals that isn't reported to the fcc, irs or anybody else. You won't see it on a stock earnings report, nor on Ronco's rotisserie express infomercial. So for that, you pay an arm, a leg franchise fees, surcharges, rental fees and are gouged beyond belief. However you are glad to pay for this nonsense. Then again, your grumbling right along with $4 gasoline so... a sucker will buy anything at a high price these days, so let the games begin. I think they should raise the rates by 40% it's not high enough.
Yes, there are tid-bits of sarcasm here.. but alot of truth subscribers just don't want to hear- or do anything about, such as unsubscribe. That would be too difficult. After all, you must be addicted to some of the programming to still be watching & paying for it. | |
|
siouxmoux
join:2007-09-25
| And ATT raise their prices of U-Verse as well. For anyone signing up for U-Verse now. You will be paying $20 dollars more a mouth since they have discontinued their $10 bundle discount and the free 2 stbs early adopter offer.
So What next price hikes for U-Verse, No more free DVR and Free Installation. And Will ATT tack on addition fees for WHDVR, Muli HD Streams, Media Room And those stb Apps like flickr, yahoo games, peg channels. | |
|
russotto
join:2000-10-05
Collegeville, PA | Raise your masts! And fly an antenna from them. Cable's gotten ridiculous, and while they provide you with a ton of channels, there's _still_ nothing on. Over the air TV is still free, and digital TV is the same or better quality than cable. | |
|
| Joe12345678
join:2003-07-22
Des Plaines, IL
| Re: Raise your masts! said by russotto :And fly an antenna from them. Cable's gotten ridiculous, and while they provide you with a ton of channels, there's _still_ nothing on. Over the air TV is still free, and digital TV is the same or better quality than cable. but they don't have most of cable channels on Over the air TV digital TV. | |
|
|
Cost of Cable Continues To Rise Despite Technological Advances
Link to see article if you dont subscribe to NYT
