This would be problematic for league networks--especially B1G

[MaxwellCuse]

little guy will lose some how- thats the new american way-

cable companies must change or die- in less than 10 years most info entertainment will be interweb based imho

Very likely based on what I'm seeing in my own family. One daughter graduated from college last year and when she moved into her own apartment she told us to keep her television. She's not unusual. According to her at least half of her "crowd" from college rely solely on the internet and several who have televisions have them only because cable was packaged in their rent. The younger daughter refused to take a television to college because anything she is interested in for entertainment is available online. So now my wife and I have five televisions and neither of us watches much besides SU games and the news anymore.

 

[MaxwellCuse]

You bet we are remote challenged. Between raking leaves and the Great New York State Fair we have no time for cable tv.

Here in eastern NY we rake leaves, mow lawns and complain about Albany over a cup of coffee at Stewart's.

 

[Toga]

Here in eastern NY we rake leaves, mow lawns and complain about Albany over a cup of coffee at Stewart's.

We also trip over indicted politicians.

 

[OttosBestFriend]

This will never, ever, ever pass.

Cable networks are built around the dual network stream (subscription fees + advertising). Even the big ones like ESPN and CNN go unwatched by millions, but still collect payment from each and every cable subscriber.

The cut in subscribers (and many people would cut channels they watch, just to save money) would put just about everybody out of business, not just the Big 10 Network.

Not only that, the cut in subscribers would all but eliminate new/original programming on the cable nets.

I've sold two shows in the last year. A docu-reality pilot that, ultimately didn't get picked up at the SyFy Network and a game show that is currently in development at the Game Show Network.

The way that these cable nets pay for programming - at several hundred thousand dollars per episode - is a combination of advertising AND subscription fees.

If half the well dried up (subscription fees), then the nets would not have the $$$ to produce shows... And that's a fact.

Then all you'd see are reruns of programs that have already been produced - as if cable doesn't already rerun the crap out of their content.

 

[rrlbees]

Not only that, the cut in subscribers would all but eliminate new/original programming on the cable nets.

I've sold two shows in the last year. A docu-reality pilot that, ultimately didn't get picked up at the SyFy Network and a game show that is currently in development at the Game Show Network.

The way that these cable nets pay for programming - at several hundred thousand dollars per episode - is a combination of advertising AND subscription fees.

If half the well dried up (subscription fees), then the nets would not have the $$$ to produce shows... And that's a fact.

Then all you'd see are reruns of programs that have already been produced - as if cable doesn't already rerun the crap out of their content.

Why should I have to pay for something I don't want?

Sent using my Commodore 64

 

[KaiserUEO]

Why should I have to pay for something I don't want?

Sent using my Commodore 64

how do you know you dont want it??

if im a tv network, im putting the Cuse game on espn 1 week. disney the next. BBC, youre up. then the oprah network...etc, etc.

make you bastards buy em all to watch what you want.

 

[cuseincincy]

Many of the young adults are not even getting cable anymore. I think the B1G money projections will fall short.

My brother is 28. He makes plenty of $ as an engineer from RIT. He has never had cable or satellite. He does have Netflix (or similar). Has a huge TV that he controls wirelessly via his iPhone. The technology has changed.

 

[cuseincincy]

Why should I have to pay for something I don't want?

Sent using my Commodore 64

To save money silly!

 

[Bayside44]

Waiting for Scooch on this one...

 

[OttosBestFriend]

Why should I have to pay for something I don't want?

Sent using my Commodore 64

No one said you had to... Just cancel cable - or whatever service you're subscribing to.

But since you have cable (or a satellite provider) you've already AGREED to buy the package(s) that they are offering.

No one said to had to buy the super-duper triple platinum pack with 950+ channels. You can keep it pretty basic if you so desire.

If you don't want the package as is, buy a different package or find a cheaper provider.

Sometimes I only want two hotdogs while at the grocery, but they're sold in 8-packs... Should I have my congressman contact the major grocery chains so that I can purchase the exact number of hot dogs I desire?

I don't need half the bells and whistles on my mobile phone, but I can't force them to make a cheaper version because I don't want/need a camera that shoots HD video. I simply find a phone that comes with the features I desire for a price I'm willing to pay.

Forcing the system to change via legislation won't make things better for the greater majority of television viewers... The system will adapt when it must do so in order to compete.

 

[cuseincincy]

Sometimes I only want two hotdogs while at the grocery, but they're sold in 8-packs... Should I have my congressman contact the major grocery chains so that I can purchase the exact number of hot dogs I desire?

.

In the interest of being helpful...if you only want 2 hot dogs go to the deli, you can usually buy them ala cart by the pound there. Of course they'll cost you about $1.50 for 2 vs. $1.99 for an 8 pack.

 

[rrlbees]

Sometimes I only want two hotdogs while at the grocery, but they're sold in 8-packs... Should I have my congressman contact the major grocery chains so that I can purchase the exact number of hot dogs I desire?.

Then go to the deli and buy 2. It's ala carte.

When I do buy a package and then they add 2 channels I dont want and increase my cost 50 cents per month, that's BS. Glad cable is going to go down in its current construct.

Sent using my Commodore 64

 

[OburgOrange]

Many of the young adults are not even getting cable anymore. I think the B1G money projections will fall short.

My boys never watch cable anymore, just espn3

 

[Moontan]

Many people will be able to save a few dollars per month. Instead of getting 200 channels for $100, they'll be able to get most of their favorite 50 channels for $65-75.

Of course, some channels may still only be available as part of a package (e.g. ESPN Classic may only be available as part of the ESPN package, just as the individual HBO channels are only available as part of the HBO package).

Another likely consequence is that many of the niche channels may disappear. This could include your favorite niche channel. You know, G4, the JLH Channel, Storage Wars Network, etc..

Bundling may seem evil, but it doesn't have to be. Instead of a-la-cart channel selection, expect to see a-la-carte package selection. There'll be a Disney package, a Discovery package, an ESPN package, etc.. Oh, and you'll likely also get a Shopping package. It'll be free and you won't be able to get rid of it.

 

[Scooch]

Waiting for Scooch on this one...

I can't.

But you guys have fun.

 

[Chip]

personally, i dont want a la carte.

i like paying for everything. i find comfort in knowing i have every goddamn channel. that way if something good pops up on some obscure channel, i got it.

i dont want to have to go through the process of adding it to my system.

just give me the damn remote and i will find it (granted, i realize thats a skill ZERO cnyers have, but i digress).

Oh Lord

I'm with you, I like having every channel they offer. Where you putting the SU NCAA game? Ok, I have it, and within 30 seconds, I'll find it.

I do wish McCain would better spend his time proposing a law that allows me to put some type of virtual shock inducing dog fence type functionality on the remote. It will go off when my wife navigates to a channel below 500 on Fios. We pay for HD, watch HD. Otherwise, you are wasting my money. And therefore getting a few volts passed through you.

 

[Moontan]

I'm with you, I like having every channel they offer. Where you putting the SU NCAA game? Ok, I have it, and within 30 seconds, I'll find it.

There's something to be said for that.

I "have" every channel that SU sports can be expected on (via DirecTV in Atlanta). I do like to watch some games in a group environment (e.g. with other SU alums/fans), but if it's a choice between watching with a group in SD vs. watching at home in HD, it's no contest. SNY is offered in HD on DirecTV, but our alumni club's watering hole claims they can't get it (yes, they have DirecTV as well)... hence they only show the GamePlan / Full Court channels.

BTW: How is it "Full Court" if it's only SD?

 

[orange79]

Then go to the deli and buy 2. It's ala carte.

When I do buy a package and then they add 2 channels I dont want and increase my cost 50 cents per month, that's BS. Glad cable is going to go down in its current construct.

Sent using my Commodore 64

Hope you choose TNT as one of your ala carte choices. TruTV too.

 

[bnoro]

Google Roku and see what all the kids my age are starting to buy. You can get Netflix, Hulu, HboGO, etc. Only thing that's not there yet is ESPN. But we're moving away from cable quick.

 

[Moontan]

Current over-the-top solutions (Internet streaming) don't scale well in many households. If you expect 5-6 concurrent HD streams then FiOS and U-Verse won't do it for you, neither wil Netflix, Hulu and the like. Only OTA, cable and satellite providers will get you there today.

Live sports (e.g. non-3 ESPN) are another major issue for non-video provider subscribers. This could change if ESPN would sign up with Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, etc., to provide down-rezzed video ... assuming that ISPs would allow such streams through at affordable prices.

If people expect a truly "open" and unlimited Internet experience of 100mbps or better, then they should become comfortable with $100+/mo ISP bills. That's the fee to allow you to stream content as desired... it still doesn't include actual content.

At the end of the day people who like a lot of stuff are better off with the current model. People who want to save some money won't be happy about the actual programming vs. price trade offs. Those that think they can get everything over the top will be shocked by the true Internet infrastructure price.

If you can do without live "cable" sports it may work out for you. For most people here it may only determine where they send their $ to.

 

[alphaorange]

I remember the golden age of the monster dishes. All programming was basically ala cart via a multitude of providers. The monthly guide was 3/4" thick and the wild feeds were to die for...every single game that was televised somewhere was there somewhere, including the NFL and NBA. It didn't die because the people watching stuff for free made them unprofitable, it dies because they were greedy. They saw a revenue source and tapped into it. If they hadn't, they would still have been hugely profitable. Same thing now. They'll still make money, just less of it. That is, unless they find the buying public will tolerate higher prices on the channels they want. In that case, they still win.

 

[Orangemen]

I don't think it's good for business to be honest! The cable and satellite companies will still charge you the same if not more in my opinion, they need to maintain their profit margins. Okay, you can opt out of espn but the cable companies are making money by advertising on espn, where's that money coming from now? Cable companies are in business to make money, if they don't get the money from ad space they will just charge people more for their services.

The theory goes that cable companies charge you for the channels you watch. the other 300 are thrown in for free (basically). If this bill passes, you'll still pay what you pay now, they'll just drop the other 300 channels that you hardly ever watch.

I like a la carte in theory, but in practice, it may not be so good.

 

[cuseinchina]

(Sorry for length in advance). I have spoken to many cable industry executives about this issue and they KNOW that this is coming one way or another. They have been very fearful of this until relatively recently. In private they will admit that bundling allows them to generate more ARPU - average revenue per user. They will also admit that they are only able to do this because they essentially operate monopolies. Adding a couple of channels every year justified price increases that have been 3 to 5 % above inflation for basic cable since the 80's. The argument that bundling increases the consumer choice held water for a while, but it is rapidly breaking down and the cable companies are quietly preparing for the shift in the business model - though their strategy is unlikely to save them from losing their monopoly level profit margins.

The telecom/cable lobby is very aggressive and powerful and McCain's bill is in fact likely to go close to nowhere despite the fact that most voters would happily embrace it. But it won't matter. It won't matter because internet enabled TVs, along with people in their 20's and 30's who have already cut the cord on cable, will push the major content players - those with programming that people will pay up for (sports, movies, special interest channels with big audiences) - to shift their content on to the internet and completely bypass the traditional broadcast/cable model. Revenues will come from subscription and/or pay per view type of structure,a long with traditional and interactive advertising. Why let the cable company control when were and how your content is delivered and why let them have access to advertising time during your premium programming?? The range of content you can provide is so much greater, as is the ability to directly target prime consumers in a very very personal way if you are and advertiser - these companies are really only scratching the surface on this stuff now. But the point is it is the content providers who will drive the push to a-la-carte, and a-la-carte will eventually give way to direct provisioning of programming via the internet. This is not 20 years away, it's more like 5.

The cable companies are responding in a number of ways - first, comcast essentially paid off verizon via a co-selling deal with verizon wireless to get them to stop the expansion of fios. At&t has stopped its rollout of Uverse as well and Uverse was never really a competetive product. So - they have a monopoly on the 'pipe into the home' and play to raise prices on top tier data services to well above $100 which will allow them to maintain their ARPU even without the bundles. The other thing they are doing is buying content companies because they understand that content is going to be higher margin than just owning the pipe over the long-term.

That will work for a while, but eventually the cable industry will decline into a commodity business. Google fore example is launching 1GBPS internet in Kansas City and then is going to bring it to Austin Texas. The new wireless standard promises nearly 1GBPS as well and that will be rolling out in a few years around the country. Google could care less about earning a decent return on their network investments in these cities - they care about shifting content to the internet and branding/advertising via google software as the system of interacting with that content (eg - they make a killing off of their android software which they distribute for free to the mobile phone manufacturers). On the wireless side, the price of hanging equipment on a tower vs the price of burying a network that goes in to every single building is not even close. They will price Time warner into oblivion. Meanwhile Time warner gives you 30 mbps with their premium package. Compeition will force them to deliver a better product, better service, at prices that allow them to earn minimal profits.

content is king. the ACC network will have a huge advantage if it is built for digital right from the start. Exciting times ahead.

 

[upperdeck]

things like ESPN3 are free because of the cable agreements with the ISP's that will go away if this new model comes into play..

and all the internet free feeds could go away as well. they could force everyone who wants to watch a feed only view it thru a scrambling device and make the retransmission pretty hard for most people to understand,.

and all the digital download and streaming could come to a halt if the ISPs wanted to really stop it.. its pretty easy to see what traffic is and they could throttle transmissions of video that are grinding their networks to a halt..

 

[rrlbees]

Many people will be able to save a few dollars per month. Instead of getting 200 channels for $100, they'll be able to get most of their favorite 50 channels for $65-75.

Of course, some channels may still only be available as part of a package (e.g. ESPN Classic may only be available as part of the ESPN package, just as the individual HBO channels are only available as part of the HBO package).

Another likely consequence is that many of the niche channels may disappear. This could include your favorite niche channel. You know, G4, the JLH Channel, Storage Wars Network, etc..

Bundling may seem evil, but it doesn't have to be. Instead of a-la-cart channel selection, expect to see a-la-carte package selection. There'll be a Disney package, a Discovery package, an ESPN package, etc.. Oh, and you'll likely also get a Shopping package. It'll be free and you won't be able to get rid of it.

There already are ala carte packages.

Glad to see the internet types and pols are seeing these cable providers for what they are. Scam artists.

Sent using my Commodore 64