This would be problematic for league networks--especially B1G

[KaiserUEO]

Honestly, if this is the case in 8-10 years when they’re teenagers… congratulations cable industry you have successfully stifled innovation and the economic growth that goes along with it. I’m so rooting for Google on this one.

if your family is then sitting home reading, and not doing the game, movie and lifetime thing...are you going to call them overweight then as well???

 

[WickedOrange]

if your family is then sitting home reading, and not doing the game, movie and lifetime thing...are you going to call them overweight then as well???

That's what you key on? EDIT: Watching a lot of television can contribute to an inactive lifestyle. That is all i was implying.

I’m thinking within five years, sports enthusiast in Austin and Kanas City will be able to streaming four concurrent professional sports events on 84-100+ inch 4k televisions, with the ability to toggle, pull up real-time player stats, or whatever interactivity creative developers can think up, via their phone and/or tablet. The rest of us will then realized how hard we’ve been getting boned by the cable industry, when we’re putting around on a 10MB connection. Just watch for the innovation that comes out of Austin/KC/Provo.

 

[Phillymoose]

Forcing them to go ala carte will result in less revenue for cable companies because the price will be too much for people who only watch some channels a little.

But you're ignoring that it hurts viewers. You're not going to pay for all those channels you only watch once in a while. But all those seldom watched channels add up to something. Viewers lose too.

The ala carte argument assumes ignores all channels with a little bit of value to a person that is less than the profit maximizing price in an ala carte only world

in my example, i don't get to see milfs and my wife doesn't get to watch gymnastics ala carte.

like most of john mccain's dumb laws, this makes us all worse off

You act as though bundling is the natural state of affairs, when it really just an anachronistic business model based on bad technology. You are also pricing things based on the anachronism - e.g. what you are willing to pay for it based on the historical market.

But - the cost of delivering content has dropped dramatically. Extremely - but the cable companies have not passed along this price drop (mainly because they are slow moving and monopolistic) - but Google is probably making them all their pants. Your logic around bundling will be fine, but only after the massive price drop occurs. Until the price apocalypse hits - look to prices of other digital content for clues, these companies are going to hold on for dear life.

I could care less about McCain's legislation. The market will eventually take care of things.
I laugh because Scooch told me a few years ago that the ala cart world was a pipe dream. I am already off the grid for about half of my content. Would love to cut the cord fully. Hopefully soon.

I think the right price, btw - for a channel like ESPN will probably settle in at about $2-3 a month. Let's check back in about 7-8 years and find out. The smart distributors can make up some of the difference with more targeted and interactive advertising solutions. I am not crying for them.

 

[cuseinchina]

That's what you key on? EDIT: Watching a lot of television can contribute to an inactive lifestyle. That is all i was implying.

I’m thinking within five years, sports enthusiast in Austin and Kanas City will be able to streaming four concurrent professional sports events on 84-100+ inch 4k televisions, with the ability to toggle, pull up real-time player stats, or whatever interactivity creative developers can think up, via their phone and/or tablet. The rest of us will then realized how hard we’ve been getting boned by the cable industry when we’re putting around on a 10MB connection. Just watch for the innovation that comes out of Austin/KC/Provo.

Correct.

And the incumbent cable operators will not simply cede these markets or google will keep on building out new markets. They will be forced to match price and bandwidth. Remember google doesn't need to do more than break-even on their investment in a fiber network -- they are just trying to force the hand of the cable companies because they believe they own the future interface to well everything. Once a few markets have this level of service it will be demanded by everyone and the threat of entry will force them to build it out everywhere.

 

[IthacaMatt]

YouTube just announced they are going to start charging for some channels. $1 a month. So I guess ala carte is already here.

http://gizmodo.com/youtube-channels-you-have-to-pay-for-are-here-498909473

I do know that I'm willing to pay a couple bucks a month for an ACC channel--and I don't care whether my cable company or YouTube delivers it to me.

That's definitely their business model - private broadcast networks. I called this back in 1995, but I was thinking more corporate sponsored web sites delivering content and not just entertainment. I still think some of YouTube's earlier commercial successes may be in that realm, like training videos for Adobe Photoshop, etc., or delivery of college lectures, etc. Stuff that people would specifically pay for that was not entertainment, per se, but was multimedia.

 

[IthacaMatt]

Forcing them to go ala carte will result in less revenue for cable companies because the price will be too much for people who only watch some channels a little.

But you're ignoring that it hurts viewers. You're not going to pay for all those channels you only watch once in a while. But all those seldom watched channels add up to something. Viewers lose too.

The ala carte argument assumes ignores all channels with a little bit of value to a person that is less than the profit maximizing price in an ala carte only world

in my example, i don't get to see milfs and my wife doesn't get to watch gymnastics ala carte.

like most of john mccain's dumb laws, this makes us all worse off

I understand what you're saying, and don't necessarily disagree, but they say the typical user only visits about 10 web sites regularly. It's probably similar but higher for TV, because you have multiple sources of live programming (mostly sports), and consumers have gotten used to that degree of choice if they're sports fans, and they've also gotten used to paying premium prices for premium content.

So that experience will probably slow down adoption for too-greedy pricing models. Same thing as has held back VOD.

Speaking of video on demand, I think Amazon has finally cracked it at a lower price point, plus a subscription model. Netflix has nowhere near the depth of content of Amazon Instant Video (let alone the 15,000 titles in their Amazon Primer service...). Rights holders have been too greedy and ignored elasticity of demand. Amazon is setting a new market, and will generate big numbers.

Entertainment is popcorn. $1 is the magic price point, or rather 99 cents. Steve Jobs proved that, billions and billions of songs later on iTunes, while CD sales cratered. It can't ALL be pirating, or else Apple wouldn't be making all those sales, either.

 

[IthacaMatt]

You act as though bundling is the natural state of affairs, when it really just an anachronistic business model based on bad technology. You are also pricing things based on the anachronism - e.g. what you are willing to pay for it based on the historical market.

But - the cost of delivering content has dropped dramatically. Extremely - but the cable companies have not passed along this price drop (mainly because they are slow moving and monopolistic) - but Google is probably making them all their pants. Your logic around bundling will be fine, but only after the massive price drop occurs. Until the price apocalypse hits - look to prices of other digital content for clues, these companies are going to hold on for dear life.

I could care less about McCain's legislation. The market will eventually take care of things.
I laugh because Scooch told me a few years ago that the ala cart world was a pipe dream. I am already off the grid for about half of my content. Would love to cut the cord fully. Hopefully soon.

I think the right price, btw - for a channel like ESPN will probably settle in at about $2-3 a month. Let's check back in about 7-8 years and find out. The smart distributors can make up some of the difference with more targeted and interactive advertising solutions. I am not crying for them.

I agree. Look at what Louis CK just did to the entire entertainment industry. He blew up the expectations of talent everywhere. Content owners can try to stick to old business models, but the talent never did so well under those models (gee surprise!). Technology won't completely eat itself. Profit will remain. But it will be less than it was before, just like in the telecomm industry.

 

[Bayside44]

That's what you key on? EDIT: Watching a lot of television can contribute to an inactive lifestyle. That is all i was implying.

I’m thinking within five years, sports enthusiast in Austin and Kanas City will be able to streaming four concurrent professional sports events on 84-100+ inch 4k televisions, with the ability to toggle, pull up real-time player stats, or whatever interactivity creative developers can think up, via their phone and/or tablet. The rest of us will then realized how hard we’ve been getting boned by the cable industry, when we’re putting around on a 10MB connection. Just watch for the innovation that comes out of Austin/KC/Provo.

Why the heck would anyone want to do that unless they are gambling on the events?

 

[Moontan]

My cable bill says otherwise.

But we all know that you're not free from the cord.

Just because you can get away with it doesn't mean that you should and it doesn't mean that it's right... neither legally nor morally.

I suspect your family has a bunch of digital music/media players that are filled with videos and music. Filled with content that you've (mostly) not paid for. I mean, why pay for any digital content if you can just "acquire" it?

 

[WickedOrange]

Why the heck would anyone want to do that unless they are gambling on the events?

That was my 30 second thought.

Let me give you a more compelling example of how I think google can enrich my sports viewing.

Google opens up their fiber tv platform to third party developers through APIs. Under Armour hires an agency (or an indy app developer builds it) to create an "instant analysis" app. The app is installed on a mobile device and the google TV platform.

Say I'm a big Alabama fan, but live in Austin and watch most of the games from home.

Alabama has a SUTomcat like fan. A fan that can provide incredible insights during the game. But with traditional cable he has to post on a message board or hammer out his insights on twitter during the game... not fun.

But if AlabamaTomcat has a mobile device, he could open the instant analysis app press one big button. The app would begin to record sound and video when pressed.

AlabamaTomcat rips 20-30 seconds of insightful points about what is happening through out the game. Each time he presses stop. The video is automatically uploaded to a server and transmitted to my google fiber platform television.

Once I reeve a video, a small picture in picture starts to automatically play (or I manually start it depending on my preference settings) the main picture volume goes silent and the AlabamaTomcat picture in picture plays with his on location, 20-30 sec insights. At the end of the pic-in-pic video, the pic in pic disappears and sound returns to the main screen.

That would be sweet and is very very feasible.

Now this app could be sponsored by under armor with a quick "under armor presents" at the start or it could be a service I pay say 50 cents for a game, with the app developer keeping half and AlabamaTomcat keeping the other.

Everybody wins.

http://www.al.com/alabamafootball/index.ssf/2012/09/alabama_upgrades_its_wireless.html

Yes I have a man crush AlabamaTomcat.

Disclaimer I'm assuming AlabamaTomcat does not have a face for radio like yours truly.

 

[OttosBestFriend]

...But - the cost of delivering content has dropped dramatically. Extremely - but the cable companies have not passed along this price drop (mainly because they are slow moving and monopolistic) - but Google is probably making them all their pants. Your logic around bundling will be fine, but only after the massive price drop occurs. Until the price apocalypse hits - look to prices of other digital content for clues, these companies are going to hold on for dear life.

Yes and no... If it's the actual transmission of the signal, then yes. But if we're talking about the cost of the content itself, then it's a RESOUNDING no.

Just 10-15 years ago, most if not all cable nets aired syndicated reruns and other content they were buying on the cheap. Think back to TBS in the 80's and 90's... It was all Giligan's Island, Brady Bunch, I Love Lucy, Bewitched, I Dream of Genie, Andy Griffith, Leave it to Beaver and other syndicated crap that they bought for pennies on the dollar.

That's what all the cable nets did - Cheap programming across the board.

Now, with the need to attract eyeballs and JUSTIFY the carriage fees, all the cable nets are broadcasting original content - LOTS of original content.

And that stuff aint cheap.

A typical hour-long reality show on Discovery, Bravo, Tru, A&E, TLC, and other similar nets costs anywhere from $300-450,000 PER EPISODE right off the bat. If the show becomes a hit, the cast can and always does demand pay raises - HUGE pay raises which often double the initial budget to over $600,000 per ep - with some hit shows topping $1 million per episode.

For example, the cast of "Here Comes Honey Boo Boo" TRIPLED their salaries to $20,000 per family member PER EPISODE immediately after the show became a smash hit.

On "Jersey Shore" the cast members made less than $1,000 each per episode during season 1 - meaning the show wasn't too expensive. In season 2, they each got a bump to $10,000 per - this probsably increase the episode budgets by %20-30. By season 5, their salaries were: Snooki: $150k, The Situation: $150k, Pauly: $150k, JWOWW $100k, Vinny $90k, Ronnie $80k, Sammi $80k, and Deena $40k - PER EPISODE.

Just today, the women on "Real Housewives of NY" demanded huge raises from Bravo or they'd quit. This happens all the time.

So yeah, the cable nets can bounce the signal around much more efficiently than in the good old days of cable and satellite's infancy, but it's not cheaper than back then.

I think the right price, btw - for a channel like ESPN will probably settle in at about $2-3 a month. Let's check back in about 7-8 years and find out. The smart distributors can make up some of the difference with more targeted and interactive advertising solutions. I am not crying for them.

ESPN will be back at $2-3 a month right around the time they go back to their late 1970's heritage and broadcast roller derby, ping pong, and overnight marathons of two guys playing catch in their back yard.

But if you think ESPN is gonna drop it's per subscriber fee AND keep showing MLB, NFL, NBA, NCAA Hoops, and NCAA Football - along with all the other top sporting events and studio shows they broadcast - you're insane.

ESPN will NEVER again be cheap.

And the providers know the must pay whatever ESPN demands because the first carrier that drops ESPN is gonna lose more than half their customer base to a competitor - overnight.

 

[WickedOrange]

But we all know that you're not free from the cord.

Just because you can get away with it doesn't mean that you should and it doesn't mean that it's right... neither legally nor morally.

I suspect your family has a bunch of digital music/media players that are filled with videos and music. Filled with content that you've (mostly) not paid for. I mean, why pay for any digital content if you can just "acquire" it?

Yes, I Napstered some music back in the day. I went from Napster to not buying music (or downloading). To buying DRM free music from Amazon. That was a very long musicless stretch. Now I hardly buy music and STREAM from Spotify.

Never got into torrenting video content.

I wish this was as black and white as you make it out to be. I just want WATCHESPN... the cable company wants to sell me a $100 a month package for cable that i do not want. Just so I can watch WatchESPN.

Seriously?

Next year I will make sure my brother and I do not run out of beer so can be a moral and law abiding citizen.

Just out of curiosity do you feel the cable industry is suppressing innovation?

 

[Millhouse]

You act as though bundling is the natural state of affairs, when it really just an anachronistic business model based on bad technology. You are also pricing things based on the anachronism - e.g. what you are willing to pay for it based on the historical market.

But - the cost of delivering content has dropped dramatically. Extremely - but the cable companies have not passed along this price drop (mainly because they are slow moving and monopolistic) - but Google is probably making them all their pants. Your logic around bundling will be fine, but only after the massive price drop occurs. Until the price apocalypse hits - look to prices of other digital content for clues, these companies are going to hold on for dear life.

I could care less about McCain's legislation. The market will eventually take care of things.
I laugh because Scooch told me a few years ago that the ala cart world was a pipe dream. I am already off the grid for about half of my content. Would love to cut the cord fully. Hopefully soon.

I think the right price, btw - for a channel like ESPN will probably settle in at about $2-3 a month. Let's check back in about 7-8 years and find out. The smart distributors can make up some of the difference with more targeted and interactive advertising solutions. I am not crying for them.

ala carte channels bundle programs, why is that ok?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[Moontan]

Just out of curiosity do you feel the cable industry is suppressing innovation?

No, I don't.

The current video provider model & industry has some issues to address. Failure to do so could turn them in to dinosaurs.

However, just because they're not as innovative as you'd like to see, doesn't mean that others can't fill that void.

As I've mentioned many times, I'm still surprised that the utility companies haven't partnered with other aggregators and content providers to bring other options to the market. Why utility companies, you may ask? It's simple. The utility companies already have right of way access to the addresses that they service.

If alternative content distribution models & methods are successful and popular, then current exclusive distribution rights (e.g. DirecTV's Sunday Ticket) may start to become a thing of the past.

 

[TheCusian]

quick and dirty bundling

Mr Millhouse loves ESPN but watches Bravo occasionally for milfs in hot tubs. Mrs Millhouse loves Bravo but occasionally watches gymnastics.

Ala carte world, Bravo is better off with only Mrs Millhouse paying what she thinks bravo is worth.

Same for espn

Here a bundle gives Mr Millhouse and Mrs Millhouse programming worth more than what they paid for it and the cable company makes more.

Win win.

Simple example but the principle is the same with hundreds of channels and millions of customers, it's just the math is way harder.

Worth
Mr Millhouse ESPN $10
Mr Millhouse Bravo $4
Mrs Millhouse ESPN $3
Mrs Millhouse Bravo $10

Bundle cost $12
Cable makes $24.
Mr Millhouse gets $14 for $12
Mrs Millhouse gets $13 for $12

Ala carte
Both channels cost $10.
Mr Millhouse gets espn worth $10 to him for $10
Mrs Millhouse gets bravo worth $10 to her for $10. No surplus
Cable makes $20

forcing ala carte destroys value. viewers lose $3 of value to them, cable loses $4 of revenue

Bundle is best option for everyone

This assumes families want more than one channel. We are at the point where Mrs Millhouse uses Netflix and puts pressure on Mr Millhouse to ditch the giant cable bill when the only thing Mr Millhouse is watching is ESPN and MSG.

-

If I could buy just ESPN bundle and MSG, we would in a heartbeat.

 

[KaiserUEO]

all of that is so freakin highly ANNOYING.

i work to not be annoyed at home.

im paying for it all.

stupid arse shlit.

what the fluck would i do with an extra $100 a month anywho.

give me a la carte when ive tried the food, if i havnt tried the food...how the would i know if i will enjoy it.

good luck to all of you listening to critics tell you what to watch. im gonna buy it all and enjoy myself.

Oh Lord

 

[TampaLaker]

They prefer to be exploited by a monopoly.

You, of course, chose to ignore the point...

 

[Bayside44]

That was my 30 second thought.

Let me give you a more compelling example of how I think google can enrich my sports viewing.

Google opens up their fiber tv platform to third party developers through APIs. Under Armour hires an agency (or an indy app developer builds it) to create an "instant analysis" app. The app is installed on a mobile device and the google TV platform.

Say I'm a big Alabama fan, but live in Austin and watch most of the games from home.

Alabama has a SUTomcat like fan. A fan that can provide incredible insights during the game. But with traditional cable he has to post on a message board or hammer out his insights on twitter during the game... not fun.

But if AlabamaTomcat has a mobile device, he could open the instant analysis app press one big button. The app would begin to record sound and video when pressed.

AlabamaTomcat rips 20-30 seconds of insightful points about what is happening through out the game. Each time he presses stop. The video is automatically uploaded to a server and transmitted to my google fiber platform television.

Once I reeve a video, a small picture in picture starts to automatically play (or I manually start it depending on my preference settings) the main picture volume goes silent and the AlabamaTomcat picture in picture plays with his on location, 20-30 sec insights. At the end of the pic-in-pic video, the pic in pic disappears and sound returns to the main screen.

That would be sweet and is very very feasible.

Now this app could be sponsored by under armor with a quick "under armor presents" at the start or it could be a service I pay say 50 cents for a game, with the app developer keeping half and AlabamaTomcat keeping the other.

Everybody wins.

http://www.al.com/alabamafootball/index.ssf/2012/09/alabama_upgrades_its_wireless.html

Yes I have a man crush AlabamaTomcat.

Disclaimer I'm assuming AlabamaTomcat does not have a face for radio like yours truly.

OK - but who outside the totally fanatical would do that? Heck, I mod here and I find the chat too distracting while watching a game.

But I am in the flat fee - access to everything camp.

 

[cuseinchina]

Yes and no... If it's the actual transmission of the signal, then yes. But if we're talking about the cost of the content itself, then it's a RESOUNDING no.

Just 10-15 years ago, most if not all cable nets aired syndicated reruns and other content they were buying on the cheap. Think back to TBS in the 80's and 90's... It was all Giligan's Island, Brady Bunch, I Love Lucy, Bewitched, I Dream of Genie, Andy Griffith, Leave it to Beaver and other syndicated crap that they bought for pennies on the dollar.

That's what all the cable nets did - Cheap programming across the board.

Now, with the need to attract eyeballs and JUSTIFY the carriage fees, all the cable nets are broadcasting original content - LOTS of original content.

And that stuff aint cheap.

A typical hour-long reality show on Discovery, Bravo, Tru, A&E, TLC, and other similar nets costs anywhere from $300-450,000 PER EPISODE right off the bat. If the show becomes a hit, the cast can and always does demand pay raises - HUGE pay raises which often double the initial budget to over $600,000 per ep - with some hit shows topping $1 million per episode.

For example, the cast of "Here Comes Honey Boo Boo" TRIPLED their salaries to $20,000 per family member PER EPISODE immediately after the show became a smash hit.

On "Jersey Shore" the cast members made less than $1,000 each per episode during season 1 - meaning the show wasn't too expensive. In season 2, they each got a bump to $10,000 per - this probsably increase the episode budgets by %20-30. By season 5, their salaries were: Snooki: $150k, The Situation: $150k, Pauly: $150k, JWOWW $100k, Vinny $90k, Ronnie $80k, Sammi $80k, and Deena $40k - PER EPISODE.

Just today, the women on "Real Housewives of NY" demanded huge raises from Bravo or they'd quit. This happens all the time.

So yeah, the cable nets can bounce the signal around much more efficiently than in the good old days of cable and satellite's infancy, but it's not cheaper than back then.



ESPN will be back at $2-3 a month right around the time they go back to their late 1970's heritage and broadcast roller derby, ping pong, and overnight marathons of two guys playing catch in their back yard.

But if you think ESPN is gonna drop it's per subscriber fee AND keep showing MLB, NFL, NBA, NCAA Hoops, and NCAA Football - along with all the other top sporting events and studio shows they broadcast - you're insane.

ESPN will NEVER again be cheap.

And the providers know the must pay whatever ESPN demands because the first carrier that drops ESPN is gonna lose more than half their customer base to a competitor - overnight.

Correct - content is king and you will continue to pay for it - it's just that the profit margin will accrue to the content providers and not longer to the cable providers who will see a big decline in their monopoly profits. Why do you think the cable companies are acquiring content companies every chance they get - even though cable ceos are ill suited to running media companies? This is very good for a prospective ACC network if it's done to maximize it's digital presence and value.

 

[Millhouse]

This assumes families want more than one channel. We are at the point where Mrs Millhouse uses Netflix and puts pressure on Mr Millhouse to ditch the giant cable bill when the only thing Mr Millhouse is watching is ESPN and MSG.

-

If I could buy just ESPN bundle and MSG, we would in a heartbeat.

i don't know how many times I can say this but of course netflix is a competitor to cable and the market for cable can shrink

but that still has nothing to do with how cable companies sell their product. even if cable were not as popular, that still wouldn't change the economics of bundling. it would just mean they have fewer subscribers.

and yes, i do assume that families watch more than one channel.

 

[Millhouse]

all of that is so freakin highly ANNOYING.

i work to not be annoyed at home.

im paying for it all.

stupid arse shlit.

what the fluck would i do with an extra $100 a month anywho.

give me a la carte when ive tried the food, if i havnt tried the food...how the would i know if i will enjoy it.

good luck to all of you listening to critics tell you what to watch. im gonna buy it all and enjoy myself.

Oh Lord

when i want to drink beer and watch a baseball game, i don't want to think about it. hmm ok this game is on fox. that means i need to daisy chain my slingbox through my atari 400 through the composite cables oh the game is on YES... that means i have to route my etch a sketch through clownpenis.fart and stream it to my watchman through my projector. it's on tbs? since when? goddamnit, now i need to go to hulu interfaced through the bufu to my phone

 

[cuseinchina]

all of that is so freakin highly ANNOYING.

i work to not be annoyed at home.

im paying for it all.

stupid arse shlit.

what the fluck would i do with an extra $100 a month anywho.

give me a la carte when ive tried the food, if i havnt tried the food...how the would i know if i will enjoy it.

good luck to all of you listening to critics tell you what to watch. im gonna buy it all and enjoy myself.

Oh Lord

You will still be able to pay for it all, you may be paying someone other than the cable company or maybe not, but in either case the profit will accrue to the content providers rather than the cable company. This will not be complex - your internet connected TV will do the work for you.

I think you are in one camp, the camp that likes things how they are and wants to continue interacting with media the way you always have. and to a certain extent you will be able to do so. But there are people like me who would only pay for access to BBC News, PBS, ESPN, ACC network, CNBC, and maybe HBO. My entertainment budget expenditure will get smaller and those networks will make more money than they do under the current system because the cable company isn't holding them hostage and they will be able to do much more targeted advertising because they will be interacting with me directly and in a ways that are impossbile via the traditional one-way cable pipe. You will be able to buy your bundle from a content aggregator which may or may not be the cable company, it could very well be whoever supplies the interface (google, apple).

 

[Lou_C]

Yes and no... If it's the actual transmission of the signal, then yes. But if we're talking about the cost of the content itself, then it's a RESOUNDING no.

Just 10-15 years ago, most if not all cable nets aired syndicated reruns and other content they were buying on the cheap. Think back to TBS in the 80's and 90's... It was all Giligan's Island, Brady Bunch, I Love Lucy, Bewitched, I Dream of Genie, Andy Griffith, Leave it to Beaver and other syndicated crap that they bought for pennies on the dollar.

That's what all the cable nets did - Cheap programming across the board.

Now, with the need to attract eyeballs and JUSTIFY the carriage fees, all the cable nets are broadcasting original content - LOTS of original content.

And that stuff aint cheap.

A typical hour-long reality show on Discovery, Bravo, Tru, A&E, TLC, and other similar nets costs anywhere from $300-450,000 PER EPISODE right off the bat. If the show becomes a hit, the cast can and always does demand pay raises - HUGE pay raises which often double the initial budget to over $600,000 per ep - with some hit shows topping $1 million per episode.

For example, the cast of "Here Comes Honey Boo Boo" TRIPLED their salaries to $20,000 per family member PER EPISODE immediately after the show became a smash hit.

On "Jersey Shore" the cast members made less than $1,000 each per episode during season 1 - meaning the show wasn't too expensive. In season 2, they each got a bump to $10,000 per - this probsably increase the episode budgets by %20-30. By season 5, their salaries were: Snooki: $150k, The Situation: $150k, Pauly: $150k, JWOWW $100k, Vinny $90k, Ronnie $80k, Sammi $80k, and Deena $40k - PER EPISODE.

Just today, the women on "Real Housewives of NY" demanded huge raises from Bravo or they'd quit. This happens all the time.

So yeah, the cable nets can bounce the signal around much more efficiently than in the good old days of cable and satellite's infancy, but it's not cheaper than back then.



ESPN will be back at $2-3 a month right around the time they go back to their late 1970's heritage and broadcast roller derby, ping pong, and overnight marathons of two guys playing catch in their back yard.

But if you think ESPN is gonna drop it's per subscriber fee AND keep showing MLB, NFL, NBA, NCAA Hoops, and NCAA Football - along with all the other top sporting events and studio shows they broadcast - you're insane.

ESPN will NEVER again be cheap.

And the providers know the must pay whatever ESPN demands because the first carrier that drops ESPN is gonna lose more than half their customer base to a competitor - overnight.

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. The idea of ESPN being $2-3 a month is ludicrous.

You hit the nail on the head. You can't compare cable prices to yesteryear without comparing the content, from the NFL, NBA, pro wrestling to Mad Men, The Sopranos, The Shield, Breaking Bad to as you said, Jersey Shore and it's ilk.

Viewership goes away from networks to cable every single year. There's a simple solution to people with high cable bills...cut the cord. This is not like increases in electricity or water or even broadband. People want cable programming more than ever before, but don't want to pay more than they ever have before.

A la carte, whether delivered by cable or internet or wireless broadband, will benefit those people who watch one or two very popular channels ONLY, just like paying by the episode works if you like just one or two shows. You can get most cable shows on Amazon for $2 an episode. Makes sense if you ONLY watch Mad Men. But how many families watch less than 10 shows between them? That's $80 right there, cable bill territory.

There's no doubt it will work great for some (I'm one of them), but the majority will not like what it looks like.

 

[Scooch]

I laugh because Scooch told me a few years ago that the ala cart world was a pipe dream.

I never told you that, and I've corrected you on it at least 3 other times.

So stop already.

 

[Phillymoose]

I never told you that, and I've corrected you on it at least 3 other times.

So stop already.

If I remember correctly it was something along the lines of (and I won't use quotes because I do not remember the wording exactly...)

----if you think you are just going to punch up an Internet address and get access to any broadcast content you want, then you can (I've got a bridge to sell .. or maybe it was land in Florida..)

This is how I remember it - and I certainly do not ever remember you disclaiming it before now (an certainly not 3 times). If you want to say it never happened - or that you don't believe it fine - I will pick on some other supposed media guru to pick on.