MTV Hits and Nick Too for $.01
March 8, 2010 6:42 AM Subscribe
What the cable company pays for the channels you don't watch. A chart of the subscriber fees for basic and digital cable. ESPN laps the field at over $4.00 per subscriber, MTV Hits ("MTV Classic") and Nick Too (west coast Nick) come in at $.01.
HDNet must have gotten a sweet deal when they were the only HD content available. Nowadays it's pretty much random junk.
posted by smackfu at 6:47 AM on March 8, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by smackfu at 6:47 AM on March 8, 2010 [1 favorite]
I'm a lot less upset at the cable TV pricing model now that I've cancelled cable, and hooked up a MythTV box to record over-the-air HD for the broadcast networks. Oh, and torrents.
There was some decent stuff on cable. But almost $100 a month? Laughable.
posted by mcstayinskool at 6:48 AM on March 8, 2010 [4 favorites]
There was some decent stuff on cable. But almost $100 a month? Laughable.
posted by mcstayinskool at 6:48 AM on March 8, 2010 [4 favorites]
Take this data with a spoonful of salt. These rates are negotiated privately over and over between the content providers and distributors, one on one. There is a HUGE amount of dealing that goes on here, for example with discounting one providers network in favor of another, with package deals (again, at the wholesale level), and so forth. And this packaging is effectively how new networks gains traction.
But ESPN and sports in general do indeed get the big bucks. Why do you think TNT and TBS have paid so much for sports rights in the past decade?
posted by intermod at 6:49 AM on March 8, 2010 [1 favorite]
But ESPN and sports in general do indeed get the big bucks. Why do you think TNT and TBS have paid so much for sports rights in the past decade?
posted by intermod at 6:49 AM on March 8, 2010 [1 favorite]
Who cares about the channels? Basic cable is what you buy to get them to turn Internet service on so you can download the torrents. You can go without the TV portion, but then they tack on an "Internet-only service fee" that just so happens to be exactly as much as basic cable would have been.
posted by majick at 6:49 AM on March 8, 2010 [3 favorites]
posted by majick at 6:49 AM on March 8, 2010 [3 favorites]
You know, I would love for them to have a sort of "a la carte" option for cable -- invariably I only watch one out of a whole block of channels I'd have to sign up for (those of you about to recommend the online option -- BBC doesn't let people outside the UK stream its video.)
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:54 AM on March 8, 2010 [4 favorites]
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:54 AM on March 8, 2010 [4 favorites]
Telecommunications is a key area where consumer cost is only tenuously connected with supply cost. For cable TV and cell phone especially. I would love to remove the sports channels from my lineup if I could save 40% of my bill, but I don't have the option.
posted by demiurge at 6:55 AM on March 8, 2010 [4 favorites]
posted by demiurge at 6:55 AM on March 8, 2010 [4 favorites]
I dunno what Wealth TV is but I guess I shouldn't be surprised that it's relatively expensive.
posted by ghharr at 6:55 AM on March 8, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by ghharr at 6:55 AM on March 8, 2010 [1 favorite]
$0.05/subscriber for C-SPAN? I thought it was a "public service of our cable companies."
posted by l33tpolicywonk at 6:59 AM on March 8, 2010 [2 favorites]
posted by l33tpolicywonk at 6:59 AM on March 8, 2010 [2 favorites]
A la carte pricing sounds great in theory, but the per-channel cost would shoot up so I doubt it would make it cheaper for the consumer unless you only buy a couple of channels. And if you want a wide variety of channels the price would be astronomical.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 7:03 AM on March 8, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 7:03 AM on March 8, 2010 [1 favorite]
I'd like to get cable again, but it's just too damn expensive for a list of channels that are 95% crap. Here's hoping that Hulu, Apple TV and other workarounds force cable companies to offer a la carte programming.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 7:04 AM on March 8, 2010
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 7:04 AM on March 8, 2010
Here is a discussion of that.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 7:04 AM on March 8, 2010
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 7:04 AM on March 8, 2010
And if you want a wide variety of channels the price would be astronomical.
Good.
For things like insurance and roads and education, it's great that we all share the costs because we all benefit. Even if I personally don't have any kids, the society I live in is better when everyone else is well-educated.
But why should I share the cost of your television addiction? What earthly good is it to me that you can't tear yourself away from your 135 channels that I should subsidize that cost?
posted by DU at 7:06 AM on March 8, 2010 [13 favorites]
Good.
For things like insurance and roads and education, it's great that we all share the costs because we all benefit. Even if I personally don't have any kids, the society I live in is better when everyone else is well-educated.
But why should I share the cost of your television addiction? What earthly good is it to me that you can't tear yourself away from your 135 channels that I should subsidize that cost?
posted by DU at 7:06 AM on March 8, 2010 [13 favorites]
A la carte pricing sounds great in theory, but the per-channel cost would shoot up so I doubt it would make it cheaper for the consumer unless you only buy a couple of channels. And if you want a wide variety of channels the price would be astronomical.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 10:03 AM on March 8
The ship has sailed on a la carte pricing. Why would I pay for HBO if I only want to watch the Sopranos? Why should I pay for AMC if I only want Mad Men.
Forget paying for even the very few channels I would watch. I only want to pay for the programming I watch. Or I wait a year for the show to hit DVD, and I watch it through netflix.
posted by Pastabagel at 7:07 AM on March 8, 2010 [5 favorites]
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 10:03 AM on March 8
The ship has sailed on a la carte pricing. Why would I pay for HBO if I only want to watch the Sopranos? Why should I pay for AMC if I only want Mad Men.
Forget paying for even the very few channels I would watch. I only want to pay for the programming I watch. Or I wait a year for the show to hit DVD, and I watch it through netflix.
posted by Pastabagel at 7:07 AM on March 8, 2010 [5 favorites]
I interned with the FCC's International Bureau a few summers ago. One of my projects was to research other country's a la carte cable offerings, as a la carte cable was a pet project of the then-Commissioner, Kevin Martin.
The biggest market for a la carte cable is actually Singapore. There are two main cable operators, each of which has their own version of what "a la carte" means. Most people think of it as unbundling channels from each other, but it can also mean unbundling monthly packages into daily packages.
One operator offers a truly a la carte option, where you pay a monthly fee for each channel. This is what most people have in mind when they talk about a la carte cable. The catch? Most of the channels were a couple of bucks each, particularly the sports ones, which could easily run $7-9/month. So if you wanted to watch more than a handful of channels, going with their traditional package was cheaper.
The other operator offers a sort of "make your own package" option, where cables are bundled into groups of three or four channels. The base fee includes something like three of five groups. Extra groups cost more, and certain groups, particularly sports, cost a lot more. The catch here? You're only paying for three days at a time. So the basic package gets you over a dozen channels, and is really cheap, but it only lasts for 48 hours. If you want to watch cable more than on the weekends, going with their traditional package was cheaper.
The conclusion I passed on to my superiors is that in other markets, the only way a la carte cable pricing makes any sense at all is if you don't watch all that much TV. If you really only do watch one or two channels, or you only turn the TV on three or four times a month, a la carte cable would at least let you break even. But to save more than a buck or two, you need to either watch only one or two channels, or only one or two days a month.
Why is this? Well, TV programming is expensive, and as cable operators are not able to charge the same sort of ad fees as networks are, they've got to use subscription fees to raise revenues. If the number of people paying for their services goes way down, the fees they need to charge their remaining customers goes way up. So yeah, maybe you're pissed that you're paying for your sports channels when all you really want to watch is AMC and the Food Network, but all those sports fans and rerun aficianados are paying for stuff they don't want to watch either. The choice you have is not between paying lots for everything and a little for the stuff you want, it's a choice between paying lots for everything or lots for the stuff that you want.
posted by valkyryn at 7:11 AM on March 8, 2010 [31 favorites]
The biggest market for a la carte cable is actually Singapore. There are two main cable operators, each of which has their own version of what "a la carte" means. Most people think of it as unbundling channels from each other, but it can also mean unbundling monthly packages into daily packages.
One operator offers a truly a la carte option, where you pay a monthly fee for each channel. This is what most people have in mind when they talk about a la carte cable. The catch? Most of the channels were a couple of bucks each, particularly the sports ones, which could easily run $7-9/month. So if you wanted to watch more than a handful of channels, going with their traditional package was cheaper.
The other operator offers a sort of "make your own package" option, where cables are bundled into groups of three or four channels. The base fee includes something like three of five groups. Extra groups cost more, and certain groups, particularly sports, cost a lot more. The catch here? You're only paying for three days at a time. So the basic package gets you over a dozen channels, and is really cheap, but it only lasts for 48 hours. If you want to watch cable more than on the weekends, going with their traditional package was cheaper.
The conclusion I passed on to my superiors is that in other markets, the only way a la carte cable pricing makes any sense at all is if you don't watch all that much TV. If you really only do watch one or two channels, or you only turn the TV on three or four times a month, a la carte cable would at least let you break even. But to save more than a buck or two, you need to either watch only one or two channels, or only one or two days a month.
Why is this? Well, TV programming is expensive, and as cable operators are not able to charge the same sort of ad fees as networks are, they've got to use subscription fees to raise revenues. If the number of people paying for their services goes way down, the fees they need to charge their remaining customers goes way up. So yeah, maybe you're pissed that you're paying for your sports channels when all you really want to watch is AMC and the Food Network, but all those sports fans and rerun aficianados are paying for stuff they don't want to watch either. The choice you have is not between paying lots for everything and a little for the stuff you want, it's a choice between paying lots for everything or lots for the stuff that you want.
posted by valkyryn at 7:11 AM on March 8, 2010 [31 favorites]
I'd like to get cable again, but it's just too damn expensive for a list of channels that are 95% crap.
True... looking at the continuously-inflating astronomical rates (DirecTV's basic lineup of mostly-garbage is $59!) I seriously doubt we'll ever be going back to cable or satellite. Even my kid lost all interest in TV programming last year once he outgrew Noggin, and DVDs have become his preferred source of lazy day entertainment.
posted by crapmatic at 7:17 AM on March 8, 2010
True... looking at the continuously-inflating astronomical rates (DirecTV's basic lineup of mostly-garbage is $59!) I seriously doubt we'll ever be going back to cable or satellite. Even my kid lost all interest in TV programming last year once he outgrew Noggin, and DVDs have become his preferred source of lazy day entertainment.
posted by crapmatic at 7:17 AM on March 8, 2010
The thing I hate about cable pricing is what majick basically already said.
I can't separate cable internet from cable television without paying a ridiculous "internet only" fee that bumps the price up to a bit more than what an internet/basic tv package costs.
I don't even watch television. I would **love** to be able to just pay a small fee for internet service.
The only alternatives here are DSL or U-Verse. With DSL, they do the same thing by requiring you to have a land line... and I don't have a land line, would not use a land line, and am happy just paying for one phone (my cell phone), thank you very much.
With U-Verse...again...I can't un-bundle internet.
Come on -- when will companies just offer internet for non-tv addicts? I know the counter-argument here is that I don't need the internet, either...but I actually do. I work largely in the online world.
posted by kaseijin at 7:23 AM on March 8, 2010 [3 favorites]
I can't separate cable internet from cable television without paying a ridiculous "internet only" fee that bumps the price up to a bit more than what an internet/basic tv package costs.
I don't even watch television. I would **love** to be able to just pay a small fee for internet service.
The only alternatives here are DSL or U-Verse. With DSL, they do the same thing by requiring you to have a land line... and I don't have a land line, would not use a land line, and am happy just paying for one phone (my cell phone), thank you very much.
With U-Verse...again...I can't un-bundle internet.
Come on -- when will companies just offer internet for non-tv addicts? I know the counter-argument here is that I don't need the internet, either...but I actually do. I work largely in the online world.
posted by kaseijin at 7:23 AM on March 8, 2010 [3 favorites]
You know, I would love for them to have a sort of "a la carte" option for cable
I used to work in the industry, so I know their rationale for why it's not feasible (as of eight or so years ago):
cable marketing relies on making consumers aware of the sheer numbers of channels that are available. If those consumers could pick and choose, some (many) niche channels would cease to exist. No one I know would pay specifically for Boston Catholic Television for example, certainly not enough to keep it going. But a few people subscribe to cable specifically for channels like that. So ala carte would lead to fewer channels (even if they're shit it sounds less impressive to say "20 channels" than "120 channels") and fewer subscribers as a result of the death of niche channels. (Niche channels are worse for being clutter than expense because they hardly add anything to the cost of cable, like a cent or two)
Some cable companies have tried to compromise with "tiers", where basic cable includes the broadcast channels, the niche channels and the broad-appeal basic channels (like TBS and other stations that basically show re-runs of sitcoms and syndicated crap), and have a "sports tier" or a "home and garden tier" or whatever for a few extra dollars per month. This leads to mouth-breathers getting indignant-- "why I gotta pay extra for ESPN?!" because they don' realize that they're paying for it no matter what. It also irritates the content providers because they all want their product to be in as many homes as possible. I think the major cable content providers have deals with the cable companies that they can't do tiers anymore anyway.
Also, don't forget that many people are pretty dumb and like the thought of having 130 channels because it suggests freedom of choice even if they would never voluntarily watch 90% of them.
The end result is that you, the sensible consumer, can go suck an egg.
posted by Mayor Curley at 7:26 AM on March 8, 2010 [8 favorites]
I used to work in the industry, so I know their rationale for why it's not feasible (as of eight or so years ago):
cable marketing relies on making consumers aware of the sheer numbers of channels that are available. If those consumers could pick and choose, some (many) niche channels would cease to exist. No one I know would pay specifically for Boston Catholic Television for example, certainly not enough to keep it going. But a few people subscribe to cable specifically for channels like that. So ala carte would lead to fewer channels (even if they're shit it sounds less impressive to say "20 channels" than "120 channels") and fewer subscribers as a result of the death of niche channels. (Niche channels are worse for being clutter than expense because they hardly add anything to the cost of cable, like a cent or two)
Some cable companies have tried to compromise with "tiers", where basic cable includes the broadcast channels, the niche channels and the broad-appeal basic channels (like TBS and other stations that basically show re-runs of sitcoms and syndicated crap), and have a "sports tier" or a "home and garden tier" or whatever for a few extra dollars per month. This leads to mouth-breathers getting indignant-- "why I gotta pay extra for ESPN?!" because they don' realize that they're paying for it no matter what. It also irritates the content providers because they all want their product to be in as many homes as possible. I think the major cable content providers have deals with the cable companies that they can't do tiers anymore anyway.
Also, don't forget that many people are pretty dumb and like the thought of having 130 channels because it suggests freedom of choice even if they would never voluntarily watch 90% of them.
The end result is that you, the sensible consumer, can go suck an egg.
posted by Mayor Curley at 7:26 AM on March 8, 2010 [8 favorites]
I suppose Clear is an option for unbundled internet. It's 1 Mbps slower than my cable access...but it's less than half the price since I don't have to get all those stupid cable channels.
Anybody have any experience with Clear?
posted by kaseijin at 7:31 AM on March 8, 2010
Anybody have any experience with Clear?
posted by kaseijin at 7:31 AM on March 8, 2010
Wow, an "internet only" fee? Really? Ultimately, this is the fault of regulators who are unwilling to admit that "one cable service" + "one satellite service" + "one fiberoptic service" per market is not enough competition to prevent jackassery.
We signed up for U-Verse solely to watch the Olympics this year. The few days between the end of the Olympics and the discontinuation of service reminded me why we cancelled Time Warner over a year ago - there's simply nothing on.
It one benefit from cable TV service was that we were exposed to shows that weren't getting a lot of coverage in our social networks (like Mantracker). But by an large these shows fell into the category of "Nice to watch if there's nothing else on, but not something I'd choose to fill an evening with".
posted by muddgirl at 7:33 AM on March 8, 2010 [1 favorite]
We signed up for U-Verse solely to watch the Olympics this year. The few days between the end of the Olympics and the discontinuation of service reminded me why we cancelled Time Warner over a year ago - there's simply nothing on.
It one benefit from cable TV service was that we were exposed to shows that weren't getting a lot of coverage in our social networks (like Mantracker). But by an large these shows fell into the category of "Nice to watch if there's nothing else on, but not something I'd choose to fill an evening with".
posted by muddgirl at 7:33 AM on March 8, 2010 [1 favorite]
Most of the channels were a couple of bucks each, particularly the sports ones, which could easily run $7-9/month. So if you wanted to watch more than a handful of channels, going with their traditional package was cheaper.
You are only making me more excited for a la carte. A financial incentive to get people to watch less TV? I'm there!
posted by DU at 7:36 AM on March 8, 2010
You are only making me more excited for a la carte. A financial incentive to get people to watch less TV? I'm there!
posted by DU at 7:36 AM on March 8, 2010
Judging from the reaction of my kids (ranging in age from 5 to 17) when I cancelled TV basic last year, you'd think the dog died. Since then however, they've developed other interests, and the shows that for us are still "appointment television" are readily available on Hulu, Fancast or other on-line sources.
While I recognize that all us subscribers are subsidizing fees and infrastructure costs for all other subscribers, I also recognize that the media companies are for-profit organizations that are required to maximize profits to the benefit of it's shareholders. That's good for them, but bad for us.I don't believe that the prices they are charging, bundled or unbundled are sustainable; I think they've killed the goose that's been laying their golden eggs.
posted by spacely_sprocket at 7:38 AM on March 8, 2010 [1 favorite]
While I recognize that all us subscribers are subsidizing fees and infrastructure costs for all other subscribers, I also recognize that the media companies are for-profit organizations that are required to maximize profits to the benefit of it's shareholders. That's good for them, but bad for us.I don't believe that the prices they are charging, bundled or unbundled are sustainable; I think they've killed the goose that's been laying their golden eggs.
posted by spacely_sprocket at 7:38 AM on March 8, 2010 [1 favorite]
DU, your curmudgeonliness is duly noted, but that's just not going to happen. I don't pay for TV. But if I did, I can't think of a reason why I would want to pay the same price for fewer channels, even if I didn't watch them.
posted by valkyryn at 7:39 AM on March 8, 2010
posted by valkyryn at 7:39 AM on March 8, 2010
"I doubt it would make it cheaper for the consumer unless you only buy a couple of channels."
I'd be happy with CNN, Fox News (yes, publicly admitting I watch this. I like to see how people who don't share my opinions think), MSNBC, and the Sci-Fi Channel. It ABC, CBS, and NBC were cheap enough I'd throw them in too. But since I can't do it this way, I don't have any. I watch these channels at my girlfriend's, but I no longer have cable. I decided to take the same monthly payment and put it in a "media fund." I found this fund didn't need funded at the same rate at all for me to keep watching the shows I want. It's way cheaper to buy the DVD sets a year after they are out. Sure, I can't talk Dexter at the water cooler, and I often accidentally find out about the endings of a season before hand, but I got to watch all 5 seasons of the Wire at my own pace without having to shake like Bubbles between episodes.
"I only want to pay for the programming I watch. Or I wait a year for the show to hit DVD, and I watch it through netflix."
Yep, and if the networks ever get smart they will allow iTunes to create disposable downloads of TV shows. I will never pay $2 an episode for a week old episode of Lost, but I'd gladly pay $0.50 for a "rental" as long as I got to watch it the same night as the broadcast. I don't rewatch TV much, so "owning" the show is dumb (I put that in quotes because I don't actually own it it I can't resell it).
I often buy DVD sets. Watch them. Them resell them on Amazon. Try doing that with your iTunes TV shows. If the networks are making more than $0.50 an episode off each viewer, or if the overhead for this is higher than I am aware of (bandwidth, etc.) then they should keep the $2 price point. Otherwise, treat them like they do movie rentals and I would watch a heck of a lot more current TV.
But this is why I am currently in season 3 of "Supernatural" and season 1 of "Jeremiah."
posted by cjorgensen at 7:41 AM on March 8, 2010
I'd be happy with CNN, Fox News (yes, publicly admitting I watch this. I like to see how people who don't share my opinions think), MSNBC, and the Sci-Fi Channel. It ABC, CBS, and NBC were cheap enough I'd throw them in too. But since I can't do it this way, I don't have any. I watch these channels at my girlfriend's, but I no longer have cable. I decided to take the same monthly payment and put it in a "media fund." I found this fund didn't need funded at the same rate at all for me to keep watching the shows I want. It's way cheaper to buy the DVD sets a year after they are out. Sure, I can't talk Dexter at the water cooler, and I often accidentally find out about the endings of a season before hand, but I got to watch all 5 seasons of the Wire at my own pace without having to shake like Bubbles between episodes.
"I only want to pay for the programming I watch. Or I wait a year for the show to hit DVD, and I watch it through netflix."
Yep, and if the networks ever get smart they will allow iTunes to create disposable downloads of TV shows. I will never pay $2 an episode for a week old episode of Lost, but I'd gladly pay $0.50 for a "rental" as long as I got to watch it the same night as the broadcast. I don't rewatch TV much, so "owning" the show is dumb (I put that in quotes because I don't actually own it it I can't resell it).
I often buy DVD sets. Watch them. Them resell them on Amazon. Try doing that with your iTunes TV shows. If the networks are making more than $0.50 an episode off each viewer, or if the overhead for this is higher than I am aware of (bandwidth, etc.) then they should keep the $2 price point. Otherwise, treat them like they do movie rentals and I would watch a heck of a lot more current TV.
But this is why I am currently in season 3 of "Supernatural" and season 1 of "Jeremiah."
posted by cjorgensen at 7:41 AM on March 8, 2010
The end result is that you, the sensible consumer, can go suck an egg.
Oh, I think most consumers have been made to suck eggs for decades now, no worries there.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 7:43 AM on March 8, 2010
Oh, I think most consumers have been made to suck eggs for decades now, no worries there.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 7:43 AM on March 8, 2010
I want local+sports and that's all. Wake me up when I can pay $15/mo for that.
posted by jckll at 7:45 AM on March 8, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by jckll at 7:45 AM on March 8, 2010 [1 favorite]
For those saying that niche channels would die out, if there isn't a base of customers who is either 1) watching the channel or 2) willing to pay for that channel, then maybe those networks should die out. I'm all for subsidized programming (in the BBC vein), but what if I actively do not want to support Boston Catholic Television? Is it a coincidence that HBO and Showtime or the two most well known networks directly paid for by consumers, and they routinely produce some of the best material on television?
posted by haveanicesummer at 7:46 AM on March 8, 2010
posted by haveanicesummer at 7:46 AM on March 8, 2010
Time warner in austin gives you just cable. I think it's like 50 bucks, but all their bundles are way more expensive. I was paying 136 for cable internet and phone, which was $10 cheaper than the cable/internet only package, but i cancelled it.
posted by djduckie at 7:47 AM on March 8, 2010
posted by djduckie at 7:47 AM on March 8, 2010
I remarked during the Olympics how the only reason I really want cable is for live sports; I can download the three shows I follow and get recommendations on new shows from friends after they've passed the test with others. There's no good replacement for Hockey Night in Canada, though, so I've just chosen to go without or to visit friends who watch sports.
The ideal service for me is an iTunes-style store where I can turn on blocks of TV I want to watch live and a PVR that's big enough to store my entire DVD collection of TV permanently. I would happily pay $20-30/month in TV fees if I felt I was buying what I wanted rather than the 10% value I'm getting from a subscription. There'd be no turning the cable when we go on vacation and no disabling channel blocks in the off-season for sports. I could control it all from my TV and I'd only call my cable provider if there was something wrong.
posted by Hiker at 7:48 AM on March 8, 2010 [1 favorite]
The ideal service for me is an iTunes-style store where I can turn on blocks of TV I want to watch live and a PVR that's big enough to store my entire DVD collection of TV permanently. I would happily pay $20-30/month in TV fees if I felt I was buying what I wanted rather than the 10% value I'm getting from a subscription. There'd be no turning the cable when we go on vacation and no disabling channel blocks in the off-season for sports. I could control it all from my TV and I'd only call my cable provider if there was something wrong.
posted by Hiker at 7:48 AM on March 8, 2010 [1 favorite]
and the Sci-Fi Channel SyFy Channel.
posted by cjorgensen
FTF fucks sake what were they thinking!
posted by haveanicesummer at 7:49 AM on March 8, 2010
posted by cjorgensen
FTF fucks sake what were they thinking!
posted by haveanicesummer at 7:49 AM on March 8, 2010
If suddenly people had to pay extra to watch Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck, perhaps they might think about how important all that nonsense really is to their lives, outside of sheer entertainment value. And then perhaps that idiocy, and the entire festering, pustulous disease (I'm not sure pustulous is a word but i like it) that is the 24 hour news cycle would finally die, and some sense could return to this country. As it is, when people don't have to consider the impact that anger entertainment has to their wallets, they have no incentive to justify it to themselves.
posted by spicynuts at 7:58 AM on March 8, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by spicynuts at 7:58 AM on March 8, 2010 [1 favorite]
The only reason I have cable is to watch the local NHL team. Interestingly, I'd actually be better off if I lived in a market where they didn't air that particular team's games, because then I could stream them live through NHL Gamecenter (which is awesome). As it is, the local games are blacked out on Gamecenter, so I'm stuck with cable that I don't otherwise watch (though my girlfriend watches Food network). I understand why they do it, but it really sucks.
posted by ghharr at 7:58 AM on March 8, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by ghharr at 7:58 AM on March 8, 2010 [1 favorite]
Anybody have any experience with Clear?
Two friends of mine have used it. One lives on a boat, so for him it rocks (better than the Verizon 3G service they were using). The other lives downtown Portland and experienced a lot of variability in the quality of service. Speeds would go up and down, sometimes the service would crap out. His dealings with customer service uncovered that they basically over sold the service so they were beyond capacity and trying to catch up.
posted by device55 at 8:01 AM on March 8, 2010
Two friends of mine have used it. One lives on a boat, so for him it rocks (better than the Verizon 3G service they were using). The other lives downtown Portland and experienced a lot of variability in the quality of service. Speeds would go up and down, sometimes the service would crap out. His dealings with customer service uncovered that they basically over sold the service so they were beyond capacity and trying to catch up.
posted by device55 at 8:01 AM on March 8, 2010
can't separate cable internet from cable television without paying a ridiculous "internet only" fee that bumps the price up to a bit more than what an internet/basic tv package costs.
In Canada, or at least Ontario, that sort of nonsense was regulated away. It was rather hilarious as Bell for example, offered Naked DSL (now called Dry Loop) but at first you wouldn't know it from their web site or by phoning them (unless you were willing to call again and again to finally get someone to admit they did offer Net service without a landline. Rogers of course had to offer cable based Net service without the need for a cable television contract. Now it's all out in the open.
posted by juiceCake at 8:01 AM on March 8, 2010
In Canada, or at least Ontario, that sort of nonsense was regulated away. It was rather hilarious as Bell for example, offered Naked DSL (now called Dry Loop) but at first you wouldn't know it from their web site or by phoning them (unless you were willing to call again and again to finally get someone to admit they did offer Net service without a landline. Rogers of course had to offer cable based Net service without the need for a cable television contract. Now it's all out in the open.
posted by juiceCake at 8:01 AM on March 8, 2010
djduckie: When I signed up, they wouldn't let me do that. Not exactly, anyway.
I could get 3Mbps for relatively cheap, but still pay a fee.
If I wanted 7Mbps, I could get it on its own for like $80 or I could get it bundled with basic cable for $70 if I locked into a two-year contract. I pretty much need at least 7Mbps.
If that's changed in the interim, then I would be overjoyed.
Clear is offering 6Mbps for $40/mo. I think I could probably do that and give TWC the old heave-ho. How are broadcast HD channels around here? The only thing I have watched on TV in the last 5 years has been LOST (and really only this season... watched all the others on Blu-Ray)...but I would kinda like to be able to finish it out in HD.
posted by kaseijin at 8:03 AM on March 8, 2010
I could get 3Mbps for relatively cheap, but still pay a fee.
If I wanted 7Mbps, I could get it on its own for like $80 or I could get it bundled with basic cable for $70 if I locked into a two-year contract. I pretty much need at least 7Mbps.
If that's changed in the interim, then I would be overjoyed.
Clear is offering 6Mbps for $40/mo. I think I could probably do that and give TWC the old heave-ho. How are broadcast HD channels around here? The only thing I have watched on TV in the last 5 years has been LOST (and really only this season... watched all the others on Blu-Ray)...but I would kinda like to be able to finish it out in HD.
posted by kaseijin at 8:03 AM on March 8, 2010
Looks like most of us special snowflakes are all alike on this one.
(Another DVD-buying broadcast-PVRing cable-eschewing person here.)
posted by Zed at 8:03 AM on March 8, 2010
(Another DVD-buying broadcast-PVRing cable-eschewing person here.)
posted by Zed at 8:03 AM on March 8, 2010
Wow, an "internet only" fee?
Well, they don't call it that, but cable alone is like $40 and internet alone is like $40, so they offer both for $60, so you feel like you're paying an extra $10 if all you want is internet. I only have internet.
I refuse to participate in any of the rebranding the Sci-Fi Channel is going through. The only reason they even make my list of channels is nostalgia. I can't think of one show they currently have that I care about (I hold out hope though).
posted by cjorgensen at 8:06 AM on March 8, 2010
Well, they don't call it that, but cable alone is like $40 and internet alone is like $40, so they offer both for $60, so you feel like you're paying an extra $10 if all you want is internet. I only have internet.
I refuse to participate in any of the rebranding the Sci-Fi Channel is going through. The only reason they even make my list of channels is nostalgia. I can't think of one show they currently have that I care about (I hold out hope though).
posted by cjorgensen at 8:06 AM on March 8, 2010
DU, your curmudgeonliness is duly noted, but that's just not going to happen. I don't pay for TV. But if I did, I can't think of a reason why I would want to pay the same price for fewer channels, even if I didn't watch them.
So then don't switch. But if there were an a la carte system parallel to the bundled system then people who WOULD save money (or who just object on principle to funding, say, ESPN or that godless HBO) can pick and choose.
The cable companies should really jump at such a system, because they can charge more per channel for these customers.
posted by DU at 8:07 AM on March 8, 2010
So then don't switch. But if there were an a la carte system parallel to the bundled system then people who WOULD save money (or who just object on principle to funding, say, ESPN or that godless HBO) can pick and choose.
The cable companies should really jump at such a system, because they can charge more per channel for these customers.
posted by DU at 8:07 AM on March 8, 2010
I LOVE television! Love my cable company and love my DVR. Yes, we pay a lot for cable, $112 per month to be precise. My husband is really into sports, so he watches his Women's Basketball on all those weird sports channels, I watch a bunch of house and home stuff, we both enjoy the many history channels, public television channels and HBO Boxing. Not to mention movies, on the Premium Cable Channels and On Demand.
I'm with Hiker though, I'd love a la carte, and as soon as it's available with all the bells and whistles that we like, we'll probably sign up for that. As for right now though, it's all good.
posted by Ruthless Bunny at 8:08 AM on March 8, 2010 [1 favorite]
I'm with Hiker though, I'd love a la carte, and as soon as it's available with all the bells and whistles that we like, we'll probably sign up for that. As for right now though, it's all good.
posted by Ruthless Bunny at 8:08 AM on March 8, 2010 [1 favorite]
As an addendum to my previous: I'm paying $40 to Comcast for high speed internet (~20MBPS) and $14 for sub-basic cable TV (essentially just the broadcast networks, public access and shopping channels). The difference between that and basic cable is something like $60-70/mo more (IIRC) for channels 32 through 71 (Animal Planet through AMC).
posted by spacely_sprocket at 8:08 AM on March 8, 2010
posted by spacely_sprocket at 8:08 AM on March 8, 2010
I'm a lot less upset at the cable TV pricing model now that I built two XBMC media center systems, upgraded my internet connection to 12 megabits, and cancelled cable - saving $70/month even after the speed upgrade. My phone and Internet (ATT UVerse) is $65/month.
posted by mrbill at 8:12 AM on March 8, 2010
posted by mrbill at 8:12 AM on March 8, 2010
If they can't do true a la carte pricing, can't they do packages of "you want basic + 15 channels, basic + 30, basic + 30 + movies?"
I can't stand the fact that I pay $85/mo for stupid tv when I only watch:
local (to me that would be 'basic')
History Channel
VH1
Discovery Channel
Nick (now that we have a toddler)
TLC
SYFY
Comedy Central
E
And really that's it for me. Throw in ESPN for the man and we're done. None of those channels are worth $85/mo.
posted by stormpooper at 8:17 AM on March 8, 2010 [1 favorite]
I can't stand the fact that I pay $85/mo for stupid tv when I only watch:
local (to me that would be 'basic')
History Channel
VH1
Discovery Channel
Nick (now that we have a toddler)
TLC
SYFY
Comedy Central
E
And really that's it for me. Throw in ESPN for the man and we're done. None of those channels are worth $85/mo.
posted by stormpooper at 8:17 AM on March 8, 2010 [1 favorite]
kaseijin: Anybody have any experience with Clear?
Well, I had to deal with clearwire once, before they rebranded themselves as clear. If cancer was a form of internet access, it'd be them. Wireless internet is generally unreliable and slow, and they're no exception - you get maybe slow DSL speed, at best, but with worse latency. The technology really isn't ready to compete with traditional internet access.
However, they're also the worst in the business when it comes to throttling your connection. Back when I had to use them for a couple of weeks, they were so aggressive about throttling you that any kind of streaming video use was impossible - it would work for 1-2 minutes, and then grind to a halt as the throttling took effect. The throttling would clear about fifteen minutes after you stopped.
The advertised connection speed really only mattered for testing - you'd see the advertised speed (although usually the test itself would get you throttled), but try to download a large file or anything and you'd be throttled (down to about modem speed, mind you) for 90% of the download.
So, basically, the technology is better than 3g, but worse than any kind of traditional internet access except maybe a modem. And the company itself is shady and abusive as hell.
posted by Mitrovarr at 8:24 AM on March 8, 2010 [1 favorite]
Well, I had to deal with clearwire once, before they rebranded themselves as clear. If cancer was a form of internet access, it'd be them. Wireless internet is generally unreliable and slow, and they're no exception - you get maybe slow DSL speed, at best, but with worse latency. The technology really isn't ready to compete with traditional internet access.
However, they're also the worst in the business when it comes to throttling your connection. Back when I had to use them for a couple of weeks, they were so aggressive about throttling you that any kind of streaming video use was impossible - it would work for 1-2 minutes, and then grind to a halt as the throttling took effect. The throttling would clear about fifteen minutes after you stopped.
The advertised connection speed really only mattered for testing - you'd see the advertised speed (although usually the test itself would get you throttled), but try to download a large file or anything and you'd be throttled (down to about modem speed, mind you) for 90% of the download.
So, basically, the technology is better than 3g, but worse than any kind of traditional internet access except maybe a modem. And the company itself is shady and abusive as hell.
posted by Mitrovarr at 8:24 AM on March 8, 2010 [1 favorite]
I'll add that the quality and variety of digital TV makes cable even less appealing. We have all the major networks at excellent quality (with the occasional bad signal, admittedly) and a number of other channels as well. But honestly, once we canceled our cable subscription, I rarely missed it after a while. The internet offers the ultimate in a-la-carte television entertainment. The truth is many of my favorite shows aren't on premium channels anyway -- they're on ABC, CBS, USA, etc. -- and almost all of the shows are available in one or two days on Hulu.
With a few notable exceptions, almost any kind of show you'd like to watch is available for free or cheap from online sources. Even if you have 2-3 shows per week that you are devoted to, if you can buy them individually it might be cheaper to do that than fork over the monthly fee.
I do miss the luxury of simply turning on a TV and browsing the channels, but less and less as time goes by.
posted by Deathalicious at 8:27 AM on March 8, 2010
With a few notable exceptions, almost any kind of show you'd like to watch is available for free or cheap from online sources. Even if you have 2-3 shows per week that you are devoted to, if you can buy them individually it might be cheaper to do that than fork over the monthly fee.
I do miss the luxury of simply turning on a TV and browsing the channels, but less and less as time goes by.
posted by Deathalicious at 8:27 AM on March 8, 2010
What rationale do the cable companies have for switching to an ala carte model where you pay them less each month.
Also, keep in mind that ESPN is only $4 because everyone pays for it. If it went to ala carte, the price would double or triple.
posted by smackfu at 8:30 AM on March 8, 2010
Also, keep in mind that ESPN is only $4 because everyone pays for it. If it went to ala carte, the price would double or triple.
posted by smackfu at 8:30 AM on March 8, 2010
History Channel's a joke. 24 hours of Jesus "history" and reality programming.
Hmph.
posted by grubi at 8:32 AM on March 8, 2010 [1 favorite]
Hmph.
posted by grubi at 8:32 AM on March 8, 2010 [1 favorite]
What rationale do the cable companies have for switching to an ala carte model where you pay them less each month.
Because people are starting to realize that with today's video game systems, set top boxes, Netflix, etc, you can pretty much get away with no cable TV at all. If a serious number of people begin to contemplate this route, cable companies will switch. A la carte pricing is better than $0.
posted by jckll at 8:33 AM on March 8, 2010 [1 favorite]
Because people are starting to realize that with today's video game systems, set top boxes, Netflix, etc, you can pretty much get away with no cable TV at all. If a serious number of people begin to contemplate this route, cable companies will switch. A la carte pricing is better than $0.
posted by jckll at 8:33 AM on March 8, 2010 [1 favorite]
What rationale do the cable companies have for switching to an ala carte model where you pay them less each month.
The only one I can think of is that those without cable and/or those dissatisfied with the current cable model would sign on, creating a large number of small profits rather than a small number of large profits. I don't know if anyone can really provide data to prove this would actually happen, it's just a theoretical argument.
posted by Hiker at 8:33 AM on March 8, 2010
The only one I can think of is that those without cable and/or those dissatisfied with the current cable model would sign on, creating a large number of small profits rather than a small number of large profits. I don't know if anyone can really provide data to prove this would actually happen, it's just a theoretical argument.
posted by Hiker at 8:33 AM on March 8, 2010
You are only making me more excited for a la carte. A financial incentive to get people to watch less TV? I'm there!
Just wanted to say that the irony of this comment from someone who sits around all day compulsively refreshing and commenting to MetaFilter has not gone unnoticed.
posted by eyeballkid at 8:36 AM on March 8, 2010 [3 favorites]
Just wanted to say that the irony of this comment from someone who sits around all day compulsively refreshing and commenting to MetaFilter has not gone unnoticed.
posted by eyeballkid at 8:36 AM on March 8, 2010 [3 favorites]
FTF fucks sake what were they thinking!
They just want to ghost ride the Enterprise.
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:37 AM on March 8, 2010 [2 favorites]
They just want to ghost ride the Enterprise.
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:37 AM on March 8, 2010 [2 favorites]
You have to remember too that while a large number of users of this website are able and willing to circumvent the current cable model in favor of custom boxes, torrents, alternate streams, etc. that you're talking about a comparatively technical group here. The number of cable subscribers who would find signing up for a website and a paypal account just to post here a difficult task is great.
If you've ever helped someone non-technical switch to a digital box and two remotes (or a remote that switches devices), you quickly realize that the majority of cable users hate the model but are unable to really do anything about it. Adding another layer technically to that is just an impossible thing for these.
posted by Hiker at 8:47 AM on March 8, 2010 [1 favorite]
If you've ever helped someone non-technical switch to a digital box and two remotes (or a remote that switches devices), you quickly realize that the majority of cable users hate the model but are unable to really do anything about it. Adding another layer technically to that is just an impossible thing for these.
posted by Hiker at 8:47 AM on March 8, 2010 [1 favorite]
If it was possible, I'd negotiate directly with the channels and/or content providers directly. If I could get a set price from HBO, AMC and SHO so I could watch Entourage, Dexter, Madmen, Breaking Bad, etc. while leaving the rest behind, I would gladly do so. Hmm; Is there an analog here with medical insurance/care providers?
posted by spacely_sprocket at 8:48 AM on March 8, 2010
posted by spacely_sprocket at 8:48 AM on March 8, 2010
I would like some sort of step-by-step to prepare our entertainment center before I call Comcast and give them the boot. I'd like to give me recommendations on setting up a (Boxee? XBMC?) media center with over-the-air HD recording and torrent subscriptions, and how to organize all that data and integrate with Netflix and Hulu streaming. Anyone know of an article like that?
posted by backseatpilot at 8:50 AM on March 8, 2010
posted by backseatpilot at 8:50 AM on March 8, 2010
We've been a DISH customer for nearly 15 years now, and couldn't be happier. We almost never go to the cinema and never buy or rent DVDs, as we have all the premium channels and just wait for things we want to see to come streaming into the house. We get local(ish) sports coverage (Seattle Mariners in Spokane -- it's vaguely local) plus many other channels that carry baseball (the only sport I watch). Every year we get the entire Tour de France covered live on some channel or other. BBC America plus Turner Classic Movies plus Free Speech TV and Link TV... I mean, yeah, we're paying for a lot of things we don't watch, but the service we do get is pretty excellent. Plus they just keep expanding their HD offerings, often without announcement, and since it's not coming into the house through a wire, there aren't issues with bandwidth so the HD is pretty good quality, I think 1080i.
I have never given money to a cable company. I'd rather go without than pay a dime to one of them. But DISH has been nothing but quality for our household, and I can't speak highly enough of it.
posted by hippybear at 8:51 AM on March 8, 2010
I have never given money to a cable company. I'd rather go without than pay a dime to one of them. But DISH has been nothing but quality for our household, and I can't speak highly enough of it.
posted by hippybear at 8:51 AM on March 8, 2010
Weren't we supposed to get a la carte cable like, a year or two ago? I thought there was a bill of some sort that was passed, and I remember reading articles about it.
smackfu: "Also, keep in mind that ESPN is only $4 because everyone pays for it. If it went to ala carte, the price would double or triple."
Or they find out that not everyone wants ESPN and the price the channel can charge goes down. That savings probably wouldn't transfer to a customer though.
posted by graventy at 8:51 AM on March 8, 2010
smackfu: "Also, keep in mind that ESPN is only $4 because everyone pays for it. If it went to ala carte, the price would double or triple."
Or they find out that not everyone wants ESPN and the price the channel can charge goes down. That savings probably wouldn't transfer to a customer though.
posted by graventy at 8:51 AM on March 8, 2010
I'd like to get cable again, but it's just too damn expensive for a list of channels that are 95% crap.
Not to mention filled with advertising. Why on earth would I pay for TV channels that broadcast commercials, let alone infomercials (often for most of their night schedule)?
I want local+sports and that's all. Wake me up when I can pay $15/mo for that.
Ditto. I was off/on with cable for a few years and dropped it for good a while back. The only thing I miss is the ability to watch local baseball/basketball games, which are unfortunately never on local TV these days. I used to go out to bars to watch games (which ends up being certainly more expensive per game, but also more fun), but I now have a young child, so it's been much harder to get out of the house.
Oh well, I was about as big a sports fan as you can be without being a jackass/dork (ymmv there), and I'm glad to watch advertising to watch sports, but I'm not going to pay $50-80 or whatever a month, all year long, just to watch (some, not nearly all are broadcast) Giants, Warriors, and Stanford games.
I remember when I could watch most of the Tigers and Red Wings games on WKBD and WDIV. I guess those days are gone. I've gone back to listening to games on the radio. Get off my lawn.
posted by mrgrimm at 8:55 AM on March 8, 2010 [1 favorite]
Not to mention filled with advertising. Why on earth would I pay for TV channels that broadcast commercials, let alone infomercials (often for most of their night schedule)?
I want local+sports and that's all. Wake me up when I can pay $15/mo for that.
Ditto. I was off/on with cable for a few years and dropped it for good a while back. The only thing I miss is the ability to watch local baseball/basketball games, which are unfortunately never on local TV these days. I used to go out to bars to watch games (which ends up being certainly more expensive per game, but also more fun), but I now have a young child, so it's been much harder to get out of the house.
Oh well, I was about as big a sports fan as you can be without being a jackass/dork (ymmv there), and I'm glad to watch advertising to watch sports, but I'm not going to pay $50-80 or whatever a month, all year long, just to watch (some, not nearly all are broadcast) Giants, Warriors, and Stanford games.
I remember when I could watch most of the Tigers and Red Wings games on WKBD and WDIV. I guess those days are gone. I've gone back to listening to games on the radio. Get off my lawn.
posted by mrgrimm at 8:55 AM on March 8, 2010 [1 favorite]
Who cares about the channels? Basic cable is what you buy to get them to turn Internet service on so you can download the torrents. You can go without the TV portion, but then they tack on an "Internet-only service fee" that just so happens to be exactly as much as basic cable would have been.
Amen to this. When I finally realized I had stopped watching TV altogether, I called to shut off the cable but keep the Internet. Price of Internet access without TV: $63. Price of Internet access with bottom-tier packae of channels: $62.95. I said to the customer service rep, "Seriously? You're going to charge me a nickel NOT to watch TV?"
posted by el_lupino at 9:10 AM on March 8, 2010
Amen to this. When I finally realized I had stopped watching TV altogether, I called to shut off the cable but keep the Internet. Price of Internet access without TV: $63. Price of Internet access with bottom-tier packae of channels: $62.95. I said to the customer service rep, "Seriously? You're going to charge me a nickel NOT to watch TV?"
posted by el_lupino at 9:10 AM on March 8, 2010
Hmm; Is there an analog here with medical insurance/care providers?
No. Unless you're the sort who would choose to insure himself against broken bones and infectious diseases, but not cancer or head trauma?
posted by mrgrimm at 9:23 AM on March 8, 2010
No. Unless you're the sort who would choose to insure himself against broken bones and infectious diseases, but not cancer or head trauma?
posted by mrgrimm at 9:23 AM on March 8, 2010
With Comcast where I used to live, the best internet they offered with the lowest tier of television (not even cable, just networks) was actually $7 cheaper than having no television service at all. The only time I even actually turned on the TV was election night.
posted by haveanicesummer at 9:32 AM on March 8, 2010
posted by haveanicesummer at 9:32 AM on March 8, 2010
Hiker: "If you've ever helped someone non-technical switch to a digital box and two remotes (or a remote that switches devices), you quickly realize that the majority of cable users hate the model but are unable to really do anything about it. Adding another layer technically to that is just an impossible thing for these."
Right: it's too technical/difficult for the average joe, until it isn't. One can remember this line of reasoning when TiVo first arrived. Or the iPod. Or whatever new technology. Eventually someone will produce a Boxee-like system that is easy to install and use, and provides 90% of the functionality of cable tv for a fraction of the price.
backseatpilot: "I would like some sort of step-by-step to prepare our entertainment center before I call Comcast and give them the boot. I'd like to give me recommendations on setting up a (Boxee? XBMC?) media center with over-the-air HD recording and torrent subscriptions, and how to organize all that data and integrate with Netflix and Hulu streaming. Anyone know of an article like that?"
Lifehacker is probably a good site for this type of info. A recent overview is here, but following links and hashtags will probably get you most of the info you seek.
posted by jckll at 9:45 AM on March 8, 2010
Right: it's too technical/difficult for the average joe, until it isn't. One can remember this line of reasoning when TiVo first arrived. Or the iPod. Or whatever new technology. Eventually someone will produce a Boxee-like system that is easy to install and use, and provides 90% of the functionality of cable tv for a fraction of the price.
backseatpilot: "I would like some sort of step-by-step to prepare our entertainment center before I call Comcast and give them the boot. I'd like to give me recommendations on setting up a (Boxee? XBMC?) media center with over-the-air HD recording and torrent subscriptions, and how to organize all that data and integrate with Netflix and Hulu streaming. Anyone know of an article like that?"
Lifehacker is probably a good site for this type of info. A recent overview is here, but following links and hashtags will probably get you most of the info you seek.
posted by jckll at 9:45 AM on March 8, 2010
Roku's been pretty good for us. $10 a month for Netflix, so we can get DVDs of the things we really want, and watch instantly what we'd like. We used to buy into the phone-internet-TV bundle, but it was kinda crappy. We didn't watch the TV much, the phone was kind of pricey considering we had to get cell phones seperately, and the internet could be had for about $30 alone with limited cable at $17. So, we switched to T-mobile phones with UMA access for phone, and couldn't be happier.
Of course, nirvana would be streaming AVIs from my PC to the Roku for torrents. Oh yeah, and Hulu.
I really wish the networks would just embrace Bit Torrent and offer torrents of their big shows, plus commercials. I'd choose that over a pirated version (because they get a cut, and I get a convenient format), and they could report the number of downloads to the advertisers.
posted by mccarty.tim at 9:49 AM on March 8, 2010
Of course, nirvana would be streaming AVIs from my PC to the Roku for torrents. Oh yeah, and Hulu.
I really wish the networks would just embrace Bit Torrent and offer torrents of their big shows, plus commercials. I'd choose that over a pirated version (because they get a cut, and I get a convenient format), and they could report the number of downloads to the advertisers.
posted by mccarty.tim at 9:49 AM on March 8, 2010
PS: for more specific numbers, the 3x bundle was about $150 after the first year (first year was $100), so by switching to T-mobile and basic TV, we saved a lot of money. Something like $80 a month.
It's amazing how much you can shave off your bills if you stop to do the math and look at alternatives. Plus, it's a lot more fun to willingly ditch cable and brag, rather than be forced to drop it because you just plain can't afford it.
posted by mccarty.tim at 9:54 AM on March 8, 2010
It's amazing how much you can shave off your bills if you stop to do the math and look at alternatives. Plus, it's a lot more fun to willingly ditch cable and brag, rather than be forced to drop it because you just plain can't afford it.
posted by mccarty.tim at 9:54 AM on March 8, 2010
This is as good a forum as any to crow about my Channel Master rooftop antenna. Providing you have access to a roof, and depending on where you live, you may pickup dozens of HD broadcasts.
I think the digital broadcast transition was terribly managed in the U.S. Many people aren't aware that broadcast television even exists, or believe that HD programming is available only by subscription.
I receive four networks, three PBS stations, a handful of local channels, a few dull international channels and a lot of stuff in Chinese, Korean & Spanish.
Streaming Netflix over a Roku fills in the rest.
Cable TV has some great programming, but the amount of TV advertisements infuriates me. Why am I paying for commercials?
posted by Chinese Jet Pilot at 10:08 AM on March 8, 2010
I think the digital broadcast transition was terribly managed in the U.S. Many people aren't aware that broadcast television even exists, or believe that HD programming is available only by subscription.
I receive four networks, three PBS stations, a handful of local channels, a few dull international channels and a lot of stuff in Chinese, Korean & Spanish.
Streaming Netflix over a Roku fills in the rest.
Cable TV has some great programming, but the amount of TV advertisements infuriates me. Why am I paying for commercials?
posted by Chinese Jet Pilot at 10:08 AM on March 8, 2010
This is what I hate about the telecommunications industry. The consumer prices are far divorced from the actual costs of the service. I understand that they have infrastructure costs that they need to recoup, but it would be nice if there were some logic in the pricing structure for cable TV and cell phone service. As it is, they seem to base their revenue model on selling you something you don't want just because it comes with something you do want.
posted by demiurge at 10:09 AM on March 8, 2010
posted by demiurge at 10:09 AM on March 8, 2010
Cable tv reminds me of going out to dinner with people who order tons of appetizers, steaks and fancy drinks and then expect to evenly split the bill with those that had the salad.
I'm not ordering the cable steak!
posted by orme at 10:57 AM on March 8, 2010 [2 favorites]
I'm not ordering the cable steak!
posted by orme at 10:57 AM on March 8, 2010 [2 favorites]
My kid has our tv hooked up to his netbox, and we just use Netflix and Hulu for everything else. We pay $80/month for an internet connection (fiber! But not super fast) and phone service with no domestic long distance charges. I was sort of tempted to haul the TV out for the Oscars (via antenna and converter box) but realized I didn't care enough to lug that thing around.
posted by craniac at 11:25 AM on March 8, 2010
posted by craniac at 11:25 AM on March 8, 2010
Of course, nirvana would be streaming AVIs from my PC to the Roku for torrents. Oh yeah, and Hulu.
Why not just plug your PC into your TV? I'm not sure what the Roku does ... is it like Slingbox? (i.e. you don't connect your PC and TV because they are physically far apart?)
posted by mrgrimm at 11:33 AM on March 8, 2010
Why not just plug your PC into your TV? I'm not sure what the Roku does ... is it like Slingbox? (i.e. you don't connect your PC and TV because they are physically far apart?)
posted by mrgrimm at 11:33 AM on March 8, 2010
We bundled, Brian. We always knew this day might come.
posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 11:59 AM on March 8, 2010
posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 11:59 AM on March 8, 2010
Continuing my tradition of being the unpopular voice of content creators for Metafilter... This is the time of the show where I point out that "I'll just download it from BitTorrent" is, in fact, saying that you are fine with breaking the law.
Copyright law says that you do not have the right to first-acquire content in a manner that the creator of said content does not authorize. And the people who legally first-acquire the content do not have the right to make a torrent and distribute it.
posted by andreaazure at 12:01 PM on March 8, 2010
Copyright law says that you do not have the right to first-acquire content in a manner that the creator of said content does not authorize. And the people who legally first-acquire the content do not have the right to make a torrent and distribute it.
posted by andreaazure at 12:01 PM on March 8, 2010
If you really only do watch one or two channels...
This gets said as though it's some sort of crazy hypothetical, yet most people I know only watch one or two channels, in addition to the FTA broadcast ones.
The choice you have is not between paying lots for everything and a little for the stuff you want, it's a choice between paying lots for everything or lots for the stuff that you want.
Sure. And at least to me, I'd rather pay the full, actual cost of the service that I'm using, rather than paying (even if it's the same amount) for a lot of crap that I don't actually use, in a way that makes the true cost of the product less than obvious.
Bundling hides costs, and IMO, hiding costs is always bad. If the true cost of each channel is $6-10/mo, then each channel should cost that much. Or $30/mo. Whatever. Some people who want a lot of channels would end up paying more, some people who only want one or two channels might end up paying less, most people would end up about the same -- but at least they'd be paying for the product that they want, instead of feeling like they're getting the shaft and getting forced to buy crap they don't need or want.
And, frankly, maybe if people only bought the channels they really wanted to watch and were willing to pay for, we'd watch a bit less TV. Seems like a good thing to me.
posted by Kadin2048 at 12:09 PM on March 8, 2010
This gets said as though it's some sort of crazy hypothetical, yet most people I know only watch one or two channels, in addition to the FTA broadcast ones.
The choice you have is not between paying lots for everything and a little for the stuff you want, it's a choice between paying lots for everything or lots for the stuff that you want.
Sure. And at least to me, I'd rather pay the full, actual cost of the service that I'm using, rather than paying (even if it's the same amount) for a lot of crap that I don't actually use, in a way that makes the true cost of the product less than obvious.
Bundling hides costs, and IMO, hiding costs is always bad. If the true cost of each channel is $6-10/mo, then each channel should cost that much. Or $30/mo. Whatever. Some people who want a lot of channels would end up paying more, some people who only want one or two channels might end up paying less, most people would end up about the same -- but at least they'd be paying for the product that they want, instead of feeling like they're getting the shaft and getting forced to buy crap they don't need or want.
And, frankly, maybe if people only bought the channels they really wanted to watch and were willing to pay for, we'd watch a bit less TV. Seems like a good thing to me.
posted by Kadin2048 at 12:09 PM on March 8, 2010
FYI, the Roku boxes (that do NetFlix streaming, and now Amazon VOD, Pandora, etc) are *really* nice. I'm the hacker type (hence my XBMC setups) but I bought my ladyfriend a Roku HD last week so she wouldn't have to hook a decrepit laptop to her TV for NetFlix.
We unboxed and configured it at my house last night. I was impressed with the ease of setup and connectivity (since it had wireless, we only had to plug in the HDMI cable to the TV); it "just works".
She just texted me, "Finally got home, the Roku is AWESOME".
posted by mrbill at 12:28 PM on March 8, 2010
We unboxed and configured it at my house last night. I was impressed with the ease of setup and connectivity (since it had wireless, we only had to plug in the HDMI cable to the TV); it "just works".
She just texted me, "Finally got home, the Roku is AWESOME".
posted by mrbill at 12:28 PM on March 8, 2010
I can't separate cable internet from cable television without paying a ridiculous "internet only" fee that bumps the price up to a bit more than what an internet/basic tv package costs.
I wonder how much this varies by market. I have Comcast (not known for their great customer service) and I pay $57.95 for internet-only. There is an internet+tv package for only a few $$ more, but I've found that Comcast likes to lure you in with promotional prices that jump up by $30-50 when the promotion ends. So I'd still end up paying a lot for stuff I don't want. So no cable for me, thanks.
I have Netflix and recently got a Roku (and it is, indeed AWESOME*) and between DVDs and the internet I can get any television I want to watch. And, as a bonus, I don't spend my time watching endless marathons of Law& Order just b/c it's on.
*Though I do wish they could somehow figure out how to get subtitles on streaming video. I have gotten so used to having the subtitles on on DVDs so I can keep the volume down and not piss off my neighbors, that I really miss them when watching streaming stuff. It wouldn't be an issue if they didn't mix the dialogue so much lower than the SFX & music. I would like to actually follow what people are saying, and I don't need the explosions to be that loud!
posted by DiscourseMarker at 1:22 PM on March 8, 2010 [1 favorite]
I wonder how much this varies by market. I have Comcast (not known for their great customer service) and I pay $57.95 for internet-only. There is an internet+tv package for only a few $$ more, but I've found that Comcast likes to lure you in with promotional prices that jump up by $30-50 when the promotion ends. So I'd still end up paying a lot for stuff I don't want. So no cable for me, thanks.
I have Netflix and recently got a Roku (and it is, indeed AWESOME*) and between DVDs and the internet I can get any television I want to watch. And, as a bonus, I don't spend my time watching endless marathons of Law& Order just b/c it's on.
*Though I do wish they could somehow figure out how to get subtitles on streaming video. I have gotten so used to having the subtitles on on DVDs so I can keep the volume down and not piss off my neighbors, that I really miss them when watching streaming stuff. It wouldn't be an issue if they didn't mix the dialogue so much lower than the SFX & music. I would like to actually follow what people are saying, and I don't need the explosions to be that loud!
posted by DiscourseMarker at 1:22 PM on March 8, 2010 [1 favorite]
Yeah, I've noticed the same thing as DiscourseMarker, with Time Warner. It often seems like the price of internet service is the same as the bundled price, but it's usually an "introductory rate" that only lasts 3 months.
When we were renting and moving every 13 months or so, we could usually revolve accounts between the roommates and manage to keep introductory rates going for a long period of time, but that doesn't work when you have a fixed address.
posted by muddgirl at 1:25 PM on March 8, 2010
When we were renting and moving every 13 months or so, we could usually revolve accounts between the roommates and manage to keep introductory rates going for a long period of time, but that doesn't work when you have a fixed address.
posted by muddgirl at 1:25 PM on March 8, 2010
I would gladly pay a lot more than .36 just for BBC America, C-SPAN, and A&E.
posted by BrotherCaine at 1:34 PM on March 8, 2010
posted by BrotherCaine at 1:34 PM on March 8, 2010
With U-Verse...again...I can't un-bundle internet.
Last I checked, there was no requirement that you had TV service. There were people who successfully canceled the TV portion. Personally looking at this to change my expensive DSL through Speakeasy to cheap sorta-fiber through Uverse. The big questions for me are whether Speakeasy's great service will hold up, and whether or not Uverse's service is decent in my area.
posted by RikiTikiTavi at 1:46 PM on March 8, 2010 [1 favorite]
Last I checked, there was no requirement that you had TV service. There were people who successfully canceled the TV portion. Personally looking at this to change my expensive DSL through Speakeasy to cheap sorta-fiber through Uverse. The big questions for me are whether Speakeasy's great service will hold up, and whether or not Uverse's service is decent in my area.
posted by RikiTikiTavi at 1:46 PM on March 8, 2010 [1 favorite]
What i don't get is the networks (NBC, CBA, ABC, FOX) want to be paid per subscriber for a service that, on the whole benefits them. It used to be that the cable companies HAD to carry the locals, however in October 1994, the FCC gave stations a choice of being carried under the must-carry rules or under a new regulation requiring cable companies to obtain retransmission consent before carrying a broadcast signal. The retransmission consent ruling gave desirable local stations increased power to negotiate the terms of carriage the cable company would provide, including channel preference. I.E. local channel 4 could be found on channel 4 on the cable box. Now even that's not good enough. Frak them. I get all my networks OTA, in Hi Def no less, and If I had my druthers I'd drop the locals. But of course there's no a la carte pricing... FTW
posted by Gungho at 1:51 PM on March 8, 2010
posted by Gungho at 1:51 PM on March 8, 2010
I receive four networks, three PBS stations, a handful of local channels, a few dull international channels and a lot of stuff in Chinese, Korean & Spanish.
Yeah, I can get about the same amount of channels via antenna as well. (What the hell is ION?) Most of the networks come in HD over the airwaves.
posted by mrgrimm at 2:30 PM on March 8, 2010
Yeah, I can get about the same amount of channels via antenna as well. (What the hell is ION?) Most of the networks come in HD over the airwaves.
posted by mrgrimm at 2:30 PM on March 8, 2010
hulu youtube netflix
Isn't cable dying? Aren't we moving to a pay-per-view model anyway?
If I'm going to watch something, I'd rather pay a couple dollars than have to watch advertising.
posted by esprit de l'escalier at 2:33 PM on March 8, 2010
Isn't cable dying? Aren't we moving to a pay-per-view model anyway?
If I'm going to watch something, I'd rather pay a couple dollars than have to watch advertising.
posted by esprit de l'escalier at 2:33 PM on March 8, 2010
What the hell is ION?
A delivery system for Criminal Minds reruns.
posted by Skot at 2:36 PM on March 8, 2010
A delivery system for Criminal Minds reruns.
posted by Skot at 2:36 PM on March 8, 2010
Ion is an independent network that buys and broadcasts syndicated television shows.
It was a great source of broadcast Quantum Leap reruns back in my college days.
posted by muddgirl at 2:43 PM on March 8, 2010
It was a great source of broadcast Quantum Leap reruns back in my college days.
posted by muddgirl at 2:43 PM on March 8, 2010
The real news here is that TNT is the 3rd most expensive cable channel! I was a little puzzled by this, because surely Angel re-runs can't be that expensive.
But then I realized it makes total sense, because Angel is awesome.
posted by ErikaB at 2:44 PM on March 8, 2010
But then I realized it makes total sense, because Angel is awesome.
posted by ErikaB at 2:44 PM on March 8, 2010
After reading this thread, I plugged in our living room TV to what I thought was our Internet-only cable outlet and found out that I have the Standard Cable package and have probably had it since I moved in last August. Wish I´d tried that a long time ago. Thanks for giving me the idea.
Also, for anybody thinking of hooking up a PC to their TV, I just bought a Nvidia Ion-based nettop that works great for that purpose.
posted by concrete at 4:48 PM on March 8, 2010
Also, for anybody thinking of hooking up a PC to their TV, I just bought a Nvidia Ion-based nettop that works great for that purpose.
posted by concrete at 4:48 PM on March 8, 2010
I looked at this table and saw only a few cents for most channels, so I wondered what the profit margin would be on offering a lineup like this. So, I OCRed the values from þe table and then added them up in a spreadsheet. The total: $61.82 for all 172 channels. What would a cable company charge for a lineup like this? $80? $100? A decent profit but not quite the killing I expected.
posted by zsazsa at 5:20 PM on March 8, 2010
posted by zsazsa at 5:20 PM on March 8, 2010
kaseijin: Currently with Uverse, if you want to order Internet only, you have to pay a $150 installation fee. If you bundle TV service, the fee is waived. There is no monthly internet-only fee, fortunately. The current strategy (from discussion on dslreports.com) to avoid the installation fee is to order TV and then cancel it within 30 days so you don't end up paying for it. That's what I'm doing right now. We'll see how it works.
posted by zsazsa at 5:41 PM on March 8, 2010
posted by zsazsa at 5:41 PM on March 8, 2010
So bundling contributes to the phenomenon of hundreds of channels but nothing good on TV, aka BOATLOAD OF SHIT.
I'd be fine with niche channels leaving. If they can't get viewers, they die. The money stays in good programming that people actually watch. The industry shrinks a bit, and we pay less for TV we watch and like.
I don't see the problem.
posted by colinshark at 6:53 PM on March 8, 2010
I'd be fine with niche channels leaving. If they can't get viewers, they die. The money stays in good programming that people actually watch. The industry shrinks a bit, and we pay less for TV we watch and like.
I don't see the problem.
posted by colinshark at 6:53 PM on March 8, 2010
Another problem with a la carte services, besides the probable reality of making every channel more expensive, is that niche channels may go away. I'm sure BET will survive, but could Logo make it in an a la carte universe? TV One? A website called TVDiversity.org makes just this argument.
And how do you launch a new channel? You have to have enough programming to entice people to call into the cable company to make a change, but not enough that it causes you to go bankrupt in your first year.
And who will pay all the phone reps to make all these microchanges? Would every call to the cable company to order service mean you'd go down a list of channels. I really do think it's more pain than it's worth.
posted by inturnaround at 7:09 PM on March 8, 2010
And how do you launch a new channel? You have to have enough programming to entice people to call into the cable company to make a change, but not enough that it causes you to go bankrupt in your first year.
And who will pay all the phone reps to make all these microchanges? Would every call to the cable company to order service mean you'd go down a list of channels. I really do think it's more pain than it's worth.
posted by inturnaround at 7:09 PM on March 8, 2010
And who will pay all the phone reps to make all these microchanges? Would every call to the cable company to order service mean you'd go down a list of channels. I really do think it's more pain than it's worth.
posted by inturnaround
Most people would do it over the internet. Others would deal with automated phone systems (and a printed list that was mailed to them). Finally a small fraction would contact an actual person and angrily demand that they want their Matlock reruns back, but won't know what channel they were on. It's not that complicated.
posted by haveanicesummer at 7:59 PM on March 8, 2010
posted by inturnaround
Most people would do it over the internet. Others would deal with automated phone systems (and a printed list that was mailed to them). Finally a small fraction would contact an actual person and angrily demand that they want their Matlock reruns back, but won't know what channel they were on. It's not that complicated.
posted by haveanicesummer at 7:59 PM on March 8, 2010
If MLB would let me buy a streaming package that showed local team games, I'd be all over that and could at least consider dumping cable[1]. Until then, it's Fox Sports Southwest all the way.
[1] Wait, what am I saying? I have FiOS TV and a TiVo HD. Television is AWESOME.
Go Astros
posted by fireoyster at 9:26 PM on March 8, 2010
[1] Wait, what am I saying? I have FiOS TV and a TiVo HD. Television is AWESOME.
Go Astros
posted by fireoyster at 9:26 PM on March 8, 2010
Valkyryn, considering that you have previously praised Austrian School economists on MeFi, I hope you'll understand if I don't take your view of cable TV economics at face value.
The essential problem with a-la-carte cable is that these large broadcasting networks have created a glut of channels, and that many of them are money losers, subsidized by bundling. Any proper a-la-carte requirements should also put in place certain protections to make sure that network costs are not being passed on to subsidize unwanted channels, so that they can make the cuts -- or die the death -- they deserve.
You also failed to point out that the FCC chair you interned for during the Bush administration released a study indicating that a-la-carte cable would actually save consumers money, regardless of whether restrictions were put in place to prevent networks from passing the costs along to subsidize their losers.
posted by markkraft at 9:46 PM on March 8, 2010 [1 favorite]
The essential problem with a-la-carte cable is that these large broadcasting networks have created a glut of channels, and that many of them are money losers, subsidized by bundling. Any proper a-la-carte requirements should also put in place certain protections to make sure that network costs are not being passed on to subsidize unwanted channels, so that they can make the cuts -- or die the death -- they deserve.
You also failed to point out that the FCC chair you interned for during the Bush administration released a study indicating that a-la-carte cable would actually save consumers money, regardless of whether restrictions were put in place to prevent networks from passing the costs along to subsidize their losers.
posted by markkraft at 9:46 PM on March 8, 2010 [1 favorite]
"Another problem with a la carte services, besides the probable reality of making every channel more expensive, is that niche channels may go away. I'm sure BET will survive, but could Logo make it in an a la carte universe? TV One? A website called TVDiversity.org makes just this argument."
I did a bit of research. Turns out that tvdiversity.org was created by TV One, S TV and The Africa Channel -- presumably three of the networks out there that stand to lose money without bundling -- and that they're backed by people likethis douchebag Nick Alford of the Black Chamber of Commerce.
I'm sorry, but the world doesn't owe cable networks -- or their customers who should be paying for them -- a free lunch.
If cable television cannot support a single LGBT station like LOGO, which targets a full 10% of the population, plus all of those out there who appreciate such programming, all I can say is that the network is being irresponsibly managed.
I mean, what could possibly be their excuse? Bravo took all their customers away?!
posted by markkraft at 10:09 PM on March 8, 2010
I did a bit of research. Turns out that tvdiversity.org was created by TV One, S TV and The Africa Channel -- presumably three of the networks out there that stand to lose money without bundling -- and that they're backed by people like
I'm sorry, but the world doesn't owe cable networks -- or their customers who should be paying for them -- a free lunch.
If cable television cannot support a single LGBT station like LOGO, which targets a full 10% of the population, plus all of those out there who appreciate such programming, all I can say is that the network is being irresponsibly managed.
I mean, what could possibly be their excuse? Bravo took all their customers away?!
posted by markkraft at 10:09 PM on March 8, 2010
Oops... forgot the link for the aforementioned douchebag Harry Alford of the Black Chamber of Commerce... which, incidentally, was founded by Mr. Alford, run by him and his wife in Washington, D.C. as a for-profit business, which has taken more than $275,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
He's also taken in huge sums from AT&T, and, surprisingly, is opposed to net neutrality too.
posted by markkraft at 10:17 PM on March 8, 2010
He's also taken in huge sums from AT&T, and, surprisingly, is opposed to net neutrality too.
posted by markkraft at 10:17 PM on March 8, 2010
markkraft, I've praised Austrian economists? Really? Where? I don't seem to remember doing that, certainly not unreservedly. I've argued multiple times that the idea of a return to the gold standard is batshitinsane.
Also, we can do better than ad hominems. For serious.
The study you link to came out two years before my tenure there. The people in my office viewed a la carte cable as a pet project of the Chairman, but not something they thought was realistic, or even necessarily a good idea. Note that the current FCC has largely dropped it as a priority.
posted by valkyryn at 6:45 AM on March 9, 2010
Also, we can do better than ad hominems. For serious.
The study you link to came out two years before my tenure there. The people in my office viewed a la carte cable as a pet project of the Chairman, but not something they thought was realistic, or even necessarily a good idea. Note that the current FCC has largely dropped it as a priority.
posted by valkyryn at 6:45 AM on March 9, 2010
Another problem with a la carte services, besides the probable reality of making every channel more expensive, is that niche channels may go away. I'm sure BET will survive, but could Logo make it in an a la carte universe? TV One?
If those channels are so culturally important that they deserve to be subsidized by viewers who aren't interested in their content, then we should conduct that subsidization out in the open, similar to how the British subsidize the BBC.
I doubt very much that something like that would fly, politically, but that's the right way to do it. And if it can't be done right, it shouldn't be done at all.
posted by Kadin2048 at 9:36 AM on March 9, 2010
If those channels are so culturally important that they deserve to be subsidized by viewers who aren't interested in their content, then we should conduct that subsidization out in the open, similar to how the British subsidize the BBC.
I doubt very much that something like that would fly, politically, but that's the right way to do it. And if it can't be done right, it shouldn't be done at all.
posted by Kadin2048 at 9:36 AM on March 9, 2010
If MLB would let me buy a streaming package that showed local team games, I'd be all over that and could at least consider dumping cable[1].
I'm somewhat amazed in this day and age that I can't buy a season pass to watch all the Giants games online. Why the hell not? I'd be willing to pay (a reasonable fee) *and* let commercials run between innings. I do not need every single game for every single team. I just want 162 games of my team. Hello, MLB?
posted by mrgrimm at 1:45 PM on March 9, 2010
I'm somewhat amazed in this day and age that I can't buy a season pass to watch all the Giants games online. Why the hell not? I'd be willing to pay (a reasonable fee) *and* let commercials run between innings. I do not need every single game for every single team. I just want 162 games of my team. Hello, MLB?
posted by mrgrimm at 1:45 PM on March 9, 2010
Well, $120 for a whole season of mlb.tv isn't that bad. And if they offered just your team for say $60, and most people switched to it, that wouldn't be that good an idea for MLB.
posted by smackfu at 2:29 PM on March 9, 2010
posted by smackfu at 2:29 PM on March 9, 2010
This isn't a 'cable company' pricing scheme as much as it is content providers using leverage to make more money. Want MTV Hits? Then take all the MTV channels bitches!
posted by UseyurBrain at 6:25 PM on March 9, 2010
posted by UseyurBrain at 6:25 PM on March 9, 2010
Well, $120 for a whole season of mlb.tv isn't that bad.
No, it's not a bad deal at all if you're interested in watching a LOT of baseball.
And if they offered just your team for say $60, and most people switched to it, that wouldn't be that good an idea for MLB.
But if they got X number of new subscribers (X being at least twice bigger than Y, the number of subscribers who downgrade), it *would* be a good idea.
And if they were willing to sell individual games to non-subscribers for $1, they'd make even more money.
posted by mrgrimm at 10:14 AM on March 10, 2010
No, it's not a bad deal at all if you're interested in watching a LOT of baseball.
And if they offered just your team for say $60, and most people switched to it, that wouldn't be that good an idea for MLB.
But if they got X number of new subscribers (X being at least twice bigger than Y, the number of subscribers who downgrade), it *would* be a good idea.
And if they were willing to sell individual games to non-subscribers for $1, they'd make even more money.
posted by mrgrimm at 10:14 AM on March 10, 2010
« Older YouTube Closes Down For The Night | Sea monkeys love trance music! Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by DU at 6:45 AM on March 8, 2010 [18 favorites]