The Gun Counter

So says AP's wire service.

Cable is really expensive if you're someone who doesn't watch but maybe 6 of the channels on a regular basis. For me, I watched the local tv stations for local nightly news and sports on weekends, Fox Sports Midwest for baseball and hockey, Comcast Sports Chicago for baseball and hockey when there weren't any games on Fox Sports Midwest. Then I'd occasionally watch the local PBS station for the Red Green Show and Mystery. The only two channels I can't get are the sports channels if I pick up a tv and antenna. Now, if cable and satellite companies could sell by the channel, then I might reconsider. Considering how everything is sold to those companies as blocks of channels, you can't get one channel without subsidizing a bunch of other channels for which you don't want to pay. Without all the mutual subsidization, though, you're going to pay more for fewer channels so it does keep that part of the cable business more accessible for those who want it. Still, being able to pick and choose channels and pay only for those would be nice if was cheaper than getting an additional hundred or so channel you'll never watch.

Eh, it's not like it's a big loss, but it's nice to watch games every so often instead of just listening to them on the radio. On the other hand, I've been able to go to more live games than before. It all evens out, I suppose.

Yar!

I looked at the alternatives to cable for sporting events, namely mlb.tv and NHL GameCenter. I figure it's just as easy for me to pay directly for the games, so why not? There's only one teeny little problem: blackouts. If you're in the region where the game is being broadcast on the local regional sports network, you don't get to watch the games on those programs. So, I check my blackout restrictions: for mlb.tv, I get blackouts on the Cardinals, Cubs and White Sox. For NHL GameCenter, the Blues and Blackhawks are gone. I can't even get their away games since I'm in their home regional viewing areas. If I had cable or satellite , I wouldn't need the service. I don't want cable or satellite, so direct links to the games would be great. Then again, there's enough money tied into cable deals that no one wants to lose the advertising that would come from watching the games online.

Here's the fun part: I've tried out some of the online tv feeds that people have set up. I see the same commercials I would if I had cable or satellite, since they're basically splicing their cable or satellite feed to the internet. There have got to be some good legal ways for the leagues to allow that local advertising to be seen. I don't know what kind of wrangling that would take, though.

Is it because 90% of what's on cable is terrible? We got rid of cable almost 3 years ago now, and it was one of the smartest decisions we ever made. We rely on Netflix, Hulu, and a pretty decent DVD connection. I don't watch many sports, and if there's something I just have to see, I can bum off my friends, go to a bar, or even sign up for a premium online service. Not having commercials is wonderful. I don't have to see any political ones during election cycles, and I don't know what movies are coming out. Plus we save about $40 a month. We have the fastest internet, and pay for the one DVD at a time Netflix plan.

When I actually wrote down what I watched on cable, I found that I could watch most of the same stuff on Netflix.

I don't mind most of the commercials during games. They're usually at least MST3K-worthy. And sometimes they're entertainng like the current batch of Dairy Queen and Jack In The Box commercials. But yeah, it'd be nice to watch the games local to me.

If it wasn't or the likes of the Science channel block, I would probably get rid of cable and go with just the internet link. Might do it anyway. Save me at least $50 a month.

You know, I'm wondering how long before the various cable channels that have demand, like the Discovery Channel, Scifi, HBO, Food Network, etc realize they can make even more money offering their product direct to the consumer over the net, or possibly through somebody like Netflix. Imagine where there's no basic cable, you pick what channels you want, and each one dings you for a coupla bucks.

HTRN wrote:You know, I'm wondering how long before the various cable channels that have demand, like the Discovery Channel, Scifi, HBO, Food Network, etc realize they can make even more money offering their product direct to the consumer over the net, or possibly through somebody like Netflix. Imagine where there's no basic cable, you pick what channels you want, and each one dings you for a coupla bucks.

That's the problem: there's so much more money to be had with channels subsidizing each other by being sold as entire blocks in the current business model than in any pick-and-choose system and there's also the volume discount that comes with selling so much media at once. It will take a serious drop in subscriptions of cable and satellite before we see a pick-and-choose system. Right now the companies that run the various channels are all splitting the operating costs by being bundled together. If there's a way to keep the operating costs low when breaking away from other media companies, then it might happen.

Eventually I believe the vast majority of "cable" content will be streaming.
Netflix shows more content via watch it now then disc.

HTRN wrote:You know, I'm wondering how long before the various cable channels that have demand, like the Discovery Channel, Scifi, HBO, Food Network, etc realize they can make even more money offering their product direct to the consumer over the net, or possibly through somebody like Netflix. Imagine where there's no basic cable, you pick what channels you want, and each one dings you for a coupla bucks.

They already do to some extent. Netflix has a crap-load of History and Discovery channel shows on it now.

SoupOrMan wrote:

HTRN wrote:You know, I'm wondering how long before the various cable channels that have demand, like the Discovery Channel, Scifi, HBO, Food Network, etc realize they can make even more money offering their product direct to the consumer over the net, or possibly through somebody like Netflix. Imagine where there's no basic cable, you pick what channels you want, and each one dings you for a coupla bucks.

That's the problem: there's so much more money to be had with channels subsidizing each other by being sold as entire blocks in the current business model than in any pick-and-choose system and there's also the volume discount that comes with selling so much media at once. It will take a serious drop in subscriptions of cable and satellite before we see a pick-and-choose system. Right now the companies that run the various channels are all splitting the operating costs by being bundled together. If there's a way to keep the operating costs low when breaking away from other media companies, then it might happen.

I have seen the analyst planning documents for what it would run to do channels a-la-carte... The low end channels, the ones that are not watched much by anyone would run $3 to $5 a month... The good ones like History, Discovery, Food, HGTV, FOX, The Cable news stations, etc... Those would run $6 to $10+ a month per channel. You would get all the associated channels in one package so you would get like 5 History channels for that price for example.

I am with you in that I would LOVE to not have a bunch of channels and have my bill a lot lower. The thing is, the way the bundles are done, you would never get cheaper by just picking your channels unless you only picked like 3.

I figured it out one time, for me to get, CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX, FOX News, Discovery, History, Military, Food, HGTV and 2 or 3 kids channels, it would run me well over $100 a month. I pay half that now and get almost 150 channels...

What is really telling is that a couple of years ago, I heard Bill O'riely claim that FOX News makes more money from internet advertising sales than they do from TV advertising sales. That is a pretty amazing claim if true.