[NotAJerry]

http://www.businessinsider.com/tv-busin ... pse-2012-6

Intriguing article that argues that cable/satellite goes the way of the newspaper pretty fast once live sports are available in an online delivery mode that keeps picture quality.

[lynchburgwildcats]

It's always going to be an issue as long as ISPs are putting bandwidth caps on people. Won't take long to blowout your cap watching HD TV and Movies over the internet...

[El Scorcho]

I'd like to believe that eventually governments will see a conflict of interest between the local cable monopolies and the trend toward viewing content online. I'm not holding my breath though. More than anything the phone and cable companies do not want to become a "dumb pipe" delivery system.

[ALUmnus]

This being completely ignorant of the industry and what's necessary to pull a profit, but 'a la carte' programming could save cable and keep people from jumping ship. I know I'd sign up, and we'd finally stop subsidizing the channels that no one really watches.

Sorry if that was in the article, I didn't read it.

[thepostman]

This being completely ignorant of the industry and what's necessary to pull a profit, but 'a la carte' programming could save cable and keep people from jumping ship. I know I'd sign up, and we'd finally stop subsidizing the channels that no one really watches.

Sorry if that was in the article, I didn't read it.

I have always liked the idea of a la carte cable programming, seems like a good idea to me

[Humble_Opinion]

Those of you that still live in the 'burg - Do you use Comcast? If so what services do you use and if you don't mind how much do you pay?

I only ask because recently I was paying $85 for 16MB internet and a Digital TV package (HD-DVR). My promotion ended and I'm now paying $140... I tried to get a better deal and the best thing the guy would offer me was a new promotion for $100. He told me I should save money by getting rid of the HD-DVR. I'm now considering canceling service and letting my wife sign up for a promotion for just internet only - but with football around the corner it's so hard to do

[LUminary]

This being completely ignorant of the industry and what's necessary to pull a profit, but 'a la carte' programming could save cable and keep people from jumping ship. I know I'd sign up, and we'd finally stop subsidizing the channels that no one really watches.

Sorry if that was in the article, I didn't read it.

I have always liked the idea of a la carte cable programming, seems like a good idea to me

Me too. But that would be too easy. Back in the day, you could do that with the old ginormous C-band satellite dishes. The big reason I dropped satellite/cable, besides the fact that free off-air digital signals expanded options, was that I was tired of paying for stuff we didn't watch.

[lynchburgwildcats]

This being completely ignorant of the industry and what's necessary to pull a profit, but 'a la carte' programming could save cable and keep people from jumping ship. I know I'd sign up, and we'd finally stop subsidizing the channels that no one really watches.

Sorry if that was in the article, I didn't read it.

Because 'a la carte' makes it more expensive to get cable and satellite. You'll end up paying more per channel to make up for what profit they are losing from you not paying for more channels.

Back about 10 years ago when we had Comcast/Adelphia, we had the basic cable (now called digital preferred) but we could pay $5 more a month for additional channels. If it were to be all 'a la carte', you'd be talking $20 alone just for the four major ESPN channels (espn, espn2, espnu, espn classic) and that doesn't even include the HD option which would obviously be more expensive. Want Versus (or whatever its called now), Fox Sports, CBS Sports, TNT, TBS, and NFL Network to name a few other notable channels that are go to selections for sports? There goes another $30. Now your paying $50 a month and only getting 10 channels + locals, and that's not even including HD. Not such a good looking deal now is it?

Of course, they could go with "packages" like the movie package, sports package, etc. That is what they most likely would do, you're never going to get away with paying for only the channels you want. And if they do that, you can guarantee the sports package is going to be among the most expensive packages available if not the most expensive as the sports channels are the most expensive channels to provide.

[ALUmnus]

Where are you getting those prices from?

[jbock13]

The biggest problem is local government monopolies for cable. I have DirecTV and I'm fine with it because I pay for some of the sports packages, but it's a big reason a lot of folks dumb cable. When the government quashes competition, we all lose.

[BJWilliams]

Where are you getting those prices from?

From his limitless knowledge of television marketing of course...

[lynchburgwildcats]

Where are you getting those prices from?

$5 a channel? Previous experience, as I stated in my post.

Back about 10 years ago when we had Comcast/Adelphia, we had the basic cable (now called digital preferred) but we could pay $5 more a month for additional channels.

[BJWilliams]

That doesnt necessarily mean that would be what theyd charge if they decided to go to "a la carte" offerings for cable channels shuk.

[NotAJerry]

The biggest problem is local government monopolies for cable. I have DirecTV and I'm fine with it because I pay for some of the sports packages, but it's a big reason a lot of folks dumb cable. When the government quashes competition, we all lose.

One of the big bonuses in DC, at least the city proper, is that they've now allowed Fios to get set up and as Comcast has contracts coming to an end with the various hotels, apartments, and condos it's allowing Fios to have access to those areas as well. That competition is driving down the prices just like it should.

[From the class of 09]

Those of you that still live in the 'burg - Do you use Comcast? If so what services do you use and if you don't mind how much do you pay?

I only ask because recently I was paying $85 for 16MB internet and a Digital TV package (HD-DVR). My promotion ended and I'm now paying $140... I tried to get a better deal and the best thing the guy would offer me was a new promotion for $100. He told me I should save money by getting rid of the HD-DVR. I'm now considering canceling service and letting my wife sign up for a promotion for just internet only - but with football around the corner it's so hard to do

They tried this crap on me too so I cancelled everything. Before they made it to my appartment to pick up the cable box the next week they'd called me with a "limited time offer" at the old rate.

It got my another 6-9 months and then I ended up downgrading to just the internet with basic cable (it was cheaper to throw in basic cable then to go naked with just the internet). If you have other options find out the price and tell comcast your leaving to whoever and they'll work you a deal. Also, they always seem to transfer me before they will cut a good deal.

[lynchburgwildcats]

That doesnt necessarily mean that would be what theyd charge if they decided to go to "a la carte" offerings for cable channels shuk.

You seriously think they are going to charge cheaper than they did 10 years ago? Please, you'll be lucky if they charge that little on average without some special deal. Please, Comcast has zero competition around here unless you go satellite.

[jbock13]

The biggest problem is local government monopolies for cable. I have DirecTV and I'm fine with it because I pay for some of the sports packages, but it's a big reason a lot of folks dumb cable. When the government quashes competition, we all lose.

One of the big bonuses in DC, at least the city proper, is that they've now allowed Fios to get set up and as Comcast has contracts coming to an end with the various hotels, apartments, and condos it's allowing Fios to have access to those areas as well. That competition is driving down the prices just like it should.

It's the beauty of the free market at its finest. When I lived in Roanoke City, there was one choice: Cox. Either that or you switched to the dish. Which is what we did. Roanoke City did not care about what channels the customers got, all they cared about was the revenue they generated by handing out a government monopoly contract. I'd be interested in checking out FIOS, but where I live there's no hope that it will ever be installed.

[NotAJerry]

The biggest problem is local government monopolies for cable. I have DirecTV and I'm fine with it because I pay for some of the sports packages, but it's a big reason a lot of folks dumb cable. When the government quashes competition, we all lose.

One of the big bonuses in DC, at least the city proper, is that they've now allowed Fios to get set up and as Comcast has contracts coming to an end with the various hotels, apartments, and condos it's allowing Fios to have access to those areas as well. That competition is driving down the prices just like it should.

It's the beauty of the free market at its finest. When I lived in Roanoke City, there was one choice: Cox. Either that or you switched to the dish. Which is what we did. Roanoke City did not care about what channels the customers got, all they cared about was the revenue they generated by handing out a government monopoly contract. I'd be interested in checking out FIOS, but where I live there's no hope that it will ever be installed.

Fios picture quality is extraordinary. Their channel selection, especially what gets upgraded to HD and when, is awful. The internal message system for the TV rarely works and the DVR capacity is small. If they go through with their plan to switch their whole system to mpeg4 delivery, they'll be the best thing available and have an enormous amount of HD capacity (mpeg4/h.264 takes up half the space of the current mpeg2 HD feed).

Even with those changes, unless they get out in front of the online/streaming delivery approach and offer up a more a la carte channel offering, they'll be as obsolete as the other cable/dish providers who fail to adapt.

[ALUmnus]

Scorcho mentioned possibly the biggest hurdle in all of this, and that's infrastructure. The cable company laid all those lines, and if a competitor wants to come in, they should have to do the same. I don't know if there's really an easy solution to create more competition outside major metro areas.

[jbock13]

Scorcho mentioned possibly the biggest hurdle in all of this, and that's infrastructure. The cable company laid all those lines, and if a competitor wants to come in, they should have to do the same. I don't know if there's really an easy solution to create more competition outside major metro areas.

Well, that's great to know that I guess the government should keep out those competitors who see an investment worth enough to lay down the lines?

[RubberMallet]

This being completely ignorant of the industry and what's necessary to pull a profit, but 'a la carte' programming could save cable and keep people from jumping ship. I know I'd sign up, and we'd finally stop subsidizing the channels that no one really watches.

Sorry if that was in the article, I didn't read it.

Because 'a la carte' makes it more expensive to get cable and satellite. You'll end up paying more per channel to make up for what profit they are losing from you not paying for more channels.

Back about 10 years ago when we had Comcast/Adelphia, we had the basic cable (now called digital preferred) but we could pay $5 more a month for additional channels. If it were to be all 'a la carte', you'd be talking $20 alone just for the four major ESPN channels (espn, espn2, espnu, espn classic) and that doesn't even include the HD option which would obviously be more expensive. Want Versus (or whatever its called now), Fox Sports, CBS Sports, TNT, TBS, and NFL Network to name a few other notable channels that are go to selections for sports? There goes another $30. Now your paying $50 a month and only getting 10 channels + locals, and that's not even including HD. Not such a good looking deal now is it?

Of course, they could go with "packages" like the movie package, sports package, etc. That is what they most likely would do, you're never going to get away with paying for only the channels you want. And if they do that, you can guarantee the sports package is going to be among the most expensive packages available if not the most expensive as the sports channels are the most expensive channels to provide.

adelphia offered this in Buffalo NY. my grand parents did it originally. paid per each channel they wanted. there was a pricing sheet and by each channel it had a price per month for it. when we were kids they had like 16-17 channels. we found that they were paying just slightly less that the full channel package. like 27 bucks as opposed to 32 or something for 30 some odd channels .

[ALUmnus]

Scorcho mentioned possibly the biggest hurdle in all of this, and that's infrastructure. The cable company laid all those lines, and if a competitor wants to come in, they should have to do the same. I don't know if there's really an easy solution to create more competition outside major metro areas.

Well, that's great to know that I guess the government should keep out those competitors who see an investment worth enough to lay down the lines?

I've read that like five times and it's still not clicking. I don't think we're at odds here but possibly you think we are?

[jbock13]

Yeah I may have misunderstood. My fault.

[El Scorcho]

Yeah, cable is tricky.

The infrastructure already exists and is considered municipal. A second company isn't very likely to come in and build a completely redundant infrastructure in a given city. On the other hand, the technical aspects of cable infrastructure prevent sharing it. It's just not designed for that sort of thing.

So, as it stands, you've got to have a completely separate physical delivery system in order to compete. Satellite and telco are pretty much the other options, and telcos are in the same monopoly position as the cable companies. Fiber like Verizon uses for FiOS is a great medium, but building it out is incredibly expensive. That's why Verizon seems to only be doing it where the ROI makes sense. For television, that just leaves satellite. Blerg.

Sorry if that's all stating the obvious, but it's just not a very good situation. It seems to me the real money would be in developing a switched "cable" infrastructure technology and marketing it to U.S. municipalities. Who wants to fund it? Doesn't it sound sexy? Entertainment meets technology with the bonus of government contracts. We could be filthy rich!

[NotAJerry]

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-574671 ... irst-time/

Netflix had more viewing hours than any cable network in June and crossed the 1 billion hours in a month mark. They've expanded into things like live streaming the Bonnaroo festival and will be the exclusive provider of episodes of House of Cards along with new episodes of Arrested Development.

I don't know how quickly things will change, but traditional TV is dead when live sports figure out how to stream online without losing income.