Imagine you go to the store to buy an apple. When you get to the checkout line you are told in order to buy that apple you also have to buy three other products. You refuse and walk out the store. The next store tells you the same thing and it quickly occurs to you that in order to buy an apple you have to buy a bundle of other products. You have no choice to buy simple that apple (what is called ‘a la carte’).
This is exactly what cable is doing. They are telling us that if we want to watch the lifestyle network we also have to buy ESPN (and vice versa for people like me). What if we could buy only the channels we actually want to watch? How much would it cost us? This article gives you an idea. Congress has refused to require a la carte pricing for cable channels (probably because the cable industry is making a lot of money off of charging us money for things we do not want to watch). (this should be against anti-trust laws)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Agreed! As a college student, paying for channels that I do not watch is very upsetting. And the fact that I set up a "favorites" list, makes it that much more noticeable. When I read this posting, I also thought about when I go into small stores and want to pay with my debit card, but there is a minimum spending limit. that is so upsetting and absurd! For a $2 bottle of breath spray, I have to buy 4 other bottles to make that $10 minimum on debit.
ReplyDelete-Vonee Gomez
I agree that there are a lot of channels on tv that I do not watch, but I pay for. The big one from the list was ESPN, I almost never watch that and I am giving them the most money. However, I don't think it is that much of a disadvantage to pay for all the channels because at somepoint someone will probably be watching it on your tv. Also, most of the prices arent that big of a price shift, their relatively the same. Although it would be nice to be able to pick the channels you pay for, but I do not feel its necessary.
ReplyDeleteJessica Catanese
Bundling cable channels a bit bizarre now that I think of it, but it also makes sense. Some restaurants put a minimum tab so that customers don't fill slots just to pay small amounts of food. In terms of cable, there are some benefits to having many channel; one would have the ability to watch programs on channels one normally wouldn't. Bundling seems a bit foolish, and a bit pricey however, if one knows one only wants to watch certain channels. I'm fairly certain I've only ever watched around 20 channels worth of TV, and I doubt if there was anything else I wanted to watch that would be on DVD or on the Internet. It seems worth mentioning, though, that one should take the marketer's perspective. Would it cost them more money to only give out a handful of channels if everyone only took the channels they wanted? Are they doing this to thrive or survive in the industry? I would be for a la carte cable, but I'm not sure if I would just watch TV online or go without it at that point.
ReplyDeleteChris Bradley
Kimberly Flok MWF 2:00-2:50
ReplyDeleteI agree with the author in this article when he states that although many are willing to foot the bill for a package of channel, most do not even realize how much each channel they pay for costs regardless if they watch it or not. As a recent subscriber to Comcast, I quickly realized that I will never watch about half the channels. I, for one, rarely ever watch the ESPN channels or much of the CNN or political channels. To know that I pay for the channels when I never even turn them on is really hard to swallow when I look at my monthly Comcast bill.
I honestly never even paid attention to the idea that each station has its own pricing. As Kafka suggests, it is upsetting to someone like me who hardly ever watches sports programming that is not aired on local television stations. In the same respect, I could then understand why ESPN would be the highest in terms of sports, since they provide basically an entire genre of television to viewers who want non-local sports coverage. I also feel it’s a little absurd that the broadcast networks (NBC, ABC, etc…) plan to charge cable subscribers despite the fact that the stations are free to non-subscribers. Hypothetically, that would be like charging me for the apple and 3 other items, but letting the person in line behind me have the apple for no cost at all. As a person who watches only about 15-20 channels total, I would appreciate a la carte cable. I doubt this is likely to happen though, considering the gamble of the results. The first cable provider to make that move could potentially force other stations to follow suit or they could lose their steady intake of payment from customers. If things worked out well for the cable provider with the new a la carte method, then they could expand their network of consumers based on the idea that they are giving the customers what they want, which would in turn force other providers to do the same. However, if the consumers are not “biting” at the idea, then they would potentially lose a whole lot of money in the grand scheme of not charging a flat rate bundle fee. The hypothetical scenario carries a heavy risk that I’m sure most cable companies are not willing to take.
ReplyDeleteMichael Lam MWF 2:00-2:50
ReplyDeleteFrom the customer prospective, it seems really unfair that these cable companies don't allow customers to pick and choose their own channels. But an al la carte option is not available obviously because these cable companies would suffer a lot from it. But the blame should be on the customers because instead of immediately realizing the prices that we pay, we are only focused on the the fact that these prices we pay gets us what we want. This gives the cable companies the power to do as they please because they know that the customer's craving to watch Bobby Flay fry a fish makes them blind to these extra cost.
Kimberly Boyd- MWF 2:00-2:50
ReplyDeleteI find it very troubling that we, as customers, are forced into paying for goods that we do not need, or even want. There are many stations on that list that I never watch, or have even heard of, yet every day I'm paying for them. This is especially frustrating for a college student, like myself, who could put that money (even if it isn’t much) to other, more important factors, like paying off loans for example! Of course, it is happening because the cable company needs to make money, and this is the way that they are doing it. However, I think that many would benefit from the a la carte method, because it would be so much easier for them to enjoy their television, and not have to flip through hundreds of channels before finding one they like. Moreover, the fact that networks such as NBC and CBS are going to be added to this list, according to Kafka, is very frustrating since people who don’t pay for cable, will still be getting them these channels for free. I feel that as a viewer of these networks, I would rather side with stopping my cable, which would hurt the cable companies, to receive these channels for free, since they are the majority of the channels that I watch.
Kevin Rupnarine MWF, 2:00-2:50
ReplyDeleteThe fact that each channel has it's own charge is news to me is surprising, but it does make sense. I might be reading the chart wrong, but could someone please tell me what the very last charge on that list means, the "Industry Charge" means, 'cause I know that doesn't mean how much the cable company makes out of it. Yes, I admit that many would benefit from the a la carte idea, but would the cable company benefit from it? If that a la carte mode was available, and say from what I read from this blog is that most people would choose it, some channels like ESPN and FOX business would not be watched by some people. This, I believe, would cause all the channels to increase in price to compensate for channels not being watched. So, if my logic is correct, it comes down to this: either pay cents to the dollar for lots of channels, which you may or may not watch, or pay the same (or worse-more!) for a limited selection of channels. I prefer more channels if that's the case.
Reading the article and examining the chart was a bit surprising to me. It was surprising to see how much money cable companies take out for each channel. I know for me personally I probably watch 4 out of all those channels daily.
ReplyDeleteAlthough its a bit unsettling knowing that cable companies bundle together all those channels, it can also be a good thing. Sometime i like to channel surf so its good to know that i have more than just the four channels I personally like to watch.
With that being said, i still believe it is unfair to charge a big fee for more channels than you want. I believe its cheating the customer.
AE-8:00,Tues-Thur
Desirae Holland
Eugene Tsvilik M/W/F 2-2:50
ReplyDeleteThe list that Kafka presents is quite shocking, and before seeing it, I more or less assumed that cable companies were charging fair prices for their bundles, since over the course of the last 5 years or so I have seen the prices of both Comcast and Verizon decrease. That's not to say that I was completely oblivious or idealistic about cable TV pricing, since any cynic would tell you that there is always a grand scheme to gargantuan companies like Time/Warner, but the actual pricing per channel is still very surprising. I share the TV habits with most of the other commenter in that I only watch around 20 channels, and although I do watch the "pricey" channels like ESPN, CNN and TBS regularly, it is still alarming to me that I have to pay so much to watch channels like Fox News. While the assumption that anti-trust laws should come into play here is a hopeful one, companies like Time/Warner probably have a very impressive lobbying staff in Washington, most likely offering the same kinds of "incentives" to politicians as tobacco and insurance companies. If there should ever be a wide-scale shift to a-la-carte pricing for cable TV, it would have to start from the customers, since even now, more and more people are choosing to watch their favorite shows and programming through Hulu, Netflix and other online providers. Companies like Comcast should consider adapting their pricing with the times in the near future if they hope to remain relevant
I think its worthless to buy channels which you don't watch. They make you buy extra sports channels is because they make their most of the money out of it. Instead of making us buy al carte channels, they should have an al charte choices of channels which people often watch. For example, they can have 15 al carte channel and pick the one you watch. This would be so much cheaper and effective way to utilize the money given to the cable subscription. A lot of the episodes and sitcoms are available to watch free on internet so, why pay more for other unwatched channels. I think this is an another way of theft and cheating people to pay more money, and they know that everyone is going to have a T.V and will buy cable subscription. Therefore, there was no way of getting out of buying al carte channels.
ReplyDeleteMuktak Tripathi
MWF 1:00 pm
Robert Morris, MWF 2-2:50
ReplyDeleteWhile i agree that it is unfair to viewers to force them to subscribe to channels they don't want in order to get channels that they do, it's the cable provider's call on what service they provide. Theoretically, anyone that doesn't like the service provided by existing companies can make their own and set up a more user-friendly system, and I fully intended to stand on the side of the companies' right to do what they want with their own company when i started writing, but it occurred to me that ESPN, for example, wouldn't be interested in providing their channel to a company that would get it less money than a company that forces its users to subscribe to it, because it would clearly be in ESPN's best interest to sign on with the company that guarantees it the most money, and coupled with the investment it would require to actually start an entirely new cable company and compete with existing giants, viewers are more or less stuck with the existing system unless some other outside force effects a change. I am a fan of keeping the government away from the economy, but in cases like this where there is an apparently closed cycle that allows companies to provide a less-than-satisfactory service and force consumers into choosing between bad tv or no tv, that can't be overcome by letting the market work itself out, i can't think of a practical solution that wouldn't be unfair to one of the parties involved.
Gerard Bradbury MWF
ReplyDeleteI think that this is just the nature of the business. There is no reason to get upset because you are paying for channels that you dont want to watch, or having to buy other products in order to buy the apple. In all reality they make you buy these things because it makes it easier for them not only for the simple fact that it makes them more money but it keeps them from losing money as well. This country is run on capitalism and making profits. Because when you think about it if you had a business where you were selling a product you would do everything you can to make the most possible money
I can not believe how cheap cable would be if I could just pick and choose my stations. The problem is with the middle man or Comcast in this case. We actually used to own the airwaves (it's law that the public owns the airwaves) but since we switched to digital it makes it a little more tricky. Anyway, what I am getting at is who really owns the information? The public or Comcast. I don't have a TV and I don't have cable because I can't afford to pay the monthly rates. If I could pay directly to the station it would be very feasible. Still, I am unsure how this whole broadcast thing works. With a newspaper you have to buy the sports section to get the newspaper, even if you only want to do the crossword. That is one companies newspaper, not a whole slew of companies. So in order to see CNN you also have to purchase ESPN? That doesn't quite make as much sense to me. What a rip off.
ReplyDelete-Sarah Fry Tue. Thur. 8 am
While a la carte cable certainly sounds appealing, there is enough evidence to suggest that perhaps the cable industry really isn't in the wrong here. For one, a la carte cable would likely bring in far less money for these companies. While that may seem like feeding into the cable companies' greed, the fact is that a business must fight for survival. A la carte cable probably wouldn't allow these companies to all survive, let alone thrive, so they would naturally be more inclined to follow a bundling package. On a consumer level, in an a la carte system the prices of individual channels would probably be raised, essentially making it close in price to a bundling package. In fact, for a heavy cable consumer, an a la carte system could potentially cost them more money. While the a la carte system sounds good, it is important to note the merit of the current bundling system that these cable companies employ.
ReplyDeleteMax Ufberg
Monday, Wednesday, Friday
I agree, I know when I moved out of the house and to college my mom got rid of a lot of the programs she does not watch to save money. The only thing was that when I got back the majority of my favorite channels were no longer available. After much debate and threats of switching companies we got a good number of the channels I wanted back but the fact that ESPN is required to get some other stations is ridiculous. Why should we pay for one of the most expensive sports channels when it is not what I want, but I want another channel that has nothing to do with it. I probably have 6 stations that I watch regularly and those should be the only ones that I am paying for. I can see how this is being compared to a minimum charge on your credit card, I don't know how it really works with the cable companies but I know stores and businesses pay the credit card companies a certain percentage so having a minimum is sometimes necessary. In all being charged for channels you may never watch seems outrageous and pointless when you are willing to pay for the ones you do enjoy.
ReplyDeleteJasmin Eales
MWF
I also agree with the author, the fact that the cable industry is making large amounts of money off channels that I may never even turn on seems ridiculous. If you could purchase channels individually I believe it could clear up the cable industry and eliminate stations that aren't making enough money, which could on the other hand lead to problems for people that watch shows on channels that aren't very popular. Either way after reading the article it seems ridiculous and much more cost efficient if the government got involved and demanded the industry take responsibility for their costly cable packages.
ReplyDeleteMegan Schmidt
MWF
I never thought about this before but now that it has been brough to my attention it frustrates me. I only watch a select few channels and i even pay extra money just to get HBO. Granted, i understand Comcast wants to make as much money as they can and make it simplest for them but it doesnt seem unethical. To be honest a lot of the decisions the government makes puzzles me. Maybe if they paid more attention to articles like these they could stop dragging us into more debt. I dont want to pay for things I dont use.
ReplyDeleteHattie Cheek
TR, 8 AM
Jenna Smith TR 8:00-9:20
ReplyDeleteAlthough I watch ESPN and do not mind that it makes up 40% of my cable bill, I do feel for those non-sport fans and I believe that cable should be a le carte. I do not think it is necessary to buy a bundle of 100 channels when really one only watches about maybe 20. Personally, I only really watch about 10 channels because the shows I watch are all on the same networks. Therefore as a college student I believe it would be best if there was such a simple "choose your channel" option. Ultimately, regarding cable companies in general like Comcast and their channel bundles it seems that there needs to be some sort of government regulating that needs to take place. This needs to happen because it feels as if Comcast is an overbearing institute that one cannot disconnect from since there is a lack of options. As a result individuals are practically stuck/forced to purchase cable no matter what channels someone actually wants to watch because they are going to have to buy the bundle regardless the price.
Prior to reading this article, I had no idea the amount of money I have been wasting on cable. After reading this, I clicked through my channels and realized that there are only about five channels that I watch day-to-day. Although it is nice to have the option to watch any channel at any time, it is absurd that each one is provided at different prices, and have people practically forced to pay for stations that they do not watch. Also, knowing that some of our basic cable channels will rise in price shortly is a concern of mine.
ReplyDelete-Richelle Lencicki
I also had no idea how much money I've been wasting all this time on cable. I don't understand why we should be forced to pay for something we don't really want or even use, it's ridiculous. I agree that it's nice to have all the different options at any time, but on a day-to-day basis I personally only watch MAYBE one or two channels. In fact, based on the chart, I would spend less than five dollars to watch everything that I currently do, plus some. I dislike the idea of having to pay for something that I never use, because that's money I could be using for something else. Kind of like food or even tuition..
ReplyDeleteAlexis Haas TR 8:00-9:20
What an AMAZING IDEA!
ReplyDeletepsh. Cable is too expensive as is. To be honest one of the best thing about living in a dorm is guarenteed CABLE. Back at home my parents struggled to pay the cable bill sometimes. HOWEVER, if something like this was to actually happen the cost of the bill would go down. WHOOOHOOOOO! That would make my day. Now that I think about it ... this also wouldn't be a bad idea because I wouldn't have to search through hundreds of channels looking for something to watch ...
THEY NEED TO MAKE THIS PLAN HAPPENNNNN!
COME ON CONGRESSSSSSSS!
Taisje Claiborne
N'keya Peters (Tue, Thur 8-9:20am)
ReplyDeleteWhat a rip off! This is exactly why I will never own cable it is way too expensive and its not worth the price. I' d rather use netflix and watch dvds. Cable companies are becoming rich and networks control watch we watch.