Cable Television and Hamburger Buns, a la Carte Posted by Bob at 03/15/07 01:09 PM

I love a good hamburger. Hot off the grill, dripping with some sharp cheddar, nestled on a lightly toasted potato roll with a dab of spicy brown mustard. It doesn’t really get any better than that.

So what does any of that have to do with cable television?

It’s the buns. I can go to the grocery store and buy all of the ingredients for my dream feast in the quantity and variety that I want – except for the buns.

I favor Martin’s Potato Rolls, a delicious brand made in the Dutch Country of southern Pennsylvania. Martin’s also makes a fine potato bread that is my choice for the perfect ham sandwich, but I digress.

The smallest number of Martin’s Potato Rolls that I can buy at the store is eight. I will eat two burgers in a typical meal and my wife will eat one. That means we are constantly tossing out five potato rolls that have gone stale.

This is the exact same way that most folks are forced to buy cable television service. You are forced to buy a certain number of channels, the majority of which you will never watch. The cable companies call it “tiered service.”

But it’s even worse than that. Consumers are typically forced to buy a so-called “basic tier” of channels in order to buy certain other “premium” channels they might want, such as HBO or ESPN.

When questioned about their rapidly increasing rates cable television providers are usually quick to point out that they are offering more channels – and that the actual cost per channel for consumers is going down.

That might be true if all those channels had the same value to consumers. They don’t. Most people only watch a very limited number of channels on a regular basis. And they aren’t watching the Home Shopping Network, the Bass Fishing Channel and all the other odd offerings that make up the majority of the typical cable package.

We believe consumers would be much better off with an “a la carte” system, where they are able to choose and buy only what they are interested in and expect to use.

The weakness of the “we’re giving you more” argument by cable providers is driven home by a new report by Nielsen Media Research. You can view an article on the report by MediaPost by clicking here (registration required).

For the first time, the report says, the number of channels "receivable" by the average TV household shot up past 100, jumping to 104.2 in 2006, up from 96.4 in 2005. But the number actually tuned in by the average household remained about the same, moving to 15.7 in 2006 from 15.4 in 2005 and 15.0 in 2004, the first year for which Nielsen reports that statistic.

It’s time for cable television providers to stop playing games and give consumers the option buy only the channels they want.

As for me, I think I will slap some hamburgers on the grill tonight and watch “The Office.”

comments (31)

1 Posted by michael boerer at 03/29/07 07:11 PM

what could be better. i get about 50 channels of which 40 are absolutley worthless. the last time my rates went up i called to complain and was told of all the new channels i am receiving. well i really don't need the golf station, cartoon channel, and 3 religious channels. i was also told i could go to another provider. well there are none, but as soon as their is i will drop comcast like a brick.

2 Posted by j perkins at 03/29/07 07:12 PM

Think this is bad for a residential customer, you ought to see what they force on the commercial customer.

3 Posted by Carolyn at 03/29/07 07:24 PM

I totally agree. I continually debate canceling my cable service as I pay so much for so little. If it is truly a market driven system, then the consumers should be able to make the progrmming choices they wish to receive and pay for. I'm tired of supporting cable companies and advertisers making money off me in this coercive manner.

4 Posted by Fred krohn at 03/29/07 10:24 PM

I definitely agree. I watch very little TV nowadays: I peruse less than 20 channels out of Comcast's 'basic' lineup. The computer (with Comcast's broadband Internet) takes much higher priority.

I feel it a poor deal when they insist on serving outright garbage (QVC, HSN, Golf Channel, 'pay-per-view' access, CBS) and useless-to-me channels (anything in languages other than English, Norsk, or Español, channels intended for audiences other than a somewhat atypical 50-year-old male Scandinavian-American...) along with the few channels I actually use (Discovery, TLC, History, Science, Animal Planet, PBS, TVLand, some classic movie channels, Cartoon Network 'Adult Swim', Fox, UPN, ABC, NBC) in the basic lineup. Choosing up to, say, 16 or 32 channels from an 'expanded basic' lineup for basic service and discarding garbage and irrelevant channels would be a much better (and less wasteful of bandwidth) way of building a loyal cable TV customer base. I would love to shed the outright garbage channels for the SciFi and Military channels currently offered as the only two worthwhile additions if you sign up for some 50 more trash channels too in an overpriced 'digital premium' package. That song '57 Channels and nothing on!' is only inaccurate in the count - it should be '257 Channels and nothing on!'!

5 Posted by Andrea Richard at 03/30/07 12:39 AM

I absolutely agree. I am tired of paying high fees to the cable company when we don't care to watch 75% of what we have to pay for. Reduce the cost and allow us to pay for a custom package of what we want.

6 Posted by CHARLES at 03/30/07 12:30 PM

ALONG WITH OUR PROBLEMS WITH T.V. IS COMMERCIAL AIR TIME, COMMERCIALS ARE RUNING 50% OF OUR AVAILABLE AIR TIME,'TOO MUCH' CUT DOWN ON THE ADVERTIZING. I SIMPLY TURN OFF MY T.V.WHEN I AM BOMBARDED WITH ADVERTS. DISCUSTED!

7 Posted by John R Jensen at 03/31/07 03:25 PM

Most TV programs are pure mindless garbage. I don't understand how any one can watch that drivel.

8 Posted by Ann Callahan at 04/02/07 05:45 AM

It would be nice if I could get EWTN with my current cable network and not have to switch to satellite to get it. My husband is pleased with the lineup we currently have. Why have to switch. Why can't we pick and choose if we just want 1-10 extra or different programs.

9 Posted by Mark Griggs at 04/02/07 10:57 PM

I certainly would like to see the dissolution of packages for cable as well as satellite. I believe that the consumer should have the ability to choose which channels he wants. Of course, I would want this ability without an unsubstantiated additional charge!

One matter in particular that I am very upset about is the premium on HDTV channels. Congress mandated that the television industry change to digital broadcasts yet I have to pay more for the privilege of having the service? I have an antenna for over the air digital which in my area is poor at best. These predatory practices should be regulated by law and stopped.

10 Posted by Chris at 04/03/07 08:26 AM

Selecting the channels you like, or a-la-cart programming, has been shown to cost the average consumer MORE than tier programming. Yes you get a lot of channels you may not watch but the value per channel is greater. I, and others in my town, have been fighting this scheme for a while. More than 1/2 the subscribers we spoke to would pay more for a-la--carte than what they are currently paying, me among them. I have 5 people living in my house and with the mix of age groups and interests, Even if I only purchased 1/2 of channels I already get it would increased my cost.

Think of it like a combo printer scanner fax machine. You may need only 2 of the options but the cost is generally better than the 2 items you need purchased seperately so you buy the device and never fax a thing but you've saved money and have the additional functionality should the need arise.

The only way that it would work is if the cable companies charged everyone the same price per channel as they currently pay for tiered service ($50 per month/150 channels = $0.34 per channel)and I don't see them passing up the opportunity to make additional money at say $0.75 to $1.00 per channel.

11 Posted by Tony at 04/06/07 05:36 AM

All of us would like "Chinese Menu" ordering for cable, but the cable companies have to buy the channels in packages just the way we get stuck with them.
I'm not necessarily sympathetic to the cable companies because their markup is a bit too stiff, but I know they have to pay E$PN for each potential viewer - those million-dollar football player contracts don't come from ticket sales and overpriced hot dogs, and no cable company is going to stay in business without E$PN, so E$PN can really call the $hot$. The cable co. puts E$PN in tier 2, which includes a few inexpensive channels that appeal to non-sports fans. Then the cable co. pays E$PN for EVERY last customer who has Tier 2, including people who never watch that particular channel, and rabid sports fans who only watch that channel. This is very carefully audited by the channels selling services.

One company frequently owns 5 or 6 channels like Discovery or HGTV, and the only way a cable company can buy DIY is to include another channel, like Fine Living. If the cable co. says they don't want Fine Living, then the channel owner says, "Pity. I'll just take DIY, as well." and the customers go nuts.

Competition betwen cable co's is not likely because various towns assigned areas to specific cable companies for a nice piece of the cable profit years ago in order to avoid 3 or 4 wires going down each street. Nowadays, cable co's could all use the one wire and have the homeowner choose which company he wants, but that would mean having a cable box in the home that acts like a meter and sends info back to the office. No customer wants anyone to know exactly which channel he's watching, and many people do not want a cable box in the house at all.

12 Posted by Daron at 04/10/07 10:45 AM

Another problem with an "a la carte" system is that many of the less mainstream channels would not survive if they were not bundled with popular channels. Most viewers have a special interest channel or two that we like to watch depending on our interests, hobbies, etc. and the current tiered programming system enables them to be funded. An "a la carte" system would ultimately result in a thinning of the channel lineup to only those channels that are popular with the masses, and we don't want to lose that diversity. So no, we can't have our cake and eat it too!

13 Posted by Kevin at 04/11/07 06:32 AM

An a la carte pricing structure would just encourage cable companies to charge more for each channel a customer wants to have in their home. One thing cable companies should stop doing is raising rates year after year. Cable rates are ridiculous. Where I live, I have Time Warner Cable. Their new package prices have gone through the roof. To get their top package that includes every channel offered, digital phone, and broadband internet, the monthly fee is over $170 a month after fees and taxes are added. That is outrageous! As of Feb 1st of this year, rates increased once again.

14 Posted by Judy at 04/11/07 11:39 AM

Then why don't you folks stop complaining and make a statement that hits them where it hurts?

Cancel your cable!

As long as folks are willing to pay anything, your rates will never go down.

Judy
St. Louis
free tv only

15 Posted by George Shaeffer at 04/12/07 03:29 AM

Tiered programming SUCKS! I have analog cable basic service (about 70 channels, most of which I don't want) and a new HD TV. To get ANY HD programming I first have to sign up for digital cable (about 300 channels in the package I need just to get the few channels I do watch in my analog package) at a significantly higher cost, THEN I have to pay an ADDITIONAL $20/month for the HD package. And the satelite packages are just as bad. WHEN ARE WE EVER GOING TO GET ALL HD PROGRAMMING? WHEN ARE WE EVER GOING TO BE ALLOWED TO PICK AND CHOOSE TO ASSEMBLE THE PACKAGE WE WANT, CHANNEL BY CHANNEL? Until then we're all just getting ripped off!

16 Posted by Ruth Grunberg at 04/17/07 10:37 PM

The uproar over Imus offers new ammunition for a la carte programming, or at least a law that requires cable companies to reduce the bill
when the customer blocks objectionable channels from arriving at their home.

I tried to get MTV and VH1 blocked from my cable TV because of objectionable content. Surprise! The cable company can block it from entering my home, but they STILL collect the monthly fee for those channels and obligingly send the money along to the offending media outlets.

The consumers have no way to vote with their pocketbooks as long as THIS policy is not altered. If a customer requests a channel blocked, they should not be forced to pay for it. The big media companies are holding
us hostage to their filth.

The advertisers acted in the case of Imus,
but why not lobby for tools that let people be empowered all on their own?

17 Posted by Gail Neely at 04/20/07 08:33 AM

Consumers Union should spearhead a campaign to designate a National “Just say no!” to Subscription Television Week. This would be a week during which people are urged to contact their cable, satellite, etc. provider to cancel their subscription, as a means of expressing their dissatisfaction with the lack of choice and outrageous price of these services. CU could take out ads in major newspapers (similar to the “Just say no” to extended service agreements campaign that was launched during the holiday season). When cable and satellite providers are hit hard in the pocketbook by losing subscriptions, only then will they be willing to seriously reconsider their business model to offer such services as cable a la carte which does not force the consumer to pay a hefty price for lots of channels they don’t want and don’t watch. This movement would then have a ripple effect, forcing media companies who own such channels to break up the packages they sell to cable companies and offer their channels separately. This would be due to the fact that cable and satellite providers could legitimately tell these companies that their customers are outright rejecting such packaged offerings, and thus they will be unable to purchase any of that company’s channels unless these channels are offered separately, or unless the package is offered to the cable company at a much lower price.

More people would be willing to go along with canceling their subscription TV if they understood that Internet DVD subscription services can provide movies and television on DVD for prices that either compare, or could be much lower that what they are currently paying for cable or satellite. With these services you are able to select and pay for exactly (and only) the programs and films you actually want to watch. The TV programs from such services would not be the current season, but a truly good program is worth the wait (especially when it doesn’t include the mind-numbing commercials from the original broadcast). Also, a great many films on DVD or VHS are available for free loan from one’s local public library. Or, in an effort to wean themselves from subscription TV, people could do something even more radical to entertain themselves, such as (gasp!) reading a book. News and weather can be obtained from the Internet or radio or even from a newspaper for folks willing to go that far.

There are so many alternatives -- We see subscription television as a necessity of life only because we have brainwashed ourselves into thinking that way. On the contrary, it is possible to lead a very full (and potentially more rewarding) life without handing over ridiculous sums of money to the cable company each month in return for the mindless drivel they attempt to pass off as entertainment. As consumers, it is high time that we start taking responsibility for our own choices. Indeed, subscription television companies are not exactly holding us at gunpoint and forcing us to hand over these huge wads of cash to them. But as long as we continue to hand it over, they will continue to take it. We can’t rely on government agencies to force cable and satellite companies to offer services such as a la carte channel selection, as the officials that run such agencies have too many political ties to these big businesses. No, the time has come for all of us to stand up together and just say “No!” to subscription television.

18 Posted by Jonathon Mullens at 04/26/07 06:47 PM

Yeah it sucks being a Dodger fan in the midwest. It almost sucks to be a white sox fan. I know I could pay for a package to watch all the baseball I want but lets face it. If I have time to watch all that baseball I wouldn't be able to afford to have some form of cable/sat. to begin with. Oh well, a man can dream.

19 Posted by Chris at 04/27/07 07:55 AM

It's a perfect idea now what can we do as consumers to make it happen??? I would walk door to door to get the support needed to get something like this available.

20 Posted by Texas Cable Guy at 08/05/08 09:38 PM

Would a-la-carte really lower the price of cable TV?

As a retired cable TV engineer, I've been thinking about this issue for a long time.   I don't think a-la-carte will lower the price of cable TV.   But that's not the purpose of this post.   I'm posting this in an attempt to explain what might actually happen if a-la-carte were mandated by Congress.

Continued here...

Texas Cable Guy
texascableguy@gmail.com