The current debate seems to have a red herring.
The current debate between regulators and the cable/dish companies is over whether to “unbundle” the channels so that people can bar selected stations but keep the rest of the bundle. This is supposedly to spare the kids in the house all the violence. (I think sex channels are already optional)
But that’s assuming that if you don’t want your kids to see the Sopranos that you don’t want to see it either.
Seems the V-chip solved that problem.
I still agree with the premise that bundling is an odd way to run a monopolistic marketplace.
The assertion that people would be slow to order the newer channels is true enough, but that’s what every industry is faced with.
Not only would people be slow to order new channels, but people would drop older channels. The cable companies pay good money to carry these channels. It’s not in their economic self-interest to pay for a channel when they only have 5 customers. The channels have an interest in compelling viewership because they can make the case to their advertisers that they are available in X number of homes.
It’s not odd at all. It’s no different from Sport Package X on a new Pontiac or Office packaged with Windows. It’s the perception of added value for a small premium.
Personally, I’d like to see A La Carte Pay TV. I don’t want to pay for 400 sports channels and all the “Police/Crime/Lawyer Show” TV channels, not to mention the various Shopping and Weather channels, just so I can get The History Channel, The Comedy Channel, Discovery, Fox 8, TV One, and VH1…
Me too. I don’t like the idea of paying for a package that contains fillers I don’t want - my solution to this has so far been to not bother subscribing to anything - so I’m potentially an untapped market - offer up a pick ‘n’ mix package, and I might be interested.
However, I might not. I sometimes think I might be better off packing the telly in a box and forgetting about it.
I used to be all about being able to pick exactly what channels I want until I realized that the only reason there are channels that I like on cable is because the mainstream is forced to pay for them as part of their bundle.
I highly doubt that Jane and Joe Sixpack will willingly subscribe to “The Science Channel”, say, unless it’s bundled in with the main networks…and that means if they had the chance to opt out, the Science Channel (for example) would pretty much go out of business instantly…
Doesn’t mean I don’t wish I lived in an economic fairy land where I could just pay $10 a month and have all the documentary channels I wanted. That would rock.
Bundling is good for the minority channels because it gives them funding that a pure choice market might not
Bundling is good for the suppliers, because it makes the packages look bigger.
Bundling might even be good for the customer, because you don’t always know what’s good for you until you try it, but certainly the first two items above could account for it
Bundling is really complex in antitrust law in the US - sometimes allowed, sometimes not. The law in the area is in a state of flux, like much antitrust law, and tying of products is becoming less presumptively anti-competitive than in the past, if efficiency/consumer benefits can be shown.
All I know, is the reason my cable bill keeps going up and up has a lot to do with ESPN, which I never, ever watch. Just last year there was talk here in Phoenix about some cable bundles actually dropping the damn thing, or moving it to a paid tier because the cost of carrying it ket rising, but no. They simply kept it and raised the rates.
So, yeah, they should damn well make people pay if they want to watch ESPN. Well, I might splurge for “The Ocho.”
I dropped cable years ago because of this. The sports channels drive up the cost and I’m not gonna pay someone else’s cable bill. Cable companies are chartered businesses and operate in the public’s interest. The ability to operate in a near vacuum comes with responsibilities. The public should not be forced into large bundled packages. I don’t want 200 channels. I don’t want any sports channels. If 200 channels cost $50 then I should be able to purchase 10 channels (of my choosing) for substantially less.
If someone wants to give me a month of their channel as a trial then they are free to do so. I don’t need to be forced to pay for something I “might” like.
But you might be right, if you can just send me your address I can start billing you for the encyclopedia’s I think you’ll need.
Poor analogy, I think - entertainment isn’t quite like a lot of other market commodities, because very often, you don’t know exactly what it is until you get it - if you did know about it, it wouldn’t be very entertaining. Have you honestly never been pleasantly suprised by some form of entertainment that you just happened across, but would not have dreamed of asking for?
Jeeze louise - my head did a Linda Blair on that one. You’re telling me that I should pay for extra items I don’t want because I might like it? Seriously. How can you support that concept?
I already know what I want. And even more to the point, I know what I don’t want. I don’t want any sports channels, religious channels, or shopping channels. I don’t want MTV or anything that is remotely like it. I don’t want 37 music channels. I only want a few movie and history channels.
Entertainment is exactly like other commodities and is sold that way in every market except cable. I can’t imagine going into a store to buy a movie and being told that I have to buy something else to go with it because I might like it.
