Less is More

Interesting argument from Time Warner Cable's CEO explaining why cable TV customers will never be able pick and pay for just the channels they want. Going a la carte would give consumers less choice, not more.

Glenn Britt essentially confirms he carries a ton of dreck no one in his right mind would actually pay for as a stand alone product. These networks are subsidized by the popular stuff people actually want, kinda like if car dealers tacked on an extra $1000 on every SUV to cover the cost of keeping plaid, steam-powered tricycles on the lot. Great deal for the occasional loon, jobbery for the rest of us.

Comments

[Sam I Was]

I understand your point. But still.

I don't know much about Discovery network finances, but to an outsider, the channel seemed to be doing just fine for years without copping out to the monster-garage crowd.

[Tim Cavanaugh]

As long as I get Mother Angelica Live I don't care how they get it to me.

[Dan]

Similarly, I would be more willing to pay for cable TV packages that exclude [stuff] but includes [other stuff]. I would pay more as I wouldn't have to flip through the garbage, and I would get channels that I currently do now.

Ok, hang on just a second.

My cable box is programmable; I can set favorite channels, and channels I want to exclude. In other words, I can do exactly what you to do. It doesn't cost me extra, although I'm not sure if it's part of basic cable or is included with the extra fee I pay for digital. There are many markets in which this is the case; you should check and see if yours is one of them.

There are already numerous ways of avoiding seeing channels you don't want. What people are demanding is a way to not have to pay for them. The truth of the matter is that Britt is right. Cable offers countless channels that a *few* people want to watch. These channels cost the cable company very little to buy, and very little to broadcast, but earn them very little profit. Since it would cost them more to broadcast to only *some* houses than it would to broadcast to everybody, the end result will be that, if Congress (or whoever) forces them to let people opt out of "paying" for C-Span or the Golf Channel, they will simply drop the C-Span and the Golf Channel and keep charging you the same amount of money. This is especially true when you consider that they probably acquired the rights to broadcast the Golf Channel as part of a package deal in the first place -- so their overhead will be staying pretty much the same.

[green]

"Discovery used to great -- interesting science and anthropology stuff presented without the PBS dreariness. Now you can't flip past the channel without seeing a bunch of beefy dudes in a garage hammering on souped-up muscle cars and bellowing about obscure mechanical crap."

Indeed, in the 90s, Discovery Channel and TLC had a lot of good, thoughful programming. These days its alot of B.S. about Shark attacks, theoretical future worlds and lots of hype. And the travel channel had a piece on the nicest bathroom in Vegas. I can't watch 80% of cable channels because they just plain suck.

[nobody]

It's called 'bundling'. Read this article here for an explanation of the economics:

http://www.techcentralstation.com/040504A.html

[Shawn Smith]

The main problem I would have with a la carte programming is that I would pretty much be forced to use the cable company's cable box. None of the cable boxes I have used provide a way to watch one program while recording another for later viewing. If I lost that capability, I would have a compelling reason for cancelling cable service altogether.

Oh, wait, maybe that would be a good thing, after all.

[swami]

C-span is subsidized by the cable industry as a public service it will always be on your cable system for free, it is included in the most minimal basic package. It does not run ads, as someone here alluded to advertisers having to buy ads on c-span

[asd]

Don't have a TV, 'cept for my SNES. You suckers are paying for garbage.

[Jeff]

Wait a minute, I have six sports channels, four hispanic channels, and five home shopping channels that sit fallow on my cable box because I have no interest in them. I highly doubt these channels require subsidies.
Too many channels get Mercy-fucked by cable. But I bet the channels that show old Game shows and old soap operas could cut a deal with TV Land to be part of a package. Same goes with all the science channels. It networks were bundled with their direct competitors instead of the other networks their parent company owned, cable would be a lot more interesting.

[dhex]

and wouldn't it end up creating more sales? if i could get the 10 channels i actually want for 12 bucks a month, i'd jump on it. as it is now, they're lucky i still own a tv (for gamecube/ps2/dvd tuffness)

[Mr. Nice Guy]

dhex: what about Xbox?

I'm really getting fucking tired of cable. I called them to complain about the $50 basic bill, and they agreed to cut $10. However, they have very slowly jacked it up to $46 so far. I can't see how they justify charging that much for mostly commercial stations.

[Highway]

I don't really think it would make that much of a difference. The cable companies are only a portion of the driving force behind the bundling. The owners of the channels use their popular stations to subsidise the cheaper channels as well, and the cable company wouldn't be too keen on having to pay the same amount but not offering the channels. Plus, I can't see the cable companies, the way they operate, establishing a price structure that will save anyone that much money. Like he said, there are a lot of fixed costs, and they'll set the per-channel costs to make up a higher profit on the a la carte channels. It wouldn't be 'get 10 channels for 12 bucks', it would be 25 bucks for the service, and then 3 bucks for each channel. Or 60 dollars for 60 channels the old bundled way. Not much of a savings there.

[Vigilance Matters]

I'd gladly pay more per channel, for less channels, just to know that Britney Spears and the perverts at MTV were not getting ONE THIN DIME from me. All i want is baseball and there is no possible way for me to purchase ESPN without also "subsidizing" Howard Stern and Janet Jackson!

Why should my love for Americas pastime make me a hypocrite? As if i need the help...

[Mo]

On Tuesday I was thinking about this very thing. At halftime of the Laker game, I saw that Top Gun was on ABC Family. I thought to myself, "Gee, if I picked my cable stations, I would've never seend this because there's no way I'm paying for ABC Family." Then I sat and thought for a second and realized that I would because Disney would force me to get that with ESPN.

I think Jeff's idea is best, package networks by genre instead of corporate partners. However, it makes too much sense to happen.

[Richard]

I agree, Britt is full of shitt. I think that the first channels that would be dropped by most consumers would include PBS, C-SPAN, C-SPAN 2, HSN, WE, LIFETIME, ARTS, MTV & BET (parents) and other redundant networks.

Further, Britt's argument that compares newspaper to magazine readers, ignores the premium magazine buyers pay to have their information more focused for their reading pleasure. Newspapers contain a plethora of excess information about a lot of things, and not enough information about a few things. This is why the Sporting News, SI, Maxim, Seventeen, are popular for the people looking only for the sports section; interesting, but useless advice; and teen fashions. Assuming newspapers are plethoras of information, at $.50 per day, and a buck fifty on Sundays, newspapers run at $4.50 a week--newstand. This is more than most weekly magazines, but newspapers contain information that spans the gamut of tastes. Magazines are focused on a single subject or topic.

I know that if I could tell my newspaper man to leave out the Style or Life section, I would pay a small premium as I would have a product I wanted more. Instead, I don't buy newspapers, I buy magazines, quite a few a week. I know that the information is similar to what has been reported in newspapers, but some focused information in magazines is not available in newspapers. Further, I don't have to through out anything in my magazines, I enjoy them as they are, otherwise I wouldn't purchase them.

Similarly, I would be more willing to pay for cable TV packages that exclude MTV, BET, ESPN Classic, PBS, WB, etc., but includes History Channel, History International, TDC, TDC-Civilations, FOX SPORTS Midwest (massive St. Louis Cardinal fan). I would pay more as I wouldn't have to flip through the garbage, and I would get channels that I currently do no.

Sorry for posting such a rant, but Britt's line of thinking has condemned me to a living hell of home relations as my TV has been taken over by rebid fans of the horrid shit that poses as entertainment on MTV. I need a new roommate.

[Dan]

You suckers are paying for garbage.

Actually, even if you think there are good shows on television, paying for cable might not be cost-effective. There seems to be a trend of good series winding up on DVD in fairly short order, usually priced at $30 to $50 per season.

Given that cable can easily run you $500 a year or more, unless you watch a LOT of TV, or watch a lot of stuff that's unlikely to wind up on dvd (History Channel specials, Penn&Teller's "Bullshit!", etc), you're probably better off just buying the stuff outright.

[Umbriel]

I felt obliged to offer a dissenting voice on behalf of people whose cheapness would lead them to greatly curtail their channel selection if they were charged ala carte ("5 cents a month for the Golf Channel? No way!") but enjoy having a wide variety of channels to flip absent-mindedly through on a late night or dreary weekend morning when there's nothing much on ("Hey, look, it's The Ben Hogan Story... guess I'll leave it on for awhile"). I don't see why some sort of "bulk rate package" couldn't co-exist with "ala carte" in principle, though I suppose anything that would reduce the pool of potential viewers would negatively impact the advertising revenues of the parasite channels.

It's interesting to note that advertisers are apparently in the same predicament as viewers as far as the "involuntary subsidy" is concerned. A friend of mine who used to own a car dealership lamented that while he'd consider spending a couple thousand bucks to run an ad during an NFL game on ESPN, the local cable provider would only sell him such a slot if he bought a package for several times as much, including numerous spots on C-Span and the Weather Channel.

[thoreau]

I'd pay to have the major networks (there aren't too many local affiliates in broadcast range of Santa Barbara, so those who want major networks get cable), the news stations, Comedy Central, and FX.

Anybody see Reno 911 last night? I was shocked to see that Weigel has a boyfriend. And poor Lt. Dangle--bike gets stolen and promotion falls through.

[Madog]

Maybe I'm crazy, but I like having a ton of channels, even if I rarely watch them. It would be nice to be able to add or subtract more packages than just HBO, etc. I'd like to be able to dump all of my sports channels in favor of every Discovery-channel nock off there is.

What I'd like to see more of though is video-on-demand. Comcast added that in my area recently and it's nice being able to pick individual shows.

[Mark Denovich]

I guess I get to be the ass that says: Buy a Tivo and watch what you want to watch. I haven't channel surfed in 2 years. I don't see anything I don't explictly tell Tivo to record. The bonus is that by only watching "good stuff" you will satisfy your TV-jones faster, and wind up watching less TV.

Just as broadband is killing traditional phone and long distance services, Tivo (or something like it) will kill the current channel lineup/cable distribution system. Imagine an expanded NetFlix which includes current content (already happening with PBS) + Tivo & and distribution over broadband...

[Bill G]

Ditto what Mark said about PVRs today and before long you'll be able to view whatever you want in real time. Very high speed net access will allow us to pick and choose what electronic content we want, the gatekeepers like cable companies will lose that power.

In Japan today, Yahoo Japan offers 70Mbps net access at something like US$40/ month. Similar deals exist in Korea. At those speeds live video can be delivered by anyone to your home.

[dhex]

mr. nice guy - xbox never grabbed me, and deus ex 2 was total shit, sadly. the first is a paranoid, anarcho-libertarian robert anton wilson inspired classic that's sitting in bargain bins for 10 bucks everywhere. and there's really nothing else on the system that interests me. if i saw one for 50 bucks and some games, i'd think about it. not that i need to buy more power strips or anything.

gamecube, of course, for metroid prime and the zelda collection. for 99 bucks total, to boot.

i pretty much want a cable layout of PBS, cspan1 (booknotes!), more pbs (i get three pbs stations in brooklyn, plus cuny-tv which shows some neato docs occasionally) some food network, spike so i can watch mxc and bad chuck norris movies, the hitler story channel and something else that's docu-drama laden. no sports, no music (though fuse looks interesting) and certainly no cbs.

then again, netflicks more or less eats this setup alive.

[Jeff]

Thoreau: Reno 911 managed to make Kenny Rogers cool, if only in a dream sequence.

[Sam I Was]

The question of real importance here is: When the hell did the Discovery channel turn into 24 hours of "monster engines" bullshit?

Discovery used to great -- interesting science and anthropology stuff presented without the PBS dreariness. Now you can't flip past the channel without seeing a bunch of beefy dudes in a garage hammering on souped-up muscle cars and bellowing about obscure mechanical crap.

If the market is demanding such programming, fine. Just put it on the Gearhead Redneck Grease Monkey Network and let Discovery be what it's supposed to be.

[Jeff]

Channels tend to air "bullshit" that doesn't really belong there to support its other programming. Sci fi paid the bills for two years because of John Edward. Look at all the unintelligible tripe that Cartoon Network runs while relegating Bugs & Daffy to overnights.

[James Anderson Merritt]

Mark Denovich is on the ... er ... mark. Direct delivery of content, either on DVD/tape, as in the Netflix model, or on demand over broadband, is the way to go, and also the way things seem to be headed.

Suppose, as Mark suggests, there were a Super-Netflix, which offered not only its current mix of movies and tv episodes on DVD, but also fresh-off-the-satellite episodes of current series. Why would we need the tens or hundreds of direct video feeds that overpriced cable provides? I can think of a few reasons for having SOME feeds:

* Live coverage of breaking news and events. CSPAN, CNN, FoxNews, ESPN, CourtTV, the Weather Channel, and PPV concert coverage are all current examples of that type of feed.

* Shopping channels. Some people actually like to shop this way. I don't, but I can see the point.

* Sampler channels. What better way to learn about new shows available to order, than to have one or more channels that provide sample episodes or extended trailers?

* Local access. By turns, such channels could provide live coverage of local news and events, interspersed with canned locally-produced programs, which may not be popular enough to justify availability through the netflix/broadband distribution mechanism. Maybe I am just weird, but the availability of the ecclectic local access channels here in Santa Cruz CA is one of the things that keeps me from disconnecting the cable entirely, given that I already have Netflix and Blockbuster memberships. Good thing for Comcast that those channels aren't also available over-the-air.

* Reality TV Wallpaper. With large-screen TVs (especially the flat ones that look like framed murals) becoming more common every day, there may be a market for live feeds from especially interesting or beautiful sites around the world (or even from spy-satellite cameras!). This is the only application which would justify putting more than a couple of dozen channels on a cable system, imho.

Note that most of these services can also be provided on computer by webpages, streaming A/V feeds, etc. I think, in the end, the distinction between computer delivery and cable delivery will be simply whether the consumer wants a full-featured computer between him and the feed, or can be satisfied with a limited-interactivity set-top box. The underlying delivery infrastruture will almost certainly be the same.

I think that a lot of the sturm und drang over bundling and unbundling of cable channels is the shopkeeper's attempt to focus the customer's attention on the bewildering selection of buggy-whips, so as not to gaze out the storefront window and notice the passing of more and more automobiles.

[Lisa Simpson]

O/T: cod-flavored chips is actually a really good idea, if you change "tortilla" to "potato". Battered cod / fish-and-chips flavor, specifically. With some malt vinegar in there too, 'twould be delicious!

[Evan Williams]

A good quote:

Cable isn't about having a few channels that appeal to everybody, it's about having a lot of channels that appeal to everybody. You may not watch C-Span every night, but it's good to know it's there. - Britt

What a load. It's called "supply and demand", Britt. Let's say I liked certain kinds of Lay's potato chips (which I don't). But let's say I did: I liked Salt n Vinegar and Plain. But in order to get my monthly ration of chips, I have to pay Lay's a flat fee. This assures that, yes, of course, all us folks who like Salt n Vinegar, Plain, Sour Cream and Onion, and the pretzel/tortilla chip line, we get what we want, but we have to pay much more than we would if were to simply pay for only what we wanted. On the other hand, obscure varieties are paid for by our flat fee, that only a scant few people actually want. Ooooh, a new Lay's flavor! Look! Rosemary and chocolate! Hey, Cod flavored tortilla chips! Butterscotch and Red Pepper Pretzels!

Cable is the same way. With digital cable, they now have the innate ability to pick and choose stations. I realize that, yes, it IS a free market, and the Cable providers can do whatever they want, as long as we still fork over our hard-earned money for it.

Regardless, Britt's own sales model proves his point wrong. There are what they call "premium channels". You pay for whichever ones you want. What is so bad about this? People who want HBO pay for it, those who don't, don't. Why couldn't this be applied to fucking Lifetime, etc.? I mean, you don't see people bitching and moaning too much because there aren't enough premium packages. Nor do you see many people whining because Lay's doesn't make Cod-flavored tortilla chips. The market will take care of itself. Sure, you might lose a few customers because lifetime is more expensive. But you would also gain many more customers who are, as of right now, unwillingly to pay $60/mo, when all they want is the fishing channel.

You could also take this a step further, and make all television like pay-per-view. You pay for each episode individually.

Personally, I would reject that model, though. Flipping channels is a great american pasttime. So is letting your wife catch a few seconds of that latest crappy Hugh Grant flick during the timeout commercials, and maybe halftime. But still, it goes to show just how far one could take the idea of consumer choice.

[Evan Williams]

Also, fuck John McCain. If Cable Companies are to offer a-la-carte channel menus, then they should be coerced to do so by market forces and demand, not by legislation. Because, inevitably, when the government gets involved, the one who suffers is...the consumer. What will happen is, the government will force the cable companies to offer a la carte options, and the cable companies will increase prices exponentially to make up the difference, and we will end up paying more. Whereas, when it happens naturally through the capitalist market, there is always the value balance between a provider who wants the customers' money, and the customers who want to providers' services. When government aggression is introduced, market disruptions occur that are never good for you and me.

Britt also says, "Hardly anybody reads every article in the paper; you read selectively. But nobody says, "Gee, you should only buy the sports section if that's all you want."

The difference here is the relative cost of the product/service. A newspaper costs, at the most a couple bucks for the massive sunday edition. Typically, a daily rag is 50 cents or so. Pinching pennies for an a-la-carte newspaper is downright trivial. But when you're paying $106/month for cable/powerlink every month, it makes a difference. The other difference between print publications and cable is that cable does have the technology, right now, as we speak, to give us a la carte. Breaking up print publications would be prohibitively expensive, just in terms of technology.

Now, just to add to that, the advent of the internet has changed that dramatically. Now, we CAN pick and choose which articles to read, and we don't typically pay for them. It's all done by advertising dollars. So I can set up a personal "mywashingtonpost.com" page, and I can include certain sections, exclude others, include certain columnists, exclude others, etc. All for no cost, other than dealing with advertisements. So, Britt, it seems that news publications have already dealt with this a la carte issue. Isn't it time you did the same?

But, as I said, fuck John McCain, and his meddling. First, the ghastly CFRA, then his whining over steroids, now this. God, just shut up, and go do your job (which, incidentally, is not to save the world by eradicating major league baseball of steroids!)

[Rick Laredo]

You should be able to pay for cable TV the same way you pay for your electricity. You pay for what you consume. When that day come I will re-enter the cable market. Until then I will continue to utilize the free TV system,a antenna. /R

[me]

Penn and Teller's "Bullshit" *is* on DVD. Now *that's* good TV!