# Has Charter Cable Lost Their Minds?



## Resist (Dec 21, 2003)

I love my Series 3 Tivo with Charter Cable but recently our $158 per month TV/Internet/Phone package deal expired so I went on the hunt for a lower priced deal. To my surprise the best I could get out of Charter was $155 for the same service minus out of state long distance. I was like, "Are you kidding me!"

So today in the mail Charter sends me info about a guaranteed 2 year package deal at only $179.97 a month. WTF....has Charter lost their minds? Why would I pay more than I am paying now, when I think I'm paying to much as it is?

Then I heard the cost of beer is going up...WTF!

People have less money to spend in this economy, 10's of 1000's have been layed off work and company's want to raise prices.....really? Yea, that will get people to buy more....NOT!

Rant off.


----------



## orangeboy (Apr 19, 2004)

I'm lost.


----------



## Resist (Dec 21, 2003)

Then read it again.


----------



## Kablemodem (May 26, 2001)

He's upset that the introductory price he had didn't last forever.


----------



## RonDawg (Jan 12, 2006)

Charter is not competitive on a price basis, unless you get a special limited time offer deal. Their internet service is also ridiculously overpriced; $50/month for 5 Meg when I can get 6 Meg DSL or U-verse from AT&T for $35. And why should I pay $50/month for their unlimited phone service when I can get the same from AT&T for $35, or from Vonage for half the price?

If it weren't for the fact that U-verse isn't compatible with my TiVoHD, I would have dumped them by now just for price alone.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

So in other words, Charter offers you something that its competitors cannot (support for your favored DVR), so that makes you think that their service is not worth as much as the competitor's service? That makes no sense.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Resist said:


> Then I heard the cost of beer is going up...WTF!


Two companies now control 80% of the US beer market. They have discovered that they can raise their prices around 4% and still sell the same amount of beer. So they will. Both have announced increases this fall.

They did this last year and will do it again and again, as often as they can.

They don't care about anything except maximizing their profit. I assume at the same time they're raising prices they are probably squeezing suppliers & unions for every concession they can get.

/thread drift off/


----------



## orangeboy (Apr 19, 2004)

Resist said:


> Then read it again.


What does this have to do with Tivo Series3 HDTV DVRs? You know, the forum you posted in?


----------



## RonDawg (Jan 12, 2006)

bicker said:


> So in other words, Charter offers you something that its competitors cannot (support for your favored DVR), so that makes you think that their service is not worth as much as the competitor's service? That makes no sense.


Make up your mind. In your opening post you're ranting about how expensive they are. Now you're defending their pricing policies.

Their products are NOT competitive if you look at it from a pricing standpoint. If I didn't care that I have a TiVoHD, I would have gone to U-verse by now, even with their 2 HD channel limit. I currently pay $140 total incl. taxes to both Charter and AT&T for combined cable TV, internet, and landline phone service. AT&T U-verse can give me all that for about $100.

Of course the big snag is U-verse doesn't support the Series 3 models. That's the only reason I stay with Charter. But for cable TV only.

Am I happy that I have to pay $40/extra to get support for a particular DVR? No. But then it could be worse. I could end up with TWC and find all the non-OTA's have been copy-protected.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

RonDawg said:


> Make up your mind. In your opening post you're ranting about how expensive they are. Now you're defending their pricing policies.


What are you talking about? I think you need to check who wrote what a lot more closely. I'm not the OP.



RonDawg said:


> Their products are NOT competitive if you look at it from a pricing standpoint.


And you claim this based on what? Your own personal desire to pay less, I suspect, and nothing more.



RonDawg said:


> If I didn't care that I have a TiVoHD, I would have gone to U-verse by now, even with their 2 HD channel limit.


*Yet again* you have established that Charter offers you a better value.

FWIW, I regularly compare the services I get from my service provider to what I would pay with each of the four other competitors serving my town. That's what you should do, and choose the supplier that measures best according to your criteria. It should not surprise you that my neighbor ends up with a different result than I do. (He would prefer DirecTV, but he needs the southwestern exposure that I have -- we've joked that we should switch homes just so he could get satellite! ) The competitors all are subtly different from each other, in terms of offerings and in terms of pricing. They each are better for someone, and they jockey back and forth being better for more people than for others, with none of them really being able to reach the point where they're best for even most of the people.


----------



## RonDawg (Jan 12, 2006)

bicker said:


> What are you talking about? I think you need to check who wrote what a lot more closely. I'm not the OP.


You're right. I apologize.



> And you claim this based on what? Your own personal desire to pay less, I suspect, and nothing more.


And what's wrong with that? If I can get better value for money elsewhere, I'd be stupid to throw money away for no good reason. Heck, there are probably those thinking that $40/month extra to support a particular DVR is NOT a good enough reason to pay it.



> *Yet again* you have established that Charter offers you a better value.


That's a stretch. Being the only TV provider to be able to support a particular DVR does NOT make them a "better value." It does mean I have to choose between paying more, or being forced to use a different DVR that IMHO is inferior and offers fewer features.



> FWIW, I regularly compare the services I get from my service provider to what I would pay with each of the four other competitors serving my town. That's what you should do, and choose the supplier that measures best according to your criteria.


You didn't think I've already done that? I already posted that I compared Charter's prices to one particular competitor.

However if I want to use a TiVoHD with more than just OTA, I have two choices for my particular neighborhood:

1. Use Charter;
2. Move to another non-Charter area

The latter is overkill just to save $40/month.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

RonDawg said:


> > And you claim this based on what? Your own personal desire to pay less, I suspect, and nothing more.
> 
> 
> And what's wrong with that?


*Nothing* at all. No harm in clarifying that, so that no one gets the idea that you were claiming anything different.



RonDawg said:


> If I can get better value for money elsewhere, I'd be stupid to throw money away for no good reason.


Abso-friggen-lutely.



RonDawg said:


> Being the only TV provider to be able to support a particular DVR does NOT make them a "better value."


Every time I've read a sentiment like that it has been a cop out. Just today I got, "I don't want to switch to U-Verse because they won't support my preferred DVR." In the past month I've seen, "I moved into a house from which I can't get satellite service (as if that's the cable company's fault)." The rationalizations are endless. The simple fact of the matter is that there is material competition for subscription television service in every locality in the country. Post your pricing for your specific array of services and I'll tell you how it compares to mine here, where we have five competitors vying for our service. Don't be surprised if you'd pay *more* here.



RonDawg said:


> It does mean I have to choose between paying more, or being forced to use a different DVR that IMHO is inferior and offers fewer features.


That's right; it does.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

You have to be careful of your wording (and implied logic) when you rant or whine, or just complain, when *bicker* is reading the thread.

Once again he is correct .... in an irritating sort of way! 

*bicker* just out of pure curiosity (honest), have the words "You're right. I apologize." ever crossed *your* lips... er, keyboard?


----------



## RonDawg (Jan 12, 2006)

bicker said:


> *Nothing* at all. No harm in clarifying that, so that no one gets the idea that you were claiming anything different.


I said I felt (and apparently so does the OP) that Charter is overpriced. I pointed out specifically why when compared to their competition. I'm not sure what idea you can get from that, other than Charter charges more than their competitors for the same thing.



> Every time I've read a sentiment like that it has been a cop out. Just today I got, "I don't want to switch to U-Verse because they won't support my preferred DVR." In the past month I've seen, "I moved into a house from which I can't get satellite service (as if that's the cable company's fault)." The rationalizations are endless.


Where's the cop-out? I know I'm paying more than I absolutely have to. I begrudgingly do so in order to keep a particular DVR. Pointing out the fact that I pay $40/month to do so is not a "cop-out."



> The simple fact of the matter is that there is material competition for subscription television service in every locality in the country. Post your pricing for your specific array of services and I'll tell you how it compares to mine here, where we have five competitors vying for our service. Don't be surprised if you'd pay *more* here.


Charter: $80/month incl. taxes for their HD tier, but no premium channels. Includes one cable card, whether S- or M-card (I have the latter). This is not an introductory special offer.

AT&T: $60/month incl. taxes for 1.5 Meg DSL and unlimited local phone service. I do not have long distance as I primarily rely on my cell phone. I only use this as my "official" number that is given out to those I have to (but don't want to) and as a backup in case I can't get a cell connection for some reason. Also not an introductory offer.


----------



## Resist (Dec 21, 2003)

Kablemodem said:


> He's upset that the introductory price he had didn't last forever.


No I am upset because Charter thinks $179 a month is a good deal when I am currently paying $155 a month for the same service.

I hate Charter Cable but they have the fastest Internet service. I currently have 10 Meg download speeds and I could get up to 20 Megs. DSL can't even come close to that, if they did then I would switch.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

RonDawg said:


> I'm not sure what idea you can get from that, other than Charter charges more than their competitors for the same thing.


Based on your evaluation. I grant that entirely, just as I'm sure you grant that other reasonable people can evaluate the choices you have available to you, against their criteria, and find Charter superior to the others. That was the point I was making.



RonDawg said:


> Where's the cop-out?


You made a negative statement about them which you supported by claiming that they were the only provider. Therefore, what I was referring to there was the practice of ignoring the other options you have because they don't meet your own personal criteria. The fact that their competitors don't satisfy your needs is something that should be considered one of their strengths, not part of a support for a condemnation of them.



RonDawg said:


> Charter: $80/month incl. taxes for their HD tier, but no premium channels. Includes one cable card, whether S- or M-card (I have the latter). This is not an introductory special offer.


Okay, as promised here's the comparison: Remember, this is somewhere where there are five competitors vying for our business.

The tier just below the first tier with premium channels is $82.39/month. That includes one STB or CableCARD.

As I said, you shouldn't be surprised that the price you're paying reflects a competitive marketplace, whether you have five suppliers available to you or not. You may want to pay less, and get the same as what you're getting (as you insinuated with respect to AT&T), but that's not how the world works. You choose among the options you have available to you, each priced according to the value it delivers -- all of the value, not just the bits that you choose to grant exists, and in full recognition of the various statuses of each supplier within the market.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Three facts we all agree on have been "revealed" in this thread:

1. The price of beer is going up.
2. The price of Charter Cable is going up.
3. A consumer either pays what it takes or does without. (Courtesy of *bicker*.)

I keep hearing we are experiencing deflation. I sure don't see it in the goods and services *we* buy. I suspect the CPI statistics are rigged to suit political purposes (which obviously are to make inflation look lower than it really is). Just like the unemployment statistics are rigged by just ignoring workers who have stopped looking for work (by some "reasonable" government definition).

There are methods to prevent the price increases of beer or Charter Cable. They all involve government control of some kind. But be careful what you ask for! Consider the USPS vs. UPS and FedEx carefully before you substitute politics and bureaucracy (read: "waste and corruption") for the free market.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

dlfl said:


> I keep hearing we are experiencing deflation. I sure don't see it in the goods and services *we* buy.


I don't know about beer, but historically cable TV prices have gone up faster than inflation, so they don't seem tied to inflation/deflation in the rest of the economy.



> There are methods to prevent the price increases of beer or Charter Cable. They all involve government control of some kind.


Not all - if enough people refused to pay the higher prices, they'd have to keep them low. I'll admit I don't think that's likely to happen, though...



> But be careful what you ask for! Consider the USPS vs. UPS and FedEx carefully before you substitute politics and bureaucracy (read: "waste and corruption") for the free market.


Indeed!


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Brainiac 5 said:


> I don't know about beer, but historically cable TV prices have gone up faster than inflation, so they don't seem tied to inflation/deflation in the rest of the economy.


Yep, and to be fair, I think it's true to say the value of Cable TV has gone up too (more channels, HD, etc.).



Brainiac 5 said:


> Not all - if enough people refused to pay the higher prices, they'd have to keep them low. .......


Either that or choose not to engage in the business.

And as *Bicker* frequently has pointed out, consumers also have the option of trying to get laws changed to effect what they want.

Neither of these is likely to happen, at least not in the near term. And changes in the law are just as likely to have negative overall impact (unintended side effects) IMHO.


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

Resist said:


> No I am upset because Charter thinks $179 a month is a good deal when I am currently paying $155 a month for the same service.
> 
> I hate Charter Cable but they have the fastest Internet service. I currently have 10 Meg download speeds and I could get up to 20 Megs. DSL can't even come close to that, if they did then I would switch.


What several others have pointed at, and I'm now pointing at, is the following question: *Was that a promo or introductory rate?*
If so, then of course it's not a surprise when your initial contract was up the normal rate plans are of course more expensive.

I'm not passing judgment on if it's a good deal or not, but if it was a promo rate, finding out the non-promo rates aren't as low shouldn't have been a big surprise, that's how the game works.

Diane


----------



## jrtroo (Feb 4, 2008)

You fail to mention the new default price you are taking.

Clearly it is higher than 155, how much higher is it than 179? That is the price benefit they are offering. 

Overall, since cable companies have less customers this year from last year they all feel the need to raise prices just to stay even, much less increase profits.


----------



## RonDawg (Jan 12, 2006)

bicker said:


> You made a negative statement about them which you supported by claiming that they were the only provider.


Now you're the one who needs to re-read stuff. I never said they were the only provider. I said they were the only provider *who provides support for my Cable-Card equipped TiVoHD* in my particular neighborhood. Big difference in meaning.

There are other TV providers that serve my area (including the aforementioned AT&T U-verse) but with the exception of OTA-only (which I don't consider a "competitor", especially since OTA doesn't work well in my particular neighborhood), only Charter is compatible with my TiVoHD.



> Therefore, what I was referring to there was the practice of ignoring the other options you have because they don't meet your own personal criteria.


I have not ignored "the other options." I've looked into them, including satellite. For various reasons, I have discounted them. I've documented why I have not gone with U-verse for my TV service, remember?

Start reading carefully and stop putting words in my mouth or trying to read my mind, because you're doing a pretty piss poor job of all three.



> The fact that their competitors don't satisfy your needs is something that should be considered one of their strengths, not part of a support for a condemnation of them.


Saying they are "not price-competitive" is not a condemnation. It says "more expensive."

Saying a Mercedes is not "price-competitive" with a Honda doesn't mean I don't like Mercedes vehicles. I am saying they cost more money. Whether a Mercedes is a "better value for money" than a Honda is subject to debate, which I will not start here.

But as I've said above "more expensive" doesn't necessarily mean "better value for money." Most of the time it just means "more expensive."

And yes I said "overpriced", which in context means just that, overpriced. But for some reason you take it as a personal attack on both Charter and perhaps yourself. I think iPods are overpriced too, but I've bought a few. I just wish they were cheaper, and there's nothing wrong with that.



> As I said, you shouldn't be surprised that the price you're paying reflects a competitive marketplace, whether you have five suppliers available to you or not. You may want to pay less, and get the same as what you're getting (as you insinuated with respect to AT&T), but that's not how the world works. You choose among the options you have available to you, each priced according to the value it delivers -- all of the value, not just the bits that you choose to grant exists, and in full recognition of the various statuses of each supplier within the market.


The price I'm paying is what is agreed upon between my local cable franchise authority and Charter cable. If Charter had their way it would be even higher, despite all the "competition" from satellite and U-verse.


----------



## RonDawg (Jan 12, 2006)

Ya know, I got to thinking after my last post that I'm basically wasting my time trying to convince someone whose sig line reads "Correct, in an irritating sort of way." I'm not convinced of the former, but he's done a good job of convincing me of the latter. But then again I shouldn't be surprised considering his chosen username.

As I have nothing more to contribute to this thread, it's on permanent block, as is the particular member. Life's way too short to continually argue with someone who can never admit he's wrong.


----------



## Resist (Dec 21, 2003)

How can they say the cost of living hasn't gone up, when the price of consumer goods HAS gone up. Yet social security will not be getting a cost of living raise and my State's income tax rates are going up (only the second time this has happened in 30 years).


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

bicker said:


> So in other words, Charter offers you something that its competitors cannot (support for your favored DVR), so that makes you think that their service is not worth as much as the competitor's service? That makes no sense.


That is not even close to what he said. If you wish to paraphrase what he said, although why on Earth anyone would see value in that is beyond me, since we are all able to read what he said, then you should at least bother to encompass the gist of what he said. For your benefit, what he quite explicitly and clearly said can be paraphrased as, "The only service of value Charter offers which for me causes its service to be of greater value than that of AT&T is its compatibility with TiVo". His was a simple, direct, and painfully obvious statement, not to mention one expressing a perfectly valid opinion based upon his priorities. Are you truly so badly mentally deficient that you cannot understand such a clear and simple statement, or are you just being deliberately obtuse? His statement made perfect sense.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

RonDawg said:


> Make up your mind. In your opening post you're ranting about how expensive they are. Now you're defending their pricing policies.


It's not too often that I find myself defending bicker, but you are castigating the wrong person. Bicker had only made one post in this thread up to this point, and it was not the opening post. He never made any statement concerning the price of Charter or AT&T. The one complaining about prices was Resist, not bicker. Bicker's response to your post was poorly conceived, at best, but he never argued about pricing, at least up to this point.

Now, however, you've allowed him to bait you with a straw man argument. You've made your point well enough.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

Resist said:


> How can they say the cost of living hasn't gone up, when the price of consumer goods HAS gone up. Yet social security will not be getting a cost of living raise and my State's income tax rates are going up (only the second time this has happened in 30 years).


You're making overly broad statements covering overly narrow and poorly defined subject matter. The "cost of living" can be defined in various ways, but in general it is going to refer to the fraction of one's income required to maintain a specific standard of living. A simple measure of price is not sufficient. The problem is multifaceted. Some things have gone up in price, while others have plummeted. Some items of comparatively high cost have been replaced by items of lower cost, or one may be able to obtain an item of higher value (in terms of its impact to one's standard of living) for the same price as a lower value item, or vice-versa. For example, it is possible a car may cost more in dollars than it did 10 years ago, but not only does the average car buyer make more than he did 10 years ago, but the fuel and maintenance costs for the vehicle may be lower. (That's an example. I'm not saying it is necessarily specifically true.) In 1980, I could purchase a new car for under $8000. Today, a more or less similar car may cost $24,000. That's a factor of 3, but I am earning far, far more than 3 times what I did in 1980. The gas to fuel the car, OTOH, is nearly 10 times more expensive, offset somewhat by a better gas mileage. The car also may have much more luxurious standard features than the one I could purchase in 1980. At the same time, a VCR in 1980 cost more than $1000, and represented many weeks of labor for me to purchase. Now a DVR can be had for considerably less than an day's salary. A computer with 1TB or more of storage capable of handing more than a billion operations per second was beyond the price range of even a large government in 1980. Now it can be purchased by many ordinary middle class workers.

Of course, those on a fixed income have a much worse time than those in the active workforce.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

dlfl said:


> Three facts we all agree on have been "revealed" in this thread:
> 
> 1. The price of beer is going up.


I don't drink beer.



dlfl said:


> 2. The price of Charter Cable is going up.


I don't subscribe to Charter Cable.



dlfl said:


> 3. A consumer either pays what it takes or does without. (Courtesy of *bicker*.)


Nonsense! There are almost always lots of alternatives. For example:

1. Make your own beer.
2. Find a less expensive brand - perhaps even one you like better.
3. Buy in larger quantities.
4. Rethink and research your consumption parameters. You may find a different packaging may be more economical, possibly in conjunction with #3.
5. Search for more economical suppliers.
6. Drink an alternative to beer. This is not the same as "doing without", it is finding a less expensive substitute.
7. Go somewhere beer is less expensive to drink. (No, this is not always practical for everyone, but many people living near county, state, or national borders do indeed take trips across the border to obtain less expensive goods, including alcoholic beverages.)

For me, doing without is indeed the preferred alternative, since I don't like beer in the first place, but doing without is rarely the only alternative to paying a particular vendor's price.



dlfl said:


> I keep hearing we are experiencing deflation. I sure don't see it in the goods and services *we* buy.


I certainly do in some items. A year ago a 1T hard drive was over $150. Now a 1.5T drive can be had for under $120. A year ago gasoline was over $4. Now it's under $2.50. Some foodstuffs have come down in price. Cars have come down a bit, at least in total cost of ownership.



dlfl said:


> There are methods to prevent the price increases of beer or Charter Cable.


Not at all. Again, there is almost always more than one way to skin a cat. Of course, an obvious way to reduce the cost of you cable bill is to reduce your services, perhaps all the way to zero. In the city where I went to College, the consumers got fed up with the high price and lousy service of the incumbent CATV system and started their own co-op system. It wasn't too long before it was making quite a bit more money and had far more subscribers than the incumbent. Satellite services are an alternative, as are OTA services, although the OTA services are vastly more expensive than CATV services, and large numbers of people abandoning CATV and Satellite services will result in much higher content costs over time.



dlfl said:


> They all involve government control of some kind.


Not at all. If one sees only two solutions, then it is very likely one is too close to the problem, and perhaps not thinking the situation through well enough.



dlfl said:


> But be careful what you ask for! Consider the USPS vs. UPS and FedEx carefully before you substitute politics and bureaucracy (read: "waste and corruption") for the free market.


It's not a free market. A free market requires that no single vendor, producer, or consumer may be able to have a significant impact on supplies, demand, costs, or prices. Basically, it means there must be at a minimum dozens or perhaps hundreds or even thousands of producers, wholesalers, and retailers, not to mention consumers. There are very few, if any, free markets left in America. Probably the closest are some of the agricultural markets, where even the very largest farms still only produce a relatively small fraction of the entire market volume for the most widely produced goods. That's not to suggest government control is any better than a monopoly or oligopoly. A government is, after all, just another form of monopoly if it is given control of business. Worse, a government by its very nature is unlikely to have any real compulsion to be profitable.

Telecommunications and TV systems have a particularly hard time being much more than a monopoly or a oligopoly at best. The infrastructure is very expensive, and in order to allow the existence of multiple vendors, generally speaking the infrastructure must be duplicated multiple times. This is a very expensive proposition, and in such a scenario, the cost to consumers is often much higher than might be the case for a monopoly.


----------



## Resist (Dec 21, 2003)

lrhorer said:


> Some things have gone up in price, while others have plummeted.


What has plummeted in price? Provide examples of price decreases other than special discounts, that happen during any economy.

Many thousands of people are out of work and can't pay bills yet the Government is raising taxes. Retailers are also raising prices in an attempt to regain profits from declining sales. If companies want to attract more consumers money, they need to lower prices not increase them. Soon enough I will end up dumping Charter Cable because I am having a hard time affording (and justifying), $155 a month. This all thanks to income cuts, so with reduced money coming in and increased prices for goods and services, I have decided that food, clothing and housing are more important to my survival in this economy. And I love beer but I guess I have to give that up as well.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

RonDawg said:


> I said they were the only provider *who provides support for my Cable-Card equipped TiVoHD* in my particular neighborhood.


And a statement of one of these strengths as a supplier, not any part of a reasonable foundation for condemnation.



RonDawg said:


> There are other TV providers that serve my area (including the aforementioned AT&T U-verse) but with the exception of OTA-only (which I don't consider a "competitor", especially since OTA doesn't work well in my particular neighborhood), only Charter is compatible with my TiVoHD.


You will be pleased to know that the US Court of Appeals agrees with you that OTA is not a competitor in the marketplace. Rather, only satellite and cable are competitors in the marketplace.



RonDawg said:


> I have not ignored "the other options." I've looked into them, including satellite. For various reasons, I have discounted them.


Which again is a testament to the value of your cable company, not any part of a reasonable foundation for condemnation.



RonDawg said:


> Saying they are "not price-competitive" is not a condemnation. It says "more expensive."


I think you have a warped sense of the manner in which what you're posting is going to be perceived by others. It sounds to me like you're trying to make negative statements about your cable company. It sounds to me that you're actually using its strengths to justify those condemnations. That's unreasonable AFAIC.



RonDawg said:


> Saying a Mercedes is not "price-competitive" with a Honda doesn't mean I don't like Mercedes vehicles.


If you're saying that Charter is a Mercedes, then very clearly you've been misunderstood, at least by me.



RonDawg said:


> I am saying they cost more money. Whether a Mercedes is a "better value for money" than a Honda is subject to debate, which I will not start here.
> 
> But as I've said above "more expensive" doesn't necessarily mean "better value for money." Most of the time it just means "more expensive."


Make up your mind: Are you saying something negative or not?



RonDawg said:


> The price I'm paying is what is agreed upon between my local cable franchise authority and Charter cable.


And you. You agreed when you had them install service to all the terms and conditions. Don't leave out your responsibility in all this.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

RonDawg said:


> Life's way too short to continually argue with someone who can never admit he's wrong.


What a ridiculously self-serving thing to say. I admit I'm wrong, *when I'm actually wrong*. I'm not going to bend over for you when you're the one who's wrong. You indulged in a form of rhetoric which fosters negative feelings for a supplier which is, by your own appraisal the one that best satisfies your needs. That's unreasonable. I pointed that out.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

lrhorer said:


> His was a simple, direct, and painfully obvious statement, not to mention one expressing a perfectly valid opinion based upon his priorities. Are you truly so badly mentally deficient that you cannot understand such a clear and simple statement, or are you just being deliberately obtuse? His statement made perfect sense.


I disagree. His statement was intended to imply a negative cast on the supplier, based on something that he highlighted as its strength. If you're going to complain about the best among several choices, then you should expect such a ridiculous condemnation to be challenged. That's a matter of fairness.

And it's surprising to see you stoop to juvenile personal attacks because you don't like that someone has a perspective that you don't care for. Shame on you.


----------



## PhillyOTA (Apr 22, 2009)

If someone pays more for a service because it offers features they want over the cheaper alternatives, that is the best value for them. Value is not dictated by price alone. To make that choice then say Charter should be price competetive with ATT which doesn't offer the features the OP requires is not a well thought out position.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

Resist said:


> What has plummeted in price? Provide examples of price decreases other than special discounts, that happen during any economy.


House prices.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

PhillyOTA said:


> If someone pays more for a service because it offers features they want over the cheaper alternatives, that is the best value for them. Value is not dictated by price alone.


Indeed, it works the other way: Price is dicated by value.



PhillyOTA said:


> To make that choice then say Charter should be price competetive with ATT which doesn't offer the features the OP requires is not a well thought out position.


Yes, and to be fair, I think we all can respect the OP saying that he would like to pay less for what he's getting, or that it would make him happier to get more for what he's paying. It is the aspect of asserting what "Charter should...", which you touched on, where unfounded expectations are fostered.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

bicker said:


> Indeed, it works the other way: Price is dicated by value.
> 
> Yes, and to be fair, I think we all can respect the OP saying that he would like to pay less for what he's getting, or that it would make him happier to get more for what he's paying. It is the aspect of asserting what "Charter should...", which you touched on, where unfounded expectations are fostered.


I could be wrong (I just did a quick scan of the thread and I don't think anyone Charter should do anything). They have voiced a dissatisfaction with the price and a general wish that prices were lower and that their price were were more competive to what others have, but they should do this or that? I didn't see it.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

*lrhorer*,

You make some good points in your response to my post. I feel the need to respond in a few cases as follows:



lrhorer said:


> I don't drink beer.
> 
> I don't subscribe to Charter Cable.


umm... Interesting in a personal sense I guess. If there was a serious point there I missed it -- sorry.



lrhorer said:


> Nonsense! There are almost always lots of alternatives. ..........doing without is rarely the only alternative to paying a particular vendor's price.


You got me there. My statement was too broad. I might quibble with the validity of "rarely" in your response but it's not worth debating.



lrhorer said:


> .......Of course, an obvious way to reduce the cost of you cable bill is to reduce your services, perhaps all the way to zero.


I was talking about the price, e.g., of Charter Cable. Stopping the service doesn't reduce the price.



lrhorer said:


> It's not a free market. A free market requires that no single vendor, producer, or consumer may be able to have a significant impact on supplies, demand, costs, or prices. Basically, it means there must be at a minimum dozens or perhaps hundreds or even thousands of producers, wholesalers, and retailers, not to mention consumers.......


I don't know if this definition of "free market" is a common usage but I don't accept it. I did a quick web search for a definition and what I found was things like:

_Business governed by the laws of supply and demand, not restrained by government interference, regulation or subsidy_.



lrhorer said:


> There are very few, if any, free markets left in America.......


Sadly I agree, regardless of which definition is used.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

JWThiers said:


> I could be wrong (I just did a quick scan of the thread and I don't think anyone Charter should do anything). They have voiced a dissatisfaction with the price and a general wish that prices were lower and that their price were were more competive to what others have, but they should do this or that? I didn't see it.


If that's the case then we were all just agreeing with each other. I'm fine with that.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

bicker said:


> .......And it's surprising to see you stoop to juvenile personal attacks because you don't like that someone has a perspective that you don't care for. Shame on you.


Was it the fact the attack was "juvenile" that bothered you? In other words, a "mature" personal attack (such as this one) would be OK?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Yes, actually it was the fact that lrhorer's attack was so juvenile that I found so objectionable


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

bicker said:


> Yes, actually it was the fact that lrhorer's attack was so juvenile that I found so objectionable -- really because it was an attack on the poster rather than, as in the case you linked to, an attack on the post


Well thanks for the clarification that your attack on me was only an attack on my post. It would certainly be easy for many readers to get the opposite impression IMHO. (e.g.: And yours should be ..... "Doing whatever I want because I don't care about anyone but myself.").

In an earlier post in this thread you stated an OP had a "warped sense of the manner in which what you're posting is going to be perceived by others".

Maybe you should consider that issue in regard to yourself.

EDIT: Apparently while I was posting this, bicker edited out the second half of the quoted post. I was responding to the post as it was at the time. My point still stands.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

I'm flattered by how much you're fixating on me.  I've never had a fan before.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

bicker said:


> I'm flattered by how much you're fixating on me.  I've never had a fan before.


I'll have to start a fan club. 

Come on *Bicker*, admit it: I've exposed the hypocrisy of some of your posts. Say "I'm sorry" or "I was wrong" for once. It'll be therapeutic for all of us.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

lrhorer said:


> Telecommunications and TV systems have a particularly hard time being much more than a monopoly or a oligopoly at best. The infrastructure is very expensive, and in order to allow the existence of multiple vendors, generally speaking the infrastructure must be duplicated multiple times. This is a very expensive proposition, and in such a scenario, the cost to consumers is often much higher than might be the case for a monopoly.


Careful about the M word (Monopoly) Bicker might get you. He and I had that discussion in another thread. Having said that, and I don't want to rehash it with Bicker, TV systems and telco's (to a lesser extent now since just about any telco can use any other telco's lines) are probably best described by a Natural Monopoly IMO. You did a very good job at defining it even if you didn't use the term. Bicker would say NOT A MONOPOLY. You can decide for yourself


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

dlfl said:


> In an earlier post in this thread you stated an OP had a "warped sense of the manner in which what you're posting is going to be perceived by others".
> 
> Maybe you should consider that issue in regard to yourself.
> 
> EDIT: Apparently while I was posting this, bicker edited out the second half of the quoted post. I was responding to the post as it was at the time. My point still stands.





bicker said:


> And it's surprising to see you stoop to juvenile personal attacks because you don't like that someone has a perspective that you don't care for. Shame on you.


If true, wouldn't that be like the pot calling the kettle black?


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

JWThiers said:


> If true, wouldn't that be like the pot calling the kettle black?


Now just a minute here! Who are you calling a pot? Which is better, a kettle or a pot? Not to mention the racial implications of using "black" in a (presumably) negative connotation!


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

Don't we get into this same debate every six months or so?

BTW, Verizon just raised their rates on me. The lowest tier that contains any HD is HD-Premier. As a result I am forced into paying more for getting more if I stay on V. 

I called Comcast and they are still more than Verizon. I think Verizon knows that threats to leave are empty threats and basically told me take it or leave it. So far, competition between C and V has not resulted in any kind of price cuts.


----------



## orangeboy (Apr 19, 2004)

I still don't understand how any of this relates to "TiVo Series3 HDTV DVRs"


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

orangeboy said:


> I still don't understand how any of this relates to "TiVo Series3 HDTV DVRs"


What TiVo series3?


----------



## orangeboy (Apr 19, 2004)

JWThiers said:


> What TiVo series3?


The forum you are posting in!

Or alternate answer: Exactly.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

dlfl said:


> Come on *Bicker*, admit it: I've exposed the hypocrisy of some of your posts. Say "I'm sorry" or "I was wrong" for once. It'll be therapeutic for all of us.


If I thought it would shut you up and get you to recant your personal attack when I proved you wrong, I'd go into the Search and find the various messages over the past few months where I actually did recognize a case where I was mistaken about something, but I figure you would still refuse to recant your personal attack even if I did prove you wrong. Your comments are nothing more than self-serving bravado, stemming from your unwillingness to accept not what I'm writing -- I'm just describing what people are actually experiencing -- so what you're not willing to accept is that the world could actually be arrayed in a manner you find objectionable. I've done more than enough to try to help you understand the reality. The rest is up to you.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

JWThiers said:


> Careful about the M word (Monopoly) Bicker might get you.


It's not just me: It is the US Court of Appeal, which just this week confirmed that satellite *is* material competition for cable. Despite yours and dlfl's and whoever else's maniacally consumerist protestations to the contrary. You can continue to live your own delusion -- I have no problem with that, I assure you -- my concern is that you're trying to spread that delusion beyond yourselves onto readers of these threads. It isn't I who disagree with you (or at least not "just" I) -- it is the US Court of Appeals. When will you wake up and realize that I'm no the enemy -- I'm just the messenger?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

orangeboy said:


> I still don't understand how any of this relates to "TiVo Series3 HDTV DVRs"


Presumably the OP didn't feel that any of the other forums here were more appropriate to the ranting. I would have figured it would have been better off situated in the Off Topic area, but whatever.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

*bicker*

Your posts nos. 51 & 52 are chock full of inaccuracies, incorrect assumptions and overblown rhetoric concerning me but I'm not going to honor them with a detailed point-by-point response.

It's all been said before and I'm willing to stand on the record.

You are the most irritating defender of free markets and logical thinking (both of which I embrace) that I have ever encountered!


----------



## Resist (Dec 21, 2003)

JWThiers said:


> House prices.


House prices have actually gone up in my area of the country. But again, homes were overly inflated to begin with and this so called reduction in pricing is just the market falling back in line. This is not a good example of reduced prices for the economy, the good deals are due to people losing their homes and not a normal market condition.


----------



## Resist (Dec 21, 2003)

PhillyOTA said:


> If someone pays more for a service because it offers features they want over the cheaper alternatives, that is the best value for them.


The problem is that Charter does not allow the customer to pick the channels within the packages. For instance, in my situation there are only a few channels within the extended basic package that I watch, yet I have to pay for the whole package. And actually all really want are all the HiDef channels but I have to pay for the Standard Def stuff in order to get the HiDef ones. I don't watch 75% of the channels in my packages. If charter could set it up so we could pick single channels then that would be great, I hate how it is now, having to pay for entire packages when all I watch are only a few channels within the packages. I think we need Cable TV reform. 

So just because I pay for the service doesn't mean it offers all the features I want, nor does it mean it is the best value. All it means is that it comes closer to what I want but is hardly ideal.

Believe me I would happily make the move to satellite for my TV needs if it were not for my current investment in Tivo boxes. I like my Series 3 but hate the fact that I can only use cable or OTA service.

But as I said before, as the consumer's bank account gets smaller due to the economy, we are spending less on non essentials like cable TV. So it would be smart to lower cable package prices to keep people from downgrading or canceling the service.

All my utilities have gone up this year yet I have used less than I did last year. Last year they said that gas prices increased due to supply and demand, yet when consumers used less gas the prices still went up. The was a WTF moment. I can remember the same thing about water prices many years ago in one city I lived in. They told people to conserve water or we would pay higher rates. Well everyone saved more than what was expected and yet they raised the water rates anyway.

I have worked hard all my life, paid my bills on time, didn't over spend and put money away for the future. I finally reach a point where I can spend money on things for fun but now realized I have to go back to spending money on only essentials, due to price increases digging into my savings.

Maybe when enough consumers realize paying over $100 a month for TV is insane and cancel their cable, then a company like Charter will lower their prices or go out of business.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

Resist said:


> House prices have actually gone up in my area of the country. But again, homes were overly inflated to begin with and this so called reduction in pricing is just the market falling back in line. This is not a good example of reduced prices for the economy, the good deals are due to people losing their homes and not a normal market condition.


Glad to hear someone is making out OK on that, but let me introduce you to the rest of the country where in some areas their home value dropped by up to 33% or more. I agree that prices were too high to begin with, the reduction of pricing to be in line is however still a reduction in value. In FL where we don't have an income tax the primary means of government getting revenue is sales tax and property tax. This results in less tax dollars going into local governments. I know many would say that they are Taxed Enough Already, and government should trim down and keep their hands out of their wallet. I have a question, which services should government cut? Animal Control, Police, Fire, schools, garbage collection, Senior Centers?

I don't have a solution for get the country out of this, but I would hope that some kind of regulation is put into the banking and mortgage industries that would prevent this kind of thing from happening again.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

bicker said:


> It's not just me: It is the US Court of Appeal, which just this week confirmed that satellite *is* material competition for cable. *Despite yours and dlfl's and whoever else's maniacally consumerist protestations to the contrary. You can continue to live your own delusion* -- I have no problem with that, I assure you -- my concern is that you're trying to spread that delusion beyond yourselves onto readers of these threads. It isn't I who disagree with you (or at least not "just" I) -- it is the US Court of Appeals. When will you wake up and realize that I'm no the enemy -- I'm just the messenger?


I don't consider you an enemy, but when you stoop to personal attacks I might have to put you in the don't turn your back on this one category. I have tried to always be respectful of other peoples opinions even when I disagree with them. But when you start calling someone delusional, you make it difficult to be respectful of you.

Said to Irhorer


bicker said:


> And it's surprising to see you stoop to juvenile personal attacks because you don't like that someone has a perspective that you don't care for. Shame on you.


I wish I could say it was surprising to me "to see you stoop to juvenile personal attacks because you don't like that someone has a perspective that you don't care for." Shame on YOU.

Please note that I still try to respect you enough to fully quote you and not cherry pick a word or phrase so that the context of what you said isn't lost.


----------



## Resist (Dec 21, 2003)

JWThiers said:


> I would hope that some kind of regulation is put into the banking and mortgage industries that would prevent this kind of thing from happening again.


Better yet, people be responsible for their own actions. It's not the system that failed them because they lost their homes after getting mortgages they had no business getting into to. It is their lack of common sense that failed them. Nothing more than simple math is used to decide if one can afford a mortgage payment or not. If these people want to play stupid, then it's on them.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

Resist said:


> So just because I pay for the service doesn't mean it offers all the features I want, nor does it mean it is the best value. All it means is that it comes closer to what I want but is hardly ideal.


I think the point is that you must find it the best value _out of the alternatives that are available_, which is not the same as being the the ideal best value you could imagine.



> The problem is that Charter does not allow the customer to pick the channels within the packages.


It would be nice if you could - in my case, if I could get only the channels I want, I'd have about three channels. However, that's exactly why they don't offer a deal like that - probably someone subscribing to only three channels wouldn't be profitable for them.


----------



## Resist (Dec 21, 2003)

Brainiac 5 said:


> However, that's exactly why they don't offer a deal like that - probably someone subscribing to only three channels wouldn't be profitable for them.


Yet this concept is profitable for Apple with iTunes, allowing purchases of single songs instead of buying an entire album. I would bet Charter could make a hefty profit following the same business plan, making it a win win situation all around.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

Resist said:


> Yet this concept is profitable for Apple with iTunes, allowing purchases of single songs instead of buying an entire album. I would bet Charter could make a hefty profit following the same business plan, making it a win win situation all around.


Apple doesn't have to create and pay for all the infrastructure to get the songs from their servers to you - they just use the existing Internet, whereas cable companies have to build and maintain the entire distribution system; it's a much more capital-intensive business. And the cable companies' distribution cost is the same whether you're receiving one channel or a hundred.

On the other hand, I don't entirely disagree with you. They'd need to get a certain amount of revenue from everyone, no matter how few channels each person wants, but maybe once you have a certain minimum package that assures that, they could let you choose additional channels a-la-carte. Of course, while they could make money doing that, they couldn't make as much as they do now, so they'll never do it...


----------



## Resist (Dec 21, 2003)

Brainiac 5 said:


> Of course, while they could make money doing that, they couldn't make as much as they do now, so they'll never do it...


Consumers could force this, if we banned together and stopped using their service until they listen to our needs.

It's sad that while consumers can control pricing, we rarely ever make an active effort to do so, thus becoming victims to corporate greed.


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

Resist said:


> Yet this concept is profitable for Apple with iTunes, allowing purchases of single songs instead of buying an entire album. I would bet Charter could make a hefty profit following the same business plan, making it a win win situation all around.


Are you willing to pay for each show you watch? 99c per show?


----------



## Resist (Dec 21, 2003)

ah30k said:


> Are you willing to pay for each show you watch? 99c per show?


Not for each show, but for each channel yes. People like me end up having to pay for channel packages where they are forced to pay for channels they don't want.

Believe me I have looked into buying only the shows I watch on iTunes and giving up Charter. Since I watch about 12 shows consistently, it would cost me more per month and I would not get current seasons.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Resist said:


> Consumers could force this, if we banned together and stopped using their service until they listen to our needs.
> 
> It's sad that while consumers can control pricing, we rarely ever make an active effort to do so, thus becoming victims to corporate greed.


"greed" is a hot button word -- let's not forget that corporations aren't the only entities that exhibit greed. It's pretty common everywhere actually.

A true boycott would probably be quite powerful. However, even if you could get a critical mass of consumers enlisted, they would be pulling in many different directions in their specific demands -- might be very difficult to keep them together. I can't think of an example of a boycott that was successful, can you?

I think the only practical remedy is competition, and I do believe satellite services are competition -- not currently for TiVo owners but we are a very small percentage of the market so our boycott would not be effective anyway.

If it is possible for a provider to make more money by providing a la carte channels, and thus taking customers away from their competitors, it will be in their best interests to do so. I can't think of any reason they wouldn't do this unless they had an effective monopoly, or were just stupid, er.. I mean "poorly managed". And if it's the latter, their competition will soon eat their lunch so it doesn't matter what they do.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

Resist said:


> Better yet, people be responsible for their own actions. It's not the system that failed them because they lost their homes after getting mortgages they had no business getting into to. It is their lack of common sense that failed them. Nothing more than simple math is used to decide if one can afford a mortgage payment or not. If these people want to play stupid, then it's on them.


Lets just say it takes two to tango, between individuals making poor choices and banks making poor lending choices there is more than enough blame to go around.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

ah30k said:


> Are you willing to pay for each show you watch? 99c per show?


For just the shows you watch on premium TV in the current season it may or may not work for you, but it would be a good option to have.


----------



## Resist (Dec 21, 2003)

JWThiers said:


> Lets just say it takes two to tango, between individuals making poor choices and banks making poor lending choices there is more than enough blame to go around.


I totally disagree with you on this one. People need to stand up and start taking responsibility for their own actions. It always seems like here in the U.S. everyone blames someone else for things they did wrong. When people get a variable mortgage with payments they can barely afford, it is amazing to me that they think they will be able to afford it when the rates go up and then shocked when they lose their house and blame the lenders.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

Resist said:


> I totally disagree with you on this one. People need to stand up and start taking responsibility for their own actions. It always seems like here in the U.S. everyone blames someone else for things they did wrong. When people get a variable mortgage with payments they can barely afford, it is amazing to me that they think they will be able to afford it when the rates go up and then shocked when they lose their house and blame the lenders.


So the banks had absolutely no part of this? Interesting.

Last time I checked, in order for a loan to go into default a loan had to be issued first. Its a simple 2x2 matrix with consumers asking for loans (those that can afford and those that can't) on one axis and Mortgage Companies (Giving loan and not giving loan) on the other. Only one of the blocks in that matrix falls into the category of loan defaults and in order for that to have happened *BOTH *consumers and banks had to make the wrong choice.

Think about this, any business (including banks) are in business to make money. One of the ways that banks do that is to loan money to people and have them pay it back plus interest. What happened on a national scale is a few VERY large banks made so many poor business choices (making risky loans) that it not only bankrupted their company, but very nearly caused a complete collapse of the national economy (with a global economy that is a serious problem). Your absolutely correct that people are wrong to get into loans they know they can't afford. But asking for a loan doesn't cause the economy to collapse. What causes that is *after the loan is granted* not being able to pay it back. Not just one but a ton of them. The banking industry had at the least a equal share of responsibility it not more, they had the incentive of not wanting to loose money for the bank (and it investors) as well.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

Resist said:


> I totally disagree with you on this one. People need to stand up and start taking responsibility for their own actions. It always seems like here in the U.S. everyone blames someone else for things they did wrong. When people get a variable mortgage with payments they can barely afford, it is amazing to me that they think they will be able to afford it when the rates go up and then shocked when they lose their house and blame the lenders.


You can not be more wrong. Although there are some stupid or overly optimistic people who got in trouble with adjustable rates, this is extremely small percentage AND they got in trouble when rates were going up, before the current problem started. The current problem is responsibility of the banks and Wall Street. Greedy bustards in order to be able to write themselves multimillion dollar bonuses and salaries came up with loans that can only exist if housing prices perpetually going up by the large percentage.
Welcome to sub-prime. People who never paid anybody on time, if ever, were able to get 100% loans. Presumption on the bank part being that Wall Street will buy this toxic high interest rate loans because they have nothing to lose - by the time house going into foreclosure it is worth much more and will easily sell. Guess what, enough houses in foreclosure and prices don't go up anymore. That takes down the "flippers" - so called "investors" who there able to get 100% loans to make a profit in 3 to 6 months by flipping the house. Who made loans to these people? You guessed it, banks that were able to sell these loans to Wall Street.
Next in line second mortgages. 100% cashout to the good credit risk people. Financial advisers "helping" people to roll their high interest credit card and car loans into low interest second mortgages. No problem, everybody happy - people get "free" money and Wall Street buys these loans because real estate value always goes up. Multimillion salaries and bonuses for investment bankers and fund managers make them forget basics of economics. 
Besides, there is no risk for them - all these 401K money to gamble with and no responsibility if they lose.
You want people to be responsible for their actions. Why don't we start with bank and corporate CEOs? Why don't we start asking them why they deserve to be paid millions to make stupid decisions? Why don't we tell them to "start taking responsibility for their own actions"


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Resist said:


> If charter could set it up so we could pick single channels then that would be great, I hate how it is now, having to pay for entire packages when all I watch are only a few channels within the packages. I think we need Cable TV reform.


People who support what you're suggesting, of course, try to present it in the best light, which perhaps gives you a distorted and therefore erroneous perception that "that would be great". To avoid totally derailing this thread, please answer this question: Would you prefer it if instead of paying (above) $60 per month for expanded basic you could instead pay $15 for limited basic (required), plus a $15 per month expanded basic tier fee, plus $4 per month per channel you place on your own customized expanded basic tier (not including premium channels, of course).

You can quibble about my numbers, but if you have to quibble about my numbers then your complaint is *not* about the fact that you cannot pick single channels. Instead, you're just complaining that you want to pay less. Consumers always want to pay less -- so no surprise there -- IF, that is, if your objections are to my numbers.

Even if you would do well under a la carte (some people will... in the end, probably half will and half won't), it will likely take passage of a regulation to make it happen. It is the type of change that represents a very substantial risk to a service provider if they're the only ones doing it. It needs to be an industry-wide change.



Resist said:


> So just because I pay for the service doesn't mean it offers all the features I want, nor does it mean it is the best value.


If you're paying for a service that you believe is not "the best value" (as Brainiac said) "out of the alternatives that are available", then you're "irrational". That's not a personal attack... that's a technical term -- a definition from the science of economics. Rational consumers always choose what they believe is the best value available to them.

It is very very important for consumers to recognize that by paying for something that they are, absolutely, ratifying its value. They are voting in favor of that offering. And their vote in this regard counts... and nothing else with regard to their sentiments regarding the service offering matters much. It is absolutely essential for consumers to accept that they have a responsibility to make the best purchasing decisions for themselves, even if that means doing without something because there are no offerings that the consumer finds delivering a sufficient value.



Resist said:


> All it means is that it comes closer to what I want but is hardly ideal.


This confusion between "best" and "ideal" is not unique. There are many other common confusions in discussions and deliberations of this nature.



Resist said:


> Believe me I would happily make the move to satellite for my TV needs if it were not for my current investment in Tivo boxes.


This statement seems to imply Sunk Cost rationale, which is a sort of like a logical fallacy. A rational agent in a system does *not* consider sunk costs when determining what direction to go from any point.

I did my Masters' Thesis on this, highlighting the failures in judgment made by political leaders in New York regarding continuing work on a specific subway project, despite it becoming increasingly apparent that the objectives of the project could be achieved for less cost going forward via different approaches versus continuing work on the tunnel for which substantial work had already been completed. The political leaders made bad decisions because of their concern about how it would look to have spent so much money already only to leave the project unfinished, without regard to relative utility completing the tunnel would have versus other options, in light of the forward-looking costs of the various options. Essentially, they defended their decisions by including in their evaluations the money already spent, as if they could get it back (which, of course, they could not).

The same logic applies to each of us. I have a TiVo S3. I spent a lot of money on it. However, I know (perhaps because of my educational background, but hopefully others come to the same realization over time just from living life) that every day I start from $0, and evaluate my options for satisfying my desires for television entertainment *independent from* whatever I've spent in the past. I have certain resources already... I have certain contractual obligations. But beyond that, if it is "better" for me to switch to XXXXX, then I should, without any regard to how much I've spent already supporting my set-up with my current service provider.

Note that what I like about sticking with my S3 is so significant that it trumps the utility offered by other options. Not the fact that I already spent a lot of money on it -- rather the fact that it offers a lot of benefits and advantages that I value very highly.



Resist said:


> But as I said before, as the consumer's bank account gets smaller due to the economy, we are spending less on non essentials like cable TV.


The numbers say the opposite. Consumers are spending more money on cable television in this down economy. I don't think that there is any consensus of why. My best guess is that we're finding cable television, even at these higher rates and with these higher associated costs, still of greater value that some other things that we used to do (i.e., going to the movies, perhaps).



Resist said:


> So it would be smart to lower cable package prices to keep people from downgrading or canceling the service.


Given that your premise for this conclusion was wrong, the conclusion itself is also wrong. Indeed, indications are that it would be smart to raise cable package prices to further enhance revenues, because the trends indicate that cable is providing more value than it is charging for.



Resist said:


> I have worked hard all my life, paid my bills on time, didn't over spend and put money away for the future. I finally reach a point where I can spend money on things for fun but now realized I have to go back to spending money on only essentials, due to price increases digging into my savings.


I understand and sympathize with your frustration. However, it is important for us to remember that just because we're not happy with how things are doesn't necessarily mean something is wrong. Maybe Buddhists have it right (that life is a cycle of suffering and rebirth)?



Resist said:


> Maybe when enough consumers realize paying over $100 a month for TV is insane and cancel their cable, then a company like Charter will lower their prices or go out of business.


That's really hitting the nail on the head. As you said later in the thread:


Resist said:


> ... consumers can control pricing, we rarely ever make an active effort to do so...


We *consumers* control prices for non-essential services like cable television networks. If we pay what they charge, then that ratifies what they charge. If they charge too much, it is our responsibility to not purchase the service, to communicate that the price doesn't reflect the value. The service providers use trends in their revenues indicate when they perhaps have raised prices beyond what is reasonable. If consumers don't send those signals, then it is unreasonable to expect that service providers to not raise prices.

Note how this contrasts with essential services, like basic cable television service. There, the consumer controls prices directly, by regulating the fee charged. Here, our local town's review has secured for us a price of $8.50 per month. Can't beat that; they've got to be losing money on each one of those basic-cable-only subscribers. Downgrades to basic cable are the most powerful message consumers can send regarding advanced services like expanded basic cable, because it not only deprives service providers of the added revenues from the expanded basic service fee itself, but also forces them to still provide us service ostensibly at a loss.



Resist said:


> Better yet, people be responsible for their own actions.


The same kind of logic applies to purchasing cable television services.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ah30k said:


> Are you willing to pay for each show you watch? 99c per show?





Resist said:


> Not for each show, but for each channel yes.


But that's unreasonable. ah30k very deliberately put that price on each show you watch. That's the value price for individual episodes. Heck, I just paid $2.99 for a single episode (of a series that I had stored-up on my TiVo, but had missed one episode). 99c is low, especially if you expect HD.

Again, if you're just quibbling about the numbers (instead of the structure) of the pricing, then you're just saying you want to pay less, and again, consumers always want to pay less, and there is nothing specifically interesting or notable about that.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

dlfl said:


> "greed" is a hot button word -- let's not forget that corporations aren't the only entities that exhibit greed. It's pretty common everywhere actually.


Absolutely. Consumers wanting to pay less, as alluded to above, is no different. Consumers are therefore always "greedy". What's worse is that consumers are also investors, demanding high return from their 401(k)'s and such, and therefore are instigators of "corporate greed". In the end, it *all* comes back to us, the consumers. If there is any casting of aspersions, we might as well cast those aspersions onto ourselves. Many consumers refuse to do so. They want to blame someone else. They want a whipping boy. They want to lash out, to express their frustration by condemning someone else. It's all a farce. The fault, at least with regard to cable television networks, rests *on consumers*.

Therefore, since it makes so many consumers uncomfortable to be accused of "greed" and being the instigators of "greed", it is best if people simply drop the word from their vocabulary in this regard, and stop trying to blame others for a situation that, as Resist pointed out, we consumers have control over.



dlfl said:


> A true boycott would probably be quite powerful. However, even if you could get a critical mass of consumers enlisted, they would be pulling in many different directions in their specific demands -- might be very difficult to keep them together.


Which shows that we consumers actually don't all agree that we're not getting a fair value for what we're paying. So many of us will be willing to continue paying, because we do believe we're getting a fair value.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

*bicker*,

:up: on your post #72, almost as long as your masters thesis too. 

Just a few comments:



bicker said:


> ............Even if you would do well under a la carte (some people will... in the end, probably half will and half won't).........


Assuming (1) that providing a la carte will increase the provider's costs and (2) most or all of that increase will be passed to the consumer (both of which are reasonable assumptions IMHO) then average consumer costs will actually increase. Thus probably less than half will "do well". Actually the economics are much more complicated, but I hope the point is made.



bicker said:


> I did my Masters' Thesis on this, highlighting the failures in judgment made by political leaders in New York regarding continuing work on a specific subway project, despite it becoming increasingly apparent that the objectives of the project could be achieved for less cost going forward via different approaches versus continuing work on the tunnel for which substantial work had already been completed. The political leaders made bad decisions because of their concern about how it would look to have spent so much money already only to leave the project unfinished, without regard to relative utility completing the tunnel would have versus other options, in light of the forward-looking costs of the various options. Essentially, they defended their decisions by including in their evaluations the money already spent, as if they could get it back (which, of course, they could not).


My perspective is this is another example of "consumers" (more accurately those eligible to vote) having the ultimate responsibility. A politician who wanted to do the right thing would most likely still not do it because the voting public would not understand it -- and he/she would soon be out of office. In other words you can't expect politicians to act much more intelligently than those who elect them.



bicker said:


> Note how this contrasts with essential services, like basic cable television service. ..............


Basic cable is essential? Maybe to TiVoCommunity members. 
(Essential means food, water, housing, electricity to me)



bicker said:


> There, the consumer controls prices directly, by regulating the fee charged. Here, our local town's review has secured for us a price of $8.50 per month. .........


Slight correction: The consumer has the possibility of controlling prices, if they pay attention to who's on the town board and what they're doing.


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

ah30k said:


> Are you willing to pay for each show you watch? 99c per show?





Resist said:


> Not for each show, but for each channel yes.


But that is NOT the iTunes model which was stated would be a great option. iTunes does not offer a la carte pricing for all content from a particular artist. They do not offer all content from a particular label or all content from a particular genre.

They offer A SINGLE SONG.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

dlfl said:


> Assuming (1) that providing a la carte will increase the provider's costs and (2) most or all of that increase will be passed to the consumer (both of which are reasonable assumptions IMHO) then average consumer costs will actually increase. Thus probably less than half will "do well". Actually the economics are much more complicated, but I hope the point is made.


I'm not sure that the premise is sound, though. I don't think we can show that the service provider's costs will increase more than a little (let's call it an insignificant amount). Also, the conclusion is based on premises that don't necessarily have bearing. Pricing is based on value, not cost. As such, essentially, with a la carte, the value provided will probably actually go down a little (let's call it an insignificant amount), since people will actually be only subscribing to channels that they really want. Therefore, for many, there will be some channels that they really didn't care (much) about, that they won't be getting anymore. As a result, the most likely scenario is that consumers will see a little bit (let's call it an insignificant amount) of a price decrease. So probably a little bit (let's call it an insignificant amount) more than half will "do well" while a little bit (let's call it an insignificant amount) less than half will do worse.



dlfl said:


> My perspective is this is another example of "consumers" (more accurately those eligible to vote) having the ultimate responsibility.


Okay, so now we're starting to talk about political market manipulation. Let's be clear: Federal regulations _could _indeed force changes in the marketplace that will deliver substantially less value to consumers and therefore will result in substantially lower price. It is also _possible _for federal regulations to corrupt the market in such a way that prices are forced even lower than that, but that would just prompt a substantial decrease in investment for maintenance and enhancement of services going forward. So there will be a short-term positive impact on consumers, and then a protracted period of what normally happens when government interferes too much: crappier and crappier service, spurred on by a marketplace from which all motivation to excel has been removed.



dlfl said:


> A politician who wanted to do the right thing would most likely still not do it because the voting public would not understand it -- and he/she would soon be out of office. In other words you can't expect politicians to act much more intelligently than those who elect them.


Or perhaps both politicians and the people who elect them have more faith in industry and less faith in government regulation than you do.

And I don't want to really say which is right or wrong, but rather I just want to point out that roughly 50% of the people believe one thing and 50% of the people believe the other. As such, it is unreasonable for either side to expect to get what they want.



dlfl said:


> Basic cable is essential? Maybe to TiVoCommunity members.
> (Essential means food, water, housing, electricity to me)


The reason why basic cable (i.e., local, over-the-air broadcast channels only) is considered essential is that it is the _de facto_ mode of providing emergency alerts, as well as providing news and information to the broadest possible portion of the population.



dlfl said:


> Slight correction: The consumer has the possibility of controlling prices, if they pay attention to who's on the town board and what they're doing.


How do you explain, then, that limited basic cable generally costs less than $20 per month, all over the country?


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

Wait, the price of *BEER* is going up????

DAMMIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## lafos (Nov 8, 2004)

bicker said:


> I'm not sure that the premise is sound, though. I don't think we can show that the service provider's costs will increase more than a little (let's call it an insignificant amount). Also, the conclusion is based on premises that don't necessarily have bearing. Pricing is based on value, not cost. As such, essentially, with a la carte, the value provided will probably actually go down a little (let's call it an insignificant amount), since people will actually be only subscribing to channels that they really want. Therefore, for many, there will be some channels that they really didn't care (much) about, that they won't be getting anymore. As a result, the most likely scenario is that consumers will see a little bit (let's call it an insignificant amount) of a price decrease. So probably a little bit (let's call it an insignificant amount) more than half will "do well" while a little bit (let's call it an insignificant amount) less than half will do worse.


Interesting point. I have not met a person that watches more than a relatively small number of channels. For the sake of discussion, let's say 50-60 over the course of a year. The cable company pays to carry stations; I think it's a cost per customer, and likely has volume discounting. But I've never been queried by my service providers concerning which channels I favor, and which I'd do without if I could see a cost savings.

It seems that this structure contributes to channel proliferation and increased costs. If I'm a cable company and want to maximize the number of channels I offer to attract customers, I'll pick up any inexpensive channels I can to swell the numbers. The satellite providers talk number of channels, and value of channels is secondary.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

lafos said:


> The cable company pays to carry stations; I think it's a cost per customer, and likely has volume discounting.


This raises an important point: Cable companies are charged per subscriber fees by cable networks, _based on the condition that the channel is carried on a specific tier of service_. It is not permitted for a cable company to unilaterally decide to start offering service _a la carte_: Essentially, if they did, they'd still be obligated to pay the per subscriber price for every subscriber who gets *any* _a la carte service_, regardless of whether that subscriber subscribes to that specific cable network or not. Indeed, it may even be a flat-out violation for a service provider to offer service _a la carte_, in the absence of cable *networks* agreeing to allow their channels to be distributed that way. In other words, before people even begin to talk about service providers providing cable networks _a la carte_ (called "retail" _a la carte_), it is required that first there be *wholesale* _a la carte_. And many of us believe that once wholesale _a la carte_ exists, 90% of the effect of retail _a la carte_ will be realized. There won't be anything else needed, once wholesale _a la carte_ is reality.

The problem is that consumers are, generally, lazy. They tend to want to lash out at the people that they're sending their checks to, instead of acknowledging the reality of the entire system and their own responsibilities (some of which dlfl and ah30k pointed out, above). Since consumers are so disorganized and focused on immediate gratification, they essentially castrate their own ability to, as a group, bring about change. So they'll strike at service providers, when the reality is that what is needed is regulations imposed on the wholesale market.

Some of the more enlightened consumer advocates will make part of the leap, and claim that the service providers should be doing that work. However, that's still utterly unreasonable -- to expect a group of companies, who are prohibited from acting in collusion to start with, to do so, and to do so to advocate for something that will (as I mentioned before) holds only the promise of lowering their overall revenues -- offering them no possible promise of any benefit to them whatsoever.

No, the responsibility for bringing these changes into being is on consumers and consumers alone, and the only reasonable approach is to first bring about wholesale _a la carte_.



lafos said:


> But I've never been queried by my service providers concerning which channels I favor


I have, and really, the ratings show very clearly which channels are favored.



lafos said:


> and which I'd do without if I could see a cost savings.


That is another matter, and something you cannot necessarily tell from the ratings. However, it is also something that isn't really a matter for the service providers to concern themselves with. Their concern must exclusively be on what service offerings would foster the best cost/revenue proposition.



lafos said:


> It seems that this structure contributes to channel proliferation and increased costs.


It does, and that raises another reason why things are unlikely to change. A lot of the proliferation fosters the satisfaction of niche interests, some of which are targeted at minority communities. Some of the same folks that would foster the kinds of consumer-oriented changes in the cable industry that you're alluding to would be mortified if those changes reduced the satisfaction of minority interests. And beyond that, others would still highlight a social value from satisfying a wide spectrum of niche interests rather than a much more narrow, mainstream-focused set.

So the next step would be to recognize that and build into whatever changes there are what is effectively a subsidy to foster that diversity. So now instead of paying $4 per channel, you're paying $4 per channel plus $15 to subsidize a bunch of channels that you don't care about, but are considered important enough to subsidize because of the diversity objectives. That puts you roughly back to square one, with very little change realized, at least not financially.

I don't mean to say whether any of this is right or wrong -- rather just that that's the way things will likely go. It should be noted, though, that wholesale _a la carte_ generally doesn't have much impact, either way, on the issues that I outlined in the previous two paragraphs, because a lot of niche interest channels, today, are independents, so are effectively already operating under a wholesale _a la carte_ arrangement. Wholesale _a la carte_, therefore, might only adversely impact a few of the weaker channels _within_ a major conglomerate's stable of channels. So, for example, with NBC/U, CNBC, The Weather Channel, USA and Syfy should be safe; Bravo and even MSNBC may be questionable; Universal HD is probably a goner.


----------



## PhillyOTA (Apr 22, 2009)

I have OTA only. To me, the packages the programming providers offer have no value. So I pay yearly for my 1 Tivo and my monthly $9 netflix. Under $20 a month. I have no interest in calling in every 6 months or so trying to get a lower price before my promotion period ends. I dont want the hassle. So I choose not to subscribe.


----------



## Grumock (Dec 16, 2008)

One thing I have noticed a lot on these types of forums is this:

1)Tivo users are like MAC users.
2)Being a TIVO user myself i prefer MAC. 
3)Would be willing to bet more then 50% of TIVO users are MAC users. LMAO not really willing.


----------



## Resist (Dec 21, 2003)

JWThiers said:


> So the banks had absolutely no part of this? Interesting.


For their own protection yes, the banks should have denied many of the loans. But during the approval process I can decide if the mortgage is more than I can afford. If a person makes $1500 a month and gets a mortgage of $1200 a month, then obviously they can't afford it and had no business thinking they could. Again people have to take responsibility for their own actions and not expect everyone else to bail them out.

I didn't over extend on my home mortgage and while I am getting by, I certainly am not living the high life and nobody is helping me. I saw on TV how many people are now getting lower interest loans to help them through "their" bad decisions. Who is helping me.....nobody! They are now getting a lower interest loan than I am and I make my payments every month! I don't qualify to get that special interest rate and that isn't right. Once again this country rewards those that don't follow the rules or even break the law. Look at Michael Vick, he made millions in the NFL, commits a felony and does time and now is back making millions with the NFL. Great message for the young people in this country! What about the people that are honest and work hard all their life?


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

bicker said:


> ..........
> Or perhaps both politicians and the people who elect them have more faith in industry and less faith in government regulation than you do.


Huh? There must have been a context switch. I was talking about why politicians might not have the courage to acknowledge sunken costs as lost costs because voters wouldn't understand, so the ultimate responsibility for their incorrect actions flows to the voters.

I don't know what I've said that would give you the idea I generally favor government regulation over the free market (??).



bicker said:


> The reason why basic cable (i.e., local, over-the-air broadcast channels only) is considered essential is that it is the _de facto_ mode of providing emergency alerts, as well as providing news and information to the broadest possible portion of the population.


That justification doesn't hold water IMHO. If someone is not watching TV because they can't afford basic cable, they will still be watching OTA or listening to the radio in most cases. But, I know -- you're just telling the way it is, not the way it should be.



bicker said:


> How do you explain, then, that limited basic cable generally costs less than $20 per month, all over the country?


I wasn't trying to imply otherwise. Just that the average cable subscriber has no idea what their local politicians are doing with regard to cable franchising. So if they're getting a good deal, it's just their good luck. Politicians could just as easily be cutting deals far from optimum for their citizens, if they aren't being watched. Mea Culpa: I'm guilty of not watching my local politicians on this issue.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Adam1115 said:


> Wait, the price of *BEER* is going up????
> 
> DAMMIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I guess that puts TiVo-related concerns in proper perspective! 

Drink enough and cable rates won't bother you at all!


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

An interesting series of posts. A lot of good points going in interesting directions. So I will kick in my $.02.

While I like the idea of ala carte' channels, I don't think we will see them anytime soon from the cable companies. Bicker is right when he says that consumers are too fragmented in their priorities when it comes to things like channel availability. One person wants the home shopping channel and Spanish language but cant stand SyFy (Stupid brand change) and USA. Another wants exactly the opposite plus MSNBC. A third wants something completely different. There are too many variables plus the issue of diversity for the niche channels. Big head ache, no profit motive, more hassle than its worth for the cable company.

Eventually (10 -20 or more years), I think that cable companies will go away (or at least be considerably smaller when it comes to TV distribution, it will all be about data distribution) and be replaced by internet based TV. Local TV will be OTA or internet and what we consider cable networks will be strictly internet based. Done this way the networks can charge directly for either a stream similar to live TV today, or kind of PPV for I only want this episode of this series or just this series. This does away with the middleman and also allows for more focused advertising, more accurate ratings. I think we are seeing the beginnings of this right now with things like netflix on demand and amazon for movies and series TV and for more niche things like the stuff from Revision3. I think something like that would be a win for the networks, a win for the consumers but a loss for the cable co's in distribution of national cable content. Where they could still succeed is locally for TV distribution and as an ISP acting as a portal to Internet TV. 

I really think there is a big opportunity in the not too distant future for the Cable company that figures this out and sells it to the cable networks, and comes up with a reasonable way to tier their bandwidth that consumers can swallow.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

Resist said:


> For their own protection yes, the banks should have denied many of the loans. But during the approval process I can decide if the mortgage is more than I can afford. If a person makes $1500 a month and gets a mortgage of $1200 a month, then obviously they can't afford it and had no business thinking they could. Again people have to take responsibility for their own actions and not expect everyone else to bail them out.


That is the point I was trying to make. For their own protection a lot of the loans that failed should never have been made in the first place. Yes the person that asked for the loan shouldn't ask for something they can't afford. But their were plenty of cases where it was obvious that it was just a bad risk and the mortgage company would sell them something that they knew in 2 years when the rates went up they couldn't afford and they would default on it. And what they would do is bundle all the loans together and sell them off to another company. The original mortgage company gets their money, the second company get the loan as an investment thinking that it is a AAAA+ risk loan they just bought from a highly reputable mortgage company when it is in fact a time bomb waiting to explode.



Resist said:


> I didn't over extend on my home mortgage and while I am getting by, I certainly am not living the high life and nobody is helping me. I saw on TV how many people are not getting lower interest loans to help them through "their" bad decisions. Who is helping me.....nobody! They are now getting a lower interest loan than I am and I make my payments every month! I don't qualify to get that special interest rate and that isn't right. Once again this country rewards those that don't follow the rules or even break the law. Look at Michael Vick, he made millions in the NFL, commits a felony and does time and now is back making millions with the NFL. Great message for the young people in this country! What about the people that are honest and work hard all their life?


Same here, but what really ticked me off was the banks getting bailed out. I think it was needed for the sake of the whole economy, but it still ticks me off.


----------



## Resist (Dec 21, 2003)

JWThiers said:


> While I like the idea of ala carte' channels, I don't think we will see them anytime soon from the cable companies.


Sadly, I think you are correct about this.

I just hooked up my Digital Tuner Box to see what channels I can get OTA (not connected to Tivo), the box uses a composite or coax connection. I connected it via composite. I can get 6 channels, 4 are English, 2 are Spanish. Of the 4 in English, they are CBS, NBC, FOX and CW. It sucks that I can't get ABC in my area OTA. The picture quality isn't to bad but clearly not like HiDef on cable, but better than watching non HiDef channels via cable on my TV. I am sure this is due to the tuner box using composite. I will have to look into seeing if I can get a Digital Tuner Box that uses component or even a DVI connection. So who knows, I may end up saving myself $100 a month in cable fees and going OTA.


----------



## Resist (Dec 21, 2003)

JWThiers said:


> Same here, but what really ticked me off was the banks getting bailed out. I think it was needed for the sake of the whole economy, but it still ticks me off.


I agree but at least those banks are paying interest on the loans and many have already paid the loan back.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

Resist said:


> I agree but at least those banks are paying interest on the loans and many have already paid the loan back.


I just don't want to have to do it again. I generally think government should stay out of the business of business, (there are exceptions for things like vital infrastructure and such where regulation is needed but generally...) in this case I think a well crafted regulation to limit the chance of the same thing happening again is in order. If I thought that we could outlaw dumb personal choices I would want something for consumers too. Unless they were committing fraud (which is already illegal) being dumb isn't a crime.


----------



## Resist (Dec 21, 2003)

I just found out that I don't need a digital tuner box with my Tivo Series 3 for an OTA signal. This is great news because my Tivo is connected to my TV via Component so my picture quality should be much better than I thought. Can't wait to try it out.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

dlfl said:


> Huh? There must have been a context switch.


No not really. There are many people who believe that government regulation is generally bad, regardless. It is a valid, reasonable perspective to hold, and the default position, incidentally, for about half the population. :whistling:



dlfl said:


> I was talking about why politicians might not have the courage to acknowledge sunken costs as lost costs because voters wouldn't understand, so the ultimate responsibility for their incorrect actions flows to the voters.


I totally agree with that, too.



dlfl said:


> That justification doesn't hold water IMHO. If someone is not watching TV because they can't afford basic cable, they will still be watching OTA or listening to the radio in most cases.


First: Cable television was first offered because many areas, outside the urban centers, cannot get reliable reception of broadcast locals. Its essential purpose, at the outset, was to bridge that gap.

Second:


dlfl said:


> But, I know -- you're just telling the way it is, not the way it should be.


Correct. Television (not radio, not anymore) is considered by our society to be the most pervasive medium for disseminating emergency alerts, news and information, not radio, as a matter of what authorities shall and will base their actions on.



dlfl said:


> I wasn't trying to imply otherwise. Just that the average cable subscriber has no idea what their local politicians are doing with regard to cable franchising.


I do think, though, that the predominant position among the electorate is that they don't see a compelling need for anything to change. They're not going to invest time and energy trying to get things to change if they don't think change is really that necessary.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

bicker said:


> I do think, though, that the predominant position among the electorate is that they don't see a compelling need for anything to change. They're not going to invest time and energy trying to get things to change if they don't think change is really that necessary.


No argument on your basic point here, just a quibble:
Paying no attention to a situation because it isn't above your threshold of "pain", doesn't seem like a "position" to me. I'm not saying it's irrational behavior, just not worthy of being called a "position". I think things would be better in general if people paid more attention to political issues. But we've muddled along fairly well for 200+ years this way.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Rather, I think it is more important to accept that doing nothing is doing something. Too often people seek to avoid their own personal responsibility by rationalizing what they didn't do; I don't think that really serves any constructive purpose.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Or, in another form:

Making no decision is a decision.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice"

Name that tune.


----------



## orangeboy (Apr 19, 2004)

JWThiers said:


> "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice"
> 
> Name that tune.


I almost posted the same thing earlier. Rush: Free Will :up:


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

orangeboy said:


> I almost posted the same thing earlier. Rush: Free Will :up:


Might have been either "Rush".

Is this thread winding down?


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

dlfl said:


> Might have been either "Rush".
> 
> Is this thread winding down?


It was Rush.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

JWThiers said:


> It was Rush.


But there are 10 Rushes! One has lost 82 lbs but still looks fat. The other is a musical group with libertarian lyrics.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

dlfl said:


> But there are 10 Rushes! One has lost 82 lbs but still looks fat. The other is a musical group with libertarian lyrics.


This one


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Yeah, I knew. But the other one would agree with the lyric, I'm sure.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

dlfl said:


> But there are 10 Rushes! One has lost 82 lbs but still looks fat. The other is a musical group with libertarian lyrics.


BTW is that a binary joke in there?


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

JWThiers said:


> BTW is that a binary joke in there?


Is a binary joke one with 10 possible meanings?

Oh Lord, stop me before I post to this thread again.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

bicker said:


> It's not just me: It is the US Court of Appeal, which just this week confirmed that satellite *is* material competition for cable. Despite yours and dlfl's and whoever else's maniacally consumerist protestations to the contrary. You can continue to live your own delusion -- I have no problem with that, I assure you -- my concern is that you're trying to spread that delusion beyond yourselves onto readers of these threads. It isn't I who disagree with you (or at least not "just" I) -- it is the US Court of Appeals. When will you wake up and realize that I'm no the enemy -- I'm just the messenger?


Hey bicker, after a bit of digging around the only reference that I could find on the case I think you mean is this. Not exactly the most informative place but its what I could find. If you still have information on it I would be interested in seeing it.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

dlfl said:


> Is a binary joke one with 10 possible meanings?
> 
> Oh Lord, stop me before I post to this thread again.


maybe even 11 or 100.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

JWThiers said:


> ........Eventually (10 -20 or more years), I think that cable companies will go away (or at least be considerably smaller when it comes to TV distribution, it will all be about data distribution) and be replaced by internet based TV. Local TV will be OTA or internet and what we consider cable networks will be strictly internet based. Done this way the networks can charge directly for either a stream similar to live TV today, or kind of PPV for I only want this episode of this series or just this series. This does away with the middleman and also allows for more focused advertising, more accurate ratings. I think we are seeing the beginnings of this right now with things like netflix on demand and amazon for movies and series TV and for more niche things like the stuff from Revision3. I think something like that would be a win for the networks, a win for the consumers but a loss for the cable co's in distribution of national cable content. Where they could still succeed is locally for TV distribution and as an ISP acting as a portal to Internet TV.
> 
> I really think there is a big opportunity in the not too distant future for the Cable company that figures this out and sells it to the cable networks, and comes up with a reasonable way to tier their bandwidth that consumers can swallow.


I couldn't help thinking of your post when I saw this article in the Business Insider.. Maybe you already saw it.

First time I heard of "Boxee".

BTW I think it will be more like 5 years.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

dlfl said:


> I couldn't help thinking of your post when I saw this article in the Business Insider.. Maybe you already saw it.
> 
> First time I heard of "Boxee".
> 
> BTW I think it will be more like 5 years.


Nope hadn't seen it looks interesting I'll read it tomorrow. Five years is a little fast for what I was thinking of. Since Pay TV companies (Cable Companies, Telcos and Sat) are also the major ISP's they have to :

Decide that is the best way to go.
Convince the content providers to go along and provide content at a reasonable cost over the internet.
Abandon their major cash cow (Pay TV) in favor of what is currently just icing on their cake (Internet).
Increase Speed and bandwidth. And decide on reasonable service tiers.
Develop the infrastructure.
make an internet appliance for those who don't have or want a computer in there entertainment center.
Convince consumers to switch.
We are seeing the beginnings but we have a way to go, five years is too ambitious.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

But they may have to do it that quickly, or go out of business. Anyway, look forward to your comments after reading it.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

dlfl said:


> But they may have to do it that quickly, or go out of business. Anyway, look forward to your comments after reading it.


Interesting article I agree with a lot of what is written, but the writer doesn't account for the same people that are providing for the broadband needed to access services like Boxee or HuLu, or NetFlix or Amazon or <insert name of a video content provider> are also the same people that would loose some income from this shift in distribution model (The Pay TV providers (Cable, Sat, and Telco's doing the cable TV thing like verizon and ATT)). I think the shift will occur once everyone realizes that this isn't just about TV, it's about data. Being able to access data fast and efficient all the time. No matter where you are. The data can be a web page, a VOIP call, Video (TV, Movie, personal video) music, whatever. I think the money to be made is in the data delivery. If they (the ISP's, Cable company, satellite company, Telephone company) would just say you know what? Everything today is a digital bits anyway, why not just make the delivery of those bits as fast, efficient and reliable as possible. Here is an interface for voice chatting (telephone) one for video content (TV). Combined I pay $250-$300 TV, Internet, Cell Phone, Land line Phone). I'd gladly pay that for a service that let me get rid of all of those bills and give me something like 100Mbit service everywhere on all of my devices. The only thing extra we would have to pay for are interface devices like a cell phone, Tivo box, a Boxee box, a land line phone computer for internet. The problem is breaking the old model. Do you still think 5 years is enough time? Look at the DTV conversion, that took what 10 years +. If we started right now and everyone agreed on a single course 5 years would be a stretch. Right now everyone doesn't even agree that this would be the way to go let alone how to do it.


----------



## Resist (Dec 21, 2003)

Little did I know starting this thread would cause such a stir. It did however get a lot of us to think out loud with some interesting thoughts.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

JWThiers said:


> ........Combined I pay $250-$300 TV, Internet, Cell Phone, Land line Phone). I'd gladly pay that for a service that let me get rid of all of those bills and give me something like 100Mbit service everywhere on all of my devices......


Me too. What about premium content? Does your number cover something equivalent to a premium tier plus netflix or amazon unbox? Whatever the number I hope it comes down with time, at least the "real" (inflation corrected) cost.


JWThiers said:


> ........The problem is breaking the old model. Do you still think 5 years is enough time? Look at the DTV conversion, that took what 10 years +. If we started right now and everyone agreed on a single course 5 years would be a stretch. Right now everyone doesn't even agree that this would be the way to go let alone how to do it.


You may be right. I hope it's faster. And I hope it happens primarily via the free market with only the minimum necessary government regulation.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

JWThiers said:


> ....Combined I pay $250-$300 TV, Internet, Cell Phone, Land line Phone). I'd gladly pay that for a service that let me get rid of all of those bills and give me something like 100Mbit service everywhere on all of my devices....





dlfl said:


> Me too. What about premium content? Does your number cover something equivalent to a premium tier plus netflix or amazon unbox? Whatever the number I hope it comes down with time, at least the "real" (inflation corrected) cost.


The thing with ala carte' is you can get whatever you want, you just have to pay for it. The local ISP's provide local feeds for local channels only, premium content would come directly from the content providers, probably with the ISP acting as some sort of portal. That's why you have to get content providers on board and as early as possible. As far as pricing goes, I would hope the price would drop also, I would think that when you drop all the stuff you think is not worth your time and add the stuff that is the price would probably be about the same as today. But considering what I have been talking about a couple of hundred for an "All you can eat" high speed (an order or two of magnitude faster than today) data plan that replaces telephone and cable while also beefing up the speed and reliability of internet access that could be reasonable.


----------



## Phantom Gremlin (Jun 20, 2002)

JWThiers said:


> As far as pricing goes, I would hope the price would drop also, I would think that when you drop all the stuff you think is not worth your time and add the stuff that is the price would probably be about the same as today.


A la carte has an interesting advantage. If you don't like Keith Olbermann, maybe you drop MSNBC. If you don't like Glenn Beck, maybe you drop Fox News. Currently there is no easy way to "vote" for or against most cable channels.

When cable first became popular it was difficult to do a la carte for technical reasons. But now "we have the technology".


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

Phantom Gremlin said:


> A la carte has an interesting advantage. If you don't like Keith Olbermann, maybe you drop MSNBC. If you don't like Glenn Beck, maybe you drop Fox News. Currently there is no easy way to "vote" for or against most cable channels.
> 
> When cable first became popular it was difficult to do a la carte for technical reasons. But now "we have the technology".


I agree but I don't think that ala carte' would result in lower prices. I think that the per channel or per show cost might actually go up on the more popular options. The net result would probably be a wash.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

A la carte will only result in significantly lower prices if people end up watching significantly less television as a result.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

bicker said:


> A la carte will only result in significantly lower prices if people end up watching significantly less television as a result.


Is your rationale for this given in your post #80, or is there more to it?


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

bicker said:


> A la carte will only result in significantly lower prices if people end up watching significantly less television as a result.


And they will. If you have to pay for every channel or show you watch, you will think twice before you watch it. I know that it works for me on PPV - if movie sounds marginal we always wait for it to go to HBO. By the same token, we only have HBO and Showtime for premiums because it is not cost effective to add Starz and Cinemax. At one time we had a packaged deal that gave us all four for $2 more, but we switched as soon as price went up.
Some TiVo users brag about having hundreds of season passes. I bet they would be down to half a dozen if they had to pay for every show.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

bicker said:


> A la carte will only result in significantly lower prices if people end up watching significantly less television as a result.


OMG!! Whats the Temperature outside. bicker and I finally agreed on something. Something didn't freeze over did it? 

Seriously, I suppose ultimately it depends on how the a la carte pricing is structured and what an individuals viewing habits are. For example if you pay $65 a month for cable now but only watch 2 or 3 premium channels and they are priced at $15 a month per channel a la carte or even $5 - $10 a month for a particular weekly show, But basically I figure it to be a wash when looking at an entire market area.


----------



## Resist (Dec 21, 2003)

I'd be happy if I could get ABC/CBS/NBC HiDef channels, HBO and showtime without having to pay for all the other channels in the package.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

Resist said:


> I'd be happy if I could get ABC/CBS/NBC HiDef channels, HBO and showtime without having to pay for all the other channels in the package.


You can do it NOW! With Dish you can get locals for $6/month plus HBO/Showtime for $22/month, plus $5/month access fee. Of course you will need to buy or lease HD DVR (no free DVR for you without a package  ) and pay $6/month DVR sub fee. Oh, and you will have to pay for an antenna and installation (or do it yourself).
Some upfront cost (nothing is free), but you can get your exact choice of a la carte channels TODAY!
Actually I am doing similar thing for years. I was getting Premiums and International a la carte from Dish and rest from analog cable. Then, one of my International channels moved to DirecTv, so I replaced cable with DirecTV. Now I'm am getting some international channels and premiums from Dish and rest of the programming from DirecTV.


----------



## Resist (Dec 21, 2003)

The thing is I don't want the Dish antenna on the side of my house. Nor do I want to give up using my Series 3 and Series 2 Tivo's.


----------



## Phantom Gremlin (Jun 20, 2002)

Resist said:


> I'd be happy if I could get ABC/CBS/NBC HiDef channels, HBO and showtime without having to pay for all the other channels in the package.


Maybe times have changed, but about 3 years ago (more or less) my local Comcast was willing to give me basic cable for about $10 plus HBO for about $15. I seem to recall there was *some sort of federal regulation* that forced them to offer that option. I ultimately decided against adding HBO because I really just wanted a way to get cablecards and then Comcast decided to rent those for about $2/mo.


----------

