26 ms·

This article has an interesting point buried deep down in the middle of it (that really isn't the point of the article), in that all of the new-ish things, like

This article has an interesting point buried deep down in the middle of it (that really isn't the point of the article), in that all of the new-ish things, like Sling or Vue or YouTube TV or otherwise look suspiciously like cable packages on the Internet. And that's something I can't quite get over. I've used Sling in the past, it can be a good bridge if you've cut the cable and want to hop back in because you miss it, but besides the delivery mechanism — I can bring my own device and it streams over the Internet — I don't see that much of a differentiator from cable. With either package of Sling, I'm still getting a bunch of channels I have no interest in, and while the price may be less per month than cable, it still _feels_ like 70% of the money I'm paying is going towards channels I have absolutely no interest in. Not to mention all the commercials I have to watch with it, not just in live viewings (because that's part of the stream, I get that), but even in on-demand things. I ask this honestly: is there something I'm missing here? People that I know that haven't cut cable because they would miss this or that laud these products as "the thing that may finally get them to cut cable," but this feels like cable just over streaming.

aaron-lebo 10y ago
I have Vue and I really like it. It's nice to use on the PS4 and even the Windows browser client is good. But I pay just about the same for it as I paid for a cable package...so at the end of the day I'm not sure what the victory is other than not having to use a set top box designed in the aughts.
- brightball 10y ago
  Tivo Bolt people. It's awesome.
oddevan 10y ago
The selling point of Vue for me is the constant $35/month price. I can get a better deal from the cable company, but I'd have to renegotiate every year. The reduction of cognitive load here is freeing. I don't think of it as "I'm paying for x channels I don't watch," I think of it as "I'm paying $35 for these channels that I do watch, and I'm happy to pay that."
seanalltogether 10y ago
I think it may just be a mental thing. I have PS Vue and I got it initially because it let me change from month to month as well as cancel for certain months without any hassle. Ironically the reason we get it is so my wife can subscribe to ESPN during the months that big tennis tournaments happen. Then we just drop it after. I wouldn't dare attempt that with Comcast 4 times a year.
- fredleblanc 10y ago
  That makes sense, and as the article points out, that's sort of the gambit that HBO's run. (And it's worth mentioning, is how we consume HBO. Let the shows have their run, and then binge all the shows in 1-2 months per year for $30/year instead of $180.) I guess my pitch isn't even abolishing cable packaging all together. If people like it and want it, then let them do it. But there's a lot of room between a cable subscription and wanting one or two channels. If ESPN makes $6/mo off subscriptions, and I don't have cable but want ESPN, $6/mo becomes a lot more enticing than $25-40/mo. Again, it's sort of how HBO works. You can get it with your cable or get it on its own. And I'm sure it's a contract thing, but at this point it just feels like more money than what they're already getting; that they may find they gain more subscribers in the transition than they lose, or at least find more eyeballs that are actually watching versus those inflated subscription numbers from "people that have cable with ESPN attached" numbers.
xienze 10y ago
Well there's instant subscription and unsubscription. If you just want to keep your subscription for a couple months while your favorite show or sports season is on, no problem. Try that with cable. Even if you keep it on all the time it's (for now) cheaper than cable.
pkulak 10y ago
> 70% of the money I'm paying is going towards channels I have absolutely no interest in Why does that bother people so much? The incremental cost of delivering you a new channel is zero, so it makes sense to just deliver all of them. Where is the wasted money that's implied by a statement like this? If the average person watches 3 channels, and provider has a choice: charge $30 per channel and let everyone pick only the ones they want, or just charge $90 and let everyone watch whatever they want. I'd rather not be forced to choose the few channels that I'm locked into.
- joekrill 10y ago
  Because the majority of people -- particularly a technically oriented crowd like we have here on Hacker News -- are seeing the bulk of their costs going toward channels we never watch. Like ESPN. The amount cable providers pay ESPN per viewer is ridiculously high compared to other channels. And for folks who never watch this stuff, we get a bit annoyed that that's what is causing our skyrocketing cable bills.
  - jessriedel 10y ago
    However you may think money is earmarked, the proper comparison is to the alternative world where channels are priced a la carte. And the standard econ analysis here is that everyone benefits from these bundles, not just the cable company and not just consumers of popular channels like ESPN. It's all about marginal costs. http://cdixon.org/2012/07/08/how-bundling-benefits-sellers-and-buyers/ http://cdixon.org/2012/07/08/how-bundling-benefits-sellers-a...
- fullshark 10y ago
  It bothers people because cable packages are so expensive. If they were cheaper no one would complain.
  - mason55 10y ago
    Sure but there's no incentive for anyone to make them cheaper. The cable operators make more by creating more expensive packages and then can justify it by putting a bunch of channels in them. The networks make more by forcing the operators to take small/niche channels if they want the popular channels. And since cable networks are not perfect substitutes, you can't just disrupt the industry by carrying a bunch of channels no one cares about. Also, because the channels have a fair bit of power in the relationship, they can structure their contracts with the operators in way that it's not economically viable for the operators to unbundle.
digi_owl 10y ago
The reason for this is that it is not the service providers that decide the packages, but the companies owning the channels.
0xcafecafe 10y ago
Exactly. As a premier league fan living in US, sling for watching nbc sports is the best option for me. But they force a "package" for $25 per month and I actually don't watch any of the other channels.
douche 10y ago
I tried to cut my cable, but the best I could do was cutting back to local channels with 10x Internet speeds. Comcast has you by the balls
gregmac 10y ago
You need to not look at the cost as cost-per-channel or cost-per-show, but in terms of value to you. If you are paying $15 or $50 or $200 per month for TV, do you feel you getting adequate value? Are you getting the shows you want to watch? An interesting thing about nearly all subscription services (cable, YouTube Red, Netflix, Sling, etc) is because they are fixed cost they have a built-in volume discount: the more you watch, the less you pay per hour. So if you pay $100/mo for all your services, and watch a total of 2 hours a month, that costs you $50/hr. If you watch 6 hours a day, it costs you about $0.55/hr. Let's say you're paying $185/mo for cable, and $15/mo for Netflix, but watch them evenly (3 hours a day each). Now cable is costing $2.03/hr and Netflix costs $0.16/hr. Are you getting value for the time? Are the shows you're watching on cable really worth paying 12 times more (plus being forced to watch commercials) than the ones you're watching on Netflix? Your original point was about paying for stuff you didn't watch, but when you think of it in terms of value per hour, if you are watching 6 hours of content you want to watch, you are paying $0.55/hr. It doesn't matter if you get 6 channels or 600, the cost per hour of content is the same to you. It's a different question you have to ask yourself if the service adds 200 channels (that you don't watch) and ups the cost so now it costs you $0.65/hr to watch the exact same content you were watching before: are you still getting adequate value for that price? If so, continue paying.

aaron-lebo 10y ago

I have Vue and I really like it. It's nice to use on the PS4 and even the Windows browser client is good. But I pay just about the same for it as I paid for a cable package...so at the end of the day I'm not sure what the victory is other than not having to use a set top box designed in the aughts.

brightball 10y ago
Tivo Bolt people. It's awesome.

oddevan 10y ago

The selling point of Vue for me is the constant $35/month price. I can get a better deal from the cable company, but I'd have to renegotiate every year. The reduction of cognitive load here is freeing. I don't think of it as "I'm paying for x channels I don't watch," I think of it as "I'm paying $35 for these channels that I do watch, and I'm happy to pay that."

seanalltogether 10y ago

I think it may just be a mental thing. I have PS Vue and I got it initially because it let me change from month to month as well as cancel for certain months without any hassle. Ironically the reason we get it is so my wife can subscribe to ESPN during the months that big tennis tournaments happen. Then we just drop it after. I wouldn't dare attempt that with Comcast 4 times a year.

fredleblanc 10y ago
That makes sense, and as the article points out, that's sort of the gambit that HBO's run. (And it's worth mentioning, is how we consume HBO. Let the shows have their run, and then binge all the shows in 1-2 months per year for $30/year instead of $180.) I guess my pitch isn't even abolishing cable packaging all together. If people like it and want it, then let them do it. But there's a lot of room between a cable subscription and wanting one or two channels. If ESPN makes $6/mo off subscriptions, and I don't have cable but want ESPN, $6/mo becomes a lot more enticing than $25-40/mo. Again, it's sort of how HBO works. You can get it with your cable or get it on its own. And I'm sure it's a contract thing, but at this point it just feels like more money than what they're already getting; that they may find they gain more subscribers in the transition than they lose, or at least find more eyeballs that are actually watching versus those inflated subscription numbers from "people that have cable with ESPN attached" numbers.

xienze 10y ago

Well there's instant subscription and unsubscription. If you just want to keep your subscription for a couple months while your favorite show or sports season is on, no problem. Try that with cable. Even if you keep it on all the time it's (for now) cheaper than cable.

pkulak 10y ago

> 70% of the money I'm paying is going towards channels I have absolutely no interest in Why does that bother people so much? The incremental cost of delivering you a new channel is zero, so it makes sense to just deliver all of them. Where is the wasted money that's implied by a statement like this? If the average person watches 3 channels, and provider has a choice: charge $30 per channel and let everyone pick only the ones they want, or just charge $90 and let everyone watch whatever they want. I'd rather not be forced to choose the few channels that I'm locked into.

joekrill 10y ago
Because the majority of people -- particularly a technically oriented crowd like we have here on Hacker News -- are seeing the bulk of their costs going toward channels we never watch. Like ESPN. The amount cable providers pay ESPN per viewer is ridiculously high compared to other channels. And for folks who never watch this stuff, we get a bit annoyed that that's what is causing our skyrocketing cable bills.
- jessriedel 10y ago
  However you may think money is earmarked, the proper comparison is to the alternative world where channels are priced a la carte. And the standard econ analysis here is that everyone benefits from these bundles, not just the cable company and not just consumers of popular channels like ESPN. It's all about marginal costs. http://cdixon.org/2012/07/08/how-bundling-benefits-sellers-and-buyers/ http://cdixon.org/2012/07/08/how-bundling-benefits-sellers-a...
fullshark 10y ago
It bothers people because cable packages are so expensive. If they were cheaper no one would complain.
- mason55 10y ago
  Sure but there's no incentive for anyone to make them cheaper. The cable operators make more by creating more expensive packages and then can justify it by putting a bunch of channels in them. The networks make more by forcing the operators to take small/niche channels if they want the popular channels. And since cable networks are not perfect substitutes, you can't just disrupt the industry by carrying a bunch of channels no one cares about. Also, because the channels have a fair bit of power in the relationship, they can structure their contracts with the operators in way that it's not economically viable for the operators to unbundle.

digi_owl 10y ago

The reason for this is that it is not the service providers that decide the packages, but the companies owning the channels.

0xcafecafe 10y ago

Exactly. As a premier league fan living in US, sling for watching nbc sports is the best option for me. But they force a "package" for $25 per month and I actually don't watch any of the other channels.

douche 10y ago

I tried to cut my cable, but the best I could do was cutting back to local channels with 10x Internet speeds. Comcast has you by the balls

gregmac 10y ago

You need to not look at the cost as cost-per-channel or cost-per-show, but in terms of value to you. If you are paying $15 or $50 or $200 per month for TV, do you feel you getting adequate value? Are you getting the shows you want to watch? An interesting thing about nearly all subscription services (cable, YouTube Red, Netflix, Sling, etc) is because they are fixed cost they have a built-in volume discount: the more you watch, the less you pay per hour. So if you pay $100/mo for all your services, and watch a total of 2 hours a month, that costs you $50/hr. If you watch 6 hours a day, it costs you about $0.55/hr. Let's say you're paying $185/mo for cable, and $15/mo for Netflix, but watch them evenly (3 hours a day each). Now cable is costing $2.03/hr and Netflix costs $0.16/hr. Are you getting value for the time? Are the shows you're watching on cable really worth paying 12 times more (plus being forced to watch commercials) than the ones you're watching on Netflix? Your original point was about paying for stuff you didn't watch, but when you think of it in terms of value per hour, if you are watching 6 hours of content you want to watch, you are paying $0.55/hr. It doesn't matter if you get 6 channels or 600, the cost per hour of content is the same to you. It's a different question you have to ask yourself if the service adds 200 channels (that you don't watch) and ups the cost so now it costs you $0.65/hr to watch the exact same content you were watching before: are you still getting adequate value for that price? If so, continue paying.