7 ms·

So this is what the a la carte advocates want? Two channels (HBO & ESPN) for $35? Bundling seems so obviously the better way to approach this (180 channels for

by pbreit 12y ago

So this is what the a la carte advocates want? Two channels (HBO & ESPN) for $35? Bundling seems so obviously the better way to approach this (180 channels for $65).

andymoe 12y ago
No, I just want HBO and don't want to pay for the expensive base cable packages required to get it at all... Happy to pay for Netflix and Hulu Plus too since it adds value to me where as incrementally more cable channels do not.
urda 12y ago
You mean 180 channels, where 160-170 are just absolute trash? So you're really paying $65 bucks for 10-20 channels at best. Not much of a deal there. I'm very welcome to this pick what you want idea. I'm ready for cable to die as a cord cutter.
- diminoten 12y ago
  Yeah, because $3.25-$6.50/channel is totally not a deal, compared to $17.5/channel. At all.
  - IanCal 12y ago
    That depends entirely on what you want to watch, surely. It's still $30 more, so if those extra channels aren't worth $30 to you then it's much better. Besides, I'm not sure what you get if you have a larger cable package. The HBO $14.99 appears to be for a big back-catalogue.
    - diminoten 12y ago
      I'm commenting solely on the factual incorrectness of saying the above was not a deal, when it very clearly was, assuming "deal" means a more economical choice. That's all.
      - IanCal 12y ago
        > I'm commenting solely on the factual incorrectness of saying the above was not a deal, when it very clearly was, assuming "deal" means a more economical choice. And again, this assumes that all channels are equally valuable to you. Spending more money on things you do not want is not more economical.
        diminoten 12y ago
        Person I replied to said 10-20 "valuable" channels.
        IanCal 12y ago
        No, at best they classified them as "not absolute trash". And again you're assuming that all those channels have the same value.
        diminoten 12y ago
        They do have the same value, and that value is "do I want to pay for this channel?" The person I replied to said there were 10-20 channels worth paying for, and then complained about the cost of those channels, despite the fact that they were undeniably cheaper than anything the person could get individually. I hope you realize I have no dog in this fight, and am merely commenting based on internal argument consistency. The argument the above poster made was incorrect, internally. That's all I'm pointing out. We've now spent the better part of 3 hours talking about this. Consider for a moment the possibility that this isn't a very important distinction, and that your continual insistence on the issue is perhaps detrimental to the greater conversation and HN in general.
        IanCal 12y ago
        > They do have the same value, and that value is "do I want to pay for this channel?" By that logic, all items in the world have the same value and that value is "do I want to pay for this item"? They each have a different value based on "what do I want to pay for this channel". It is not a binary option of "I WILL PAY NO MATTER THE COST" and "I WILL NEVER PAY NO MATTER HOW CHEAP". > The argument the above poster made was incorrect, internally. That's all I'm pointing out. And all I'm pointing out is that your argument is incorrect. > We've now spent the better part of 3 hours talking about this. Which is odd, since all I've been saying is that the choice: More expensive & more channels vs less expensive & fewer channels has no clear winner without agreeing on what each particular channel is "worth". This is a classic case of multi-objective optimisation. I'm quite interested in finding out why this is such a disagreeable concept to you. > Consider for a moment the possibility that this isn't a very important distinction, and that your continual insistence on the issue is perhaps detrimental to the greater conversation and HN in general. And yet your continual insistence is beneficial? I'm a little confused, it's worth your time to try and point out a problem in someone's thinking, but not worth anyone else's time to point out problems in yours?
- pbreit 12y ago
  But the 160-170 "trash" channels need to be included to have any chance of ever being seen. To the point they are willing to be included for free and in fact some will even pay to be included. The economics of a la carte just don't make any sense at all.
narrowrail 12y ago
A la carte shows not channels. The TV people want it to be a discussion about channels, but the concept of channels doesn't make sense when one looks at the idea from a distance. Sports watching seems to be its own world due to the live nature of the content.
- pbreit 12y ago
  Shows? That's even sillier. You'd be paying 10x for a fraction of the content. TV would never work if stations had such a hard time getting folks to sample. Just pretend you're only paying for your shows and everything else is free. You would not be paying less money a la carte.
qq66 12y ago
Bundling is better for some consumers, unbundled is better for some consumers, depending on their preferences. An incomplete analysis can be found here: https://livingeconomics.org/article.asp?docId=288 https://livingeconomics.org/article.asp?docId=288 , incomplete because it doesn't reflect that when moving from a pure bundling to mixed-bundling regime, the bundle prices should theoretically increase, and also because it's an analysis of markets where marginal costs are positive. Furthermore, for TV in particular, there's the effect that an unbundled channel will get lower viewership than a bundled channel, and thus will receive lower advertising revenues, so the unbundled price will be driven up considerably higher. In short, people who are crazy about one or two channels/content sources will love unbundling, people who watch a lot of channels will hate the (inexorable) advent of unbundling.
__david__ 12y ago
> Bundling seems so obviously the better way to approach this (180 channels for $65). 180 basic channels, not including HBO. HBO is $15/month on top of your basic cable package, at least from my cable provider. Oh Showtime, too? That's another $15. Oh, Cinemax? Yup, another $15.
- ghshephard 12y ago
  Plus, at least in Redwood City, CA, Comcast wouldn't give us HBO on our $63/basic cable, they wanted us to purchase a Digital Cable Box (~ $90), and then pay $85/month for Digital Cable. And then, and only then, would they give us the 6 month $15/month HBO promo. Between Amazon Prime (Which I have already for free shipping), Netflix ($8/month), and HBO ($15/month) - I have pretty much all the entertainment I'm really interested in for $23/month. Every so often something good will pop up that Netflix doesn't have - at which point I'll go to ITunes for $20-25 to pick up a season. On an annual basis, way, way, way less than I would have paid for cable. My only concern is that I don't know if I'll be able to watch HBO on the road, or whether I'll need an Apple TV.
  - pbreit 12y ago
    Mad Men, Breaking Bad, Better Call Saul, The Americans, Justified, Walking Dead, Daily Show, Broadchurch, Downton Abbey (not sure which of these you're able to view)? I'll cut you some slack on not getting any of the major networks since the cheap digital antennas can work very well. In San Francisco we get 180 channels + HBO + DVR + 50mbps internet for $100 month. That includes being able to watch TV/DVR/OnDemand on pretty much any device, from anywhere.
    - ghshephard 12y ago
      You have good taste. I've actually purchased Some of those from iTunes (Mad Men), if I want to talk about them with others. Otherwise I usually can wait a few years for them to come out on Netflix (Breaking Bad, Walking Dead, Downton Abbey). Perhaps I just got so used to not having a TV (last time around 2003), that I've adjusted my behavior and expectations such that I don't miss it. If I was a sports junky, this would probably be different - that seems to be the last bastion of Cable TV - once that goes, it will be a good thing that the major cable companies are also the major internet suppliers.
yAnonymous 12y ago
1800 channels for $650 would be even better.
a_c_s 12y ago
I don't watch sports, so what I want is only $15. Big sports fans might only pay for ESPN, and those who watch a lot of both will pay $35. (Where I am, HBO is an extra $21/month, so $15/month is actually a discount!)
yazaddaruvala 12y ago
Previously, it wasn't just that TV channels were bundled. Rather, the prices for each individual channel weren't known. How could you even decide if the bundle is a good deal without knowing the price of its components? So, even for the subset of people who would prefer bundling, this is a great thing! Now we can actually tell if a bundle is being competitive.

by pbreit 12y ago

So this is what the a la carte advocates want? Two channels (HBO & ESPN) for $35? Bundling seems so obviously the better way to approach this (180 channels for $65).

andymoe 12y ago

No, I just want HBO and don't want to pay for the expensive base cable packages required to get it at all... Happy to pay for Netflix and Hulu Plus too since it adds value to me where as incrementally more cable channels do not.

urda 12y ago

You mean 180 channels, where 160-170 are just absolute trash? So you're really paying $65 bucks for 10-20 channels at best. Not much of a deal there. I'm very welcome to this pick what you want idea. I'm ready for cable to die as a cord cutter.

diminoten 12y ago
Yeah, because $3.25-$6.50/channel is totally not a deal, compared to $17.5/channel. At all.
- IanCal 12y ago
  That depends entirely on what you want to watch, surely. It's still $30 more, so if those extra channels aren't worth $30 to you then it's much better. Besides, I'm not sure what you get if you have a larger cable package. The HBO $14.99 appears to be for a big back-catalogue.
  - diminoten 12y ago
    I'm commenting solely on the factual incorrectness of saying the above was not a deal, when it very clearly was, assuming "deal" means a more economical choice. That's all.
    - IanCal 12y ago
      > I'm commenting solely on the factual incorrectness of saying the above was not a deal, when it very clearly was, assuming "deal" means a more economical choice. And again, this assumes that all channels are equally valuable to you. Spending more money on things you do not want is not more economical.
      - diminoten 12y ago
        Person I replied to said 10-20 "valuable" channels.
        IanCal 12y ago
        No, at best they classified them as "not absolute trash". And again you're assuming that all those channels have the same value.
        diminoten 12y ago
        They do have the same value, and that value is "do I want to pay for this channel?" The person I replied to said there were 10-20 channels worth paying for, and then complained about the cost of those channels, despite the fact that they were undeniably cheaper than anything the person could get individually. I hope you realize I have no dog in this fight, and am merely commenting based on internal argument consistency. The argument the above poster made was incorrect, internally. That's all I'm pointing out. We've now spent the better part of 3 hours talking about this. Consider for a moment the possibility that this isn't a very important distinction, and that your continual insistence on the issue is perhaps detrimental to the greater conversation and HN in general.
        IanCal 12y ago
        > They do have the same value, and that value is "do I want to pay for this channel?" By that logic, all items in the world have the same value and that value is "do I want to pay for this item"? They each have a different value based on "what do I want to pay for this channel". It is not a binary option of "I WILL PAY NO MATTER THE COST" and "I WILL NEVER PAY NO MATTER HOW CHEAP". > The argument the above poster made was incorrect, internally. That's all I'm pointing out. And all I'm pointing out is that your argument is incorrect. > We've now spent the better part of 3 hours talking about this. Which is odd, since all I've been saying is that the choice: More expensive & more channels vs less expensive & fewer channels has no clear winner without agreeing on what each particular channel is "worth". This is a classic case of multi-objective optimisation. I'm quite interested in finding out why this is such a disagreeable concept to you. > Consider for a moment the possibility that this isn't a very important distinction, and that your continual insistence on the issue is perhaps detrimental to the greater conversation and HN in general. And yet your continual insistence is beneficial? I'm a little confused, it's worth your time to try and point out a problem in someone's thinking, but not worth anyone else's time to point out problems in yours?
pbreit 12y ago
But the 160-170 "trash" channels need to be included to have any chance of ever being seen. To the point they are willing to be included for free and in fact some will even pay to be included. The economics of a la carte just don't make any sense at all.

narrowrail 12y ago

A la carte shows not channels. The TV people want it to be a discussion about channels, but the concept of channels doesn't make sense when one looks at the idea from a distance. Sports watching seems to be its own world due to the live nature of the content.

pbreit 12y ago
Shows? That's even sillier. You'd be paying 10x for a fraction of the content. TV would never work if stations had such a hard time getting folks to sample. Just pretend you're only paying for your shows and everything else is free. You would not be paying less money a la carte.

qq66 12y ago

Bundling is better for some consumers, unbundled is better for some consumers, depending on their preferences. An incomplete analysis can be found here: https://livingeconomics.org/article.asp?docId=288 https://livingeconomics.org/article.asp?docId=288 , incomplete because it doesn't reflect that when moving from a pure bundling to mixed-bundling regime, the bundle prices should theoretically increase, and also because it's an analysis of markets where marginal costs are positive. Furthermore, for TV in particular, there's the effect that an unbundled channel will get lower viewership than a bundled channel, and thus will receive lower advertising revenues, so the unbundled price will be driven up considerably higher. In short, people who are crazy about one or two channels/content sources will love unbundling, people who watch a lot of channels will hate the (inexorable) advent of unbundling.

__david__ 12y ago

> Bundling seems so obviously the better way to approach this (180 channels for $65). 180 basic channels, not including HBO. HBO is $15/month on top of your basic cable package, at least from my cable provider. Oh Showtime, too? That's another $15. Oh, Cinemax? Yup, another $15.

ghshephard 12y ago
Plus, at least in Redwood City, CA, Comcast wouldn't give us HBO on our $63/basic cable, they wanted us to purchase a Digital Cable Box (~ $90), and then pay $85/month for Digital Cable. And then, and only then, would they give us the 6 month $15/month HBO promo. Between Amazon Prime (Which I have already for free shipping), Netflix ($8/month), and HBO ($15/month) - I have pretty much all the entertainment I'm really interested in for $23/month. Every so often something good will pop up that Netflix doesn't have - at which point I'll go to ITunes for $20-25 to pick up a season. On an annual basis, way, way, way less than I would have paid for cable. My only concern is that I don't know if I'll be able to watch HBO on the road, or whether I'll need an Apple TV.
- pbreit 12y ago
  Mad Men, Breaking Bad, Better Call Saul, The Americans, Justified, Walking Dead, Daily Show, Broadchurch, Downton Abbey (not sure which of these you're able to view)? I'll cut you some slack on not getting any of the major networks since the cheap digital antennas can work very well. In San Francisco we get 180 channels + HBO + DVR + 50mbps internet for $100 month. That includes being able to watch TV/DVR/OnDemand on pretty much any device, from anywhere.
  - ghshephard 12y ago
    You have good taste. I've actually purchased Some of those from iTunes (Mad Men), if I want to talk about them with others. Otherwise I usually can wait a few years for them to come out on Netflix (Breaking Bad, Walking Dead, Downton Abbey). Perhaps I just got so used to not having a TV (last time around 2003), that I've adjusted my behavior and expectations such that I don't miss it. If I was a sports junky, this would probably be different - that seems to be the last bastion of Cable TV - once that goes, it will be a good thing that the major cable companies are also the major internet suppliers.

yAnonymous 12y ago

1800 channels for $650 would be even better.

a_c_s 12y ago

I don't watch sports, so what I want is only $15. Big sports fans might only pay for ESPN, and those who watch a lot of both will pay $35. (Where I am, HBO is an extra $21/month, so $15/month is actually a discount!)

yazaddaruvala 12y ago

Previously, it wasn't just that TV channels were bundled. Rather, the prices for each individual channel weren't known. How could you even decide if the bundle is a good deal without knowing the price of its components? So, even for the subset of people who would prefer bundling, this is a great thing! Now we can actually tell if a bundle is being competitive.