You know
those cable
price hikes that have been
going around lately? Looks like you're not the only one who's a
tad upset about it. The Federal Communications Commission has actually come forward to express its concern from the rampant outbreak of cable pay-TV increases, with spokeswoman Mary Diamond proclaiming that "over the last decade, average cable rates have more than doubled, and now cable companies are charging consumers more but consumers are receiving less." Of course, it's not like the almighty FCC is going to step in and pony up for the delta or anything philanthropic like that, but it is good to see The Man standing up for the children. Even if it's just empty words in the end.
[Via
Columbia Tribune, image courtesy of
YouthRetirement]
posted Nov 5th 2008 at 8:46AMtv.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
mitchelljd @ Nov 5th 2008 9:54AM
are price increases really a surprise when
1- local over the air station affiliates are starting to demand payments for being carried?
2- stations like espn, local sports networks and more are charging more or new expensive stations get created?
sorry, but as networks are created for teams like the Yankees, and demand $2 a month for each subscriber, and demand it to be in basic cable, and your local CBS, NBC, FOX, ABC demanding to get paid as well. ...
rates go up. if you don't like it, demand a la carte
Richard @ Nov 5th 2008 7:13PM
I would to a hybrid system.
Like you pay 20 bucks for 40 cable channels you want, but if you want ESPN you are going to have to fork over an extra buck.
It is not full a la carte, but it will save people money.
eduboys @ Nov 5th 2008 10:27AM
"over the last decade, average cable rates have more than doubled, and now cable companies are charging consumers more but consumers are receiving less."
Is that really a true statement? I now have a DVR, receive a bazillion channels that I never watch, have movies on demand, have broadband internet, etc...
I think I definitely receive more now than I did a decade ago, however what I would really like to see happen is the ability for the consumer to purchase individual channels rather than huge bundles as is currently the industry norm.
Justin @ Nov 5th 2008 10:30AM
I'm getting so fed up with all of it, I'm about ready to dump down to the lowest possible cable option (I'm too far for OTA to be an alternative) and rely on the internet and iTunes style downloads for everything else. I know there are limitations, but it allows me to support what I want, pay less overall, and still watch Patriots football without issue.
HeHaw @ Nov 5th 2008 11:57AM
Back in the day before the consolidation or buyout of the local cable companies, we had really good service for $15.00 a month. Now that was over a decade ago. Ever since Comcast came in they've increased prices over the years, but added a lot of channels. The only problem is that most of the channels I don't care about.
I'd like to see an ala carte system, but they're in the business to make money and they do hand-over-fist. But $47.90 per month is crazy. That's $574.80 a year for a couple hours a night and a perhaps 8 hours over the weekend. If it was commercial free, then I could understand, but we're paying to watch commercials and mostly crappy shows. I just want my Food Network a few news stations and some of the big network stations.
Commercials are there to pay for the programming. Cable companies implement there own commercials on top of the major network commercials and charge customers. crazy.
bull3964 @ Nov 5th 2008 12:21PM
That's basically what it boils down to. The constant bundling makes a level of service you can buy today cheaper than that same level of service that you could buy 10 years go, but your options are much much fewer.
If you examine it on the flipside, you get to pay much more for the same level of service if all the new editions don't matter to you. I was just thinking about how to get the same channels I got with AT&T Broadband before comcast took them over now with comcast, it would cost over $20/month more. That represents an over 50% rate increase from a combination of base level of service increases and re-bundling of channels to higher tiers. Granted in that timeframe they've added quite a few obscure digital stations in those upper tiers and added OnDemand, but if all you wanted was a selection of the most popular broadcast and cable networks, you are STUCK paying much much more.
I would also like to know why it is that only cable seems to be affected by these network policies of new stations and increased costs. I heard it all the time that "Your rates are going up because they are charging us more for the stations." Why is it then that my sister's Dish Network rates have been rock solid for the past few years and she's managed to get even more stations for that same rate while not being on some sort of promotional rate period?
The big difference is, companies like Echostar actually go to bat for their customers and negotiate with the networks to keep rates sane and push down their bundling requirements while Comcast just passes the rates on to the customer (while inflating the increase to give themselves a nice cut as well).
Vic @ Nov 5th 2008 2:05PM
+1 on a la carte
We only watch approx 15 different channels (all in HD except USA and CNN), yet pay for 700+ on Time Warner. I wonder how much $ per year could actually be saved if they provided a la carte options because I would be all for it if it provided significant savings.