

OSUGoose

join:2007-12-27

Columbus, OH OSUGoose Member Gee Wall Street telling Wall Street Traded MSO's to keep raising rates, vs eating it and impacting stock price.



I'm



Shocked!



fiostvint

@rr.com fiostvint Anon Re: Gee Whats next?companies caring more about making profits?thats crazy I tell you!!!



jmn1207

Premium Member

join:2000-07-19

Sterling, VA jmn1207 Premium Member Re: Gee The business is making profits. That is the crazy part.

openbox9

Premium Member

join:2004-01-26

71144 openbox9 to OSUGoose

Premium Member to OSUGoose

Did you read the quote from the analysis. Raising rates to cover rising costs is a normal/sound business practice. Also, the analysis claims snagging consumers with Internet service is more beneficial than eating the rising cost of content. In other words, margins on traditional pay TV services are getting thinner and there's less and less fiscal motive to not pass costs through to consumers. Just as mobile gave up the metered voice/SMS revenue streams and focused on the new cash cow of data, MSOs will slowly do so with pay TV and Internet access. This isn't rocket science.



OSUGoose

join:2007-12-27

Columbus, OH OSUGoose Member Re: Gee Not every business pass on every single increase in costs to their consumer.

openbox9

Premium Member

join:2004-01-26

71144 openbox9 Premium Member Re: Gee I didn't say every single increase. I said raising rates to cover rising costs. There's no profitable/sustainable business that will take losses for their consumers.



OSUGoose

join:2007-12-27

Columbus, OH OSUGoose Member Re: Gee Granted, however MSO's are not operating at losses either, TWC and Comcast have record profits each year, yet yearly raise rates.

openbox9

Premium Member

join:2004-01-26

71144 openbox9 Premium Member Re: Gee Once again, I didn't say cablecos are operating at a loss. Growing revenues (and profits) is a goal of every business. I honestly don't understand the concern with cablecos doing the same.

Kearnstd

Space Elf

Premium Member

join:2002-01-22

Mullica Hill, NJ Kearnstd Premium Member Re: Gee I think the real issue is that unlike say a supermarket the cable companies have minimal pull when fighting their content suppliers.



Supermarkets have pull simply because they can threaten to carry a different brand of the same product. Its not like Comcast can tell Disney "Screw your ESPN prices we will go get someone else's Monday Night Football."



As such their costs are ballooning on the content side.

openbox9

Premium Member

join:2004-01-26

71144 openbox9 Premium Member Re: Gee I understand that issue, but I don't believe that's what OSUGoose was getting at. Your issue is an unfortunate precedent that was set many years ago. Add in that us silly gluttonous Americans can't do without, and well, we get we deserve.



jmn1207

Premium Member

join:2000-07-19

Sterling, VA jmn1207 Premium Member Re: Gee One way to fix this mess of skyrocketing costs is to allow individual customers to select the channels a la carte. Disney or Viacom would still be allowed to bundle all of there products into one and price it how they like, but if the customers could decide, it would quickly end the price disputes and we would once again see competition in a more normal type of market with a proper supply and demand.



JimMcCoy

join:2011-08-20

Midlothian, VA JimMcCoy Member Re: Gee "a la carte" pricing however would do two things:



(1) Reduce the amount of channel choices available. Channel choices will decrease, due to the lack of ability of being able to subsidize less popular channels. This may/may not be a good thing (depending on your point of view); my opinion is that its gonna bite consumers big time if a switch to this pricing model is made.



(2) Increase prices on individual channels (related to 1). Channel prices will increase. That means companies who currently pay - in most cases - less than a dollar per channel, will pay upwards of 3 - 5 dollars per. This will not result in a significant price difference (for consumers or companies), just a change in cost structuring.



While some companies may decide to send out their content directly; it is probably this won't happen (at least not in the near future). Mainly because that would mean they would have to also deal with the data transport issues. (Let's be real, IP streaming is not entirely up to par yet...especially with the issue of data caps, competing standardized streaming codecs - which varied consumer experiences), etc.



This is not to say however, it could not work. A la carte pricing defintely could be implemented, but I think it would be cost prohibitive.



jmn1207

Premium Member

join:2000-07-19

Sterling, VA jmn1207 Premium Member Re: Gee Perhaps, provided everything else remains equal. You don't mention how companies would be competing on pricing and quality for customers. Other niche channels might choose alternative streaming options, like the hundreds of options already available on Roku, Apple TV, Chromecast, Amazon's new device, built-in options on several brands of TV, etc.



Consumers should all want to see anything to shake-up the existing model, but I'm sure it will never happen until things become so outrageously absurd that these giants can no longer hide the ridiculousness of their efforts to stifle new technology in place of wanton greed.

openbox9

Premium Member

join:2004-01-26

71144 openbox9 to jmn1207

Premium Member to jmn1207

said by jmn1207: One way to fix this mess of skyrocketing costs is to allow individual customers to select the channels a la carte. said by jmn1207: but if the customers could decide I honestly don't know if that will solve the problem. It would likely kill off lesser content channels, further content consolidate, and drive up prices of the more popular channels. A la carte sounds great, but I'm curious how it would actually play out.The way to solve that problem is to cut out the middlemen and go direct from content creator/owner to consumer.



Clemcon 52

@sbcglobal.net Clemcon 52 to jmn1207

Anon to jmn1207

A La Carte will never happen in our lifetime --it won't be profitable for you or the provider. I went cold turkey last fall and canceled Direct TV. After 3 years of DTV we saw our price for basic cable increase from about $53 (no HD) to about $85 (HD) with no enhancements to the service other than HD. We just learned to get by with Netflix, OTA and internet content (Aereo also). I am very happy with my decision to cancel DTV. In my opinion there was not much to watch --70% repeat and reality shows which I do not care for. I do miss sports though. I may subscribe to internet sports steaming soon.

TheRogueX

join:2003-03-26

Springfield, MO TheRogueX to openbox9

Member to openbox9

Constant, infinite growth year-over-year, quarter-over-quarter is not just absolutely greedy, but it is absolutely unsustainable. It's time that economists and investors in the United States dial back their selfish greed a bit and start thinking on the long term.

openbox9

Premium Member

join:2004-01-26

71144 openbox9 Premium Member Re: Gee Infinite growth is impossible. Something will give somewhere. The goal is to find that line and finesse it appropriately. Economists are bookworms. Investors provide capital to enable/facilitate most of the nice things we have in life. Be cognizant of cutting your nose off to spite your face.



sbrook

Mod

join:2001-12-14

Ottawa sbrook to openbox9

Mod to openbox9

So, you push back on the people providing programs and charging more and more for them, and they in turn push back on the people MAKING the programs, and they push back on those others in the entertainment industry who earn more per episode of a program than a great many people earn all year, and some who earn more for a season's episodes than many do in a lifetime! Not to mention all the people getting fat riding the tails of these actors, producers etc.

openbox9

Premium Member

join:2004-01-26

71144 openbox9 Premium Member Re: Gee Great theory, but it doesn't happen in practice. Until the distributors stop pitting themselves against each other during every content dispute (which won't happen because there is actually minimal competition), there will never be a pushback en masse necessary to affect change.

westdc

join:2009-01-25

Amissville, VA westdc Member Sounds Like They may be invested in the cable ? Ya Think?



Anooo

@comcast.net Anooo Anon Because they get the money either way Of course they don't care.



You cut the cord they will make it up another way, your internet prices keep going up lol.



And telco's do the same. They all offer same service now, VoIP or IPTV and Internet



Like power companies that use to cry that demand for power was high thus causing prices to raise. Now they raise prices because demand is getting lower.



Either way they make they money and the consumers get screwed.

biochemistry

Premium Member

join:2003-05-09

92361 1 recommendation biochemistry Premium Member Neither Neither method is the solution. The cable company doesn't need to keep eating the costs nor do the consumers. The cable/network channels are the ones that need to find a way to keep costs down. If they raise rates, the cable/satellite companies need to dump them.

Kearnstd

Space Elf

Premium Member

join:2002-01-22

Mullica Hill, NJ Kearnstd Premium Member Re: Neither Since MSOs do not compete outside of one cable company against two sat carriers they should all band together against constant retrans rate hikes. Imagine how a big video provider would react if all the cable and satellite dropped their channels when they disputed with any one. A sort of cable and satellite NATO .

armed

join:2000-10-20 armed Member Re: Neither Companies in the US cannot conspire to act in a pact. If they could they could band together to set prices and control supply. Its basic consumer anti monopoly law.



Simple solutions to complex problems are almost always wrong.

BiggA

Premium Member

join:2005-11-23

Central CT ·Cox HSI

ARRIS SB6141

Asus RT-AC68

BiggA Premium Member Re: Neither It's unfortunate in this one case, because here, a cartel of video providers is exactly what we need. The content providers are completely out of control, and need to be beaten into submission. Comcast should be allowed to buy TWC if they are forced to divest NBCU. Then, they would have the power, alone to beat the greedy content providers into submission on pricing.

Kearnstd

Space Elf

Premium Member

join:2002-01-22

Mullica Hill, NJ Kearnstd to armed

Premium Member to armed

Except thanks to SCOTUS corporations are people and people can form buying co-ops to increase their leverage with suppliers.



The fact is the mso and sat companies have no leverage against the ever climbing cost of content.



Also IGA is a group of companies(independent grocers) working together to secure better pricing.



Also the energy indusry already conspires and sets monopolistic prices. You do not see Exxon and Shell trying to price war each other.

armed

join:2000-10-20 armed Member Re: Neither If I remember right there are a few people who worked at Enron who are in jail for doing exactly that. Shell and Exxon do not have to have price wars because they are both doing just fine without it. Price wars may be more of a result of trying to corner the market and to drive the others out of business. Its not a test for open markets.



I know its fun to claim everybody is dishonest but that just blunts your argument without proof.



I bet if IGA is price fixing through joint and cooperative action then the farmers and non participating grocers would be screaming.... very loud.



KrK

Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy

Premium Member

join:2000-01-17

Tulsa, OK KrK to armed

Premium Member to armed

No, that can't conspire to do it. They can just do it.

openbox9

Premium Member

join:2004-01-26

71144 openbox9 to biochemistry

Premium Member to biochemistry

said by biochemistry: If they raise rates, the cable/satellite companies need to dump them. Or better yet, transparently pass the rate increases on to consumers. Most have no clue why their bills are going up every year.

BiggA

Premium Member

join:2005-11-23

Central CT BiggA Premium Member Re: Neither That's a good idea. They should break out some of the biggest pigs, like ESPN and the networks.

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13

Hazelwood, MO Skippy25 Member Re: Neither I am sure they can't as they are forced into a NDA and/or the businesses utilize "the public classified" status and call it a trade secret.

ramsaso

Premium Member

join:2014-01-04

Houston, TX ramsaso Premium Member Good God.... Doesn't JP Morgan have something better to do than encouraging cable companies to increase rates?

BiggA

Premium Member

join:2005-11-23

Central CT ·Cox HSI

ARRIS SB6141

Asus RT-AC68

BiggA Premium Member Content providers It's the content providers that are completely out of control, not the MSOs themselves. It's getting completely ridiculous, and the MSOs don't have the bargaining power necessary to force the content providers to get their prices out of the stratosphere.



Mr Guy

@charter.com Mr Guy Anon taken out of context JP Morgan is not "advocating" anything. Just stating the realities of the math. Say if I run a company and say I have 100 customers which I make $100 a month profit from each. Now my costs go up by $500 a month. I'm better off raising pricing by $6 per month even if it means up to 10 customers bolt as the result of that price increase rather than eating that $500. Until the math changes it's logical for pay TV companies to not care.



PWGuy097

@qwest.net 1 recommendation PWGuy097 Anon What choice do consumers have How do you cut the cord, when the alternative to the duopoly has the same pricing models, same rate increases and same content?



If we move to streaming-only then we get to watch shows in their contracted time window - just ask Netflix or Amazon Prime members why shows disappear from their listings.



I'm so tired of this country's broadband and broadcast business models, the permissions culture these businesses have lobbied into legislation and honestly don't really care for much of the content they push out over pipes that were in part subsidized by the tax payers.



What options do we have? Who in government fights for the consumer?

63475675 (banned)

join:2014-01-06 63475675 (banned) Member Wall Street is cooking the "golden goose" slowly but surely! These clowns are so disconnected from Main Street, and the ordinary folks that pay the bills and provide the outrageous compensation to the executives that it is only a matter of time before the consumer can no longer afford TV service, and will struggle to pay for even basic internet service.



Hey Jackals....the typical income of the average household is going DOWN or stagnant now, the only reason the unemployment rate is down is because

these people left the rolls because they no longer receive UE benefits.



You forkers are going to be left with a very small pool of folks with large amounts of disposable income....game over. Now start jumping off those building in droves.







tmh

@myvzw.com tmh Anon The answer is very simple Stop watching so much TV!



Sheesh...