Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Cable, Satellite TV Bundles Near a Breaking Point

The scheduling of today's column is new; its content, however, should seem familiar.

First, that timing: The piece is on our Web site today, but it won't appear in print until Sunday, when it will grace the Business section along with my Help File Q&A column. The idea here isn't punish our print subscribers; I'm one myself; yes, it does feel a little odd not to see my column in print this morning. Rather, we're doing this to work around one side effect of The Post's merging its Business and A print sections--the move of most non-policy-oriented Business columns to Sunday.

More people visit our site on weekdays than on weekends, and I also compete with two guys whose columns run on Thursdays. So instead of following the usual newspaper Sunday-column routine--file the piece on Friday, then wait two days for it to appear in print and online--I file my column on Thursdays, so we can get it online the next day.

(Also relevant: If you're going to have deadlines tear up your non-work schedule, it's better to have that happen on Thursdays than on Fridays.)

So there you have it. As for the content of today's column--griping about the cost of cable and satellite TV is not exactly unusual for me, and I suspect it's not unusual for you either. (Scroll after the jump for a 2004 rant about cable-TV inflation.)

But in recent years, it's gotten easier to watch TV without paying $50, $60 or $70 a month. I have had outstanding results with digital TV, and there are far more Web options--from Amazon to iTunes to Netflix to Hulu and beyond--than we've had before. (Even if getting that content onto a TV screen continues to be a little tricky.)

Enough people have canceled cable or satellite TV for the business to have settled on a phrase to describe this phenomenon: "cord cutting." (See, for example, testimonials of two former Posties; one switched to Web-only video, while another now relies on a mix of Web video and over-the-air DTV.)

I'm seriously considering this option myself--though sports programming remains a tough issue to get around. (It would not be such an obstacle if sports leagues would end pointless, obsolete blackout rules that restrict online video access to people who live outside a team's market.)

I don't see how cable and satellite TV providers can stay competitive with the flexibility and low cost of online viewing by charging viewers ever more for ever-larger bundles of channels that nobody has any time to watch. They need to think small here, not big: Let viewers pick and choose the channels they want.

Years ago, cable operators could credibly object that "a la carte" cable would require them to migrate their systems to an all-digital setup.
But they've now completed most of that transition--analog cable is pretty much dead for anything beyond basic service.

There's still an economic argument--but somebody needs to explain why Canadian cable operators, which have offered "a la carte" options for years, have not gone bankrupt as a result. (In my column's comments, reader "rsh43" notes that when he or she lived in Quebec, the cost for a customized bundle of 20 channels was only about $25 Canadian.)

We can talk about this during my Web chat--starting at noon today. Meanwhile, let's continue the conversation in the comments: What channels would be in your own personalized bundle? Which ones would you be happiest to dump if you could customize your TV service?


Published on: Sunday, 2/22/2004, Business section,
edition, zone, F07

Strung Up With Cable TV

By Rob Pegoraro

When I awoke more than a week ago to hear that Comcast, the cable giant, proposed to buy Walt Disney Co., I couldn't help wondering: If this company could find enough change under the sofa to buy one of the biggest names in Hollywood, haven't I been paying too much for cable?

My own financial records say as much: Since 1997, my monthly bill for expanded basic service plus HBO has gone from $44 to $70, including taxes. That's in line with the 40 percent increase in cable rates from 1997 to 2002 that the General Accounting Office reported last fall, a price hike "well in excess" of the 12 percent inflation rate over that period. Why is this service not following the better-faster-cheaper path of the rest of the telecom universe?

My cell phone costs less than it did in 2000 and now works across the country without roaming charges while providing me with free long-distance calling. My Internet-access costs have gone up, by $10 a month -- but in return for upgrading from a dial-up account on a second phone line to a DSL connection, I've seen an 11-fold increase in speed.

Satellite-TV customers have benefited from this trend too. DirecTV reports that, since it began carrying local broadcast channels in the Washington area in late 1999, the price of its equivalent of expanded basic plus HBO has dropped $2 a month, to $52.

Meanwhile, cable prices have remorselessly ratcheted up every year, as if they were college tuition rates, health care premiums or property taxes. This has been good for Comcast, which netted a 38 percent "operating cash flow" margin last year on its cable services. But what about the rest of us? Why do cable rates stay so high?

Brian Dietz, the National Cable and Telecommunications Association's senior director for communications, pointed to three factors (after expressing surprise at the size of my cable bill): programming, customer support and system upgrades.

The price of content has definitely gotten out of whack, up by as much as 34 percent from 1999 to 2002, the GAO found. Sports broadcasts increased the most, up to 59 percent. (One reason, the Federal Communications Commission noted in a study three weeks ago, is "rising players' salaries" -- yes, part of this is George Steinbrenner's fault.)

But cable and satellite operators are in the same boat: About a third of Comcast's operating costs last year went into programming, but DirecTV had to spend still more, about 40 percent.

Another reason is escalating customer-support expenses, as cable operators have added 24-hour, toll-free help desks. But this isn't unique to cable either.

The best explanation lies in cable operators' system upgrades and rebuilds -- $85 billion worth since 1996, Dietz said. This has allowed them to offer such add-on services as digital cable, video on demand, high-definition TV, Internet access and even telephone service.

As a result, cable has become a tough rival to Verizon in Internet access; it also has rolled out much better video services. But is it fair to pass the costs of these extras on to people who aren't using them? Verizon, which lives in a stricter regulatory environment, couldn't do this; jacking up phone rates to cover upgrades to its DSL or wireless operations would be illegal.

Comcast's corporate communications director, Tim Fitzpatrick, said the ability to upgrade to these extra services is itself of value and worth paying extra for: "It's choice, convenience and control," he said Friday.

Focus on that first factor when you decide what to do about cable's cost. If you can get DSL or another non-cable broadband Internet service and can receive a satellite signal, you don't need cable. So get rid of it. Satellite does the same job as cable TV for a lot less, which is why it has gobbled up about 22 percent of the so-called multichannel video market since 1993.

If your home is like mine, without the clear view of the southern sky needed for satellite TV, you're still not totally out of luck. The biggest secret in the cable business is that you can purchase just basic cable, then add HBO, Showtime or another pay channel, sparing yourself the $30-and-up cost of expanded basic service.

Last, you can always retreat to over-the-air TV. Or not watch TV at all.

Neither Comcast nor the cable industry as a whole promises any quick relief from this inflationary spiral. But there are two steps these companies could take.

The easy one would be to give customers more than three or four tiers of programming to choose from, instead of marketing the myth that we should buy TV in 50-channel blocks. (Who has time to watch them all?)

The harder one would be to use their capacity more efficiently by finally retiring analog cable, passing the savings to customers. While digital cable is sold as an extra, each basic-tier channel continues to go out in analog form, sucking up eight or nine times the bandwidth of a digitally compressed channel. Only the satellite services and the few built-from-scratch cable systems, such as Starpower, are all-digital -- and, not surprisingly, cheaper.

For an established cable system to go fully digital, all its customers would need digital converter boxes. But even with that hassle, "you could still do basic cable digitally for much less," said Dick Green, chief executive of CableLabs, the industry's Louisville, Colo.-based research and development body.

Then there's plan C for the cable industry: Keep raising prices as if its monopoly still endured, and watch the remaining customers flee to satellite, DVD rentals, the Internet and technologies not even invented yet.

By Rob Pegoraro  |  April 3, 2009; 10:09 AM ET
Categories:  TV , Video  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Will Tru2way Open the Cable Box? Tune In Later...
Next: Spring Cleaning For Computers


Fabulous post, Rob!

I'm a condo owner; Fios isn't deployed in my building yet, and the Dish is not allowed, so Comcast-Montgomery is my only real option. I pay $150 for internet & Cable HDTV.(a few month's ago, Comcast did it's yearly, it seems, rate increase) I have the sports tier, as I'm a Caps/NHL, Skins'/NFL, Terps, & Tennis fan. Besides channels that carry this programming, I'd keep the local NBC, Fox, CBS, &ABC channels , the news & Cspan channels, & History/Discovery, Travel & VH1 Channels. And I'd keep the HD versions of these.
I used to have Speakeasy DSL, and I've had Verizon DSL, but Comcast's bandwidth blows away Verizon DSL.

So, my Dumped Channels:
Non-English Channels
Shopping Channels
Children's Channels
Gov't channels not from where I live, and any channel not listed above.

Posted by: Max231 | April 3, 2009 1:36 PM | Report abuse

Some of this channel inflation, if not most, stems from the conglomeration among the media companies. You want ABC and ESPN on your system, then you have to take the Disney and ABC Family channels. You want NBC, then you have to take USA and Bravo. You want CBS, then you have to take MTV, Nickelodeon, and Comedy Central. Oh, and they ALL have to be on your lowest tiers so that they get more potential eyes on their ads so they can charge more.

While the cable and satellite deserve a fair portion of the blame, you can leave out the media conglomerates in your rant.

Posted by: WoodleyParker | April 3, 2009 1:37 PM | Report abuse

There's been a really fascinating debate on this subject going on between Avner Ronen and Mark Cuban (along with everyone else) on their respective blogs:

Posted by: foxn | April 3, 2009 5:06 PM | Report abuse

I would only subscribe to stations that provide a 'clean screen', meaning, no 'on screen logo', clock, time or temperature and news short just give me what I want...

Posted by: edmundsingleton1 | April 7, 2009 3:42 AM | Report abuse

With the kids out of the house, the time came to take stock of what we watched and what we wanted.

Formerly a DirecTV subscriber, we live in Baltimore within eyeshot of the broadcast towers; so we got local channels over-the-air. The old RCA DTV100 DirecTV HD receiver needed to be replaced; though it still can serve as a digital converter box.

However, more than 90 percent of what my wife and I watch is over-the-air. I was ready to forego satellite altogether, since so many programs are available on-line anyway. Yet, my wife was not willing to give up Bravo and a few other channels (which in the end, cost us ten dollars a month more), prompting me to do some research.

DirecTV's new HD DVRs do not have any antenna input. YOU MUST get your local channels through them, if you want to record them.

Dish Network, however, has a couple HD DVR models that do have off-air antenna inputs. And when I ordered, I absolutely insisted I did not want, and would not pay for local channels that I can get for free, from my rooftop antenna that also pulls in DC digital transmissions.

Most importantly, Dish is now offering HD-only packages, so you feel you're not paying for HD and standard definition stations (that you don't want). The packages have limited stations, but worked well for us. PLUS, Dish's DVR feeds to a second TV (though not in HD, of course).

We're spending $42 per month and have the option of recording DTV into the DVR and watching another channel straight up via our HDTVs in the living room and bedroom.

Our house is totally digital TV ready, including a USB tuner for my laptop that also records over-the-air DTV. That's great for watching shows while riding the train to-and-from Washington on work days. It comes with a small antenna that lets me sit on the deck and watch broadcast TV.

A flat antenna on the back of the refrigerator feeds the flat panel set we put on the kitchen counter.

Downside: Because we are not cable TV customers, Comcast charges extra for its high-speed Internet.

But it's important to really think about what you watch and whether it's available free and/or on-line. You don't have to spend a fortune.

Always enjoy your columns,


Posted by: BobCostantini | April 7, 2009 7:11 AM | Report abuse

Max231 might benefit from checking the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Briefly, the Act nullified almost all restrictions, governmental or private, e.g., POA covenants, against sat. dishes one meter or less on private property. Safety, e.g., power lines, and historical factors retrictions are still valid.

If Max231 owns his condo and it has a patio or porch (with a reasonably clear view to the Southwest), he should be able to install a Sat. dish. I believe that the Act nullifies whatever restriction his condo association has implemented. It's worth checking.

Posted by: mmacdona | April 8, 2009 6:25 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company