Sunday, May 20, 2007
Cable TV al a carte
My local newspaper had a lengthy and very detailed article today about the ongoing debate over al a carte cable. I was disappointed that there was no breakdown of the individual cost of cable channels, but it did portray the complexity of the debate, leaving the reader with the idea that there were equally good reasons and economic research behind both the status quo and the switch to al a carte.
The question it left unanswered bothered me, which was why anyone who only wanted to watch ESPN should be stuck paying for all the unwanted channels. I imagine that resonated with many males who probably do only watch ESPN and other sports channels. But the article gave them no clue how lucky they are under the present system.
ESPN is one of the most expensive channels on the cable lineup, which is no surprise given the cost of sports rights and the huge player salaries on which the fees are based. Paying a baseball pitcher over $20 million for one year's work, for example, is a cost that gets passed along. Other sports are very expensive, too.
Depending on what source you can find for the secret price of ESPN, it is thought to be about $2.50 per home per month and maybe much more by now (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051129-5640.html). Compare that to 10-50 cents per month per subscriber for many of the other less-watched channels.
But not everyone watches a lot of ESPN. I seldom do, because I am not a big sports fan. And neither are most women, especially older women. Yet everyone pays a huge percentage of their monthly bill to ESPN, owned by Disney/ABC. And because everyone shares the load, the exorbitant relative cost is a lot lower than it would be if only the viewers who wanted ESPN shared in the cost. If the cost of ESPN were to be spread over just its viewers, the cost would skyrocket.
ESPN viewers should be thrilled with the present system, where all subscribers share in the cost of programs only watched by a fraction of the subscribers. By comparison, imagine the cost of property taxes if only parents of schoolchildren paid into the system.
Of course, it's more complex than that and the cable systems are not totally sure that some viewers may not wind up paying less or that they might not make more revenue. But I'm pretty sure than many subscribers would wind up paying more.
When I pay my IRS taxes, I would love an al a carte system, where I could only pay for the government channels that I want to watch. I'm not a big believer in social welfare systems run by the government, so why should I pay for the welfare channel? I think giving to charity is more efficient than bureaucracy. Maybe I don't want the military channel, although that one I would likely support, praying that it keeps the terrorist threat at bay, or at least fought in another country. But taxpayers don't get much choice. Taxpayers, like cable subscribers, get a package deal.
Legislators who propose an al a carte cable setup would never agree to al a carte government. No one wonders why, so why do politicans pander to cable viewers by proposing an al a carte subscription television system? I guess because they're politicians and that's what they do.
So the ESPN (and Fox Sports) viewers should stay quiet and hope that the real victims (the viewers who only watch home shopping and religion) stay quiet.
The question it left unanswered bothered me, which was why anyone who only wanted to watch ESPN should be stuck paying for all the unwanted channels. I imagine that resonated with many males who probably do only watch ESPN and other sports channels. But the article gave them no clue how lucky they are under the present system.
ESPN is one of the most expensive channels on the cable lineup, which is no surprise given the cost of sports rights and the huge player salaries on which the fees are based. Paying a baseball pitcher over $20 million for one year's work, for example, is a cost that gets passed along. Other sports are very expensive, too.
Depending on what source you can find for the secret price of ESPN, it is thought to be about $2.50 per home per month and maybe much more by now (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051129-5640.html). Compare that to 10-50 cents per month per subscriber for many of the other less-watched channels.
But not everyone watches a lot of ESPN. I seldom do, because I am not a big sports fan. And neither are most women, especially older women. Yet everyone pays a huge percentage of their monthly bill to ESPN, owned by Disney/ABC. And because everyone shares the load, the exorbitant relative cost is a lot lower than it would be if only the viewers who wanted ESPN shared in the cost. If the cost of ESPN were to be spread over just its viewers, the cost would skyrocket.
ESPN viewers should be thrilled with the present system, where all subscribers share in the cost of programs only watched by a fraction of the subscribers. By comparison, imagine the cost of property taxes if only parents of schoolchildren paid into the system.
Of course, it's more complex than that and the cable systems are not totally sure that some viewers may not wind up paying less or that they might not make more revenue. But I'm pretty sure than many subscribers would wind up paying more.
When I pay my IRS taxes, I would love an al a carte system, where I could only pay for the government channels that I want to watch. I'm not a big believer in social welfare systems run by the government, so why should I pay for the welfare channel? I think giving to charity is more efficient than bureaucracy. Maybe I don't want the military channel, although that one I would likely support, praying that it keeps the terrorist threat at bay, or at least fought in another country. But taxpayers don't get much choice. Taxpayers, like cable subscribers, get a package deal.
Legislators who propose an al a carte cable setup would never agree to al a carte government. No one wonders why, so why do politicans pander to cable viewers by proposing an al a carte subscription television system? I guess because they're politicians and that's what they do.
So the ESPN (and Fox Sports) viewers should stay quiet and hope that the real victims (the viewers who only watch home shopping and religion) stay quiet.
