Welcome to the Cox Community
Our community is a collaborative place to learn about Cox products and services. Jump into the conversation today!
Messages
Selected Messages
New Contributor III
•
Will we ever see a-la-carte channels?
The constant refrain from customer service is that "because the cost of programming continues to rise, so do the rates that get passed along". Yet we don't really have any means to send the networks a message that the cost of programming has risen too high unless we're willing to dump ALL of our programming at once.
Why won't Cox allow its consumers to control the extent of their programming costs? And before you tell us that a-la-carte channels will end up being more expensive than the current bundled system, that would only be true for those who want most/all of the channels they're currently receiving.
Please tell us you're working on giving us the ability to someday select only the channels we want rather than subsidizing the channels we don't. Even the ability to add/subtract groups of channels to a greater extent than the current all-or-nothing choice we have now would be progress.
ChrisL
Former Moderator
•
We continue to evaluate customer requests when determining how we structure our channel offerings. Contractual obligations with networks also factor in to where and how we offer different channels.
0
0
Domino
Valued Contributor III
•
To the point, programmers that require that a cable company by all ten of its channels instead of just one or two, and those that require their channels appear on a basic tier. If a programmer was suddenly getting just a fraction of the total subscribers instead of all or most of the subscribers, they would likely increase their "per subscriber" fee in order to limit lost revenue. So you would end up paying far more per channel than you do currently. Only need a few channels, you say? Fine. But those with families and differing programming tastes might end up paying more. Remember the old saying: "Be careful what you wish for. You might get it."
0
0
cox_oc_customer
New Contributor III
•
Agree that if I want 100% of the channels, I'm going to end up paying more, but if I only want 25% of the channels or 10% of the channels, I might expect to pay 50%. Not only that, but I have the ability to eliminate channels that appear to be abusing their desire to raise the rates at will. The current pricing structure is like owning a restaurant and making every customer buy everything on the menu, only to throw away what they don't want.
How about those programmers have their own channels in their own bundle? If they want to bundle their channels, fine. The reality is that Cox has no incentive to change from the status quo because they make more money that way, regardless of customer satisfaction. Its going to eventually end badly for the cable companies when the current model breaks down and they become an internet provider only.
0
0
ChrisL
Former Moderator
•
When I speak of contractual obligations I'm not only referring to the cost paid to carry a channel but where and how it's positioned. Different networks want their channels to be placed in different locations on the dial and packages to suit their needs and/or wants. Take the Lakers for example. Based on the cost they were asking for this programming we suggested carrying it in a premium sports tier package however they insisted that it be part of everybody's analog cable offering.
0
0
Domino
Valued Contributor III
•
Sounds great in theory, then reality happens. Start compiling a list of ALL the channels you watched in the last year. Now add those your wife wants. Next, those demanded by little Billy and Suzy. Now add all of the channels that programmers have bundled with the ones on your list. Finally add the increased price per channel that the programmers are now charging due to fewer subscribers. Hey! Where did the massive savings go?
0
0
Domino
Valued Contributor III
•
The Lakers are on TWC SportsNet. In my area, although they are on the expanded basic tier, they are digital, not analog, and require a STB or CableCARD. So, they are not part of everybody's offering, and they are not analog.
0
0
cox_oc_customer
New Contributor III
•
Which gets us back to the fact that right now others may be subsidizing the channels I want or vice versa. Every grandma with expanded cable in orange county is subsidizing my desire to have ESPN, even though none of them may actually ever watch it. Sure, that may benefit me, but if the tables were turned, I'd be pretty unhappy with that setup.
Lets face it, the current model is broken, but those in a position to change it are currently making too much profit to change it. If I have a list of channels that I want and the cost is more than I'd like, then I have the ability to pare it back to the level of cost vs benefit that I'm comfortable with. The current model doesn't really allow that, its pretty close to an all-or-nothing choice, which makes the decision to pare back the benefits provided impossible - which of course is exactly why the current model is what it is.
0
0
Domino
Valued Contributor III
•
And who is in the position to change it. The programmers? Nah, they love it. They created it. The cable/DBS companies? They should all get together and say "NO" to the programmers' demands of bundling and/or lower tier placement? Ha! Programmers would scream "Collusion", "Anti-competitive practices", etc. Cox already tried to offer a tier without some of the costliest bundled programs - the "TV Economy" package. Hardly a rousing success. So, exactly what - taking contractual obligations into account - do you suggest?
0
0
cox_oc_customer
New Contributor III
•
If the content providers created the model, are unwilling to change it, and everyone else is so powerless to change it, who exactly is guilty of collusion and/or being anti-competitive?
I think both sides are responsible. The combination of the content providers force-feeding the bundling to a cable company that doesn't care to do anything about it. The cable company is a virtual monopoly in between the content providers and the consumers. The content providers have lots of options as to how to distribute their product (current model, unbundled channels, fee-based online, etc) whereas the consumer has very few options (cable package, satellite package, or none). If the cable company receives no pressure from the consumer side to control pricing due to the lack of options available to the consumer, they (Cox) have no incentive to push back against the content providers in any way.
Thus we get a 5% increase in rates passed directly through to us seemingly every 6-9 months and our options are to just accept it or cancel service with little in-between.
0
0
Domino
Valued Contributor III
•
It's much simpler than that. Cable Company "A" can either accept the offered programming (including the terms) or not. If they do, they risk drawing fire from their customers if they pass along the cost to those customers. If they don't, they risk losing customers to DBS Company A or B, or telephone company A or B. They can offer a tier that is missing some of these high-priced channels, such as Cox's "Economy" package (which has been less than successful.) If all of the Cable Companies/DBS Companies/Telephone Companies band together to stop these bundling practices, you get anti-trust attention.
So, I'll ask again: Your solution is _________ (what?)
0
0
Accepted Solution
cox_oc_customer
New Contributor III
•
I think we're going to have to end up agreeing to disagree on this one. If the content producers aren't getting any anti-trust attention, then the content distributors aren't likely to see it either should they also make a common decision like the producers have. Fact of the matter is that the distributors of content have zero incentive to change what they're doing or their role in the process. They are a middleman between the content producers and the consumers, and eventually the middleman will be removed altogether - and Cox will have to substantially raise their internet fees indiscriminately to make up for the lost TV revenue (but then again, the city has given them a monopoly on that service as well).
0
0
Domino
Valued Contributor III
•
0
0
cox_oc_customer
New Contributor III
•
I think we're going to have to end up agreeing to disagree on this one. If the content producers aren't getting any anti-trust attention, then the content distributors aren't likely to see it either should they also make a common decision like the producers have.
[Each programmer's contract is different than other programmers as far as terms and conditions go. Some do not have multiple channels to bundle. I see no anti-trust issues in their practices. They don't operate in unison.] They may not operate in perfect unison, but I find it more than a coincidence that they all structure their contracts similarly.
Fact of the matter is that the distributors of content have zero incentive to change what they're doing or their role in the process.
[Sure they do. They could offer their customers a la carte programming or tiered programming. This will be much easier if/when analog tiers are eliminated. Blocking individual analog channels is quite difficult. Giving the customer a choice between a la carte and tiered programming would set them apart from other providers.] It sure would set them apart, because nobody's currently doing it. Although it would also be less profitable for the cable company because consumers would begin to realize the true cost of the content and begin to make decisions on marginal content (and there's a lot of marginal content out there). Plus, once the cable company goes to a-la-cart channels, the providers can at that point effectively bypass the cable company completely and offer programming directly to consumers (online, for example) with a similar cost structure and retain more of the profit. Only reason that hasn't happened already is because they've got an even better thing going right now.
They are a middleman between the content producers and the consumers, and eventually the middleman will be removed altogether - and Cox will have to substantially raise their internet fees indiscriminately to make up for the lost TV revenue (but then again, the city has given them a monopoly on that service as well).
0
0
Domino
Valued Contributor III
•
Bottom line:
Cable companies don't offer a la carte packaging/pricing because...
a) current contracts with programmers doesn't allow it, and...
b) the use of analog signal delivery makes it technologically quite difficult. If/when Cox drops their analog tiers, only one major hurdle will remain.
0
0
cox_oc_customer
New Contributor III
•
and c) once the cable companies offer it, the content providers won't have the same incentive to deal with the cable companies as they can offer channels a-la-carte to consumers directly, so cable subscribership potentially falls and pressures cable profits.
0
0