OT: Unbundling could raise price of cable

I don't believe many people have said it's a dumb idea because of unbundling.  But because of the clear shift to streaming and a lack of purchasing cable TV all together.

Also, and I may be missing something, that article seems to be a little light on facts and a little heavy on assumptions.

I'd gladly pay the $37 for the sports channels I want instead of the $125 I currently pay for those channels and a bunch of other ones I do not care to watch. 

It's an interesting take and I think these economists have some useful theories.  The one glaring omission I saw was anything about competition.  Right now, the competition for everything that's on "standard" cable (think you're typcial package), competes only with the other channels in that lineup for viewers, and hence ad rates.  

If you unbundle, all of those channels will now have to compete to convince you to subscribe before you can watch.  Economic theory would tell us that this would have a positive impact on both quality and price, as one of the ineffeciencies in the market (the bundling of packages) is removed as an obstacle to competition.

You also have ot factor in alternative delivery methods.  What happens to streaming video, netflix, youtube, etc.  Viewers and providers are going to have to consider the benefits and costs of delivering and consuming content in a way other than via cable tv.

Laptop, Netflix, Amazon, ESPN3, and sports bars for my whole adult life. Baffles me that people pay $2000+ a year for cable television. 

I pay $16 bucks a month for Hulu Plus and Netflix both streamed on my PS3. Haven't had cable in two years and its been great.  If I have to watch a football game, I can stream it on some not so legal sites or go to my girlfriend's place.

The estimated price of unbundled channels comes from the cable companies themselves, who have an obvious interest in maintaining the status quo as long as possible. So obviously they're going to put out numbers that make it sound like unbundling will drastically increase prices.

See, the numbers they come up with are essentially "How much would we have to charge in order to make the same amount of money?" In actuality, when unbundling does happen out of necessity, the question will be "How much can we charge so that people will still use us at all?" The current structure of TV providers is unmaintainable in the internet age, and cable companies are going to make WAY less money when it does eventually come crashing down.

The "good stuff" is expensive to produce if its original content,  or expensive to present if it's popular big time sports. And they know people will pay top prices for it.

Sports fans are getting a fairly good deal with the status quo, as most cable systems make non- fans subsidize sports programming, aka the Rutgers and Maryland business case.

Game of Thrones/Sopranos type content will never be cheap, whether you buy it by the episode or bundle it into a package, because its quality programming that everyone wants to see and can demand a premium price.

So pick your poison. Pay a lot for a packakge or pay a lot per show. Either way, you'll pay. Or you can save money and get Iron Chef and white trash reality shows real cheap.

You can also bundle/unbundle a restaurant meal - pay for a dinner that includes sides, buy ala carte, or prix fixe.  But a good meal will cost you a lot anyway you buy it.

Well, yeah, isn't that how packages work?  But akin to the above posters, I'd pay for just sports channels and HBOGO.  Pretty much all I use anyway with the occasional Netflix binge.

Seems like it would only be more expensive for families, which is where the money is at anyway.

why people want channels unbundled, but people always exaggerate cable costs so much its rediculous. Either that or you are paying for a bunch of extra boxes and dvrs or something if your bill is 135 a month just for cable. If that bill is for cable and internet like mine then thats a pretty good deal if you ask me. Even if I ditched the cable, I would still be paying a steep price for 50 mbs internet service. And comcast xfiniy streaming service is about 1000x better then netflix and its free with your subscription. If I dropped cable and paid about 65 bucks a month for internet..I dont think id come close to the value of the cable service I am getting for 70 bucks of unbundled channels, not to mention the free streaming service. Lastly I will point out that streaming sports ove the internet stinks. Yes you can watch the game but when you could be watching in hd.. streaming is a crap substitute to save a few bucks imo

Unbundled TV would probably be much higher quality. You couldn't produce a bunch of low rent reality shows and get people to pay for them individually.

It will happen eventually and will crush the BTN model. I'm not paying for BTN now. I'll get it again a week prior to Michigan's first game on the channel and cancel after its last game.

Most of BTN's money is made from subscribers who rarely if ever watch it. They won't pay if cable's unbundled and the costs will soar for fans. A lot of them won't pay the hiked fees. BW3 will do well though.

My questions is what counts as a sports channel? A whole lot of sports happen on basic cable channels. College football games happen on fx now. Fox sports carries a lot of regional stuff. What about the nbc channels for hockey? TNT for the nba? Tbs for baseball? Does espnu and espn classic get included? How much extra is nfl network, etc. It seems like if you really like to watch a lot of different sports it is going to be cheaper to keep cable bundled.

As an owner of a cable system these weekly threads about cable is getting pretty annoying.

It's utter bullshit. The report is based on what the channels are charging the cable operators, not what their value would be on the open market. The cost of BTN is what people are willing to pay for BTN. If they make it too much people won't get it.

The whole point of unbundling is they're using bundling to way overdrive prices for channels people don't want. Severe downsizing is bound to happen because they can't go on living like they are.

Because most internet broadband in the U.S. is now delivered via the cable companies, Net Neutrality rules make it unlikely that unbundling in favor of Netflix, et al, would create much of a price incentive for the consumer. Quite the opposite, actually, as those streaming video services can now pay the carriers to carve out bandwidth in their favor, leading to higher consumer rates.

At the end of the day, the carriers own both the infrastructure AND the content, or at least have the ability to control it at their will. They're not doing this as a free public service, and they're going to make their money somehow. The FCC's new rules only make it more likely, not less.