TV Viewers Frustrated by Bundled Channels They Never Watch Have a Surprise Ally: The Cable Companies

Americans still like to watch TV. A lot. But they are faced with two major frustrations. First, despite rhetorical allegiance to free markets and personal choice, almost every source of cable access in the US is a monopoly fiercely protected by political privilege. 

Secondly, when cable subscribers attempt to choose 'packages' designed to sate their lust for entertainment, sports, movies, drama or some combination thereof, they are met with an inflexible array of 'bundled' channels usually filled with subjects in which they have no interest what's so ever. 

In order to receive the channels they do want, they have to purchase the bundle and its attendant collection of visual dross whose only purpose is to slow their click-through to the content about which they actually care. 

Thanks to the monopoly structure, Americans have become inured to poor service and managerial indifference to their demands. 'The Cable Guy' has become an avatar for sloth, incompetence, overpayment and disrespect. The cable providers and the entertainment conglomerates that provide the content were always assumed to be in league against the consumer. If the cable provider wanted premium content for their viewers, they had to also purchase the shopping, cooking and derivative brand extension channels. They would then pass the additional cost along to the consumer who, having no alternative, would pay. 

The internet has begun to change that equation. Customers are now fleeing cable for less expensive and more personalized options. Faced with declining financial performance, the cable providers are taking on the content companies. They are employing a variety of schemes such as charging based on viewership in order to force the entertainment conglomerates to feel some of their pain. 

The conflict is significant because it represents the extension of the electronic battle over personal preference to media  long accustomed to getting their way. Whether true 'a la carte' TV viewership will be available to consumers is not yet certain. But as the accompanying picture suggests, every dog has his day. JL 

Roberto Baldwin reports in Wired:

The monthly subscription TV bill is a painful reminder that you don’t watch most of the billed channels you receive. You’re not alone — cable and satellite companies are also tired of paying for worthless channels, and they’re doing something about it
We blame our outrageous cable and satellite bills on the providers and their insistence that we subscribe to channels we’ll never watch. In reality, those bundles are being pushed on the providers by the media companies. And companies like Comcast and DISH are just passing the costs on to their subscribers.
Verizon Communication’s FIOS TV service is taking the first step to leveling the TV landscape by tying fees paid to stations based on how many viewers watch a channel. A media company is paid if a viewer spends more than five minutes on a channel. The initial phase of this plan is working with small and mid-level media companies. It’s not talking to large media companies like Viacom and Disney yet, but you can bet that if the initial gambit works, those talks will be on the horizon.
Currently, media companies bundle the channels it sells to pay TV distributors. If a distributor wants to carry MTV, Viacom bundles the channel with a host of second-tier MTV channels like MTV Tr3s. Cablevision filed suit against Viacom in February for this type of bundling.
These bundles are the largest roadblock to anything resembling an à la carte subscription TV and lead to higher cable TV bills. Those bills have pushed frustrated viewers away from cable TV to streaming services from Netflix, Amazon and Hulu. Until recently these cord cutters have had little effect on the subscription TV market. But that’s changing now. Last year was the first year that households with pay TV subscriptions dipped from 100.9 million to 100.8 million. Research group TDG expects that trend to continue. Meanwhile, streaming services Netflix and Amazon have become more than just video jukeboxes, both companies are becoming real networks with exclusive content without being tied to traditional TV subscriptions.
In short: You no longer need a huge bill and coaxial to see original content. All you need is a broadband connection. Take Intel, for example, a newcomer to the market. Intel is talking about smart bundles that reduces the number of subsidized channels in your TV lineup. It’s going to be able to stream your channels anywhere you have broadband–it’s cable TV without the cable.
Cable TV’s delivery model is under siege from Intel, Amazon, Netflix, Apple, Microsoft, Google and a host of others. Which makes it abundantly clear that cable and satellite need to do something to stop bleeding subscribers. One of the most effective tacts they could take would be convincing media companies (like Disney, which packages multiple ESPN channels) to unbundle. If the media companies hold their ground and continue to force channels no one watches onto providers and by proxy onto viewers expect a continued decline in household pay TV subscribers.
There are plenty of choices out there. À la carte program service is already happening via streaming. If pay TV wants to stay relevant, it needs to evolve to suit the way we watch TV now. Here’s hoping Verizon has the muscle to make it happen, and that others follow its lead.