Some of the top executives in cable fear that the anemic economy will soon take a bite out of an industry that has weathered previous downturns without a problem. At a panel this morning for the opening session of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association’s National Cable Show in Chicago, several members of the audience applauded when Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt said operators should begin to offer a low-priced service with fewer channels than they have in their expanded basic cable packages. “There clearly is a growing underclass of consumers that can’t afford (cable service) and they want it,” Britt said. Even though “the economics make it difficult” for channels that would be left out, if Netflix’s low-priced package of TV reruns ”makes consumers not want to buy the big package that we’re selling, then that’s a threat to all of us.” Cox Communications President Pat Esser says he’s also concerned that the poorest 40% of the population barely has enough money to pay for cable, although he says it hasn’t resulted in much cord-cutting yet. But Viacom CEO Philippe Dauman seems unconvinced. He says the country “lived through the worst recession and the last thing people cut back on is TV.”
Executives on the panel also seemed frustrated by business differences that have kept more content from going to VOD and cable’s TV Everywhere initiatives, which are beginning to make it possible for subscribers to watch shows via the Internet on computers and mobile devices. “We have to do a better job of exciting consumers,” News Corp COO Chase Carey said. He added, though, that operators and programmers need to smooth out the business terms. “It can’t be the Wild West. You need a structure within which to do business.” Comcast Cable President Neil Smit says programmers are telling him, “give me some ratings on fast-forward-disabled VOD and I’ll give you more content.” Ever the optimist, Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes said that when the industry gets its act together, consumers probably will end up preferring to receive content from traditional cable TV than from the Internet. ”We haven’t yet got 3D working on electric screens,” he said. “We will. When we do, your infrastructure will be the highway. … (Internet) can’t do that for a long time.”


I guess it’s different based on age demo, but I’m 23 and I know 3 households my age (including mine) that have cancelled their cable subscription in favor of Netflix, Hulu, and MLB and NBA season pass. What else do you need? + Commercials can be avoided
I don’t have cable either but I do have Netflix. There are probably 5 channels I wish I got but I am not going to pay for channels I don’t want. ESPN chages cable companies the most but if you aren’t into sports why must you get it? I’ll get cable when you can order it ala carte and you know exactly how much a channel will cost you a month.
Bring it on!
I get over 300 channels, more or less, of those 2/3rds are worthless. So now I have 100 that may be viable. However, since several show the same thing over and over again scatch them. Then five news stations that are never watched. 20 plus sports channels. Most of the networks, except for CBS CSI, and there are maybe less than 40 channels. Of these most are moving away from new programing. Witness history, travel, etc. which has endless re runs or “let’s eat something bigger than my head” shows. So they expect us to pay more, for less and less, and then wonder why the consumers are running away. Even the movie channels are showing the same things over and over again. Enough. Soon it will be I Love Lucy 24/7.
If it was something as timeless as I love Lucy 24/7 I would be first in line. Unfortunately it’s almost all dreck.
First off, Britt from Time-Warner is a jackass. I love the term “underclass” to describe those that don’t want to pay $100 a month for their cable. He is also VERY hot to start limiting people’s internet access each month to try and stop the bleeding from his cable system. He talks regularly to the shareholders about capping their internet service with penalties for going beyond.
Second, if the cable companies would offer REAL ala carte selection of stations, they would probably keep a lot of the customers (and by REAL, I mean pricing that allows people to actually save a few bucks when they pick a group of, say, thirty networks, not the expected system where you end up paying more for your ala carte choices then you would for the whole package).
@RPF — I would be okay with “I Love Lucy” 24/7.
Mr. Viacom is delusional. People may not cut back TV altogether, but they’ll cut back cable to just the basic packages or even just the broadcast channels – especially if prices continue to rise.
Additionally, people are getting tired of the cable operators and the cable networks fighting out their carriage battles in public. Take that to the boardroom and leave it there.
Recently my cable was down for a week and guess what? I realized I really didn’t miss it. I can catch some of the cable shows I wanted to see online, and as for a series like “Rome” or “The Tudors” I prefer to watch a whole batch of episodes in order on dvd from indy cool stores like videotheque over a nice long weekend. As for sports, the manager at my local Bar-b-q is a pretty good programmer in selecting the sports on their TV and I go there.
Cable is overpriced, the content for the most part is substandard, and if these guys think 3D is gonna save them, I suggest they visit Peterson’s Auto Museum where one of the first 3d TVs is on at the Johnny Rocket inside. After watching for about 5 minutes, no one watches or cares.
Can we take a moment here and look at this line printed here…
Entertainment Ad Spending is Going Up, Up, Up
Cable Upfront Seeing Record Volume
Money flowing to smaller networks
Overall, a variety of estimates are that the entire prime-time network upfront revenue for the broadcast networks could rise around 5% to 10%: $9.2 billion to $9.3 billion. Cable could climb more — some 15% to 17%, perhaps equaling the broadcast
And then this BiPolar printing here at Deadline…
Some of the top executives in cable fear that the anemic economy will soon take a bite out of an industry that has weathered previous downturns without a problem
Are executives simply trying once again keep all the money for themselves and not for production ?
My family’s bill is 80 bucks a month. We watch 10 hours of TV per week on average. So we’re paying 2 bucks per hour for directv. Our household contains ages 16-46. We’re about to switch to broadcast and netflix.
I’ll only miss ESPN, USA, Comedy Central and TBS. Oh well.
I just moved into a new apt and opted out of cable due to cost. However, I still have Netflix. If Time Warner offered channels piecemeal- Bravo, HBO, E!, and MTV, I’d pay for cable again.
Im ready to cut the cord as well. I realize that cable or satellite is too expensive; there are too many channels I dont watch; if I want to watch a few shows, I can watch them online thru the services mentioned or the networks own websites – Plus I want to actually live my life vs watching tv….I had gotten cable/satellite because I was sick and home a lot so I watched a lot of TV and that gave me a connection with the outside world…But I rather live my life in the real world…and a cable package of %80=100 dollars plus is not worth it for a couple of hours of TV a day. Why pay $3-9 dollars a day for TV…Theres too many other things to do ; you can get the news on the internet – which also is getting more & more expensive; and you can watch a few shows online and get DVDs of movies for free at the library
Someone please answer me and tell me why with over 300 channels the same thing is repeated? why, why, why. I just saw The Fugitive couple of hours ago, now it’s on again. Why, Why, Why. Why not put U. S. Marshall on.