I noticed today that my DirecTV bill was a few dollars higher this month, so I set out to investigate.  Logging into my account, I found that the cost of my plan increased by 4% and my so-called 150-channel service has now shrunk to 140 channels.

As if!  As if I ever watch 140 channels.  As if most of them could even be called channels.  Most of the channels (italics used to indicate irony) that DirecTV offers its viewers are dedicated shopping sites or run infomercials the better part of the day.  If you are a cable or satellite subscriber, this is not news to you.

Dear DirecTV: Just for the record, here are the channels we watch, of the one-hundred-and-forty you so proudly beam down to us, for that sizable monthly payment of ours you so reliably collect:

• The local ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS channels.
• The local Fox Channel, three or four times a year, for a football game.
• The CW channel, for Judge Judy reruns.  (Not my choice!)
• CNN for a few minutes every month, when some important event takes place — until I remember that CNN doesn’t cover anything important anymore.
• Comedy Channel.  The Daily Show and The Colbert Report.  Essential.
• MSNBC once in a while.  CNBC once in a while.  Non-essential.
• C-SPAN (Book TV) when I am particularly bored doing a weekend workout.
• HGTV for Property Brothers and Love It or List It.  (Not my choices.)
• TV Land for Andy Griffith Show and The Waltons. (Ditto.)
• Turner Classic Movies.  Stella Dallas.  The Bishop’s Wife.  Notorious.
• AMC.  Mad Men and The Walking Dead.
  
• Game Show Network, for Family Feud reruns when all else fails.

That’s all I can think of.  Sixteen channels that we even think of watching, six of which comprise 90% of our television viewing.  All this for $1200 a year.  What a bargain.

___________________________________________________________

The price of content keeps increasing.  It costs more every year to attend a baseball game or see a movie or watch ordinary television, all because content (and now bandwidth) is being marketed as a scarcity rather than as a commodity.  Historically, we have been accustomed to seeing items that were once considered luxuries (think anti-lock brakes and smartphones) become low-cost commodities — we are not so used to seeing traditionally low-cost commodities such as television being treated (and priced) like specialty items.  Yet that is what is taking place.  The price of content is destined to rise until the profits of the content-providers are maximized.   They will keep raising prices to see what their customers are willing to pay, month after month, until their revenues reach a plateau.

Now that this process has begun, the conclusion is inevitable.  Fewer people will be able to afford once-commonplace services, and those who can afford them will pay the difference and more.  This is what happens in an economic system that promotes income inequality.