posted
As someone who works in the biz of the cable industry, I've been thinking about this topic for the past 2 or 3 weeks, and have been wanting some outside views and opinions.
The argument against a la carte cable:
1) It would not be the best value. While packages currently with comcast of about 75-80 channels run at about 50 dollars, averaging out at about 66 cents per channel, individual channels would theoretically average out at a higher (yet undetermined) rate. Since companies pay more for some channels, like ESPN, than they do others, like Fox Family, it would be highly varied.
2) Smaller, less popular channels would have a harder time to get in the market and provide the same type of programming they are currently airing.
3) Some wierd argument about marketing that I didn't quite understand. Feel free to see if you can find it and figure it out.
Argument for:
1) The average person only watches about 15 channels, meaning they are paying for channels they don't watch. If they got rid of these channels, they would in theory be saving 13 percent off their bills.
2) A la carte cable would allow for better control of what is shown on TV, a strong hand for parents.
Now, the FCC is looking to push for a la carte cable. Currently, media corporations only offer channels to cable companies in packs, companies like Disney and Viacom, for one. I won't dance around the topic here, mostly the argument is about how much money can be made, and what value can be given (believe it or not, cable companies do care about the value given).
Personally, I think A La Carte Cable should be offered. Its not as if cable companies would suddenly stop offering package deals because of this, and I see the need to control what channels are aired on your set.
The questions I have mainly are:
1) Should the FCC be able to control the cable business like this?
and
2) If you were given the option for a la carte cable, what channels would you choose, and how much would you pay for those channels? Just curious.
Posts: 530 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would be happy with the internet connection, and maybe 3 or 4 network channels plus a PBS. But, Grandma wants the gameshow channel so I have to buy 100 or so. I would vote for a la cart.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Ala Carte cable would be an amazing thing, mostly for the consumers, primarily because it would probably result in cheaper package deals as well as the ability to select individual channels.
I don't think the FCC should have control over the cable business like this, but I also don't know nearly enough about the dynamic between stations, cable companies, the creators of television and advertisers to know whether the sort of regulation the FCC provides is necessary. My ignorant opinion is: let the cable companies pick their own products, and let the cable companies choose how to market them.
If I were given the ala carte cable option, the only channels my TV would get would be Comedy Central, the Food Network and Cartoon Network. Possibly also Bravo, but that's up for debate. If TBS continues its upward trend in programming, they might get a space as well.
Edit to add: given that I wouldn't be watching ANY of the major network channels, I'd expect to pay less than a buck and a half per channel.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
A la carte would be awesome. We'd get the broadcast networks, CNN, Discovery, Food Network, HGTV, whatever the HD channel is that shows Battlestar Galactica, ESPN HD and 2 HD, and The Tennis Channel.
Personally, I'd be happy to pay a few bucks extra a month just to NOT have all the adult content all over our programming guide, along with all the other crap channels we don't watch, but hey.
Posts: 1681 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That would be great! I could skip all the home shopping channels and CNNIII and stuff I never watch, and get things like the Discovery Health Channel that I'd love to have, instead.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would love it, provided that each channel wasn't more than a buck or two. It would be nice if you could get a channel on a per-day basis or per-week if you wanted.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The other thing that would make this so great is that the cable channels would now have to *compete* for your viewership, instead of making money by automatically being included in packages.
They'd have to provide better and better programming just to stay afloat.
So the viewer wins.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: That would be great! I could skip all the home shopping channels and CNNIII and stuff I never watch, and get things like the Discovery Health Channel that I'd love to have, instead.
kq, why don't you just delete these channels from your TV's channel memory?
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I could only have NFL Sunday Ticket (I know, that's not on cable . . . too bad) and maybe ESPN and ESPN2, I wouldn't need anything else.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I prefer ala carte within a package of fixed-price: eg basic, expanded basic, premium, expanded premium, all-channel with a channel-lockout option that can't be overridden simply by (mis)using the home controls or via (mis)using the phone-in ordering option.
As it is, program-providers can&do force cable&satellite companies to sell packages containing channels which the consumer does not want because of the popularity of one channel with the general public. eg Because ESPN would be chosen by a large percentage of the audience, the WaltDisneyCorporation and the HearstCorporation forces every cable&satellite subscriber to pay a high price for ESPN to receive the other channels.
Frankly, I don't like professional sports feeding on taxpayer money via eg financing of sports stadiums. And I don't like being forced to subsidize professional sports through cable&satellite services which essentially operate through government-granted monopolies of public radiowave bandwidths and public rights-of-way.
Those who want to be entertained by professional sports should pay for it themselves, not subsidized by those who don't. Just as when I wanna entertain myself by going skiing, I hafta pay for it myself.
quote:Originally posted by Anti-Chris: 1) Should the FCC be able to control the cable business like this?
In my opinion, as long as cable companies are given regional monopolies there should be some government control. Beyond that, I don't really know enough about the situation to have an opinion on how much control there should be or who is doing it.
quote:Originally posted by Anti-Chris: 2) If you were given the option for a la carte cable, what channels would you choose, and how much would you pay for those channels? Just curious.
I don't think that I would be particularly interested unless there was an easy way to get free previews of channels. Unless you already know how good the channel is, it is often hard to tell exactly how much you are going to like it. Just because the channel covers subjects you like, doesn't mean that it will cover them well.
If anything, I would at least like some sort of basic package of 15-20 channels. I might consider some sort of a la carte system for adding to them, but overall I'd prefer to have at least a little built in variety.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:kq, why don't you just delete these channels from your TV's channel memory?
What good would that do? I don't "flip channels", I check what's on and tune to what I want to watch (or just check out my favorites if I know what's usually on at that time.) I'd still have to wade through all the other crap in the listings, and we're still paying for them. (Okay, not much, but still.)
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: What good would that do? I don't "flip channels", I check what's on and tune to what I want to watch (or just check out my favorites if I know what's usually on at that time.) I'd still have to wade through all the other crap in the listings, and we're still paying for them. (Okay, not much, but still.)
Then why did you make a comment about having to flip through the shopping channels.
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing is, though, that I'm pretty sure the average ammount someone would pay per channel would be closer to 3 or 4 dollars (some people at work are saying 5 or 6), but that may be an incorrect estimate. Which is where I believe it wouldn't exactly be worth it. However, things would start to become more competetive between cable stations of what shows are aired, the quality of them, discounts if you get it with another channel, things like that.
posted
I keep waiting for a la carte cable and sensible cellphone data plans (with fully enabled Bluetooth) -- but these two things will never happen in our country as long as consumers are stupid sheep.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I refuse to pay for cable; I own a cellphone with the cheapest plan available (1 hour of anytimes mintues during the week, 300 or so on the weekends) solely for my wife and daughter to carry with them in case of emergencies.
I would pay for ala carte cable in a heart beat; And I agree with Tom on sensible cellphone plans.
posted
I would, quite gladly. But note that this would result in the death of many channels. Custom pricing per channel is more likely, IMO.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Give me a break. DISH-satellite's basic package provides 40channels plus all of the local channels for $25 per month. Add another $10 per month for the extra 20channels which are more likely to be watched than the basic40. Which comes to 50cents per channel, or less. I don't know about the profit margins of satellite companies, but the cable companies are making HEFTY profits at around the same rate, 2channels per dollar.
While I can see a need for a minimum-sized price-package to ensure that the individual consumer has a wide variety of information sources -- which is a desirable feature within a democratic society -- and to support the technological infrastructure (including that provided within the home), the $3to$6 per channel is merely a threat of future extortion to defend an unwanted system of distribution.
posted
One thing that concerns me about a la carte cable would be the initial fee for setting it up. Currently, most cable companies don't charge for the guy to come to your place. However if they're only getting a few dollars from you a month, I imagine that they would start charging. So if you only wanted a few channels, it might not be worth it.
If that was not the case, I would totally want a la carte cable. I'd get Comedy Central and the Sci Fi channel. I think these two would add spice to my antenna channels. Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I love a la carte...though I don't really like the idea of the FCC mandating it. With satellite competing with cable, there is not really a monopoly anymore.
That being said, If I had the choice, I would get ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, as well as WB/UPN, Fox News, FX, ESPN 1 & 2, and Scifi. Those are really the only channels I care about.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
A choice between two "competitor"s dependent upon exclusive right's-of-way/bandwidth granted through the public's/government's largesse is still an effective monopoly.
posted
Going to DISH pricing again, the difference between their $55 180channels plus local channels and their $90 everything included except pay-per-view and non-local nonEnglish&nonSpanish channels is 31 premium movie channels and an NBA channel. Considering that $35 is DISH's greatest price differential between extras offered and monthly cost, any quoted "if ya want ala carte" price above $1.10 per channel is merely monopoly-dependent price-gouging.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The association of cable operators in Virginia has been running ads supporting a state cable competition bill. It had me scratching my head - why do they want competition? I supposed it could be out of the goodness of their hearts, but I wasn't willing to bet on it.
Turns out the bill contains a provision that allows a cable franchise to revoke their municipal franchise agreement as soon as there is "comptetition" in the municipality. That level is, as best I can tell from news reports, ill-defined.
So it's possible that Verizon starts selling movies on demand, and suddenly the 5-year franchise rate agreement for the local cable operator goes out the window.
My cynicism wins again.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll pop in to say that I don't like the idea of ala carte. A few reasons.
1. I tend to watch tv on a whim, if I have some free time, or my homework load is light. As a result, I'd want to the largest selection available to assure that there is something on I'd want to see at all times.
2. My tastes differ dramatically from week to week. Last semester I was watching the WB almost every day. This semester I'm watching American Idol religiously and am obsessed with Veronica Mars, which I discovered over the break. I'm not watching the WB at all. Sure there would probably be some way you could change what channels you get every month, but I know myself well enough to know I'm way too lazy to do that.
Maybe it's my upper middle class roots speaking, but I'd prefer to pay the $90/month my parents pay and have all of the options they have. Assuming that when I graduate I'm making enough money for that to be feasible, of course.
Edit: I want to make clear, this is just what I would want. I don't have an opinion on whether ala carte cable is a good idea, I just probably wouldn't use it.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Considering that $35 is DISH's greatest price differential between extras offered and monthly cost, any quoted "if ya want ala carte" price above $1.10 per channel is merely monopoly-dependent price-gouging.
This isn't necessarily the case. Why? Because there are a number of channels -- like, say, the Golf Channel -- which people simply would not be willing to pay $3/month for. And there are other channels -- like, say, MTV or Discovery or ESPN -- that people might pay $15 a month for. In the current environment, providers can require that people who want the Discovery Channel must also get the Golf Channel, and that the cable or satellite company must sell these two as a single package. If this changes, the Golf Channel will probably have to cut back its costs dramatically or wind up subsidized by its parent company, since it's not likely to be in high demand.
quote:Maybe it's my upper middle class roots speaking, but I'd prefer to pay the $90/month my parents pay and have all of the options they have.
Think about what you just said. $90/month for the "privilege" of watching television? Why would you EVER pay that much?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why stop at calling for ala carte channels? Why isn't the FCC pushing for all programming to be pay-per-view? I mean, you could subscribe to a whole channel if you wanted, but the technology obviously exists for consumers to get only the shows they want. Witness the number of people who have cancelled cable entirely and simply get the shows they want through Netflix. Some consumers want that level of control. If the FCC wants to push for more customer control, why not go all the way?
To answer your questions: if it's not being wirelessly transmitted I don't think the FCC should be allowed to regulate. A private company/set of companies should be allowed to push a cable to my house and run any content along it they want. If it is broadcast, maybe, depending on how draconian the regulation is.
As for which channels I'd subscribe to, I'm not sure. When I had cable the ones I watched most frequently were Headline News, TNT, Disney, and TBS. I occasionally watched CNN, AMC, TCM, ESPN (SportsCenter and/or Baseball Tonight), USA, and Discovery. I wouldn't pay $3 a month for any, except maybe Disney now that I have kids. With broadcast television dying in 2009, though, I might pay $3/month for ABC, CBS, NBC, and PBS. But I might choose the Netflix route instead. Hard to say.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom -- I suspect the golf channel is one of the first many people would spring to pay $3 a month for. Not most, certainly, but a substantial sub-population.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Exactly. I'm sure that there are many who would be willing to do so, fugu, but I doubt that their numbers would be sufficient to actually support the channel.
I'd gladly pay $3 a month for SciFi and Comedy Central, but what I'd really be paying for is BattleStar Galactica and The Daily Show. Those are the only two shows I tune in for; everything else I watch I get through Netflix.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
How I think its going to go is the fewer the channels you subscribe to, the higher per channel cost it will be. Not that I agree with that, just it seems the most logical course a company would take for the greatest net profit.
Posts: 9754 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I want to see truly investigated is whether there are costs associated with blocking some channels for an a la carte system. It seems there has to be such costs. Given that most of the cost is associated with broadcasting any channels to the box at all - the wire, the transmitting equipment, etc. - and that for most channels (not HBO and such), marginal costs don't increase with number of viewers, I have a hard time figuring out why this would be beneficial.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just as I was leaving Nova Scotia I read about this being done in New Brunswick. Maybe only somewhere in New Brunswick, but it was certainly being done/is still the way things are done. I could be wrong, and I'm too lazy to look it up for you, so... there you go.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Well, that was kind of my point. Why would $90/month for television be worth it to you? I mean, seriously.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I can understand it. TV doesn't do that much for me, but if it's someone's primary source (or even just an important source) of entertainment and news, and their income is such that the $90/month isn't painful for them to part with, I could certainly understand them feeling that it was worth it.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, all I watch on TV any more is movies. So, Fox Movie Channel, Turner Classic Movies, Independant Film Channel, maybe AMC. My husband follows the Braves, though, so we'll let him keep TBS and ESPN.
For news, I read the NY Times or listen to the radio (I like to Consider All Things). And I can never seem to catch Monk on any more, so forget USA.
I do like those movies, though.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Honestly, I prefer a package deal. I hate flipping through the guide, seeing someone I want to see, then flipping to the channel only to get "To order this channel, please call..."
Cable a la carte would mean almost all my channels would say that.
posted
How about if the entire thing was Pay-per-View? Like your TV never has anything on it until you were ready to watch. Want to see a re-run of Seinfeld? That's 50 cents. Battlestar Gallactica? A dollar. Yadda Yadda Yadda.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
I said I could skip them. As in, not have to pay for them since I don't watch them.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
