| Idea is great but... At the end of the day, content is basically a fixed cost for a given number of channels (say that 150 channels are currently available). So, if "a la carte" programming is really a way for each and everyone to pick and choose the 20 channels or so that they really care about and lower the monthly bill, then the overall revenue will go down, and won't be able to support all the current channels. IMHO, a la carte programming will simply raise the cost of each channel so that at the end of the day, we are still paying the same monthly fee but have less channels to choose from. The most realistic scenario is that "a la carte" pricing will end up happening but each channel will be priced so high that only people who watch 10 channels or less will benefit, while the rest of us will continue buying the same "discounted" bundle of channels.
The current system means that we're subsidizing each other's viewing habits. I like Speed, G4, Sundance, IFC, DIY and a few others, don't care for ESPN and the religious channels while my neighbor is the exact opposite. His bill subsidizes my channels and I subsidize his. At the end of the day we all have more choices, and it's not that bad. If we really want to lower the monthly bill, the best way is to foster competition by letting the Bells join in the fray as fast as possible. |
