Cost Of Providing Broadband Dropping > Offer channels a la carte

Offer channels a la carte

If every TV provide did that I think the TV industry would be un MUCH better shape.

reply to DataDoc
That's the obvious and rational way to go, but it will take regulators to force it on the cablecos. The more we have to pay for the 90 percent of stuff we never watch, the more free money they get.

I've started wondering if the whole concept of cable TV was one of those big mistakes we'll pay for for lifetimes. I've yet to find an explanation as to why we're paying so much just to have a cable coming to our house when digital broadcast still manages to do it for free. I mean, it sure ain't like we're not deluged with ads on cable, so where does all that money go?

reply to DataDoc
But see, they want us to subsidize all of our neighbors' viewing habits, but not their internet habits...

reply to DataDoc
Assuming the content providers went through with that, your price per channel would be about 2$+. To equal what cable typically costs today, you would only get 25 channels before you hit the $50/mo price mark for basic. Depending on how big your family is and their viewing habits, that's not a bargain at all.
A la carte is not going to happen anyways, though.

Networks like NBCU aren't going to give up a dedicated contract with guaranteed revenues in favor of highly variable revenues, and a decrease in ad revenue from lost subscribers that a la carte would offer.
Of all of the below networks that NBC currently sells as part of a contract to cable and satellite companies, they'd lose MY revenue and viewership on all but 3 stations:
A&E Television Networks
Bravo
Chiller
CNBC
MSNBC
Mun2
NBC
Oxygen
SCI FI
ShopNBC
Sleuth
Telemundo Internacional
The Weather Channel
Universal HD
USA Network
Universal Sports

Really, who would *pay* for ShopNBC?

NBC uses their leverage of their strong stations to negotiate contracts which include their smaller stations. The more stations NBC can sell to cable and satellite, the more advertising revenue they can sell. They're not going to let that bargaining chip go easily into the night.
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara

reply to DannyZ

reply to davey

precisely.

If cable companies complain that no one watches Lifetime and Family, then ABC responds by threatening to withhold ESPN - one of the biggest selling networks on cable. So the cable co's pay up for Lifetime because they can't not have ESPN.

for a PERFECT example of how viewers turn on a company when they withhold a channel because of EXTREMELY high pricing and absurd disparities between contracts, see: NFL NETWORK vs TIME WARNER CABLE.
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara

reply to tiger72
ShopNBC would get more viewers than MSNBC does.

Ha!

reply to tiger72
Not all channels would cost the same, like HBO, but using your $2 each, I could easily get by with 25 channels. I just don't want to help pay for ESPN (for example) so everyone else gets it cheaper. Let them pay $10/mo for sports.

reply to major marco
Subsidizing internet usage is Time Warner's own words in an attempt to justify a move to usage based billing. I was merely trying to point out the hypocrisy of TW.

I know their attempt at caps is to eliminate the threat of online video. That should be obvious to anyone.
--
Out the 10BaseT, through the modem, down the co-ax, over the fiber, across the backhaul, past the edge router, off the network...nothing but net

reply to fAcEtIOUs
The cable companies have indeed assisted the content creators in making sure this system continues. They want me to pay for Disney on expanded basic even if I don't watch it because it makes them money.

You can bet the execs have looked at a la carte and if it were to be more profitable, they would fight for it. The current arrangement of forced bundling is simply more profitable to the cable companies and that is the real reason we will never see a la carte without regulation.

Seriously, if Comcast and Time Warner stood strong, they would break the content creators in no time. They simply have no incentive to.
--
Out the 10BaseT, through the modem, down the co-ax, over the fiber, across the backhaul, past the edge router, off the network...nothing but net

reply to DataDoc

reply to tiger72
Which is precisely why this fair and rational change will only happen when the dreaded government regulators make them do it. As they should have a long time ago.

reply to fAcEtIOUs
Can you show me instances of the pols getting involved in these kind of negotiations? I'm unaware of it happening.

reply to DannyZ
Cable companies would fight the Content providers if they could. How long could a cable company do with out ESPN in a dispute with ABC/Disney? Maybe a few days to a week before Dish/Direct would see a surge in new customers. The only way it will ever be forced is via FCC order or by seeing Cable and Satellite working together in a boycott. The latter will never happen because they won't work together and the contact expirations are spread out so that the Content Providers are never negotiating at the same time. They pretty much know they can leverage an exodus of customers when they are negotiating.

reply to fAcEtIOUs
By "these kind of negotiations" I meant pols getting involved when cable companies try to force content providers to unbundle. That is what we were discussing after all.

The link you provided is apparently a situation where Comcast wanted the Nationals team to break their contract with MASN so the game could be televised on Comcast SportsNet. Not quite the same as negotiating with content providers concerning bundling channels. »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-Atlant···_lawsuit

The pols were not worried about the media companies "crucify(ing) them" in that example. I really doubt politicians fear a regional sports channel owned by the Orioles.
--
Out the 10BaseT, through the modem, down the co-ax, over the fiber, across the backhaul, past the edge router, off the network...nothing but net