Martin Pushes A La Carte (Again)Suggests it will result in more focused advertising ( old news - 10:09AM Tuesday Jan 23 2007) tags: prices · Video · fcc · business · cableIn what was a surprising turnaround at the time, the FCC, in late 2005, started supporting the idea of "a la carte" pricing of cable channels, after issuing an earlier report (pdf) funded by the cable industry that proclaimed the move would result in higher prices for consumers. As cable-rate-hike season rolls around each year, the idea gets brought up as a possible panacea, but is never implemented. The issue has been a pet project of Senator John McCain. FCC chief Kevin Martin's 180 came because he's responsive to the indecency concerns of "family values" groups who want to block individual "offensive" channels. AT&T is also on the record as wanting a la carte and also clearly has Martin's ear. Martin is pushing hard again, this time arguing that a la carte would allow for more personally tailored advertising, though his argument has a few holes. Meanwhile, the cable industry is getting increasingly annoyed by the current FCC, who they believe are focused largely on telco concerns. Of course, the cable industry, who raises cable rates every year like clockwork, will also tell you that cable prices have actually dropped. Gosh, none of this would really matter if -- say -- a TV revolution were coming where users could somehow pick from a wide variety of video content delivered outside the control of traditional carriers.... Related:- FCC Wins In Court on Cable-Franchise Rules
- First City Ready To Shut Off Analog TV
- Monday Morning Links
- Tuesday Evening Links
- Wednesday Evening Links
- Thursday Morning Links
- Thursday Evening Links
- Friday Evening Links
|
  Rob In Deo speramus Premium join:2001-08-25 Kendall, FL
·Comcast
·AT&T Southeast
| I get 99 channels... I get 99 channels right now. I watch at most 10 of those. The others are 'fillers' to keep my (rising) cost of TV service down.
I doubt, seriously, that if A La Carte was available, that my 10 channels would be any cheaper. -- YourIP.US - It's Your IP .. and more! rr.cx - Personal Site.. coming soon. | |
|  |   RockCake Premium join:2005-07-12 Woodbridge, VA | Re: I get 99 channels... Same here (and I don't think I even watch 10!) | |
|  |  RayW Premium join:2001-09-01 Layton, UT clubs:
·XMission
| said by Rob :I get 99 channels right now. I watch at most 10 of those. The others are 'fillers' to keep my (rising) cost of TV service down. I doubt, seriously, that if A La Carte was available, that my 10 channels would be any cheaper. Of course not, since the providers have to prove that Martin et al. are wrong they will raise the cost of service by some calculated amount so that every time you say you do NOT want a channel, they increase your total bill. (Seems to me the providers have basically said that is what they will do, because it costs more to tell the computer to only to send you what you want????) -- I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
|  |  |  SD6
join:2005-03-26
| Re: I get 99 channels... said by RayW :said by Rob :I get 99 channels right now. I watch at most 10 of those. The others are 'fillers' to keep my (rising) cost of TV service down. I doubt, seriously, that if A La Carte was available, that my 10 channels would be any cheaper. Of course not, since the providers have to prove that Martin et al. are wrong they will raise the cost of service by some calculated amount so that every time you say you do NOT want a channel, they increase your total bill. (Seems to me the providers have basically said that is what they will do, because it costs more to tell the computer to only to send you what you want????) They could easily provide a small number of different tiers. | |
|  |  |  |   inteller Sociopaths always win.
join:2003-12-08 Tulsa, OK | Re: I get 99 channels... yeah, but every tier would include just one channel you want, and then 20 shopping and sports channels you dont. -- "WHEN THE LAUGH TRACK STARTS THEN THE FUN STARTS!" | |
|  |  |   NPGMBR
join:2001-03-28 Arlington, VA | Something about this just doesn't make sense. U.S. Companies are always trying to squeeze an extra dollar out of their customers so you'd think they would jump all over A La Carte pricing.........Unless in fact it truly would drop prices. | |
|  |  |  |   marigolds Gainfully employed, finally Premium,MVM join:2002-05-13 Saint Louis, MO
| Re: I get 99 channels... Depends on which companies you mean. Cable companies are basically contracturally forbidden by the content providers from using a la carte. The content providers would get a smaller share of cable revenue under a la carte while a greater part of the revenue would go to system maintainence. So, the content providers would lose money, the cable companies cannot do anything, and price would not change much. -- ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com Professional Geographer Geographic Information Science researcher | |
|  |  |  |  |   NPGMBR
join:2001-03-28 Arlington, VA
·Verizon FIOS
| Re: I get 99 channels... I see problems with that model. The content providers need to Cable operators to delivery their product. You'd think the CableCos would have the upper-hand but judging from what you said, they give the content providers all the power. I would have thought that the CableCos would try to snatch that power from the content providers when they sign their next contract because they need eachother other equally. | |
|  |   John T
@verizon.net
| said by Rob :I get 99 channels right now. I watch at most 10 of those. The others are 'fillers' to keep my (rising) cost of TV service down. I doubt, seriously, that if A La Carte was available, that my 10 channels would be any cheaper. Everyone watches 10-15 channels. However, those 10 channels are different from person to person; for example, my mother watches the Soap Opera Network, which of course I never watch. Lifetime is always one of the top 2 or 3 rated cable networks, and I never watch that either. The "cost per channel" idea pushed by the cable networks has a lots of flaws, since with the more channels the time spent watching each channel declines. That said, I usually appreciate getting an additional 10 channels even if I only watch 1 of them, since we all don't like the same 10-15 channels.
A decent number of channels are offered to the cable provider entirely free. Certainly a few channels are priced incredibly high, particularly ESPN, ESPNHD, NFL Network, and some others. The cable providers are not entirely at fault; the content providers have their own sort of monopoly over certain content, particularly exclusive sports content. A la carte would probably not reduce the costs; it would certainly reduce the chance of stumbling upon a show or network that you like (particularly if you have TiVO.)
What a confused post by me. The short form is that none of the players are really being honest or straightforward, but it still seems to me that none of the proposed solutions would actually help things, and might make it worse. | |
|  |  BF69
join:2004-07-28 Camden, TN
| Sure it would be.
For example in my area you can get basic cable from Charter for $50 amonth. You get 75 channels. That's 67¢ a channel. Now say I only watch 10 of them. Under ala carte I could just get those 10. I seriously doubt that Charter would or should charge $5 per channel. Seeing as how they only pay ESPN $3 and they are the highest cost, no way cable companies should be allowed to charge $5 a channel. Say it's capped at $2 a channel which is more than enough profit margin for cable companies on most channles. So 10 channels is $20. That's much cheaper than the way it is today. | |
|  |  |   Rob In Deo speramus Premium join:2001-08-25 Kendall, FL
·Comcast
·AT&T Southeast
| Re: I get 99 channels... said by BF69 : no way cable companies should be allowed to charge... Well that's the problem we've been facing with cable cos. Comcast just raised the rates on their cable service while posting profit earning quarters. -- YourIP.US - It's Your IP .. and more! rr.cx - Personal Site.. coming soon. | |
|  |  |   marigolds Gainfully employed, finally Premium,MVM join:2002-05-13 Saint Louis, MO
| said by BF69 :Seeing as how they only pay ESPN $3 and they are the highest cost, no way cable companies should be allowed to charge $5 a channel. Except that ESPN would jump to an HBO pricing model of multiplexing for $15/subscriber (or $8-$12 per individual ESPN channel), because ESPN would lose millions of non-sports watching subscribers who would no longer watch figure skating, WSM, or extreme sports once a month while otherwise watching other expanded basic channels. More specialized channels like Sci-Fi and HGTV would have to jump significantly just to stay in business. -- ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com Professional Geographer Geographic Information Science researcher | |
|  |  |  |  Sex Dwarf
join:2007-01-11 Saint Joseph, MI | Re: I get 99 channels... Sounds good to me. Let 'em jump. | |
|  |  |   John T
@verizon.net
| said by BF69 :I seriously doubt that Charter would or should charge $5 per channel. Seeing as how they only pay ESPN $3 and they are the highest cost, no way cable companies should be allowed to charge $5 a channel. Say it's capped at $2 a channel which is more than enough profit margin for cable companies on most channels. Nope, wouldn't work that way. ESPN is $3 a person when everyone gets ESPN. People love their ten channels, and don't care about the others. If you have a la carte, then a bunch of people who don't care about sports drop ESPN. But the people who remain are more likely to be fanatical sports fans, so Disney/ABC raises the price for ESPN for all the cable providers.
Sure, some channels might still be close to free. But the channels loved by the most people will be more expensive than they are now. Probably, on net, it would be better for people with unusual tastes and worse for people with normal tastes to have a la carte. | |
|  |  cpumodem Premium join:2003-09-28 Spokane, WA
| Don't forget the cost to the cable companies on the re-transmission agreements for local channels. The one's that the broadcasters claim is free over the air TV. I'm sure there is some sort of monetary contribution the cable companies pay to the local broadcasters to transmitt these channels.
| |
|  |  |  Sex Dwarf
join:2007-01-11 Saint Joseph, MI | Re: I get 99 channels... OTA signals under "must carry" are not charged to the cableco. In fact some pay the cable system for specific channel placement. | |
|  |   Phattieg
join:2001-04-29 Jacksonville, FL | HAHAAHAAHAA, good luck Mr. Martin. | |
|  |  GhostDoggy
join:2005-05-11 Duluth, GA
| I watch HDnet via DirecTV's HDlite delivery. So, if I were to say I watch that one channel I'd have to forward I am forced to bundle a butt-load more.
Cable isn't the only forced-bundling agent around, and they all should be lined up and shot.  | |
|  SD6
join:2005-03-26
| Say Yes to a la Carte (in some form) It's been mentioned in the FIOS TV forum several times that the minimum cost for FIOS TV service to a typical house with multiple TV's starts at about $60. There is still value at that price with 200 channels, but what if you want to watch just a few common CATV channels? You still have to pay $60.
Why? Lack of competition. They charge that much because they can. IPTV is a long way coming and will still not be acceptable alternative to those boob tube viewers out there.
I don't care if it's done on the national level as McCain proposes or on a local level through revision of FCC rules on franchising. But there should be a way to do it. | |
|  |  nasadude
join:2001-10-05 Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| Re: Say Yes to a la Carte (in some form) it's not just the telco or cableco, however, it's also the companies that provide the content.
FIOS wants Disney channel? they also have to carry 3 or 4 other channels (like an HGTV or something else that a lot of people don't watch).
I think there are currently one or two cablecos and DISH fighting with content providers about the cost of carrying a particular channel. | |
|  |  |   Jim Gurd Premium join:2000-07-08 Plymouth, MI
·Comcast
| Re: Say Yes to a la Carte (in some form) said by nasadude :FIOS wants Disney channel? they also have to carry 3 or 4 other channels (like an HGTV or something else that a lot of people don't watch). I don't know how they get away with doing that. It seems like that would be illegal product tying to me. -- We don't care. We don't have to. We're the phone company.
-- Ernestine | |
|   M A R K St. Ides Heaven Premium join:2001-06-15 Long Island clubs: | Kids, TV and CRAP This might work out good if you don't want some things in your home at all. MTV, BET, and any other channel with sluts grinding to rap music. -- Zionism is a hate crime | |
|   aaron8301 I can't get myself to go away.
join:2005-01-03 Clarkston, WA
·CableOne
| What it currently costs I currently get about 180 channels for $50/mo. That's $0.28 per channel. I highly doubt any TV provider that offers a la carte will offer it anywhere near that cheap. I am thinking anywhere from $1 to $2 per channel. For that price, you might as well pay the $50 to get them all. -- "I invented it, Bill made it famous." --David Bradley, the inventor of Ctrl+Alt+Del. | |
|  |  nasadude
join:2001-10-05 Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| Re: What it currently costs said by aaron8301 :I currently get about 180 channels for $50/mo. That's $0.28 per channel. I highly doubt any TV provider that offers a la carte will offer it anywhere near that cheap. I am thinking anywhere from $1 to $2 per channel. For that price, you might as well pay the $50 to get them all. I think we would be lucky if channels are only $1 or $2 per; I wouldn't be surprised if it's more like $4 or $5 per.
Hell, at $2/channel you could get 15 channels for $30 - I don't even know if I could find 15 I like. At $5 though, you're right back at that $50 price point for only 10 channels.
Unless there is real competition or the government mandates prices, the cablecos will price the per channel cost to get them the same amount of revenue they were making before.
It's going to be like AT&T and DSL with no phone service: before they agreed to a price as a condition for the merger they were charging more for DSL w/out phone than with phone. | |
|  |  |  bhorow
join:2004-05-17 Forest Hills, NY
| I say this every year. AL La Carte is the worst idea ever. I wish people stop blaming the cable companies, when its programming costs that drive the increases in cable t.v. Cable companies also have to pay their workers; Cable is the only industry that people think that they should pay nothing for. You don't go into a food store and say hey why is my Frosted Flakes so darn expensive , lets get the government to regulate how much you pay for frosted flakes.
In fact the price for standard service has gone down, and the price for digital service went up. $1.00. | |
|  |   Rob In Deo speramus Premium join:2001-08-25 Kendall, FL
·Comcast
·AT&T Southeast
| Re: I say this every year. said by bhorow :In fact the price for standard service has gone down, and the price for digital service went up. $1.00. I see your fact and raise you a b.s. My 'standard service' has gone up. -- YourIP.US - It's Your IP .. and more! rr.cx - Personal Site.. coming soon. | |
|  |  nasadude
join:2001-10-05 Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| there is some blame with the content providers, but the cablecos are making a killing too.
In the DC area, comcast finally agreed to carry the Nationals baseball games but indicated they were going to increase price by over $2 just for this one channel, but only had to pay MASN a little over a $1. 100% markup is pretty good - for comcast.
Bottom line: the whole system is stacked against the consumers; unless everything is fixed, it ain't gonna get any cheaper for us no matter what happens. | |
|  |  |  moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21 Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: I say this every year. said by nasadude :In the DC area, comcast finally agreed to carry the Nationals baseball games but indicated they were going to increase price by over $2 just for this one channel, but only had to pay MASN a little over a $1. 100% markup is pretty good - for comcast. Blame Peter Angelos and Maryland Sports Network. He owns the Baltimore Orioles and has been crying ever since Washington got the Nationals. | |
|  |  bbenso1
join:2004-11-28 Baltimore, MD
| said by bhorow : You don't go into a food store and say hey why is my Frosted Flakes so darn expensive , lets get the government to regulate how much you pay for frosted flakes. Right. That's because what you do is walk across the street/down the road to the next grocery store and buy your frosted flakes there for a lower price. It's called competition and it does wonders for prices.
Where I live, if I don't like the prices that comcast charges I have two choices: pay them anyway, or don't get service. Fios TV is not yet available in my area and the exposure I need to get satellite TV is blocked by trees that don't belong to me. There is no provider except Comcast that can give me TV service. Hence, they can charge whatever they want and I have to pay it or get no service at all. And yes, no TV service would be an option for me, but it's apparently not an option for my fiancee which makes it not an option for me. | |
|  |  RayW Premium join:2001-09-01 Layton, UT clubs:
·XMission
| said by bhorow :AL La Carte is the worst idea ever. I wish people stop blaming the cable companies, when its programming costs that drive the increases in cable t.v. Cable companies also have to pay their workers; Cable is the only industry that people think that they should pay nothing for. You don't go into a food store and say hey why is my Frosted Flakes so darn expensive , lets get the government to regulate how much you pay for frosted flakes. I do, and then I change to another cereal of the many they offer and tell Tony The Tiger to get lost, I am not paying for you anymore. And if I do not like the store's selection, I go to a store that offers what I want. Oh, and if enough people tell the store the price is too high for Tony The Tiger and stop buying it, that gets back to corporate and they either lower the prices or the store stops ordering that product as much, and there is less shelf space and sales for that product.
Try that with cable. You can not, it is an all or nothing situation there. You want the History channel, you have to pay for sports and junk channels too. -- I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
|  |  moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21 Glen Burnie, MD | Why not let the market decide which channels stay and which channels are dropped? | |
|  |  |  RayW Premium join:2001-09-01 Layton, UT clubs:
·XMission
edit: January 23rd, @01:54PM
| Re: I say this every year. said by moonpuppy :Why not let the market decide which channels stay and which channels are dropped? That was brought up several months ago, and some people brought up the minority channels that few people watch and how sad if they could not watch their niche channels because profits from the big sellers like the sports supported them (conveniently forgetting that the cable company blames the high cost of service on having to pay the sports channels large sums of money).
Edit: spell check boo-boo -- I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
|  |  |  |  moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21 Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: I say this every year. But the problem is that many people have made it known they don't want to pay for ESPN and other sports channels because of their high cost. Who is to say ESPN doesn't go down the drain because it is not bundled with everyone else. Maybe they would have to stop showing games because they cost too much to broadcast.
People complain about 500 channels and nothing on. Well, ala carte would force companies to put on good programming or go out of business. | |
|  |  |  |  |  RayW Premium join:2001-09-01 Layton, UT clubs:
·XMission
| Re: I say this every year. said by moonpuppy :But the problem is that many people have made it known they don't want to pay for ESPN and other sports channels because of their high cost. Who is to say ESPN doesn't go down the drain because it is not bundled with everyone else. Maybe they would have to stop showing games because they cost too much to broadcast. People complain about 500 channels and nothing on. Well, ala carte would force companies to put on good programming or go out of business. I think you said what I said. If ESPN goes down the tubes because it is not bundled, then that proves the point that most people do not want it, and it is nothing but an expensive welfare case that someone is sticking the subscriber with just to pad their own pocket. -- I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
|  lew_jean
join:2005-05-13 Marietta, GA
·AT&T U-Verse
| A Better Idea I have over 100 channels and don't watch a 1/3 of them. A better idea would be to offer a Sport channel package, Home Shopping Package, Music package ect. this way you can select the packages you want we do not watch the sports or home shopping channels, and can not remember the last time we listen to any of the music Comcast offers | |
|  |   inteller Sociopaths always win.
join:2003-12-08 Tulsa, OK
·Cingular Wireless
| Re: A Better Idea if they did that all the home shopping networks would die (that would be a good thing) the sports network packages would be too expensive (good or bad depending on how you look at it)
Right now, I would like to subscribe to a HD only tier. I'd pay the same amount right now to get ONLY HD channels, including all the HBO HDs that I dont currently get. They can swap out ALL of my 'digital' and analog channels for just HD. -- "WHEN THE LAUGH TRACK STARTS THEN THE FUN STARTS!" | |
|  XknightHawkX
join:2003-02-13 Morton, IL clubs:
| Cable rate hikes? We don't need some of these channels that come in basic packages. The channels raise their price so cable raises theirs to cover it. Now the problem is that sport and music channels keep raising their rates. Take ESPN off the basic packages and take the stupid MTV off the packages (what does mtv stand for now?). I don't watch sports, I am not into sports, I don't need my bill to go up cause the sports networks have to pay more to the franchises. Music channels like MTV aren't music anymore. The last time I seen MTV it was a bunch of stupid shows. I don't remember seeing any music videos. Too many useless channels getting added to the basic package. Do we really need a food network,a golf network,a home shopping network? Stop raising our bills and stop giving us useless crap channels. | |
|  |   John T
@verizon.net
| Re: Cable rate hikes? said by XknightHawkX :We don't need some of these channels that come in basic packages. The channels raise their price so cable raises theirs to cover it. Now the problem is that sport and music channels keep raising their rates. Take ESPN off the basic packages and take the stupid MTV off the packages (what does mtv stand for now?). I don't watch sports, I am not into sports, I don't need my bill to go up cause the sports networks have to pay more to the franchises. Music channels like MTV aren't music anymore. The last time I seen MTV it was a bunch of stupid shows. I don't remember seeing any music videos. Too many useless channels getting added to the basic package. Do we really need a food network,a golf network,a home shopping network? Stop raising our bills and stop giving us useless crap channels. Heh. Tons of people like Food Network and sports channels. I know people who would absolutely revolt if ESPN or Food Network were taken off of basic. The channels few people like are generally offered to the cable provider for free or thrown in with other channels, making money off of ads alone.
A la carte would probably reduce bills for people with particularly unusual tastes, and raise it for people with relatively normal tastes. As someone who doesn't watch sports, you count as "unusual tastes," and have correctly reasoned that a la carte would probably save you money.
On net, the tying probably saves consumers money, but there are definitely winners and losers among the consumers out there. It's not all consumers vs. the cable companies vs. content providers. The majority who love sports also get those who don't to subsidize it, and so on. | |
|  |  |   tripmeister
@rr.com | Re: FCC changes name to AT&T They need to step up and write the big checks for those vacations, corporate jet trips, and employment opportunities after the Gov job is over, like the Telcos do.
What trips are you speaking of? | |
|  |  |  rid0617
join:2003-07-20 Greer, SC
·AT&T Southeast
·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: FCC changes name to AT&T When directv announced their price hike my existing package was going up $5. But they decided to eliminate some channels from that package I do watch and require me to purchase a higher package that will be an additional $5. So, $10 a month increase to watch the same commercial filled garbage I'm watching now.
So, I did my own ala cart. Told them I wanted nothing, disconnect it, I don't watch the stupid thing enough to justify these kinds of rates. They lost a customer who has been with them since 1997. Rabbit ears and DVDs will suit me just fine. | |
|  Fisamo Premium join:2004-02-20 Apex, NC
·AT&T CallVantage
| An expected a la carte pricing model Don't be surprised if the a la carte pricing model looks something like this (if it ever comes to pass):
•$15/mo - Basic service (local channels--must subscribe to basic before choosing other channels, does not include HD) •+ $5/mo - HD package for local network channels (will be rolled into new basic service charge of $20/mo once analog channels go dark) •+ $10/mo - a la carte access fee (like telco FCC line access charge) •+ $5/mo - set top box OR cable card (each) •+ $2.50/mo - remote (each, as needed) •+ a la Carte packages:
•+ $2/mo - any single channel of your choice •+ $5/mo - 5 channels of your choice •+ $10/mo - 10 channels of your choice •+ $15/mo - 25 channels of your choice •+ $30/mo - 100 channels of your choice •+ $50/mo - 200 channels of your choice •+ $??? for PPV, sports packages, premium channels, etc.--those prices/services would remain unaffected. •Any changes to channel line-up would incur a $10 one-time re-programming charge if made over the phone (agent must key in order). •An online account management portal could be provided to allow customers to make changes 'on the fly'--either internet-based or through the remote/set top box/cablecard at no charge. Changes made 'online' become effective immediately for increases in service and at the beginning of the next billing cycle for downgrades. •In terms of mid-month service changes, increases in service will be pro-rated for the remainder of the month, and decreases in service will not be pro-rated, because they won't take effect until the new billing cycle. The only possible exception would be a complete cancellation of the account--since service is billed in advance, the balance for unused time should be refunded to the customer.
I'll be the first to admit that I pulled those numbers out of almost thin air ($50/mo for 200 channels is a little cheaper than Dish network's $50/mo for 180 channels, but Dish doesn't have the facilities charges in my model), but the pricing model is pretty straightforward and, IMO, to be expected. There will be a high recurring cost to get service to begin with that will guarantee the cableco makes their money, and then the extra content will cost less per channel as you increase you subscription.
For example, a customer choosing the 25 channel option (with local HD programming) would pay $50/mo for service on one television: $15 local + $5 HD local + $10 a la carte fee + $5 one cablecard/set top box + $15 for 25 channel package.
Customers would be able to mix-and-match, so 8 a la carte channels would cost $11/mo (might as well get 10 channels for $10, but you'll have the option to over-spend); 50 channels would cost the same as 100 channels ($30/mo). Before anyone cries foul over this kind of pricing model, keep in mind that you can walk into a Dunkin Donuts (regional prices vary, but at least around here, it's accurate) and buy 10 donuts at $0.85/donut for $8.50 or get a full dozen for $6.50. I don't see why cablecos shouldn't be allowed to do the same thing.
Honestly, I see this kind of pricing model as a 'win' for cablecos. Although it would definitely create potential billing and programming headaches up front during implementation, in the long term, it would be a good investment. I do think customers would prefer the control that's implicit in the a la carte options, even if it doesn't really save them much money once they subscribe to the channels they watch. I further see no reason the cablecos couldn't continue to offer some of their Tier packages, provided it were still profitable to them with the a la carte options available. (The tier options would probably be available for as long as cable provides any analog signals.)
It will be interesting to see what plays out. I do think the prices mentioned above of $4-5/channel are excessive, especially if 'facilities' type charges are imposed as in my model. Prices will also obviously be dependent on what cablecos will have to pay content providers. Time will tell, of course... | |
|  |  bitdave
join:2006-07-01 | Re: An expected a la carte pricing model check out the a la carte pricing for 4DTV (too bad there arent more channels) »www.bigdish.com/satala.htm | |
|  |  Sex Dwarf
join:2007-01-11 Saint Joseph, MI
| I've got a much more simple and effective plan:
•$0/mo - Cut the cable and find a life. TV is not worth $100 a month.
Seriously. A la carte is just putting lipstick on the cable pig. Comcast just announced record profits. There is no way they're giving any of it back now, since they've managed to convince the majority of their customers to just bend over and take it. Hell, some are even defending them.
There is life without television. | |
|  |  |   jslik That just happened Premium join:2006-03-17 clubs:
| How about.. If the FCC was truly serious about "a la carte", they'd drop the 'must carry' rules. That would clear up a least 5 channels in my area right now in the 'limited basic' (ch. 2-29) tier, which could be used for ESPN, CNN, etc. It could lower monthly bills for a lot of folks who feel forced to get the 'basic' tier (2-99).
Problem is, it would require the FCC and the service providers think of the consumer first. | |
|  eco Premium join:2001-11-28 Wilmington, DE
| Only the big ones They should offer really expensive channels as a la carte if they do any type of a la carte. It's the huge channels like ESPN and it's sisters that are causing the rates to jump so much. It would just be a shame to offer every single channel a la carte because there are so many little channels offering unique content that would go under without the revenue they get from cable/satellite fees.
By making channels like ESPN a la carte you'd be more likely to keep the fees for those channels in line because people would be able to see exactly how much they're paying for it. HBO is a good example of this: how many times has HBO raised their price in the last 20 years or so? A few if any. When my parents started getting it in 1997 it was $14.95 a month. It's still that same price today. | |
|  |   TV30
@alltel.net
| Re: Only the big ones Oh, so the small ones would go under... That's called competition. If they can't compete, why should they be carried on the shoulders of channels that can. But, I digress. I just want to pick out a particular channel without being bound to buy into 60 channels that I don't want. Folks are right though, It's the providers not cable companies that are forcing these arbitrary packages of channels. I probably have it pretty good though as I have a great big ugly 10 ft dish. Even when they offer some a la carte channels and I save a few bucks, they still put that one channel I want well out of reach inside a package that I refuse to buy. Oh, and buy the way I pay about 18 US for pretty much everything I want and could probably get away with 12 US per month by giving up some of the channels I hardly ever watch. I get these channels A LA CARTE. It's just limited in it's offerings as some channels only allow certain bundling options. Whatever, it's just Television. | |
|  | |  |
|
|