In Which Some Bloggers Realize the TV Industry is Imploding → make sports it's own pack

so the people who don't like sports channels don't have to take them and so people who just want the sports channels don't have to pay for all the other channels.

What about going al la carte for every channel? I know this site has many threads about that in the past. However, I feel that would be the answer. Person X likes just sports? Fine..have them buy the sports channels they like. If you don't like any sports, but want Discovery, Disney, and say MTV, then buy just those 3 channels.

Give the people the choice to only pay for the channels they want, and its a win-win.

--Brian

Perhaps not. The cost of a channel offered on an a la carte basis may not be as cheap as what you are thinking it would be. For instance, some TV providers offer Fox Soccer Plus a la carte for $15/month. You wouldn't be able to afford many channels a la carte. There was a discussion about this in the article below:

»www.multichannel.com/art ··· arte.php

what about theme packs not full la carte?

And those channels that are over priced (as the soccer channel is) will either lower their price or die off. Natural Selection as it should be.

Pure a la carte with bundle options is the way to go.

That is what I'm talking about.

And, as far as cost goes, look at it this way.

Say you are spending $250 a month on Cable TV. I don't have specific links, but I have seen posts on this board that indicate people pay that (and probably more).

Now, you said that the cost would be very high for certain channels. Even if ESPN is $50 a month, and Fox Sports is $50 a month, that is $100.

Now, add some other "basic" channels...like CBS for local programming / news. That is not like a sports channel, so we'll put the cost at $25 a month.

If that is all the person watches, their total is $50 + $50 + $25, or $125 a month. That is LESS then the $250 they were paying by $125.

If all I watched was ESPN, Fox Sports, and CBS, I would actually be saving money (if my prices were valid).

Is $50 a month for ESPN to much? Not sure. I know people say that doing it this way would cause the sports channels to be expensive. But, how expensive are we talking? $75 a month? $100 a month? $50 for one channel does seem high, but probably not that far off what it would cost.

--Brian

Who pays $250/month just for a pay TV service? I'm not referring to a bundle of TV, internet and phone, but just for TV.

Also, you would be OK paying $125/month just for 3 channels?

I think his #'s are off.

I personally pay around $110.79 for uverse 200 with all their silly add on fees ($72 for U200, $10HD extortion Fee, $21 in receiver extortion fees (7 each), taxes and then the made up below the line because we can fees).

It has been said here a few times that ESPN is around $5.50 per subscriber and is the single most expensive of all channels. I can't confirm nor deny either, but it sounds about right.

Assuming they charge like $10 TV fee (which is reasonable) and then maybe $10 for ESPN and $1-2 for pretty much all other channels (which is reasonable) I would greatly save over the $100+ I pay now. Hell, even if I paid $90 for just the channels I want and to get to them the way I want I would be perfectly happy.

I think some of your cost assumptions are too low. For example, ESPN is one of those channels that essentially everyone gets yet it is estimated that only about 25% of those who receive ESPN watch it. Thus, if ESPN was only available a la cart, only 1/4 of the customers who currently receive it would subscribe. In order for ESPN to maintain it's current level of programming it would need to maintain it's current level of revenue. So ESPN would have to charge the TV providers 4 times the current carriage fee which would be $22/month per subscriber ($5.50 x 4). All of those fees would go to ESPN so you would have to add on top of that revenue for the TV provider so you might have to double the cost. Thus, the cost for ESPN as an a la cart channel might be closer to $45/month.

I never said my numbers were correct. They were all guesses.

And, if I had a tv package that was over $250 a month, and I only watched the 3 channels I listed, and I could get them for 1/2 the price, I would jump on it.

However, I will say that it was just an example. Personally, I hate watching sports on TV (never really get into them at all in person either). I really only watch 3 to 4 channels anyway. If the price was right, and it would drop my bill from the current $166 a month down to like $25 or $30, I would switch in a heartbeat. Why pay for channels I don't care about, or even watch. Let those that watch them pay for them.

--Brian

If you only watch 3 or 4 channels, you should not have any paid TV service.