Poll: How long do you think it will take till Cable offers Ala Cart channels like Canada does? :)

It's going to take a Revolution (which I think isn't far off). I rebelled six years ago this past January, and now watch most my programming via DVD. The Media Industry (Especially Pay-TV) can't continue the way they have, they're already in a death spiral. One cannot continue to raise prices while lower the quality of what they produce (In the case of Pay-TV it's "Reality" Shows and Rampant Advertising) without paying the consequences. I've seen countless businesses (some of which were once household names) go under because they did the same thing, and their customers either got their product from another source or substituted it with something differant. A House divided against itself CANNOT STAND.

I don't think it will happen at all, at least not with the current kind of setup we have now. Something like it might happen if we start seeing more things appw/websites like HBO GO, Hulu, etc but instead you can subscribe directly to each channel online. But as far as getting TV over satellite or cable I don't see it happening, and from the last I read I'm not sure I would want it to. Last I heard it was not working out very well in Canada and most people were actually seeing their cable bills get higher if they wanted to keep all the channels they watched without the others.

What would you expect them to do, just give up and shut down?

Think about this, if channel A has 30 million subscibers and they get $1 a month from each subscriber that means they make $30 million dollars a month. They use that number to budget for their shows, hardware costs, transmission fees, etc. Now all the sudden they have to offer that channel ala cart and they are only getting 10 million subscribers. They then have to make the decision to either raise their cost to $3/month per subscriber, or cancel shows, lay people off, etc. None of which is preferred, but the most likely is they are going to try to just raise their subscription cost to $3/month to try to make up the difference. Then more people stop getting the channel because they think it costs too much, so the channel has to charge even more, or start cutting costs.

Sure some channels will probably be able to get away with it somewhat. But many others will most likely be driven to either cut costs so much that they are a shell of their former selves, or they shut down completely.

Even ESPN, will probably end up having to make severe cuts. Get rid of ESPn classic altogether (one of my guesses), cut way back on their online programming, maybe shut down other channels, etc. Because I don't think even ESPN could get away with suddenly charging $20-30 a month like they would most likely have to if they went ala-cart.

That's exactly what I'd expect *any* business to do that sells a product for which there is insufficient demand. Why should I have to pay *anything* toward ESPN when I never watch sports? That would like me asking you to kick in a dollar or three for the "pinball channel", or the "paintball channel", or ...

I see the whole Media Industry collapsing like a House of Cards in the not-so-distant future. for the last 15 years not only have prices done nothing but climb, but the quality of what you pay for has done nothing but head south due to rampant advertising, the proliferation of "unscripted" programming and so-called "niche" channels abandoning their original formats among other things. I've seen legions of businesses, some of which used to be household names go down this very path and they no longer exist! People see they are no longer getting the same value for what they pay for, and they either:

A. Seek that product from another source. (I did this six years ago)

B. Substitute that product with something else.

Remember, a House divided against itself cannot stand!

No chance. And whether a few of us agree or not, that is what the average American wants. Just look at the thread here, started a couple years ago, about 'I don't have cable'. We tried to have a discussion for people tired of paying cable companies for almost nothing, and it was taken over by others that claim we have to have cable and we're morons for dropping it. People don't care, why should the companies which are feeding them?

Hopefully NEVER! The whole idea of a la carte makes me want to vomit! It’s a purely idiotic idea. If you want real a la carte, why not break it down by individual shows, not by channels. Because if someone is going to be a crybaby whining about how they pay for MTV or ESPN and never watch it, I’ll take it to the next level and cry about how why I shouldn’t be ‘forced’ to buy a whole channel of DIY Network, when all I watch is Man Caves.

Let’s see how great a la carte is. I watch upwards of 60 shows on a regular basis. That doesn’t include live sports or news. Using the iTunes pricing of $3 per episode and $3.50 per episode for shows on the premiums.
I watch 19 shows between Fox and CBS. Typically network shows are 23 episodes per season. 19 shows * 23 episodes * $2.99/episode= over $1300 a year. Premium cable series are typically 10 episodes per season. I watch 15 shows between HBO, Showtime, Cinemax and Starz. 15 shows * 10 episodes * $3.49/episode that’s another $520 a year. That leaves about 25 shows on regular cable network. 25 shows * 13 episodes * $2.99/episode that’s $970.

$2800 a year for a la carte TV. I pay $3,000 a year for cable and that includes 50MB broadband, digital phone, two whole house DVRs and just about every channel. I probably tune into 100 channels a month. And that $2800/year does not include any live NFL, NHL, MLB, NASCAR, NLL, NCAA Football or UFC action

 

If pay-TV wasn't subsidizing the majority of their expense your actual cost would be multiple times more expensive. And if anyone thinks pay-TV providers are making a killing... their other services are much more profitable.

Edited by Charles R - 2/19/13 at 7:57pm

Seconded.

I agree with everything JH20001 had to say. Very well said. I cut the cord in Nov. 2008 because of every reason he talked about.
Edited by Jedi Master - 2/19/13 at 10:05pm

I am glad that someone else besides me has this opinion. I fear that a la carte programming will make television too expensive for almost anybody. It only looks good on the surface.

Don't know why you keep complaining about all the Filipino basic cable channels since I do not know if even one exists. For Spanish, I know there is Galavision. Any other ones are likely OTA or from big media companies. Big media companies demand a lesser price hike for its popular channels if the providers include one of their less popular channels in a particular tier. So many times, you are not specifically paying for a specific channel. Most channels are owned by some big media company. Anyway sometimes the lesser independent channels don't even ask for money. And I am fairly certain that pay tv providers get a portion of the sales on items sold on shopping channels.

Some nice revisionist history going on there - it was more like 'man this is great I don't have to pay for TV because it's all trash anyway, and those people are suckers for paying'.

That's why it blew up in the first place, not because the people paying told the people that weren't that they were morons. Pretty much the exact opposite of what you claim.

This. Take a look at how many channels Sinclair owns, CBS owns, Scripps owns, etc. We're not even talking about the bigger guys like Disney or Discovery. Ala-cart channels will never happen at a reasonable price, if it ever happens at all. HBO has said many times it will not shift away from cable and make itself available via streaming or other stand-alone methods. I highly doubt any of the other big guys would either.

And Slowbiscuit is right. We have been called 'sheeple' for paying for cable. But I did not spend big money on my HT to watch shows like Gunsmoke, Adam-12 and Andy Griffith in SD, which is mostly what OTA is and what's been touted as a great alternative. It's not.

I have a Roku and only use it for Netflix. Crackle, well I've seen many of the movies they offer on there and don't really care to see them. I only watch three shows on the big four, most everything else I watch is cable. If you don't like paying for it, then don't. For me it's worthwhile to have.

Wow, that's a lot of TV.

If we assume the network shows are about split 50/50 as half-hour or hour long, and same with the cable shows, and assume all the premium shows are hour long, you're looking at about 328+244+150 = 722 hours of television per year. That's about 2 hours a day, every day, 365 days a year, or a solid 30 days straight of watching television. Not including any movies or sports. If you're paying $3000 a year for cable, you are definitely getting your money's worth.

Me? I don't watch NEARLY that much television, so I would also be getting my money's worth by not paying a cable company to dictate to me what I can and cannot watch.

As I stated in the Cord Cutter's thread, I would be willing to pay ESPN $15-$20/mo for unrestricted access to their content and programming. Ala carte. But I just need their live games and such; I don't particularly care to watch ESPN Classic with baseball games from 30 years ago or other such nonsense.

That's where I'm at. Right now, I watch more shows on cable than on OTA channels.

The channel that gets the most attention from me right now is AMC. The problem is, they only get about 3 million people for each show at the high end. That's not enough viewers to support the shows they make. Everyone who has AMC on their system pays $.50 or what ever a month to support my ability to watch those shows. On the other side of the coin, I pay for ESPN, MTV, E!, TruTV, GSN and a whole lot of other channels that I don't watch, but that's the price I pay for getting the support for shows on FX, TNT, USA, BBCA and AMC that I do watch. I also like being able to watch classic movies on channels like HDNet Movies and Turner Classic Movies.

Would I like to not have to pay for ESPN? Sure, but who's really going to get bumped in an Ala Carte world? ESPN has far more viewers on average than several of the channels I do watch. I'm also certain they could find some way to get their revenue in other ways. My fear is people simply won't care enough about a show like Southland or The Americans to actually actively pay for the true cost of it.

Sure, it's easy to say "let them die" when it comes to some of the junk channels out there we all love to hate, but those junk channels are the very ones that will likely survive while those creating content that rivals what is going out OTA will resort to the same cheap knock-off crap and re-runs of broadcast content in order to make money. We're already seeing it with Networks like Bravo where the only remaining show of any quality is Inside the Actors Studio - and even that has become more of a publicity venue for people who have active projects.

We're seeing this everywhere, not just with TV: people want professionally produced content, but they don't want to pay for it. That's why games have shifted toward $2 apps that consist of "Cut the Rope" and hidden picture adventures. We don't want to pay the cost of developing the next Syphon Filter or Assassins Creed or whatever fully immersive storyline games might come down the pike. We're happy watching cats fall into fish tanks on YouTube when we can't find copyrighted stuff before the takedown notice occurs. We happy playing Farmville and Temple Run instead of the next FPS game. We also all somehow think that the entire movie industry can survive on $8 a month Netflix subscriptions. The music industry might be able to run on I-Tunes purchases, but it sure won't run on Pandora listeners.

I don't want to see the day where I don't have the option to watch professionally produced content. Indy stuff is a nice companion, but sometimes I want something more.

I fear we're moving to a future where the cheapest thing is the only option - then the high prices will start all over once all the other choices go away and the cloud has the means to give or take away at any moment.
Edited by NetworkTV - 2/21/13 at 8:59am

TV doesn't work that way.

I can say I watch at least 20 shows - throughout the year. That's maybe 8 shows in the fall, another 8 in the Spring and about 4 in the the summer on cable. That really quates to just over an hour a night if I divide it up over a week, though most of the shows I watch are on Sundays, Wednesdays or Thursdays with one or two more on other days. That's not a lot of TV a night.
You might pay that much for ESPN, but few others will.

I mean, just for ESPN content and nothing else? What about anything else you watch? By the time you add in maybe 3 other shows on three other channels, you're potentially talking over $30 a month. That's getting up toward basic package territory where you'd get ESPN, ESPN2 (along with the streaming) and at least a dozen other name brand channels, like TNT or FX.

I just think people severely underestimate just how much they might miss and how much they'll pay to simply want to turn on the TV and have the stuff be there.

Uh, yeah. I was talking raw numbers. Of course I know that the shows he watches comes in spurts and sputters. The core fact remains the same: If he is watching 60 shows in a calendar year, you are watching over 700 HOURS OF TELEVISION. 700 hours = 2 hours a day, every day; or 30 solid days a year. That's 14 hours a week. That's 60 hours a month. I don't care how he splits them up, that is a ton of TV consumed, and as I mentioned that is before movies and sports are even part of the equation.


Right, but as I mentioned, I've already cut the cord. I'm already missing out on all those channels because I'm not paying for them. I would ONLY be interested in paying for ESPN. I don't care about TNT or FX.

Sure, If I wanted ESPN, ESPN2, TNT, FX, Comedy Central, and whatever other channels come on basic cable these days, then yes. I would pay for basic cable. But I don't; I just want ESPN, so I don't pay for those other channels either.

And as I mentioned in the other thread, there is simply ZERO basic cable package that I can obtain that provides me ESPN or any other network in high definition for less than $80. That is my price floor. I can't get lower than $80 for HD. I'll stick with my free OTA antenna.

I'll agree that his numbers are high. Most of us simply don't watch anywhere close to that.

Granted, studies have shown people watch TV an average of 6 hours a day, but I don't think most people watch that manyshows.

What I mean is, what we would pay to watch on an individual basis is far different that what is simply on when the TV is on when we're home. In other words, what do we watch when we sit down and don't really do anything else but watch. Having the TV on while cooking dinner is far different than sitting and watching TV while doing nothing more than potentially puttering about on the internet.
Right, but that's only you.

There is almost no one else that would pay as high as $20 a month just to access ESPN content - even if it was full access.

What matters is what the majority would do, and you're not it. You won't ever get what you're asking for.

On the other hand, most people might be happy with smaller packages that include tighter groupings of channels for less money. Others might want a "pick 'X' number of channels for 'X' price" model, assuming the price was still less than the full banquet.

I think the latter is about is close as we may ever get, but I think most will find the fees associated with such a system will make a package seem like more of a bargain. I guarantee the cable companies will add on fees like a "choice access fee" or a "custom content delivery fee" and insist you have to have a box you pay $10 or $15 a month for. You'll also probably have to pick a minimum number of channels.

So where will those fees go? Likely exactly where they go now. I'd be willing to bet the content companies will only allow their channels to be broken up if they still get paid for those customers they currently do now. The system will merely give the appearance of not paying for channels you don't watch. Plus, you'll likely be paying something like $2.50 for Bravo (which get's around $.05 a sub now) so part of that can offset the cost of ESPN so someone else that picks them in their grouping doesn't paying $10 for them.

Very likely, you won't just be paying for channels you don't watch - you'll be paying for channels you don't even get.
Edited by NetworkTV - 2/21/13 at 1:15pm

well the cost of carrying all these channels is significantly driving up the cost providers must charge to their subs.

saw an article yesterday about dish quarterly report, and i don't remember if it was charlie or not, but the dish spokesperson
stated the carrying costs were only going to go up and they have to pass these through which is really starting to stifle new subs.

something has to give here as all the networks like amc want and deserve top dollar, but how many people can afford to pay $1200-$1500 a year for
all these cable channels?

i think things are only going to get worse in terms of subscriber options, unless you're willing to be one of those streaming only no cable households

At the same time, though, I'm not sure that limiting those channels is going to result in less cost to the customer. It seems more likely people will simply pay the same amount and get less for their money.

If I'm paying the cost of a large pizza, I want the large pizza, even if I only plan to eat half of it. I paid for the pizza. It's mine to do with as I please.

BTW: I feel the same way about pennies: I've had cashiers not give me back a penny or so change back after a purchase. Now, I get that most people don't want the pennies. I really don't need them. However, they're my pennies. If I want to toss them in the "share a penny" tray or into the MS jug or let them rattle around in my washing machine when I leave them in my pocket, that's up to me.

People who cut the cord are tired of paying for the crap they don't want not the stuff they do. I have an Xbox 360 and I have no problem paying for great games like Red Dead Redemption, NCAA 12, The Force Unleashed I & II and The Call of Duty games. I don't work hard to support crap that should go off the air.

AMC is a horrible channel. They show the same movies over and over and saturate them with commercials. Most of them can be bought on DVD for $5. Plus they have that blasted The Walking Dead text in the lower left corner of the screen all the time.

Thanks to OTA HD and my huge DVD collection I have watched:

6 hours of TV Thursday
3 hours of TV Friday
7 hours of TV Saturday
3 hours of TV Sunday, and Also played Red Dead Redemption on the Xbox 360 for 3 hours.

No pay TV needed here.

unnecessary posts removed.

The one thing I don't see mentioned in the equation is advertising dollars. Even top-rated cable shows will suffer a viewership hit in an a la carte world, forcing ad rates down, costing the 'nets MUCH more than the loss of subscriber fees. Thing is, this would happen across all cable channels resulting in not only a thinning of the herd, but sky-high subscriber rates for the remaining channels. As mentioned above, we'd end up paying much more for fewer channels. Lesser networks would be swallowed up by the stronger ones until only 3 or 4 cable network conglomerates remain. And that kind of conglomeration has worked out SO well in other areas, such as radio and oil. It's the very thing most of us complain about.

But it won't happen for that very reason. The companies most affected by this control the very airwaves elected officials need. And if you think Congress is going to step in and cut off its own tongue, you've got another think coming.