Poll: How long do you think it will take till Cable offers Ala Cart channels like Canada does? :) - Page 2

That's a good point Don, the political angle (and Congress/FCC interference) is something that can't be ignored when you talk about breaking up the bundles with a la carte.

I can't believe people actually think ala carte is going to reduce customer cost. Bundling saves you money folks! You start paying for individual channels and it will kill less popular channels, and the providers will have to charge more for the other channels to make up the difference. In the end, you'll probably be paying MORE, not less. A package of ESPN channels for instance I bet will cost $15 or more by themselves (similar to adding HBO). You need to add an option to this poll - "I hope never, because I don't want to have to pay MORE!"

I think it really depends on what people want.

I think a more accurate statement is Ala Carte isn't going to reduce most customer costs. Those that only want a half a dozen or so channels will likely pay less, but it's unlikely the content will remain the same - meaning the demand for the channels likely will be less.

So, while someone might want a channel like AMC, FX or TNT now for the shows that they offer, those shows will likely not exist under an Ala Carte setting. So, that same viewer gives up those channels, too.

In the end, it's not so much people want channels they don't watch - it's that few of the channels will be able to offer anything people want to watch.

BTW: that goes for streaming content, too. After all, where do you think most of the streaming content comes from?

Even if Netflix creates more content, it's not going to remain $8 a month - and that goes whether you watch the stuff or not. So, you'll be back to paying for stuff you don't want to watch.

I look at it as a trade-off. There's shows/channels that I will never watch, but some folks do. I am sure there's folks who would never watch things that I do. So we subsidize each other. While I gripe and moan over the cost I realize that it takes money/ads to pay for what we want to watch so that's just part of the deal. I also agree that if Ala-Cart were to happen we would be paying much more than we are now. I pay roughly (without add-ons) $60/month for a whole slew of channels that I may or may not watch. I would not, however, pay that amount for just a couple channels. I doubt many folks would. That's why it sounds nice in theory but in reality it wouldn't work.

Or perhaps ESPN will spend less on huge dollar rights contracts with certain leagues. There is a dollar amount that ESPN, or any channel, can get that will maximize their revenue. Its simple supply/demand economics. If they charged $1 a month nearly every household would take the channel. If they charged $100 almost no one would. Their ideal price point is somewhere in the middle, where exactly I don't know.

If Disney thought they'd make more money by offering ESPN ala carte, they would have already. To me, that means on average, we are paying too much for television.

But IMO, the distribution side is where we are getting screwed the most. Comcast's profit margins are absolutely out of this world for example.

We're not getting true ala carte anytime soon. At best we might get packages organized by parent conglomerate over the internet. So if you are a big sports fan, to get ESPN you would need to pay Disney for everything they provide, ie Disney Channel, ABC Family etc. And then a big monthly fee to Time-Warner just to get TNT for the NBA, and TBS for baseball.... and News Corps just for FSN etc.
Edited by lobosrul - 2/25/13 at 12:52pm

We're headed that way, anyway. The vast majority of the channels are controlled by Time Warner, NewsCorp, Viacom, and NBC Universal. And that's under the status quo...frankly, I doubt that a la carte could make consolidation worse than it already is.

Exactly.

One assumption made by proponents of the current bundled model for pay television service seems to be that programming costs would not be unaffected.

The reality is likely to be much different. At the very least, I suspect that a la carte would have a dramatic impact on rights paid for sports carriage. Consider that in a decade the annual fee paid to the NFL for Monday Night Football has more than tripled (from $500 million to $1.8 billion). That rapid run-up has been driven in large part by the ability of ESPN to pass those increases on to subscribers who never know which particular networks are responsible for the price increases that they're seeing in their cable/satellite bills. A la carte would add transparency to this process, and likely rein in these increases.

It is also possible that a la carte would rein in cost increases that have been seen in what basic cable networks are willing to pay for theatrical movie packages and for off-network reruns.

The bottom line is that if we went to an a la carte system, the cost structure of the industry would be impacted in ways that might squeeze some of the bloat and inefficiency out of the current system. And those savings could well go to viewers in a way that is not anticipated by those who are defending the current system.

Not likely.

The leagues control the prices, not ESPN, Fox or any of the networks. ESPN bids the money they do because the NFL demands it of them. ESPN pays more for Monday Night Football than CBS and NBC's contracts combined not because they want to, but because the NFL won't sell the package to them for less.

The thing is, if ESPN doesn't end up paying it, the NFL will pass it along to someone else who will find another way to pay it. Or, they'll put it on their own network that directly competes with ESPN on cable. Even it it goes back to OTA, there are an awful lot of people who can't get the OTA networks in any decent fashion except via cable or satellite and they'll definitely get soaked when carriage fees for those channels hit the roof - and they're coming big time.

If ESPN disappeared tomorrow, the NFL would still get its dollars from you, even if you never watch a game.
Wrong.

That stuff is cheap. It's filler between shows. It's easy ratings for low cost. The networks can buy up strip runs of all kinds and run those shows and movies to death for for much less original programming - and original programming is exactly what would go away. First the quality dramas, then even the stupid reality shows. Then it will be back to nothing but off-network re-runs on cable.
Savings to the viewer?

Not likely.

Everyone will still want theirs and they'll get it somehow. The only one that won't win is the viewer - even if they drop the whole thing. You might pay less by cutting the cord, but all those choices you have now will fade away as less new stuff makes it way down the chain. Plus, the less the studios get from the various channels, the more they'll squeeze Netflix and eventually Hulu....and Amazon...and all other comers. To get it, you'll pay far more for those services.

Face it, TV shows and movies only get made because there are still plenty of people that pay the freight for them. If you think it will still be the same way with only Red Box and Netflix rentals to support it, you're delusional. The networks and studios aren't going to make this stuff for free.
Edited by NetworkTV - 2/25/13 at 9:19pm

But the problem is that the non-sports watching folks spend way more money subsidizing the sports watchers, the balance is completely out of whack.

I think Thomas' point is that few will be willing to pay what the NFL wants under a universal a la carte system, so the NFL will be forced to drop its asking price. Same for running their own channel if no one wants to pay what they're asking. They won't get enough takers at a $30-40 monthly charge (for example). This will in turn force them to rein in salaries, bloated ownership, ridiculous stadium escalations, etc. Ditto for ESPN or whomever.

This is all a complete fantasy of course, but I think it's the gist of the argument.

You are correct. If ESPN can't pay the high prices for these sports contracts then they would go back OTA where a lot of their sports used to be. It wouldn't be costing me anything since I use an antenna and people who have pay TV can only pay for what they want.

If it never happens this is the reason. Nothing is being regulated like it should and the reason it isn't is because these companies are making healthy donations to their re election campaign. Look at gas prices, they were $1.82 a gallon 4 years ago and now they are pushing $4 a gallon.

I get the arguement, I really do.

However, I just don't see it working out the way you hope it will. There's just too much investment in the current system for those invested in it to let it go away. It might evolve into a different, closed (and costly) system, but it won't go away. You'll just end up paying in some other fashion if you want the content you want to see.

Would I like to pay less? Sure. There are plenty of channels I never tune to. If I really could save real money not paying for those channels, I'd be all over it. I'm not a supporter of the system so much as realistic about how much change will really occur in favor of the customer.

The problem for me is, looking at the prices of channels, ESPN is really the only one that might save me any money. After that, we're talking channels that collect literally pennies ($.05, $.10, or even $.50) a month from the cable companies each month. At best, among the 25 channels I definitely could blow off and know I'll never, ever miss them, I'd save maybe $8 - $10. The cable companies aren't going to save the customer the money they actually sell the channels for - just the wholesale. To get them, you'll have to pay a premium.

For some, $8 -$10 a month is a good savings and worth it. For me, it's worth it to pay that little extra on an already $75-$80 a month bill and get ESPN so I can't tune in if they happen to have something that I actually want to see, such as their 30 for 30 productions and other similar content. That only leaves channels like MTV, E!, GSN, TNN, and a whole lot of other channels I won't touch for anything. Sure, I could dump them, but they're chump change.

What would really save me money is not having all the fees: box fees, HD fees, fee collection fees, etc., etc., etc.......

All the fees add up to over $20 a month without providing me channels. That's real money.

Heck, that $20+ a month pays for my 3 out disc plan from Netflix.

Really? Wow, that's an incredible amount of money. Over $4 an hour for 722 hours, more expensive than renting blockbuster BR releases.

I'm in Canada. I don't go à la carte because as a family we watch too many different channels. Still, for $140 a month, I get all the TV channels we watch, all-house PVR to 4 TVs, broadband Internet, and phone. So it's about half the $3000 a year for me.

So, in Canada you can still get an all exclusive package if you want the majority of channels. But you can save money by going ala carte if you only want a few. Am I correct? That seems like a good compromise.

It's a two-way street, though. Other than ESPN, who has the money to pay what the NFL is asking? If ESPN told the NFL to take a hike, the NFL does not have a lot of other options. The "Name Your Own Price" model only works when your product is in such high demand that ESPN feels they simply must carry the games. ESPN could play the other side of the coin and say that if the NFL doesn't gift games to them, no one else will be able to pay. TNT certainly doesn't have $2 Billion, and I doubt any other cable network would either.

Right now, ESPN pays because they know they'll just hike subscriber fees and pass them on. They don't even bother trying to negotiate with the NFL.

Putting the games on NFL Network does not build the brand the way the NFL thinks it does.

SOMETHING is going to have to happen. The whole system cannot continue to go on in the way it has been operating. This is probably a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation Sooner or later, the price of subscribing will get to a point where people simply won't be willing to pay. At that point the whole thing will come down like a house of cards. When this happens, don't say I didn't warn you!

Something will happen, but I guarantee it won't make it any better for the customer - maybe worse. Short of deny ourselves access to content, it's unlikely to get cheaper. It's the natural law of business that cheap or even free eventually become a paid model.

When this happens, don't say I didn't warn you...

And there lies the major problem with ala carte becoming a reality.

I'd swear someone on this very forum told me that no, content providers don't do that.

That's right. I'm on Telus Optik.

Not sure where this ala carte in Canada idea came from. At least not here in Calgary, Alberta. Everything is grouped into specific packages, usually carefully designed so that the average customer will want just one channel in each group.

Huh? What provider makes you pay extra for ethnic channels? The only ones I get are public access and local "must carry's".

 

Man, I'm getting really tired of these redundant threads being started by people who don't want to pay for cable, but have this inordinate need to constantly bash it and complain about it.

 

Either pay up or don't, and live with your decision. Shut up, and grow up already. Start taking some personal responsibility. 

 

I'm really fed up with this being turned into an "anti-cable agenda" sub-forum since a few months back. It's like we've been invaded by those types who, instead of marching on the Capitol, who makes and cherry picks when to enforce the laws and rules, disrupts innocent people's livelihoods and business in some downtown area.

 

And it's always the same group of immature, misguided clowns who jump all over these threads, with the same old broken record BS.

 

Go post somewhere else. Or at least keep it within those couple of already-existing threads that have been pretty much delegated for that here.

Edited by Rammitinski - 3/8/13 at 2:44pm

What a bizarre post. Who is talking about ethnic channels? We're immature and need to shut up because we don't like the current pay-TV situation in the US? I think you're the one who needs to grow up.

Some of the regulars in this thread can't just leave it at mere commiserating - in every thread like this, they inevitably end up going further and "telling" everyone else that they "should", or "need to" feel the same way. There's a history of this, going back well over a year.

 

They're the ones that have the bigger issue with accepting the other side's feelings - that many here and elsewhere do find it worth it.

 

For the record, I personally don't. But that's not the point. I can accept that some don't feel the same way, and that's their right.

 

These conversations generally go nowhere. This "same old same old" gets to be a drag.

Edited by Rammitinski - 3/8/13 at 7:47pm

I'm no big fan of Pay-TV (I'm sure most of you have read my posts on the various Threads, so I won't say anything further). However I have to admit one man's trash is another man's treasure. To each their own.

One problem with a la carte with a family is I don't think we can narrow it down to justa dozen channels.

Hell my wife watches nothing but what I would call female channels (e*, bravo, h&g, life, we, food, etc)

The kids watch comedy central, USA, Amc, MTV, vh1, etc.

Me it's all sports, history, science, syfy, or 3+ star movies.

We'd definitively pay more with a la carte than with bundling package we get (dish top 250)

This attitude is exactly what Ramminitski is talking about (even though I'm not sure why he went on a tear now) - saying essentially that we're all fools for paying for TV. Thank you borntocoast for recognizing that one man's trash is another's treasure.

You don't think the manager of the fast food restaurant would give you a nice little discount if you bought one of everything on the menu? And, ala carte might work if, as in the restaurant example, you only want ONE burger (channel). Most of us (actually, I'm guessing ALL) want to watch multiple channels although we may have one or two favorites.