TVSquad

abc;cbs;nbc;fox;cw;tnt;tbs;fx;scifi;comedy;
abcfamily;espn;showtime;hbo;

Reply

I might actually GET cable if this was an option. I'd go with ESPN, SciFi, Cartoon Network, Comedy Central, FX, TNT and maybe AMC.

Reply

I have basic cable which has very little on it. The only channel I really want on the next tier is ESPN. I'm not willing to pay an additional $30/month for it. It would not surprise me at all if a high-demand channel like ESPN was a la carte priced at somewhere in that neighborhood.
Personally, I think your average cable bill would go up. Then cable companies would combat that situation by offering bulk packages at discount rates, perhaps offering different 'tiers' of channels bulked together at their discretion.
The only way a la carte pricing will benefit the consumer is if there is a regulated cap on pricing. Otherwise it will end up as too much of a sellers marketplace.

Reply

The cost of being able to offer ala carte pricing would likely beoutrageous. Imagine the cable companies having to cater to thousands upon thousands customers who want to add and drop channels on a frequent basis. It would also likely mean large, expensive setups with extra costs for being able to handle channel lineup change requests via online, touch-tone and live customer service. You think it's hard to drop HBO and add Showtime now? The cable companies could also try to discourage it by implementing minimum subscription periods of one month per channel so people won't subscribe to a channel one day a week when their favorite show is on then drop it the next day. It's one of these things that looks like a good idea on paper but would not work so well in the real world.

Reply

As much as I am for consumer rights, I don't think À la carte pricing would benefit the consumer for cable and satellite TV because not having one channel or another would force cross advertising wars. Would TNT be willing to advertise for FX shows? Sure some stations do that now, but tightening the screws on channel packages would cause a bitter war between some the smaller stations that have one or two shows that compete against the bigger stations. Basically what would happen is only the popular channels would continue to be popular because no one would hear or see the shows they aren't paying for.

Also if a consumer's taste in TV entertainment is outside the spectrum of the popular, what happens when they have guest who's taste are vastly inside the popular? That would render the TV useless form of entertainment, except for DVDs, provided the consumer in question owns a popular viewed DVD.

We are barely in the age of view on demand, I'm believer that one day there will be just one station, but thousands of shows to watch on demand whenever we chose. So if I want to watch the evening news, I can watch them in whatever order I chose. We are almost there with the evolution of DVRs.

Cable needs to go one step further and just offer every single show on demand without having to deal with TV guide or flipping through endless amount of programs.

Reply

or once I agree with the MPAA. A la carte pricing would more likely
increase the price of cable and discourage risky shows from channels.

Right now, I get more than 200 channels for less than $100 - 50 cents
each. I only watch maybe 10 channels regular, so how much are those
worth to me? When I have to choose every channel based on price and
time watched, it adds a lot of work to me, the customer, without
adding any value to the end product. I might have a smaller total
bill, but I will pay more money for fewer channels.

Cable providers have to calculate the worth of every single channel
and manage millions of subscriber's channel choices, adding a lot of
overhead to what is now a simple service.

This also ignores the major business model of cable channels - they
are paid per subscriber. Cable companies pay Comedy Central several
cents for every subscriber of Comedy Central. More popular channels
demand higher pay. But once customers choose the channels, those
prices will skyrocket (based on the market) and will be passed on to
customers.

The First Amendment argument is some people are offended by one
channel and don't want it in their house. But they don't have to
order cable. Or they use the V-Chip. There are many ways to control
television from the home. We don't need FCC rules increasing the
price for us all.

******

Michael C. Sherrin
http://www.prodigeek.com/

Reply

we arn't talking about forced A la carte, I think more of what we are talking about if people having to bay for a huge block of programing they never watch, for me that's every sports channel ever, just to get a few that we do. As for it effecting ad's what is it gonna channel, if I watch a show on a network I will buy the channel, if I don't watch a show I wont watch the channel either way, yet those people get my money. I have never once watched any of the music channels or the sports channels, yet they have been in the package I have have for 8 years, just so I can get the rest of the channels I want, my money going towards something I NEVER use. I hate it.

Reply

PBS.
Comedy Central, Cartoon Network, HGTV, Food Network, VH1, MSNBC, SciFi, USA, CW, Fox, Bravo, HBO, Showtime, AMC (and I guess now Lifetime, since ProjRun is moving.)

Reply

In a way we have a la carte programming now - via itunes and the xbox video marketplace. Have toy ever seen how much each show would cost? Its not cheap.

A la carte advocates hope that each of the 10 channels they watch will be like a dollar. There's no way that would ever happen.

Reply

I'd like ala carte options. Like being able to add say 4 or 5 channels from an upper tier for a third of that tier(assuming it's like 20 or more in that tier). Hell just being able to remove the bible belt and shopping channels from my box would be excellent

Reply

I'm seriously considering going back to basic cable. When I'm paying 80 bucks a month for mostly channels I have blocked, where's the rationale. I'm sure it's not as simple as this, but if Sirius/XM is going to be able to offer a la carte stations and they have over 100 of them, why can't cable do the same thing?

Reply

Not sure how satellite operates in the States, but up here in Canadia, if I don't want to order an entire package (though most are set up quite well) I can order an individual channel at I think $1.99. It might even be 99 cents. I like the idea of both being offered.

I guess part of the problem for cable companies would be having to essentially have a long list of channels, allowed and disallowed, for each of their subscribers. Certainly it's a lot easier to just have a few tiers rather than loads of individual channels.

Reply

I've been waiting for a la carte pricing for ages. Here's my list:

FSC
ESPN (the whole family of them)
Setanta Sports
Comedy Central
FX
USA
Fox News
CNN
CBS
ABC
NBC
FOX
Fox Sports NW
AMC
History
Discovery

Reply

ESPN might be about the only channel I would care about. Perhaps TNT. Basically, I can "find" all the TV shows that I watch online. The only thing I need my cable for is sports, some of which I could get over-the-air if I had to.

I watch football, basketball and NASCAR. Whatever channels they are on, I want. Other than that it's just as easy to get online.

Reply

I already have a la carte programing. It's called Custom Channels on DirecTV. It's about 60 channels of the 100s they offer. And I'm paying less than a $1 per channel. So no thanks to a la carte. First they'll do cable, and then they'll go for the internet.

Reply