Posted on 12/03/2005 6:43:34 AM PST by cloud8
At least 2 companies break rank, express support for options
WASHINGTON -- Conservative groups love the idea of letting television viewers pay for only the channels they want on cable and are happy it's back on the table in Washington, where lawmakers and regulators are fed up with raunchy television.
While the cable industry generally loathes the notion of an à la carte pricing system, at least one cable company and a potentially big cable competitor have embraced it.
À la carte would allow cable subscribers to pick and pay for individual channels rather than being forced to buy packages. A parent, for example, could pick Nickelodeon and the Cartoon Network -- and not have to take MTV or other channels they may find objectionable as part of a bundled package.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
I always wondered why Lifetime was "television for women," when every time I flip throuh the darn channel, it's showing a woman getting the snot kicked out of her...
"
What is the fewest number of actual viewers (subscribers) that a channel can have and survive? Unless they expand their advertising, they will go under. And we already have too much infomercialling anyway."
Another factor is that the cost per channel will go up, maybe way up.
Preventing that will be the challenge. I remember hearing awhile back that cable cost were going up largely due to the expense of providing the sports channels, which I do not watch. I expect to hear a new excuse why, if I choose only say 10 channels, I will still pay just as much. There will certainly be one.
Wish they would push for 'à la carte' for satellite.
> I think it's a great idea. We don't have cable or satellite TV, but we probably would if we could pay for only the channels we want.
You aren't missing much. People with satellite flaunt their thousands of channels, but if I had it, I'd still be flipping between the ball game and Emeril :)
The cable companies must sense an opportunity here, however. A la carte is prolly going to mean $60 one time charge to hook you up, $30/month for the service, plus $10/channel. If you take several channels, the basic package isn't much more. Pretty soon all this will be available over the Internet if it isn't already.
I have always thought the cable companies could make a killing just lettin you cumtomize your package. I have channels I have NEVER tuned in to.
"However,I'll bet that the cable companies would find a way to give a household the 5 or 10 or 20 or 30 channels it wants and *still* charge them what they were paying for 200 channels.
"
Bingo!
Yeah, it still might not be worth it, even with the option to select channels. Last time I had a baby, it was a drag having nothing to watch when I was up late at night, but now we have lots of DVD's.
If they realize that, and the regulatory impediments are removed, then it will happen!
I've been trying to get rid of CNN and the CSPAN's (all Bush-bashing 24/7) for years. Now if we can get direct TV to allow for cafeteria selection. . .
Hmm...let's see. How will this work?
I'd guess less than 10% of cable customers will bother to pick a menu of channels they really want to see. The cable companies can still offer their Basic and Extended cable packages, just as they do now. Most customers will simply continue to use their cable as they do now...watching a few favorite channels and ignoring the rest.
10% will carefully select the channels they want to receive. For their trouble, they will get charged a premium price for each channel, bringing their total to just about the same as they're paying now. In fact, if the cable companies don't like the idea, they'll make it more expensive to have a la carte programming.
The alternative: Use your cable box's programming capabilities and block all the channels you don't want to watch, then you can surf through the ones you like.
Anyone who thinks there will be monetary savings to the a la carte idea is just silly. The cable companies will see to it that you pay as much or more. And they can do it if they like.
Me? I watch maybe six channels regularly, and a few more if there's something interesting on. It's no sweat to me that there are a bunch of channels available. I'm quite capable of choosing the programming I wish to watch.
"I've been trying to get rid of CNN and the CSPAN's (all Bush-bashing 24/7) for years. "
I'm betting you can program your dish receiver to block out any channel you don't want to watch.
Are the physical cables that run thru communities considered public or private property?
If public, what would prevent businesses from starting up, making deals with broadcasters and offering channel choice? This would bring much needed competition into the broadcasting business.
"Buh bye CNN, MSNBE, CNBC, Lifetime, Oxygen, The Commie Channel, etc.."
You can add some of the religious channels to that list.
And MTV, VH1, BET, and Bravo. Everything else can stay.
"...Other providers say selling channels individually would force some channels that can't attract enough advertising out of business..."
Sort of the whole point of free markets, no?
The text you quoted is not mine.
We don't have NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS....I won't pay to watch them.....What are they?
If that would happen you can bet your ass that they'd add in a substantial "Ala Carte" surcharge/fee to your bill making any savings insignificant.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.