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 ...
Let the market sort out what survives and what doesn't. I suspect there's more market for the educational channels than one might first imagine. Many people I talk to watch those channels exclusively (History, Discovery, TLC, etc)
""Buh bye CNN, MSNBE, CNBC, Lifetime, Oxygen, The Commie Channel, etc..."
Landru"Bingo, Doc.
The days of forced subsidizing the Liberal-Socialist misfits who could never make it on their own will be all over with this, post haste."
Right - because we know the television watching audience is very conservative - that's why they demand so much conservative programming. /sarasm
Seriously, the television watching public are the people who like jiggle TV. The proportion of TV that has sexual content will go up rather than down with a la cart, in my opinion.
"In the last 6 years that I had cable I MAY have hit the nets once or twice. Invaribly what I saw and heard on them was down right dis-spiriting. I usually watched a handful of the cable stations. .
"
I don't watch a lot of TV in real time. I use my DVR to record programming I really want to see, then time-shift it to suit my schedule. It's really rare for me to be sitting in front of the TV and watching something that's actually on then.
The exception is news. I watch my local news at 5 PM and, when major stories are breaking, I tune to whichever cable news network that has the best coverage, switching between them all to find what I want to see.
The rest of the time, I'm watching stuff recorded on my DVR. I'm also a heavy user of NetFlix.
There are SO many worthless channels.
> a huge bonus would be getting rid of all those annoying Spanish channels we have to pay for and never watch.
LOL You don't watch Sabado Gigantico y Dos Mujeres?
When cable started decades ago, it was promoting itself to offer those kinds of options. They never really happened.
Now, with the Internet, we are closer to that. Many 'live' events from around the world are streamed over the Internet. It is doing what cable never got around to doing. I am surprised that the major US TV networks aren't using it more effectively. Many radio stations stream, but the TV industry lags.
My bet is that al la cart pricing of Cable channels will be more like buying the components of a car separately. Much higher pricing. This is why probably some cable companies are embracing it.
Bundling is the reason MSNBC still exists. If there were some market pressure on NBC, they'd just fold the "successful" broadcasts into CNBC. But people who think they will save a lot of money will be disappointed. The big bucks channels will be the ones everybody watches. Discovery really subsidizes MSNBC, CNBC, Bravo, etc. to a very large extent. Families will probably pay the same or more. Single people and roommates with similar interests will be the ones who can benefit.
New channels still have trouble "getting started". What don't have trouble getting started are additional channels owned by the big players.
"New channels still have trouble "getting started". What don't have trouble getting started are additional channels owned by the big players."
And excellent point.
I get EVERY SINGLE cable channel you can possible get, plus all those digital music channels. I love it. You get to see things you'd never see and that's very interesting. Plus, I can't imagine nighttime TV witwhout HBO...we're already Jonesing because the season of ROME is over. Anyone watch that...so well done....
> Yeah, it still might not be worth it, even with the option to select channels.
Otoh, what is the future of over-the-air tv? In a few years, stations must do the mandatory conversion to hdtv. It is *supposed* to be compatible with analog, and should be through the cable box, but I wonder about reception anywhere but w/in a few miles of the transmitter.
> but now we have lots of DVDs.
I watch Hogan's Heroes every night...no commercials :)
We have John Wayne movies, and umpteen seasons of "Stargate."
I'm sure it will, but what I want to point out is that the pricing will be structured in such a way as to affect people's choices. I suspect that a lot of folks think that "a la carte" means that every channel costs the same to them, and they only pick (and pay for) the ones they want. But it's not going to be like that, where every channel costs $0.95 - instead, narrow channels like Discovery Health and BET will cost you $0.35 per month, and big popular channels like A&E and Fox News and ESPN will cost you $7.95 per month. You'll likely subsidize smaller channels anyway, whether you like it or not.
Give me a break, the cable industry is in collusion with the media conglomerates to get us to consume as much crap even if we really don't want it. I don't want my MTV and I shouldn't have to take the time to go block it or support it in any way. Echostar is the exception as they wanted to start offering smaller packages ala carte but Viacom had a shitfit and put a stop to it.
"I watch Hogan's Heroes every night...no commercials :)"
DVD may just kill the television star. I watch DVD's at night to fall asleep. As my collection increases I notice the absence less and less.
Autos use the same idea - bundle a bunch of crap along with the few good options. Without competition, cable companies will try to get away with it as long as they can.
I think I look at it the same way. I'd stay with a package too. Foxnews can't handle live coverage of stories like the tsunami, and a live event during O'Reilly is blacked out; so having CNN as a backup is important.
I watch "Pimp My Ride" on MTV; I watch "Bridezilla" on We; I watch "Best Week Ever" on VH1...three channels that are otherwise useless to me.
And there are some esoteric channels I like that might die if a la carte audiences reject them: History and National Geographic are two examples.
I think a la carte is one of those things that sounds great but will backfire badly in practice. What happens if the majority of Americans select only the "lowest common denominator" channels and drop the rest? The answer is, the crap will be emboldened and enriched, while the good stuff will die on the vine.
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.