A la carte TV pricing

[RoyGBiv]

From the "you asked for it" department:

New FCC Report Advocates a la carte TV Pricing

By Marguerite Reardon
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
Published: November 29, 2005, 1:14 PM PST

Viewers of cable and satellite TV may soon have the option of subscribing to only the channels they want to watch, if the Federal Communications Commission gets its way.

On Tuesday FCC chairman Kevin Martin spoke to a forum, sponsored by the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee in Washington, which has been examining indecency on radio and television. Martin told the forum that the FCC will soon release a report that concludes that offering TV programming a la carte is economically feasible and in the best interest of consumers.

Today, instead of subscribing to the channels they want to watch, cable and satellite TV consumers must buy packages that include a standard set of channels.

The new report, not yet released, contradicts an FCC report published in November 2004, under then Chairman Michael Powell. The earlier report concluded that a la carte and tiered pricing models, such as a family tier, would result in higher cable prices.

http://news.com.com/New+FCC+report+advocates+a+la+carte+TV+pricing/2100-1034_3-5975559.html?tag=nl

I call it the "you asked for it department" because, as good as this sounds, I fear many media consumers will not enjoy the eventual results. That obscure channel that shows all the old movies that few watch but you love will no longer be offered because the cost of production and broadcast will not be covered by that "forced" channel that helps pay for its existence. Further, until analog broadcast goes away or until all cable companies require you to rent a receiver even to get basic cable, you'll be paying a hidden fee (one charged possibly in the basic cost of other channels) for the costs involved in "trapping" those channels that can't be turned off with a switch. The equipment to do this costs money as does the labor required to physically go out to a home and trap or untrap the channel. Finally, rather than paying 2-4 dollars for a block of channels, you'll be paying 1-12 dollars *per channel*, meaning your cable/satellite bill won't really go down, just your options.

The rebroadcast industry, which is often lumped with the cable/satellite industry as a whole since it is what people "see" on their bills, will profit from this in some way. The production and primary broadcast industry will take a hit at first, but will rebound. Smaller market channels like Sundance, BBCAmerica, the specialized history and science channels, etc. will struggle to survive or go away entirely. Highly targeted channels will simply disappear.

[Wickerman]

1. you have a point

and I am certain Fox will be subsidized by someone so they can sell it dirt cheap while everything else has to bear its own full weight.

[RoyGBiv]

10. I HATE Fox ...

For so many reasons.

If you want to know why basic cable costs so damn much, look to two things: FOX and EPSN.

A quarter of the cost of the local cable company's basic service is for EPSN and ESPN II alone, almost $12. But, the company has to carry these channels on the basic lineup, i.e. not on the optional digital channels or as a subscription service, if they want even to be allowed to offer certain other channels controlled by the same parent company.

FWIW, I'm not saying this isn't a good idea. I would love to be able to pick and choose. I just know from some personal experience I can't go into for certain reasons what is being planned in the eventuality this becomes a federally mandated policy. The cable and satellite companies that rebroadcast are *not* going to suffer in the least.

[BuelahWitch]

38. I don't watch either one

So that's double BS for me.

[dflprincess]

2. Everytime the government comes up with something that

would be "good" for consumers I assume it's going to cost me more.

[tsuki]

3. I have had a la carte for 15 years. I love it. I am not interested in

many of the channels that cable charges you for. And if we are a "market place," consumer driven economy, a capitalistic sysem, shouldn't those channels fail?

[karlrschneider]

5. Is it a C-band system? I never heard of a cable sys that offered it...

...

[tsuki]

6. C-band with digital receiver. We are not really TeeVee watchers

except for movies, so what we get is a lot of movie channels.

[RoyGBiv]

16. I suppose that's the theory ...

Frankly I don't like the theory.

If the cable/satellite television primary broadcast industry were driven entirely according to a linear "only the strongest individuals survive" business model, all we'd have available would be sports channels, a couple news channels, and two or three "superstations" that would mutate beyond their original inception to be even less regional than they already are. Even local channels would have trouble existing.

Both the blessing and the curse of the cable/satellite industry has been the development of channels with closely targeted audiences. They are profitable, but only when combined with packages, so people want, in a round-about way, the package so they can get that one channel, which increases the profitability of the larger market channels, and the cycle continues. Once you break that cycle, the whole model breaks down. Something else would definitely replace it, but the highly targeted channels would no longer be a priority on any measurable level, meaning less development takes place, fewer options, and even more disatisfaction.

[tsuki]

30. I don't pay for shopping channels, religious channels,

Fox News, E! Television ($9.99), the Golf Channel ($44.99), Disney ($99.99) or any of the music channels, MTV ($24.99). But the yearly subscription to is a lot less,

Discovery / TLC (digital)* / Animal Planet (digital)/ Travel Channel (digital) $17.99, A&E $14.99, Comedy Central $9.99, IFC ($9.99), Bravo ($9.99).

I think a number of channels that you feel would fail, would not.

You can only watch so much TeeVee. At my age, supporting the Disney Channel on Basic like my Mother does jumps her bill. I have two premium packages along with my basic channels, and I pay less than she does.

I like it.

[RoyGBiv]

44. I suppose time will tell ...

I obviously don't have a crystal ball. I just know how the industry is currently financed, and I know who, within the industry, likes this idea and who doesn't. Those that like it seek to profit greatly from it. Those that don't, in large part the channels with highly targeted audiences, local channels, etc., are indicating they will be relegated to PPV, high priced subscriptions the market at even its current levels won't bear, or disappearance.

[Zorro]

4. I've been waiting for a la carte pricing

If you get regular cable, about $4 a month goes directly to ESPN. That really gripes my ass.

I think one would be surprised with how many people would subscribe to the History Channel, Discovery Channel, TLC, and others in that vein.

[tsuki]

8. It is really surprising how inexpensive the HC, DC , TLC, A&E,

Bravo are when you compare them to ESPN, ESPN2, etc.

[Eric J in MN]

7. I'm skeptical that Congress will pass a law mandating a la carte.

The Disney Corporation is against it, because they use the popularity of EPSN to force the cable companies to pay for their less popular channels.

Disney has powerful lobbyists.

[StellaBlue]

9. this is all just another scam

They're going to charge like five bucks PER CHANNEL, telling us some BS about their 'costs'.

:eyes:

However, the only channels I want are:

PBS
CSPAN 1,2,3
AMC
TCM
Comedy Central
HBO

and, if I was going to spring for some 'extras':
Food Network
Travel Channel
Discovery Channel
Animal Planet
History Channel
Showtime
Networks

[ObaMania]

18. Yep, five bucks a channel..

.. and based on all your choices, you're paying $89.00 (w/ HBO and SHO @ $12. a pop).

And that's before they throw in state and local taxes, line charges, etc..

It is a friggin' rip off and you know what? Stupid consumers will eat it up.

[StellaBlue]

20. I'm going to give up TV, I think

I am about to move out on my own, for a second time (long story), and I think this time I will do what I did in the last desperate days of 2001 when I was an impoverished undergraduate - just plug my TV in and watch whatever is watchable (in that case, in Austin, Texas, it was the local FOX affiliate and PBS). I really really really want CSPAN, but it's not really worth like $100 a month when I can, really, see anything I want on the web - or at least read the transcripts. I have a Dell laptop, so I don't really need a TV! Woo-hoo!

[RoyGBiv]

23. Not that this is a bad idea ...

But, since you mention CSPAN, take something into consideration.

As mentioned in another message, cable companies are currently required by law to offer a limited selection of channels that includes whatever is considered local and usually includes public service stations like CSPAN. The price for this is usually very low. You will not see it advertised. You may have to dig deep beyond the sales pitch. But, it's there. In OKC, what's called "limited basic" offers about 20 or so channels, some of which are obnoxious shopping channels I'll grant. However, this package also includes CSPAN I&II, the Weather Channel, all local channels including a PBS affiliate, public access channels, 2 Spanish language channels, and WGN. The price is $6/mo, which, imo, is worth it not to have to deal with rabbit ears and horrid reception.

IOW, wherever you go, if you do want at least some level of television access, check this out. I mention it because most people nowadays have no idea it's out there.

[StellaBlue]

35. That sounds ridiculously cheap!

I can do without the classic movies channels, obviously. I really just want PBS and CSPAN, when it comes right down to it. I used to watch the ITN Evening News with Daljit Dalliwal on PBS. haha. Better than our networks, that's for damn sure - and now they show BBC! Even better!

When I was in Austin, the cheapest package I seemed to be able to get was $21. Which isn't SO ridiculous... but it only included CSPAN 1. :( And all the Christian and shopping channels.

[onenote]

36. I don't know when you were in Austin, but that's not how it is now

http://www.timewarnercable.com/austin/programming/austin.html

You can get the basic tier for $10.50. Its got around 20 channels, including all the local broadcast channels (network, independent, educational, and foreign language), several access channels, CSPAN, WGN, the Austin Music Channel and a local cable-produced news and information channel, among others.

onenote

[ObaMania]

32. Or you could do Satellite as an alternative.

Bet lots of folks will make that switch.

On the other hand... there's something to be said for a good set of rabbit ears!

[PowerToThePeople]

11. May create new market. Show those older shows in small theatres.

Or something else. I doubt it will forever go away.

THough, just reading for the first time "Brave New World" this last week, it does seem similar to that world where new is good, old is bad.

[BuelahWitch]

39. I love Turner Classic Movies

But for the last several years they only rotate a fraction of what is actually in their vaults. Now, if I could get it "on demand" and download any old MGM, WB or RKO movie I wanted to see (even if the silent didn't have a soundtrack. That's my choice) I'd be happier than a pig in mud.
If some people want to watch Casablanca 550 times, that's their choice. I'd rather see some obscure precode or that's gathering dust(and not have to travel to LA or NY to a film festival to watch it).

[newscott]

12. I already can't afford cable packages. Screw a la carte.

How about all you suckers paying 40-50 bucks a month for a cellphone?

Same thing.

[tammywammy]

22. I don't have cable either

But I do go to my parents house on Sundays and suck on the Dish Network teat for a few hours.

God, I miss the Law & Order every night. But I'm not willing to pay $40 minimum for just one show.

[Bjornsdotter]

13. I could get rid of..

...Fox, ESPN and all of the Lifetime channels. I could add C-Span3.

Cheers!

[tulsakatz]

14. I would like to have ala carte programming......

...they would have to do quite a bit of extra charges to match what I pay now. I have digital cable and I pay about $75.00 a month just for cable.

And I don't even watch all of the channels, if there were fewer channels, it would make it easier deciding what to watch. I usually watch HBO, Encore, MSNBC, CNN, Soapnet, Sundance, History (occaisionally) and Comedy Central.

[KharmaTrain]

15. It'll All Be Pay Per View...

The cable companies must be chomping at the bits on this game, as they can't lose. Allowing an "Ala Carte" selection determined at the head-end rather than on the consumer end (blocking it in your cable box) opens the door for specific charges on different channels...and even the special pricing of programs.

Wanna see the Superbowl? Sure...$29.95. Prefer Keith Olbermann? Is he worth $9.95 a month? How about The Daily Show...surely that's gotta be worth $19.95 a month...and so on. That's the end game the cable companies have been trying to play for years. In our area, they've downscaled the analog system to force people into the more expensive digital system...and be assured if they can charge extra for channels, they will.

As the OP noted, those crappy channels pay the cable operator to be on many of those systems...and thus subsidize the system (or should be)...also making it ala-carte surely will allow the cable systems to escape the "must carry" rules for local coverage...since it'll be more lucrative bringing in the CBS station in New York than the local one.

Instead of deregulating further...the FCC should be examining its own role and how little affect they really have on the communications industry.

[RoyGBiv]

17. Must Carry ...

You've hit on an important point. Mandating a la carte channel selections also messes with the "must carry" rules, which in turn may change, in a negative way for the consumer, the rules that require cable companies to offer as a basic, inexpensive package that includes all local channels, CSPAN, PBS, and at least one "superstation." You can get this in OKC for $6/mo, $11 in the suburbs. (The cost is set by the franchise agreement with city and/or county government.) It is never advertised, and salespeople will do everything possible to disuade you from subscribing to it, but it's there, because it is required.

And, both cable rebroadcasters and certain major primary broadcasters, like EPSN, chomp at the bit about this. They want the rescriction removed, and a la carte pricing is one way to do it. Most plans for a la carte pricing I've seen do away with this entirely.

[KharmaTrain]

19. The FCC Is Totally Owned By The Large Corporates

I've worked with this agency for over 30 years...and they don't do a thing...especially nbow, if it isn't politically motivated to help the large corporate broadcasters.

The major companies would love to get rid of "Must Carry"...then they could "sell" off the more lucrative lower channel numbers (now used by local broadcasters) to the highest bidder. There's also the competition between the local and over-the-air broadcasters...losing must carry would all but kill off whatever local OTA television there is since if the cable company doesn't have to carry it, all of a sudden 50% or more of the viewers in a market will no longer get that station's signal.

I suspect that one day all television will be some form of ala carte...you'll be paying either for a satellite, cable or other system and then be paying by the show. If you think TV is dumbed down now...imagine one where it's nothing but reality shows and talk shows...the ones people will subscribe to...say goodbye to any investigative or sophisticated programming...unless you're willing to pay the piper.

Cheers...

[Lydia Leftcoast]

21. That's already happening

I used to enjoy A&E, Bravo, Discovery, and the History Channel, all expanded basic channels.

A&E used to show lots of British and Australian dramas and cultural specials. Now it's a true crime channel, the British dramas are on BBCAmerica and Biography, the cultural specials are on Trio and Ovation, and there is no regular supplier for Australian fare. BBCA, Biography, Trio, and Ovation are all digital channels, which means you pay extra for them.

Bravo used to be mostly foreign and indie films. Now it's mostly celebrity poker. To get non-commercial films, you have to subscribe to Sundance, which is in the tier ABOVE digital on my local cable system, so I don't get it.

Discovery has become the DIY channel (as if there weren't enough of them), and to get the programming that Discovery used to have, you have to subscribe to the digital versions to get the science and history programming that once were on it, and even the history-oriented channel (Discovery Civilization) has been bought by the New York Times and shows a lot of pro-military propaganda.

As is often noted, the History Channel has become the Hitler Channel, as well as the Gun Channel, so to get the former content of the History Channel, you have to get History International, which is on digital. Yet even here, the World War II stuff is leaking in.

AAAARRRGH!

A la carte pricing exists in Japan and seems to work there.

[Odin2005]

24. I know, it really pisses me off.

I want all the good shows Discovery and TLC USED to have back. Now it is all spinoffs of Trading Spaces and American Chopper. :puke: All the good shows are on the Science Channel, only expensive digital cable that costs and arm and a leg. :grr:

[seaglass]

31. Be aware that this is NOT the same everywhere. You cannot

get C-Span on basic cable in my area (about 12.00/month) you must move to the next tier, standard cable (ranging from 42.00-50.00/month).

[seaglass]

33. The issue now is dual must carry and that is a detriment to

other channels.

It has negatively impacted C-Span which I care about a lot. Here's a link to Brian Lamb's testimony to Congress that will provide more info on this issue (by the way did you know 24 hour home shopping is must-carry?).

http://www.c-span.org/about/dmc/lamb070898.asp

"A digital must carry rule will solidify our position among a whole class of programmers who must stand second in line to every holder of a broadcast license in every community in the country. "

[Rosco T.]

25. The FUNDIES are already AGAINST THIS...

so I MUST be for it...

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-indecency29nov29,0,2685885.story?coll=la-home-business

Televangelists on Unusual Side in Indecency Debate
By Jube Shiver Jr., Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — Trying to preserve their electronic pulpits, the nation's religious broadcasters find themselves in the unusual position of fighting an effort by anti-indecency groups to thwart channels offering racy programming.

(snip)

But what started largely as a consumer issue has now morphed into a larger controversy involving whether cable operators should be required to continue exposing subscribers to niche channels, including religious ones, that people might not order on their own.

"We don't just want to preach to the choir; we want to reach the unchurched," said Paul Crouch Jr. of Trinity Broadcast Network in Santa Ana. "The bottom line is that we want to be everywhere on cable."

(snip)

Christian broadcasters, including such big names as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, worry that changing the current system will cut into viewership. If that puts them on the opposite side of where they usually stand in the indecency debate, Crouch said, "so be it." But Winters contends that religious broadcasters oppose more cable choice because they "are very fearful of losing any market share."


-------------


awwwwwwwwwwwwww.....

[RoyGBiv]

26. The enemy of my enemy ...

... is not necessarily my friend.

Some of these people are against it for the same reason other small, targeted stations are against it. Not all of those, or even most of them, are fundamentalist stations.

[Ravy]

29. Not all of them

Tele-evangelists are against it because it will cost them dollars. A lot of non-telegenic fundies support this because it will keep the godless channels from their homes.

[johnw654]

27. The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People :: The Best eBook

The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People

Powerful Lessons in Personal Change was a groundbreaker when it was first published in 1990, and it continues to be a business bestseller with more than 10 million copies sold. Stephen Covey, an internationally respected leadership authority, realizes that true success encompasses a balance of personal and professional effectiveness, so this book is a manual for performing better in both arenas. His anecdotes are as frequently from family situations as from business challenges.
Before you can adopt the seven habits, you'll need to accomplish what Covey calls a "paradigm shift"--a change in perception and interpretation of how the world works. Covey takes you through this change, which affects how you perceive and act regarding productivity, time management, positive thinking, developing your "proactive muscles" (acting with initiative rather than reacting), and much more.

This isn't a quick-tips-start-tomorrow kind of book. The concepts are sometimes intricate, and you'll want to study this book, not skim it. When you finish, you'll probably have Post-it notes or hand-written annotations in every chapter, and you'll feel like you've taken a powerful seminar by Covey. --Joan Price--This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
Click here to more details


http://www.xdown.org/viewtopic.php?t=28


mahamnoor1973-post

[newyawker99]

42. Hi johnw654!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Ron Green]

28. The Market runs on DUMBASS POWER.

As everything moves toward a fee-based arrangement, only those things that lots of people demand will be available. And face it, you elite and edumacated folks, lots of people, even most people, are IGNORANT. You'll be able to choose from Survivor I, Survivor II, Survivor III or American Idiot.

[Tesha]

34. Soon, none of this will matter.

Broadcast TV, cable TV, and satellite TV are *ALL* on the cusp of
imploding, so soon, none of this will matter.

We're at the point where the Internet is starting to deliver enough
bandwidth to our homes that we can all watch streaming video, and
soon, streaming HD video. At *THAT* point, the whole model for the
current television providers completely collapses. Why watch the
bullshit you're currently forced to watch on (say) "The Nazi Channel",
err, "The History Channel", complete with 20 minutes of commercials
every hour when you could instead watch precisely the program you
want to watch when *YOU* want to watch it?

Sure, you may have to pay for it, but the $50-$100/month you're
no longer spending on your cable/satellite bill will buy a lot
of paid content.

Mark my words: TV as we know it is dead except as a way to reach
the poor and the ignorant.

Tesha

[kysrsoze]

37. Streaming HD is here. www.nubatv.com. Looks pretty good already

What's going to happen with this technology, IPTV and next-gen DSL is literally thousands of channels, requiring the cable and satellite companies to alter their business model. Watch how much TV changes in 5 years.

[RoyGBiv]

43. Take note ...

The companies that control the cable/satellite industry are the same companies that are taking control (or in many cases have already taken control) of Internet content. This control comes in different forms, from partnerships to direct ownership. An interesting phenomenon starting to arise involves "packages" of web content sites being offered by access providers for a much lower price than you can subscribe to those content sites individually, on the order of $10/mo for 5 sites that would cost you $10-$20 each/mo individually. You may not want all those sites, but if you want two of them, or in some cases even just one, it is less expensive to get the package. If you strip it down and look at how the arrangement is constructed, this is precisely the model used to offer packages of channels rather than individual channels. This is currently very new, but it's building steam as more content providers see the massive potential for increased profits.

IOW, you're not really talking about a great difference here, particularly as the business model continues to change.

Also, FWIW, the two-way communication possible with a digital cable connection has resulted in a recent explosion of OnDemand content, which is an attempt to address the notion of watching what you want to watch when you want to watch it. Subscribers to the local cable company, for example, that subscribe to Showtime get with that service Showtime OnDemand, allowing you to watch a portion of the Showtime offerings each month at any time you desire. This is particularly appealing to those who watch the original series or special events but can't see them at broadcast time. Channels like DIY, The History Channel, The NFL Network, etc. are also offering OnDemand content available for no extra charge as long as your channels package also includes that channel. In time, this all will be partnered with web content.

Back to the main point, further deregulation of the cable industry, which is what this really boils down to, does nothing but offer the companies themselves more options on how to make a profit without being required to offer anything except according to the low-cost/high profitability formula, i.e. crap reality shows, "entertainment" news, sports, etc. The merging of web and cable content under one umbrella will be assisted by this move, and in the end, you're going to be offered a choice between getting web content at high prices on your own (individual channels) or at lower prices through an access provider.

[ComerPerro]

40. I imagine it will be just like anything else

The prices will vary per person, depending on how many channels you want.

I wish there was a way you could selectively block channels from your package...

[KansDem]

41. It's about time!

I gave up on cable 10 years ago because I was paying (at that time) over $30 a month to watch only a couple of channels, although I had access to over 60 channels, most of which was pure crap. I always wondered why we couldn't just pay for the channels we watch.

Finally, rather than paying 2-4 dollars for a block of channels, you'll be paying 1-12 dollars *per channel*, meaning your cable/satellite bill won't really go down, just your options.

There's the rub! Subscribe to 4 channels but pay 10 bucks apiece for them.

What the cable providers should do is require a nominal monthly subscription fee, then a couple bucks a month for each channel. For example: $19.95 to subscribe and $2 per channel to a maximum of, say, 5 channels, then charge a flat rate for all channels over 5 like they do now. I could go for that!