Cable a la Carte

[admin]

It seems to make intuitive sense - why should you have to pay for cable channels you never watch? It's not hard to see the benefit for the end user - only pay for the channels you actually watch. In my house this means no more Lifetime, TLC, MTV, VH1, BET, anything related in any way to country music, and a host more. But would I really save any money?


Discuss "Cable a la Carte" here. Read the article.

[jonsmirl]

A TV channel is just a play list that you don't control. IPTV will be the end of channels as we know them. In a few years all shows will be a la carte.

[10010011]

It will reduce choices in the long run because packaged deals allow niche channels to survive.

Right now I pay $50 for a lot of channels, granted I do not watch all of them. But there is always the times when nothing is on my favorites and I stumble across something interesting on a channel I never watch.

Also if you only watch on or two channels it might seem to make sense. But instead of $50 for 100 channels would you rather pay $5-10 each? If you think there are going to be a lot of 99 cent networks, forget it.

[MDS]

I agree with the assertion that a la carte channel selection will limit the availability of new or smaller niche channels because just like the article says, how many people would just add Mojo or some other new channel just to see if there is ever anything worth watching on it? I know I wouldn't.

The bundling of channels into packages doesn't bother me too much because I do occasionally watch things on channels I don't normally watch.

What does bother me is all the duplication and the fact that you have to pay for the basic analog tier before you can get the digital tier. With my cable nearly ALL of the stations in the analog tier are duplicated in the digital tier (and yet do not have digital audio!). Likewise many of the stations in the digital tier are available under multiple channel numbers.

TW likes to advertise 300 channels but in reality there is so much duplication that the actual number is much lower, not to mention there are things that you will NEVER watch like the shopping network, telemundo, etc.

[Sheep]

BCTV no longer exists... Global bought them out. Or at least, I don't get it anymore.

SheepStar

[fredk]

I hate the idea of paying for a bunch of stuff I don't want... wait, make that a TON, just to get to the very few channels I do want.

I voted with my $ and don't watch tv anymore. Its not worth it to me.

If the day comes where I can get the programming I want, great. If not, or if its more expensive than what I would have to pay under the current scheme, oh well.

Fred

[stratman]

A la carte as we understand it now won't happen, for one reason: money. I'll give you as example Direct TV. They are against a la carte for the fact that they would lose millions upon millions in advertising revenues, let me be clear on this, TV exists to sell a product called advertising, that's the primary goal, secondary to entertain, when a company comes to Direct TV looking to start an ad account they pay a premium for an advertising "package," said package must be targeted to as many numbers of people as possible(multiple channels/languages), a la carte negates carpet bombing campaign blitzes, if we all had 10 favorite channels, for example, product exposure would be kept to a minimum and if out of those 10 channels 5 or 6 are premium then advertising (revenue) is cut even further, thus forcing Direct TV to rely on more customers to pay more of the bills, so the math would be more customers to spread the costs or hike prices for less ad revenues.

[MDS]

a la carte negates carpet bombing campaign blitzes, if we all had 10 favorite channels, for example, product exposure would be kept to a minimum and if out of those 10 channels 5 or 6 are premium then advertising (revenue) is cut even further

But you know they would just adapt. You know the stupid little animated 'ads' for the special show that is coming up a week later that many stations (TBS in particular) place at the bottom of the screen where they usually only place the static logo?

I'll bet you dollars to donuts those kinds of animated ads would explode and watching TV would become even more unbearable.

[stratman]

But you know they would just adapt. You know the stupid little animated 'ads' for the special show that is coming up a week later that many stations (TBS in particular) place at the bottom of the screen where they usually only place the static logo?

I'll bet you dollars to donuts those kinds of animated ads would explode and watching TV would become even more unbearable.

I'm sure your scenario would intensify, but realistically the big corporations don't want snippets or animates what they want and pay for is saturation, have you ever surfed channels and caught the same commercial on two or three channels at almost the same time? The lifeline of cable/satellite TV is advertising, a la carte negates most of the profit and I can tell you all these companies have high paid lobby firms working in Washington making sure their little "empires" aren't affected by a la carte pricing.

[rfecteau]

This a la carte debate will be moot in a few years. The internet will pass cable companies by. They will all be fighting to be the last one hanging on.

Rich