Ever wanted to choose your cable channels instead of paying for them all?

[Fingolfin269]

Cable/Sat A La Carte

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.

I've always wanted this. I watch a handful of channels and would more than likely save money if I could choose to pay for the 10 channels I actually watch. What about you all? Have you ever wondered just how many channels you're paying for that you couldn't care less about?

Channels I would take if I could pay per channel and still save money:
1) ESPNHD
2) History
3) G4TV
4) DiscoveryHD
5) TLC
6) TNTHD
7) ESPN2
8) Fox News/MSNBC/etc... whichever is cheaper
9) I don't think we need to include local channels but go ahead if you want.

Hell, those are the only ones I can think of right now if that tells you anything. Try to think about this yourself and see what you come up with. It might surprise you.

*GOT ORIGINAL LINK FROM slashdot
*Sorry if this is a repost, I did use the search function...

 

[Sukhoi]

Yep I've talked to my roomate about this.

I don't think it's going to happen until all channels are digital though. But once they are digital it will be very easy to implement.

 

[broon]

Yes, you should be able to choose within reason which channels are in your package.

 

[Mermaidman]

Bad idea. I would bet that if this system were ever implemented, customers would end up not saving much because the cost per channel would be high. But we'll see . . .

 

[stnicralisk]

Discovery
Animal Planet
Fox
FX
History
ESPN
ESPN2
Speed
Comedy Central
Cartoon Network
CNN

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Mermaidman
Bad idea. I would bet that if this system were ever implemented, customers would end up not saving much because the cost per channel would be high. But we'll see . . .

Yeah, the cable companies would do their best make a la carte as unattractive as possible to their customers.

 

[trmiv]

I would love it if they did this. So many useless channels that I get. It would also be cool if the NBA did this for the NBA League Pass. I have league pass just so I can watch Laker games, but I don't watch any other teams. I'd love to pay a lesser amount just to see the team I want.

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: Mermaidman
Bad idea. I would bet that if this system were ever implemented, customers would end up not saving much because the cost per channel would be high. But we'll see . . .

That and many smaller networks will disappear.

 

[dugweb]

the first channel gone would be VH1... frick I hate that channel. I enjoy music, but that channel is loaded with the most useless crap I have ever set my eyes on (my sisters watch it all the time :|

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: Mermaidman
Bad idea. I would bet that if this system were ever implemented, customers would end up not saving much because the cost per channel would be high. But we'll see . . .

That and many smaller networks will disappear.

I agree.

I don't see how this is a good idea in practice. Great in theory though.

If anything your cable bill will be higher. You can count on the fact that a cable company won't allow themsevles to lose money with this.

 

[ahurtt]

It sounds like it should cost less because you are getting less but the effort required and cost to implement a la carte programming would actually mean more complexity, more work and likely actually end up driving prices higher. The higher cost would likely spill over to some of the subscribers who do NOT subscribe a la carte therefore driving up prices for cable tv even more for everybody. BAD idea I think. This is why they make tv's with the V-Chip now. If people are too dumb to figure out how to use it then. . .well. . .

 

[jtvang125]

I certainly agree that cable/sat companies need some regulating but at the end the cable/sat compaines will always win.

 

[astrosfan90]

Totally agree. All of this monopolistic nonsense in the cable industry just winds up screwing us consumers in the end. I have about 350 channels on my cable package, and I can name about 5 that I watch regularly.

But two of them I wouldn't be able to get without paying for all 350.

 

[KLin]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
Cable/Sat A La Carte

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.

I've always wanted this. I watch a handful of channels and would more than likely save money if I could choose to pay for the 10 channels I actually watch. What about you all? Have you ever wondered just how many channels you're paying for that you couldn't care less about?

Channels I would take if I could pay per channel and still save money:
1) ESPNHD
2) History
3) G4TV
4) DiscoveryHD
5) TLC
6) TNTHD
7) ESPN2
8) Fox News/MSNBC/etc... whichever is cheaper
9) I don't think we need to include local channels but go ahead if you want.

Hell, those are the only ones I can think of right now if that tells you anything. Try to think about this yourself and see what you come up with. It might surprise you.

*GOT ORIGINAL LINK FROM slashdot
*Sorry if this is a repost, I did use the search function...

That would be nice. Don't forget ESPN2HD .

 

[Queasy]

I think a happy medium would be to offer groups of channels at certain prices. Sell local channels, ESPN Channels, Sports Channels, Women's Channels, Discovery Channels, Kids Channels, Shopping Channels, etc seperately. That way there is still the option of choice without killing some of the smaller channels.

 

[NuclearNed]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: Mermaidman
Bad idea. I would bet that if this system were ever implemented, customers would end up not saving much because the cost per channel would be high. But we'll see . . .

That and many smaller networks will disappear.

Who cares? If a channel doesn't offer programming good enough to keep the channel financially viable, then I say natural selection has worked correctly and the universe is in harmony.

 

[Zee]

Originally posted by: NuclearNed

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: Mermaidman
Bad idea. I would bet that if this system were ever implemented, customers would end up not saving much because the cost per channel would be high. But we'll see . . .

That and many smaller networks will disappear.

Who cares? If a channel doesn't offer programming good enough to keep the channel financially viable, then I say natural selection has worked correctly and the universe is in harmony.

that's the whole theory behind PBS (in NYC, that's broadcast basic ch 13) and why people make donations to PBS to keep it alive. Just because it doesnt show Boobs and Explosions 24/7 like cinemax/skinemax doesnt mean it's not a good channel.

 

[ahurtt]

I really can't see why the FCC is getting involved in this. . .If it's indecency they are concerned about we already have the V-chip as well as parental locks/controls offered by a lot of the big digital cable providers. For the cost of implementing a la carte programming for analog cable, it would probably be cheaper for people to just upgrade to digital so they can take advantage of the parental lock and channel lock features already provided. This is a case where getting less costs more. This is just one step closer to the FCC trying to become "Big Brother" controlling all we see and hear.

 

[broon]

It would make more sense for the cable company to have packages like they currently do. For example...

60 channel package has these 40 channels no matter what. The remaining 20 you get to choose from a list.

 

[sygyzy]

What happens if they take the top 20 channels and charge you $5 a piece for them. Then charge you $0.30 a month for channels that you usually don't watch but might once in a while. Wouldn't you figure it'd be worth it to spend a penny a day to watch a single cool documentary or something? That's less than feeding a kid in Africa!

 

[broon]

Originally posted by: sygyzy
What happens if they take the top 20 channels and charge you $5 a piece for them. Then charge you $0.30 a month for channels that you usually don't watch but might once in a while. Wouldn't you figure it'd be worth it to spend a penny a day to watch a single cool documentary or something? That's less than feeding a kid in Africa!

Another good idea. Various prices for various channels.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: ahurtt
I really can't see why the FCC is getting involved in this. . .If it's indecency they are concerned about we already have the V-chip as well as parental locks/controls offered by a lot of the big digital cable providers. For the cost of implementing a la carte programming for analog cable, it would probably be cheaper for people to just upgrade to digital so they can take advantage of the parental lock and channel lock features already provided. This is a case where getting less costs more. This is just one step closer to the FCC trying to become "Big Brother" controlling all we see and hear.

Because that is the nature of government agencies. They have to continually justify their existence and they can do this by expanding on that which they are supposed to cover/regulate.

 

[Stifko]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: Mermaidman
Bad idea. I would bet that if this system were ever implemented, customers would end up not saving much because the cost per channel would be high. But we'll see . . .

That and many smaller networks will disappear.

Where do the prices come from? Let the FCC regulate how much the cable companys charge us, if they want to do something.

Can't they do something where they bundle the smaller networks with bigger ones and still be somewha a la carte?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Popular channels wil then be able to put the service providers over the barrel by raising those rates. And what will the service providers due. Pass them on.

Right now, ESPM may cost twice as much as the Discovery channel.
Once ESPN knows that people are not watching Disc, then they will want more from the service providers.

Disc and others like it will end up being more like PBS.
The views of those shows will then also have to anti up more, because the service providers do not want the overhead costs of a small customer base.

Specialized channels now cost $20/month via digital boxes. Now expect everyone to pay $5-10/month for each favorite channel.

Customer will be the one getting shafted and the educational channels will fade away.

 

[Remy XO]

Originally posted by: NuclearNed


Who cares? If a channel doesn't offer programming good enough to keep the channel financially viable, then I say natural selection has worked correctly and the universe is in harmony.

Thinkin like that means all the small people that DO watch that channel will lose out. If it was like that with cars, we will all be driving japanese cars around.