• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

FCC Says 'a la Carte' Cable Can Now Help Save Money

While I welcome the idea of 'a la carte' cable bills, it won't mean a damn thing in the long run. The cable company will find a way to charge whatever the hell they want. They will add an extra 'service fee' or some other equally crappy way to make the money they want.

 
i don't think it will go through

it sounds good, but ...


so would the cost per channel be based on its popularity? if so, that would be fine.

if History channel is unpopular so it costs more than another channel, but i like History, then i would be happy to pay more for channels i like
 
I think that cable companies should be able to price and market their services however the market will bear.

However...

It certainly wouldn't hurt my feelings to be able to add the one or two premium channels I actually want without quadrupling my cable bill.

Viper GTS
 
id rather see them open up the market like they did with dsl. i think it would be better(cheaper) to have companies compete for my business than having only one comapany available for my cable needs and me choose channels.
 
It'd be nice if at the very least they sold groups of channels. Just divide it up into groups like all the ESPN channels, all the local channels, all the Fox Sports channels, all the History channels, all the Discovery channels, all the women channels (Lifetime, Oxygen, WE), etc etc.
 
You will be able to save money. At the same time, dozens of cable channels would cease to exist because they couldn't generate enough revenue from individual subscribers to cover their costs.

You'd get all the shopping channels free (since cable operators get kickbacks on items sold to their customers) of course. The local authorities will force them to carry C-SPAN and public interest channels too. After that, expect to see a lot of channels disappear.

I guess it comes down to whether you'd rather pay $45 for 70 channels, or $39 for 17 channels. Yes, you'll save a few bucks, while losing over well over half the channels.
 
Originally posted by: kranky
You will be able to save money. At the same time, dozens of cable channels would cease to exist because they couldn't generate enough revenue from individual subscribers to cover their costs.

You'd get all the shopping channels free (since cable operators get kickbacks on items sold to their customers) of course. The local authorities will force them to carry C-SPAN and public interest channels too. After that, expect to see a lot of channels disappear.

I guess it comes down to whether you'd rather pay $45 for 70 channels, or $39 for 17 channels. Yes, you'll save a few bucks, while losing over well over half the channels.
Click to expand...

Exactly. This will be the kiss of death to all the little niche channels that don't attract a wide viewership.
 
Originally posted by: kranky
I guess it comes down to whether you'd rather pay $45 for 70 channels, or $39 for 17 channels. Yes, you'll save a few bucks, while losing over well over half the channels.
Click to expand...
Since it'll be the 17 channels we actually want, I bet a lot of people would choose the $39 option. Remember, my 17 channels for $39 will be different from your 17 channels for $39. And cable now is $56/month for me for nothing but the basics. 🙁 I'd love to see the $45 that you priced.
Originally posted by: Linflas
Exactly. This will be the kiss of death to all the little niche channels that don't attract a wide viewership.
Click to expand...
Why should the government sponsor monopolies (or duopolies) just to support channels that the free market wouldn't support? Why should crappy channels that no one watches stay around?
 
Actually, I think my expanded basic is $49. I just picked dollar figures 13% apart, which is what the link said would be the savings.

If I had a choice of 70 channels for (using your cost) $56, or 17 channels for $48.72, I'd take the 70 channel package. I know I wouldn't watch all of them frequently, but I do enough switching channels to want the additional 53 channels for $7.28.
 
Originally posted by: dullard
Originally posted by: kranky
I guess it comes down to whether you'd rather pay $45 for 70 channels, or $39 for 17 channels. Yes, you'll save a few bucks, while losing over well over half the channels.
Click to expand...
Since it'll be the 17 channels we actually want, I bet a lot of people would choose the $39 option. Remember, my 17 channels for $39 will be different from your 17 channels for $39. And cable now is $56/month for me for nothing but the basics. 🙁 I'd love to see the $45 that you priced.
Originally posted by: Linflas
Exactly. This will be the kiss of death to all the little niche channels that don't attract a wide viewership.
Click to expand...
Why should the government sponsor monopolies (or duopolies) just to support channels that the free market wouldn't support? Why should crappy channels that no one watches stay around?
Click to expand...

Why should the government have anything to say regarding the programming on cable? There are a hell of a lot more important things the FCC could be worrying about instead of programming choices on cable television. You seem to not understand that the cable operators package this way because they feel it is the best way for them to make money while providing viewers with the widest range of choices. The government is trying to interfere with the free market here, not support it.
 
..it will come in handy for many who want to exclude programs like mtv and the like in an effort to clean up what comes into their home.
 
Originally posted by: Viper GTS
I think that cable companies should be able to price and market their services however the market will bear.

However...

It certainly wouldn't hurt my feelings to be able to add the one or two premium channels I actually want without quadrupling my cable bill.

Viper GTS
Click to expand...

I agree the market should be able to set the prices for whatever they want. trouble is most cities have cable tv set up as a monopoly. If you could get more then one choice on a landbased cable service then i wouldnt see a problem.

yes i know you can get satalite but in the city sometimes its just not a viable option.
 
Does this mean in order to get cable a la carte, we have to get addresable cable boxes? Like digital cable, the cable company can instantly add/remove channels you have access to.
 
Originally posted by: Linflas
Originally posted by: dullard
Originally posted by: kranky
I guess it comes down to whether you'd rather pay $45 for 70 channels, or $39 for 17 channels. Yes, you'll save a few bucks, while losing over well over half the channels.
Click to expand...
Since it'll be the 17 channels we actually want, I bet a lot of people would choose the $39 option. Remember, my 17 channels for $39 will be different from your 17 channels for $39. And cable now is $56/month for me for nothing but the basics. 🙁 I'd love to see the $45 that you priced.
Originally posted by: Linflas
Exactly. This will be the kiss of death to all the little niche channels that don't attract a wide viewership.
Click to expand...
Why should the government sponsor monopolies (or duopolies) just to support channels that the free market wouldn't support? Why should crappy channels that no one watches stay around?
Click to expand...

Why should the government have anything to say regarding the programming on cable? There are a hell of a lot more important things the FCC could be worrying about instead of programming choices on cable television. You seem to not understand that the cable operators package this way because they feel it is the best way for them to make money while providing viewers with the widest range of choices. The government is trying to interfere with the free market here, not support it.
Click to expand...


NO. The real problem is it is NOT a free market. As waggy was saying, cable companies have monopolys in cities. Its either them or no cable. Satalite is kinda a option but not a option for all.
 
Originally posted by: brtspears2
Does this mean in order to get cable a la carte, we have to get addresable cable boxes? Like digital cable, the cable company can instantly add/remove channels you have access to.
Click to expand...

You bet - if you don't have a box now, you'll have to rent one.
 
Originally posted by: kranky
Originally posted by: brtspears2
Does this mean in order to get cable a la carte, we have to get addresable cable boxes? Like digital cable, the cable company can instantly add/remove channels you have access to.
Click to expand...

You bet - if you don't have a box now, you'll have to rent one.
Click to expand...


Well being that digital is comeing for all I don;t think that will be a problem as most will have some sort of box by then.

 
Originally posted by: kranky
I guess it comes down to whether you'd rather pay $45 for 70 channels, or $39 for 17 channels. Yes, you'll save a few bucks, while losing over well over half the channels.
Click to expand...

If those were real numbers... yeah, i would agree, it's probably not much of a saving. But i would bet you pulled those out of your ass.
 
Although it is not a classic free market, cable is not a necessity. I never had cable growing up, and I only have basic now (true basic, $13 a month) and even that only because it's cheaper to have both that and cable internet than just cable internet.

If the cable companies priced their product too high, people would simply stop paying for it.

The fact of the matter is that people are more addicted to TV than they are offended by a $100 a month cable package.

Viper GTS
 
Originally posted by: Viper GTS
Although it is not a classic free market, cable is not a necessity. I never had cable growing up, and I only have basic now (true basic, $13 a month) and even that only because it's cheaper to have both that and cable internet than just cable internet.

If the cable companies priced their product too high, people would simply stop paying for it.

The fact of the matter is that people are more addicted to TV than they are offended by a $100 a month cable package.

Viper GTS
Click to expand...


Again it is a monopoly. If their prices are so fair then open up the lines and let soemone else jump in with them. They won;t as they know they would have to reduce their rates to compete in a FAIR market. But if it is a fair price then why the need for a monopoly?

 
They certainly are a local monopoly, but who cares?

It's their network, run by their hardware, serviced by their technicians.

If you're so desperate for their to be a direct competitor why don't you have at it?

Viper GTS
 
Originally posted by: Looney
Originally posted by: kranky
I guess it comes down to whether you'd rather pay $45 for 70 channels, or $39 for 17 channels. Yes, you'll save a few bucks, while losing over well over half the channels.
Click to expand...

If those were real numbers... yeah, i would agree, it's probably not much of a saving. But i would bet you pulled those out of your ass.
Click to expand...

I read the link in the OP, and it said "The new analysis claims that viewers in the average household watch about 17 channels and could save up to 13 percent on their cable TV bills if they were given a sort of a la carte sytle of cable viewing."

I guessed $45 was a fair approximation of what people pay for cable (mine is about $49, maybe I was low), and I get about 70 channels. A 13% savings on a $45 bill comes to $39.15. So I didn't make them up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top