The debate about A-La-Carte cable continues...

[CrankyYankee]

FYI- I've posted an article on the Canada TV board about how A-La-Carte would cost more and limit choices. For those following this on-going subject it would be worth a few minutes to look it over.

 

[SixtiesGuy]

FYI- I've posted an article on the Canada TV board about how A-La-Carte would cost more and limit choices. For those following this on-going subject it would be worth a few minutes to look it over.

So, how long have you worked for Comcast?

 

[theoldguy]

if a-la carte cable is done,how much will a channel probally be a month?

 

[therealjm12]

if a-la carte cable is done,how much will a channel probally be a month?

It would vary. Some channels would be bundled. Other not. ESPN, example costs carriers about $5 a month. I think double that to the consumer so I guess about $10 for them. Other channels costs the carriers around a dollar so a couple bucks a month for them. So I figure outside of the local channels I would be paying under $ 50 a month. I would only want 5 or 6 channels.
le

 

[landtuna]

Give it a rest! There is no accurate estimate available (that I am aware of) that prices per channel would raise, or by how much. This is all conjecture and without any substantive basis that I can tell.

The fact is, we did at one time have ala carte subscriptions and they worked - mainly because there were hundreds of programmers competing with each other to sell. Ala carte would work again and for much the same reason. But speculating on possible pricing is just that - speculating.

 

[tested]

No. A la cart would cost more. Channels would disappear and many would become premium channels for $10 a month or more.

 

[KeithE4]

No. A la cart would cost more. Channels would disappear and many would become premium channels for $10 a month or more.

Disney would charge at least $25 a month, if not $50, for the ESPN channels. Much of that money goes to the leagues/conferences for rights fees. CBS, Comcast/NBC, and Fox would have to charge similar amounts for their sports channels to cover the rights fees they pay.

 

[theoldguy]

another question.i realize it will be a spectulative answer.will cable as we know it dissapear if a-la-carte begins?

 

[dougw9wi]

I would suggest... if alacarte was established, you'd pay some kind of "access fee". Something to cover those expenses that can't be allocated to a specific channel -- the wiring connecting the head-end to your house; the satellite dishes (which generally deliver dozens of channels from the same satellite); the billing department; etc...

I think you'd find the access fee would be set high enough that the subscriber with the "average" package would pay a bit more than they're paying right now. (a bit to cover the higher cost of billing for alacarte) The subscriber with a bunch of sports and/or movie channels would pay more; the only folks who'd save would be those who take fewer channels than average.

 

[theoldguy]

there are so many channels i watch something on that even for 5 dollars a month a channel i think it would cost me more to pick and choose.

 

[ansky212]

I would suggest... if alacarte was established, you'd pay some kind of "access fee". Something to cover those expenses that can't be allocated to a specific channel -- the wiring connecting the head-end to your house; the satellite dishes (which generally deliver dozens of channels from the same satellite); the billing department; etc...

I think you'd find the access fee would be set high enough that the subscriber with the "average" package would pay a bit more than they're paying right now. (a bit to cover the higher cost of billing for alacarte) The subscriber with a bunch of sports and/or movie channels would pay more; the only folks who'd save would be those who take fewer channels than average.

Thank you very much. I have been hearing people talk about a-la-carte for years, and how they would only have a $10 cable bill if they could only order they channels they watched. People seem to always forget about everything you just mentioned...from the people working up on the poles, to customer service, etc. That money has to come from somewhere, and a $10 cable bill is not going to cover that.

 

[K6JHU]

My cable bill is $120 a month for 200 channels. Don't watch HBO, Showtime, etc. So that is less than $1 a channel. There is no channel on my cable system that I would be willing to pay $10 a month for, and for $5 it is very very questionable. So for me the price point maximum is about a buck a channel on top of the fixed cost. And BTW of the 200 channels, my viewing universe is somewhere in the vicinity of 20 channels max, ever. While I am in favor of 'a la carte', it is numbers like mine that will guarantee it will never happen.

 

[landtuna]

Please provide substantive source for your OPINION.

Since no programmer has actually flipped to an ala carte model since the old C-band days there is no evidence of your statement.

 

[landtuna]

Right now you've got millions of subscribers of ESPN paying a monthly fee for NOT WATCHING and they are pissed about that. If those that do want ESPN were to pay $25/month for the channel it would still be a great deal for all of us who don't want to pay for NOT WATCHING.

Actually, I am speaking for cable subscribers and not myself. I dumped cable years ago and promised I would not return until a reasonable and fair subscription model is available. My TV subscription bill on the old C-band system was ala carte and amounted to about $60 PER YEAR for the five stations I watched. That was fair. The current subscription model is not so they lose my subscription money - all of it - and I get my programming elsewhere.

 

[northgaradio]

I can second landtuna's comment, like I stated in the last thread, A-la-carte was the best option for me and my budget when I had C-band and the cost was very reasonable because there WAS competition for your money (skyvision, NPS, Programming Center etc.), unlike cable today you have no real competition to speak of. Some are saying that the cost per channel would go up to $50 per channel or package (ex. ESPN, ESPN2, ESPN Classic) those channels wouldn't last long charging that amount. Cable heads and networks will have to change with the changing times, most young people don't even have cable or even TV's as much as we did growing up. Most people that I know are Netflix subscribers or watch TV DTA over the air or online or like me with along with a FTA Satellite. If cable heads or networks want to stay in business they will HAVE to give us a choice and stop holding us hostage with the 'you better pay/get all of our channels or none at all' mentality.

 

[dougw9wi]

Understand though that with C-band, you were paying most of the fixed expenses. (the dish, the receiver, etc.)

It was a pretty good model for the consumer, as those were pretty much all one-time fixed expenses & they weren't all that expensive.

But I don't think that costing model would work with a system like cable with substantial fixed expenses. (and investors who expect to receive continually increasing dividends...)

 

[landtuna]

Understand though that with C-band, you were paying most of the fixed expenses. (the dish, the receiver, etc.)

It was a pretty good model for the consumer, as those were pretty much all one-time fixed expenses & they weren't all that expensive.

But I don't think that costing model would work with a system like cable with substantial fixed expenses. (and investors who expect to receive continually increasing dividends...)

My "fixed" expenses for my dish, receiver and assorted cable etc. ran about $1,700. Add another $200 for the decrypt card. I don't know what the fixed expenses for a cable system are but I suspect it isn't anywhere near that on a per unit basis and I know it isn't anywhere near that for DBS sat systems.

 

[TexasTom]

Thank you very much. I have been hearing people talk about a-la-carte for years, and how they would only have a $10 cable bill if they could only order they channels they watched. People seem to always forget about everything you just mentioned...from the people working up on the poles, to customer service, etc. That money has to come from somewhere, and a $10 cable bill is not going to cover that.

Not all of the costs are fixed -- notably, the costs of event and programming acquisition are set by the marketplace. And there's certainly nothing set in stone that says that ESPN (or anyone else) must continue paying $1.8 billion/year for Monday Night Football once the current contract expires.

In an a la carte world, individual channels would cost whatever the market will bear -- if ESPN can get enough subscribers at $50/month, that's what it will cost. Alternatively, if the market will only bear a price of $10/month, then sports rights costs will come down sufficiently that ESPN can be profitable at that rate.

My guess is that the latter scenario is more likely than the former -- but unless a la carte ever actually happens, it will remain speculation. Anyone who says that they know what costs would be under a la carte is deluded.

 

[pab]

I think the model with a la carte would actually be a bit of a mix.

First, you'd have a flat minimum bill, which would pay for the infrastructure. This would probably be in the neighborhood of $10.00-$15.00 a month and would include the hardware rental plus all the "free" stations (which would basically be must-carry and public service channels). Then you'd pay for each station you wanted after that.

As for me, I've pretty much already gone down that route. We cut the cable (as far as TV is concerned) and put up an antenna in our second floor window. That cut our cable bill from $150.00 a month down to $54.99 for internet-only. We signed up with Hulu Plus for $7.99 a month, which is supported by our TiVo. Then, for the few shows we watched that aren't on Hulu (like Walking Dead, Mad Men, etc.) we go through iTunes and buy them a la carte.

Now we pay for television each year what we were paying per month. It's great.

 

[landtuna]

The old C-band ala carte model didn't have a minimum bill per se but did have a minimum number of services. I seem to remember that to get the lowest pricing on a per-channel basis you had to order a minimum of five services. ESPN was also a minimum number subscription.