A la carte packaging (PLEASE NO POLITICS!)

[pab]

One important discussion that got swamped by the politics in the recently deleted thread, and deserves to be addressed is the idea of offering a la carte packaging with cable and satellite services.

Personally, this is the kind of service I would prefer. There are lots of channels I have no interest in seeing (DIY, ESPN, ABC Family, HGTV, CNBC, anything even remotely related to shopping, anything in Spanish, just to name some of the less controversial ones for example). Yet huge chunks of my TV bill each month go to pay for these channels that I never watch and have no interest in.

Is it really so wrong an idea to require (or allow) cable services to offer discounts for channels someone does not want on their service, and block those channels from subscribers? In this day and age of digital delivery, it's so easy to turn channels on and off for particular accounts and equipment. Would it really be so terrible to offer this choice?

Please keep this discussion above politics, since I'd like to see serious debate on this issue, and not have it dragged into the muck and deleted.
<P ID="signature">______________
The Pab Sungenis Project - http://www.lowbudgetradio.com</P>

 

[dampier]

> One important discussion that got swamped by the politics in
> the recently deleted thread, and deserves to be addressed is
> the idea of offering a la carte packaging with cable and
> satellite services.

It got puddled, not swamped. The entire issue is political when it comes to regulatory approaches to cable television. A large number of Republicans feel it's not a regulatory priority, a large number of Democrats want to establish price controls, and everyone wants their check from the lobbyists which means "leave it as is." In other words, you -can't- discuss this issue without dealing with the politics because that is precisely what makes a-la carte an option or not. The industry will say no until Washington makes them say yes.

> Is it really so wrong an idea to require (or allow) cable
> services to offer discounts for channels someone does not
> want on their service, and block those channels from
> subscribers? In this day and age of digital delivery, it's
> so easy to turn channels on and off for particular accounts
> and equipment. Would it really be so terrible to offer this
> choice?

If this happens (and I don't see it happening anytime soon because Washington doesn't seem to see this as a major issue), you will have to have some price gouging controls in place because the industry will jack the price up and erase the price savings. They've said nearly as much in their trade press.

Further, if you're an analog customer, you'd be required to pay for a digital converter box for every cable set in order to have the a-la carte option, and that is an immediate $5+ a month price hike just for the box rental.

> Please keep this discussion above politics, since I'd like
> to see serious debate on this issue, and not have it dragged
> into the muck and deleted.

I propose we just discuss the whole thing in Off the Air. Different board moderators have a different level of tolerance for politics, which is fine, and then the entire regulatory approach to the industry can be handled without giving anyone heartburn before they eat the Thanksgiving meal.

 

[r566]

> > One important discussion that got swamped by the politics
> in
> > the recently deleted thread, and deserves to be addressed
> is
> > the idea of offering a la carte packaging with cable and
> > satellite services.
>
> It got puddled, not swamped. The entire issue is political
> when it comes to regulatory approaches to cable television.
> A large number of Republicans feel it's not a regulatory
> priority, a large number of Democrats want to establish
> price controls, and everyone wants their check from the
> lobbyists which means "leave it as is." In other words, you
> -can't- discuss this issue without dealing with the politics
> because that is precisely what makes a-la carte an option or
> not. The industry will say no until Washington makes them
> say yes.
>
> > Is it really so wrong an idea to require (or allow) cable
> > services to offer discounts for channels someone does not
> > want on their service, and block those channels from
> > subscribers? In this day and age of digital delivery,
> it's
> > so easy to turn channels on and off for particular
> accounts
> > and equipment. Would it really be so terrible to offer
> this
> > choice?
>
> If this happens (and I don't see it happening anytime soon
> because Washington doesn't seem to see this as a major
> issue), you will have to have some price gouging controls in
> place because the industry will jack the price up and erase
> the price savings. They've said nearly as much in their
> trade press.
>
> Further, if you're an analog customer, you'd be required to
> pay for a digital converter box for every cable set in order
> to have the a-la carte option, and that is an immediate $5+
> a month price hike just for the box rental.
>
> > Please keep this discussion above politics, since I'd like
>
> > to see serious debate on this issue, and not have it
> dragged
> > into the muck and deleted.
>
> I propose we just discuss the whole thing in Off the Air.
> Different board moderators have a different level of
> tolerance for politics, which is fine, and then the entire
> regulatory approach to the industry can be handled without
> giving anyone heartburn before they eat the Thanksgiving
> meal.
>

IMO, it's not just about price savings.

I think a-la-carte could lead to better competition resulting in better programming, even if it meant less channels on the dial. Less channels also results in better picture quality, as the surviving ones would be allocated more bandwith by the satellite companies, for HDTV.

For example, MTV and VH1 monopolize the music cable category. As a Viacom channel, it was tied to CBS, and numerous other channels. An MSO wouldn't have the incentive to drop any of Viacom channels, as a group it's too much content(CBS has NFL, etc.), nor is a competing channel out there that has the viability for households.

With alacarte, it's more a supply demand market. If there is less demand for some channels, customers wouldn't pay for it, resulting in weak revenue. Weak subscription revenue would force the programmers to either improve the channel, raise costs for the ones loyal to the channel, or shut it down entirely.

With atleast 2 cable providers competing directly, 2 satellite providers also in the mix, for a given market, there would still be competition in keeping rates reasonable. Lot of the dead weight of channels could be eliminated, but the stronger ones or the new resulting ones would be still around, with MORE content on a given channel, rather than the status quo - hundreds of channels, lots of commercials, but content spread thin.

But, I agree. The industry prefers status quo.

 

[Nate Wesley]

What I'D like to see...

NONE of these ideas of mine have a snowball's chance in hell in getting implemented--but I'll play the game anyway.

1. I'd like to see what'd I'd call 'cheap channel service' available through digital satellite, cable, and/or broadband access. Included would be at least 30 channels and would incorporate partial a-la-carte (say 20-30 standard channels with 10-20 additional channels of your choice).

Right now, many of these new 'niche' channels are added to different tiers of cable/satellite service. With 'Cheap Channel' service, these channels would make up the bulk of the channels available for subscription. I've seen the arguments that channel choice would cause some channels to 'die', but by the same token, some channels would have the potential to grow given the politics and profitability of adding/subtracting channels. Personally, I could live without BET--I do enjoy TVOne (can only see it at my sister's DirecTV household), and I'd like to give Black Family Channel a chance.

Ultimately, the service wouldn't exceed $40, and at best it'd bottom out slightly higher than $20. Pie-in-the-sky, indeed, but I am fantasizing here.

2. Replacements for the 'expensive' channels: Instead of CNN or Fox News Channel, why not let us replace them solely with MSNBC and CNN Headline News? To my knowledge, those channels aren't demanding for huge amounts of subscriber jack.

This brings me to worst of the cable bill capers, ESPN. Granted, there's plenty of great programming I'd miss if the ESPNs weren't around--but I might not miss them a great deal if I could get a mix of these channels to replace them: NFL Network, NBA TV, CSTV, Fox College Sports, and my closest regional sports network. None of these channels could be asking for ridiculous carriage fees either.

Thoughts?<P ID="signature">______________
"Not fixing [New Orleans'] levees before Katrina struck will now cost us untold billions. Not resolving the nation's issues of race and class has and will cost us so much more."
--Wynton Marsalis
</P>

 

[gr8oldies]

Re: What I'D like to see...

Big problem is there would be no eyeballs available for any new channel that might come along. That would ensure status quo even more than we have now. (if an upstart wanted to compete with MTV, such as Fuse, they won't be seen at all.)

 

[Markxxx]

IMO, it's not just about price savings.
>
> I think a-la-carte could lead to better competition
> resulting in better programming, even if it meant less
> channels on the dial. Less channels also results in
> better picture quality, as the surviving ones would be
> allocated more bandwith by the satellite companies, for
> HDTV.
>
I think it would ultimately lead to less channels. And as you stated this may not be a BAD thing. But HDTV is another hot bed all together. Simply put most programming will simpply be upconverted. This is NOT really HDTV is it. Think about all those people spending mega bucks for new TV just to get "upconverted show." Right now I only know of one OLD sitcom "Hogan's Heros," which because it was shot in 35mm was able to be TRUE HDTV.

Outside of sports seeing a better picture isn't really all that great. In fact local newscasters hate it. This is because they can use cheaper fake things and on analog TV it looks pretty good. But on HDTV it is REALLY bad. I took a tour of NBC studios in NYC and they showed us what current sets look like in HDTV for shows like Dateline, and the difference was VERY noticable.

I mean no on is going to buy that Ronco Meat Rotisserie because it is REALLY clear.

> With alacarte, it's more a supply demand market. If there
> is less demand for some channels, customers wouldn't pay for
> it, resulting in weak revenue. Weak subscription revenue
> would force the programmers to either improve the channel,
> raise costs for the ones loyal to the channel, or shut it
> down entirely.

This MAY or may not be a good thing. Things like Opera, and the Ballet are supported by cultural groups far beyond their scope.

One interesting note I was researching was the vast limited availablity of LPTV for colleges. Seems with service like "The Box" broadcasting so many limited stations, in so many places it has become an un-viable (is that a word?) option for local colleges to have an LPTV station.

Again do you really want to see MORE infomercial channels. As hard as it is to fathom, infomercial DO work. Just like SPAM, it exists because people ACTUALLY buy things (15% percent of people last year bought from spam in the USA).

So instead of getting more entertainment channels you may get the huge cash cow infomercial and shopping channels.

> With atleast 2 cable providers competing directly, 2
> satellite providers also in the mix, for a given market,
> there would still be competition in keeping rates
> reasonable.

This is the strongest point you make. The ONLY known fact is whereever there is DIRECT competition between two cable companies (and that does exist in a few places) cable is CHEAPER. The choices are roughly the same but the rates are outstanding lower.

Obviously certain things cable companies charge for are excess.(like the phone company CHARGING for UNLISTED numbers saying people WANT their number to be listed-- this has never been able to be backed up with data).

Direct competition you would see no monthly charges for remotes and cable boxes or digital boxes. Heck I have an OLD webtv box and when I ran the digital cable thru it I got ALL the unscrambled digital (granted not a lot) channels with it. And you can get an old webtv box for $20 bucks on eBay, one time fee.

Again by allowing cable companies to partcipate in internet and phone WITHOUT allowing vice versa, you are consolidating. Comcast TOLD ME IN A FORM LETTER, my cable was being raised for improvments to voice over protical and broadband.

So you see how quickly everything lumps together. You need the rivalry to keep rates low and choices to a premuium

<P ID="signature">______________
Once I figured out the meaning of life....Then I forgot to write it down.</P>

 

[SuperDav20000]

Re: What I'D like to see...

> Big problem is there would be no eyeballs available for any
> new channel that might come along. That would ensure status
> quo even more than we have now. (if an upstart wanted to
> compete with MTV, such as Fuse, they won't be seen at all.)
>
Free Preview of a new network for a month could work.<P ID="signature">______________
Tidewater MediaZone TV/Radio Audio Clips and ScreenCaps</P>

 

[HomerJay]

It comes down to whether you prefer a free-market system or yet more government regulation and interference in businesses that provide what is mostly a luxury service (and for the relatively limited number of people who can't get any over the air reception, the government-madated lowest level cable package already has its price set through a government formula).

And if we're going to start mandating the unbundling of cable, what about my daily newspaper? I don't read the sports section, why should I pay for the printing, paper, staff salaries, etc.?

As a society, we seem to have short memories. Most of the channels we would individually put in our "dream lineup" exist today--in their present form--because of the economic model of packaged programming and, yes, ads. Whether it's Fox News, Lifetime, TLC, History, MTV, USA, FX, Nickelodeon...whatever...a large portion of the investment that let them improve their programming came from the larger distribution. Without that model, USA wouldn't have evolved from the Cartoon Express and REALLY cheap rerun channel it was into a moderately less cheap rerun channel with outstanding original shows like Monk. Ditto FX with Rescue Me, The Sheild or Nip/Tuck. Do you think many people would have been willing to subscribe to TLC in its early days? More than likely, it would have gone dark long before the Wedding/Baby/Makeover stories came along, not to mention that little Trading Spaces show. Nick might well have remained a dumping ground for nothing but old British shows (remember Black Beauty and The Tomorrow People?) instead of signature series like Spongebob, Rugrats, Dora and more.

An ironic side effect of forced a la carte would be an even tighter market for independent programmers. One of the complaints, and a fair one, in the deleted Fox thread was about the leverage companies have over satellite and cable providers to not give channel A if you don't pay up for channel B. But if you think it's a tight market for the indies now, who do you think woul be able to invest and subsidize new networks under an a la carte model? Pretty much ONLY the major corporations, who could sustain a loss while trying to get something off the ground.

Isn't it interesting that with the two national satellite providers, a flock of cable companies, the competitive cable providers like RCN, and from what I've read, now the phone companies, all of them rely on packages. Even a company I read about called USDTV is offering a low-priced service, but it's still a package. All companies with different overarching strategies, different backgrounds, entering the market at different times, yet all out to eat each other's lunch....and every one of them relies on packages. If there were a huge missed business opportunity to make a profit by offering a la carte, it seems likely someone, somewhere would be proving it by now.



> One important discussion that got swamped by the politics in
> the recently deleted thread, and deserves to be addressed is
> the idea of offering a la carte packaging with cable and
> satellite services.
>
> Personally, this is the kind of service I would prefer.
> There are lots of channels I have no interest in seeing
> (DIY, ESPN, ABC Family, HGTV, CNBC, anything even remotely
> related to shopping, anything in Spanish, just to name some
> of the less controversial ones for example). Yet huge
> chunks of my TV bill each month go to pay for these channels
> that I never watch and have no interest in.
>
> Is it really so wrong an idea to require (or allow) cable
> services to offer discounts for channels someone does not
> want on their service, and block those channels from
> subscribers? In this day and age of digital delivery, it's
> so easy to turn channels on and off for particular accounts
> and equipment. Would it really be so terrible to offer this
> choice?
>
> Please keep this discussion above politics, since I'd like
> to see serious debate on this issue, and not have it dragged
> into the muck and deleted.
>

 

[garn91]

Re: What I'D like to see...

Exactly. Niche networks, like the Discovery special interest networks or National Geographic wouldn't exist today because no one would order them. Another negative about ala carte is, correct me if i'm wrong, but won't ala carte lead to higer rates for everyone? Example, my ala carte package would consit of the ESPN family of networks, TBS, TNT, FX, WGN, Weather, Fox News, VH 1 Classic and perhaps Discovery Times and the Military Channel. The family next door to me might have the kiddy networks, Hallmark, ABC Family, Lifetime, Lifetime Movie, TLC, and perhaps one ESPN channel.

Now, we all know that each and every cable network charges a certain dollar amount per subscriber, some rates are higher than others, some are much lower. My cable rate would be through the roof to compensate Brand X cable company because not everyone would have my package and the exact same thing could be said for the family next door becase not everyone would have that package.

Not to mention, as previously discussed, Ala Carte would be a nightmare for advertising sellers because most if not all advertising is based on ratings and the number of TV homes that the network reaches.

> Big problem is there would be no eyeballs available for any
> new channel that might come along. That would ensure status
> quo even more than we have now. (if an upstart wanted to
> compete with MTV, such as Fuse, they won't be seen at all.)
>

 

[wxctintern]

Re: What I'D like to see...

I'd like to see not only pick and choose whatever cable networks you want, but also pick and choose what network affiliates you want. Too bad there wouldn't be a way, AFAIK where you could say choose an out of market network affilaite instead of your local affiliate.

 

[Tom_Desmond]

Old Sitcoms in HD

> simpply be upconverted. This is NOT really HDTV is it. Think
> about all those people spending mega bucks for new TV just
> to get "upconverted show." Right now I only know of one OLD
> sitcom "Hogan's Heros," which because it was shot in 35mm
> was able to be TRUE HDTV.

Lots of old shows were shot on 35-mm film, and not just "Hogan's Heroes". While not in general distribution in HD, amongst other shows that have had at least some episodes remastered into HD from 35-mm film prints are "Cheers", "I Love Lucy", and "Bewitched".

 

[Tom_Desmond]

Re: What I'D like to see...

> Free Preview of a new network for a month could work.

What could work really well would be that the channels wouldn't go into ala carte unless they charge a per-subscriber fee exceeding a few cents per month. This would allow channels to be widely distributed as long as they're not going to drive up your cable/satellite bill with sizeable monthly fees. It would also ensure that channels that exist will have real viewer support -- because they must either run programming popular enough to draw ratings that will generate high ad rates or they must be able to convince people to buy the channels as ala carte services.

The resulting programming marketplace would be a lot closer to a free market than anything that currently exists in the cable business.

 

[Tom_Desmond]

> It comes down to whether you prefer a free-market system or
> yet more government regulation and interference in
> businesses

Frankly, the current system bears very little resemblance to a true free-market system. In a real free-market, content would be kind, and the channels that would survive and prosper would be the ones that are actually most valued by viewers.

Anyone think that is what we have now?

 

[Nate Wesley]

Re: What I'D like to see...

> Big problem is there would be no eyeballs available for any
> new channel that might come along. That would ensure status
> quo even more than we have now. (if an upstart wanted to
> compete with MTV, such as Fuse, they won't be seen at all.)
>
But with my plan(s), Fuse might be provided in place of MTV, who'd easily command a higher subscriber rate.

But overall, you do bring up a good point--I'm not sure how you could incorporate new channels under such a plan, without some sort of a channel shakeup every few years (if not every year). <P ID="signature">______________
"Not fixing [New Orleans'] levees before Katrina struck will now cost us untold billions. Not resolving the nation's issues of race and class has and will cost us so much more."
--Wynton Marsalis
</P>

 

[BoardmanDJ]

The only problem with this is the lack of the Discovery of new content. I tend to stumble onto new shows that I like, then end up watching.
However, I could see offering a "90 day free sneak preview" of any new network added to the cable company. That way it's available long enough for everybody to sample, and reject or order.


> One important discussion that got swamped by the politics in
> the recently deleted thread, and deserves to be addressed is
> the idea of offering a la carte packaging with cable and
> satellite services.
>
> Personally, this is the kind of service I would prefer.
> There are lots of channels I have no interest in seeing
> (DIY, ESPN, ABC Family, HGTV, CNBC, anything even remotely
> related to shopping, anything in Spanish, just to name some
> of the less controversial ones for example). Yet huge
> chunks of my TV bill each month go to pay for these channels
> that I never watch and have no interest in.
>
> Is it really so wrong an idea to require (or allow) cable
> services to offer discounts for channels someone does not
> want on their service, and block those channels from
> subscribers? In this day and age of digital delivery, it's
> so easy to turn channels on and off for particular accounts
> and equipment. Would it really be so terrible to offer this
> choice?
>
> Please keep this discussion above politics, since I'd like
> to see serious debate on this issue, and not have it dragged
> into the muck and deleted.
>

 

[HomerJay]

> > It comes down to whether you prefer a free-market system
> or
> > yet more government regulation and interference in
> > businesses
>
> Frankly, the current system bears very little resemblance to
> a true free-market system. In a real free-market, content
> would be kind, and the channels that would survive and
> prosper would be the ones that are actually most valued by
> viewers.
>
> Anyone think that is what we have now?
>
Actually, I think it most certainly does...as competitive companies, telcos and satellite companies get in the mix, it proves there are multiple distribution methods for programming, and those providers can choose to sell an optional service as it best meets their needs. Companies that wish to see a la carte can pursue that model, and those that don't are not obligated to.

 

[Nertz]

Re: What I'D like to see...

> I'd like to see not only pick and choose whatever cable
> networks you want, but also pick and choose what network
> affiliates you want. Too bad there wouldn't be a way, AFAIK
> where you could say choose an out of market network
> affilaite instead of your local affiliate.

That would be quite good. My local affils are awful especially with the news. The ABC one is stuck in the 1970s. It would be nice to get another one. Also having affils from the other coast in addition would be very nice, too.

 

[KMRichards]

Re: What I'D like to see...

> > I'd like to see not only pick and choose whatever cable
> > networks you want, but also pick and choose what network
> > affiliates you want. Too bad there wouldn't be a way,
> AFAIK
> > where you could say choose an out of market network
> > affilaite instead of your local affiliate.
>
> That would be quite good. My local affils are awful
> especially with the news. The ABC one is stuck in the 1970s.
> It would be nice to get another one. Also having affils from
> the other coast in addition would be very nice, too.

THAT is never going to happen, guys. Remember how much argument went into the change in the rules that allowed DirecTV and Dish to start offering local channels. To get even the network-owned NYC and LA feeds of ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC, you need to get a waiver from the local station in whatever market you live in ... even if you can't receive them due to terrain. (Good luck getting that, BTW.)<P ID="signature">______________


</P>

 

[bpatrick]

Re: What I'D like to see...

> > > I'd like to see not only pick and choose whatever cable
> > > networks you want, but also pick and choose what network
>
> > > affiliates you want. Too bad there wouldn't be a way,
> > AFAIK
> > > where you could say choose an out of market network
> > > affilaite instead of your local affiliate.
> >
> > That would be quite good. My local affils are awful
> > especially with the news. The ABC one is stuck in the
> 1970s.
> > It would be nice to get another one. Also having affils
> from
> > the other coast in addition would be very nice, too.
>
> THAT is never going to happen, guys. Remember how much
> argument went into the change in the rules that allowed
> DirecTV and Dish to start offering local channels. To get
> even the network-owned NYC and LA feeds of ABC, CBS, Fox,
> and NBC, you need to get a waiver from the local station in
> whatever market you live in ... even if you can't receive
> them due to terrain. (Good luck getting that, BTW.)
>
I must say I liked the old Primestar arrangement better:
ABC from Atlanta and L.A.; CBS from D.C. and Portland, OR;
Fox from Philadelphia and San Francisco; NBC from Boston
and Sacramento. Here was a chance to view stations in
several markets, East and West; it was especially nice
for me because in times past I've lived in the coverage
areas of WSB/2 (ABC) Atlanta and WUSA/9 (CBS) Washington, DC.

 

[mjlarochelle]

Re: What I'D like to see...

> That would be quite good. My local affils are awful
> especially with the news. The ABC one is stuck in the 1970s.
> It would be nice to get another one. Also having affils from
> the other coast in addition would be very nice, too.
----------
I think local affiliates should be mandatory, but they should take a hint from Canada and offer timeshifting packages - basically everyone in Central and Eastern would receive Seattle or L.A. stations for west coast broadcasts, and in the West, Boston or NYC stations.<P ID="signature">______________
From WNBC-TV New York this is Liiiiive at Fiiiiive!</P>