T
Tom_Desmond
Guest
> 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.
Companies that want to pursue the ala carte model may or may not be able to do so -- the companies that control the majority of cable networks have no incentive to deal with ala carte providers who might undercut a business model that has been working very well for them. Time will tell...and that's speculation on the future.
Right now, what most areas have is three competitors (the local cable company, DirecTV, and DISH), all of which provide a very similar product. This is not suggestive of a truly competitive marketplace, but is instead reminiscent of the three U.S. automakers back in the seventies, before foreign competition was much of a factor. As the U.S. auto makers did back then, today's multi-channel pay providers today are able to get away with being no more than minimally responsive to the marketplace, while claiming to deliver what their customers want.
Government regulation to enhance competition might well help. One example of desirable regulation would include the prohibition of bundling of channels by the big media conglomerates (ie, Disney telling a cable company that in order to get a decent price on ESPN they must also run ESPN Classics). Go further and break up the big media companies that control most of the programming networks, prohibit common ownership of networks with cable/satellite companies, and it would be interesting to see how this might change.
> 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.
Companies that want to pursue the ala carte model may or may not be able to do so -- the companies that control the majority of cable networks have no incentive to deal with ala carte providers who might undercut a business model that has been working very well for them. Time will tell...and that's speculation on the future.
Right now, what most areas have is three competitors (the local cable company, DirecTV, and DISH), all of which provide a very similar product. This is not suggestive of a truly competitive marketplace, but is instead reminiscent of the three U.S. automakers back in the seventies, before foreign competition was much of a factor. As the U.S. auto makers did back then, today's multi-channel pay providers today are able to get away with being no more than minimally responsive to the marketplace, while claiming to deliver what their customers want.
Government regulation to enhance competition might well help. One example of desirable regulation would include the prohibition of bundling of channels by the big media conglomerates (ie, Disney telling a cable company that in order to get a decent price on ESPN they must also run ESPN Classics). Go further and break up the big media companies that control most of the programming networks, prohibit common ownership of networks with cable/satellite companies, and it would be interesting to see how this might change.