The ala carte option disappeared many years so comparison with todays packages wouldn't work since individual channels are not offered. But back in the day (late 80's) my c-band, consisting of 5-8 channels, was much cheaper than the packages then offered.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Are broadcast networks becoming obsolete 10-20 yrs from now?
- Thread starter CurtisNEPA
- Start date
If I remember correctly ESPN and a few others were either standalone services or charged an extra fee. When I first signed up for c-band I did include ESPN but never renewed it nor have I watched it since. Too much talking and not enough showing the games.
I think cable companies could design ala carte pricing packages that could be attractive to customers. Such as for $50/month you get to choose any 25 non-sports channels, $100/month you get to choose any 50 non-sports channels, etc.
Those choices would not be attractive to me since they would undoubtedly include what I already receive OTA and other garbage such as HSN and/or religious/court programming (and likely not include the digi-subs which are my main old-fart-guy choices).
I think cable could still sell ala cart services and still make money and retain or increase their number of customers. If the current rate of cord cutters continues then customers will still decline preferring to subscribe to streaming choices instead. IMHO the cable industry is cutting their own throats.
It takes two to tango. The cable companies might want to do a lot of things, but if the big media companies don't want ala carte, then it won't happen. Disney has a lot of power keeping all of their channels together.
Note I said chose 25 ANY non-sports channels for $50 (or whatever the monthly fee would be). Cable campaniles would probably add QVC, HSN to all packages as they make money from shopping channels but you still get to choose the 25 channels you want. I excluded sports channels because their fees would throw off this choose your own package model.
And that is just one reason why Dizzy will not ever get a dime from me.
Still, if the customers thru cable providers keeps dropping it will affect their bottom line to some degree.
I understood why you wrote it that way. Still, the biggest reason I would insist on ala carte is to buy a subscription to whatever sports programmer I want to watch and not something like ESPN.
The cable provider is welcome to toss in additional channels but don't expect me to pay for them (or watch them).
Which is why cable companies are getting into other businesses.
The question wasn’t broadcast TV, but broadcast networks and whether they’ll continue to invest in and provide programming to affiliated stations.
True too I don't know how long will non O&O's like Gray, Sinclair, Nexstar, Hearst, Allen Media, Cox, Tegna, Scripps, Graham Media Group, and others will continue to get programming from the networks.
I heard of some of the largest TV station operators have been forming subchannel networks, Building TV apps and buying networks in recent years in response to streaming. Like Nexstar with forming Rewind, Newsnation and their pending deal with CW, Gray with Investigate TV via acquisition of Raycom and a new office for WGCL (which is to be renamed as WANF) and WPCH, EW Scripps built Newsy as a streaming News outlet to go after CBS News TV app and purchased Ion Networks.
This is more about how the largest TV station owners would respond and prepare in the event the networks decided to end contracts with then because Paramount, Disney and Peacock wants to be streaming only.
I won't.
‘Fall TV’ Is Dead. But Buzz Will Always Be With Us.
Two television critics ponder what fall TV even means in the streaming era and discuss the series they’re most looking forward to this season.
Here is one factor that is sparking the question if Network TV will still be viable in the future. It is the fall premieres.
I agree we will still have the Big 4 (ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC) and mini networks such as CW, Ion, Telemundo, UniMas, Xtios, Univision and My Network TV and PBS and the various sub channels.
Neither Univision nor Telemundo are "mini-networks". Univision, in particular, often has shows that are ahead of CBS or NBC or ABC. Univision is on stations in over 70 markets, reaching 70% of the US population and about 90% of Hispanics. It is carried on every significant cable service that operates in any area with Hispanics who live there.
Because these things tend to get lost in longer threads, we disagree.
I think ABC, CBS and NBC will end up supplying news and not much else to affiliated broadcast stations. Probably in ten years, maybe a bit less.
FOX is a toss-up. There might be a business supplying sports to broadcast affiliates. If they’re just entertainment, it’s streaming.
PBS is an interesting case. I think they and member stations will try to keep broadcast sustainable as long as possible while building a robust streaming platform for the future. As far as I know, member financial support is still strong in broadcast for PBS and the local stations.
I don’t know enough about the Spanish-language audience or broadcasters to hazard a guess as to how quickly that could go to streaming, or to what extent it already has (David)?
I really don’t see a broadcast future for CW, ION, or MyNetwork. What do they do that couldn’t be a simpler, more profitable streaming business 10 years from now?
I remember hearing that in cities like Los Angeles the viewership of the Telemundo and Univision would be higher in the ratings and in some cases beat the major networks like CBS at certain times.
I can see Fox splitting it's entertainment division between Fox Nation and Tubi.
Tubi - Wikipedia
Tubi for the general public.
Fox Nation for a niche audience we talk about in the political threads.
For Fox Sports definitely for Cable and OTA affiliated.
The complication for PBS is the federal dollars, and it will be very difficult to justify a federal appropriation in Congress for a national streaming service. The whole basis for the federal appropriation is money for the local stations. I also think the local stations will prevent PBS from doing much on their own. They will insist that anything PBS does is done in concert with the local stations. That's how things are done now. If you go to PBS.com, your browser immediately asks you about your local station.
- Status