• 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

Article: A La Carte: More casualties than survivors

nomadcowatbk said:
no one would notice the casualties
Click to expand...

Very true. Lots of channels that deserve to die (and they would if they were not forcing you
to buy them in bundles with channels you actually watch)
 
The problem is sports. A la carte could conceivably bankrupt Disney and News Corporation (and possibly Comcast since NBC is getting heavily into cable sports) just because of all the rights fees ($Billions) they owe the college and professional sports organizations for ESPN and FSN cable rights. And these leagues/conferences won't take less money.

By extension, those bankruptcies would diminish or even kill the OTA ABC and Fox networks, and the sports leagues/conferences at the same time (Most of the TV money goes to players' salaries). It would also affect the bottom line for DirecTV and Dish Network, plus all the cable companies that would lose subscribers if ESPN, FSN, Fox, ABC, and possibly NBC went under.

CBS Corporation might be the only broadcaster that could survive since they don't pony up cable rights fees like the others. They keep their major sports programming on the OTA CBS network, unlike NBC, Fox, and (especially) ESPN/ABC.

Bottom line: A la carte just ain't gonna happen without serious reductions in service. That would destroy the business model, and advertising alone can't replace the revenue generated by everyone paying for every channel, watched or not. A la carte fees would be 10 times the current rates (e.g. $50 a month for ESPN).
 
Sports is the only thing I would pay for in a la carte. I'd love to "cut the cable" but I want ESPN/2/U.
 
w00t said:
Sports is the only thing I would pay for in a la carte. I'd love to "cut the cable" but I want ESPN/2/U.
Click to expand...

I cut the cable 2 1/2 years ago. The only time I miss it is for college sports, which is mostly ESPN. I pay for MLB.TV and could pay for the NBA and NHL if I wanted to. But if you want to watch college sports online, it's either ESPN3 (not available to anyone in Phoenix other than Cox Cable customers - Cox isn't available in my apartment complex) or pay out the wazoo for CBS ULive, which is mostly audio-only (at $120 a year - the same as MLB.TV!).
 
I have stopped in several stores recently by cable/satellite reps trying to sign me up as a customer. One rep actually how much I paid per month when I told him my TV service comes from an antenna! I told them all I would not subscribe until thy could put a meter on the system, like the electric or water company, and I only pay for my usage.
 
Yes. a la carte would leave a lot of casulties in the wake. But with more spectrum space on the cable, there might just be room for some channels that people would consider worth paying for. Or given the threat of going under (removed from the system) some new programming ideas might just emerge. Worth a try.
 
The amount of junk channels we have to pay for is making a la carte needed. Sport is also breaking the bank, with every possible sport known to man creating its own channel, and wanting top 10 money, and basic cable placement. It was one thing when were paying $3 each for ESPN & ESPN2, and they carried all the big 4. Now you got networks from NBC, CBS, Fox, 2 from the NFL, MLB, NHL, Big 10, golf, NBA, local RSN did I forget any?

In the end, especially with the sports programing it was all basically on local channels before cable anyway.

I say go a la carte. Make local broadcast channels must have. So anyone getting cable will get all the networks right away. With networks havning the advantage of reaching 100% again, and with fewer channels in homes, maybe networks can once again create quality programing. Back in the 80's when my cable company only offered 38 channels, some of the best programing use to be on the local independent channels. I would welcome a return to that.

I would also allow cable networks to bundle their channels into packages. Kinda like how HBO comes with 7 HBO's. So people have the choice to buy TBS, TNT, ect on its own, but also the "turner" package which comes at a discounted rate (compared to buying each on its own) TBS, TNT, CNN, Cartoon, Trutv, and whatever else they own. Disney, Fox, MTV networks, discovery, ect could do the same. Yes on one hand it would give an advantage to the big media companies, but on the otherhand it might help save a few channels that couldn't survive on their own, and would atleast breed interesting programing ideas to keep people subscribed.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom