FCC may approve cable a la carte

[HomerJay]

Agreed. As the saying goes, be careful what you wish for--you just may get it. To assume that YOUR channels will be around to subscribe to may leave you disappointed.

Moreover, beware anytime the government wants to stick its nose into anything--intentions and reality are often day and night.
>
> I could also see a decent-sized chunk of cable subscribers
> going away, but not from the reason you gave.
>
> Other side of the coin:
>
> They'll also lose some subscribers who will lose the
> marginal, special interest channels that they subscribed for
> (HGTV, Fit TV, etc.) because those channels would eventually
> fold up for lack of "a la carte" subscribers. The per
> subscriber charge is the bulk of their income, not
> advertising. (And there would be little advertising for
> channels that lose households as a result of this scheme.)
>
> Just because YOU don't like DIY or BET doesn't mean there
> aren't people who do, and if you force the question of a
> channel's existence being based on how many people
> positively commit to receiving it, you will doom a great
> number of channels.
>
> Hell, even MTV could be threatened, if mom and dad refuse to
> pay specifically for it.
>
> This is one that I hope the cable industry wins. (And I
> happen to be a DirecTV subscriber, so it is rare for me to
> side with them.)
>

 

[KMRichards]

Re: Out of Market Stations and Syndex?

> Hopefully the whole out of market and syndex will get tossed
> out too.

I think on that point it is safe to say "dream on". Local broadcasters won't go for it.<P ID="signature">______________


</P>

 

[ssnake]

> This is one that I hope the cable industry wins. (And I
> happen to be a DirecTV subscriber, so it is rare for me to
> side with them.)

Paying $50/month for "expanded basic" cable is ridiculous if you only watch a few channels. DirecTV/Dish should wise up and offer a lower cost package (e.g. $20/month) that allows selection of a few channels, since they already have the infrastructure to do that.

Then again, cable companies do have an advantage as I see it: better to bundle a basic TV service with Internet with them than to spend $30/month on a phone line to get DSL, if you already have a decent cell plan.

 

[Tom_Desmond]

> I wonder if that's also what a la carte pricing would look
> like with cable ...

Not exactly.

As a C-Band viewer who takes advantage of those ala carte prices (my last renewal was around $50 for a year), I certainly appreciate the value that I get. However, it took a substantial upfront investment in hardware to receive that programming -- and unlike small dish, no company subsidized the equipment costs.

So, how does that relate to ala carte on cable? The cable company does need to cover the cost of the wiring and other infrastructure that they have in place, and that would drive up the cost of ala carte service over cable. My guess is that if ala carte ever comes to cable, subscribers would still have to purchase some minimal level of programming (perhaps the "lifeline basic" package that typically costs around $15/month), and the ala carte channels would be added to that very basic package.

For the "little dish" companies (DirecTV and DISH), ala carte would work a little differently. In fact, some ala carte options are available from DISH now -- but subscribers must purchase their own equipment (no subsidy) and also have to pay a $5/month fee on top of the cost of the ala carte programming that they buy. From the AVS Forum, I've seen a few comments from people who are using this option to get DISH's HDTV package without taking any of their SD channels.

The result would still be a substantial savings for many viewers, but not quite as big of a savings as those prices from NPS for big dish subscribers might lead you to believe.

 

[toby]

WNBC is reporting about this right now!

WNBC is doing a story on their 11PM this evening. They say that there are several studies that say it is cheaper, but the cable maffia says that it may lead to less choice.<P ID="signature">______________
<a href=http://blog.spotteddogs.org/blog/>Random Observations on Life, the Universe and Television</a></P>

 

[Tom_Desmond]

> And the cable industry will promptly sue saying they are
> being deprived of their free speech (yes, channel packaging
> is considered free speech by them and they've sued over it
> before) as well as claims the last round of deregulation
> means that the FCC doesn't have the authority to impose a-la
> carte on the industry.

You're undoubtedly right about the cable industry suing -- and you can count on seeing "friend of the court" briefs from the satellite companies and from the companies that provide the programming, since they all stand to lose lots of money if consumers can avoid paying for the channels that they don't want.

Such a lawsuit might be a good thing, since it would give the courts the opportunity to decide once and for all whether channel packaging is indeed a "free speech" issue. Personally, it impresses me as more than a slight stretch of the First Amendment to consider this as "speech", but who knows how the courts will rule...

> They also have multi-year contracts with programmers that
> specifically forbid tiering, and the courts will have to
> invalidate those contracts, many of which don't expire until
> after 2010.

In the event of a court ruling favoring ala carte, those contracts could conceivably be invalidated as illegal restraint of trade. Not a guaranteed outcome by any means, but perhaps a (longshot) possibility.

 

[ccmfan]

> > This is one that I hope the cable industry wins. (And I
> > happen to be a DirecTV subscriber, so it is rare for me to
>
> > side with them.)
>
> Paying $50/month for "expanded basic" cable is ridiculous if
> you only watch a few channels. DirecTV/Dish should wise up
> and offer a lower cost package (e.g. $20/month) that allows
> selection of a few channels, since they already have the
> infrastructure to do that.
>
> Then again, cable companies do have an advantage as I see
> it: better to bundle a basic TV service with Internet with
> them than to spend $30/month on a phone line to get DSL, if
> you already have a decent cell plan.
>

In the early years of Dish (mid 90's?) I can remember seeing a brochure where they offered an ala carte package of 10 channels from what was then their Top 40 package for either 10 or 15 dollars. I'd guess that they were pressured into dropping the package by the cable networks.

 

[Slinky]

Re: Out of Market Stations and Syndex?

> Hopefully the whole out of market and syndex will get tossed
> out too.
> I can think of one occassion where getting an out of market
> station would be good, since last month our local ABC
> station ditched their Sunday night line up for a football
> game that was on ESPN. I know I would have prefered
> Desperate Housewives to the crappy Eagles game!

I'd love to see an end to syndex too, but KMRichards is right. There's just no conceivable way it could happen. Even if it were to happen, you'd have to convince your cable company to add more local channels, which is even less likely. Even on systems where syndex isn't an issue, it's rare to see multiple markets represented, at least outside of rural areas.

What's more likely is that you'll have the option of watching Desperate Housewives on a digital subchannel when its pre-empted, or on an on-demand service. The show is already available through iTunes for download to your computer.