Not a-la-carte but getting closer

[stationless listener]

Cox cable is said to be going with introducing a TV Economy service tier, for as little as $35 a month.

http://www.fiercecable.com/story/cox-launches-35-monthly-tv-economy-programming-packages/2012-01-23
http://www.deadline.com/2012/01/cox-scraps-espn-and-other-pricey-channels-for-new-low-cost-tier/

 

[anotherguyTN]

I wish Charter would come out with something like this, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[mnradiofan]

Comcast and Time Warner have had something like this for a while, glad to see others following suit.

I think it's only a matter of time before we see the system divided into more and more tiers, as people get tired of paying for entire genres they don't ever watch. I'd be perfectly content, as an example, of having Comcast cut $15 off my bill by removing all of the "all sports" channels from my package. I don't watch ESPN, FSN, Big Ten, or any of the other dedicated networks, and I'm guessing that removing them would save about $15-20 per month in programming costs for me.

I don't ever think we are going to get TRUE a-la carte, due to many forces beyond our control (and it wouldn't be as cost effective either), but I'd settle for being able to pick and choose the types of channels I get (Family, News, General Entertainment, Sports, etc). Sports seems to be the big one to me, as rights fees to carry the sports seem to be passed on to the subscriber, and I'd much rather not pay for those.

 

[Mr. X]

I wish Charter would come out with something like this, but I'm not holding my breath.

Charter keeps trying to get existing customers to upgrade to the more expensive digital cable and want new customers to get digital cable, of course they're not going to offer a cheaper alternative to basic/expanded basic.

 

[landtuna]

Looking over the "budget tier" it appears I would watch exactly two services with any regularity. That is not a great value to me.

For the first time in several years (since dropping cable) I stayed in a high-rated hotel for several nights recently. They had everything so I danced through the channels to see what I may be missing. And the big answer? Nothing! Nada! Zippo! The programming has gotten even more idiotic than it was when I booted cable three years ago. Gold mining wars? REALLY? People must have died and left the TV on to get this type of crap.

I am not satisfied with OTA TV but then I am pretty select about what I watch. However, the whole purpose of cable is content and right now it sucks. Badly! Ala carte or not it will not attract me as a customer again until it offers something worth watching.

 

[arnoldevns]

Many cable companies offer a very basic service of just the local broadcast channels plus government channels and maybe C-SPAN for less than ten bucks a month. I think they are very limited on the kind of tiers they can offer due to their carriage agreements with cable channels.. HOWEVER.. if they were creative, they'd do something like this:

1 - Broadcast + govt & C-SPAN
2 - 1 + News channels & low-end general entertainment (these are the cheap "Family Net" "Youtoo" etc type stations that gobble up tons of cable real estate)
3 - 1 + 2 + premium entertainment (TBS, TNT, USA, MTV etc)
4 - 1 + 2 + 3 + educational & documentary (Discovery, History, CI, etc)
5 - 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + sports (ESPN, FSN, NBC, etc. all of them) - this would constitute everything except for premium movie channels
I would then offer each movie channel service bundle separately or one lump sum for them all.

I might charge 10 bucks for 1, 25 for 2, 50 for 3, 75 for 4 and 100 for 5.
There are a great many people who would gladly do without the highly expensive sports channels. I would make that pretty much an all or nothing proposition.

Of course this is a pipe-dream. a-la-carte will not work and the cable networks would not allow a tier such as I described above to ever happen.

 

[landtuna]

a-la-carte will not work

Ala carte worked just fine when there were dozens of service resellers. Now you have a much, MUCH smaller choice:

DirecTV
DISH
Your local cable fiasco (usually only one to chose from in any geographic area)

There is greatly reduced competition so they don't have any incentive to offer customer-friendly choice. That is the bottom line.

 

[landtuna]

Perhaps without the BIG bucks from cable subs they couldn't afford to outbid the networks any longer and games would once again be available OTA.

 

[Markxxx]

I wish cable would come up with a reception package for under $10/month. I'd get that. I lost all my TV after digital (I'm in Chicago city) and I used to have Comcast. I don't care for them, but I'd get that. But OTA is only worth $10 bucks to me. I only need it for reception.

I think it's like iTunes. Record companies went out of their way with DRM to stop piracy. Then someone figured out people will buy if you price it low and give them a choice. So people will pay 99 cents to get an mp3, even if they can pirate it for free. Because people (most anyway) want to be honest.

Price it low, make up in volume for people that wouldn't get it.

And don't forget bars, health clubs, hotels, and all sorts of places that broadcast ESPN and other cable networks, you the consumer still pay for it, as it's figured in the prices of those places.

 

[KeithE4]

Price it low, make up in volume for people that wouldn't get it.

You think ESPN will forgo around $500 million a month in guaranteed revenue (even if they don't sell one single ad) for an HBO-style pay channel that might get 10-20 million subscribers? At $10 a month, that's only $100-200 million. That still sounds like a lot, but they'd have to drop most of their major sports. The NFL alone is close to $100 million per month with their new deal. Besides, a loss of revenue that severe would cause the stockholders to revolt. Don't hold your breath waiting for this to happen.

 

[LKellerIII]

I wish cable would come up with a reception package for under $10/month. I'd get that.

Right. As soon as they bring back gasoline for $1.25 per gallon, the $1 loaf of bread, and the $1.99 steak and egg special at Norm's Coffee Shop. Not gonna happen.

In 1980, I was paying about $25 per month for about 2 dozen channels of cable from Viacom. Even if they brought that back as some kind of basic package, it should cost $65 now, adjusted for inflation.

If some cable company somewhere is offering at $35 basic package - that is a MAJOR bargain.

 

[jh]

Dish Network has a $15 a month package "Welcome Pack" They don't advertise it, but it is on their website: http://www.dishnetwork.com/packages/detail.aspx?pack=WELPACK

You get local channels, plus:

Comedy Central
Food Network
Home & Garden Television
History
Oxygen
WE: Women's Entertainment
AMC
ShopNBC
QVC
TBS
MTV
CMT
Boomerang
The HUB
Learning Channel
Hallmark
Bloomberg
MSNBC
The Weather Channel
HSN
ICTV
plus a few other shopping & religious channels.

I don't know what, if any, equipment is included. And I don't think it's in HD.

 

[TomParks]

If you want the welcome pack without a contract you simply buy the equipment, and I think you do get the locals in HD if offered in your area. You can add the encore movie pack for 5 bucks extra per month and have a deal for 20 bucks. They also have a dish family pack for $19.95 a month for the first year. I have OTA only now, but these are some good deals.

 

[PTBoardOp94]

A few years ago (2008-09) I rented an apartment serviced by Insight. I bought their essentials package for $13.95 a month. Locals, TNT/TBS/FX/USA, CSPAN, Home Shopping. More than 20 channels in all ... really a pretty satisfactory package, especially given the price.

I'm unsure if they still offer this package at any price, I do not find it on their website.

 

[nomadcowatbk]

Of course, the logical extension of this would be that ESPN become a premium channel - or suite of channels - that you pay extra for (like HBO). Disney would hate that, but that's the direction it's going with these unreasonable price hikes. I'd be for that.

They'd have to charge at least $50 a month to keep the same amount of revenue coming in, assuming viewers that regularly watch ESPN would be willing to pay that much. File that under "Fat chance" and "ESPN going out of business within a year."

The networks and the leagues/conferences who's business model depends on 100% of viewers being charged will go under if this type of plan goes widespread. Overpaid Players' salaries are paid from TV contract money. If the leagues don't get their $Billions every year from ESPN and the other networks, the players will have to settle for merely a living wage. I mean, how in the world would LeBron, A-Rod, or Peyton be able to live on only $100,000 a year? ;D

Back to the old days when the only three networks available aired more sports and players had no endorsement deals and had real jobs during the off season.

 

[chrish]

The biggest cable scam of them all.....the placing of Turner Classic movies in a package tier in which the other offerings have zero relationship to the viewers
who want it.