On the subject of a-la-carte...

[CrankyYankee]

Is it a good idea or a bad, bad idea? This columnist thinks it's, uh, awful.
http://www.adweek.com/news/television/la-carte-worst-idea-anyone-has-ever-had-151814

 

[therealjm12]

I am and always will be a supporter of a la carte. $30 a month for ESPN! They are charging the systems now $5 a month. It would seem if they charged $10 or $15 that would quite a profit and don't forget ESPN is sponsored supported. A lot of commercials there. TV land is .$91 a month. How about charging the subscriber $2 or $3 a month? I just want the cable delivered to my house with the local channels. Let me make the decision what additional channels I want. If I can't afford $30 a month for ESPN, I won't get it. ESPN will be forced to deal with it. Yes it is socialism and I resent it. Funny how socialism is ok for big business but God forbid we give health care to poor people- That's just horrible socialism.

 

[LKellerIII]

I am and always will be a supporter of a la carte. $30 a month for ESPN! They are charging the systems now $5 a month. It would seem if they charged $10 or $15 that would quite a profit and don't forget ESPN is sponsored supported. A lot of commercials there. TV land is .$91 a month. How about charging the subscriber $2 or $3 a month? I just want the cable delivered to my house with the local channels. Let me make the decision what additional channels I want. If I can't afford $30 a month for ESPN, I won't get it. ESPN will be forced to deal with it. Yes it is socialism and I resent it. Funny how socialism is ok for big business but God forbid we give health care to poor people- That's just horrible socialism.

It's called welfare for the rich. That aside, I'm not a supporter of a la carte. Most of my watching is on basic cable networks and HBO. I'm convinced that a la carte would end up being more expensive to deliver the approximately 50 channels I use regularly. Even if they charged $3 a month each, that would be more than I'm currently paying Comcast.

However, if all the predictions about streaming are true, cable and satellite will be dead in 5 or 10 years, and we'll all be happily 'a-la-carting' using our computers. My son watches most of the same cable dramas I do, using the internet for free.

However, I have no doubt that the networks will find a way to make everybody pay for the programming, and that's OK. There's no incentive to produce programming if they can't make a profit in some way.

 

[whit979]

The author of the article sounds like a sheep who is writing for an advertising trade journal/website. Advertisers want maximum exposure, which to me would indicate that they would want as many channels as they can get for their messages to be heard. Can't have pesky consumers wanting choice if you want your commercials to be seen, right? So let's go ahead and get one of our non-editorial reporters to write a piece slamming the whole idea of choice.

And the writer is flat-out wrong when he claims that prices are high "because there aren't any new customers entering the market." There aren't a lot of new customers in the mobile phone sector either but somehow I pay less for my iPhone than I do for pictures to appear on my television set -- and TV technology is DECADES older. No, the reason your TV bill is high is because you probably don't have any choice as to who your service provider is. In much of the country, wherever you live means you're given the option of a single cable provider serving your address. It's Ma Bell, just done in a way that flies under the radar of antitrust litigation.

Make no mistake. A la carte cable is coming, in some form. Maybe it manifests itself as mini-tiers or smaller channel bundles. Regardless, the reality is that with cable companies losing buckets of TV subscribers each year, they'll have no choice but to throw the American consumer a bone. It's great to see John McCain and others in Congress pressing for greater choice.

 

[KeithE4]

However, if all the predictions about streaming are true, cable and satellite will be dead in 5 or 10 years, and we'll all be happily 'a-la-carting' using our computers. My son watches most of the same cable dramas I do, using the internet for free.

ESPN, Fox, and Turner require a cable subscription in order to watch their programming online. ABC will be doing the same thing soon, if they haven't done so already.

 

[newsmark]

I am and always will be a supporter of a la carte. $30 a month for ESPN! They are charging the systems now $5 a month. It would seem if they charged $10 or $15 that would quite a profit and don't forget ESPN is sponsored supported. A lot of commercials there. TV land is .$91 a month. How about charging the subscriber $2 or $3 a month? I just want the cable delivered to my house with the local channels. Let me make the decision what additional channels I want. If I can't afford $30 a month for ESPN, I won't get it. ESPN will be forced to deal with it. Yes it is socialism and I resent it. Funny how socialism is ok for big business but God forbid we give health care to poor people- That's just horrible socialism.

I pulled up Disney's annual report the other day. In 2012, their cable networks, including the ESPN group, made more money from subscriber fees ($9.4 billion in 2012) than from advertising ($7.7 billion). They're not gonna give that up.

It's here http://cdn.media.ir.thewaltdisneycompany.com/2012/annual/10kwrap-2012.pdf if you want to see it.

 

[FredLeonard]

Cable channels and stations should be allowed to accept paid advertising or ....
Get fees from cable companies or cable subscribers directly.
Not both.

Disney has enough money.

M-I-C See how much money we are making.
K-E-Y Why? Because we can.

 

[KeithE4]

I pulled up Disney's annual report the other day. In 2012, their cable networks, including the ESPN group, made more money from subscriber fees ($9.4 billion in 2012) than from advertising ($7.7 billion). They're not gonna give that up.

They give a good portion of that to all the leagues and conferences that they have rights to. It doesn't just go into shareholders' wallets.

The only way that changes is for all the networks to say to the various commissioners, after the current deals have expired: "You're taking 25% of what we've given you and you're going to like it. Disney, CBS Corporation, Comcast, Fox, and Time-Warner are all united on this - your extortion days are over." Then, after the collusion lawsuits have all been settled, Congress has gotten involved, and the leagues/conferences have all declared bankruptcy and reorganized, things will begin to settle down.

The chances of that happening are less than zero.

 

[Morgan Wick]

I pulled up Disney's annual report the other day. In 2012, their cable networks, including the ESPN group, made more money from subscriber fees ($9.4 billion in 2012) than from advertising ($7.7 billion). They're not gonna give that up.

They give a good portion of that to all the leagues and conferences that they have rights to. It doesn't just go into shareholders' wallets.

The only way that changes is for all the networks to say to the various commissioners, after the current deals have expired: "You're taking 25% of what we've given you and you're going to like it. Disney, CBS Corporation, Comcast, Fox, and Time-Warner are all united on this - your extortion days are over." Then, after the collusion lawsuits have all been settled, Congress has gotten involved, and the leagues/conferences have all declared bankruptcy and reorganized, things will begin to settle down.

The chances of that happening are less than zero.

On the other hand, let's say some form of a la carte happens, something that at least allows people not to pay for sports channels they don't watch. Well, sports leagues are gonna have to weigh raking in the dough against having a substantial number of important games on a glorified premium channel. I don't think their appetite for money is that bottomless.

 

[crainbebo]

We rarely watch sports. I'd be happy with the networks, Root Sports (for Mariners) and an occasional ESPN/ESPN2. I don't need ESPN17, the Fox networks, all of the sports league networks - WASTE OF BANDWIDTH!

I'd also love to get rid of my Spanish channels, and get rid of all the government channels (besides an occasional C-SPAN).

-crainbebo

 

[dave73]

However, if all the predictions about streaming are true, cable and satellite will be dead in 5 or 10 years, and we'll all be happily 'a-la-carting' using our computers. My son watches most of the same cable dramas I do, using the internet for free.

ESPN, Fox, and Turner require a cable subscription in order to watch their programming online. ABC will be doing the same thing soon, if they haven't done so already.

Cartoon Network also requires a subscription to cable or satellite. I used to be able to watch some cartoons on their site, until it told me that I had to register with their site, & provide my account information for pay TV service, in order to view their online content.

 

[Joseph_Gallant]

If "A La Carte" pricing does come into effect, many smaller cable networks won't have enough revenue from either cable operators or advertisers to survive.

It would be in their best interests to keep the current system.

On the other hand, the CBS/Time-Warner Cable dispute is only the beginning. You'll see a lot more such disputes in the years to come, since I think cable and satellite operators will really begin to clamp down on networks seeking big rate hikes.

You probably won't see cable operators forking over less money to certain cable networks (read: ESPN), but those networks may not be able to raise rates to cable/satellite systems.

 

[northgaradio]

I agree that A-la-carte is coming IF the commercial satellite and cable companies want to stay around. I was a C-band subscriber for many years and the A-la-carte option is what sold me on that but sadly C-band has been dying for several years when Motorola stopped support of their receivers and Comcast bought H2H and begun to remove channels from the Digicipher 2 system to DVB-S2 rendering our C-band receivers inoperable, and by the end of this year (2013) Comcast will remove the rest of the channels making C-band and A-la-carte totally dead.

 

[JeeperOne]

We rarely watch sports. I'd be happy with the networks, Root Sports (for Mariners) and an occasional ESPN/ESPN2. I don't need ESPN17, the Fox networks, all of the sports league networks - WASTE OF BANDWIDTH!

The sports league & college conference networks don't add up to another ESPN (Minus the new SEC Network, which I suspect will be regionalized like anyway)

I'd also love to get rid of my Spanish channels,

Comcast has a Latino package which has those

and get rid of all the government channels (besides an occasional C-SPAN).

You must be fond of the idea of our government being as TRANSPARENT IN ITS DECISION MAKING PROCESS as the NSA is in the types of data it collects on us then :

What do you think the GAC & C-SPAN channels give us ??

They give us a window as to what our government is doing !!! Do you SERIOUSLY wanna give that up? Think about it.....

Cheers & 73 ;D

 

[newsmark]

I respect the needs of people who like sports, even though I'm not a big fan myself.

But how many channels do we need? It seems like there are a lot of channels, between the various ESPN and Fox Sports channels, NBCSN, NFL Networks, etc.

It seems like there are plenty of channels--maybe more than enough--to cover every major sporting event at the College and Pro level.

Where it seems to be out of control is spreading the sports out even more... every conference wants their own channel . The UT Longhorns have their own channel. Comcast Sports is trying to add a channel in the Houston area.

And then some of the channels... like NFL Network... we all pay for them ALL YEAR, even when there's no NFL Football, no training camps, no draft going on.

I'm asking seriously to sports fans: how many channels do we need to cover every game and provide enough commentary/highlights/analysis?

 

[KeithE4]

I'm asking seriously to sports fans: how many channels do we need to cover every game and provide enough commentary/highlights/analysis?

Enough channels to cover all pro sports leagues (already done - OTA, cable/satellite, and online) and every major college conference. All games televised.

 

[Morgan Wick]

If "A La Carte" pricing does come into effect, many smaller cable networks won't have enough revenue from either cable operators or advertisers to survive.

It would be in their best interests to keep the current system.

On the other hand, the CBS/Time-Warner Cable dispute is only the beginning. You'll see a lot more such disputes in the years to come, since I think cable and satellite operators will really begin to clamp down on networks seeking big rate hikes.

You probably won't see cable operators forking over less money to certain cable networks (read: ESPN), but those networks may not be able to raise rates to cable/satellite systems.

I'm not worried about smaller cable networks. If the future is in streaming, it would obviate their purpose unless they have live events, and then, well, you see how the sports networks make money hand over fist.

 

[landtuna]

An easy solution to all this is.....cut the cord. I personally will not pay a cent for programming which comes in a bundle. I will continue to obtain my programming OTA or via other means (*cough*) until a reasonable billing solution is found.

I too am a former C-band subscriber and found all the entertainment I could handle for less than $100 per YEAR. I understand costs have gone up but the amount of money I would be paying for channels I never watch is simply too high.

As long as there is an Internet I do not need cable. Cable's continuing refusal to implement a workable ala carte system will continue to deny them any revenue from me.

 

[KeithE4]

As long as there is an Internet I do not need cable. Cable's continuing refusal to implement a workable ala carte system will continue to deny them any revenue from me.

Entertainment programming doesn't require cable, but as long as there is college sports, I need cable or satellite. The content owners (the conferences) mandate it, with a few bones thrown to the OTA networks (SEC football and 1/4 of the NCAA Tournament on CBS, Notre Dame football on NBC, etc.). I've missed most of the last 3 years of college football and basketball, and I'm tired of it. I'm having DirecTV installed on Saturday.

One can get the pro leagues online, except for the NFL and your local MLB/NBA/NHL teams, but college is 95% married to cable.

 

[Morgan Wick]

As long as there is an Internet I do not need cable. Cable's continuing refusal to implement a workable ala carte system will continue to deny them any revenue from me.

Entertainment programming doesn't require cable, but as long as there is college sports, I need cable or satellite. The content owners (the conferences) mandate it, with a few bones thrown to the OTA networks (SEC football and 1/4 of the NCAA Tournament on CBS, Notre Dame football on NBC, etc.). I've missed most of the last 3 years of college football and basketball, and I'm tired of it. I'm having DirecTV installed on Saturday.

Apparently you don't need to see the Pac-12, then.

College's reliance on cable could really bite it in the ass if cord cutting, a la carte, or sports-free packages catch on.