My wife would have my by the tender bits if I tried that. :)
I suspected as much.

If Congress really wants to investigate the pay-TV industry, it should start and end with the SUNDAY TICKET shenanigans.

What would the pricing on a la carte programming be? What are the “values” of channels?

The big satellite dishes already have a la carte programming, you can see the prices here:

http://www.bigdish.com/satala.htm

Note that some channels are lumped together. Based on those annual prices, I would take:

ABC Family: $7.22
Cartoon Network: $7.08
Comedy Central: $7.42
Discovery/TLC/Animal Planet/Travel Channel: $22.49
E!: $4.22
IFC: $4.40
Oxygen: $6.91
USA/Sci Fi: $17.88

The channels above add up to $6.47 per month. Sure, not all channels that I would be interested in are listed, but I’m sure that even after I add in other channels (like FX and some Spanish language channels) the cost would still be $12 or so per month. Add in a base charge (for Dish Network or DirecTV) for providing the service and my cost should be less than $20/month.

The bottom line is that I am tired of subsidizing sports programs. I don’t want them and I certainly don’t want to have to pay for them. Note that the cost of ESPN & ESPN 2 is ~ $8 / month, which is more than all the stations I had picked above.

No, I got here after another thread was started in Other forum. I believe I got the info from either USA Today or local news.

Sonic

I'd just like to be able to dump all the sports channels, since they're probably the most expensive thing on the lineup, and I've never watched them once.

While I can understand questioning why we have to basically subsidize channels that we don't watch, I think we should all be really worried about channels basically being destroyed because of a lack of consumer interest. While everyone can do without the home shopping network, ultimately we could face the destruction of educationally based programming (PBS, while a network station, already depends mostly on donations which shape their programming). Now imagine let's say, the Discovery Channel or National Geographic facing pressure to commodify their programming to bring in more subscribers and thus chaninging the educational content. Not everyone will want to subscribe to CNN or C-Span, and while the channels might survive without every J6P, I'd rather not live in a media landscape where they aren't available to everyone. Consumers with less income will suddenly be blocked out from information because they can't afford to pay extra for it, and we'll suddenly be faced with even more niches and communities of misinformation and one-sided skewed perspectives.
Really, I'm just afraid of the people that only subscribe to Sci Fi, MTV, VH1, Cartoon Network, and Spice.

But if that's what they want to watch, why not? What moral right do I (or you) have to tell them "you must subscribe to CNN and ESPN". Especially if it is because we feel that they need to be a more "rounded" individual by having access to those stations, even if they don't watch them.

Personally, I think a la Carte is a terrible idea. Most basic college economics courses will explain why. Cable channels each charge a small fee (or large for ESPN) which goes into your bill. Everyone subsidizes the majority which in turn keeps costs down. It might be a little socialist, but that's how it works. Remove those subsidies and watch the cost of those channels shoot up, and a lot of them go out of business. If you think ESPN at $2.50 a month is bad, that will probably be close to the normal price, if not on the low end. They'll have to do this to survive.

Take a channel like FX. It probably makes up 0.15 per month of your cable bill. A lot of you probably watch some shows on it. The majority of the TV public does not. Figure 1 in 20 people would be interested enough to subscribe to FX. That means for them not to start losing money, FX will now cost $3 per person. At that price, probably a few less people will want to watch it so the price could go higher. FX has a choice to reduce the amount of revenue they take in or charge more and more. A solution is to lower budgets on their most expensive shows or just cancel them in favor of more cheap reality TV. And FX is a big network with good financing from Fox. Food channel? Gone. Golf Channel? Way gone. Bravo? Fey gone.

Plus do you think the cable companies are going to stand for their revenues dropping substantially? They'll jack up fees on their converter boxes (necessary for ala cart!) add in more processing fees, etc.

Mark my words, with a la Carte, we'll be paying the same amount (or more) for less TV, with crappier programming on it.

I agree that no one can tell people what to watch. In fact, I'm kind of being a hypocrite since I don't even have cable.
Nonetheless, I think while looking on an individual level, there doesn't seem to be much of a problem that people can finally just get rid of all the extra channels their paying for and not watching, and a larger scale, there's a huge problem with what could happen, and I would hope that the FCC is going to fully think through the repurcussions before making any changes to the current scheme. Channels are going to sink or swim based on subscriptions, and while currently, everyone seems to kind of know the landscape, which channels they like, which channels they watch, their preference for CNN or Fox News if forced to choose a news source, in the future there could just be ignorant decision making, or even worse, less choices. Just because you can't force people to watch to be a more "rounded" individual, doesn't mean that the option to watch shouldn't exist, and asking people to pay for each option doesn't leave much of one.

Probably true Mordred.

It just really sucks to have to pay these ridiculous prices just to watch the 6-8 channels I watch anything on regularly.

I guess I just need to work on sucking it up and doing without cable or satellite, use antenna for the network programming and hit sports bars for my sports fix. :D

While I can form a coherent argument for the exact opposite, I've always believed that this is the more likely reality and am not in favor of a la carte programming. It's one of those things that sounds great until you start really thinking about it.

Ad-supported television and bundled cable packages are essential to fostering quality programming.

das

I guess where I'm more OK with it is that I really only care about sports.

Sure there's some shows I love like Lost, but I could learn to do without them and just watch more movies, especially since I think the best movies are miles above the best shows IMHO.

I could probably get my list of channels down to 20 or so easily... it would cover 99% of what I watch. The only real impact of having so few channels would be the lack of "channel surfing" which (a) isn't really a bad thing and (b) I rarely do anyway, with so 100s of channels of crap and a ReplayTV handy.

Even if it only saved me $10/month, I'd gladly go down to 20 or so channels from my current 500 (or whatever). Nearly all of it goes unwatched.

I would also welcome a system that allows me to get HD channels over cable without buying into an elaborate plan. Comcast makes me buy some huge digital package just to get the HD stuff. It's still cheaper than DirectTV, but I end up getting a package with a bunch of bells and whistles that I don't want -- I just want the HD.

I'm kind of lucky there. My Comcast offers its HD channels in the clear. No need for a box.

This is never going to pass. Do you know how many channels would go out of business because people wouldnt subscribe to them? All I would need are HD channels and a few news channels.

Yeah. I'm sure many people will feel that way. There will be a lot of "only sports" and "no sports" people. Personally, I approach this issue more from a quality perspective than anything else. While money is a factor, the reality is that I don't care how much it costs as long as it's good.

And the <i>best</i> TV shows cannot be compared to the <i>best</i> movies IMO. No movie is going to give you a 100-hour story arc that deeply develops 16 major characters across multiple epic plots. Average episodic TV may compare unfavorably with great movies, but when TV's unique qualities are properly utilized, it defies comparison. The reverse is also true.

das

I agree. I just don't really like having to devote 100 hours to get a full story arc. I prefer getting it in 2 hours due to limited time and increased re-watchability due to the short length.

Not to mention all the restraints on content for the non hbo/showtime/other pay channels.

I agree, true a la carte programming won’t pass, but you have to understand what the FCC is after. They aren't asking for a la carte per se, they are simply asking that parents have greater control over the programming on cable and satellite. This could be done by an a la carte system, but could also be done by watering down the first tier of programming to exclude any potentially offensive programming. From Kevin Martin’s statements on “Open Forum on Decency” (heavily edited, and Kevin Martin is the chairman of the FCC):
As much as I'd like to see true a la carte programming, I agree that it isn't going to happen. My opinion is that the base tiers will just become pretty watered down, kicking out certain stations.

Edited to add a link to the above statement: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...C-262484A1.pdf

Also, what stations do you think would be considered too bad for a "family oriented" programming package? Comedy Central and MTV for sure, and possibly E! What others? Do you think ESPN would get the cut?

I've said this move was coming after nipplegate.

And I'm sure everyone said you we're crazy. I wish you we're wrong. :(

It depends on who gets to decide.

My former wife and her current husband object to some of the Disney Channel programming (such as "That's So Raven") because they think it promotes witchcraft.

What's funny is that if they do some kind of family tier, Cartoon Network would probably go in it. I wouldn't call Sealab 2021 and Harvey Birdman family programs. ;)

Maybe they are pushing the envelope because that is what most people are watching?
…
How many daily viewers watch tv? I mean Hundreds of Thousands? Isnt the population in the United States close to 300 million? Im not sure what percentage watch tv, but it has to be less then 5% that are actually complaining to the FCC.
…
If the parents dont want there kids or whomever are in there household to watch a channel cant they simply change the channel? Not allow the kid to watch tv?
…
THEY DONT HAVE TO WATCH IT IF THEY DONT WANT TO.


I dont mind this at all. Im sure some people will subscribe to this if its significantly cheaper then the other package.


…
What actually is indecent? I have yet to see actually things that are considered indecent.


Yea, this will never fly. Many people would lose money and jobs if this would happen.

One consequence of such an arrangement would likely be that these properties go elsewhere. Cartoon Network is safe as part of a package, but they'd probably face huge pressure to either become more or less family friendly in the a la carte world. Is that a bad thing? It depends on your perspective.

One reason complaints have exploded is the organized letter-writing/complaint campaigns some organizations have engaged in.

When told to complain, members will even if they didn't themselves see the offending programming.

That complainers are better organized is the only real news in regard to the increase in the number of complaints.

""You can always turn the television off and, of course, block the channels you don't want[....] But why should you have to?"

- Kevin Martin


Yes - that Kevin Martin, the idiot who heads the FCC.

Who cares if lame channels go out of business?

Imagine in the 60's somebody said we are going to add $100 sticker price to every Ford, Chevy, Dodge, etc., etc., to subsidize Studebaker. If we don't do that it might go out of business.

If you sell a quality product people will purchase it. Seems fair to me.

That has to be one of the dumbest comments. They (concerned parents) should have to because they're the ones who are crying about it. People can waste away countless hours writing angry letters to networks, calling the FCC to complain, and starting boycotts, but can't find the time to get the offending channels blocked?

It's not about "protecting the children" and never has been. It's about forcing their own "morality" on others.

das

Yea i could care less, but im saying there will be a lot of people that wont be happy. I could be happy with 20 channels if I had to choose them.

That's not really a fair comparison, since for most people, buying a car is a huge purchase, and only made once every few years.

In this case, stations have a wide variety of programming. For instance, I enjoy some programs on FX, but probably not enough to subscribe to it individually. And your favorite show might be on a "lame" station that doesn't get as many subscribers as, say, ESPN, which means it's gonna be in less houselholds, which means less advertising dollars, which means a bigger subscription price for you. I agree with what someone above said... we complain when shows like Arrested Development are cancelled because the vast majority of peope just "don't get it." Why should we trust in what the majority watches in this case?