I think this is an outstanding idea. Back in the day, I worked for a satellite programming company (big ugly dish days). They offered a huge variety of packages, and you could order a package plus anything else you want a la carte. I cannot imagine that the FCC would force providers to go to a pure a la carte system meaning that there could be no packages, so I imagine that most people will remain on a package and that what will change is that people will be able to buy smaller packages because they will be able to add on just sci-fi and not that $15 digital cable package. I can't imagine this being a bad thing.

Same here. The only "niche" channels I'd care about would be Fox Soccer Channel and GolTV. I hate having to get the highest pricing level from Dish for that.

Unfortunately, while this sounds nice, the truth is if it goes through in the end it won't save us much money. The cable companies (company?) wouldn't stand for it unless it didn't cut into their revenues.

This would be great for me, there's only a limited number of channels I'd watch, none of which would be sports or music channels.

I'm tired of paying higher monthly fees for ESPN and all the other sports channels when I don't watch them. And sports channels are the #1 reason why bills keep going up.

As for the niche channels, they would survive because whatever a la carte system is done, there would still be a base package and the dirt cheap (or free) stations could be lumped into that base package.

By the way, Dish Network used to do this, they had a "Pick 10 for $10" (later $15) package - you could pick any ten stations with a few exceptions (ESPN, MTV). They also had a $5 Spanish language package (Telemundo, Fox Sports America, and HTV); so for years my bill was $19.99. It was great.

The ten stations I had were: Lifetime, E!, History Channel, TLC, AMC, Comedy Central, Headline News, and three others (can't remember what they were right now).

And here's the reason I support a la carte - on both Dish Network and DirecTV, the cheapest English/Spanish language package with FX and the Sci Fi Channel are now $45 to $50.

A few points:

As for those who are worrying about many specialty channels dying... are they not currently kept "alive" due to the bundling? If they can't attract a wide base of consumers, then why must we ALL pay to subsidize them?

I read somewhere that approximately $2.50 of a cable bill is specifically for ESPN, while other channels are like $0.15. I personally would not care to have ESPN, so why should I pay for it?

As for parents complaining about the channels that are not "family friendly", that's what the V-chip is for! Use it to set a rating and enjoy!

Sonic

Was it in this thread?

^

I don't see the problem. Do we really need 6 shopping channels?

Give me ala carte. Other than the 4 broadcast networks, I'd only need about 6-10 other channels.

I highly doubt I watch more than 15 channels... I think for me this would be a good thing

I agree we don't need them, but I think it is likely that they'd be free and/or included in even the smallest sorts of packages offered by the cable companies. I certainly hope I'm not paying to get QVC now, and I doubt that would change.

Yeah - the shopping channels probably pay the cable companies to carry them.

People say this now, until their BBC-America, or Fox Soccer or IFC is the one under the knife; think Arrested Development as a cable channel. While in theory I like the ala carte idea, I hate the idea that some of the channels I enjoy could go away or my cable bill would increase for the current channels I watch today.

Thinking about it I just need, and would pay for:

NBC
ABC
CBS
Fox
ESPN
ESPN2
ESPNNEWS (could do without this one)
TBS
TNT

That's pretty much it. Maybe Fuse for music videos if it was cheap.

Let's talk about the real reason this a la carte was brought up yesterday, more people wanting to get rid of so called "bad influences" like mtv. Anyone hear the politician who was crying about having to have mtv included with nickelodeon. Ever hear of channel blocking? Technology is great, some people should try to use it instead of banning or getting rid of things. You can virtually block any channel, program, or rating if you want to. Everything has parental controls made within the last few years. I just purchased satelite radio, and sure enough in the menu sytem of the equipment is an option to block out any channels that I don't want. What a waste of time yesterday in Captiol Hill.

I'm against a la carte packages, but even I would be pleased to not have all the awful religous channels. Who watches these anyways? Waste of bandwidth if you ask me. Ironically, a la carte would end up hurting the religous stations that the christian right want more of in this country. Maybe a few old church lady grandmas would get the channels, that's about it.

And I bet like the shopping channels, they pay for cable space.

The cable and satellite thing is merely a holdover from having DirecTV and then adding cable for local HD feeds. I kept both even though I probably don't need them.



And the location goes back a little time concerning our football team.

If we got paid for shopping channels, I would have Dish, DTV and cable all running at the same time.

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.