A La Carte Channels Would Cost More
from the so-they-say dept
As expected, the FCC report studying what would happen if cable companies were forced to offer a la carte programming, so subscribers could pick and choose what channels they wanted, would likely result in people paying much more for their programming. The reasoning is that the costs to providers to handle the marketing and equipment changes would drive up the costs. By just offering a few bundles, and using existing equipment, costs can be kept much lower. The real issue probably isn't so much the lack of a la carte programming, but that the programming offered doesn't always match what people want. Of course, if providers don't figure out how to let subscribers see what they want, they'll just start to go elsewhere (legal or not).
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
No Subject Given
And if it truly is cost effective to the consumer to have 17 channels, why not allow the consumer to pick which 17 channels to include in their own package? And if it's only cost effective to have a certain number of "premium" channels against a certain number of "deep cable" channels... why not let the consumer pick from a collection in each category?
It's a restrictive model against the consumer who wants choices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
One concern is that less popular, but valuable, channels like Discover and History would cost more per unit than popular (but fluffy and glitzy) channels that airheads prefer.
In spite of being more educational, documentary, or reality based, the channels with lower viewership would probably cost more, or be eliminated entirely.
Broadcast TV and the major networks have shown a proclivity to cater to the least common denominator.
I have yet to see any indication that cable would do otherwise.
That's the price of capitalism and monopoly.
That said, our provider (CableOne) has repeatedly aroused the ire of local subscribers by shunting the more popular channels into the pricier bracket, while filling the 'basic package' with the least popular selections.
Many people dislike those selections but cannot afford better.
Again, capitalism and monopoly at work.
One alternative is having local government, or a community non-profit entity provide cable TV.
I believe this has been done already in New England, providing cafeteria menuing, a better selection of channels, and lower pricing, but I don't know the details or history.
Last I heard, the commercial cable industry was fighting tooth and claw to have this option outlawed.
Hm, capitalism and monopoly, yet again.
Most of us don't mind playing our fair share, but we become a little testy when we feel like we are being squeezed.
This turnip may decide to seek alternatives to bleeding.
I didn't abandon Windows.
Windows abandoned me: BSOD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hello
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A'la Carte TV
Bill C
Nashville
[ link to this | view in chronology ]