What would be the ramifications of ala carte?

[Danny R]

One thing that has always irritated me is that we as customers do not have the ability to choose what stations we want to purchase.

All the "big" cable and satellite distributors have the technology available to allow customers the option of choosing what stations we want. We use such technology right now when we decide we want basic 50, or everything package with spanish channels and NFL pass, etc.

We frequently hear from Charlie and others that because a particular channel (ESPN for instance) is forced upon us, we have to pay higher rates, etc.

Well, what if I don't WANT to pay for ESPN?

What if I had the choice to choose exactly what channels I wanted, with only the "free" public access channels always available.

I'm seriously thinking of asking every senator/congressman/FCC member, etc to submit legislation forcing broadcasters to allow complete ala-carte ordering for their TV viewing.

What I'd like to hear are opinions on how this might effect us as viewers. I wouldn't be forced to pay outrageous fees for ESPN, because I would just drop the channel if they raised rates. Neilson ratings be damned... each network would know EXACTLY how many people they are potentially reaching because the customers are putting their money in for those channels.

I'm not saying do away with package deals. By all means have them. But don't force them on everyone.

Obviously lesser channels might have to raise rates in order to attract customers. But if those channels can't get the income needed to survive, then why should most of us be forced to subsidize them now anyway?

Thoughts anybody?

[James Long]

One main problem would be tracking the number of subscribers to a particular channel so that the provider could be properly paid for the number of subscribers. Right now E* and D* know how many people subscribe to each package. Most of their subs don't have any alacarte programming. So they have less catagories to track when paying. That extra tracking is going to cost money.

Plus packages generally come off cheaper than individual channels. Programmers like to bundle, and even on the C Band alacarte charts you'll find a lot of paired and grouped channels.

Cruise over to http://www.satelliteprogramming.com/ and look at alacarte for a clue of how it works (and doesn't) for c-band.

JL

[Nick]

Obviously lesser channels might have to raise rates in order to attract customers.???

How is a channel that raises rates supposed to "attract" subscribers? Cerainly not among this crowd. It would be just the opposite.

[BobMurdoch]

Rates would go through the roof.

When I had SportsChannel (the Mets station at the time) it cost $10 a month for the channel. When they made it part of the basic package it dropped to $2 a channel.

For every channel you don't WANT, there is another that YOU do that someone else doesn't and THEY subsidize your preferred channel.

Programmers learned eons ago that being part of the bigger packages was the best way to go. Steinbrenner weakened and let Cablevision subscribers opt out of getting YES and his revenues plunged when compared on a per subscriber basis. Don't look for him or anyone else to make that same mistake again.

[Richard King]

One disadvantage to ala carte is that you wouldn't be exposed to some channels that just might turn out to be some of your favorites when you eventually trip upon them while flipping through the various "wasteland" channels.

[Danny R]

Rates would go through the roof.

So in order for this to work, any new ala-carte legislation would have to have guarantees that the individual channels can't cost more than a fraction of the same package deal. I see this as simular to buying a combo meal at a McDonalds. The group items in the combo do have individual prices, and you can save a few pennies by getting the combo, but you can save even more money by not getting fries with that.

I agree with Nick (surprise!). If programmers tried raised rates significantly to offset people not buying their product, then they would also be raising the combo prices, forcing a LOT of people to drop them.

One main problem would be tracking the number of subscribers to a particular channel so that the provider could be properly paid for the number of subscribers. ... That extra tracking is going to cost money.

While I'm certain there might be some costs associated with changing, I don't think it would mean retooling all the software providers use. PayPerView isn't much different a technology and is already supported widely.

For every channel you don't WANT, there is another that YOU do that someone else doesn't and THEY subsidize your preferred channel.

Probably true. But I'm willing to pay more for what I watch and not foist off the cost to others. Just because I like the Hillbilly Channel doesn't mean I expect New Yorkers to pay for it.

Programmers learned eons ago that being part of the bigger packages was the best way to go. Steinbrenner weakened and let Cablevision subscribers opt out of getting YES and his revenues plunged when compared on a per subscriber basis.

Yup, because he was able to get a lot of people who didn't watch the channel to still pay for it. This is precicely the sort of abuse I'd like to stop.

I have no doubts that programmers would fight such legislation tooth and nail.

One disadvantage to ala carte is that you wouldn't be exposed to some channels that just might turn out to be some of your favorites when you eventually trip upon them while flipping through the various "wasteland" channels.

This is why channels like HBO have free weekends and advertise. Likewise, the "guide" should always be available for all channels. Many of today's controllers allow you to instantly subscribe to a channel by hitting the remote anyway.

[Earl Zuberbelt]

One thing that has always irritated me is that we as customers do not have the ability to choose what stations we want to purchase.

All the "big" cable and satellite distributors have the technology available to allow customers the option of choosing what stations we want. We use such technology right now when we decide we want basic 50, or everything package with spanish channels and NFL pass, etc.

We frequently hear from Charlie and others that because a particular channel (ESPN for instance) is forced upon us, we have to pay higher rates, etc.

Well, what if I don't WANT to pay for ESPN?

What if I had the choice to choose exactly what channels I wanted, with only the "free" public access channels always available.

I'm seriously thinking of asking every senator/congressman/FCC member, etc to submit legislation forcing broadcasters to allow complete ala-carte ordering for their TV viewing.

What I'd like to hear are opinions on how this might effect us as viewers. I wouldn't be forced to pay outrageous fees for ESPN, because I would just drop the channel if they raised rates. Neilson ratings be damned... each network would know EXACTLY how many people they are potentially reaching because the customers are putting their money in for those channels.

I'm not saying do away with package deals. By all means have them. But don't force them on everyone.

Obviously lesser channels might have to raise rates in order to attract customers. But if those channels can't get the income needed to survive, then why should most of us be forced to subsidize them now anyway?

Thoughts anybody?

Sure have been a lot of threads about this subject, and it just won't happen. Program pricing structures between providers like Turner or ESPN and companies like DirecTV or DISH or Comcast blah blah blah, simply aren't structured that way.

That doesn't mean it can't happen, but it won't, at least anytime soon.

Can you even begin to imagine the nightmare of millions of customers, EACH with their own program package?

The continuing rants about YES are a perfect example. On the surface, DISH's proposals to YES make the terrific sense. "We'll carry you, but only pay you what willing customers who actually WANT your service are willing to pay."

YES wants guarantees. Both sides make good arguments, and as a result, ala carte won't happen in my lifetime. (and I'm reasonably young)

Simply unrealistic and unmanageable.

-Earl
Yankee born Southern bred

[paulh]

I think most channels sell advertising based on both how many households can receive a channel, as well as the actual ratings of the show. If the advertising was only sold on actual ratings, then they'd get less ad$ which would mean either higher subscription fees and/or lower quality programs. That said, you can get somewhat ala-carte via the Big Ugly Dish, I believe.

[Marvin]

As a C-Band subscriber, a la carte isn't really the great wonder that people make it out to be. I found it to be slightly more expensive in some cases to order just a few channels that I watch vs the packaged channel deals with a bunch of channels that I know Id never watch.

[Nick]

Just because I like the Hillbilly Channel doesn't mean I expect New Yorkers to pay for it.I bet there are more "hillbillies" in NY than there are in Atlanta. But don't sell New Yorkers short -- they have withstood things far more tragic than hillbilly music.

[FTA Michael]

Look at the Canadian DBS providers. They show that substantial a la carte offerings are possible.

Will it happen? No way. ESPN's business model is based on being on every basic-level cable/DBS system, and they insist on it in contract negotiations. So if a provider wants ESPN, it has to offer it on basic. And if a provider doesn't want ESPN, it'll be at a serious disadvantage.

Unless a McCain-style bill that forces a la carte offerings passes. And that won't happen either.

[James Long]

Look at the Canadian DBS providers. They show that substantial a la carte offerings are possible.
Forced sign up for locals: $13.99 + tax
Then $6.95 per package ($7.95 for sports)
OK, we are at $20.94 with only one a la carte - two a la cartes pushes you to $27.89 for how many channels? The package price for all 12 a la cartes (all basic channels) $61.99. So you are paying half the price of the 12 packages for just 1/6th of the programming!

Yeah, a la carte is possible. But does it make it cheaper? The Canadian model is like US cable systems where locals are forced (for the same price in my town) and all other content is expensive.

I believe we are better off without a la carte.

JL
CANADIAN DOLLAR prices, nationally advertised package price.

[guyDTH]

other good option are, mini theme pack or pix pack like the old DISHPIX.
e.g.:
*DISHPIX-10 $10.00 for 10 channel.
*DISHPIX-10+ $15.00 for 10 channel, including network and superstation.
*DISHPIX-15 $15.00 for 15 channel.
*DISHPIX-20 $20.00 for 25 channel.
AT60 $24.99 for 60+ channel.
*including IP channel free of charge.

[BobMurdoch]

Except your system doesn't work if the subscriber only picks the expensive stations like ESPN, Cartoon Network, etc.

[Mark Holtz]

DishSports - National Sports Channels and your RSN
DishSportsPlus - National Sports Channels and all RSN (Subject to blankout)
DishKids - Nick, Disney, Cartoon Network, Boomerang
DishNews - CNN, FoxNews, MSNBC, etc.
DishMovieClassics - Fox Movie Channel, AMC, We, TCM

[Danny R]

Thanks for the input folks. I guess you answered my questions.

[Jacob S]

Perhaps if they could get something into legislation regarding ala carte requirements that they could state that they could only charge a certain percentage above what an average channel costs or a certain percentage above what the actual chanel would retail for (seeing that some channels cost more than others).