[EricJRW]

Sorry if this has come up already... I thought it was a good read:

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Couch potatoes love television, but some simply have no interest in watching sports or kids shows. So why should they pay for it?

More U.S. TV watchers are asking the same question as cable and satellite TV bills creep higher. The government wants to know why consumers can't just pay for the channels they want and many technology and media companies are dreaming up new alternatives for delivering only the TV programs viewers want.

Link to full story

I've always wondered why consumers can't build their own channel packages.

 

[Mark Holtz]

Because the cable channel providers want to say that they have the potential of reaching X milling of eyeballs for the advertising.

What are some of the biggest channels? E$PN is one of them that charges $2-3 per subscriber, and Disney insists on it being carried on the lowest tier of service, whether it be Dish's America's Top 100 (which used to be called the Top 50 a few years ago), DirecTV Choice, or your local cableco's most basic tier. And, since it is one of the most popular channels, Disney can also insist of carriage of other channels as a condition of carrying E$PN. (And, yes, the $ports channels, including the Regional $ports Networks (R$Ns) are the more expensive basic-type channels).

Would I like to jettision the sports channels? Yes. But, I can't.

 

[tftc22]

As Bad Wolf said, ESPN gets around $3 from every subscriber. That's over $3 billion a year in subscription revenue, while ESPN's annual advertising revenue is less than $450 million. That's also why it is so hard to compete with ESPN; it is next to impossible for any other channel to charge $3 and be guaranteed a spot on basic cable. Now if ESPN was only subscribed to by 1/4 of cable subscribers, then they would have to charge $12 per subscriber to make the same subscription revenue, which would drive the subscriber count even lower. Without the extensive subscription fees, ESPN couldn't continue to make such expensive contracts with professional sports leagues.

A la carte would make it more expensive per channel, but still would benefit people that really only want a few channels. However, since large corporations are making more money the way it currently is, I really doubt a la carte will be implemented any time soon.

 

[beavis]

Another thing...

Whoever your provider is, whether it's D*, E* or cable, would have to update their systems to know exactly what channels someone subscribes to. Such update would cost $$$$$, and most of that probably would be passed to the customer via a price increase.

 

[n3ntj]

Another thing...

Whoever your provider is, whether it's D*, E* or cable, would have to update their systems to know exactly what channels someone subscribes to. Such update would cost $$$$$, and most of that probably would be passed to the customer via a price increase.

That's what D* already does by addressing our IRD and access card so it knows what channels to turn off and on. Sounds like a no brainer. The technology is there already.

 

[Grentz]

I would LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE to be able to pick my own channels. I dont even watch probably 60-70% of the channels in the package I have. But I have Choice Xtra as there are some that I do want to get.

The reason is that no one (or very few) would subscribe to many of the other channels out there besides the main one if they had the choice, so companies space the major networks out between packages and then pad them full of the channels most dont even care about.

Frankly the one that bugs me more is how there are SOOO many commercials on most of these channels that I PAY for. That really bugs me to no end....

 

[harsh]

Whoever your provider is, whether it's D*, E* or cable, would have to update their systems to know exactly what channels someone subscribes to.

Rest assured that they know this and that the figures are updated often.