I seem to recall there was a proposed change in FCC rules a few years ago that would have mandated a la carte cable TV service, ie. each channel could be bought separately instead of only as part of a package. What happened, did the idea not go anywhere?
Cable companies fought that tooth and nail, they are probably still fighting it.
I would love ‘on demand cable’. Every channel availible but I only pay for what I watch. If I don’t watch TV for a month, i’m not billed. Doubt it will happen. Currently I pay 60 something dollars per month and watch maybe 2 hours per week.
Ugh. the more I think about my above post, the more ridiculous it seems. I pay 60 dollars to watch the Daily Show once or twice a week and sometimes the History Channel if something new is being shown on a sunday evening.
At first glance, it sounds like a fantastic idea for us consumers. And then we get to see how much each channel will cost. There are a lot of channels I’d love to get rid of, but the few I – and my family!!! – watch are still more than 10-15 or so. Maybe more than 20. I can’t imagine that it would end up cheaper than now, even at only $5 per channel.
On demand is not going to happen. You pay for your home phone or cell phone per month even if you only use it 1 or 2 times. (except prepaid cell phone plans) Your power and water and gas companies will charge you a base charge if you don’t use any of their stuff.
The a la carte is not per show, but allowing users to pick from a list of channels.
For a set fee (lower than the current costs), you can pick, say, ten basic cable channels (plus over the air). It can be any ten.
Cable companies are afraid of how this will affect them.
the cable system I work for tried this about fifteen years back, but it wasn’t popular for the reasons mentioned above: the cost of each channel was related to how much the cable company paid for that channel, and what customers found was that certain channels (like ESPN at that time, being the only sports network we had) were almost prohibitively expensive. The channels you don’t like or watch subsidize the more expensive channels. Few people took advantage of this service, which required a special converter box (I believe we called it ‘CableSelect’)—no one wanted to pay through the nose for MTV or ESPN, and they would call up and complain endlessly, feeling as though they were being overcharged because ESPN was three times the cost of some other channels).
It wasn’t on-demand–you had to pay for each channel for the month, rather than just when you watched it. I think if we only charged customers for the time they watched TV, it would take forever just to cover the purchase cost of the cable box. Advertisers wouldn’t be particularly thrilled with it either, knowing that people often watch stuff just because it’s on. Advertising rates are partly tied to how many subscribers a channel can tell the advertiser they have. No one is going to pay top dollar to advertise on a channel knowing that only people who have to go out of their way to order the channel in the first place are going to see it.
Given how the niche programming channels of 10 or so years ago all seem to be losing their niche and greying into a few less-differentiated categories because small, dedicated audiences can’t support them, it’s not at all implausible that this would lead to a lot of channels just shutting down.
–Cliffy
I would think they may gain revenue this way. When I was 20 and broke, I wasn’t even willing to pay for basic cable. But I may have paid $5 per month for one channel I liked. A pay per channel offer may bring them customers who would otherwise be unwilling to pay for any cable service. Does it actually cost them anything once the cable lines are in place? Like in an apartment building? $5 per month multiplyed by thousands of people who would otherwise not pay for any service seems a good idea.
Just curious, how much does a cable box actually cost? If for some reason a person wanted to purchase one outright? Also, why are boxes really necessary? I know they have record capability and many other features nowadays. But a basic box to allow you to change a channel cant be that expensive.
That won’t work because most of the cable channels are co-owned and designed not to make an individual profit but profit as a whole. The idea behind this is “precieved value.”
For example
WFLD-TV Channel 32 is in Chicago and owned and operated (O&O) by Fox. Fox says to the cable company, "you want to carry are over the air (OTA) signal you must carry ALL the other cable channel Fox owns. ABC, CBS and NBC also do this.
So the people that OWN the cable companies don’t want ala carte.
Cable companies want MORE channels so they can sell you a “preceived value.” I don’t want to pay $50.00 a month for 50 channels. So the cable companie adds these extra in. These are channels no one wants, BUT the cable company says “You get 100 channels for $50.00” (less than 50¢ per channel). Even though you never watch them or it has the same content.
It’s easier to sell ad time also. FOX doesn’t need to hire as many sales people as they are selling ad time across the board on all the networks. If Ala Carte came in FOX would have to qualify each sale. (This applies to all networks not just FOX)
Finally networks use the “totality” as a basis for profit. If FOX News makes a profit of a million dollars and FOX culture channel (made up) makes a NEGATIVE 10,000 dollars FOX can report to its investors “We made $990,000” Sounds better huh?
The only way to get cable prices down is to FORCE competition. I mean REAL competition like when AT&T was forced to allow all long distance companies to use the phone lines it installed.
Like where I am, I can’t get digital TV(with an indoor antenna) (I can get analog TV with an indoor antenna) I can’t have a Dish, the landlord doesn’t have a master antenna, so cable is my only option. And we have one cable company.
So until we have true competiton we’re stuck.
There is no reason for any company to want Ala Carte, it may be a good idea for customers but it is bad from the business side.
A la carte works on C Band satellite. While packages are available at reduced pricing, and there are certain rules like a minimum number of a la carte to subscribe to, I pick and choose.
Why are cable companies allowed to have local monopolies? I have never livbed anywhere with more than one choice for cable.
It also controls which channels you can and cannot get. And it also converts the digital signal to the analog which my tv needs. Probably a bunch of other very basic stuff too.
AT&T is now offering TV via their internet service so that is another choice for some people. That happened because cable companies are now allowed to offer phone service.
My dad had a big C-Band dish back in the day, and I believe he bought a package with about 20 basic channels (like TBS, USA, Animal Planet, etc.) and then got a few more channels like Comedy Central, IFC, MTV, which he paid for individually. I don’t think it was that expensive. IIRC Comedy Central was something like 50 cents a month.
UVerse seems like a good deal. Unfortunately, getting information about it from AT&T is about as easy as prying nuclear secrets from the CIA.
They have claimed for 2 years that it’s available in my city, but not yet in my neighborhood. When pressed, they will only say “Soon”. It’s like that scene from Spaceballs.
Yes and No. We pay a base amount to have access to their service, but we also pay more if we use it more. This is analagous to paying a basic subscription fee for cable service, and then paying more for using x,t, and b channels. I understand why the cable companies don’t want to offer ala carte (upthread explanations are good). But, if people could actually make their own choices, the vaunted “market forces” would certainly have their way with what’s offered. Those channels of limited appeal would not be purchased by many people. Maybe they’d actually die out, unless the fees supported them. But that’s the appeal of ala carte - let me have my choice and I’ll pay a premium for them. Should work.
I believe here the city board of directors lets a contract.