FCC Considers Letting Us Pay for Only the Cable Channels We Want

[Unassisted]

I like the sound of this. I can think of quite a list of channels I wish I didn't have to pay for.

http://money.cnn.com/2005/11/29/tech....reut/?cnn=yes

Picking the cable channel you want
Report: FCC is expected to back 'a la carte' pricing in the industry, instead of bundled channels.
November 29, 2005: 5:59 AM EST

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The Federal Communications Commission is expected to suggest that cable companies could best serve their customers by allowing them to subscribe to individual channels instead of packages of several stations, the Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday.

The newspaper said that FCC Chairman Kevin Martin is expected to announce Tuesday that the commission will soon revise the conclusion it reached in the report it issued last year on "a la carte" pricing in the cable industry.

Citing an FCC official familiar with the revised report, the Journal said the report will conclude that buying individual channels could be cheaper for consumers than bundles and that themed tiers of channels could be economically feasible.


Last year's FCC report on the subject found that most U.S. households would face higher television bills if they only paid for the channels they wanted to watch.

The commission said then that increased costs for marketing and
equipment would force up monthly bills by 14 percent to 30 percent for most cable or satellite TV customers even if they only paid for a handful of stations.

Customer advocates have said a pay-per-channel approach would keep cost increases in check by making programmers and providers more accountable to viewers.

[OldRightHander]

Two years ago I sent a letter to Time Warner proposing the same thing and I didn't even get a response. If I could just get what I want, I'd probably only have about 20 channels.

[GAC]

Two years ago I sent a letter to Time Warner proposing the same thing and I didn't even get a response. If I could just get what I want, I'd probably only have about 20 channels.

And that is why they don't do it. 30 cooking, shopping, and home decorating channels would die!

[REDREAD]

The cable industry has a point though. Think of all the possible combinations the customers could pick if they can mix and match 200 channels. That's going to add cost.

Let's face it, if the average customer pays $X for their package, don't you think the customized package is also going to average out to $X? The cable companies aren't going to take a revenue hit.

What's going to happen is that the popular stations will get priced very high, while the less popular stations will get discontinued. (Do you think the cable company will bother to carry the low revenue choices? probably not) I'm not sure that's the best thing for the consumer.

[OldRightHander]

What's going to happen is that the popular stations will get priced very high, while the less popular stations will get discontinued. (Do you think the cable company will bother to carry the low revenue choices? probably not) I'm not sure that's the best thing for the consumer.

I never thought about that. A lot of the channels I like are quite possibly some of the less popular ones. If you could let me have all the sports channels and all of the History Channels, I would be content.

[Caveat Emperor]

What's going to happen is that the popular stations will get priced very high, while the less popular stations will get discontinued. (Do you think the cable company will bother to carry the low revenue choices? probably not) I'm not sure that's the best thing for the consumer.

Yup.

If the cable company makes an average of $50 (for example) on a subscriber's basic package, under the new "a la carte" system, they'll just rig the numbers to ensure that a list of the most frequently selected channels adds up to the same price, so they don't lose any revenue.

So, yeah...it might seem like a great idea to be able to pay ONLY for (say) ESPN, ESPN2, Comedy Central, TNT, USA, FX, TBS, Spike TV, Cartoon Network and Sci Fi -- but if that turns out to be what everyone does, those channels are just gonna cost a fortune individually.

[Rojo]

The cable industry has a point though. Think of all the possible combinations the customers could pick if they can mix and match 200 channels. That's going to add cost.

Let's face it, if the average customer pays $X for their package, don't you think the customized package is also going to average out to $X? The cable companies aren't going to take a revenue hit.

What's going to happen is that the popular stations will get priced very high, while the less popular stations will get discontinued. (Do you think the cable company will bother to carry the low revenue choices? probably not) I'm not sure that's the best thing for the consumer.

What if I'm not the average customer? Sure the folks who can't live without 20 channels are probably going to get charged the same. But what about people who might opt for a few channels affordably or nothing at all? Shouldn't the cable companies look to pick up something from them? Virtually nobody I know has cable anymore because the the price is too high for something you shouldn't be consuming in the first place.

And I don't know if they will discontinue unpopular channels or not. I frankly don't know how much it costs them to keep them as an option. But that argument strikes me as decidedly un-American. Why should the Polka Channel be kept on the air by ESPN's coattails.

[Caveat Emperor]

And I don't know if they will discontinue unpopular channels or not. I frankly don't know how much it costs them to keep them as an option. But that argument strikes me as decidedly un-American. Why should the Polka Channel be kept on the air by ESPN's coattails.

When ESPN first started out, it was the functional equivalent of the Polka Channel. There's a reason why all the stuff they show on "Cheap Seats" looks so bad -- ESPN didn't have the budget or clout to buy any major programming and were relegated to showing things like the World Putt Putt championships or NFL Celebrity Bowling tournaments. The closest thing you got to major sports was the USFL.

Comedy Central was much the same way -- some nights you could sit through entire programming blocks watching nothing but stand up comedy (Stand Up, Stand Up, The A-List, London Underground, etc.). For a while, the only first-run programming they did OTHER than stand up acts was Mystery Science Theater 3000 (an amazing show, to be show). They didn't even hit 50% of cable providers until AFTER South Park debuted back in the late-90s.

If offered to me, as a cable subscriber, with the programming lineups they originally had (and not knowing their future) -- I wouldn't have paid a dime for either channel, and I really don't think I'd be alone.

The pattern is repeated over and over again -- Cartoon Network started off as just a dumping ground for old Hannah Barbera properties in the Turner libarries -- now it's Adult Swim package, featuring original programming like Aqua Teen Hunger Force, Harvey Birdman: Attorney At Law, and The Boondocks is one of the highest rated cable blocks. The Sci-Fi channel was nothing but B-Movies, now their Sci-Fi Friday features some amazing first run shows, like the new Battlestar Galactica, in my opinion the most well-written show on cable television. Wouldn't have paid a dime for the programming on all of these channels when they first came out either. Heck even the Food Network, a premise that probably should never have worked, provided me hours of enjoyment when they brought Iron Chef over from Japan.

That's the kind of stifling of new ideas that would occur, likely, in a system like this. New channels would have difficulty gaining traction and convincing people to subscribe. Channels that otherwise might develop into great programming blocks once they got their foot in the door are now cut off at the waist because they can't attract a large enough subscriber base to initially make any ad revenue. Then, what'll end up happening is either no new cable development (unlikely), or the cable system will just start adding these channels in for free and creating the same system we have today: programming packages where you buy key channels and get a lot of others riding along with them.

This is Congress at it's finest: regulating a problem that doens't exist and over-exercising federal power to try and make it look like they're fighting the good fight, when in reality all they're doing is wasting everyone's time.

[flyer85]

The closest thing you got to major sports was the USFL.

... I thought Australian Rules Football and Squash were pretty big.

[Tony Cloninger]

Anything that gets rid of the Real World......... the stupid celebrity reality shows or rich people who have nothing better to do than be on reality shows ....i would be in favor of.

ESPN, ESPN2, ESPN News, ESPN Classic (although i am getting tired of classic bowling and lame boxing matches) NFL Network..... TBS...TNT...History...
A & E... Bravo... Comedy Central.... they can stay.

[Rojo]

If offered to me, as a cable subscriber, with the programming lineups they originally had (and not knowing their future) -- I wouldn't have paid a dime for either channel, and I really don't think I'd be alone.

That's the kind of stifling of new ideas that would occur, likely, in a system like this. New channels would have difficulty gaining traction and convincing people to subscribe. Channels that otherwise might develop into great programming blocks once they got their foot in the door are now cut off at the waist because they can't attract a large enough subscriber base to initially make any ad revenue. Then, what'll end up happening is either no new cable development (unlikely), or the cable system will just start adding these channels in for free and creating the same system we have today: programming packages where you buy key channels and get a lot of others riding along with them.

This is Congress at it's finest: regulating a problem that doens't exist and over-exercising federal power to try and make it look like they're fighting the good fight, when in reality all they're doing is wasting everyone's time.

But its a problem to me, does that count? I'd like to see the Daily Show but I'm not going to pay $100/month for it. And I know lots of people who feel the same way. (Nobody I know has cable anymore). So millions of potential viewers of the Daily Show are locked out so that crappy channels can be subsidized.

Cable TV as it stands now is a rip-off. The best thing, as mentioned, would be to allow different companies to use the equipment as happened with the phone company. But this at least addresses a problem in the short term.

[REDREAD]

. But that argument strikes me as decidedly un-American. Why should the Polka Channel be kept on the air by ESPN's coattails.

I'm not saying it's fair, but all the cable companies care about is money. They will rig the "custom packaging" price so that people pay at least as much as they do now.

And a lot of the niche channels will die. I know some people like the Food/cooking channels, but I wonder if those would've even been created if everything was custom. I can see some cable executive deciding that the market wouldn't bear those channels and not even giving them a chance.

Since I only have the 6 free antenna channels, it doesn't matter to me, but I thought I'd point that out.. Coorporations aren't going to intentionlly do something that causes them a net loss in revenue.

[Yachtzee]

I don't think the problem is so much choice of channels, it's choice of providers. If they allowed meaningful competition in local markets, like they do phone service, you might see more flexibility in buying cable channels. I get the feeling if they allow people to buy channels separately without meaningful competition, you'll see people having to pay as much just to get ESPN as some people now pay for their entire basic cable service.

[deltachi8]

Hmm, so what channels would you pay for that you currently have?

[marcshoe]

This sounds like a good idea, but I worry that this will lead to more homogenization. Channels will need to reach a larger audience to stay solvent, and, as has happened with broadcast TV and (especially) radio, everything will start to look the same.

Too often catering to the largest possible segment of society leads to mediocrity.