Perspective: The false choice of a-la-carte TV

Anyone who's taken even a brief glance at their video provider's channel offerings knows that the number of networks currently available is staggering.

We've come a long way from the days when a measly three networks were all you could get. These days, it seems like there's a channel for every possible niche and interest--sometimes two or three. Yet in the midst of this outpouring of content, a small but vocal faction is still complaining about a lack of choice.

At a recent communications forum in Aspen, Colo., Kevin Martin, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, once again announced his support for imposing federal authority over how your video programming company packages its lineup. Martin would force providers to offer channels on an "a la carte" or per-channel basis, replacing the current system in which subscribers buy bundled packages. He claims that such a rule would aid parents in fighting objectionable content, and that it would allow consumers to pay only for the channels they want, ostensibly saving them money.

Sounds nice, right? Too bad enacting such a law would be counterproductive on all fronts. Never mind that it's simply absurd for the government to be puttering around in America's television sets, as if there's some enumerated right to a certain type of TV. Martin's line that it's a tool to fight indecency is just a pander to interest-group outrage. And far from being easy on consumer pocketbooks, a-la-carte would force consumers to pay more for less--all while barricading opportunities for the development of new channels.

Martin likes to pitch a-la-carte as a way for parents to fend off indecency. But where's the clamor for government help with controlling the clicker? Nowhere to be found. A survey of U.S. TV viewers by Russell Research revealed that only 9 percent believe the government should increase control of television programming.

For those who want to choose what they watch and when they watch it, there are numerous options already available.

What did the other 91 percent think about the optimal way to direct children's TV viewing? Quite sensibly, they answered "parental involvement." Turns out people overwhelmingly think parents--not government--should be in charge of what their kids watch.

The FCC might point to the piles of indecency complaints it receives, but they're almost exclusively the work of a small, highly overrepresented squad of committed complainers, the Parents Television Council. Out of the whopping 240,000 complaints the FCC received in 2003, 99.8 percent were generated by the PTC's online complaint form. In July of 2005, the FCC received more than 23,000 complaints. Only five came from other sources. Take the PTC's computer-generated protests out of the equation, and you're left with virtual silence.

On the issue of pricing, Martin's claims that a-la-carte mandates would make less expensive programming sound good, but fall apart under closer inspection. Much of the cost is in the infrastructure, meaning that you can't simply take the number of channels on your bill and divide by the total cost to see how much the per-channel rate would be. Any a-la-carte service would likely have to include a flat rate for connection in addition to the per-channel rate.

And updating the infrastructure and pricing would add costs too, meaning that even those customers who stuck with traditional bundles would likely see their prices rise. A study by research firm Booz Allen Hamilton figured that an a-la-carte requirement could raise even the cost of current bundles by as much as 15 percent. Cheaper? Not by a long shot.

As for channel variety, a-la-carte could decimate the mechanisms that allow the hundreds of niche-interest networks to flourish on the ever-expanding channel rolls. Specialty networks are often sold to providers as part of channel groups and then packaged into basic programming bundles. They pick up support based on their ability to find their way into packages, and thus into consumers' homes.

It's a crucial part of the development process that allows smaller channels--especially those devoted to religious and minority programming--to flourish. Today's spectacular array of channels is a direct result of this process, and a-la-carte could kill the prospects for any number of new networks.

And for those who want to choose what they watch and when they watch it, there are numerous options already available. DVD box sets of TV shows have proved surprisingly popular. On the Internet, iTunes users can download shows to their computers and iPods, and many networks now post popular shows like "Lost" and "Heroes" online right after they air. Consumers do indeed want more options--and in the form of more channels and more ways to watch, that's just what the market has delivered.

It hardly needs to be said, but if choice is what you want, don't look to the government.

Biography
Peter Suderman is a writer at FreedomWorks, a limited government advocacy group based in Washington, D.C.

More Perspectives

[george108]

False Choice of a la carte TV

I think your Peter Suderman needs to come down to earth. I'm not one of those who belongs to any perticular group. Just your average person. I'm sick of paying for all those so called channels when i watch only a select few. I receive 3 spanish channels (don't watch). Approx. 10 channels of QVC or something (don't watch) ESPN of which there are approx.8 (don't watch) and yet i'm stuck paying for these. I still want the choice of choosing and not paying no matter how you look at it.

[i_am_still_wade]

Exactly!

The only reason we don't have a la carte TV right now is because Viacom, NBC Universal, and other cable TV providers know they'll lose a lot of revenue as stations nobody wants disappear.

I can count on my hand the number of cable TV stations I want. I cannot tell you how many time I browse through all 300+ channels to find NOTHING good on. Why keep paying for junk?

[Reedrock]

Business

Comments like this show a complete lack of understanding towards the business model that cable television is based on.

You are not paying for those superfluous channels, those channels are paying your cable bill. That's right. The reason there are so many channels to fill every niche is that those networks pay money to get onto the lineup where they can attract viewers. They start out with none. How can they gain viewers if people never can tune to the channel? It is not adding to your cable bill it is offsetting the cost of delivering your cable by charging the networks.

Larger networks have more power and can charge a higher per-subscriber rate because most everybody wants those channels in the package. But the packaging is based on the supply/demand model that all products use. Basically, put the popular channels on the basic lineup because that's the largest profit margin. New or very niche channels are willing to pay either in fees or giving more ad spots to the cable company to sell to get into the basic lineup. Popular, but specialized channels on a higher tier because those who are interested are willing to pay it.

Do you ask your internet provider to let you choose which websites you want to pay for? Of course not. There's simply too much content to go through. Television is heading in the same direction with more and more content being available. If you think the consumer is going to feel like sorting through an ever-expanding channel lineup, or have to call their cable company any time they hear about a new, cool channel they want to add, 5 years from know you'll regret it. You'll REALLY regret it if the feds start controlling it.

[inachu]

When you get what you asked for.

Growing up I have noticed everything I have asked for will stay mine but as an adult I see what we ask for is never the same or does not last long at all. Good example I ask for minum cable tv service just as long as I get the SCI-FI channel.

I may get the choice but some new selling or offering changes that deal I made with the cable company then I always loose the aci fi channel then they reply back," Sorry that is only for Premium subscribers." either that or the cable company always get sbought out and they rip away all the custom choices I made and they force a new worthless plan that costs more and less choice. PAY MORE = GET LESS
I am really starting to hate all cable tv companies.

[hinroc]

Paradigm shift

This writer is stuck in the old way. Everything he states about a la cart is correct except one thing. Channels will die a slow death. It will become a la carte shows. You will pay for the Cable service just like you pay for broadband. Cable will become one big VOD set of channels. Action, Comedy, etc. Just like itunes some people will pay for individual shows others will pay for whole seasons. Sure there will be commercials to get you to see the free preview but it will all be a la carte.

[ktmotox]

As it should be

Right-on hinroc! This is how it should be, and I hope it gets here soon.

In the capitalist system, desired products survive and undesired products are eliminated. People vote with their dollars. If people get their TV entertainment by purchasing one program at a time, the best will survive and the crap will die. It becomes a self-optimizing system.

In the current system, the cable providers and the content providers have too much control over what programming I have to choose from. I want to turn the tables and give the consumer more control and make the content providers respond to the demands of the consumer. The financial incentive of consumer purchased individual shows will do this. It would be even better if I had multiple competing delivery sources from which to purchase a particular program at a particular time (e.g. iTunes, MSN, AOL, Google, etc.)

[bjglav492]

so true

if you willingly pay $50 today for cable there is no way the bean counters at the cable company are going to sit back and let you slash that when they already know you can swallow $50 to get the channels you want. At a minimmum, they will transfer the lost revenue of high cost of stations like ESPN to those who choose to receive it. This would be fairer. In the end, its silly to think that the cable companies will just sit back and accept the tremendous revenue loss that a the a la carte system being sold would mean.

[SohailAhmed]

Why is a lobbyist writing on CNET News.com!?

A bit of the fox guarding the hen house. CNET is going to lose
credibility if they continue to put articles like this out without
someone from the opposing side. Instead, they should create a
feature containing two articles - one from each perspective.

I personally think a la carte would be great for consumers and it
is not a nightmare to implement. Cable companies already do
this with options like HBO. This is simply big business lobbying
to keep more dollars for themselves and making consumers pay
for what they don't want or need.

A la carte pricing is the wave of the future in a digital economy.
I'm all for less government, but key areas need good policy. This
is an easy one to both pass and implement.

Democracy in America is eroding people. It's more and more an
illusion as multinational lobbies control government lawmakers.
It's more about money than votes. Wake up people.

[Ricyteach]

Are you daft?

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. The writer of the article is not a registered lobbyist and works for a registered 501c3 organization.

[rdupuy11]

Why are you commenting

SohailAhmed, the bigger question is why are you commenting. You are so ill informed on this subject. You've got all the players and the motivations confused.

These are not pro-international congolomerate, these are freedom of choice advocates. The problem you are not grasping is that content owners also have freedoms.

The government stepping in to do anything, has to be done based on law, and law is based on reason.
I'm sorry, I'm probably causing you a nose bleed I have taken to this conversation to such high ground.

But the point is, if the government doesn't act within the confines of the constitution, then you have lawlessness, then you have those with power bullying others, then you have international conglomerates controlling things.

You sooooo don't get it. These guys are fighting for the little guys.

The other guys, the ones you defend, are guising their power grabs, and precedent setting, under a thin guiese of populist ideals.

I will pray for you, and the country, SohailAhmed. The fact is, you have to know more than this, and do better, or democracy is lost.

There is no fundamental right defined in the constitution to unbundled tv channels...what the constitution does say, is any right not defined here, is not for the federal government, but reserved for the states, and the PEOPLE.

Let people get what they need, by negotiating contracts...the marketplace works (as you yourself hint at), so let it work.

[ralfthedog]

A la carte pricing would require elimination of all analog cable service.

I am not saying that would be a bad thing, but everyone would be required to plug in a cable box or a cable card. We would no longer be able to just plug a TV into the coax.

[Fraud Guy]

What happened to the free market

I have wanted a la carte for years; the only time I see most stations is when I edit the channel off of my TV. As a previous commenter said, that includes foreign language stations (except to catch a soccer game), home shopping, etc.

And if that family network thinks that pushing for this change will result in less "adult" programming, they may be in for a surprise--IIRC, by far the most popular movies (again, free choice) rented by businessmen and travellers are the X-rated ones. You don't see much pay per view religious programming these days.

[don356]

Freedom of Choice

Minimum packages on Satellite, contain 60 or so channels - of which, I will only watch 12 or 15. The rest of the channels I may want to watch are contained in the next package and or the package after that. That may consist of perhaps 6 more channels than the original. But I'd end up paying for 120 or more channels, when I only want to watch 18/21 channels. WHY should I have to pay for 102/99 channels I WONT watch.
GIVE ME ALA CARTE, PLEASE...I want my Freedom of Choice.
Don

[fgoldstein]

Good points

I'm happy to see this article here, even if I wonder if I should feel uncomfortable being on the same side as the author, whose opinions probably differ from mine in lots of other places.

A la carte is a fraud; mandating it is merely a way that the telephone companies, especially fauxATT, are trying to attack the cable companies via their sock puppet Kevin "K-Mart"[in]. The economics of cable channels make this clear. If a la carte were the rule, you'd be getting maybe 30 channels for the price of today's 200+.

The reason is that, like software, it costs a cable program producer exactly zero dollars per household that gets it. They aren't printing DVDs and mailing them to each house, after all. But the cost of producing a channel's program is basically fixed too. So if a special-interest channel (food, golf, Russian-language programming, animals, anime, old movies, history, science, whatever...) costs say $20M/year to run, it either makes that revenue bogie or shuts down.

With bundles, the programmer offers the show to cable companies for a very low carriage fee -- a few cents/month per home passed, for instance -- and hopes to sell to millions of homes. This creates a package for advertisers, who pay most of the bills. Channels win by getting into lots of homes, a few of whom will stumble across it while channel-surfing and start watching, maybe becoming regulars. So over time it may catch on, or it may fail. This gives viewers lots of channels, most of which they have never heard of before.

A la carte means that the channel won't be on any sets that don't order it. So a new channel, a new idea, can only get started if it has huge money up front to publicize it and collect orders. That's next to impossible today, except for the very few mega-media-corporations who might be able to pull it off on occasion.

Worse, with fewer viewers ordering existing channels, their subscriberships will dry up. Since their cost bogies remain the same, their cost/subscriber/month will go way, way up. And thus the rate will go way up. So subscribers will pay, say, $2/month for a channel that's now one of 20 in a $5/month package. They may of course come out paying less, because maybe 19 of those 20 will simply shut down. This benefits GE, Disney, CBS and News Corp., whose Big Four commercial networks have been losing badly to cable. And it benefits ATT whose on-demand video system is more adapted to massive pay-per-view and less aimed at package delivery than cable. Hmmm, I wonder if they've been shopping at K-Mart lately.

[ckought]

I don't disagree, but . . .

Being a cable customer whose monthly bill just increased over 10% because the local cable company decided to add two sports channels to the basic cable plan, I don't think your model fits all circumstances. I agree that the package deals do offer smaller cable channels the opportunity to reach more potential customers, but I also believe that those packages should fit the customers' needs.

The local cable company did a survey and determined that approximately 55% of its customers wanted the extra sports channels . . . so the other 45% of us have to pay higher monthly bills to cover the cost.

I think a more appropriate plan would be themed packages. If I like sports channels, then let me pay for the sports package . . . if I want home improvement shows, the I'd get those channels . . . if I spend all hours of the day and night drooling over Susanne Somers fashion and Joan Rivers jewelry, then I can get the shopping package . . . if I'm a news junkie, then I can get a package that's just news . . .

The cable companies win because I'd be willing to pay the same price I am now to get fewer channels than I do now (but ones that I want to watch) . . . the cable channels win because I'm more likely to watch the channels I get . . . and I win because I don't have to accidentally see another Joan Rivers close-up again.

[Fraud Guy]

One problem

Working for a company that is heavy into cable marketing, advertisers closely monitor sales performance based on channel and results; if the channel doesn't perform, they don't buy further advertising. While there may be logic to your premise as new channels roll out, once they are established, they live or die based on eyeballs, and had better either price themselves based on the revenue they generate for advertisers, or they will fold.

[baike]

20 in a package, are you kidding

I would love to only have 20 channels in a package. What is your provider? Every operator I've had has had a basic service with like 180 channels - 165 of which I will never watch. Then I can get HBO or skinemax. Why can't they break it out in small topical groups - like the home shopping package, the sports package, the spanish channel package, the news package, the classic move package, etc, etc. That's what I want as a consumer.

The problem I see with your analysis is that its based primarily on perception. Lots of corps get screwed like that. You talk about costs and numbers and target homes, but all of that is an illusion. If I'm an advertiser and you tell me that your channel is broadcast to 5 million homes, I'd be intersted. But if you told me that your channel is actively sought out and purchased by 1/2 a million viewers who have a strong interst in your channel's theme - Now I'm really intersted and willing to pay a little more, because I'm going to see higher returns on my ad dollar.

When we're asking for al a carte, it doesn't have to mean 1 channel at a time. It can mean small topical packages.

[Tom_T]

a la carte tv -- Been there, done that & liked it

Back in '84 we purchased a big dish (you know, one of those 10-foot dishes that are now mostly obsolete) for watching satellite tv. We happily used it until the late '90's when most of the satellite tv programming switched over from the "C" Band to the small dish technology.

Bundled programming was an option, or, we could create our own bundle consisting of just one or more channels, for just one or more months.

Our 'customer satisfaction' with our a la carte tv programming was 10/10. Having the flexibility to add or drop whatever and whenever we wanted gave us the feeling of empowerment. Of course, we couldn't control the programming, but, if for example, HBO had a crappy lineup for a month while Showtime during the same period had movies we wanted to see, it was simply a matter of dropping HBO and adding Showtime.

Paying for only what you actually are interested in watching is a good thing.

[jsheaney]

vote with your wallet

If you don't like the way your cable company bundles the channels
then stop paying for it. I really dislike commercial TV, so I no
longer have cable. I buy the few TV episodes I like from iTunes.
That is truly a la carte. I save a ton of money, have no comercial
interruptions and I have whole lot more free time that I used to
spend as a couch potato flipping through a hundred channels.

[bobcode]

on deman IP TV

Where's my IPTV, or 720p on the iTunes Music Store.

Simply, if I don't think the offer is good, I don't buy. I didn't buy TV for a while because the advertized offering of DTV cost too much. Later, they offered a discount and basic analog for a good price.

[lyntone]

tv program choice

What we need is a choice of the amount of commercials and type of commercials.
There are too many drug commercials, erectile dysfunction commercials should stop.

[bennetts77833]

We have a False Choice already

The fact that porn, soft or hard exists on satellites developed in part by my tax dollars and put in orbit by Western culture makes me sick.

And I am insulted that I have to have to put an adult lock on my channel choices to avoid seeing the titles and be solicited to pay for porn every day.

Short of censoring the satellites, real choice would be to make packages that did not include that stuff by default and did not assume everyone wants sports and all children's programming too.

With digital and hd tv over the air signals bringing more choices over the air to me, I just may opt out of all the satellite and cable providers. But it would be nice if all those providers had a way to package quality tv in options that would allow real choice without me having to get my hands / tv programming guide / dirty.

Best Wishes,
Bernie

[raulmot]

Paying More for Less? I think not.

I primarily watch about 5 channels of cable TV (not including network stations). Sure right now I get some 300 channels for $60, but I really don't need 3 channels of CSPAN. I could do without all the home shopping channels. I don't need the music channels. If I can choose a la carte, sure I'd pay more per channel, but I wouldn't be paying for about 95% of the channels that I don't even watch. I can't imagine my bill being anything but less than what it is now.

[Professor Cornbread]

We are Tired of Paying for Crap

I have standard cable with 70-odd channels. I watch maybe 6 on a regular basis and a dozen or so sometimes, and probably another dozen rarely. That only adds up to about half of what I get, yet I am paying for half crap. I would LOVE to half my cable bill to not recieve the religious, shopping, family, and sport channels...but I have to pay for it all.

The only reason that this a la carte method 'costs more' is becuase cable TV providers are perfectly happy selling us a bunch of channels we will never watch and want to continue doing so, blaming 'logistical' problems. You can switch my HBO on and off easily, don't try to tell me you can't do the same with my ABC Family or Telemundo.

[shoffmueller]

not all channels are equal

But the 6 channels you do watch would have a higher ala carte price than the 64 you don't watch. Pricing wouldn't be equal by channel - Discovery would be priced alot higher than EWTN, for example, simply because it's a more popular product. So, I doubt that most folks would save much money, unless you have a thing for C-SPAN2 and Trinity Broadcasting.

[bluemist9999]

Actually, it is hard for them

Keep in mind the Cable companies put in their systems in the 80s. Only within the past, say, 5 years, has there been a fairly loud interest in having a la carte channel choices.

So, they have a lot of legacy hardware and software (billing, etc) that supports the old model. Changing all of that out would be very expensive, difficult and error-prone. I imagine billing problems would go up dramatically when the systems are overhauled to support a la carte choices.

Also, as other posters remarked, the cable channel providers make unbundling their channels a very expensive proposition. So, until these legacy contracts expire, the cable companies are locked into them as well.

However, if you want choice, switch to a new provider such as Verizon's FIOS (or other IPTV provider) who isn't burdened with the legacy stuff. In fact, I believe FIOS already provides a la carte channel choices. I could be wrong though.

[Dr. Smoke]

I concur

I concur with Professor Cornbread's comments. I'm also tired of
paying for channels I don't watch and have no interest in
watching.

Mr. Suderman sounds more like a lobbyist for the Cable and
Satellite TV industries, not an advocate for the free market.

His argument that "A survey of U.S. TV viewers by Russell
Research revealed that only 9 percent believe the government
should increase control of television programming," has nothing
to do with a-la-carte pricing. Programming, as in content, and
pricing are two different things.

Parents should be in charge of what their children watch, but why
should the parent's programming bundle contain channels that
they don't want in their home. The V-Chip and channel blocking
are merely a front for forcing people to pay for content they
never want to begin with.

If niche-interest networks are to survive in an a-la-carte world,
then they need to price their content accordingly. If they can't
survive economically, then so be it: that is the free market at
work.

[giggitygoo]

The oligopoly of television

Frankly, this article is way off the mark. Mandated a-la-carte TV is no more government interference than allowing cable companies to have monopolies. Yes, there is satellite, but even with that most people only have 3 options - Cable, Dish Network, and DirecTV - that's it. Verizon's service is only available in an extremely small area for now, so I'll leave them out. There is simply not enough competition here to let the free market provide the best solution, especially for those who are not able to choose satellite. (People in apartment buildings, no clear LOS, etc.)

I usually side against government regulation, but in this case I am all for it. Cable companies (and satellites to a more limited extent) have been soaking customers for many years, well aware that most people are not content with just free network channels. Companies in a highly competitive industry simply could not get away with the almost nonexistent level of customer service and outrageous fee increases year after year that cable companies have been getting away with for far too long.

A-la-carte options would allow people to pay for only the channels they want. Arguments about niche programming are nonsense. If I'm not interested in a Russian-language channel, why should I be forced to pay for it and make it more affordable for people that actually have interest in it? Let people decide if a channel is worth a certain price - if there's not enough people willing to pay for a channel, then let it die. This will put pressure on both content and network providers to offer high-quality, reasonably priced channels and eliminate unworthy, little-watched channels that are forced into packages by large media companies.

Customization is the way of the future - get used to it. The popularity of individual track purchases on iTunes and the decline of CD sales show that people want more choice and are not interested in large media companies forcing unwanted services/products down our throats just to get what we want. This is in the cable companies' long term interest as well. As internet speeds increase, and as televisions and AV equipment become more integrated into home networks, a-la-carte TV over the net is only a matter of time anyway.

[SBR249]

Not quite

When taken to the extremes, any proposal can be made to sound absurd. The author assumes that consumers will go 100% a la carte or 100% bundled service. What about the consumer who are in between? What if you don't watch much beyond the basic $10 bundle of channels except for one "premium" channel like Scifi or History Channel?

In that case, you are already paying for the infrastructure and connection costs because you already have the basic local channel bundle. Why should a consumer who wants to watch a few hours of Stargate a week have to pay $40+ for a package of channels that he/she will watch maybe 1-2 times a month (if at all)?

I think, instead of going strictly a la carte or strictly bundled, there should be a tiered system. For example, if we take Comcast as the guinea pig. They can require the subscription of the $10 basic bundle for all cable subscribers which would take care of infrastructure maintenance and upgrades. Then, customers would get a choice of either upgrading to a bigger package or choosing channels a la carte.

Besides that, there are other schemes will could potentially work. For instance, a modified a la carte/bundle hybrid that functions on a tiered system. Where you can choose bundles of 5, 10, 20 channels whose lineup you select from a pool.

Even that would be preferably to a giant grab bag of a hundred channels that you pay hand over fist for and end up not even watching.

That's just my $0.02

[nicmart]

Left and Right vs Freedom

The federal government has no more business interfering the
cable offerings than it does with cosmetic offerings. As Ron Paul
reminds us in his presidential campaign, the powers of the
federal government are limited by the constitution, and nowhere
does the constitution empower that government to regulate
cable programming.

The Left and Right both salivate over media control: the former
for economic reasons, the latter for moral reasons. But my
arrangement with my cable provider is between the company
and myself, and neither the ideologues nor the regulators have a
right to interfere. Butt out!

[DaiMac]

Its really quite simple...

The question is not, "do people want ala carte TV for a reasonable
price?". The question is "will CableTV companies figure that out
before other solutions kill their entire industry?".

Much like the environmental debate, where "saving the planet" is a
silly concept. The real struggle is to "save the humans" before they
make the planet unlivable for their own species, the planet will be
fine either way, probably better without us for that matter.

[ralfthedog]

This is more or less how the math will work.

You will pay about $40.00 just for the connection. You will get your local analog channels free (Analog will be gone soon, so don't count on it).

You will get a credit for the shopping and real estate channels that pay to get put on the cable lineup.

Low cost channels will sell for $1 to $2 for the ones that no one watches to $20.00 for channels like ESPN. Most channels like CNN or SCI-FI will run for about $5.00

Spanish language channels will probably go for a premium because they are some of the most popular. If a la carte becomes real, expect to see many smaller English language channels replaced by Spanish.

Channels like C-SPAN should be cheep because they have very small production costs. Local access will remain free.

HD channels will cost more than SD.

[Penguinisto]

Not so sure...

The $40 base fee seems a bit too high IMHO.

Remember, they have you locked into a contract for new subscription services (which gets happily extended every time you move, every time you add or remove a channel, every time you add ore remove a box, add or remove some sort of feature or other, etc etc etc). This means whatever up-front costs they have is very readily amortizable.

The rest is (in most cases) merely keeping power in the coaxial, fixing the occasional break, and occasionally putting cable into a new house from the street connector block).

By comparison, Satellite services don't require near as much - Dish Network for instance pops along at $20-$25/month for the absolute basic package... and launching/maintaining a satellite will cost a hell of a lot more than schlepping coaxial cable around in the occasional new subdivision.

IMHO, I think the ala carte channels will, as you've mentioned, depend on popularity.

OTOH, I don't think it'd cost near as much (remember, the cable carrier and channel owners get dough from both ends - the cable company and the advertisers).

Low-end channels like the QVC-style ones would prolly be free (QVC makes their money from direct sales and etc... you think they'd give up trying to gain maximum market penetration? Hah!)

C-SPAN and etc. are pretty much already free, and as a gov't service will likely remain that way. Same story with local access channels (which are already --go figure-- mandatory by gov't policy).

most non-premium channels will likely cost about $2.50 - $4.00 per cable box. We're talking channels like TBS, Spike, etc at the low end, up to, say, AMC, A&E, TCM, NGEO, and the like.

The high-end non-premium channels (Discovery's stable ferinstance) would likely be sold as a package (where you get HIST, DISC, HIST-I, DTMS, SCI, and the like) for say $10/mo. or so.

The premium channels we already know about, no?

I figure a basic geek package would likely run $30-40 mo. total.

Me, I'm riding the last few months of my Comcast contract, and the Internet hookup (and a distaste for Verizon) is the only thing keeping me from bolting to a combo of FIOS(or DSL)/DirecTV/Vonage (the latter I already have and use).

DirecTV had once cost me about $45/mo to get me all of the channels I wanted (w/o the premium movie channel crap). It also had cost me ab't $50 for Sprint Broadband ISP service... about $95/mo total. That was cheaper than the $115/mo. I shell out to Comcast right now... and I get less channels in the process (Why? because I moved, couldn't erect a dish in the ap't I'd lived in at that time, etc...)

The Internet is nice @ Comcast, but their television programming packages and choices are basically crap, and their VoIP service is almost 150% or more of what I'm paying Vonage, for the same service and feature set (so no, no Comcast VoIP for me, thanks).

An ala carte setup would fix that IMHO.

/P

[Penguinisto]

Author = Industry Shill

"[i]Both SBC and Verizon help to fund FreedomWorks, an anti-tax group headed by former House Majority Leader Richard Armey, R-Texas. FreedomWorks launched a multimedia effort in June to promote cable competition. The campaign seeks to boost legislation permitting nationwide video franchises, a top priority for the Bells.[/i]

Ref: <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.freepress.net/news/9242" target="_newWindow">http://www.freepress.net/news/9242</a>

There be Astroturf in the C|NET article...

[rad91]

This is an opinion page in Cnet

This article is in the Perspective section of the site, similar to the Opinion page of a newspaper. Whether or not you agree with the the lobbyists, politicians, or business executives that may write in opinion pages, I think its important that they do. It's better than reading/hearing a sound bite.

[Mister C]

Whatever happened to the free market?

Whenever some high power bureaucrat (especially a conservative one) talks about large scale market regulation, you can bet there is some big money waiting in the wings to make a killing.

Starting with the so-called breakup of ATT it has been just one sham after the other. Time magazine featured a cover of the ATT juggernaut taking over the computer world. Yes they screwed it up and lost their shirts but look at the deal itself. ATT got to dump all the things that cost them money and keep those that were the money makers.

And not to forget our boy Bill and his giveaway of the Telcom infrastructure that was built with 40 years of tax payer subsidies.

Conservatives howl about government intervention when it is used to help the working class but oh do they love it when it benefits their corporate masters. Wonder who the big winner is behind the veil of this latest sham.

[Penguinisto]

Monopolies, anyone?

[i]"Whenever some high power bureaucrat (especially a conservative one) talks about large scale market regulation, you can bet there is some big money waiting in the wings to make a killing."[/i]

I got bad news here: It doesn't matter which side of the ideological fence a proponent sits on; odds are fair that somebody looks to make a killing anyway... even environmental regs. (e.g. The CFC ban - it meant a TON of money for Dow Chemical, who already had the refrigerant R-134a all ready and waiting to sell to a forced customer base).

That said, in this case I don't see it as a bad thing. After all, who on earth stands to make money off of cable companies having to offer un-bundled channel pricing?

After all, folks like TBS, Discovery, etc won't make or lose money either way, since they'll still sell their stable of channels to the cable companies by the bundled package.

Satellite companies won't stand to make or lose money either way (different carrier method, coupled with not having the a-la-carte feature that seems to appeal to so many people). It will actually provide pricing pressure against the cable companies in order to keep their a-la-carte pricing honest (aside from locally-enforced cable-only policies such as certain apartment complexes and such, almost anyone can go satellite). But still... no big payday for them.

So we've established that sat companies won't be making a killing, nor will channel operators/owners.

This leaves... advertisers? Nope - they prefer bundles so they can hawk their wares shotgun-style across a group of channels all at once. If advertisers had to pick-and-choose which channels to advertise on, perhaps we'd stop seeing so much mindless drek, and instead see the advertisers actually concentrate on making stuff that would catch your attention.

Speaking of which, would this lead to an increase in ads? Pffft! Please... they're pushing that envelope now, whether we go a-la-carte or not.

Okay, so it ain't advertisers... who else we got?

Qwest or other alternate come-lately television providers? Prolly not, since they'd fall under the same rules (because most of them are also quasi-monopolies).

Tell me - who stands to make money from such a regulation? Because quite frankly, I don;t see the money angle here.

Seems that, like the public access channels, the customer stands to win here. (Okay, bad example in most parts of the US, but at least locally in Portland, Oregon, we get to see some really, really weird sh*t sometimes on the local access channels, and it's either cool in a cult way --e.g. "Super Atomic Television"-- , or its really good for a laugh).

/P

[boatseller]

Plenty of Options

The article is merely an opinion, like ALL journalism whether it's in the editorial section or on the front page. You simply can't separate people from their opinions.

The relationship between you and the content delivery is entirely that, between you and them. If you do not agree to the terms of the service, you are perfectly free to not order it. So, yes, it's a take what you get arrangement. It's the price you pay, or don't pay, for freedom of commerce.

However, I think this whole discussion us utterly pointless as the delivery and consumption are shifting to a less channel focused arrangement.

For me with my DVR, there is no meaningful difference among entire groups of channels to the point that I'm sure would distress the content owners. For instance, I just realized, after 7 or 8 weeks, that Ice Road Truckers was a History Channel show and not Discovery.

So, my sat provider has become just a giant pipe of content flowing into my DVRs. Channels? What channels? The more the better!

BTW, if you're ultimate goal is to control the nature of the content, which I think is totally super if you're a parent, cancel the cable and sat and sign up for a DVD service like NetFlix. There, it's totally up to you.

[ktmotox]

Channels are noticeable at bill time

It would be great if when I watch a show from my DVR, I get charged a small fee and the money goes directly to the content producer. The CableCo can just get a fixed monthly fee for providing the pipe. The less viewings a show gets, the less money the producer will get. The more viewings a show gets, the more money the producer will get. Hey, it's just like feature films!

boatseller, it's true that with the DVR, you tend not to notice "channels" when you view programming. But you do notice "channels" when you pay your bill (via the packages you selected). 100% pay-per-view is the way to go. If I had a provider that competed against Comcast with a service that charged me for just what I watched, I would switch to it in a minute, even if it did not reduce my monthly bill at all. It's the principle of being able to vote for content with my dollars; consumer choice.

[bwithnel]

infrustructure+

The problem with the author's view is that it is false in several accounts. First, the cost of service might be higher if a person orders all the items that a bundle contains without a bundle, but I know of no individual that does that. He makes the complaint that the number of channels would be diminished if smaller channels don't get the support of the bundle. That is absolutely true, and why bundling costs more for the average user. I watch at most 5 channels, I'd like to add 2 more, but I'm not about to pay $30+ a month to add those two. Why is it so much to add two channels? Because I'd have to add the entire bundle of 40 or so channels to obtain them. Sure, it might cost me $5 more for adding those two channels, and if I added all 40 (the industry study does just that in order to come up with the 15% increase in cost) it would be more than the cost of the bundle. But for me it would be cheaper.

I wouldn't mind at all if the 38 I don't watch go out of business -- and I shouldn't have to pay for them. As it is, if this gentleman would like to reduce government involvement (something I generally support) have him put in place laws to prohibit government sanctioned monopolies that eliminate choice of cable provider. Those monopolies are the reason we have the bundles in the first place. Remove the local government regulation of who can provide me cable service, and it all becomes easy.