This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

À la carte cable

edited September 2011 in Technology
So the FCC was supposed to make cable companies offer À la carte channel selection. And it seems the cable companies are now in agreement. They also want À la carte. But of course, there is some misunderstanding as to what that means exactly.

http://www.engadget.com/2011/09/29/some-cable-companies-are-pushing-for-unbundled-channels-but-n/

That, my friends, is what we call bullshit.

If cable offered TRUE à la carte channel selection, I might actually pay for it. That means I can choose my own channel lineup, one channel at a time. And it means I pay only for those channels at a reasonable price, and not for any other channels. If I only want three channels, then my cable bill should be like $1.50 a month and I should only get those three channels.

Comments

  • Ahhh, but most channels aren't watched by enough people to even exist. They do now solely due to their being able to say that "x million people" have access to their channel to advertisers. How many people would have the Lifetime network on their roster if it didn't just come free.

    I have no interest in the outcome of this battle. It pits my enemies against themselves, with no possible beneficial outcome for me.
  • Ahhh, but most channels aren't watched by enough people to even exist. They do now solely due to their being able to say that "x million people" have access to their channel to advertisers. How many people would have the Lifetime network on their roster if it didn't just come free.
    Good! If we get or way, which is a snowballs chance in hell, then those channels will DIE.
  • edited September 2011
    For the smaller providers, there are essentially consortiums that dictate the available channels.

    You can't force a to-the-home provider to carry a channel since those require contracts. So if they don't have a channel available to them, it's up to them whether or not they want to pay to get that service.

    Your cable bill will never be just $1.50 a month. There's a certain amount of cost that you are going to shoulder just to get service itself, and it's going to be more than $1.50. It's something like paying for dry-loop dsl. Getting connection from the cable companies equipment to your homes equipment, they can charge you what they think is appropriate.

    The initial package pricing might, for financial purposes, just be those costs and they "give" you the channels they want to come with it for free (and you can opt out of them, but it saves you nothing). That would still be "a la carte".

    Similarly, they could manipulate the rules by selling you bundled channels in the format "buy any of these for $x, get these other channels with it free (if you want)." It's stupid, but it manages to allow customers to buy any particular offering piece by piece, and the cable company keeps their money.

    If you really want to be able to control your selection, I think you're going to have to stick to "over the top" services (stuff you can get through the internet). It seems to me that we are going in that direction anyway, it's just a matter of time.
    Post edited by Anthony Heman on
  • RymRym
    edited September 2011
    I'm amazed this is even an issue anymore. Consider how recently congress passed legislation limiting the loudness of television commercials. They're well over a decade late to the game. A la carte cable is an issue from a decade past. Congress is great at looking into the issues that are no longer issues due to the sheer amount of time that has passed.
    Your cable bill will never be just $1.50 a month.
    And this is why no one actually cares about a la carte.
    Post edited by Rym on
  • I'm amazed this is even an issue anymore. Consider how recently congress passed legislation limiting the loudness of television commercials. They're well over a decade late to the game. A la carte cable is an issue from a decade past.
  • Netflix could actually do this.

    Let's pretend that regular cable pays Comedy Central $0.50 per subscriber. Netflix could offer to pay $0.75 per subscriber. Then Netflix could be like, hey add Comedy Central to your Netflix streaming account for $1 a month! If they do it for enough channels, cable is in big trouble.
  • RymRym
    edited September 2011
    Then Netflix could be like, hey add Comedy Central to your Netflix streaming account for $1 a month! If they do it for enough channels, cable is in big trouble.
    How does the streaming work though? Sports and live news are the only things that benefit from being "streamed" in real time. I wouldn't pay any amount of money to have the ad-filled "stream" of the content from any network. I'd pay if I had access to every individual show on said network on-demand with no ads. I'd also pay for just access to the live sports (if the price were low enough).
    Post edited by Rym on
  • Netflix might want to do that, but Comedy Central is the one bound up in a series of different contracts and pricing deals that make that difficult. And given that option, they would probably be better off selling their online-only component entirely independant of netflix anyway (unless it saves them money by being bundled with netflix since a single company can negotiate better bandwidth pricing). That's where I would like things to go at least. I'm more interested in this method per show though, as opposed to per channel.
  • I'm more interested in this method per show though, as opposed to per channel.
    I'd pay a small amount to have access to the Daily Show, Ponies, Archer, and South Park (plus a handful of other shows) on-demand and up-to-date. But it would have to be on the order of single-digit dollars per month and be ad-free. It would also have to work seamlessly on my phone, laptop, and any computer.

    Right now, it is still literally faster to torrent an entire season of a show than it is to sit though even one set of ads.
  • Hulu has the last few episodes of the Daily Show but you have ads. Even Hulu Plus has ads, weird?
  • If I only want three channels, then my cable bill should be like $1.50 a month and I should only get those three channels.
    That's not how it works. You're also paying for transmission costs, infrastructure, accounting, etc. There's no way your cable would ever be just $1.50. They would actually lose money on you if that was the case. Below a certain price, they are better off not serving you at all.
  • There's no way your cable would ever be just $1.50. They would actually lose money on you if that was the case. Below a certain price, they are better off not serving you at all.
    And thus the problem. Most people only actually want a small amount of the content on TV, but end up having to pay for the mostly otherwise useless infrastructure and content creation.

    Why even pay for this extra infrastructure when you already pay for Internet access? The Internet is the pipe for everything: it's silly to pay for another pipe that's just television.
  • edited September 2011
    As you're considering torrents valid competition, there's no winning except for by the good-will of your fans and merch. I, personally, have no problem paying $2 an episode for my favorite shows, and I would prefer it go to the content creators as directly as possible.

    If I had my druthers:

    Everything is on-demand, DRM free, direct download or streaming (perhaps with nominal re-streaming bandwidth charges if you watch it multiple times).

    Pilots and the first one-to-two hours of content per show (so 1 to 5 episodes generally) are free. Similarly first games of every season of every sport are free, and the first round of playoffs.

    You can buy into a show at a per-episode rate that might be a bit high, but this is the base rate.

    You can subscribe to a show for nominally less, locking yourself into a contract for that season. Roughly half price.

    You can also subscribe to a show collector's edition style, where you get the boxed set with special features and other merch.

    And for everyone who is interested in it but not interested enough to invest any money directly, provide limited access at set intervals to a couple episodes at a time. This still theoretically helps push people towards buying the physical media, merch, and following seasons.
    Post edited by Anthony Heman on
  • I, personally, have no problem paying $2 an episode for my favorite shows, and I would prefer it go to the content creators as directly as possible.
    I like the Daily show, but $2 a month is the most I'd pay to continue to watch it. An episode isn't worth $2 itself.

    Archer I'd pay a dollar or two for an episode of, but don't have the option. My Little Pony I'd also pay a dollar or two for an episode, but the ones available to buy are bad quality.
    As you're considering torrents valid competition, there's no winning except for by the good-will of your fans and merch.
    Not true. Torrents win on convenience, not price. If "legit" DRM-free downloads were easy to get and cheap, even if not free, I wouldn't bother with the torrents at all.
  • And for everyone who is interested in it but not interested enough to invest any money directly, provide limited access at set intervals to a couple episodes at a time.
    Archer did that. It was annoying, so I torrented the show instead. It shortly thereafter appeared on Netflix.
  • You can get Archer for a little less than $2 an episode through Amazons Unbox, unless something has changed. I was subscribed to it. It does include DRM.
  • It does include DRM.
    Dealbreaker. I want to use the file on any arbitrary device I have, and I want to be able to use the file for remixing/mashing up.
  • At first I thought this would be kinda cool, if just for nostalgia's sake. Then I remembered that all the channels I would get don't exist in the forms they were when I was younger anymore.

    I would pay mid-single-digits a month for a channel that was old Cartoon Network Cartoon Cartoons, Toonami, and the old Adult Swim.
  • edited September 2011
    It does include DRM.
    Dealbreaker. I want to use the file on any arbitrary device I have, and I want to be able to use the file for remixing/mashing up.
    I can agree with you on that much. I don't "do anything" with the content other than view it though. The other bit I like is that I don't even have to actively click a button. I just wake up, and "oh hey, we took your money and put this on your computer while you were asleep, thanks." Basically that, but DRM free (and with a lower subscription price if I'm willing to go "All In" at the front of a season) would be ideal for me.
    Post edited by Anthony Heman on
  • NeoNeo
    edited September 2011
    I agree with all of the arguments made about why this will likely not end up being something that benefits us, however I am still keeping half an eye on the issue because it has the potential to screw me. I shell out way too much money each month for cable TV just so I have access to live sporting events. My concern is that if cable companies decide to offer their crap version of "a la carte" selections, they will actually end up charging me more for my sports channels then I am paying now. So, from that point of view I care about the discussion.
    Post edited by Neo on
  • And thus the problem. Most people only actually want a small amount of the content on TV, but end up having to pay for the mostly otherwise useless infrastructure and content creation.
    Yeah, Moe and I watch enough TV that $110 for cable + DVR + internet is worth it. Especially considering how much it costs for just the internet...

    I think your views on how much TV "most people" watch are not accurate. Most people don't live like you. Hence the obesity problem.
  • I think your views on how much TV "most people" watch are not accurate.
    I think it is. They watch a lot of TV. BUT. The vast majority of the programming they are not interested in. Look at how many channels there are. Hundreds of channels almost no one watches, propped up by a bizarro advertising model, completely ignored by most viewers.

    Aside from a handful of maybe 14 channels and a couple dozen shows, most every other channel/show is of no interest to the majority of TV watchers. There are an amazing number of low-rent channels that I'd believe no one at all watches.

    A la carte as a concept will fail because most everyone watches from the same subset of channels and shows, and the rest are of no value to most them. Everyone thinks they'll pay a tenth the price because they're only subscribing to a tenth of the channels. But that tenth is the vast majority of the demand. If everyone drops the same 300 useless channels, there's no incentive to drop their total cost by even a cent (as they were paying as much as they're paying now already and are losing nothing of value).

    A la carte fails from a simple game theoretical test of the incentives and utility of the players.
  • A la carte fails from a simple game theoretical test of the incentives and utility of the players.
    I agree with this assessment. Also, a la carte wold make launching a new channel effectively impossible. Right now, small channels get exposure when a parent company negotiates to tack it on to an existing package, where channel-flippers are bound to catch a few seconds of footage and stop.
  • The system is completely fucked up.

    People make shows and get money from channels even if nobody watches.
    Channels get money from advertisers and cable operators and give some of it to the shows. Even if nobody watches.
    Cable operators get the money from customers and advertisers and give it to channels. Even channels nobody watches.

    If you cut out the middle-men shows can sell themselves directly to customers over the net, or even on DVD. Tthe money will go direct from viewers and advertisers to shows bypassing cable operators and channels. Shows that people actually watch will make a fuckton more money, as they well deserve. Customers will be happier paying less money overall, and only seeing and paying for shows they care about. Many thousands will be unemployed as the false economy is destroyed. Crummy shows, the channels that air them, and lots of people working for the cable operators, will be out of jobs and their revenues will tank.

    Just another case of our entire economy being held up by a useless and inefficient mechanism of middle-men.
  • If you cut out the middle-men shows can sell themselves directly to customers over the net, or even on DVD. Tthe money will go direct from viewers and advertisers to shows bypassing cable operators and channels. Shows that people actually watch will make a fuckton more money, as they well deserve
    The problem is that shows often require a large amount of capital up front to produce a show that may or may not be successful. I could see it being difficult for people to obtain loans for large sums of money on innovative shows that may or may not be successful.
  • FX probably isn't watched by a whole ton of people, and if it wasn't for the package deals, we might not have Archer.
  • I think your views on how much TV "most people" watch are not accurate.
    I think it is. They watch a lot of TV. BUT. The vast majority of the programming they are not interested in. Look at how many channels there are. Hundreds of channels almost no one watches, propped up by a bizarro advertising model, completely ignored by most viewers.

    Aside from a handful of maybe 14 channels and a couple dozen shows, most every other channel/show is of no interest to the majority of TV watchers. There are an amazing number of low-rent channels that I'd believe no one at all watches.

    A la carte as a concept will fail because most everyone watches from the same subset of channels and shows, and the rest are of no value to most them. Everyone thinks they'll pay a tenth the price because they're only subscribing to a tenth of the channels. But that tenth is the vast majority of the demand. If everyone drops the same 300 useless channels, there's no incentive to drop their total cost by even a cent (as they were paying as much as they're paying now already and are losing nothing of value).

    A la carte fails from a simple game theoretical test of the incentives and utility of the players.
    The channels that have crap programming that no one watches are already not a significant part of the cost of your cable because they have very little leverage against the cable company to demand money. They are primarily funded by advertising or by a parent company that requires the cable company to carry the channel. If advertisers think they aren't going to get their money's worth, they won't buy ads on that channel. Then the channel ceases to make money and it goes away. Obviously they think there IS a benefit to running ads on those channels or else the channels would cease to exist.
  • The channels that have crap programming that no one watches are already not a significant part of the cost of your cable because they have very little leverage against the cable company to demand money.
    Yeap. But the only reason any consumer wants a la carte is to "drop the cruft" and save tons of money on all these channels they don't want anymore. "A la carte" as a movement is fundamentally flawed in that it can not do the only thing people want it to do.
    Obviously they think there IS a benefit to running ads on those channels or else the channels would cease to exist.
    Looking at the way ratings are calculated, I honestly, truly believe it's largely fraudulent misrepresentation to the people purchasing the ads.
Sign In or Register to comment.