Slashdot Mirror
FCC Report Supports a la Carte TV Pricing
An anonymous reader writes "The FCC may soon allow cable/sat companies to sell individually customized TV channel packages. From the article: ' FCC chairman Kevin Martin spoke to a forum, sponsored by the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee in Washington, which has been examining indecency on radio and television. Martin told the forum that the FCC will soon release a report that concludes that offering TV programming a la carte is economically feasible and in the best interest of consumers.'"
Forget Channels Alacarte. Why arn't we just doing TV shows on demand. On demand is by far the best feature ever invented with TV. Its the only reason I even pay for cable.
It would be useless for the FCC to simply allow a la carte pricing. They have to modify their existing rules on tiers and bundling.
Right now, unlike the FTC which ruled that Microsoft was out of line when they bundled software, the FCC rules specifically allow channel owners to sell bundles of channels to cable carriers, specifying in the contract which channels need to be in which tiers. On my local cable system, this results in having lots of channels in the broader digital tiers that no one ever watches. In order for my cable carrier to carry The Discovery Channel, they also need to carry Discovery Health, Discovery Military, etc...
If there's true a la carte pricing, with cable carriers charging whatever the channel provider wants to charge per customer plus a fee for carriage and bandwidth, there will be a major shakeout in the number of channels out there. Suddenly, the only cable channels out there will be the ones that customers are willing to pay for. (shudder)
The upshot of this would be an increase in HDTV offerings on cable. One of the major problems cable providers have right now is insufficient bandwidth for all the HDTV channels that they might otherwise want to offer, many of which HDTV owners would be willing to pay for. You'll see the dropped SDTV channels replaced by more HDTV channels and on demand services as the market sorts out what people are willing to pay for.
If this happens, it's long overdue. I'm not holding my breath.
-JMP
ESPN is already one of the most expensive channels for a cable service to carry, because they know that no cable service can really be a major success without it. They then require carriage of ESPN2, ESPN Classic and ESPN News if the cable company wants to carry ESPN.
Unless you watch all of the channels you currently receive, look for your cable bill to stay about the same, while you end up paying for only the channels you want...
-JMP
With PVR's now common and soon Video on Demand over broadband it seems to be the next logical step.
You only have to look at how popular recorded TV episodes have become on bittorent sites to see that people these days don't want to sit in front of the TV at prescribed times.
If they want to stop piracy they'll have to provide programming around other people schedules. People have a lot more things to do and are not prepared to fit their lives around their schedule.
Right now there's a TON of crap on TV, and I don't mean 'offensive' I just mean crap (every reality show ever created comes to mind). And if a la carte means that some of the crap will go away for lack of interest, that's fine by me.
But just because there's a minority of interest doesn't mean that a channel will necessarily disappear. It just means that the viewers of that channel will be called upon to donate to the content providers to help keep the channel alive (much like PBS' tele-thons). That's where the real interest will be shown by the viewers of the content.
I mean consider for a moment that not everything on TV should remain on TV. When a business starts up, it needs to be able to maintain some market share and operate within its revenue streams. When the revenue stream disappears for lack of customer interest or access, the business dies. In our current situation these "other channels", like the struggling businesses, would be dead or dying if it weren't for subsidization by the giant channel packages. I think that's not necessarily good because anytime someone wants to throw in a niche channel that will have 5 viewers, the cost of support for the whole thing necessarily increases to take on that additional burden. It's TV socialism.
I'm also not saying we shouldn't have any packages at all, just not 600 channels in one bundle (though that could certainly still be an option - as long as it's not the only option). For example, with most cable/sat providers, HBO and others come in packages of 3 to 5 or more channels of that type of content. You get all or nothing, but that's ok because you're paying for movie channels, not for some eclectic mix of different content much of which you're not interested in.
Only time will tell if the FCC tries to take this too far or just leaves well-enough alone by opening the door for a la carte.
...and that's the way the cookie crumbles.
What's the difference between members of government expressing their religion through law and a state-sponsored religion?
"Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
Open up all the channels to be viewable by anyone, and you only pay for the channels that you watch on a given day, perhaps for the amount of time that you watch them if you watch for more than 30 minutes total over the course of the day (allows for free channel flipping, to a certain point). Sure, folks with TiVos would get screwed on this for those times that TiVo isn't actively recording something and is just sitting there... although when TiVo is just sitting there, it's usually just sitting on a channel that has already been recorded, so maybe that's not an issue. (TiVo Suggestions automatically recording notwithstanding)
The point is why should someone pay for SPEEDCHANNEL (for example) if they never watch it? But if there's something that happens to be on that channel on a particular day, then let me watch it and pay a nominal fee (pro-rated monthly amount, comes to what - $0.25 a day?) for the time spent watching without having to buy that particular package for the month.
With this model, then you don't pay the cable company for the usage while you're not home, just like the water/gas/electric bills work. It turns the cable industry into a true utility instead of a continual money drain for resources you may or may not be utilizing 100% of the time during the course of the day.
I don't know if that's economically feasible for the cable/sat companies or not and I'm sure that's not how the content providers want their content priced, but it is similar to how CDs and DVDs are priced. Sure CDs and DVDs vary slightly on how much they cost based on popularity, but for the most part they're all about the same price ($15 for a CD, $20 for a DVD).
This would allow the cable/sat companies to provide "plans" just like they have now ("Choose 60" or "My 120") for $20 - $50 per month, but the customer can now select the channels they want to see and leave out the cruft. Or perhaps, it's not based on a number of channels, but a minimum purchase amount (to make it economical for the cable/sat companies).
...and that's the way the cookie crumbles.
Television is an awful medium for education. It's passive, and it's single speed (you can't go back and study a bit that you missed, or didn't quite understand, or skip through the simple bits easily). About the only thing television is good for is passive entertainment - when your brain is tired and wants a rest.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Just saw the probable pricing for some of these channels. ESPN currenty charges the cablecos about 2.50 per customer in a package deal from their owners. If they go separate they will be looking for 12-17.00 per month. I suggest be very careful what you ask for as you may get it. And it will cost a lot more not just a little. The popular channels know they are popular and will charge accordingly.
All those less-popular channels sure do suck all right. They're only watched by fringe groups like nerds.
For more information, click here.
I agree with most of your article, except the last bit. I would say that parents in general (at least if they're good parents) are concerned about limiting what their children watch, not just the "religious right" nuts. I fully agree with your sentiments about Comcast, as I pay $62 for digital cable and I watch about 15-20 channels. I think what would be better (this may be directed more towards the poster ABOVE your comment), are channel "groupings". -Networks -Family Channels (ABC Family, PBS, etc) -Educational (Discovery, History) -Sports (ESPN1-?) -Movie/General/Etc (FX, TNT, TBS, etc) However, if it were really per channel, you'd have to tack on the "service" fee which would be like $20, plus $2 average per channel. My 20 channels would cost me $60. So, yes, it is very flawed. Just lower the prices altogether, don't try to rip us off coming and going!
Starmen.net
This has worked for me wherever I've lived.
Step 1, subscribe to Extended Basic cable (~40/month) - I don't bother with digital, I just like my HGTV, TLC, etc...
Step 2, a few months later switch to Basic cable (~10/month) - This is just the basic channels, mostly ABC, NBC, etc...
The best part, the cable companies NEVER come back and reduce you to Basic cable, so you pay $10 / month for Extended Basic cable. They'll reduce your bill, but the guy who turns on your cable told me that it isn't worth it for the installers to come back and switch you from Extended Basic to Basic, so they'll just leave it alone. I guess it is illegal, and I'm a bad person, but I only watch HGTV, TLC, and CBS a couple of times a week, so I consider this my a la carte pricing solution. This has worked in the last four places I've lived.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
a) It will mean higher prices.
b) It will mean fewer choices.
You forgot one..
c) It will suck
Think of this: there are channels out there that built their viewer-base through popularity. (FoodTV, Discovery) How did they get popular? People could tune in and check it out because they already had the channel. How will that work if people only get certain channels? Will there be a preview option? How do you know if any of the other channels are interesting? What if a channel kind of gets out of "focus" for you? I thought I would love having the Speed channel, but it is mostly crap now - NASCAR, American Chopper knockoffs, NASCAR. blech. I am glad I have it because I can catch something interesting every once in a while, but if I had to choose whether or not to pay for it, I probably wouldn't.
I have been channel-surfing or have seen something in the guide that made me stop and watch it, sometimes on a channel I would never watch. Sometimes I am in the mood to watch a dog show! But I don't think I'd pay for Animal Planet. But I guess I am not "normal". I don't have 30 different shows that I follow religiously. If I miss a show that I do like - oh well. One thing I wish they would do is if you buy a channel, they give you a free re-run channel so you can catch things you miss.
But the big point that some people are missing is that you probably will still be able to buy your tier channel packages, they will most likely just add on the ala carte channels as an option. And probably a relatively expensive one too. If the cable companies don't want you to use this option, they will make sure that you don't. I do think it is a great idea, in theory. But I think that the media companies will make sure that it isn't so attractive. They can then comply with the gov (who they are clearly in bed with) and still keep doing what they are doing.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
What'll be more interesting is the scenario for changing your a la carte programming lineup. I could see picking up ESPN during the football season at $12 per month and then dropping it from my lineup immedeately after. If it weren't for subscription fees, I'd have my satellite during football season and drop it during the offseason. Instead, I just miss the Sunday night NFL game and the occasional Georgia game (on ESPN) and watch the rest through antennae. This will get tougher to do next year when Monday Night Football goes over to ESPN and NBC gets some NFL games (can't pick up NBC).
Wow... thanks for intentionally misreading his post so that you'd have an excuse to spread your religious bullshit! Here's a clue: he didn't over generalize. He didn't talk about "born-again Christians," he talked about "busybodies with nothing better to do than to try to keep me from going to hell." Obviously, you think those two groups are the same, but they're not. The fact that you don't understand the difference is your own problem, and is probably do to the fact that you are one of those "busybodies with nothing better to do."
How about you do everyone a favor, and talk about "Salvation" somewhere where it's not off-topic, okay?
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Take a look at the FCCs website for the statistics of this organization. 99% of all indecency complaints originate from the PTC. In fact, this link shows that 99.8% of all complaints originate from this organization.
Just like the minority christian evangelicals raising the biggest stink about supposed religious harassment/infringement, this organization has the loudest mouth about indecency issues.
If you look at this page from the PTC you can see how many complaints they've filed about tv shows in 2004/2005. Look at some of the shows they've complained about. CSI, Big Brother and NCIS.
While my comment might seem like a troll, as one moderator apparently thinks, the facts seem to support my statement.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
This is why this is such an intersting argument.
I totally agree with you about the ala carte programming.
I am an atheist without children and would love to pay for programing with out bleeped swear words. I would also love to not pay for church programing and sports.
THis would be great,
This discussion is making some interesting political bed fellows,
This has been a test. Had this been a real emergency, we would have fled in terror and you would not have been informed.
Digital TV in the UK did this kind of customisation a while back before it became Freeview. You paid your base subscription for the base channels, plus any 6 of the 'extra' channels. You could then buy more 'extra' channels one-by-one, or buy a package with another 6, or buy a package with them all.
:(
It actually worked quite well, except for the fact we ended up with 50 auction channels as base channels
How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
Indecency has to do with the fact that I don't want my kids to see MTV, BET, or all the other "entertainment" (read: garbage [that's "indecent" in my household]) channels when I'm not there to prevent them from doing so. Unfortunately, if I buy any cable package today that crap is included and I can't choose not to have it.
Oh, and chips in TVs are band-aids that don't work.
Actually Cable TV was started to provide television to areas that couldn't receive commercial television signals (e.g. communities in valleys). That's why it's abbreviated CATV (Community Antenna Television). The original intent was merely to rebroadcast over-the-air signals.