FCC Head Supports Ala Carte Cable

MikeyTheK writes "PC Magazine Reports that Kevin Martin, chairman of the FCC, supports ala carte cable. In a letter to several minority groups on Wednesday, Martin said "While I believe all consumers would benefit from channels being sold in a more a la carte manner, minority consumers, especially those living in Spanish speaking homes, might benefit most of all,". He goes on to argue "Cable companies act as gatekeepers into the programming allowed by the expanded basic cable package, preventing independent content producers from reaching viewers,", citing the example of Black Family Television, which was forced to go online-only because cable operators refused to carry it, even after it reached 16 million homes."

Comments

Translation

[Opportunist]

We think we can make a ton more cash by charging for each channel extra. Basically, what we're gonna do is reduce the nominal fee by a good 20 percent, cut channels in half and if you want anything but the propaganda, you'll pay extra.

We think that the average household will want about 80% of the channels they got today, generating about 120-130% of the revenue of today.

Re:Translation

[garcia]

We think we can make a ton more cash by charging for each channel extra. Basically, what we're gonna do is reduce the nominal fee by a good 20 percent, cut channels in half and if you want anything but the propaganda, you'll pay extra.

Of course they'll make more cash this way. Why wouldn't you be expected to pay more to have a special setup different than everyone else?

I don't see what the necessity for cable/satellite is anyway. My wife is obsessed with TV and that's the only reason we have it in the house. I was perfectly happy, when I was living in MN waiting for her to finish college, w/o anything more than an antenna and DVDs.

If it were up to me, we'd be back to rabbit ears and reading books or watching a movie every night. Unfortunately we have one TV hooked up to the receiver and she's in control of it.

Re:Translation

[ystar]

Naturally, but this might also point to cable companies' desire to stop pushing everything over coaxial at once and move towards a TV over IP system. It's probably cheaper to gain bandwidth by pushing out new cable boxes to everyone than digging and laying new lines. For my parents, who only want one or two international channels, this would probably be a good move.

I hope that it cuts down on the number of folks around the country watching crappy tv once they have to shell out cash for it specifically. If moms and dads aren't willing to pay for MTV anymore, we might actually see the Viacom monopoly start to crumble, fingers crossed. Maybe folks will even start tuning into PBS more often! Yay! Quality entertainment, despite the terrible telethons.

Re:Translation

[zbend]

I think the opposite is true. Haven't they tried to force them to do this many times before and had lobbyists squash it? I think last time it was touted as more of a control thing, like parents can choose not to have some channel they don't want. I think your looking at it from too small of a scope, the telecom company, I mean companies, also sell advertising the more TV you watch they more money they make. If they could make more money doing it, they already would be.

Re:Translation

[Dynedain]

Yes, they'll make more... from the standpoint of lowering prices can induce more purchasing.

Take my situation for example:

I can spend $40/month for basic cable, which only gets me my already free over-the-air channels, 10 local public access channels, and 2 or 3 nation-wide basic cable channels (like WGN, CSPAN, and TNT).

I don't watch any of those additional channels, so what's the point?

In order to get the 3 or 4 extra channels I do want (Cartoon Network, Disney, Food, SciFi) I need to buy a $60/month package that gets me an extra 15-20 channels that I don't care for, simply because of how the pricing tiers are structured.

I would be more than willing to buy those 3-4 channels ala carte. I would pay $10/month for those channels as they are things I want to watch that I cannot get over the air. I am not going to pay $60/month (plus fees) to get those channels.

So, the cable company would get another customer, and make more money, by simply offering ala carte programming. I doubt I am the only person in a similar situation.

Alternatives? Satellite, but as a renter, I'm limited in what I can attach to the building, or buying programs individually on iTunes. Other than that, I don't have any legal options, so I just go without.

The same logic is used for music sales. Price an album at $16 and 10 people buy it, garnering you $160 in sales. Make the songs individually available for $1 and 200 people buy individual songs, garnering $200 in sales, simply by putting things in a different pricing scheme. Similarly, it's been noticed that people are more willing to spend $25/month on individual songs, than to spend $40 every 2 months on full albumns.

Re:Translation

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like you need a better wife.

Re:Translation

[dgatwood]

I can spend $40/month for basic cable, which only gets me my already free over-the-air channels, 10 local public access channels, and 2 or 3 nation-wide basic cable channels (like WGN, CSPAN, and TNT).

Wow. That's what I spend for a couple hundred channels from DirecTV. Of course, that's for one set, plus $5 per extra set, but still, that's bordering on insane.... I get basic cable with about your stated level of service for free where I live. Find yourself a better cable provider. Seriously, when their contract comes up for renewal with your town/city, show up and tear them a new one for price gouging. Suggest that your town would be better off with nearly any other company than theirs and that you should open up the town to a competing cable company. See how many seconds it takes before the cable company agrees to reevaluate their price structure. Make the renewal contingent upon their doing so.

Re:Translation

[Anonymous Coward]

hahahah, that made me actually laugh out loud. nicely done sir.

Re:Translation

[maxume]

The Daily Show, as produced by Viacom, is a lot more interesting than much of what plays on the local PBS station here.

Re:Translation

[ystar]

Viacom shouldn't be destroyed. They do Discovery Channel stuff too - mythbusters is too fun to lose. But should they control every popular tv channel? Probably not. They certainly put WonderShowzen off the air, and the creators suggested it was more to do with them criticizing Viacom than with bad ratings (which means both reasons, if I had to guess).

Re:Translation

[jcdick1]

Call me cynical, but I can't imagine that they would price individual channels that low. I can see $10 per channel per month, but you aren't going to get them for $2.50 each. No way.

A la carte cable channels will pretty much destroy the new standard in quality that a lot of people see happening on channels like F/X and TNT. The revenue sharing that goes on - subscribers pay a flat fee, and TNT gets a chunk of every subscriber on every cable system that carries it, whether you watch or not - allows them to get quality, high-production-value work done with ratings that would get an over-the-air broadcaster into bankruptcy. Without this revenue sharing, most of the cable channels will go away, for better or worse.

If TNT had to stand on its own ad revenue and those people who subscribed specifically to it, "The Shield" would have been cancelled in three episodes.

With a la carte channel line ups, every channel - even Discovery History of Baby Shark Health Improvement Channel - will cost like subscribing to HBO.

Re:Translation

[porcupine8]

Well, they certainly could make more money off of me. Right now they get $0, whereas I'd be willing to pay $20-25 for 10-20 channels that I picked. Heck, I might even be able to convince my husband for that price, and he doesn't like TV. But I'm not willing to pay $50 for those plus another 80 I don't want.

Re:Translation

[bigstrat2003]

You know, just because you don't like it, doesn't mean that it should go away. I consider absolutely nothing on TV to be quality entertainment. The shows I like, I own on DVD (Futurama, TNG, DS9, etc). Once Voyager stopped producing new episodes, my interest in TV ceased--but you'd probably be pretty irritated if all TV went away just because I don't care for it.

Re:Translation

[ystar]

Me specifically? I probably would make do, considering I don't own a TV...

Re:Translation

[bigstrat2003]

Er... ok. You confused me by extolling the virtues of PBS, but I suppose you could watch on a friend's TV. The point is, even if you don't like something, but a lot of people do, you'll really piss them off by taking it away just because you don't like it.

Re:Translation

[ystar]

That's getting OT, I'm not threatening to take anything away. I was being facetious about the danger of having one company producing so much popular entertainment (from wikipedia):

Film Production and Distribution: Viacom International, Paramount Pictures, DreamWorks, Republic Pictures, MTV Films, Nickelodeon Movies, Go Fish Pictures
Television Networks: Entertainment: Comedy Central, Logo, BET, Spike TV, The N, TV Land, Nick at Nite Children's Entertainment: Nickelodeon, Noggin Music: MTV, VH1, MTV2, CMT, MHD
Television Production and Television Distribution: DreamWorks Television
Video Gaming: Xfire, Harmonix, GameTrailers, Neopets That's a lot of power controlling what kids in preschool up to 20somethings see. I think I have a right to not like it, and maybe to go so far as to complain, on Slashdot even!

Re:Translation

[Opportunist]

Those 10-12 channels would probably cost the same 50 bucks they cost today. The calculation is simple and already happened here.

Old model: 50 bucks for about 70 channels.

New model: 30 bucks for about 40 channels. Of those 40 channels, 30 are such important services as home shopping, previews for movies on channels you have to pay extra, weather channel, call-in-and-win channels, reruns of old game shows, court TV, faux news and other crap. They might contain 1-2 channels that you want.

The "good" programs (read: Stuff you can't watch without feeling your brain rot) cost about 5 bucks per 3 channels, but usually those channels are grouped in ways that you will want one of them (e.g. one pop music channel, one classic music channel, one country music channel. Name one person who likes them all). Essentially, to get all the channels you want, you'll most likely have to buy a package worth another 20 bucks at least. But not for 70 channels, rather you get about 50.

And since there'll be people who'll want all 70...

Re:Translation

[iowannaski]

I can spend $40/month for basic cable, which only gets me my already free over-the-air channels, 10 local public access channels, and 2 or 3 nation-wide basic cable channels (like WGN, CSPAN, and TNT).

I call bullshit on this one. I've had the package you are talking about with two different cable companies in the past two years (Comcast and Cox) and haven't paid more than $13/month for it. It variously referred to as "basic" or "limited" and consists of free-to-air and public access channels. Stations like WGN and TNT tend to end up in the mix because they have low channel numbers, and the cable company restricts higher number "expanded basic" channels like Discovery, MTV, and ESPN by sticking a low pass filter on the line.

Anyhow, the general gist of what you are saying is correct - you often have to pay like $60/month for stuff like Disney and SciFi, but nobody is paying $40/month for locals + CSPAN.

Re:Translation

[bigstrat2003]

Well yes, that's valid. I thought you were seriously saying that some entertainment should die because you don't think it's quality, which is an attitude I do see from time to time in people, and is a pet peeve of mine.

Re:Translation

[numatrix]

You're getting killed on that price! I pay $12 a month for 20 channels that sounds the same thing! Incidentally, it's with Cox Cable, and it was originally $10 when I first signed up, though the price has gone up slightly. Here's what their website says:

Cox Standard Cable = Cox Limited* + Cox Expanded Cox Limited* - Some areas call this service Cox Basic. Includes access to all of your local channels. Cox Expanded Includes an additional range of cable networks featuring ESPN, Travel Channel, Discovery Channel, Cartoon Network and so much more. Cox Expanded service is only available with Cox Limited service. Standard Cable is also referred to as Complete Basic Cable, or Cox Classic Cable in some areas. PLEASE NOTE: If you have Limited Cable only, you must upgrade to Cox Standard Cable when purchasing the service online. If you have only Limited Cable, please check the box marked "None" to see the savings and total monthly charges for the Cox Connection.

Really interesting how you basically can't upgrade your account at all from that plan via the website. Hey, at least I pay 25% of what I could be from the sound of it!

Re:Translation

[absoluteflatness]

Mr. Shine can see the future. He has crystal balls.

Him diamond?

Re:Translation

[CDarklock]

There's another effect here.

Certain channels may not really have much of an audience. If you bundle such a channel with a channel that does have an audience, some of that audience may discover the otherwise uninteresting channel.

This is basically a way to defray the massive cost of introducing a new channel. Those of us who like reasonably obscure channels greatly prefer a bundled-pricing scheme where the twenty people in the state who watch the "Classic Disco" channel can do so because they're getting a share of the subscription fees paid by people who like "Comedy Central".

Re:Translation

[ystar]

That's a valid interpretation of what I said, I don't fault you for it one bit. I should've been more clear. Rock on man

Re:Translation

[Anonymous Coward]

wow. don't get out much, do you?

Re:Translation

[Anonymous Coward]

An antenna won't do much for you when they sell the radio spectrum off. And at some point that WILL happen.

Re:Translation

[Anonymous Coward]

Why wouldn't you be expected to pay more to have a special setup different than everyone else?

Because it's not a custom designed car, it's a couple of "true" values in a database.

Re:Translation

[notamisfit]

So, in other words, we should subsidize a cable network that would be deep in the red if it had to stand on its own? Wouldn't that just be brutal for them to have to make shows people wanted to watch...

Re:Translation

[Rudolf]

I can spend $40/month for basic cable, which only gets me my already free over-the-air channels, 10 local public access channels, and 2 or 3 nation-wide basic cable channels (like WGN, CSPAN, and TNT).

I don't watch any of those additional channels, so what's the point?


If everything you watch is available OTA, then why do you subscribe to cable TV?

Re:Translation

[edmicman]

How many networks are going to make shows that *everyone* wants to watch? Non-mainstram cable networks are by definition niche markets. If it had mass appeal, it'd be on ABC/CBS/NBC/FOX. Subsidies allow *good* content to be made that some people will enjoy, but most probably wouldn't.

Re:Translation

[jcdick1]

I'm not disagreeing with you in regard to fairness at all. I am just saying that in an a la carte world, cable television as an industry would dramatically change, with the vast majority of channels (History Channel, Sci Fi Channel, Outdoor, etc) disappearing. And the other generic programming channels, such as TNT and F/X, carrying the same cheap-to-produce material done by over-the-air broadcasters.

This is because while most people, at an intellectual level, don't agree with "subsidizing" channels with their cable fees, emotionally they like the idea of paying one flat fee and getting all these other things "free." Well, perhaps the word "like" isn't quite right, but you understand my point.

Using the common car analogy, most people are disgruntled that in order to get air conditioning and in-dash CD on their new car they have to buy power windows and locks. But they wouldn't even get the air conditioning if they had to pay the price the car company would charge for just that one feature.

Re:Translation

[hedwards]

That is possible, but on the other hand, it could also make networks more competitive. Networks that don't show programming that people value would largely disappear.

I probably only watch a small handful of nonlocal channels in a given month. Most of the 130 or so channels that I have available don't get watched. I like that the selection is big enough that I can usually find something good, and if not I usually have something recorded.

Meanwhile, some networks should pay me to have them on my plan. Home shopping network and those types, should be paying me a small surcharge for taking up my dial space.

I do think that the assumption that this is going to be channel by channel to be somewhat overly optimistic. I suspect that what would happen is more a matter of groups of five channels. Hopefully with two channels that one wants and one that is paying to be there.

What we might end up with is clumps like: Classics, Arts, Technology, News, Local, General and so on. Even if it require 10 channels per topic, it would be a great leap in terms of limiting the programming to something which is more likely to be of interest. I personally would prefer not to pay for the News channels.

Re:Translation

[Doogie5526]

Then she (and I) will remain without cable, or narrow our choices to fewer channels. She just shared her price point for getting cable. Right now they aren't getting anything from us. If that is to change, they need to alter their services/prices to make it more of a value for us (that is, if they want our money. It may cost them X amount of dollars to set up the service and maintain our cable access, which could be more than we're willing to pay).

Re:Translation

[garcia]

Sounds like you need a better wife.

Yes, just like your blow-up doll? No thanks.

Re:Translation

[cadfael]

Nope. They like coax. They spent a lot of money putting it out there, and that is why you are seeing things like SDV and Digital Simulcast coming out (lets them harvest RF bandwidth) to deliver more over the coax. It is UNBELIEVABLY expensive to re-run lines to each house in the areas they serve (Verizon is spending billions doing it with fiber), so get used to coax.

Video over IP is possible in coax. You use a DOCSIS channel to encapsulate IP packets that encapsulate compressed audio and video. Video over IP is coming in V-DOC (Cisco) or DIBA (Motorola). The bidirectional services just exist on the return path DOCSIS channel making interactive services just another part of the cable modem system.

Re:Translation

[bakana]

Actually the reason we would have to pay more is because the stations that had guaranteed viewers will no longer be able to project how many viewers will view their channel. Which in turn means they can't support charging as much as they do for advertising time, so they'll want to collect the revenue from the cable provider which in turn would then pass the higher charges on to the consumer. A la carte viewing is not what most people would want, they bitch and whine about today's prices, imagine easily paying 300% more for far fewer channels. People really don't think before requesting things. There is some proposal to have the customer's credited the value for the missing channels against the current price of standard service, problem being that the price for standard would sky rocket because stations like BET, MTV, etc etc would charge the cable company more as mentioned above.

Re:Translation

[EggyToast]

He doesn't -- he says he could pay $40. But as he's not a subscriber, he probably has not looked at the available plans and actually checked the prices, because what he's talking about doesn't make any sense. No cable company charges $40 for the "local channel + public access" stuff. They provide it as an almost public service, for people who get poor antenna reception.

Most providers offer the "basic analog" package, which includes about 90 channels for $40. He's probably just confused his interpretation of "basic" with the cable company's.

Re:Translation

[Anonymous Coward]

WOW... Good thing I'm not ghetto enough to even care about ESPN, MTV, VH1, BET, or even that black family channel they talked about above. I want this so I don't have to be subjected to someone else's idea of what I should be watching. If I want to watch some tool preaching, then I should expect to pay my tithe money to have his channel. Since I can care less about that shit, they can go to hell (and probably will in the end).

The pricing structure does not have to be that way... We as consumers have a say in what we are charged for services. I think I get charged too much as it is, so I make sure that once or twice a month, I call all of my service providers and tell them how unhappy I am with my service. This gets them to put me in perpetual churn and I get my services for half price or less.

Re:Translation

[porcupine8]

*shrug*

Okay then, they still get $0 from me. The math there is pretty easy. It's not like I cry myself to sleep at night for my lack of cable. If I were willing to pay $50 for the channels I want, I'd be paying it already, I could afford it. But they're not worth that much to me. If they use that model, Netflix will continue to get the money I'm willing to spend on video entertainment.

Re:Translation

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, just like your blow-up doll? No thanks. At least my blow-up doll doesn't control the remote.

Re:Translation

[bakana]

As a consumer the only word you have in pricing is to pay it or not. You think all the people upset over the NFL network moving to Comcast's sports package had a say in that. HA! No wonder we are so ass backwards in this country, we have too many dipshits like yourself. You can't tell the difference between what you want and reality.

Re:Translation

[Mike Van Pelt]

I actually wouldn't mind paying more just for the satisfaction of knowing that not a penny of my money is going to Empty-V and it's vast array of clones, or all the ESPN channels. Currently, ESPN and Empty-V charge cable and satellite companies several bucks per subscriber, and require their "offerings" to be in the basic tier.

There are actually so few channels that have anything I'm willing to expend lifespan watching, much less pay good money for, that I'm pretty sure I will end up paying less. There is one (1) channel that I really want that's in Dish's top tier; if I could buy just that one separately, that alone would cut my monthly fees significantly.

Re:Translation

[BigDogCH]

"I actually wouldn't mind paying more just for the satisfaction of knowing that not a penny of my money is going to Empty-V and it's vast array of clones"

Exactly. Also, recently I read that our local antenna sales company will come out and give us a free "checkup" to see what free, over-the-air TV we can receive (Much of which is HD). The only problem is, I do enjoy History and Discovery. I suppose I could wait until most of the shows I like are on DVD, then I wouldn't have commercials and probably be $ ahead.

Re:Translation

[Anonymous Coward]

What you don't get is that everyone getting all the channels is subsidizing the special channels you can't afford to subsidize on your own.

Let's look at it from the top.

You have the $40 package. It doesn't include ESPN, but with ala carte, you can get it for another $5 a month. You probably think that's a great deal, but it's $5 a month because _everyone_ is subscribed. Now, you want SciFi. You get your cable bill. SciFi is $20 a month? It turns out the elderly, housewives, and blissfully ignorant Windows users don't care about Doctor Who or Battlestar Galactica. So they aren't there bringing the price down for you.

Now, let's say you want it even more specialized. You want AMC or Bravo, one of the passover channels that you're getting free in a bundle. If you're the poor sap who likes to watch David La Chapelle (not the comedian) documentaries, you're screwed, that'll be $100 a month, pal.

It will take a lot of new equipment, new IT, new billing, etc. etc. to make this work for cable companies. They aren't going to spend it out of the good of their heart to make your bill lower. That stuff all costs money, and you're going to pay for it. Ala carte cable will cost you more, and you'll lose semi-free access to some of the guilty pleasures or even overlooked treasures you aren't paying outright for right now. If you don't have a problem with that, then Fox News should be all you really need, if you catch my drift. Insurance works by subsidizing everyone involved. You couldn't afford to pay for heart surgery yourself, but if everyone is paying for the chance to have heart surgery, it's affordable for people who never could to start with.

Re:Translation

[tuxic]

Since I'm not an american myself and have never seen how your cable networks are setup and such, I have three questions in order to discuss this matter:
1. Are these cable tv packages that you all talk about, digital or are they for analog cable?
2. What's the main difference between choosing analog over digital cable in the US?
2. When you live in a rental apartment or condoe, as opposed to full house, do you always have to pay to get any basic cable offering at all - are you otherwise left for only receiving free-over-the-air channels?

Here in Sweden, the situation looks as follows:
* AFAIK, In 98 % of the times, full-house owners only receive OTA channels over roof antenna. And no, they don't use "rabbit ears". The exception to OTA reception are those who have had a way to get cable installed to their house but even though some people have that, it's a rare situation overall, but I still know one particular case, in a whole urban territory where it's topographically difficult to receive OTA because of mountain terrain, so almost everyone have opted for cable installations there.

* In 97 % of the time, rental apartments and condoes are equipped with analog cable which comes pre-bundled with the rent; there's usually not a way to unsubscribe. (There are exceptions to the rule in selected areas of the country, hence the 97 % number). Even in cases where you can choose to not subscribe, the cable companies are legally obligated to continue broadcast the government public service channels to those opt-out households.

* Digital cable is an option for most people in the country who are on cable, but the last time I checked, there are still some rare findings of places where the landlord or neighbourhoods haven't upgraded to the full offerings from the cable company. Even though digital cable is an option for most, it hasn't catched on much. Approximately 10 % have so far subscribed to digital for one set-top box. The analog offering is still intact. Note: in a few specific areas of the country, there are rental apartments equipped with digital-only setups where analog is not an option any longer.

(Disclaimer: My statistical numbers aren't based on real numbers from the cable companies, but rather rough estimations of my technical knowledge. I base them on how I view the market today and what all my friends and acquaintences including a lot of online forum members have opted for ...)

Re:Translation

[djasbestos]

Seriously, I could deal with only getting Comedy Central and History Channel, and maybe two or three others. And if I'm bored and even the internet cannot satiate, there's always over-the-air channels. I hate shelling out 90 bucks a month to Comcast when I only watch a tiny slice of the vast array of the crappy crap-pie, when I could be spending the cost above internet (a surplus of around 40 bucks) on consumables like *gasoline*.

Re:Translation

[Anonymous Coward]

I would guess that just because it's OTA, doesn't mean he can receive the signal with any quality.

When I rented, I lived 2 years with rabbit ears and got 20+ channels with decent reception. I bought a house in a valley 10 miles away, and even with a roof antenna, I could only receive 2 channels with lots of snow/interference. Now, I didn't go top of the line, because TV wasn't that important. I lived this way for 7 years.

It wasn't until my wife was stuck at home at the end of her second pregnancy (bed rest), that she caved and ordered the basic package of 20 OTA channels. So in effect, I was paying for reception. But as others have said, I only paid $13/month (Comcast).

We've since upgraded to the standard package (the kids screamed for Animal Planet), but I still only pay $40. But the point is some people need to pay for reception of free OTA signals. Oh, and I don't live in the sticks, I live in southern Connecticut about 20 minutes from New Haven.

Re:Translation

[cayenne8]

Hmm...while I like the ala-carre menthod of paying only for channels I like, I don't want to have to have a cable box in my living room. That throws a wrench in with my mythtv and tivo boxes....

I want ala carte, but, I want it through straight cable coming through the wall.

Re:Translation

[cayenne8]

Hehehe..or do what I do. I pay for a business internet connection. I split it, one end goes to modem, other end goes to mythtv box....voila, free tv for the price of my ISP connection.

Re:Translation

[Dynedain]

Here is the closest thing I can find on Time Warner's website for my area:

Time Warner pricing for Culver City

The basic Digital Cable package with 1 Teir, (which would get me what I want) is $45/month, plus $7 service fee, and at least $4/month for equipment rental. That's $56 month plus taxes. They don't list the "basic" cost that doesn't include 1 Tier, and they stopped allowing new analog customers about 3 months ago. I've been watching their rate pages.

Re:Translation

[Dynedain]

Good luck getting the City of Los Angeles to slap around Time Warner Cable.... they didn't even care when TW bought up all the competition in the area.

Re:Translation

[Dynedain]

Answers:

1) Digital. My local cable provider will no longer sell analog to new customers. And three months ago, when they still did, analog was intentionally priced higher to get people to move to digital (so they could sell their VOIP and ISP services as well)

2) In the US it basically comes down to availability. The providers that have digital in your area, want you to move to digital. Those that still sell analog only do because they must.

3) Depends on the individual apartment building. But most I've seen in my area require you to get your own service and don't provide any shared access. They'll have the wiring installed, but nothing turned on.

Re:Translation

[Dynedain]

I don't. I've looked at the channel lineups and pricing structures offered by my cable company (digging waaaay down into the website to find the real listings and prices). I recheck every couple months, and I'm still sticking with OTA. My HD is OTA anyways.

Time Warner pricing for Culver City

Re:Translation

[Dynedain]

Don't believe me?

Here is the closest thing I can find on Time Warner's website for my area:

Time Warner pricing for Culver City

The basic Digital Cable package with 1 Teir, (which would get me what I want) is $45/month, plus $7 service fee, and at least $4/month for equipment rental. That's $56 month plus taxes. They don't list the "basic" cost that doesn't include 1 Tier, and they stopped allowing new analog customers about 3 months ago. I've been watching their rate pages.

And here's their channel lineup

Re:Translation

[ryanov]

There's a real problem with the current packages, however... if you only want a few more channels than basic, you have to upgrade to a really high plan in order to get those few channels. There's a basic cable plan that doesn't offer even the relatively run of the mill channels like USA and A&E, and then there's "every damn channel." I could make do with fewer channels than I have, but basic is fairly useless.

Re:Translation

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm, I see Broadcast Basic listed for $9.75. And a broadcast basic receiver is listed for $1.00. I didn't call them to see if I could order new Broadcast Basic service, but I assume that since they list in the rate guide, that you can order it. So, it looks like you could get all the local OTA's, several public access channels and C-SPAN for just north of $10 per month. So I don't see your complaint as being valid.

Have a nice day.

Re:Translation

[cadfael]

Working on it....you do need SOMETHING to talk back to the outside world. If we embed cable modems in the television and use downloadable conditional access (DCAS), it is possible in the future. However, no one other than Moto, SA, and Pace have gotten two way services running in North America yet (there was a discussion about this yesterday on the Tivo issues with SDV). For the near future, I think you might be stuck with a set top box (even more so for a la carte).

(Sorry)....

Re:Translation

[AK Marc]

You don't understand. I have a choice between 19 channels (the locals, WGN, CSPAN, and some shopping stations) for $20 or $60 for 200+ channels. I, like so many others, would be *glad* to pay more for cable. Rather than $1 per station or $0.30 per station, give me the choice for all I want to pick at $3 per station per month. That's a crapload more than what people pay now. That's a full 10x what a channel costs at the $60 level. I'd be happy to pay 10x my current per-channel rate, if I get to select what's on there.

Oh, and if I was in Congress, I'd add in there that it would be illegal to advertise channels someone wished to not be on there. I hate flipping through all the PPV and premium channels in the on-screen guide to find what I'm looking for. If I don't want them, they shouldn't show up in my listings. I know it's possible, even easy to have the content generated locally on the cable box. I'd make it required. No customer likes to see all the things they are missing, but the cable company likes it as it is captive advertising.

Re:Translation

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes we should subsidize cable networks. If we didn't we would end up with crap "reality tv" on every channel because thats what most people want to watch.

I'd rather subsidize 100 channels I'll never watch, then end up with that.

Re:Translation

[dgatwood]

Oh, them. Yeah, you're screwed. Yet another reason not to live in LA. :-D

Signed,
---Your neighbors from the North(ern Cali)

Re:Translation

[lsatenstein]

Where I live the local Cable company does reverse billing. Using a datawarehouse and information from it's cable boxes, they are able to determine the hours and shows and channels that are being watched. They compensate the channel based on number of hours viewed. I have stopped watching TV simply because 1/4 of the time is allocated to commercials. I tried channel flipping at commercial time, but found that all the channels presented their commercials at the same minutes in the hour. Ah well, I prefer to read slashdot.org for my entertainment.

Re:Translation

[jZnat]

What about the billions of dollars we already paid these companies to lay out fibre to every home? They have no fucking excuse to keep coax around...

Populist crap.

[RightSaidFred99]

Cable companies should say "fine". First channel costs what cable currently costs, the rest are free. The biggest cost to the cable cos isn't carrying all those channels, it's the infrastructure. Does this idiot think that people should be able to buy 1/20th of the channels they have and pay 1/20th the price? It's ridiculous.

Re:Populist crap.

[geekoid]

WHy is the ridiculous?
If I get 1/20th the content, I should pay 1/20th the price.
The market would drive it there eventually.Assuming it applied to cable and sat satellite and fiber.

Re:Populist crap.

[Bomarc]

Watch just how fast the cost would drop by eliminating channels you don't watch. As a Nerd ("Slashdot, News for Nerds...") you wouldn't watch ESPN; which is one of the most "expensive" free channels out there. If I didn't pay for it, others (Jocks) would; as it would then be a 'premium channel'.
There is more to this than just hooking up one line. True basic cable is only $15 / month. Why is my basic cable bill $50 / month; in which I'm required to support (pay for) channels that I don't want -- and won't use?

Re:Populist crap.

[daeg]

Not to mention that the public has paid for much of the infrastructure in the form of tax breaks and public infrastructure allotments. They use our public easements, too. You build on the easements you serve the people. Period. Want to fuck the people? Go find your own easements.

Re:Populist crap.

[davetd02]

Except that's not how it would work. Right now you basically pay for the marquee channels in each package and get the rest of the channels free as a bonus. If channels were un-packaged you wouldn't get HBO for 1/20th the price of a premium package. Instead you'd get HBO for 1/2 the price of the premium package and all of the other channels for something more than 1/20th. The total cost of putting it back together would be higher than what you pay now.

Why? Simple economics.

Let's say there's a cable package that has 20 channels including G3, HBO, and ESPN. Slashdot readers are willing to pay $20 for G3 but only $1 for ESPN and $0 for any other channel. Sports nuts are willing to pay $20 for ESPN, but only $1 for G3 and $0 for any other channel. And families are willing to pay $20 for HBO, but $0 for any other channel.

Right now the cable company could charge $20 for that package and all 3 groups would buy it. Everybody pays $20 and gets 20 channels.

If forced to offer it a la carte the cable company wouldn't sell HBO for $1. They'd sell it for $20 in order to capture the family market, who is willing to pay that much for it. Same for ESPN -- they can sell it for $20 and capture the jock market. Same for G3 - they can sell it for $20 and capture the techie market. Now everyone is worse off. The families, techies, and jocks are still paying $20 for cable, but getting fewer channels for their troubles.

You can question the empirical assumptions -- maybe the pricing breakdown isn't that extreme -- but bundling of goods has long been a means to allow people who value different parts of a package differently to enjoy the package for one price.

Re:Populist crap.

[moderatorrater]

Too bad there's no in-between option, where to get the first channel it costs half of your current cable bill, and then each channel costs 7%-10% of your total now. That would mean that if you watch more than half your channels, stick with your current service. If you're getting cable for only 5 of the channels, then you'll save money and the cable company doesn't have to pay the channel for the subscriber.

Re:Populist crap.

[spoco2]

Yeah, you could be a complete dick and look at it that way, or you could price structure it like:

Cable will cost you $XX servicing fee, that includes YOU CHOICE of Y channels, whatever ones you like (I guess they could have different pricing based on 'premium' channels so maybe you get X premium and Y not so premium channels... whatever)... then any extra channels you pay per channel some small amount.

How would that not work to everyone's advantage? I live in Australia and cable penetration is much, much lower than in the states... because we've got pretty a ok free to air really... but mostly because for the base cable package I get a couple of channels I like plus a WHOLE LOT I couldn't care less about, while missing out on others I would like, but I have to purchase a whole other package on top of the basic one to get them... also getting a whole slew of other crud channels that I don't want.

So, if I could instead pay the basic amount price and get the same number of channels, but the ones I actually WANT, I'd actually sign up to cable.

They'd get another customer

And there are many more like me.

Re:Populist crap.

[Anonymous Coward]

Cable companies should say "fine". First channel costs what cable currently costs, the rest are free. The biggest cost to the cable cos isn't carrying all those channels, it's the infrastructure. Does this idiot think that people should be able to buy 1/20th of the channels they have and pay 1/20th the price? It's ridiculous.

Does this idiot think that people should be able to buy 1/8 of a gallon of milk for less than the price of a gallon? I'm cutting my wrists here, people!

If there was competition then someone selling 1/20 of the channels at *1/5* or the price would jump in, and make a profit. Or they'd bundle it with other services, eg - phone, broadband, and 8 channels of our choice; or for 10% extra - phone, broadband and 8 channels of your choice. Its certainly the case here (in the UK) that choice is largely fictional, for TV you get terrestrial, Virgin (cable) or Sky (Satellite) - since they don't compete via the same delivery system there is a cost to switching, which amounts to no choice at all - compared to telephony, where switching providers to switch your billing plan is much easier (to those with sob stories: I said easier, not easy)

It's pretty ludicrous anyway that most channels arent free. Flicking through the other day I found dozens of shopping and game channels that you had to upgrade to see (you *pay* to select the music; you *pay* to play the game. there is no difference between these and the basic channels of the same type, which I'd rather not have in my package anyway!)

The limitations in delivering a la carte can't be in bandwidth, since I can choose to have all the channels available if I want; and I can choose up to 500 PPV films individually. So, its just bad programming (a handful of bits for payment plans) or you just want me to pay for the depreciation costs of the network. Fine - lets do that. When you charge 1/20 of the basic, you're going to increase the number of people who will pay for it; these are now all potential PPV customers. Let them get the rest of the channels, a la carte, PPV for 1 month at a time, and charge them the cost of a PPV movie. At the prices I pay, getting 2 channels that way would cost *more* than a package upgrade - but of course its impossible to get a package upgrade to the set of channels I actually want. The downside for cable is only less regularity in the revenue stream, since it becomes easier for me to renew when Lost jumps the shark.

Re:Populist crap.

[Scrameustache]

The total cost of putting it back together would be higher than what you pay now.

Why? Because there's a lot of crap in there I don't want.

Re:Populist crap.

[markov_chain]

Wouldn't it be fun if Verizon came along and got rights to offer channels a-la-carte over IP. You better believe cable would follow suit, and for less than $20/channel.

Re:Populist crap.

[Anonymous Coward]

The biggest cost to the cable cos isn't carrying all those channels

Because of course the cable company goes to Pirate Bay and just downloads all those movies and tv shows, right?

Does this idiot think that people should be able to buy 1/20th of the channels they have and pay 1/20th the price?

He might think that, but he's ignorant of the various contracts the cable companies have with the content producers that tell them how they're going to use their channels. Want to resell Disney content? Then everyone has to get the shopping network they just happen to own, along with the rest of their networks. The list goes on and on. Want to carry Nickelodeon? That's got a metric ton of baggage to go with it too.

Re:Populist crap.

[UncleTogie]

Same for G3 - they can sell it for $20 and capture the techie market
Ye gads man, G3? That's SO last decade! Upgrade to G4! ;)

Re:Populist crap.

[Marxist Hacker 42]

What kind of crap-ass parents let their kids watch HBO?!?!?!?!?!?

Re:Populist crap.

[sholden]

If channels were un-packaged you wouldn't get HBO for 1/20th the price of a premium package. Instead you'd get HBO for 1/2 the price of the premium package and all of the other channels for something more than 1/20th

So if all I wanted was HBO I get it for half price? Sounds good.

If all I wanted was a couple of the other channels I'd get it 20% of the current price? Sounds good too.

Sure the people who want all the channels lose their current subsidy from everyone else, but there's probably about 3 such people.

Re:Populist crap.

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe it's different in your area, but around here HBO was available separate of any package, with two options which were essentially "just original HBO" and "all those other HBO channels, too". That might have changed - I haven't had cable for about 6 years. A similar option was available for Showtime, and of course they were also available as part of a tier package. The point is that these options didn't cost $20/month, they were much more reasonable, although still too expensive in my opinion.

Oh, and why did I drop cable? When we moved back into the cable company's covered area, it would have been $80/month (before taxes, fees, etc.) to get the worthwhile channels I used to have before moving out of the covered area, and not even all of those channels. They had changed which channels were in each tier package during the time we had lived outside their area. Of course some portion of that $80 would have gone toward ESPN1 through ESPN999, which I'd never watch. I suspect a la carte pricing might have retained me as a customer.

- T

Re:Populist crap.

[ad0gg]

There's more than two players when it comes to ala carte. You have the delivery guys (timewarner cable) and then then content guys(viacom). Content guys sell content to delivery guys, lets just say $0.50 a channel per user. Expanded cable gets you say 20 channels, thats $10 in direct cost that the delivery guys have to pay the content guys. Delivery guys sell the package for $20 and make $10 in profit. I just want one channel. Direct cost to the cable company is $0.50. They could charge me $10.50 and still make the same profit that they would get selling me the whole package for $20 and i would pay almost $10 less in fees.

Re:Populist crap.

[syukton]

Most of them.

Re:Populist crap.

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Something about that makes a fiscally liberal social conservative like me very, very sad. Maybe Sayyid Qutb and his students were right about the United States of America.

Re:Populist crap.

[iowannaski]

Hey, I enjoy watching Deadwood with my 3 year old daughter, you insensitive clod!

As a bonus, it's fucking hilarious when she calls her friends at preschool "cocksucker!"

Re:Populist crap.

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Funny how a certain Egyptian mystic predicted this, and in so predicting it, caused the creation of al Qaeda.

Re:Populist crap.

[MobyDisk]

Because not everything is economically or technologically viable that way. If you don't believe me, then I suggest going to a grocery store, removing hot dog roll from the package, and asking them to ring it up. Or try buying a single nail from a hardware store.

Re:Populist crap.

[uncreativ]

ESPN accounts for approximately 1/3 of the entire cost of expanded basic cable programming. This is because ABC/Disney FORCES cable companies to cary every ABC channel, every ESPN channel, every disney variant or none at all. ABC/Disney can go F@!# themselves because I don't want to watch any of their content, yet because they are one big company offering content, they can force cable companies to carry channels very few people watch (like ABC News Now, a cable news channel that nobody wants and that cable companies are being forced to carry when they renew their ESPN content agreements)

There are basically just a few companies that own the vast majority of content on the cable channel lineup. They are:
GE--NBC, Telemundo, MSNBC, Bravo and the Sci Fi Channel.
Time Warner--The WB Television Network, CNN, HBO, Cinemax, Cartoon Network, TBS, TNT
ABC/Disney--ABC Television Network, ESPN, The Disney Channel, SOAPnet, A&E and Lifetime
Viacom--Music Television, Nickelodeon, VH1, BET, Comedy Central, (and until spun off last year, CBS Television Network, UPN, Showtime)
Scripps--HGTV, Food Network
News Corp--Fox, National Geographic and FX,

There are very few channels these companies do not own. Forcing these companies to allow consumers to choose what they watch will give them less incentive to conglommerate and force feed mediocre content down our throats. You know, cable companies have to spend quite a bit of money on their plant to expand the number of channels they offer. By forcing cable companies to carry channels nobody wants, content companies are increasing cable bills by more than just the cost of the content.

I've been researching the cable industy looking into IPTV, and I have to say, there are more layers of evil than you would imagine in this industry. If you think cable companies suck--and for the most part, they do--the content companies suck even more.

Re:Populist crap.

[Machtyn]

I think the problem with your analogy is that there are some people who actively refuse to get a package because certain channels are on them. Take a family with high morals that don't allow the R rated movies (and X rated shows that come on after midnight) in their homes. But to get the movie package, which might contain Disney movies and some of the other family friendly movie channels, the consumer would be forced to add the Sundance, HBO, and Cinemax channels. That's a deal breaker because those three channels are not family friendly (particularly after 8:00 PM, and Sundance... almost never).

Allowing consumers to purchase a la carte will do several things.

• Those people who refuse to purchase a package can now get the channels they want and be able to refuse the channels they don't want. (I really don't want the trash that is aired over MTV, VH1, and many of the premier movie channels.)
• A lot of the channels that are crap will finally fall off the air, while cable channels will be forced to show quality programming that will keep the viewers interested. (no more Law & Order marathons on my hi-def TNT channel... perhaps).
• Consumers will probably be happier with their viewing purchase. They get to watch what they really pay for.

Finally, I wouldn't mind if they kept the shopping channels to lower the overall price. There is nothing really offensive on those channels... unless they start selling sex toys or if you consider ginsu knives offensive.

Re:Populist crap.

[heinousjay]

Just remember, your "mediocre content" is someone else's prime entertainment. Like it or not, no one person (and certainly no one person on Slashdot) has a handle on everyone's taste. To construct an argument around such a premise is frighteningly arrogant.

Re:Populist crap.

[schlick]

On the face it is ridiculous because all content is not the same value. A channel that shows re-runs all the time like tv-land and such don't cost as much to produce. Not only that, it doesn't really matter how much a channel cost to produce, it matter what people are willing to pay. I'd pay $5 buck a month for say the Sci-fi channel or the science channel, but I'd only be willing to pay $1/month for F/X or TNT. I'm not willing to pay anything for ESPN. These are my values, and I bet they represent a minority of cable subscribers. Just because you only want to watch 1 out of 20 channels doesn't mean that that channel is only 1/20th as valuable.

I'm all for an a la carte system, but I just realize that the channels won't be all priced the same.

Re:Populist crap.

[uncreativ]

True, but your arguement also means my "prime entertainment" might be mediocre content to other viewers. Why should someone else have to pay for what I want to watch? That's how the current system works. I do not ever watch sports programming, but because everyone has to pay for it in order to get any cable service at all, half the people who do not watch those shows are subsidizing their cost. I don't want to pay for something I don't want to buy. I'm never going to watch WE, Oxygen, or Lifetime nomatter how fine their programming may be yet I pay for them. Some sports fanatic not interested in all the news programming I watch may prefer not to pay for all the news channels on expaned basic.

You may have noticed that I picked "ABC News Now" as my example of content being crammed down the throats of consumers. Perhaps calling that channel mediocre programming is "frighteningly arrogant", however based on the numbers of viewers who actually watch it I think I can objectively say that my assertion is true. Another example channel that is force fed on expanded basic is Toon Disney. 1/10th the viewers of that for Nickelodeon according to recent viewer ratings, yet forced to be caried by any cable company who wants to carry ESPN when their ESPN contract comes up for renewal. That's crap--mediocre crap as judged by the fact that the viewership of those two force fed channels is a few tens of thousand of people in a country of 300 million. Using round numbers: 100 million cable households, 25 cents from the cable company per subscriber to carry toon disney, and 50,000 viewers gives Disney around $500 for every viewer who actually watches their crappy channel. If not for their lock on other content, ABC/Disney's toon disney would be a financial flop. They would have to charge $500 per subscriber per month to break even if a la carte programming were allowed.

Other examples of force fed content include Spanish language channels paid for by non Spanish speaking viewers. Why the heck is ESPN en Espanol required to be carried on expanded basic? Though before getting on your high horse, the other side of the arguement is true as well; why shouldn't native Spanish speakers be allowed to choose a majority of Spanish language programming ?

Re:Populist crap.

[Lord Kano]

Same for ESPN -- they can sell it for $20 and capture the jock market.

Beer bellied Al Bundy's who were jocks 20+ years ago are the ones watching ESPN. Most jocks don't make enough money to influence the programming decisions at their parents' house.

LK

Re:Populist crap.

[Lord Kano]

What kind of crap-ass parents let their kids watch HBO?!?!?!?!?!?

HBO doesn't make as high of a percentage of children's programming as they used to but when I was a kid they had Fraggle Rock, that was clearly for kids, Encyclopedia Brown, and they still have their "Happily Ever After" minority fairy tales. Or maybe that's what you're talking about, you don't want your kids to see minorities in a positive light because of the fairy tales.

LK

Re:Populist crap.

[Marxist Hacker 42]

HBO doesn't make as high of a percentage of children's programming as they used to but when I was a kid they had Fraggle Rock, that was clearly for kids, Encyclopedia Brown, and they still have their "Happily Ever After" minority fairy tales.

Fraggle Rock was also on NBC, Encyclopedia Brown has been on PBS, and Happily Ever After also plays on BET. Why pay extra for such a family-values unfriendly channel?

Re:Populist crap.

[drsquare]

What's wrong with HBO? I thought that was the channel that makes all those expensive glossy dramas.

Re:Populist crap.

[justthinkit]

My wife wants: NBC, WB, TBS, TNT, ABC, Food Network, Comedy Central, VH1, Fox, FX [and more not listed]

The three kids want: NBC, Sci Fi, WB, Cartoon Network, TBS, TNT, ABC, ESPN, The Disney Channel, Nickelodeon, VH1, Comedy Central, Fox, FX [and more not listed]

I want: NBC, MSNBC, Bravo, WB, CNN, TBS, TNT, ABC, ESPN, A&E, VH1, Comedy Central, Fox, National Geographic, FX [and more not listed]

Bottom line: our family wants almost all the channels these "evil doers" offer, and could care about the ones we never watch. Remotes can be programmed to skip channels, and fingers do it automatically over time.

Are slashdotters for real? Do you all really not want sports channels? I have ESPN on in the living room first thing in the morning because other than Bonds/Vick scandals they show each day what it is possible for humans to achieve -- you know, "the thrill of victory" -- and the scandals show kids that if they cheat, they get caught. This beats the snot out of watching fantasy/SciFi crap. It also beats the average Brit comedy -- Monty Python was/is funny precisely because it makes fun of the average Brit's total lack of a sense of humor [I'm a Brit on both sides, if you go back one or two gens]. I've played tennis, table tennis, badminton, soccer, football, rugby, lacrosse, ice hockey, car racing (unofficially that is), roller skating & blading, swimming, rowing, fishing and kite flying -- and I want my kids to be exposed to some or all of those and more so that they will give some of them a try and adopt one or more of them as a way to keep healthy for pete's sake.

As to "evil" channels like ABC, what about Extreme Makeover Home Edition? Isn't there something good about this? Also, can any of you really watch an hour of AFV and not laugh at least once? Oh, I get it, it has to be a little more gross and uncensored (i.e. Jackass) to be funny to a /.er.

NBC is not owned by nice corporate citizens in my books, but The Biggest Loser is something that a majority of (overweight and obese) Americans can relate to.

CNN, likes most news sites, is sleazy and sucks on its default settings...but when that big story breaks, what channel do you want working for sure?

Fox sitcoms are an oxymoron, but Hell's Kitchen is great entertainment, with another constructive message -- work hard and get ahead.

/.ers saying they don't want ESPN is like the "Linux rules and Windows blows" flag waving. Each OS has merits (and drawbacks), kids. And almost every single channel listed above is the same story. Get your collective heads out of your billion light-year wide hole, guys. Basic and first tier cable is what most normal people want, just as most normal people want a cheap Windows boxen with free crapware that they remove or ignore. "Most bang for the buck? Sign me up." End of story.

Re:Populist crap.

[Maltheus]

Yeah, but you'll drive up the quality of that 1/20th of the content, making it worth it. Do you really have time to watch the other 19/20th of content anyway?

Re:Populist crap.

[Marxist Hacker 42]

What's wrong with HBO? I thought that was the channel that makes all those expensive glossy dramas.

Dramas that encourage mortal sins like Lust and Greed. My child can do without such input. He'll get plenty from the morally bankrupt capitalist state advertising to him throughout his life.

Re:Populist crap.

[syukton]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/parenting/10/28/tv. kids/index.html

According to the study discussed in that article:
* More than a third of kids under 6 have a TV in their bedroom.
* About one in four have a VCR or DVD [player] where they sleep.

If a third of kids under 6 have a TV in their bedroom, it isn't inconceivable that more than half of the chilren under 12 have a TV in their bedroom. It also isn't inconceivable to believe that they're watching HBO. My "Most of them" remark was somewhat snarky but the truth of the situation probably isn't far from my assertion.

Re:Populist crap.

[Lord Kano]

Fraggle Rock was also on NBC, Encyclopedia Brown has been on PBS, and Happily Ever After also plays on BET. Why pay extra for such a family-values unfriendly channel?

Because without HBO and its paying subscribers those shows would have never been produced to be aired on NBC, PBS or BET.

BTW, I was trying to bait you. I salute you for being able to resist the temptation.

LK

Re:Populist crap.

[drsquare]

Don't you ever get tired of trolling, after all these years?

Re:Populist crap.

[Marxist Hacker 42]

BTW, I was trying to bait you. I salute you for being able to resist the temptation.

Now that this discussion is in the realm of "last week's news"- I have to ask, because often times my autistic stupidity makes me appear smart when I'm really not. The only thing I could think of might be racism with the Happily Ever After reference....but I've got nothing against black people (I'm a culturalist, not a racist, which is why I'm also pro-legal-immigrant to the extent that I want the non-enforcement arm of ICE completely automated, but I'm so anti-illegal-immigrant that I wouldn't mind a Stalin-like purge of 12 to 20 million residents that seem to need deportation).

Re:Populist crap.

[Marxist Hacker 42]

And notice, I didn't disagree- I just found it very sad.

Re:Populist crap.

[Marxist Hacker 42]

I'm not trolling. I actually do believe that a democratic government should be responsive to the majority of the voters and that the United States has the natural resources to be 100% self-sufficient and that conservative social values are the best way to be human (tried, evolved, and tested over the last million years).

Re:Populist crap.

[Lord Kano]

You got it right.

LK

I know what I'd get

[twocoasttb]

Spike TV and one 'o them 'God' channels. Just to keep some balance.

Re:I know what I'd get

[value_added]

Spike TV and one 'o them 'God' channels. Just to keep some balance.

Speaking of 'God' channels, John Safran vs. God is quite good. Was that what you were thinking of?

Personally, I'm interested in more worldly matters. I have an extended cable subscription, but my regular viewing is limited to PBS (news and entertainment), C-SPAN and an occasional Dog Whisperer episode. My sojourns onto other channels mostly serve to remind me how much crap is out there, how often that same crap is repeated, and how much I hate my cable provider.

The funny thing is that I would be willing to pay the same amount of money to see only the stations I want. Provided, of course, that I could something like Al Jazeera, for example, without upsetting the general population.

Re:I know what I'd get

[cayenne8]

"Provided, of course, that I could something like Al Jazeera, for example, without upsetting the general population."

You soon may be able to, and as a 'special', you can get a free subscription to the TSA watchlist with every subscription to AJ.

And, as a nerd just why do I need 50.....

[Bomarc]

Why do I need to pay for others to have 50 sport channels? The SciFi (et al) channel works just fine for me, I don't want to have ESPN; which by talking to the cable companies is one of the most expenive "free" channels out there.

Re:And, as a nerd just why do I need 50.....

[Spy der Mann]

I only wanted ONE channel: The anime channel ^_^

Re:And, as a nerd just why do I need 50.....

[fbartho]

A la carte sounds good to me. With only a few channels I could cover every channel I intentionally watch.

• SciFi
• Comedy Central
• TNT
• tbs
• Cartoon Network
• CNN just in case something big happens
• and since I'm paying so little why not: Playboy Channel :D

I'm a big fan of those DVR's/cable boxes/decoders that let you save a custom preset list of channels. The directtv box I have and am trying to sell has that, and that was probably my most loved feature. Most of the time I'd just watch the preset list, and it was funny when I noticed about once a month DirectTV would automatically reinsert the shopping channel and an ondemand channel into my preset list. Blatant commercialism. With only 5 channels in the preset, any changes like that I would notice the moment I had to page down to see all of the channels I wanted in the tv guide. I'm annoyed that the comcast box we have doesn't have the favorites list or makes it impossible to find.

Re:And, as a nerd just why do I need 50.....

[toejam13]

Agreed.

ESPN is a shining example of why bundled packages don't work. ESPN is one of the most expensive channels for cable and sat companies to offer. This is, in part, due to the huge costs associated with the acquisition of broadcasting rights for various sporting events by ESPN.

It is compounded by ESPN's growth model, which is to spawn more specialized sporting channels that they then shuffle semi-major sporting events to. This was done with ESPN-2 and is now being done with ESPN-U. (see here) So if I want more of the specialized channels *I* want, I end up paying more for ESPN channels I could care less about.

The icing on the cake is this - about seven years ago, I paid over $600 for an ATSC/DVB-S receiver in order to pick up HD stations. The sat provider that I went with offered several HD channels for free. Several more channels were added to the HD package over the years, but the cost remained the same. This continued until ESPN-HD arrived. Suddenly, I was asked to pay a small fee to continue to watch all of these channels.

I subscribed to it for a while, but why? Most of the programming on ESPN-HD was simply upconvered NTSC analog programming. So I dumped it. Kept my sat service for a few more months then dumped it completely. Now all I get are local channels, TBS, WGN and Discovery that come free with my cable company's digital cable package.

Both my cable co and my former sat company bombard me with offers for HD PVRs and several months of free service. Why? All of it except for one or two channels is nothing but junk to me. The only way for me to pick and choose is to get a C-band sat, which my HOA would never approve.

So in the end, this cartoon from the CSMonitor sums it all up...

Re:And, as a nerd just why do I need 50.....

[WillAffleckUW]

I only wanted ONE channel: The anime channel ^_^

You can't get that in Seattle with Comcast. You can only get 120 sports channels.

Re:And, as a nerd just why do I need 50.....

[maxume]

Do you have room for a fiberglass shed? HOA be damned.

Re:And, as a nerd just why do I need 50.....

[Anonymous Coward]

seconded

make those dumbasses pay for the sports they've made me flip through for the last 24 years.

Re:And, as a nerd just why do I need 50.....

[jimbug]

You mean you don't want 4 ESPN classics, so you can re-watch the epic billiards match you just saw yesterday on ESPN 8 (the ocho)?

Re:And, as a nerd just why do I need 50.....

[toejam13]

Maybe if they come out with an ESPN-Future, I might bite...

Mark Cuban's HDNet was all I needed for a while. They had the NHL and NLL (National Lacrosse League) in 1920x1080i. Nothing like watching people get the crap beat out of them in HD.


Correction in earlier post - I get those channels free with my digital cable modem, not with digital cable.

Re:And, as a nerd just why do I need 50.....

[Paulrothrock]

I got the "basic" cable package and, thanks to a stupid installer (as expected from Comcast), I got every other channel from 56 - 78. This includes three ESPNs and the Golf channel. What do I watch? Sci Fi, Cartoon Network and a very grainy History Channel.

But that's changing tomorrow. I'm getting Dish Network installed for less than the cost of standard cable.

Re:And, as a nerd just why do I need 50.....

[evilviper]

The only way for me to pick and choose is to get a C-band sat, which my HOA would never approve.

Not sure about C-band but your HOA absolutely positively CAN'T prevent you from installing a smaller KU band dish (thanks to recent federal regulations) and it seems most content has moved to KU-band over the past few years, anyhow.

Re:And, as a nerd just why do I need 50.....

[Overzeetop]

Funny...I could drop every other non-OTA channel if I could just get ESPN. The only interesting programming to watch real-time is sports, and everything else is on DVD or usenet.

Re:And, as a nerd just why do I need 50.....

[jedidiah]

Nevermind being able to pay to include certain channels ala carte. I would love to be able to EXCLUDE certain channels ala carte. I would start with ESPN and it's friends. I would probably also want to continue with any other company that likes to bully the likes of Dish. Although that might not work out in the end (may not have anything left in the end).

Although I do like the idea of an "everything but ESPN" bundle.

Re:And, as a nerd just why do I need 50.....

[cayenne8]

"Not sure about C-band but your HOA absolutely positively CAN'T prevent you from installing a smaller KU band dish (thanks to recent federal regulations) and it seems most content has moved to KU-band over the past few years, anyhow."

I thought I'd recently, that you get a much better picture with C-band than the smaller dishes. I thought I read this was due in fact that the satellite/cable companies actually get THEIR feeds by C-band, and then have to compress/convert..to put it out on their systems...basically degrading it to fit into their spectrum.

Is this true still?

Re:And, as a nerd just why do I need 50.....

[tyrione]

Was this before or after ABC/Disney bought ESPN?

Re:And, as a nerd just why do I need 50.....

[jafac]

. . . what about the tentacle-rape channel?

Re:And, as a nerd just why do I need 50.....

[WillAffleckUW]

Well, yes, but that's extra.

You could just watch them Showtime at 9 pm on Thursday like the rest of us ...

Does that mean

[Anonymous Coward]

As a Slashdotter does that mean we like the FCC now?

The problem with a-la-carte...

[ral315]

The problem with a-la-carte pricing is that it makes it impossible for new networks to get enough subscribers to start up. Think about it - how many of us would personally watch LOGO, the Gay/Lesbian Network? Some, but not enough for it to survive without charging an insane amount per subscriber. How about a network like the old TechTV, or even G4? Most of us would, but most consumers wouldn't. Even networks that would appeal to everyone would have a tough time gaining ground once it went into effect. Would you call in to purchase a new network? Not unless it had a show you really, really wanted. You can make an argument that it should be based on who wants each network, and that you shouldn't pay for networks you won't watch, but I'd argue that package programming keeps the price down for all networks.

Re:The problem with a-la-carte...

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with a-la-carte pricing is that it makes it impossible for new networks to get enough subscribers to start up.

Your business does not have a right to exist.

I have many great "web 2.0" ideas, but I don't pursue them because I don't have the cash to support them until they reach critical mass. Where's my government support in forcing people to buy my service?

Re:The problem with a-la-carte...

[bagboy]

Ummm... Thats called competition... If it can't survive.. it can't survive. Consumers should not be forced to subsidize programming that cannot survive on its own - it's called capitalism.... not socialism....

Re:The problem with a-la-carte...

[Egdiroh]

I'm not sure I buy that argument. Your argument is based on people deciding to watch a new network as a consequence of just having it. I argue that that is not the case. Often it is advertisement on other networks that makes one want to view programs on another network. And then advertisements on that network for their other programs might lead to one watching those.

Personally I there has not really been much of a time that I didn't wish I had one or two more channels then I do. That doesn't mean that I want 40 more channels.

Re:The problem with a-la-carte...

[slashdotlurker]

What you describe is not a problem. It is a solution. Why should channels that struggle to attract viewers remain afloat in a competitive system ?

Re:The problem with a-la-carte...

[moderatorrater]

They could offer their channel for free one or two months until they've got a good subscriber base. It would create a higher entry barrier, but definitely not insurmountable.

Re:The problem with a-la-carte...

[Fallingcow]

I'd like a channel that rotated the "odd", new, or low-subscriber channels, a new one every couple of days. Hell, make three or four of them like that.

Cable companies sell more channels to niche viewers, I find new channels that I like. Everyone wins, the little guy is saved.

Re:The problem with a-la-carte...

[dave1g]

you can start your tv network online for cheap using youtube or bittorrent.

www.purepwnage.com for a good example of making money with small time budget. imagine what a company with more diverse programming could do. once they have proven themselves they have more clout with a cable operators. and they could be offered on cable simultaneously. the marginal cost of adding a channel must eb extremely low for a cable operator, they might as well offer it for a few bucks a month to those that want it.

Also with ala carte more directed/more valuable advertising can be given since you know who is really watching and who isnt.

Re:The problem with a-la-carte...

[TheRaven64]

We cancelled cable a couple of years back (and I can't remember when I last watched broadcast TV anywhere other than in a hotel room), but back when we subscribed, we used to get a different guest channel each month. This would be one of the ones that was included with a premium package, and was meant to encourage us to get it permanently.

A la carte channels seems a step backwards though. I've been having a la carte shows since I started paying to rent DVDs instead of watching broadcast TV, and that seems a lot better. My cable company sells me enough Internet bandwidth to stream SD MPEG-4 shows, but I can't get them from anywhere (my main computer is a Mac, and I have no Windows PC, so any service that uses Windows DRM is not an option).

Re:The problem with a-la-carte...

[pokerdad]

The problem with a-la-carte pricing is that it makes it impossible for new networks to get enough subscribers to start up.

A couple of things. First of all, I don't know about the U.S., but in Canada in the last decade, it has become very common for specialty channels to advertise on other, more mainstream channels; I am sure that would work in this case. Second, the barrier you worry about already exists, all that's different is who's holding the keys; right now a new channel's life or death depends on convincing the cable companies to include it in an otherwise popular package. Third, as others have pointed out, even most specialty channels make their money off of advertising spots, not money from cable sales.

Re:The problem with a-la-carte...

[Fallingcow]

Oh, yeah, I'd stream individual shows first.

The only thing that even has a chance of getting me back on cable, though, is à la carte programming. $50 a month for maybe 3 channels that I actually watch, or $100 a month to get 5 or 6 good ones... no. $40 for a half-dozen channels (plus all the c-spans and local channels; seriously, why don't they have all C-SPAN channels in every package? Isn't it FREE, or at least super-cheap?) might, might get me back.

Really, all I want is a package with History International, CNN International, a couple BBC channels, and maybe HBO, that doesn't cost me more than my goddamned electric bill in peak summer months. I don't feel like that's too much to ask.

Re:The problem with a-la-carte...

[evilviper]

The problem with a-la-carte pricing is that it makes it impossible for new networks to get enough subscribers to start up.

Nope, EXACTLY the opposite.

It's MUCH easier to convince individuals to pay a couple dollars a month for a new channel than it is to convince a big cable company to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to be allowed to carry a new channel that there's no guarantee their viewers will want to watch.

The only exception is spin-offs from already-big cable networks... If Viacom starts up another cable channel, they can force it to be carried by everyone, everywhere. So ala carte could only possibly lower the barrier to entry for new and independent cable channels.

What's more, it might finally allow cable channels to die, when the quality turns to crap. When companies/channels change from science programming to all-reality-shows, all-the-time, and/or increase bad/annoying advertising, etc., the viewers could actually speak out, and directly stop their money going to those channels, sending a very clear message, and potentially bankrupting previously popular channels that have turned to crap. If ala carte happens, look for an immediate end to distracting ads on-top of shows like TNT, FX, and USA are so very fond of.

Think about it - how many of us would personally watch LOGO, the Gay/Lesbian Network? Some, but not enough for it to survive without charging an insane amount per subscriber.

How is that a problem? IF they can't make enough on advertising to support themselves, AND IF they can't get enough viewers to have a reasonably low price, AND IF they can't get their niche viewers to pay high enough monthly fees to support the channel, they fully deserve to go out of business.

I'm certainly one of the ones only interested in the less popular cable channels, but for the handful I watch, I'd be willing to pay $10 each, and more if they'd improve the content of the programming, and reduce or do away with ads.

Re:The problem with a-la-carte...

[xenocide2]

Why not just give the channel away for free then? The whole point is to mass viewers for ad sales and ratings. I'm not an economist, but it seems to me that charging acts as a tax on viewership. You lose viewers, viewers lose content, and ad men lose whatever demographic you could have captured. Of course, you gain a small amount of money for charging, so this might not be a correct statement.

Re:The problem with a-la-carte...

[Kjella]

The problem with a-la-carte pricing is that it makes it impossible for new networks to get enough subscribers to start up.

Oh please, this is no different than any other market. Want to introduce a new brand of ice cream? Nobody knows it, nobody buys it which meakes it "impossible" for new brands to enter the market.... which is why you have to start with a nest egg, blow some money on initial production setup, advertising and distribution to recover later. Same goes with a TV channel, you ask people to subscribe first and deliver later.

Re:The problem with a-la-carte...

[MikeyTheK]

I'm not sure that for things like tech channels that the next revolution isn't streaming online to your pc anyway.

Re:The problem with a-la-carte...

[jedidiah]

Why should we even be paying for these channels to begin with?

We should be paying the cable provider for the transport service. The actual content on any commercial network should be FREE. It's just insane to pay for something and then be spammed.

Re:The problem with a-la-carte...

[AK Marc]

The problem with a-la-carte pricing is that it makes it impossible for new networks to get enough subscribers to start up.

I don't know. Maybe they could try something unusual like having commercials and advertising during the shows to pay for it.

Re:The problem with a-la-carte...

[CopaceticOpus]

Even better, why charge by the network at all? Send me the program listing for every single station, and charge by the show or by the minute.

And a la carte solves the problem?

[fireboy1919]

Television is still mostly paid for by commercials. Any channel not generating much viewership isn't generating much sales. Either that, or the target audience doesn't buy things as much.

Either way, a la carte would end up looking exactly the same...except probably with less variety, since channels that are currently not competing would start.

Of course, I'm with the majority, so it'd be great for me. USA, Cartoon Network, Sci-Fi Channel, and Comedy Central are my channels, and I know that they're all pretty popular. Then again...I wonder what's more popular. It could lead to more of that reality-tv crap infesting my channels. There are already full channels that run nothing else.

Re:And a la carte solves the problem?

[Dracos]

In a way, it would.

There are so many worthless niche channels out there that skate by because everyone pays for them, but no one watches them. Who in their right mind would specifically subscribe to the Game Show Channel, the Reality TV channel, or any home shopping channel?

Plus, it might have added benefits:

• Putting G4 out of its misery
• Teaching SciFi a lesson about canceling all their good series.

Seasonal subscriptions (ie, I would only want FX when Rescue ME is on) would probably throw cable into utter chaos. The cable companies know this, and it's probably why they'll fight it, unless they can convince the FCC to allow some outrageous fee structure for subscription changes, like you can only change once a year, in [random month that makes it not worth doing, based on previous viewing habits], otherwise there's a $5 fee per channel added or removed.

Re:And a la carte solves the problem?

[Princeofcups]

> Who in their right mind would specifically subscribe to the
> Game Show Channel, the Reality TV channel, or any home shopping channel?

My Mom for one. She watches the Game Show Channel religiously. Last I checked she was in her right mind.

jfs

Re:And a la carte solves the problem?

[Qzukk]

would probably throw cable into utter chaos

It could be easy to implement, just a bitmap that comes down the wire telling the system what channels it is allowed to show. Customer wants to change... call in on a touchtone phone, enter their subscriber number (or use caller ID and a PIN?), select their changes and receive a new bitmap.

Of course, the real problem isn't that there will be "chaos", the real problem is that people will subscribe to the channel they're watching for the duration of the show, then to change the channel they call in and drop that channel and add a new one so they never have to pay for more than one channel at a time.

Could be fixed by only issuing new bitmaps at the start of each billing cycle.

Re:And a la carte solves the problem?

[Atomic6]

Clearly the problem is hereditary. I kid... actually, most of my family on my dad's side is into reality television, which I happen to hate with a fiery passion. Unfortunately, it is the consumers' interests that will influence what content will be shown, and if someone finds it alarming that a particular type of programming is replacing something superior (example: G4 brutally raping TechTV), then the problem is more fundamental then the pricing structure used by the providers. I for one am extremely concerned about educating teenagers on getting their vision checked; they clearly need strong prescription glasses if they find Morgan Webb attractive.

Re:And a la carte solves the problem?

[bigstrat2003]

Ah, you are mistaken. You checked if she was in her right mind (is she watching the Game Show Channel?), and she was found to not be in her right mind (wtf, she is watching it!). ;)

Re:And a la carte solves the problem?

[ImaLamer]

The fact there are commercials on all of these cable channels makes me irritated that I even have to pay extra for them. Even if you wanted basic cable in my city (USA, MTV, Comedy Central, SCI-FI, etc) you have to pay > $50 because they have a contract with the city that demands it. Essentially the city has given them this monopoly that provides this service (broadcast) that provides commercial subsidized programing. Isn't that wrong?

Does it even make sense to pay for what should be free TV? Over the internet TV might save us all from monopoly cable and sub-standard satellite services (sorry, but I live an area that gets a lot of rain and I don't like being locked into the box). It makes sense to sell episodes of channels to people on iTMS and on your own, without commercials, but why not just move your model to internet TV. Keep the same commercials, and structure, and cut out the middle man. You lose revenue from cable companies, I'm sure, but you have a more accurate way of tracking viewership for sure also. You know the exact times that people tuned in for, you can even tell your advertisers everything (not just a statistical extrapolation). Simple broadcast streams, let the client timeshift, whatever on their machine, just send out the stream. If you are an HBO or Starz, who already does this, then charge a small fee and don't let people timeshift (but please don't use some platform specific delivery).

The whole problem is none of these problems are going to be solved. The American taste for entertainment and violence, sex, drama, comedy, music, and apparently 7 channels of God, is getting greater everyday. The media companies own some existing delivery systems and are buying more all of the time. The cable and satellite companies are doing more lobbying everyday. The device companies have agreements with and are vested in cable technologies, some are owned by content owner-deliverers. DRM, Rootkits, DMCA, hurrah! You aren't going to get cheaper or freer for a long time.

Re:And a la carte solves the problem?

[MikeyTheK]

In case you weren't paying attention, there are certain VERY VERY popular channels that have essentially NO commercials on them. They do have quarter-hour breaks, but there really aren't any merchandising ads during that time. ONE of those channels just broadcast the highest-rated cable-TV program EVER.

Re:And a la carte solves the problem?

[Maltheus]

except probably with less variety

I think it would increase variety as the channels would have to do more to distinguish themselves. So many channels now make their money just showing movies in the middle of the day for whoever will tune in. I'm sure that audience will go to specialized movie channels if they have to do ala carte. The ubiquitous infomercials will likely go away as well since they do nothing to draw in new viewers. No the stations will actually have to sell us something rather than just rely on the hidden taxes of commercials and package bundling to keep them afloat. And they aren't going to be able to do that by selling the same old boring shit.

Black Family Channel

[rossz]

If there was a "White Family Channel", the ACLU, the government, and the public in general would demand its removal.

Just because you ran sed "s/White/Black/g" does not make it ok.

Re:Black Family Channel

[darnoKonrad]

HELP! HELP! BROWN PEOPLE have their own TV network! OMG, I'm being persecuted!!!

Re:Black Family Channel

[eln]

There already is a White Family Channel, only it's called TBN and it's really more of a White Christian Fundamentalist Family Channel.

Do you feel BET should be forced to shutdown? I mean, even if it had watchable programs on it?

Re:Black Family Channel

[IthnkImParanoid]

I thought Fox, ABC, CBS, and NBC were the (mostly) White Family Channels.

The Black Family Channel just happens to reveal their target demographic in their name.

Re:Black Family Channel

[netsavior]

The ACLU defends Klansmen's rights to march protesting the "black vote" just as adamantly as it does African American people's right to vote.

Other than that, keep rocking the suburbs, the white american male is soooo discriminated against... boo hoo.

Re:Black Family Channel

[Anonymous Coward]

Every single one of those networks feature a disproportionate amount of blacks.

Re:Black Family Channel

[moderatorrater]

Yes, I'm sure the executives for those studios sit down and say, "what programming can we schedule that will differentiate us from black television?"

Re:Black Family Channel

[Anonymous Coward]

Rather, the executives for those studios sit down and say, "what programming can we schedule that will attract our demographic- constituents who spend money?"

Re:Black Family Channel

[IthnkImParanoid]

I'm not entirely sure what your point is, but I do like your sig. :)

Re:Black Family Channel

[moderatorrater]

The difference is that it's fine for executives to be racist as long as it's favoring a minority, not the majority.

Re:Black Family Channel

[Anonymous Coward]

"the white american male"

Here you reveal your own bigotry.

Re:Black Family Channel

[KayElle]

Maybe if someone created a "white" anything that wasn't focused entirely on hate mongering towards non-whites, people would be more accepting.

Re:Black Family Channel

[darkhitman]

Uh... you mean TV-Land?

Re:Black Family Channel

[darnoKonrad]

who mods this crap up? Your reply is called a non-sequitur. Look it up. We have a topic, but you insist on fitting it into your world-wide conspiracy. Get a grip.

Re:Black Family Channel

[darnoKonrad]

Yes, they god damn do. That's where the money is. You're in the majority, I assume. You have no idea what it's like to have, not only the government, but industry, business, and eduction explicitly discriminate against you based on nothing more than some arbitrary attribute. The entire concept of Brown v. Board of Eduction was based on the fact that minority children had a lesser view of themselves based on the culture around them. And when that culture denies you basic rights -- like voting, and wraps fan motors around your neck and throws you in a river, or lynches your ass for speaking your mind, as a decent human being you can give some discretion when it comes to how a minority wants to see its self as something unique and worthy of it's own fucking television channel. You're either a closet racist or a jackass that can't, for one moment, see how you'd feel when 60 short years ago, your ass would be meat for simply existing. That wasn't that long ago -- they are still alive -- they still remember how they were discriminated against -- or they still remember how they participated in the discrimination. Get some perspective. We are along way from being "judged on the content of our hearts, rather than the color of our skin." At least let the the primaries in this long history of evil die off, and then we can talk about how we can move ahead as a culture. But don't for one second tell me it doesn't exist.

Re:Black Family Channel

[Strange Ranger]

Interesting.. there are 2 posts here calling the major networks racist in favor of whites...

The 2000 Census states that 12.9 percent of the population is "Black or African American"

I'd like to see some hard statistics for broadcasting, but it seems that more than 12.9% of the faces seen on the major networks are ""Black or African American".

Comparing programming on all channels, according to the Census 22.9% of the population is non-white. But taking TV programming as a whole, a visiting alien might get the impression that about 35 or 40% of our population was non-white. It doesn't take much channel surfing to see that a good deal more than 1 in 5 people are non-white.

Racism in any form is disgusting and sad. It's not a word to throw around lightly. Statistically speaking, I think "the TV" (as Homer would say) does a pretty good job in favor of minorites. You just don't see it when watching your favorite sit-coms, as they're usually pretty targeted to a specific cultural audience.

Having a 2 year-old is like having a visiting alien sometimes... the things they say can get you thinking about all kinds of things.

Re:Black Family Channel

[Anonymous Coward]

And regarding your sig: DDT is not banned in Africa, it never was, and is currently in widespread use against malaria. Restrictions on *agricultural* DDT use have in fact probably helped because less overall DDT usage means less breeding of resistant mosquitoes. Mosquito resistance to DDT is a major problem that makes DDT useless in many areas anyway.

Re:Black Family Channel

[bigbigbison]

"It doesn't take much channel surfing to see that a good deal more than 1 in 5 people are non-white."

Really? I must be getting different channels. With the exception of BET and sports there are very very few people that aren't white on my tv and almost none of them are the stars of the shows that they are on.

Re:Black Family Channel

[jmac1492]

Aren't they in black AND white?

Re:Black Family Channel

[bprice20]

As an african american male, I agree. Thats wrong.

Re:Black Family Channel

[jedidiah]

Not really. It's just the economic statistical skew. Sure it's not true completely but it's something that you can safely generalize. Interestingly enough, any of the blacks you might find will be fleeing their own relatives for the same exact reasons their white neighbors are.

So they're going to be white on the inside even if they aren't white on the outside.

Re:Black Family Channel

[cayenne8]

"The entire concept of Brown v. Board of Eduction was based on the fact that minority children had a lesser view of themselves based on the culture around them. And when that culture denies you basic rights -- like voting, and wraps fan motors around your neck and throws you in a river, or lynches your ass for speaking your mind, as a decent human being you can give some discretion when it comes to how a minority wants to see its self as something unique and worthy of it's own fucking television channel. "

And when exactly is the last time you heard of anyone lynching minorities, killing thme and throwing them in the river? Hell, in most cases these days, it seems the crime committed on the minority is BY people of that minority. Example, most crime in NOLA, is black on black....many of the young black youth down here have no respect for life at all. Period. It is part of the black thug culture, very prevalent amongst black youth nationwide. It is the attitudes of this self-perpetuating culture, that keeps the community down. Why doesn't the black community put as much effort into promoting education, family values (less unwed mothers), more and less of the glorification of the gangsta, and sports 'hero'.

Trust me, most 'white' people don't have the time to waste trying to lynch you, put you down, or discriminate against you.....we're too busy trying to work and build lives for ourselves. If you'd put half the effort into your respective ethnic cultures into promoting education, and trying to make it in this society that you do into the culture of victimization...we'd not be having these conversations.

"see how you'd feel when 60 short years ago, your ass would be meat for simply existing. That wasn't that long ago -- they are still alive -- they still remember how they were discriminated against -- or they still remember how they participated in the discrimination. Get some perspective. We are along way from being "judged on the content of our hearts, rather than the color of our skin."

While no one should forget history (lest the repeat it), you also need to get over it and move forward and quit using it as a crutch blaming all the ills of society on it, and demanding a helping hand or leg up from the govt. No one should be discriminated against, for race or sex...there ARE laws against that and enforced. But, please, quit talking about how your are 'owed' something because of slavery, and discrimination standards that are old history. 60 years IS a long time ago...quit blaming your problems today on the problems 60-200 years ago. Move forward. All minorities have had problems...but, you don't see them asking for handouts. Look at the Chinese and other orientals in the US'es history. They don't seem to have the victimization syndrome you seem to expouse....they don't demand a special tv channel. They go out there bust their collective asses, run businesses and excel at academics.....

Seriously...while you shouldn't ever forget the past...the time to whine and cling to it is over and time to move one and forward.

Re:Black Family Channel

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, I just channel surfed for a few minutes. Mostly got commercials.
10 out of 21 people were black or latino. That's almost 50%. The first person I saw when I turned on the TV was the Allstate Insurance guy, Dennis Haysbert, who used to be a star on the show 24.
Then some random commercials across the networks where I counted skin colors. I felt dirty even "researching" this. The McDonald's commercial skewed the results with all minorities and no Caucasians. Minus the McDonald's commercial 4 out of 15 were "non-white". That's still 26%, higher than the population ratio.

I'll have to look more at programming and ignore the commercials next time.
Regrettably, I currently live in white-bread suburbia. You don't see too many minorities here. So when I turn on the TV it looks chock full of "non-whites" to me.

Tens of thousands of people all wearing Gap and Old Navy, eating at chains, and talking with authority about "Everybody Loves Raymond". It's nauseating here.

Re:Black Family Channel

[darnoKonrad]

"....many of the young black youth down here have no respect for life at all. Period. It is part of the black thug culture, very prevalent amongst black youth nationwide. It is the attitudes of this self-perpetuating culture, that keeps the community down. Why doesn't the black community put as much effort into promoting education, family values (less unwed mothers), more and less of the glorification of the gangsta, and sports 'hero'."

Way to generalize an entire group of people. Two thumbs up.

"And when exactly is the last time you heard of anyone lynching minorities, killing thme and throwing them in the river?"

All the time. http://www.splcenter.org/intel/hatewatch/fortherec ord.jsp
Just because you're blind doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

"But, please, quit talking about how your are 'owed' something because of slavery, and discrimination standards that are old history."

Why do you assume I'm black? Oh that's right, you're a racist that only sees arguments within the context of the messenger if they don't agree with your white protestant view point of privilege. My post wasn't even in the context of being black. I made generalizations based on how all minorities are confronted within a larger homogeneous culture.

"Look at the Chinese and other orientals in the US'es history. They don't seem to have the victimization syndrome you seem to expouse....they don't demand a special tv channel. They go out there bust their collective asses, run businesses and excel at academics....."

More generalizations based on skin color? WTF are you smoking .. trying to win an argument with this kind of drivel?

Sorry, you argue like all people with your view point. You are incapable of reasoning. You're a a racist of the worst sort -- ignorant to the point of being painfully hard to ignore.

Yes, yes, nazi, Black people are violent, and Yellow people are good at math. . and if they could just be like you, then every thing would be all right.

Re:Black Family Channel

[cayenne8]

"Sorry, you argue like all people with your view point. You are incapable of reasoning. You're a a racist of the worst sort -- ignorant to the point of being painfully hard to ignore."

Well, sorry if I assumned you were black...just got that from you post. I don't consider myself a racist...by definition a racist thinks one race is superior to another. I just don't think that way. I do, however, observe by life experience that certain cultures to tend to prevail within racial groups. I stated what I have observed so far in life.

I think if more minorities were 'color blind'....then the majority would also be color blind. Yes, I do get defensive when I see a lot of blame for this, and blame for that comes down on my particular race...

I don't think twice about color really....until a minority brings it up that they should get special tx due to color, and I should be put lower on the list because of my skin color. When I don't feel pressure due to my color....I don't really think twice about anyone else's color.

I'd dare say most of the 'majority' would think the same way if color wasn't brought up so often by the minority.

Re:Black Family Channel

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not so sure... The Simpsons (on Fox) are yellow, you know.

Re:Black Family Channel

[SIIHP]

"the white american male is soooo discriminated against... boo hoo."

You know, I bet that makes you feel pretty full of yourself right now, but with the trends population being what they are, that is going to be a fact eventually, if it's not already. Go ahead and TRY to argue that point.

If white american males feel discrimination, why is your response derision and ridicule? You sure as fuck wouldn't do that if it was a black woman. Why is it ok to tell whitey to stuff it? Because his gramps fucked some black guys over 50 years ago?

Just admit it, if white men are being discriminated against, you think they deserve it. Very civil of you.

Re:Black Family Channel

[Anonymous Coward]

"Not really."

Yes really. It's always bigots like you who rush to defend their bigotry with whatever justification they can find. You sound like the people who try to use IQ tests to prove that blacks aren't as smart as whites.

"but it's something that you can safely generalize."

Like blacks are criminals or hispanics are illegals right? Or does generalization only work when it agrees with your biases?

You're the worst kind of bigot, the kind who is convinced they're not a bigot at all.

Re:Black Family Channel

[netsavior]

First: I am a white male

Second: The "discrimination" white males feel is bullshit. And it annoys me when male middle class white people try to act like a disenfranchised group. It is unbecoming and makes "us" all look bad.

Re:Black Family Channel

[SIIHP]

"Second: The "discrimination" white males feel is bullshit."

Ah right, because you've lived the lives of every white male ever.

You bigots just never get it, no matter how stupid you look in defending your bigotry, you still insist your bigotry is justified.

Ah well, I don;t know what I expected, you're not smart enough to understand you're a bigot why would you understand anything I wrote.

Cable are forced to package channels

[TechwoIf]

The programmers, like Viacom, force cable companies to carry channels they don't want and therefore forced into package deals of today. Remember the brewhaha a few years ago between a satellite provider and programmer, that resulted a crawl text to all subscribers that there faverate channels may be dropped before they came to a deal.

Sports Networks

[M0bius]

I actually believe the cable companies would like to offer ala cart pricing. The problem is that the sports networks dictate that if they aren't included with every customer, they won't offer service at all. All or nothing. They also charge a ridiculous percentage of the total cable bill per month. Extortionists, it seems.

Re:Sports Networks

[eln]

I think the average consumer needs 187 combined hours of Sportscenter each day. And how could we call ourselves a civilized nation if we couldn't watch the Underwater Basket-weaving Finals on ESPN 8 "The Ocho" in prime time?

Re:Sports Networks

[Overzeetop]

If bundling is illegal, and they require bundling, then the end up with zero viewership and zero revenue. The networks do it because they _can_ - the FCC can tell them that they can't.

It's really not that hard.

Re:Sports Networks

[dmnic]

there are MANY more sports channels other than the ESPNs.
I myself rarely watch the ESPNs except for college football/basketball and even my college football viewing is starting to wane.

the sports I am usually watching are simply not shown on the ESPNs...this would be Soccer for which I *NEED* FSC, GolTV, Deportes (yes, its ESPN, but you have to buy this channel separately), FSW and sometimes Telefutura.
now, if I could get Sky or Setanta without the need for satellite (and by that I mean Dish and DirectTV as neither of them carry both channels) that would be extra bonus.

Re:Sports Networks

[Maltheus]

This is true, Dish said something to this effect once during the Comedy Central scare. And it pisses me off, because the sports stations cost so much more than everything I watch, and I'm forced into subsidizing the jocks I resented in high school. The typical sports station costs more than twice as much as non-sport stations, so I'd save a lot going ala carte.

Alternate channels

[SuperKendall]

Companies like BFT that can't get cable traction, should try deals with alternate routes like Live or ITMS. I don't even see why we really need streamed video much anymore, except for truly live stuff - which we can get from over the air broadcasts.

Even news programs I would be just as happy to subscribe to a feed for and get a download that I could watch when I had time.

Having a subscription model also allows for video to be distributed via BitTorrent, really the only model that makes much sense for HD video because otherwise if you ever get a large subscriber base ISP's or servers will start falling over.

Re:Alternate channels

[dosius]

The tech's definitely out there. A friend and I have been experimenting with a system to stream a 640x480, full framerate, stereo video feed over RTSP on his friend's gigabit pipe, and so far, it's looking up!

The simple matter of programming, now, is the showstopper we're working on now.

-uso.

Re:Alternate channels

[Captain Splendid]

Companies like BFT that can't get cable traction, should try deals with alternate routes like Live or ITMS.

Which is what's going to happen. And which is why you're hearing about this now, because it's too late. All the niche content will move to internet distribution, whereas TV will remain the bastion for the big networks, news, and other live events. (Maybe we'll get lucky and eventually get a Star Trek channel. Between all the series, movies, specials and whatnot, there's enough Star Trek material to fill a whole channel.)

Re:Alternate channels

[king-manic]

Which is what's going to happen. And which is why you're hearing about this now, because it's too late. All the niche content will move to internet distribution, whereas TV will remain the bastion for the big networks, news, and other live events. (Maybe we'll get lucky and eventually get a Star Trek channel. Between all the series, movies, specials and whatnot, there's enough Star Trek material to fill a whole channel.)

Wait, you mean spike isn't the star trek channel?

Good.

[darnoKonrad]

I've never ordered cable or satellite because there are only a half dozen channels I care about. I'll take the 6 channels I like and they can charge me 6 bucks a month. For an extra dollar I'll take the university channels. If they want to charge more, well I will continue to abstain from purchasing their product.

Since I've upgraded to Digital TV OTA, I now get a music video channel, and 8 PBS channels -- amongst the others. I could care less about cable unless they want to give me the product I want to buy. Still I think paying for COMMERCIAL television is retarded, but then I don't buy bottled water either.

Re:Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

you COULDN'T care less, dipshit

Re:Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

what? do you buy bottled water?

Re:Good.

[phantomlord]

And what of infrastructure costs? A digital cable box might cost $200 and then you need to factor in depreciation. The cable company has to run wire down your street, from the pole to your house, etc. They have to maintain those wires. They need to maintain their broadcasting equipment. They need to handle billing and technical support. It probably costs $10-15 a month per subscriber just to maintain the network (and I've seen estimates for Dish Network's per customer fixed costs being around $28/month)... So, more than likely, you'd see something like my electric bill:

Basic Connection Fee: $10
Equipment Rental: $5

Content Delivery:
ALA Carte Channel 52: $0.75
ALA Carte Channel 67: $1.50
ALA Carte Channel 115: $0.75
ALA Carte Channel 242: $1.00
ALA Carte Channel 300: $0.75
ALA Carte Channel 633: $1.25

Franchise Fee: $4
Subtotal: $25
Taxes: $5

Amount Due: $30

That said... this spring, I got a really interesting offer that compelled me to leave Dish Network and return back to my local cable company. Their full package of digital cable (about 250 channels) plus every (43) movie channel with 2 digital receivers for $60/month and the rate is guaranteed for 2 years. I've even found myself watching channels I didn't think I would like just because they're now available to me for less than I was paying Dish for their 150 channel package + 3 sets of premium channels (I dropped $35/month off my monthly tv bill). When my 2 years is about to expire, I'll tell the cable company they can renew my package or I'll shop around for the cheapest price again. I made sure I kept my Dish equipment rather than take the $100 trade in credit so the cost to start with them will be negligible. As an added bonus, it knocked $5/month off my cable modem bill too.

Re:Good.

[darnoKonrad]

Eh, You make a point -- but I'm not entirely sure what it is. Clearly this service is worth the money you're paying. I feel differently. I have an uncle that pays a 1000 bucks a year for everything that dish network offers. I've spent hours surfing the channels with nothing to watch. History channel and some others have some good content, but they also have reruns out the wazoo. Me, at about 4 in the morning when I'm at someone's house after a party, I'm that guy nursing the last beer while watching some college tele-course. There are good things to watch on cable/satellite, but cost wise it simply doesn't make much sense to me.

That's the free market. Don't feel like you need to justify your purchase -- it is worth it to you, just not to me. And surely don't ask me to feel sympathy for infrastructure costs.

That same uncle in the above paragraph, he used to work for a cable company back in the early seventies. Cable back then was thus: set several antennas on top of the nearest water tower and point them in different directions -- the different stations were then pipped into homes with a cable. But that was back when there were still local stations with local content -- it was kinda cool to get all the stations within a hundred miles and all their local programing. His job was the "weather channel" -- a rotating card holder in front of a camera that had advertisements, temperature, pressure, and other weather stuff. He drew the advertisements.

Different times.

Still, when I get high speed fiber later this month -- I'll watch what I want online. Cable and satellite will merge with the internet seamlessly in the near future -- it's just that the U.S. is terribly behind in it's high speed infrastructure compared to other countries.

Re:Good.

[phantomlord]

Eh, You make a point -- but I'm not entirely sure what it is. My point was you're not going to be able to get ala carte channels just for the price of each channel through current distribution channels. There's going to have to be some type of charge to support infrastructure in there somewhere. That could be the $15 in connection fees/equipment I pointed out or it could be channels that don't cost 75 cents or a dollar, but two or three dollars instead.

Even with content over the internet, your provider may encourage you to get the power user package at a higher cost to achieve the bandwidth (both burst and total monthly consumption) needed. I know my ISP (RR) offers a $30 light version (I think it is 1Mbit down, 128k up), $45 standard (10 Mbit down, 384k up) and $60 power user version (15 Mbit down, 1 Mbit up). You get a $5 discount for also subscribing to any cable package. I know there is some kind of bandwidth consumption cap that they'll kick people over but 15 gigs a month isn't atypical for me and I've never gotten any type of warning (standard package).

I wouldn't be surprised if the cable subscribers are still subsidizing the DOCSIS infrastructure as well. Cable modems only require a couple channels of space versus everything else coming down the line... and all of that equipment at the head end costs money. I'm not a cable/networking guy so I'm not sure just how much equipment is needed to eliminate the cable channels while going entirely internet infrastructure.

Still, when I get high speed fiber later this month -- I'll watch what I want online. Cable and satellite will merge with the internet seamlessly in the near future -- it's just that the U.S. is terribly behind in it's high speed infrastructure compared to other countries. That's mostly because the current setup is "good enough" for most people. Look at how many people still willingly use dialup even though broadband is available to them (who wants to spend $40 a month to read 3 emails a week when you can get dialup for $9.95 or whatever?) The infrastructure won't be upgraded until either people demand it (and even then, it may require an act of government (not necessarily at the federal level) to goad companies into upgrading) or until the infrastructure becomes so deteriorated that they have to upgrade to keep providing the current level of service (we're seeing this with companies switching to fiber internally but we still have that whole last mile situation).

Re:Good.

[White Yeti]

A similar, complimentary option is FTA satellite. It's not high-power pay satellite, and you need a rotator to get a nice variety of programming, but it was worth it for my family.

May actually improve content

[jfdawes]

Allowing people to subscribe to channels on an ala carte basis may actually improve programming. There are so many channels that are full of unmitigated trash, but get "sold" because they are bundled with channels that have a couple of good programs. Those channels would need to start doing some actual programming, or they will find themselves losing what advertisers they do have.

Re:May actually improve content

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean MTV might actually start playing music videos again instead of reality programming?

Sounds great

[SydShamino]

I'd be happy to pay $1 per month per channel. I'd probably end up getting half as many channels as I do now while paying the same amount, but they'd be the [i]correct[/i] channels. I'd drop 30 channels I never watch and add 2 that I would.

Or, if they want to price the channels competitively, I'd be willing to work with that, too. I'll pay $4 per month for ESPN if it's so expensive, but I'm going to pick it up each August and drop it each January so I can just get college football. At $1/month for ESPN I wouldn't bother.

This doesn't make it hard for new channels to break in, either. Dish Network is always having "free preview weekends" for higher-tier cable and premium content. If you want to launch a new cable channel and get people interested, you might have to (*gasp*) give it away for free and rely only on your advertisement income or your startup capital before you gather a critical mass of viewers. Then, you can add a low monthly fee, and scale it up as your popularity continues to climb. Sounds fair to me.

Re:Sounds great

[veganboyjosh]

Or, if they want to price the channels competitively, I'd be willing to work with that, too. I'll pay $4 per month for ESPN if it's so expensive, but I'm going to pick it up each August and drop it each January so I can just get college football. At $1/month for ESPN I wouldn't bother.

so you'd pay $24 for 5 months of ESPN, but wouldn't pay $12 for a year of it?

Re:Sounds great

[davetd02]

Does this mean that I get to only buy the sections of the newspaper that I want to read? I mean, I only read News, Sports, and Politics -- can I get a refund on the Entertainment and Style sections?

Re:Sounds great

[Surt]

No, he wouldn't pay $48 per year, would pay $24 for 6 months, and would pay $12 per year without bothering to discontinue service during the months he's uninterested.

Re:Sounds great

[tomstdenis]

Difference is your cable provider doesn't produce TV programming, they just direct it to your home.

Your analogy would be more like "I only want to read the Times, does that mean the corner store can't also bundle the Sun with it?"

Why would you go to the store to buy two newspapers when you only want one?

Re:Sounds great

[SydShamino]

The newspaper is one product from one source. That's like asking to get and pay for ESPN, but not pay for the car races or anything aired from 1 - 5 AM. I don't expect that level of granularity, and would not be upset to never get it.

However, I do consider each channel to be a separate product. If I want to buy SciFi, I shouldn't be forced to buy Nickelodeon because the parent company forces my cable company to carry them at the same tier. The SciFi channel has a government-granted monopoly on its content due to copyright law. They shouldn't be able to leverage that monopoly to force the cable companies (and ultimate me) to pay for other products they sell.

Not to nitpick, but...

[immcintosh]

It's "a la carte," meaning "by the menu."

Re:Not to nitpick, but...

[Em Adespoton]

I think in the case of cable TV, "a la cart" is more apt.

Re:Not to nitpick, but...

[TheRaven64]

Technically, it means 'of the card.' In French, menu means a set menu; a la carte refers to things that are not on the set menu. In English, 'menu' is used to refer to both concepts, menu and carte. Carte has a number of meanings, including card, menu, and map.

They'll never do it.

[pabster]

This is all BS and anyone with half a brain knows it. Cable monopolies are not interested in providing consumer choice. If such an "A-La-Carte" system were ever put in place, you'd get 5 channels a month for $60 instead of 200. Sure, they'd be the 5 you want, but would YOU pay $60 for just those lousy 5 channels? They'll kill this idea just like CableCARD...Speaking of, how is that going these days?

Re:They'll never do it.

[iPaige]

It's doing very badly. Poor CableCARD. Never had a chance.

Re:They'll never do it.

[geekoid]

No, I wouldn't pay 60 dollars for 5 channels...nobody would, that's why the price would fall.

None of the forecasting document I read indicated that it would be nearly this price. 50 cents, to a buck 50 per channel. Excluding HBO, et. al.

Set-up fee:Anywhere from Zero, to 50 dollars
min fee: 10 to 25 dollars a month.

With competition(satellite and fios) the prices will approach cost.

Re:They'll never do it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your absolutely right. I generally watch Discover, Science, History and PPV's once in a while, (Thank you ROM2). I will say though that every once in a while it is nice to just channel surf and see whats on. Sometimes I am pleasantly surprised. With a la carte I lose that. Well actually I don't but many of you will......

Re:They'll never do it.

[pabster]

Nice fairy-tale land you got there. :o) Do you honestly believe the monopolies would 'sell' a channel for 50 cents? Or even $1.50? Come on! I can just see it now. "ANNOUNCING A-LA-CARTE SERVICE! Pay just $19.99 base charge per month plus $12.99 per channel. Taxes and fees additional." Your laissez-faire theory is great but it doesn't apply in a Monopoly.

Re:They'll never do it.

[tuxic]

It's done in Sweden already by the provider ComHem.
But since analog cable is part of the rent (they strike deals with the landlords and such), you will continue to have analog reception and pay for it that way, until the day the cable company chooses to turn off the analog part.

www.comhemSLASHDOT.se/portal/comhem/tv_allakanaler
(Obviously, just delete slashdot from the domain address. I'm making a lame attempt at spam protecting the link! Even though it's not in English, you have logos and channel names to look at which will make enough sense for you it to be a worthwhile look)

Anyway, say you choose their digital tv offering from this provider, you can opt for what they call the Small package and select from (more than) 130 channels which ones you want, a la carte. Regular content channels are priced around "4 USD/month per channel" while there are also premium sports and movie channels that have higher monthly prices - those that I looked at cost around 13 or 14 USD/month per channel. They also have another digital tv subscription called Medium 8 Favourites. You pay a fixed price of about 22 USD/month and get to choose 8 out of your favourite channels, and you can choose from the same list linked to above in the Small package. Every 30 days you can change to 8 other favourites if you feel like you want to do that. If it's done via login on their website it doesn't cost anything. If you on the other hand call their customer service number, they take 2 dollars in administration fee for the job.

There is also a competing cable company called Tele2Vision which offers an a la carte model as well, but theirs is different. They already give you a fixed price to pay per month and a MUCH smaller channel list to make choices from. In that case also, you have a bare minimum of channels to choose, so even if you have found 5 that you want, you still have to randomly choose other ones on top of that or try choose a couple of ones who are "the least bad".

One more thing ...
Here in Sweden, individual households cannot unsubscribe from a cable company and then choose another cable company. It's not their decision, it's up to the landlord or condoe neighbourhood responsibles to cancel the contract with the cable company and make a new deal with another company. Are americans free to switch between cable providers at any time if they want to?

To the submitter/editor

[Anonymous Coward]

It's "à la carte" or at least "a la carte", which means "from the menu" (à in this context means "from" and la carte is the menu). There's no such word as "ala" in any language known to me. There's also a subtle difference in pronunciation. And even more importantly: the article does get it right and you didn't. Is it really *that* hard to just check the word if you aren't 100% sure? I mean, one of the first entries that comes up on Google when searching for ala carte is wikipedia's entry on "à la carte".

- An Anonymous Coward whose native language isn't even French or English

Re:To the submitter/editor

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the editor was referring to Ala, the Muslim God. Maybe you should read a book or something, frenchie.....geez.....

This will never happen

[ReTay]

1. The content producers (TV networks) decide what they want to put on and tell the cable companies that it is a take it or leave it deal. If the cable companies puts up a fight they put a scroll in that says Your cable company does not want this channel call them to change their minds on the highest rated shows. They try to force high cost programming in to the lower tiers so everyone that has those tiers has to pay for it. The golf channel did this just before the US Open. It did not work. They are on a high tier package.
2. The cable provider will calculate what the cost to maintain the connection (and some profit and that will be broken out on your bill. Then each channel will be listed.
3. The number of channels will go down. Right now some networks run lower cost channels in the higher tier and subsidize it with a more popular channel. With out that subsidy there would never have been a History Channel for example.
4. The content providers will not let this go through, not the cable companies.

why not basic rate plus per channel?

[shalla]

I don't see why it would have to be all or nothing pay-per-channel or pay-for-3-million-channels. Why not a base rate that everyone pays for their basic cable plus a per channel rate to add any number more channels? Right now I have the option of getting basic cable, which lacks ESPN and the NFL Network (yes, I'm one of those people who requires them, folks), Comedy Central, and the Sci Fi Channel, or paying an arm and a leg for a whole slew of channels I really don't care about.

While I realize that this means there's no chance for start-up channels to get a following, I'm pretty sure they can find a way around it if they try. Free/reduced rates for the first few months or starting out on the Net...

Re:why not basic rate plus per channel?

[Maltheus]

paying an arm and a leg for a whole slew of channels I really don't care about

The reality is that those sports channels you like are what you're paying an arm and a leg for. The rest is all but thrown in for free and is used to draw in viewers to subsidize the cost of those sports channels.

Re:why not basic rate plus per channel?

[shalla]

I'm sorry. I find it hard to believe that it costs them over $30 for the two sports channels I would want and that somehow, they're making enough off the hordes of people wanting to watch the hideous programming of G4 to "subsidize" my two channels. Hell, I'm a gamer and I find G4 painful to watch.

And this is exactly what they SHOULDN'T be doing. I would rather just pay the $10 for ESPN and $7 for NFL or whatever they cost and be spared the crap channels and the extra I pay for any other channels I don't want.

My order

[planckscale]

Hi, what can I get for you today?

Yes, thank you, I'd like your High Speed Internet Access.

Ok, no problem, the half order or full size?

Full size; the one with 3mb/s down 712 up.

Do you need hardware or setup?

Nope.

Sure no problem, anything else?

Yes, I'd also like a few side orders?

Ok go ahead.

The local channel 17, Discovery Channel, Animal Planet, History Channel, Military Channel and AMC.

Anything else?

How much is your ESPN package?

4.95 per month.

No thanks

Would you like to try our HBO package? It's free for the first 3 months.

No thanks

Okay that's a Full size order of high speed internet for 19.95, plus 6 sides at .95 cents a piece. Anything else?

Nope that will do it for now.

Including taxes, fees and internet monitor labor, your total is $76.65.

WTF?!?!

illiterate plebs

[inzy]

à la not ala

it's french and roughly translated mean with.

ala does not mean anything.

Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

I have like 200 channels.

I watch three.

The rest of you can pay for 197 channels of crap, as long as I get my discount rate for having CN, Spike (what? they play CSI and Trek :() and The History Channel. :P

This sounds like the best idea the FCC ever had.

They will just do what they did with CableCard

[samwh]

AKA pay lip service to the feds. "You can get just the Sci-Fi channel for 5 dollars a month! (plus 50 dollars operating expenses)!" "Or get our premium package for 60 dollars a month! Over 9000 channels!"

Who benefits?

[amightywind]

minority consumers, especially those living in Spanish speaking homes, might benefit most of all

It is not clear to me that part of the FCC charter should be promoting non-English speaking households in the United States. Foreign language households create problems of assimilation, economic integration, application of law, public services... I have no problem with duel language households or the availability of native language television channels for them.

Re:Who benefits?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not clear to me that part of the FCC charter should be promoting non-English speaking households in the United States. Foreign language households create problems of assimilation, economic integration, application of law, public services... I have no problem with duel language households or the availability of native language television channels for them.

Duel language households? You mean like when my wife and I fight over whether we should speak French or English? I hope they have a native language television channel for you.

Re:Who benefits?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well he was talking to a spanish-speaking audience at the time so he can be forgiven for pushing that aspect of the idea.

I'd love to have a Japanese channel. DirecTV doesn't carry one. Four or five Chinese, yes. But no Japanese. too bad for me.

Re:Who benefits?

[Choad Namath]

I don't think he's promoting it, he's just accepting the reality of it.

Re:Who benefits?

[Lithdren]

Last I checked, english wasn't a requirement to live in the US.

Re:Who benefits?

[amightywind]

I believe a majority of Americans think it should be.

Re:Who benefits?

[Lithdren]

Which only solidifies my steadfast belief that a majority of americans are idiots! Being american myself, this is a scarry thing to believe.

A La Carte is french for More CEO Money

[WillAffleckUW]

When you get your Red Bushie Dictionary out, you will find that the translation for "A La Carte" is "Excuse To Raise Rates On Consumers While Providing Less Service".

It's in there before "Above The Law".

I would go for it

[basketcase]

I don't know or care how anyone else would use it but if I could buy only the channels I want I would have cable TV right now INSTEAD of using an antenna. The few cable channels that I want are worth paying for but I am not paying for every cable channel there is. It just isn't worth it. I wouldn't buy many channels because I don't want much but my bill would be some amount greater than the $0 it is right now.

From a Cable Operator's View...

[teebob21]

I work in the billing department at a smaller cable company, so maybe this post is biased. At least it's biased in the direction of truth, rather than ranting consumer speculation. I also used to work as a field technician for the same company, so I am in a position to know this issue.

First, most cable and satellite companies would be contractually prohibited from complying with any such mandate from the FCC, if it were to be announced tomorrow. Viacom, HBO, Universal, Disney and the over-the-air corporations demand carriage of their lesser-known networks in exchange for a reduced rate on their main programming. For example, our customers demand - and we willingly pay - for ESPN and ESPN HD. The cost per subscriber per month is about $14. We also carry ESPN2, at a discount. If we dropped ESPN 2 from our expanded basic tier, the SD and HD ESPN channels would cost us $9/mo per sub. We are currently in month 4 of a 36 month contract at this rate. Thus, we cannot break this portion of the bundling in our lineup for the better part of 3 years.

Additionally, it is a simple fact that forced a la carte offerings would lead to higher customer cost, and reduced quality. Most cable companies continue to carry their basic tier in analog. A la carte analog results in a daisy chain of traps at the pole or pedestal, degrading the signal across the spectrum. A la carte digital requires equipment in customer's homes with remotely accessible security. You can achieve this with CableCards or Switched Digital. The two are not currently compatible, so it's an either-or situation. In all honesty, MY employer wants CableCards to work correctly. When they don't, it generates higher costs in the form of truck rolls, and lower customer satisfaction.

This is to say nothing of the increased cost due to the creation of rate codes in the billing software for each channel, and the corresponding training of 1700 CSSR's on how to use them. It also ignores the time/cost of converting 79,000 video subscribers to an a la carte plan, so on and so forth.

Kevin Martin has a lot of dreams, most of which seem to be based in fantasyland regarding cable companies. I would be happy to have him shadow me for a week to see how these companies actually operate, so he can realize the true costs of what he dreams up.

Re:From a Cable Operator's View...

[Lysander Luddite]

Couple of honest questions here.

Consensus is cable cards simply don't work and a newer spec promoted by the cable industry is on the way. True? I thought cable cards were required to be supported after a certain date, but I don't know. Would that solve the a la carte technical issue?

What would it take to drop analog cable? I haven't heard of any mandate, but a decade ago I heard cable companies wanted digital to more closely monitor usage and have more remote control. Is there a reason the rollout is so slow? Is it because of set top boxes?

Seems like it is a mix of technical hurdles and contractual obligations that is the resistance here. If the technical issues are dealt with is it just a matter of which industry is going to steamroller the other?

Re:From a Cable Operator's View...

[Anonymous Coward]

First, most cable and satellite companies would be contractually prohibited from complying with any such mandate from the FCC, if it were to be announced tomorrow.

Interesting, what gave you the idea that a contract would override a federal regulation?

Re:From a Cable Operator's View...

[teebob21]

The doctrine of ex post facto law, for starters....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_f acto

Re:From a Cable Operator's View...

[Anonymous Coward]

The current contractual obligations are an interesting problem, but not something that would automatically cause a problem. The FCC is part of the government. If applicable law outlawed bundling (and assume that these contracts are part of that) it would typically mean that the bundling part of the agreement becomes null and void but other parts remain in force. That most likely would screw the big companies, not the little cable company. That is of course assuming the lawyers were not dumb.

I would expect the a la carte model to raise the barrier for entry. If done haphazardly, I could see it creating a more powerful cabal of content providers. In an era where content providers sometimes own the cable companies you find that preference pricing models may make it easy for larger companies to deplete smaller rivals. Effectively, many of the less popular channels would go through various cycles and end up akin to "public access" channels. Sometimes I wonder, though. How bad is that? With many cable companies providing on-demand programs and the popular use of PVRs, would technology be able to vet those issues?

Today I have over 200 channels. Several are music channels. Several are pay-per-view. Some are duplicates (Here is the digital version of the analog channel and here is the HD widescreen version of that channel). Most are crap. There are still days where I get home from work and cannot find anything worth watching on television.

Maybe that is for the best. Maybe crap television is what reminds us to spend time with friends, go for walks, read a book, or various other activities.

Re:From a Cable Operator's View...

[Moonchen]

From your analysis of ESPN, it seems like you're saying that with a la carte cable, the customer would be able to pay $9 for ESPN if they did not want ESPN 2. To me, that is exactly the appeal of a la carte cable. I'm not expecting to pay 3/40th for three of the channels in a 40 channel bundle, but rather something less than 100%. It would be cheaper, and I don't lose anything because the other 37 channels are just noise to me.

Also, the other part of your argument sounds like you're saying that the cost of transition would be high since cable companies are committed to the bundling system. This is exactly why government intervention would be needed, since the high cost discourages companies from making the transition on their own.

Re:From a Cable Operator's View...

[teebob21]

And a couple of honest answers:

I've posted about CableCards before, and yes they DO work...when they work. When each piece of the system is compatible, CableCards work great. We have verified that our Motorola DAC will talk to our CableCards via our billing system, in a host with compatible firmware. Unfortunately, the host is the customer's TV/Tivo from any number of manufacturers. When their firmware is incompatible, or the proprietary guide doesn't populate, the cable co gets blamed for these problems. We do our best to solve many of these situations, even though they are not our responsibility. The original 1.0 revision of CableCards was capable of two-way communication, but Consumer Electronics companies decided not to utilize this capability. Link: http://www.opencable.com/primer/cablecard_primer.h tml The older cards were single-stream cards, meaning they could tune a single channel at once. The newer revision which are preinstalled in our Motorola DCH's are M-Cards, capable of decoding multiple digital streams at once. Unfortunately for the consumers, CE manufacturers continue to build TV's that lack a diplex filter and other parts necessary for integrated 2-way functionality.

To drop analog cable would requires a digital tuner in or behind every TV in every home for our subscribers. We could go all-digital in a very short time, effectively eliminating ourselves as a competitor for those who can not purchase a new TV. We are currently working with Motorola to create a "dongle" style digital converter. The "mini-box" would be capable of being authorized on a channel-by-channel basis, using the removable security (CableCARD) currently mandated by the FCC, and still provide compatibility with older analog TVs. If we could get such a product for less than $100 cost per unit, we would order 20,000 of them tomorrow.

A la carte depends on all-digital, and it is technically feasible. There is a reason DISH Network advertises their content as all digital...on transmission it is, but once you hook up your sexy Dish HDDVR via regular coax and tune to CH 3 to watch, you're back on analog. However, the upfront AND longterm cost for cable companies to do so AND offer a la carte will be quite high, and like ANY business, cable companies will pass the increased cost to consumers. Additionally, contracts will need changed, something that will move at the speed of a jellyfish in January.

Re:From a Cable Operator's View...

[TheGratefulNet]

don't argue to us about analog! that's going away VERY very shortly.

also don't argue about YOUR need to 'trap out' content at the pole. again, that's your old ancient business model that should not even apply in the digital world anymore.

you also argue about -current- contracts and how they force you, the cableco, to have to carry B if you want A.

if the rules change then these contracts will change next cycle.

stop arguing FOR bundling. its a stoopid idea and its about time that we FINALLY de-bundle programming.

(similarly: people stopped buying cd's as a whole and now buy songs. the same applies here. stop kicking and screaming and maybe you'll still be relevant. maybe. but as full internet feeds start to take over, pushing content will die and the 'pull' model (on demand from IP) will be what's used).

Re:From a Cable Operator's View...

[KayElle]

Good luck at getting rid of that analog. I'd love to see it gone, but I was stuck on the cable tv committee (I work for a town) and our single biggest complaint from the gloriously ignorant public was that they needed a set-top box for anything. Followed by why they couldn't get local radio on an "FM Service" like they had 10 years earlier.

Re:From a Cable Operator's View...

[aero6dof]

For example, our customers demand - and we willingly pay - for ESPN and ESPN HD. The cost per subscriber per month is about $14. We also carry ESPN2, at a discount. If we dropped ESPN 2 from our expanded basic tier, the SD and HD ESPN channels would cost us $9/mo per sub.

I pay my sat network ~$35/mo for my access so if they're playing about the same all the other channels cost about $21. I couldn't care less about sports and maybe 10% of all households are the same. There are definitely other channels for which I'd be willing to pay. It looks like the industry is talking themselves out of the possibly of selling me lower cost channels and pocketing a much higher margin of the $35 that I already spend with them monthly. I think they just fear change.

Re:From a Cable Operator's View...

[Wordplay]

In context, it read like a typo to me, that he meant $9 more. But I'd be interested in seeing that clarified as well.

re: higher infrastructure/personnel costs, those get passed on to the consumer.

Re:From a Cable Operator's View...

[teebob21]

You are essentially correct in what I said. If the customer wanted only ESPN or ESPN HD, they would pay $9.00 per channel in programming costs in addition to whatever other fixed charge would be levied to finance service and maintenance per active sub. Currently, our pricing is equal to sum(programming charges + fixed expenses + operating margin - local ad sales) so with a la carte, it may be charged as a fixed cost, or rolled into the cost per channel..who knows?

It is not cable companies that are so committed to the bundling system, at least when you talk about channels. That is the brainchild of the content producers. We would love to pick and choose specifically which channels to offer and where to put them. However, content producers demand certain perks for their pet channels. For example: NFL Network demands carriage on our basic tier, knowing that positions them to reach the highest number of eyeballs. They also want $2/mo/sub. We said no, but we would be happy to carry them on our digital package. They say, "Too bad." They end up losing money AND viewers. We would not charge each and every basic sub $2 more per month simply to add what is a niche channel.

The same can be applied to many of our other channels. For example, we have 3 channels eating up bandwidth (1 analog, 2 digital) that we are required to carry because of contracts with TV Guide, our guide software provider. One is a horse-racing channel...one is just the analog guide...etc.

On a personal level, I agree strongly with your desire to have a la carte programming. I work at our corporate office which is in an area serviced by Cox, and their lineup is NOT worth the $47.25 they charge. But from a professional level, I am aware of the hurdles.

Re:From a Cable Operator's View...

[Anonymous Coward]

The "mini-box" would be capable of being authorized on a channel-by-channel basis, using the removable security (CableCARD) currently mandated by the FCC, and still provide compatibility with older analog TVs. If we could get such a product for less than $100 cost per unit, we would order 20,000 of them tomorrow. Are you serious about this? I'm quite surprised, because DVB-C receivers are available for less that 100 EUR in the EU, and since that includes 19% sales tax, it should work out to about US$ 100 retail. Apparently this device does not include the european CableCard equivalent (Common Interface), but a smart card reader for one specific encryption scheme.

Re:From a Cable Operator's View...

[shalla]

We would not charge each and every basic sub $2 more per month simply to add what is a niche channel.

Apparently you are not my former cable provider, who used to do things like add the SOAP network so my bill would go up $2.

Re:From a Cable Operator's View...

[Overzeetop]

Which, in this case, would not apply. Ex post facto is typically only applied to criminal law and governmental regulations (changing the law after a zoning approval, for example - which is typically seen as a contract between the govt and the developer, not really a law).

A new regulation which outlaws prepayment penalties in contracts means that that language is effectively null and void - which is why practically all good contracts include a severability clause.

What do you think would happen if every cable co in the US dropped ESPN, and the cause was a Federal regulation? If the feds stand their ground, ESPN will re-negotiate. Do you think their margins are large enough to withstand two months without revenue (advertisers don't pay for channels which don't get transmitted)?

Re:From a Cable Operator's View...

[Eric Pierce]

> Kevin Martin has a lot of dreams, most of which seem to be based in fantasyland regarding cable companies. I would be happy to have him shadow me for a week to see how these companies actually operate, so he can realize the true costs of what he dreams up.

Sounds like the current cable companies can't handle the change as they're (understandably) very entrenched with their current systems/infrastructure. Time for a new 'a la carte' only provider to show up and serve people (like me) who only want a couple networks. I'm probably the only home owner I know that doesn't have cable TV because we just don't watch enough TV to justify an extra $50/mo. to get the couple channels we want (Sundance is all I really am interested in).

EP

Re:From a Cable Operator's View...

[Dausha]

I would be willing to pay more if I could pick which channels made the money. I don't like knowing that a bit of my money goes to support a channel whose values I despise.

Also, ala carte does not necessarily mean that there be _no_ bundling. It gives users a choice to be bundled or not. You cable companies can continue to offer a "basic tier" at the lower price and let people decide if they want to pay the same amount for four channels instead of 40. It also ensures a certain number of subscribers still bundle. However, outrageous prices for ala carte would have to be prohibited to prevent cable companies from forcing bundling down subscribers throats.

Hell, the only reason I have cable TV is because I have cable broadband and have to pay the same amount regardless of whether I have the TV coverage or not. So, I chose the 'value' choice of getting something instead of nothing. Assume basic cable costs $20/month. Assume it costs $20/month for broadband. I don't like having to pay $40/month without TV, but I would be willing to pay $30/month without TV. The pricing now feels like coercion. Why not DSL? Because I don't have a landline, and my 'hood has switched to SiO, where telephony is shoved down my throat.

As you're explaining all this anyway, would you mind explaining _why_ its the same with/without TV for broadband?

Re:From a Cable Operator's View...

[jratcliffe]

"The cost per subscriber per month is about $14 [ESPN and ESPN HD]."

This must be a typo. I don't know how small your company is, but even reasonably small guys are only paying about $2-2.25/month/sub for ESPN.

Re:From a Cable Operator's View...

[teebob21]

I cannot speak of other cable companies, but we charge per service. 5 MB Internet is $39.95/mo whether you have video service or not.

Re:From a Cable Operator's View...

[AK Marc]

Additionally, it is a simple fact that forced a la carte offerings would lead to higher customer cost, and reduced quality.

Yes, because cable companies and content providers would jack up the prices and yell, "See, we told you it would fail." They won't do it without being forced. If they are forced, they will use it as an opportunity to charge more for less. I too work for a cable company. We would be happy to roll out a la carte pricing, except that no content provider will let us do it. The pressure from the government should be there. This is a good thing. But it should be on the content providers, not the cable companies.

SlashDot is all about the Black Family Television

[SlappyBastard]

Every year we have to watch as SlashDot continues to be ignored for being "too black".

Alternate viewpoint

[steppin_razor_LA]

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117970671.html?c ategoryId=18&cs=1

For Reference

[MBCook]

I would support Ala Carte cable. It'd love it. That said, I figured I should provide a little perspective.

I was reading the previous issue of Forbes a day or to ago (not the current one the one before that) and they had a story about the guy behind High School Musical and how Disney has made their channel much more popular than it used to be (at the expense of quality and watchability, in my opinion).

The article mentioned that Disney is the 4th or 5th most expensive cable channel, and costs 89 cents per subscriber for a cable company to buy the rights to show. I'm not positive that's right, but it was in the 80s.

This would be fantastic. Look at the quality of programming that HBO and Showtime must produce to keep getting viewers. Now try to watch Spike TV for a few minutes. That's what competition does.

Re:For Reference

[MBCook]

Sorry to reply to myself, but that's 89 centers per subscriber per month. Forgot that last part.

Re:For Reference

[MikeyTheK]

Don't forget that there are essentially no ads on Disney Channel.

Telecommunications Act of 1996

[Sir_Eptishous]

I remember when they passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and there was all this talk from Congress and the media about this sort of thing. The legislation was supposed to "free us" and let us choose from a wide array of competitive content providers, which would lower prices and generate higher quality content, etc;... What happened? Pricing goes up, while the competition goes down.

How many cable providers are there really? It's the same with Direct TV, et al.

You want NFL

[sconeu]

I *need* FSN West... At least between April and October. That's where 90% of the Angels games are on.

Go Halos!

Re:You want NFL

[shalla]

Well, the NFL Network would just be for the Thursday night games that they won't show anywhere else, and I figure I'll shake down my brother and my ex-husband for part of the cost. I mean, really only one of us would have to get it to see the games, and we tend to watch them together when they're worth watching.

ESPN (and possibly ESPN2) I'd get for the other sports too, but football is the most consuming. Baseball and hockey are also great. I've learned to appreciate tennis, Aussie Rules football, soccer, NASCAR, curling, bull riding, and cricket. Just this year I made it through my first golf (cheering for the course). I find that TiVoing the less exciting sports to fast forward through some of the blathering helps. (This also works with Olympic coverage and all the human interest stories.) All I can say is that watching sports and cross-stitching (or crocheting really badly) is a very nice way to relax unless it's your team playing.

So, um, yeah. I'd prefer a la carte to dump all the crappy music channels and Home and Garden channels and home shopping channels. I just wants my sports, my sci fi, my comedy, and my weather. Okay, nevermind. This post was completely off topic. I couldn't save it.

Re:You want NFL

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's how I got the NFL network...

Bought a used Dish and receiver. Activated it on neighbors account as a second reciever. I now have a dish as well.

Who is losing money on this and who am I stealing from? Not the dish company. I have Comcast phone, internet, and cable. Since DSL is not in my area, I am NOT getting rid of Comcast. If I would not have got the NFL network this way, I would not have it all. It is NOT a lost sale. I still see the commercials just as everyone else does. I guess Comcast is losing a potential sale because I do not have thier digtial cable but I'm not paying another $30 a month on top what the $120 or so I pay them now so they are not losing a sale either. I would consider DirecTV NFL ticket for myself IF and only if I could just get that package. In order for me to get it as it sits now, I'd have to go under contract, buy the equipment and pay for the regular lowest package they have for the entire year + the cost of the NFL Ticket package. It comes out to just about $750 a year when everything is said and done.

When I want to watch my distant favorite team play on Sunday, I connect my PC to my in-laws house via Orb and stream their the local channel to my house and/or listen to it on my Sirius radio.

Surely this can be subverted

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's say you like SciFi channel, and so you decide to subscribe to that channel, and only that channel. The countermove is to distribute SciFi's programming across 20 channels. So now Star Trek is on the Gay/Lesbian channel, Babylon 5 is on the White Christians With Short Hair channel, Battlestar Galactica is on the Fake Wrestling channel (as opposed to the other wrestling channel), etc. When you talk about cable, "channels" are an old-tech convenience for categorizing things before we had Tivos. If you make it unprofitable for the cable company to let you categorize things, then they'll stop doing it.

What you really want is ala cart programming, not channels.

Re:Surely this can be subverted

[Maltheus]

The counter to your counter move is of course bittorrent. People will skirt the law en masse if they feel like they're getting fucked.

I'd buy it

[Anonymous Coward]

I currently get internet access Time Warner Cable with no cable TV service. It is strictly the price that is keeping me from subscribing. If I could get the local channels, Comedy Central, one of the news channels, and the maybe Weather Channel for under $10 a month I'd seriously think about adding that onto my service. But with the current pricing structure, no way.

This would be great for customers, but I do not see this happening anytime soon.

Just go online!

[posterlogo]

I wish more channels would offer their best ala carte programming online. Let them have their commercials there. Make a good experience for the viewer and they will go for it. Cut out the middle man altogether (unless of course, your cable company owns the internet access too... ;)

The FCC can "fix" this, though

[r_jensen11]

That's the wonders of having a federal agency. If they're not corrupt, they can actually do things for the benefit of the people.

On a related note, there's an old story on PBS about a Canadian who became his own cable company. FTFA:

With the exception of local channels, which come from an antenna, all of Andrew's video content comes from a C-band (big dish) satellite receiver (receivers, actually), and is fully paid for. "I buy the channels just like a cable system does or a motel that wants to offer HBO, from the National Programming Service," says Andrew. "And as a result I pay wholesale prices. People don't realize how much of a markup there in is the cable business. The Discovery Networks, for example, cost me $0.26 per customer per month. The IP laws in both the U.S. and Canada say that if I have legal access to this content I can store and use it. And the over-the-air channels, of course, are free."

Imagine of the FCC allowed people to be their own cable companies. At $.26 per channel per household, that's a hell of a steal. And that's also how you can see how much cable companies and DirectTV mark up their prices (don't forget, they also get advertising revenues.)

First Step

[Relic of the Future]

First, a la carte channel pricing.

Next step, a la carte showpricing.

Eventually, what's available today on iTunes (or illegally on YouTube or via bittorrent) will be the only way business is done. It's only a question of how long it'll take, and how much it'll cost.

Creative Economy

[wytcld]

In Richard Florida's work we learn that investment in sports is worthless in terms of economic development. By contrast, investment in arts is worth quite a bit downstream. Now, Florida's focus is on comparing cities. But the lessons may extend to cable/satellite too. So if our cable/satellite is effectively investing $14/month/subscriber in ESPN (figure given by others in this discussion), that's equivalent to a city putting most of its civic budget into the new arena for the sports teams rather than into, say, a new playhouse and museum. This means that over time the virtual metropolis comprised of the subscribers to cable/satellite are economically less well off than if the investment had been weighted less to sports, more to the arts. And that means that an alternative without so much investment in sports in the mix would over time have wealthier subscribers, to whom it - and the advertisers using it - could potentially sell much more.

V-chip is for viewer control

[tepples]

there are some people who actively refuse to get a package because certain channels are on them. Why? Newer U.S. television sets and set-top boxes include a V-chip allowing the owner of the TV to control what is Viewed on the TV.

Re:V-chip is for viewer control

[MikeyTheK]

It's got nothing to do with what you can view, and everything to do with the principle of supporting those enterprises that do not share your values. Paying extra for a movie tier that includes Disney but also other channels that aren't acceptable is a price that is too high to pay for people making such a principled stand. For the longest time waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back in the day, my parents couldn't get the Disney channel without also getting HBO, Showtime and Cinemax, so, they didn't, even though because of the way the network was configured at the time there was an A/B switch that they could take out of the line which would eliminate access to the channels they found offensive. Then Disney channel became available just as a straight premium channel and they bought in, even though at that time the programming sucked.

Fast forward a long time, and for what we actually WATCH, I could probably get away with 20 channels to satisfy every single member of my family, and that includes all the local over-the-air channels. Incidentally, that does NOT include ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNHD/ESPNNews/ESPNU. The ability to terminate Spongebob and the rest of the brain-dead programming on Nick? Hell yes sign us up.

The idea that this sort of plan is going to cost more is unreasonable. There will still be bundling, because consumers will demand it, and the cost of the bundle will be less than the cost of each of those channels together. However, the idea of having the freedom to choose what channels you receive in your home is appealing, even if that freedom comes with less-aggressive pricing.

For the record, even though the Director of the FCC used the example of minority-driven networks, I'm not sure that minority-driven networks will be the benefactors here, or that a la carte is going to be the thing that radically changes the way cable works. The ability to send targeted ads downstream to a particular set may have a bigger impact. If your digital box upstairs tells the operator that there is a lot of Disney and Nick being viewed, then there will be a lot of toy ads coming their way (yes, I understand that there are almost no ads on Disney, and I like it that way, but when that set is viewing other channels...).

Careful what you wish for...

[LanMan04]

Why do I need to pay for others to have 50 sport channels? The SciFi (et al) channel works just fine for me, I don't want to have ESPN; which by talking to the cable companies is one of the most expenive "free" channels out there. As much as I wish it weren't true, there are waaaay more cable customers who want ESPN than want SciFi.

I always think ala carte is a great idea until I think about which channels will fail because of losing subsidization. I want more SciFi/History/Documentaries, not more reality TV and crap for "the masses" (or as my wife affectionately calls them, "yellow mustard" folk). Yes, I am an elitist bastard.

Re:Careful what you wish for...

[Anonymous Coward]

As much as I wish it weren't true, there are waaaay more cable customers who want ESPN than want SciFi.

Then let those who want it PAY for it, and let those who don't want ESPN get out from under paying for it anyway.

If people want SciFi or the other NBC cable channels, let them pay for those channels.

It's a simple concept. Pay for what you actually want. You don't have to buy the entire lineup of Campbell's Soup when all you want is Chicken Noodle. You don't have to buy every Coke or Pepsi product when all you want is Coke Zero or Pepsi One.

When ala carte hits my house, there's going to be a full-scale war against useless channels like ESPN, Nick, Disney, MTV (we used to play music -honest!), the NBC channels, and many more. That's probably 30 channels right there. They can honestly all go someplace very hot for all I care.

Re:Careful what you wish for...

[BenFranske]

I think that the parent's point is that more people want ESPN so it will cost less per subscriber than say SciFi/History/Discovery/CSPAN/etc. Hypothetically a large number of people who subscribe to cable just to get the sports channels (yes they do exist and if you don't think it's a lot of cable subscribers you're probably mistaken) are also allowing them to carry less popular channels such as the ones you or I might watch. The smaller audience size for the channels I want might mean I end up paying more per month than I do now. Got it?

Re:Careful what you wish for...

[toejam13]

The only flaw I see with this logic is that sporting organizations tend to price based on viewer ship patterns. If an event is not successful, it becomes cheaper for ESPN to purchase the rights.

So the whole less/more per subscriber is only valid in some situations. Sports broadcasting is not one of them.

Re:Careful what you wish for...

[LanMan04]

The smaller audience size for the channels I want might mean I end up paying more per month than I do now. Got it? That's exactly what I meant, except I'm being more pessimistic. I was saying that there may not even be enough people who would order a channel under the ala carte system to keep it afloat. I wouldn't mind paying more for SciFi (or another much-less-popular-than-ESPN channel), I just hope it still exists after ala carte goes mainstream.

What I want to know is...

[bjdevil66]

What did this imposter do with the REAL FCC chairman? I can't believe a representative from today's FCC would support something so pro-consumer and anti-corporation. In all seriousness - an ala carte "plan of plans", where you can choose your own set of channels, or a conventional package like today, or a combination of both, is LONG overdue...

I'd also use this to censor the programming

[bjdevil66]

As a parent, I know almost every channel has crap on it if you watch enough, and good parenting and education are the best "censorship" tools out there. However, this could be a useful tool for blocking certain channels that I don't want my kids to watch. MTV - gone. Shopping networks - gone. (dirty bastards...)

Never happen

[darknite1979]

Unfortunately it will never happen. Its not the cable companies its the networks. Most networks own several different stations and they are bundled together. It's either that or they wont allow the cable companies to carry the channels. The cable companies don't want this because they are afraid of more people going over to satellite so they get the entire package even stations that no one ever watches. The cable company just carries the channels the networks are the ones who really control which ones you get.

My TV viewing is already 100% a la carte!

[ylikone]

About 2 years ago I cancelled my cable. I buy seasons of TV shows on DVD or I just download them via bittorrent. To me, cable is dead.

ive been waiting

[sakura the mc]

finally, ill be able to have all the discovery/learning type channels, and nothing else!

Lingue Franca

[Almahtar]

Yes, I left out the accent aigeu. No, I don't care how that's really spelled. Like it or not (I don't like it, but accept it), English is the Lingue Franca now... and it does not include an accent aigeu. Whine. Also, "a la" roughly translated means nothing close to "with". The best translation is "at the".

You'll have to get used to the lingue franca... English. It includes such "features" as missing the space and accent marks in "ala". Sorry. It's incorrect, I acknowledge, but it is the lingue franca and it's best just accepted.

Don't get me wrong - French is a beautiful language. If I saw its punctuation and grammar disregarded (unintentionally) in poetry or literature I would be pissed. But this is just simple discussion that happens to use a cliche (oops, forgot my accent aigeu again...) from French and does so inaccurately. It's nothing to get worked up about.

Re:Lingue Franca

[Chris Shannon]

cliche (oops, forgot my accent aigeu again...) Cliché has an acute accent. And I agree that it should be spelt à la, which makes sense to people who know french, as oppose to ala which makes no sense to anyone. At the very least, it should be spelt "a la".

Re:Lingue Franca

[Millenniumman]

Don't get me wrong - French is a beautiful language. That is a matter of opinion...

Re:Lingue Franca

[Almahtar]

http://home.hiroshima-u.ac.jp/tkura/linux/fra.pdf

Turns out we were both wrong. It's not "acute" nor is it "aigeu" - it's "aigue". And "ala" actually makes sense to a lot of people. That's why a lot of people spell it "ala". To the people that know better ("a la" or even better with the accent grave) it's a bastardization but even THEY know what the writer meant. We should relax about stuff like that.

ignorant slobs - it's not "ala carte"

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not ala carte or ala cart

It is à la carte

Obligatory link to Wikipedia to inform you ignorant slobs of this transgression is included. You can thank me later. Hrmph.

MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

My apologies. I meant to mod you Insightful.

Please mod parent up.

Re:The problem with a-la-carte...[Meta-Comment]

[Foolicious]

Why in the name of everything good and true are the parent and the two other previous posts like it (addressing the issue of competition) modded troll? WHY?! SOMEONE PLEASE TELL ME WHY? Seriously. Why? Please. Please. PLEASE.

a la carte

[Deadplant]

Three words. "a la carte" It is French.

British are a TV minority too....

[Brit_in_the_USA]

..Being British and living in the USA is being a TV niche or minority watcher.

I have often been torn with having to buy a cable package of 300+ digital channels just to get BBC America to see the BBC world news feed once a day (no I don't care about a local TV station covering a local cat stuck up a local tree).
 
  I am also annoyed that I need to get expanded analogue to get the only other 2 channel that I want from cable : SciFi and Comedy Central.
 
  There are many fine series I like to watch on some of the major networks (e.g. FOX) and it pleases me I can get them in HD for free off-air with a $100 set-top box or $50 HD tuner card for my PC.

So I just took the plunge - Major networks for Free over-air in HD, listen to BBC world service while reading Slashdot in the morning (the video feed is too low bit rate to stomach) and waiting on the series DVD's of south park and battlestar to make it to netflix.....

  So far I feel good about saving $100 a month - that is until someone tells me a plot spoiler...

Re:British are a TV minority too....

[Maltheus]

So far I feel good about saving $100 a month - that is until someone tells me a plot spoiler...

The butler did it. Whoops!

fools

[Anonymous Coward]

The cost of a product has nothing to do with the cost of production. A product's priced is primarily based on what the market will bear. And even more so in a monopoly. Your cable bills will not change because you are willing to pay X each month for cable and the cable company knows that. They don't really care if they sell you one or one hundred channels since you don't watch 1/100th of what you currently receive, they just want as large a revenue stream as they can get and based on your socio economic status they will pick a number that you will object to but pay all the same. The current premium channel don't really cost more than the basic ones, they are just a way for the cable company to appear to give you added value. So at the end of they day you will pay about as much and they cable company will be only too glad to sell you less. BTW, the current practice of bundling was done due to limited technology and simplified billing.

Comcast vs Canadian TV

[MrDERP]

Recently i was in Toronto. I live in Savannah Georgia and have comcast. I have about 500 channels, maybe 3-4 are good. In Canada, there were only about 30 channels, BUT almost all of them were actaually GOOD. Even the Comedy Network (not comedy central) plays funny stuff like Daily Show, Colbert, South Park etc. Then when those STUPID comedy central movies comes on, it cuts too Family Guy , The Simpsons etc would come one. We don't need MORE channels just BETTER ones!! There are too many it takes forever to find anything good on! Jeff

Cable TV is a CO-OP system

[macdaddy]

The current cable TV system is more of a cooperative system than the subscribers realize. You may want ESPN while someone else wants Spike, MTV, Disney or the Hallmark channel. The other subscribers are helping to pay for your ESPN channel. You're helping to pay for their Disney channel. Without this cooperative system you'd only be able to afford 10 channels. Joe down the street could only after 5. Some big shot in a fancy house can afford 30. No one can afford the 100 or so channels they have now.

ESPN charges us I believe it's $3.25 a subscriber. The movie channels are even worse. I know this because one of the business that my company is in is cable TV and this is a frequent topic of conversation with our RF guy. We need some form of legislation to cap the price of over-priced channels before ala carte will ever work. One might argue that the free market will drive the price of broadcast content down. I argue that it hasn't managed to do so yet. The content producers have gotten a leg up on the broadcasters as well as the subscribers. We can't charge the subscriber more because they'll pitch a fit. We can't get a cheaper price from the content producers. We basically break even on our cable TV offering. We don't yet have PPV on on-demand. There's more margin in that. We make most of our $$ in Internet and long distance (we're also an ISP and telco).

Be careful what you as for. Ala carte isn't all it's cracked up to be. A critical component is missing.

so....

[JustNiz]

>> citing the example of Black Family Television, which was forced to go online-only because cable operators refused to carry it,

This reads like an accusation of racism in the article, but maybe cable companies are trying to eliminate racism or at least not reinforce it by not having programming only for certain racial group stereotypes.

I guess spanish-language TV is different because it is (primarily) breaking a language barrier, not a stereotype barrier.

Failing that, so where is my White Family Channel? (Before anyone says it... I don't go along with the notion that every channel except BFT is for whites)

Next up...

[GWBasic]

Up next: A-la-carte cable won't work with CableCard! Let's just skirt the issue and push for 'Net Neutrality and commodity internet.