Verizon Working On a La Carte Internet TV Service

An anonymous reader writes: One of the reasons people have been fleeing cable TV in droves is the idea that they're paying for hundreds of channels but only using a handful. Even though that's not really true, Verizon is now working on an internet TV service that lets people pick and pay for only the channels they want. Verizon CEO Lowell McAdam said, "I think everyone understands it will go to a la carte. The question is what is that transition look like ... I don't think there is anyone that would stand up here and say the only way it's going to be offered five years from now is linear and it's going to be tied to your TV set because frankly they will miss the market and they will be the ones left behind."

Comments

It is not just the "extra" channels...

[houstonbofh]

It is also about watching whatever you want, whenever you want. Not just Thursdays at 9:00... People no longer want to schedule their lives around the broadcast schedule.

Re:It is not just the "extra" channels...

[whoever57]

But I would most people to continue paying for cable tv. Someone has to foot the bill, making tv shows and content is expensive.

How about the people who watch those shows? Why should I pay for the most expensive group of non-premium channels (ESPN) when I never, ever watch any ESPN channels? Today, my choice is limited to paying for ESPN or not getting the channels I really want (BBC*)

Re:It is not just the "extra" channels...

[iluvcapra]

I think the undesirable qualities of cable TV would find their way into Netflix and similar services.

Your Netflix bill is already paying for Orange is the New Black and House of Cards -- these are very good shows, so that's a saving grace, but it's not like you can tell Netflix to take $2 off your bill in order to skip their original programming. And presumably as Netflix expands its original content offerings, your bill is going to be subsidizing a lot of content you couldn't care less about. Shops like Amazon and Crackle already crank out unruly gobs of uneven content, they only get away with it because Amazon Prime offers many other valuable services, and Crackle doesn't charge subscriptions.

Further, it's still not realistic for a producer, even a David Fincher, to just set up his own website somewhere and get people to give him $10 a month to make a TV show. He needs to piggyback off of a platform like Netflix, which already has a lot of brand recognition and traffic.

The problem with "a la carte cable channels" is the presumption that people want channels. They want shows that are suited to their tastes. The center of value is the program, that's what brings in the people, but due to underlying economics, the center of costs remains the channel, this Netflix must offer its subscription on a channel-wise, take-it-all or leave-it-all basis.

Re:It is not just the "extra" channels...

[Provocateur]

Someone has to foot the bill, making tv shows and content is expensive.
 
Otherwise what? They're going to start shoving ads down our throats?

Oh, wait...

Re:It is not just the "extra" channels...

[Darinbob]

The referenced article about cord-cutting being a fantasy is just outright wrong. First, it's not talking about cord-cutting but instead about ala-carte payments, very different things. I can guarantee my $7 a month is economically better than $70 a month I used to pay.

Next, the assumptions are that if you stop paying things like the ESPN fees that someone else is going to pay more. Well guess what, those who won't pay the ESPN fee will be saving money! It is not the television viewer's goal to try to optimize the average amount spent across all viewers, but instead to try to get an economical value for themselves alone without regard to other people. It is also not the television viewer's goal to try to create a sustainable market for cable providers, and they have no incentive at all to try to maintain current revenue for ESPN or AMC yet the article seems to imply that this is important. If ESPN went out of business because I failed to subsidize them I still would not shed any tears.

The assumption that current television pricing is a good deal for everyone makes the ridiculous assumption that everyone wants to watch TV or considers it affordable. Yes, a $80,000 Lamborghini is a great deal but that doesn't mean everyone will want to pay that since many will still want the $15,000 Honda instead. The thing is a lot of people are finding cheaper ways to get the amount of TV they like, and some people are even deciding not to watch any TV at all. So it is indeed working to cut the cord.

The author sounds like the audience was supposed to be television execs rather than actual consumers. The whole argument sounds like a whine to keep paying huge amounts of money so that we can subsidize other people like him.

Re:It is not just the "extra" channels...

[Darinbob]

I'll let someone else foot the bill thank you very much. Nothing is forcing me to watch this stuff or forcing me to pay for it.

And I hope it doesn't surprise anyone to learn this, but no one actually has to foot the bill at all. The world will not come to an end if these television companies go bankrupt or if advertising companies go bankrupt.

I can't see this happening

[hguorbray]

a lot of niche content will no longer get funded, so choice might actually be lessened

but more importantly the cable operators will no longer get their $120+ a month from nearly every household in the US

the kids have already moved on to streams though -so the corps are making the money back through non flat rate wifi billings, data overage fees, etc

-I'm just sayin'

Re:I can't see this happening

[mcrbids]

Note that the reverse trend is happening. Thanks to the very low cost of production and distribution, there are many, many, many alternate "shows" out there that you can watch.

Have you missed youtube entirely? What rock have you been hiding under? Also, the place with the most interesting display of documentaries and "non-primary" content is NetFlix. There is a *ridiculous* amount of youtube channels with interesting content.

For example, as a violinist, I like Taylor Davis' work immensely - she mixes violin and many of the themes to movies and games I've loved....

Remember when MTV was a close as you could get to stuff like this?

Re: I can't see this happening

[jd2112]

I may br showing my age but I remember when MTV showed music videos.

Re:I can't see this happening

[iluvcapra]

Note that the reverse trend is happening. Thanks to the very low cost of production and distribution, there are many, many, many alternate "shows" out there that you can watch.

As a happy contributor to Red Letter Media on Patreon, I've found that the quality of this kind of indie, samizdat prodcutions to be pretty uneven, it'd be hard to get any kind of mass penetration with it. From a producer's perspective, that's the big peril of going YouTube -- you'll definitely get your stuff out there, and you may even be able to make a living, but there's never going to be a "hit." Even if you do hit, there's really no good way for you to monetize your programming long-term, all of the rents in the system that used to flow to creators through copyright now flow to advertisers and search aggregators.

You'll only make a killing if you turn yourself into a sort of brand celebrity, a Lady Gaga or a Justin Beiber, who, musical talent aside, are salient primarily due to their ability to brand media and consumer experiences. They're a substrate for ads -- they're the kind of artists the world gets when no one pays for art.

Nothing to see here

[Lawrence_Bird]

Its for mobile only. Wake us all up when plain old tv is available by IP (FiOS) a la carte.

Missing the point

[mcrbids]

I see the exact opposite trend. Netflix is growing by gangbusters, but is the epitome of having many shows that "you aren't paying for". It's not a la carte... at all! You pay a flat rate of $8/month and stream whatever you like.

If you combine horrible customer service, high prices, and synchronized broadcasting, and you have unhappy customers switching to clearly better alternatives. "Paying for channels you don't use" is a symptom. The real problem is that they are horrible companies offering a previous generation, substandard service at ridiculous prices that have risen much faster than inflation.

Re:Missing the point

[Anubis IV]

The first six seasons of Big Bang Theory are on blu-ray as a set for $86 on Amazon right now. You could probably pick up the entire series for less than you pay in a month, and you'd have it forever. You could repeat the same process again with your kids' shows, and you'd likely get even more bang for your buck. SyFy makes most or all of their series available via their website and Hulu for free (though you have to wait a month after air date, but that only feels weird for the first month, after which it feels like normal).

Just cut the cable for one month. One month. Divert that cash into buying the shows you can't find elsewhere for free and still want to see (you'll be shocked at how much stuff you actually don't miss once it's gone). Go get season passes from iTunes or Amazon or wherever if there's something you absolutely have to see as it's coming out that isn't on Hulu or whatnot. Repeat the process for as long as you need. My bet is that within three months you won't be spending anywhere close to the full $130/month.

Unbundling Horsecrap

[Giant Electronic Bra]

That link about 'myths' of unbundling is horseshit. It fails the basic math test. If everyone was unbundled and only paid for what they watch then we'd have the same number of people watching the same things they watch now. The AGGREGATE money collected in fees would remain the same and it would be distributed proportionately to the same vendors it is now. Nothing would change. The author of that piece of garbage somehow thinks what, that everyone would suddenly be paying $500 a month to watch individual channels???!!! Where would all that extra money go? Man people are stupid sometimes.

Obviously the Cable Cos. know all of this. They don't want to unbundle because it would cut customer's bills, they don't like it because once you stop having ESPN on your dial you'll forget it exists and pretty soon you'll only be paying for what you actually watch, and if that's cheap shows THEN they really will get a lot less revenue. Beyond that the ad revenue drops because people will just skip ESPN if they only watch it 5 times a year. Indeed, once the customer's start picking what they want to pay for the Cable Co becomes just what it should be, an ISP.

Not really true?

[TopSpin]

The link that supposedly refutes the argument that people are paying for things they wouldn't otherwise pay for doesn't actually refute anything. Rather, it characterizes the current situation as "socialism"; "Cable TV is socialism that works."

I do not want to contribute to ESPN. Nor the myrid "shopping" channels. Or the "Christian" networks. Or any of the other dreck that pollutes this world. Even if that means the things I do want aren't as well subsidized for the lack of fuhtbawl knuckle-heads.

Whatever.... I can't remember how long ago it was that I last paid a cable bill. My vote has been cast. Join me and cut these bloodsuckers off. You won't miss it.

That's Cute.

[Seumas]

Now that people aren't watching live television, probably aren't even watching *television*, and don't use television as the delivery method for their entertainment and are dropping cable, they want to roll out a la carte?

Thanks, but it's not 1999-2003, anymore. You need to deliver the content I want, when I want it, on whatever device I want it, through whatever delivery method I want it, for a very reasonable price. Cable subscriptions, live television, and television-bound viewing is something I ditched a decade ago and you're not getting me back.

I'd say you should look into these other demands from consumers, but frankly we all know that by the time you get around to delivering what we want today, *that* will be something we no longer care about, either.

TV used to be a social medium

[rsborg]

I posit that the rise of Youtube, Facebook, Twitter and the like allowed people to share and discuss about things they actually care about, rather than TV shows or even movies. Hell, I spend more time on /. than watching TV - and I'm increasingly feeling like most of my family is the same (not on /., but you get the picture).

For those who still watch TV, TiVo and Netflix have set the standards too high for many to really give a crap about last century's TV model anymore.

Canada Begins Hearings on Forcing A La Carte TV Op

[Joe_Dragon]

http://www.dslreports.com/show...

we need this in the USA

What cable ?

[speedlaw]

Cut cable. Streaming content. OTA with DVR. Don't miss cable. Oh, and the $6 per month "sports fee" is what finally made me dump cable. The sheer arrogance that I'll buy a service (don't watch sports) because I have no choice....ESPN LOST them a viewer due to this fee, and $1000 less per year to the cable co. buh bye !!

Re:No thanks.

[Hamsterdan]

How many of those JesusTV or Ethnic channels? I've looked into hooking up my FTA receiver, but decided to go OTA instead.