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...

[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.

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?

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.

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.