Do you support a la carte cable TV?

[bluestateguy]

This means the ability to pay only for those cable channels that you want to buy, like maybe 30 cents a station, for example.

The conservative media critics like this idea because under their logic it would mean that all the sexually graphic stations or eclectic stations would lose subscribers and go out of business. I actually don't think that is very likely. Look at the subscriber only Playboy TV channel: business is booming. As a liberal, I urge my fellow liberals to consider this idea. Think of the options WE would have with a la carte: you could blot out Fox News, the Military channel, fundy "Christian" stations and the shopping channels. Of course, you can blot them out now with your clicker, but you still have to pay for them. I would dispose of the stations I didn't like, and then with those savings I would buy up channels like the Sundance channel, and some of the Encore channels.

[wakeme2008]

1. No

the Cable companies would mark up ESPN and others so in the end you IMHO would pay MORE.

[Eric J in MN]

3. It's not necessarily either/or.

I expect that people who want to buy packages of channels could still do so if there were an a la carte option.

[Eric J in MN]

2. I want companies to voluntariy offer it, and I predict that

some will within the next two years if Congress does nothing.

I don't Congress to mandate it at this time. When the free market can solve a problem, let it.

[OhioBlue]

5. I don't know how much the free market has to do with it

right now - in my area, you cannot choose a cable company, there is only one option. you could go with satellite, but it is about the same price.

[Eric J in MN]

16. I'm hoping a satellite company will offer it soon.

You're right that if only one cable company offers it, it may not be available in my area.

Also, if the internet is much faster in a few years, that could be another delivery system.

[Trillo]

23. Analog C-Band satellite offered ala carte for a number of years.

The move to digital changed that. According to the programming sales people I've talked to, the digital programming provider is requiring programming retailers to agree in their contract to sell digital programming only in retail packages, effectively eliminating a la carte for the digital big dish market.

[WCGreen]

24. You are right...

there is no free market...

The Ala carte method is the closest we will come to a free market...

[punpirate]

26. That strikes me as highly unlikely...

... since the cable and satellite owners have been lobbying the FCC and Congress quite heavily to prevent regulations requiring ala carte programming. The reason is simple--packaged programming is a revenue generator, since the owners bill according to number of subscribers. Since so many satellite and cable systems are also generating their own programming through subsidiaries and parent companies, that means the parent companies have a reliable revenue stream for often substandard programming.

Moreover, in many locales, cable is not a free-market system--the largest percentage of counties and towns do not have more than one cable operator (and there are any number of ways of preventing competition--exclusive franchise agreements, etc.).

Look at it this way--the satellite or cable system is just the means of getting you to the supermarket. Once there--because it's a regulated industry with heavy lobbying capability--if you only want a bunch of broccoli and some tomato soup, you can't buy those without also buying a lot of empty calories like twelve boxes of Froot Loops, six cans of Cheez Whiz and four packages of Twinkies. Your grocery budget is a lot higher than it should be, and you're stuck with a lot of things you don't want, and won't eat.

If supermarkets operated like that, they'd have many fewer customers, and someone would come along with an ala carte system of shopping. The one difference between cable systems and supermarkets is that very free market you describe--in the case of cable and satellite systems, they depend upon limited monopoly in combination with regulations applying to the airwaves to create a system which would not survive in a free market. That's why the suggestion that there's a free market out there waiting to fix the problem is erroneous.

Cable and satellite operators continue to seek ways to minimize competition rather than invite it, and to maximize profit. Ask yourself this: if the free market is actually at work in the cable and satellite industry, why isn't full ala carte programming already available--just as it is in supermarkets, and why would it be necessary for either Congress or the FCC to step in with regulations requiring same for the benefit of the consumer?

I think the answer to that question is that most large industries, as a bloc, are looking for (especially the current) government to protect their limited monopolies, rather than to invite competition, despite the rhetoric and spin.

Cheers.

[Eric J in MN]

27. Let's say nothing changes with satellite and cable.

There is still a growing amout of material available online, some offered by the channels themselves, like at the Comedy Central website.

[punpirate]

30. And is still not exactly at the speed and clarity of...

... systems employing the airwaves.

Let's look at that suggestion for the moment, that internet content could become a viable alternative to cable/satellite content. Some people think it will, and they are doing something about it--they're trying to control the system of delivery to force that content through their gates, for which they can then charge for access (there's a request before the FCC and potential legislation to do just that right now).

Who's behind that move? The same companies with stakes in the cable/satellite/entertainment system.

As for on-line content, that means that the content would be available only to those with access to the internet, only to those who have genuine broadband, and only to those with the ability and money to continually upgrade software and hardware as required (for example, I can't watch Comedy Central because they upgraded to a video format which does not work with my operating system; even before that change, it was time-consuming and offered only low-quality video because I'm in an area which does not have, and probably will never have, DSL).

Perhaps the internet will offer an ala carte system that cable and satellite do not. That might become an eventuality someday, but likely at considerably higher cost. Your original point was that the free market works in the industry, and I think there's enough evidence available that it does not, precisely because the industry itself doesn't want it to work. The forces seeking that protection from a truly open market system are the same ones now trying to impose similar limited monopolies on the internet.

Cheers.

[OhioBlue]

4. I like it for people on fixed incomes

our local cable costs abt. $50 a month. Especially for seniors that don't really want mtv, vh1, etc. and just want the basics it would be good.

[bluestateguy]

6. That is also a very good point

When my income was more limited, I would have jumped at a chance to just get the cable news channels, ESPN and a few of the movie channels.

[ChazII]

21. ala carte and your view

are only common sense. I like the idea of letting the free market take care of this issue instead of Congress. See post #2.

[Nutmegger]

35. Welcome to DU!!!

:toast::hi:

[proud patriot]

7. I like the idea

I could pick a few extended channels like Cspan
Cartoon Network Animal planet and Nick ...Those
are the only Cable channels I watch . I mostly
watch local PBS stations .

[CitrusLib]

8. I would love to pick and choose the channels I pay for.

I'm so anti-clutter, I would love to extend my neat-freakness to my TV remote. :-)

[Wickerman]

9. I dislike the idea

It gives startup channels little or no hope. To fit the cable execs vision (or lack of) they are going to have to demonstrate a commercial viability that so often isn't evident in the boardroom.

That said, I think it would be nice to lose some of the chafe that is on the systems now - like you say the fundy stations, the shopping channels, etc, but the doubled edge of that sword is that of the "good" programming is probably subsidized by the advertising income generated by the other, more mainstream programming.

We'll eventually see less choice with this type of dealing and I'd rather they leave it alone for a bit.

[Rabrrrrrr]

10. Yes, I like the idea Very Much and have wanted it for years!

I have 70+ some channels, of which I watch perhaps 6.

[Digit]

11. Definitely

I would get rid of all the sports channels, home shopping, Faux Snooze, and religious stations.

[TygrBright]

12. I support a "basic PLUS ala carte" plan...

A low-cost "basic" package that would include broadcast channels, local access, and CSPAN, and up to 5 other "bottom tier" channels of the subscriber's choice. ("Bottom tier" being things like WGN, UPN, Gala, etc... essentially, any channel that wants to be offered 'free.')

Over and above that, ala carte for everything with a two-tier flat-rate payment, say, $1 a month for things like ESPN, HBO, etc. and 35 cents for things like the History Channel, Nickelodeon, etc.

I'd be thrilled if I could get just the two or three channels I want without having to pay for a $50 a month package. We have the "sub-sub-basic" plan for $14 a month now, and that's still plenty of channels. But I'd like to get ESPN for the DH, and AMC for me, and a couple of others.

wishfully,
Bright

[Trillo]

36. With C-Band Analog, programming providers often require that

a "package", a minimum of X number of channels be purchased in any a la carte selection. So I suppose, in a way, it is "Basic PLUS ala carte", with the exception that you get to select the channels that come in the "Basic" lineup.

Like I mentioned above, if you're purchasing digital programming (4DTV) for the big dish, the only option seems to be pre-arranged packages that often have something not desired.

Years ago, when I was on a city cable system, the Basic package had several MSM news among other channels, and the last thing I would want is Psyops ThoughtControl piped in by the mandate of tyrants.

[blogslut]

13. I don't like it

The concept shuts out the smaller stations. If it weren't for my basic Dish Network package, I would never have had Free Speech TV, much less known it existed. As for blocking out undesirable stations, I have a favorites setting on my remote. Takes care of my problems just fine.

[democrank]

14. Yes I do.

Poor reception here so without Dish Network I get only one channel...CBS. Even so, I`m seriously thinking about giving it up because I watch only a handful of the channels I have to pay for. A la carte would be a good solution.

[cynatnite]

15. Nope...

The channels I like most don't care for. I don't want a majority to have a say over me...a minority...about programming. If the smaller cable outlets I like don't have the money to operate, they shut down.

Sorry, but I'll never support that. I'll just keep stations like Faux blocked.

[pstokely]

41. You are subsidizing Faux news if subscribe to cable.

They get money from subscriber fees.

[SoCalDem]

17. Personally, I would love it, but i cannot support the idea

What would happen, is that cable companies would dump the "less popular" channels and they would end up disappearing. Link TV,FSTV and the smaller niche channels do not get a large enough audience to manage as stand-alones..

What I WOULD like is a better tier system..

The basics plus "Choose 10" or "Choose 20"..that sort of thing..

[Eric J in MN]

19. They have to carry that type of channel as a public service. (nt)

nt

[SoCalDem]

22. Adelphia doesn't have both of them

and if it's a rightwinger in charge, and they get to choose the "type", I shudder to think of it.

[RoyGBiv]

34. They have to now ...

The "a la carte" deals being run through various channels do away with "must carry" regulations.

[boston bean]

18. I don't know. I guess I'm gonna have to wait to see how they price it. nt

[Skidmore]

20. You know they'll find a way to make it at least as expensive

as it is now and then some. They will not actively set out a plan that causes them to lose money. Individual channels will get more expensive.

[alarimer]

25. This is what will happen

Same old, same old. The cable companies will love it (I am not sure they are supporting it right now though) because they could raise the price on really popular channels like ESPN. And if you ordered all over them at some price, you would pay more than you are paying now for the full package.

[napi21]

28. I would be IF it was a fair program, but it's NOT!

I have Charter Cable, and in December I got a notice that, although my package had been grandfathered for the last 5 years, that package was now gone and my rates were going to increase by $23 per month. Also listed were the NEW packages available, and their associated prices. I had to call before Janary 15th to make any changes.

They did have multiple packages, but not quite ala carte.

I had the top of the line package including broadband for 5 1/2 years. Recent price was $106.00/mo

When I called, to get broadband & extended basic was $94/mo

Each individual movie chanel was $8.95 as was PPV.

I explained that, of the 800+ chanels I receive, we only watch MAYBE 15 at the most!

End result, I managed to get my current package that includes everything they offer except HDTV, and the final price is $109/mo.

All I'm saying here is that you will NEVER see ala carte rates that are CHEAP! They may be forced to offer them, but my guess is you will pay though the nose!!!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

29. It's already available in Japan for channels above basic

It doesn't seem to do any harm there. It's about three to five dollars per extra channel.

Since I only watch about five channels other than PBS, I'd definitely save money.

[KT2000]

31. Yes - a la carte satellite

the recent increase for DISH reflected increases from the various vendors. The sports category increased 13% whereas the other categories were much much less.
I don't want sports channels and I resent like hell being billed for the greedfest they call sports in this country. Multimillion dollar sports contracts make me gag. Everyone is already being billed for their luxurious new stadiums as it is.


:evilfrown:

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

32. I support it if it would be cheaper , if not, no

Duh. I can see both sides on this. What is flying under the radar is that we dn't have cable competition period. In my area we have one choice for cable and that's it. So the real discussionis not a la cart, it's cable competition over all. WHy do I have ONLY ONE cable company in my area????

[RoyGBiv]

33. No ...

It would not be "30 cents a station." This is not an opinion. It is a fact. Very few people would be happy with the resulting price structure.

I've given my thoughts on this multiple times and so won't belabor the point again unless requested, but I do want to add one thing.

Most of the "fundie stations" are there on cable because the FCC regulations and/or local franchise agreements require them to be there. They are on "must carry" stations. The same is true for many, if not most, shopping channels. You cannot subscribe to a cable package without them, so sayeth the FCC. But before you blast it -- as I am prone to do on occasion when my cable box resets and I have to go back and block all these stations again -- remember that this is the same regulation that requires cable companies to offer local programming and to charge no more than a certain amount. (This varies depending on the franchise agreement.)

OnEdit: I promised myself I'd remember to mention this the next time this came up. I almost forgot.

As most people reading this thread probably know by now, the FCC has recently reversed their position on a la carte pricing, saying it would not negatively affect consumers and that it is a good idea. This change was made after a series of meetings between people like James Dobson of Focus on the Family fame and FCC representatives. What was discussed during these meetings is not in the realm of public information, but if you know anything about Dobson, you can make a good guess of the basic subject. Groups like FoF have run the projection data and see a la carte pricing as a way of consolidating power to force "family oriented" programming. It's hard to boycott a channel right now, which has its good and bad aspects but overall tends to even out over time. A la carte programming makes targeting single stations very easy, and these stations will either cave or be mass boycotted. Specialized programming, particularly anything that presents homosexuality in a positive light or political subjects that run against the mainstream, would be subject to ongoing and severe challenges to their ability to remain profitable.

[BlackVelvetElvis]

37. Where would C-span be in the mix?

There should continue to be stations for public service.
What about a nationwide public access cable channel? That would be fun.

[OneBlueSky]

38. well, you can be 100% sure of one thing . . .

a la carte pricing will cost you MORE than you're paying right now for whatever services you have . . . just another opportunity for a royal screwing from corporate America . . .

[Neil Lisst]

39. It's a great idea, and long overdue.

I will never watch any show on the Food Network, ever.
Or the QVC network.

[pstokely]

40. Yes, wouldn't have to pay for Faux news.

I don't mind paying for channels I actually watch (not too much.