Lets Talk A la Carte Cable

I don't think there is any doubt that a majority of people are wising up to the value of streaming versus cable. A la carte is the future, no doubt. Cable companies will have to compete or become obsolete.

In my opinion, once major sports become available for live streaming, meaning the NFL or ESPN provides all games through an over-the-top streaming subscription, cable will start dying quickly. The only reason I haven't cut the cord yet is because of sports. Many in the target demographic, males 18-34, certainly are in the same boat.

Charging for "groups" or "genres" of content does not solve the essential problem of cable which is that customers are paying for things they don't watch.

A model that cable could switch to would be charging between $5 and $10 for a block of any 10 channels that the customer chooses. I would imagine most cable customers pay for upwards of 200 channels but probably watch less than 40 on a regular basis. Allow the customer to pick the channels they want in blocks of 10. Meaning if you want 43, you pay the price for 50.

I wish I only paid 100$ a month for cable TV.

I think I'm one of the few on this board who enjoys channel surf. There are lots of shows I watch now that I never would have found if given an a la carte choice of channels.

What most folks don't realize is this. For Cox to carry a certain channel, they pay a fee to the channel. Bundling of channels allows them to keep prices cheaper. (like an HMO) Someone wrote an article on what A La Carte service would cost for ESPN, that channel alone was upwards of $30/mo
Article

On the issue of cable vs streaming. There is no doubt the RF (Coax) design is dying. Before long IP TV will be where it's at. Companies like Cox will become strictly ISPs and will charge for internet alone. How that model is designed is yet to be seen. My guess is they will either have to move to a Pay-Per-Use model or they will have two "types" of internet one for "TV" and one for "Web Browsing"

quote:

---

What most folks don't realize is this. For Cox to carry a certain channel, they pay a fee to the channel. Bundling of channels allows them to keep prices cheaper. (like an HMO) Someone wrote an article on what A La Carte service would cost for ESPN, that channel alone was upwards of $30/mo

---

With what ESPN has been paying out to various sports entities for broadcast rights I doubt it would only cost $30.

Never mind that if cable goes a la carte it guarantees internet subs will skyrocket in price.

These companies are going to get their money either way. They aren't stupid.

I think a la carte cable is still further off than we imagine. I hope not.

I've been without cable for over a year now, and I don't miss it one bit.

quote:

---

There are so many barriers in place to making this happen its not even funny.

---

Biggest barrier are the networks, not the providers. Channels are owned by 6 companies, so why would they want A la Carte services whenever selling their channels in bundles makes them more money in advertising then if they were to have each channel ALC.

quote:

---

They'll more than likely do it using a tier based system (X$ for this group, XX$ for that group, XXX$ for sports/HBO, etc) How much money is this actually going to save?

---

More than likely, none, probably will raise what you pay in the end.

quote:

---

Online distribution is better, as you could use different providers for content. But, you're still chained to an internet provider, who could conveniently start charging "streaming fees" for online cable customers.

---

I love how say this is "convenient" for the internet providers to charge "streaming fees". You expect a company to invest millions of dollars into a network and just let people use it cost free? All of these conversations are started by people with no business sense.

I'm a business and companies are trying to take away my revenue, yet they want to increase the burden of my network. I should just sit here and watch my profits fall while the networks moving to a la carte are increasing their revenue on the back of my assets.

quote:

---

I think the cable companies are starting to understand their model is dying

---

Their model is only being sold with what they are given and how they are allowed to sell it.

quote:

---

but I predict they will fight this change tooth and nail

---

You have the wrong culprit on who is fighting it, it's the networks not the providers.

quote:

---

because it will mean the death of paying $100+/month for TV

---

Who pays over 100 bucks for just TV? Maybe TV/phone/internet combined, but not just TV unless you are getting the entire line up, which you wouldn't do with a la carte anyhow.

Just look at what HBO costs alone, about 12-15 bucks a month. You think other channels won't cost that much? Be careful what you wish for whenever this hits the public may welcome in something with open arms that is more than what they expected.

It will require the networks to start offering streaming directly.

quote:

---

ive worked in the pay TV business for 9 years now and what people dont realize is its not going anywhere for a long time.

---

That's the exact damned attitude that Blockbuster had. These companies that do not change with the times will be destined to suffer the same fate.

They need to get off of their high horse and start actually listening to the customers. The way technology is nowadays (and who the hell knows where it will lead to next?) it's almost too easy to get illegally.

quote:

---

Over who's infrastructure? ESPN and HBO gonna start providing you with internet and fiber?

---

Just wait, some poster ignorant of telephony and how it all works will be here to say wireless whenever they have no clue how it all interconnects and such.

quote:

---

That's the exact damned attitude that Blockbuster had. These companies that do not change with the times will be destined to suffer the same fate.

---

Comparing Blockbuster, a brick and mortar store that sold/rented physical products to cable/satellite companies that do little more than rent you a piece of equipment that feeds you your media content is silly.

Regardless of what you do, you will still have to go through a company to get your internet. Most of the biggest providers are owned by companies that do both cable/satellite and internet. Comcast/Time Warner/AT&T/Dish/whothefrickever are going to be the ones you either rent or buy equipment from regardless of how the system is set up.

On top of that, damn near every single TV network is owned by the same conglomerates that own the cable, satellite, and internet providers. If tv goes a la carte they will simply jack the prices of internet and those individual channels to obscene levels to make up any difference lost from the cable/satellite biz.

You are not going to be getting a better deal b/c they are guaranteed to shift the costs to you elsewhere.

quote:

---

They need to get off of their high horse and start actually listening to the customers. The way technology is nowadays (and who the hell knows where it will lead to next?) it's almost too easy to get illegally.

---

the exact same people who illegally download all their content now are not going to stop just b/c cable goes a la carte. They will come up with a new reason to justify why they don't think they should have to pay for anything.