Comments on: A-La Carte Cable More Expensive?

By: PhoneBoy

PhoneBoy — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 06:50:29 +0000

I wouldn’t expect the cable operators to charge a fair price a-la carte. I’m a bit cynical, like you are, Eric

By: Eric

Eric — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 14:37:33 +0000

The problem with all systems is that it still allows the cable provider to set the price, and in doing so they will do so to make a-la carte as expensive as possible to make the tiered service more appealing. They will require set-top boxes and probably require long term contracts as well. Anything to improve the EPS.

By: cribbagegeek

cribbagegeek — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 18:12:55 +0000

Additionally, the cable companies lose revenue with a la carte programming, because they would then have a harder time ensuring that THEIR OWN advertisers (cable companies insert their own commercials over the content providers’ commercials, seemingly at whim – still can’t figure out how that is legal/allowed) will get adequate coverage. They would have to maintain far larger sets of pricings for the breadth of popularities that would exist.

By: PhoneBoy

PhoneBoy — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 04:48:22 +0000

StumbleUpon is kind of fun that way.

By: JimAtJaxtr

JimAtJaxtr — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 20:41:55 +0000

I think your point about programs is well-made because people watch programs, not channels. If itunes has taught us anything, it’s that people increasingly want more control over the type of content that they view,listen to, and so forth. And on a more humorous note, stumbleupon’s video section has taken over the role of channel surfing in my life.

By: PhoneBoy

PhoneBoy — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 07:07:51 +0000

Yes, I consider all set-top boxes that I am charged monthly for scams, regardless of the service provider or the technology used. If I could buy a standard, off-the-shelf cable box and use it on any cable system in the country, it’d be a little different.

By saying a-la carte channels, you are completely missing the point. I don’t want to buy channels. I want to buy programs.

Cable companies could make it easy to, say, get the first episode of any program for free, a-la the occasional “free episode” on iTunes. Want more? Buy a season pass.

By: CableTechTalk

CableTechTalk — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 13:38:34 +0000

The point about set-top boxes is rooted in the fact that technology is required to deliver a la carte services. That will change over time as technology continues to develop, so I’m not sure if this is such a key point as it once was. But if you think leasing cable boxes is a scam, you’re also upset that DIRECTV, DISH, FiOS, and U-verse – competitors to cable – all require set-top boxes, right?

How is reduced diversity a bad thing? Well, you’re theory seems to be that programming should be a survival of the fittest. Let all the networks fight it out and only the strong survive. What if your favorite channels are the ones to fall and the ones that survive are the ones you hate. Are you better off? In an a la carte world, advertising revenue plummets, affiliate revenue goes down, and networks now have to spend marketing dollars on promoting each channel more heavily. That means the SCI FI Channel has less money to invest in shows like Battlestar Galatica.

As for TiVo’s ability to let you discover new programming, that only works because TiVo can sort through all the available channels. In an a la carte world TiVo only has access to the channels you already subscribe to. And when your friends tell you about a hot new show, you won’t be able to check it out without subscribing to the whole channel.

As for the Internet, it’s already having an effect on TV viewing and advertising, but it’s very early in the game and it remains to be seen how it will play out.