FCC wants you to pick your own channels
By Kevin C. Tofel 
posted Nov 29th 2005 4:05PM
posted Nov 29th 2005 4:05PM
UPDATE: The FCC statement is here in Word and here in Acrobat. The relevant information is near the end.Weren't we just talking about picking and choosing channels? I wonder if the FCC is reading HD Beat. According to a recent article in on CNN Money, the Wall Street Journal indicates that the FCC is expected to suggest (key word) to cable companies that they offer consumer choice for individual channels. This would be more like an "a la carte" or "make your own" package; something that I think would go over very well with a majority of the public, depending on the cost.
Last year, the FCC researched the cost of such a model and determined that it would cost the consumer more than the package bundles we see today. Perhaps someone did the math wrong because the report is getting revised to show the opposite: individual choice could cost less for the consumer in a "pay for what you watch" type of model.
We've already seen that this model can be somewhat successful: just take a look at the iTunes video offerings. People are obviously willing to pay a nominal fee for only the programming they are going to consume. In fact, people are willing to pay a good chunk of change for a device that can play back the programming they choose as well. So why can't this work with television?
The fact is: it can work with television if there is a fundamental change in the content owners approach. Take a look at any cable or satellite package on the market today. How are these put together? Well, part of it is pure numbers: let's split up the popular and premium channels across different packages so we encourage people to buy-up to bigger and more expensive packages. Sure, that's part of it.
There's an entire "dark" side to the packaging, however. Many networks will only sell their content to cable or satellite providers if the provider bundles the content in a certain package. Networks have to realize that with today's technology and connectivity, consumers aren't likely to be pushed around much longer.
If you want to force your programming in an overpriced bundle that only has two good channels out of fifty, be our guest. Just don't be surprised when we drop services and move to technologies like video-casting, TV-over-broadband and BitTorrent. Sorry folks, I just can't justify spending an extra $10 or $15 a month to gain 50 more channels when I'm only going to watch one or two of them. I'm tired of paying for channels that I'm not watching.
What do you think? Is an "a la carte" programming choice the way to go? What are you willing to pay in order to have full control over what channels you want to subscribe to?
Read [thanks for the tip Dave!]
Oh, man this would be great for me. I have comcast and in order to get the eight HD channels I want I have to first subscribe to digital cable which comes with, I dunno, like 500 channels. I ONLY want the HD ones. I actually doubt that it would work like that though, I'm sure they would organize it so the base price would be the same as it is now. I see them saying you can choose 100 channels for 60$/month not you can choose 15 channels for 25$/month.
Of course this is the logical answer for consumers but it will be hard to convince the advertisers to go for it. I think the only thing that will really make this happen is IPTV when the bandwidth of what is actually being watched in realtime is more important.
Yes! This is what I've always wanted, ever since I first had cable many, many years ago. With cable rates increasing all the time, I wonder why no one hasn't tried this already.
And I don't see what problems advertisers would have with it...we're talking about picking your own channels, right? Let's say I want 20 channels out of my current 200 channel lineup. I'm assuming they would all still have commercials either way...except now I'm only paying for channels I want to watch.
Cable networks will fight like crazy against this. They use their own established channels to leverage the launch of their newer channels on cable. ESPN has put a lot of effort into having ESPN2 right alongside ESPN on every cable/sat provider, for example.
"I just can't justify spending an extra $10 or $15 a month to gain 50 more channels when I'm only going to watch one or two of them."
I think they should offer both packages and a la carte. They could easily implement a la carte with digital cable, no? The thing is, you might end up paying $10/month for that couple of channels you do watch, anyway, like HBO is about $10-15, and not get the other 50. A la carte might reduce bandwidth use, though.
This sounds like a nice idea, however I bet the most popular channels (particularly those that are available in HD) would go for a much higher price than less popular channels.
ESPN HD is 1.50 per month here in California from Adelphia...that's a bit much to me, but I pay it. I was part of an HDTV focus group for packages and most people said they'd want ala carte, I stated 1 buck per station, maybe 1.50 per HDTV station...I'd get like 30 stations total...and pay 40 some dollars, I'd be happy as a clam...
Sadly not likely to work as Warner owns 5 stations, Paramount owns others, etc...one or two networks buoy the others and that's part of the bundling options as hinted to in the article...
But, yep, ala carte is the way to go...and with on demand and all that, it should be actually SUPER easy technologically.
I don't get one package, as it only has "The Golf Channel" out of 20+ channels, so we don't bother paying for it, I'd rather go without...and we're constantly thinking of dropping a few other packages, because the prices go up every three months, it seems.
When is the last time the cable companies have cared about saving US money? I am sure they will figure a way to do something like this, but will not be that much cheaper compared to getting all the programming, making it not really worth it.
My cable operator has just decided to restructure their offerings and eliminate the package I now have. The net result is a 45% price increase for me to retain the content I have and I get the "benefit" of more channels that I won't watch. I would love to see an a la carte approach for channels above the basic cable. Of course, the price structure for this would determine popularity. Providers seem to be structring their offerings into fewer, larger packages which is the opposite direction to a la carte.
As eric said i bet that the more 'popular' channels will just go for more per month...
So lets say ESPN will go for $3.00 per month. Then EWTN will go for $0.25. You know this will happen and all that is popular will be this higher price. To me that will make it more expensive. I beleive that the cable companies or whoever will gouge us for those popular channels regaurdless!
I will agree this can 'should' be better for us but I still think that it will be more expensive for us in the long run, period.
This would be great. I wouldn't have to have all the sports and religious channels I never watch. Goodybye Fox News, EWTN & ESPN!
Just try to think of the unintended consequences of this. This could kill a lot of the niche channels out there, and ala carte means that the potential viewers of any given channel will be quartered or halved. That will affect advertisign dollars, which will in turn affect the amount of available programming.
It also seems to me that the cable companies will do a study as to how many channels the average person will watch and figure out a way so that you are paying roughly the same amount as before with less channels.
The large majority of markets are competition free, and if you think the cable companies are going to allow ala carte programming to cut their profits, I think you have another thing coming.
I pay for your channels. You pay for my channels. Together we get all the channels.
Sometimes TiVo will record a show on a channel I don't normally watch. I'd like that freedom without paying out the wazoo for a premium package.
Since when does Comcast offer 500 channels? The channels may be listed (ie ESPN Channel 432) but they don't come close to offering that many channels. A la Carte Channels are (to my knowledge) only offered on DishNetwork for like $1.99 a piece - and they have limited channels like Golf, OLN, Bloomberg, etc.. for True High-Definition you have to get a Dish! And there's limited number of HD Channels on em - like 15 total (not including your locals which MAY or MAY not be included in HD - depending on your area) A la carte - true what someone above said - ie Viacom (owns CBS,BET,Nickekodeon, Nick At Nite, etc) will only bundle their channels together - so to get CBS you have to take the rest of em. IF A la Carte becomes available - look at some CRAZY high bills - more than the current providers currently charging for this new type of service. I would love to see a better option to a la carte!
ESPN (and parent Disney) is the main reason why cable rates keep on inflating. ESPN is one of the most expensive basic cable channel and Disney forces the cable companies to place ESPN in their basic cable structure. And in doing so, they demand more money per that station. To punish ESPN, if I had a la carte, they would not be a channel I selected. Let me have my F/X, SciFi, Horror, BlackBelt, TNT, SpikeTV, BBCA, CNN, Cartoon, Discovery, History, and good old TechTV back and I'd dump the rest of the (non-premium) cable stations. Don't force me to pay for BET Jazz when I just want BBCA from that package.