man... wouldnt that be nice?


something like $3.99 a channel per month...

I could get by with

ESPN
ESPN 2
A&E
TLC
History
Nat Geo
Bio
BBC America

for $32.00 a month

12/21/2010 8:42:08 PM

applegoogle is working on it.


I assume Apple will get it first since they own a network (ABC->ESPN) and hollywood loves Apple.

12/21/2010 11:02:26 PM

I thought it was based more on individual episodes, not channels

12/21/2010 11:06:45 PM

won't happen in our lifetimes. which sucks

12/21/2010 11:27:53 PM

say goodbye to all but the very most popular channels if it does happen

it's like the long tail gets chopped off

12/21/2010 11:34:00 PM

Bundling allows for per-channel price differentiation.

Hypothetically, if only two channels exist, ESPN and TLC, and there are only two customers, you and me, you may love ESPN and are willing to pay $12 for it and only $3 for TLC, while I love TLC and am willing to pay $11 for it and only $4 for ESPN, then a la cart means you only get ESPN and I only get TLC at whatever a la cart price they set, say $10 per channel. We each get one channel, pay a total of $20 for consumer benefit of $23, with a consumer surplus of $3.

Well, if they bundle instead, charging $14 for both TLC and ESPN, then both you and I will sign up, paying a total of $28 for consumer benefit of $30 with a consumer surplus of $2.

As theory suggests, the ability to effectively price differentiate should always reduce the consumer surplus while potentially dramatically improving both sales revenue for the business and total consumer benefit, by getting people to pay more for more than they otherwise would buy.

As such, a la cart should always be a non-starter for video channel distributors, even if that distributor is Google streaming channels straight to GoogleTV users.

To me, this actually seems like a good thing. While my immediate personal consumer surplus for existing content falls, the ability of content producers to get everyone to pay more means there will be more content produced in the future. The present future value of this content that would not have otherwise been produced is not something I can include in my immediate personal consumer surplus calculations, as I only know what is going to be on this exact month and whether it was worth the bundled price. What this means is, my actual consumer surplus is larger with bundling than without because bundling gives me the option to buy more content in the future than I otherwise could, and to someone like me that consumers a lot of content, this is a good thing.

[Edited on December 22, 2010 at 12:11 AM. Reason : .,.]

12/21/2010 11:57:30 PM

Quote :

"I assume Apple will get it first since they own a network (ABC->ESPN) "

Uh... no they don't.

12/22/2010 12:06:38 AM

^^ I'm not sure how enabling the content producers to produce more content is more beneficial to the consumer than the consumer just paying for the content they want. Maybe that was what you were explaining in everything after that, but I didn't really follow it.

You're saying by additionally charging me for content I don't want via a bundle, I'm going to be able and willing to possibly by newer content that I do want whenever it becomes available?

I haven't had a land line phone in over 8 years. Are you saying if I would have paid more for a cable/phone bundle over that entire time period that the cable producers would be producing faster internets now and I'd pay for it? And not that this extra revenue wouldn't have gone to exec bonuses and shareholder dividends?

12/22/2010 7:15:22 AM

Quote :

"say goodbye to all but the very most popular channels if it does happen it's like the long tail gets chopped off"

That's kind of the point. 99.9% of tv channels have absolutely no redeeming content, yet you get stuck paying for them because they are part of one of the few packages available. But, because you have to pay for them to get some other channels you want they are getting paid anyway. Gives them less incentive to put out high quality content imo.

You start going a la carte and now the channels get a big wake-up call when no one wants to pay for their terrible channel. They either put something out worth watching or die..

In an ideal world, I would be able to buy ESPN, ESPN2, AMC, HBO, and Showtime separately and then just get the network channels OTA and stream my netflix and I'd be good to go. I wouldn't miss anything else. I suppose maybe I would get TBS to support Conan but there is hardly anything I'd watch on any other channel. Certainly there are things I don't mind watching when I'm bored and don't feel like doing anything productive, but if I was going a la carte I wouldn't pay for them.

[Edited on December 22, 2010 at 8:12 AM. Reason : .]

12/22/2010 7:45:33 AM

i would want:

tlc
discovery
amc
science
nat geo
food
g4
history
maybe a&e, bravo

12/22/2010 9:31:14 AM

Unfortunately the Disney channels (espns, mainly) are the largest part of your bill. If things were broken down correctly you could get a lot of 2nd tier channels for 5-25 cents per but the big ones would be 5-10 bucks per. Prices per channel would be higher because they would want the same overall money but little old lady wouldn't be willing to pay for ESPN or FSN.



Using that my bill would be 16.97 (plus service charges and line fees more than likely).

[Edited on December 22, 2010 at 9:45 AM. Reason : adf]

12/22/2010 9:40:29 AM

Right, I understand the most expensive ones and the ones that people want are generally one in the same, but shedding dozens of the cheap channels adds up.

Even right now (I know it's not possible due to the way companies bundle their crappy channels up with the cable companies, just talking theoretically here), I'd GLADLY buy a $20-25 package from the cable company that consisted of me picking any ~5+ cable channels in HD as opposed to paying for the $50 package we have now with scores of channels I never even consider watching.

It also sucks that you have to go through some other cable or satellite company to purchase HBO or Showtime. Right now my wife and I are not regularly watching any cable channel. With football almost over, I will have almost 0 reason to watch any cable channels (save maybe AMC) very soon (bowls and the NFL playoffs I'll watch out with friends). I would gladly get rid of the tv portion of our bill...except that I have a show coming on HBO this spring that I really want to watch. The only way to get HBO in HD is to pay for a TV service and pick up channels I don't care about just to give me the opportunity to pay for HBO.

[Edited on December 22, 2010 at 10:18 AM. Reason : .]

12/22/2010 10:14:25 AM

exactly

12/22/2010 12:56:57 PM

^^ Those of us that do like watching TV are thankful that you have decided to pay for our content.

Quote :

"I haven't had a land line phone in over 8 years. Are you saying if I would have paid more for a cable/phone bundle over that entire time period that the cable producers would be producing faster internets now and I'd pay for it? "

Apples/oranges. Paying for a phone line now produces better phone lines in the future, nothing else. In the same vein, paying for cableTV now produces better cableTV in the future.

12/22/2010 2:48:34 PM

^ Hey now: I love watching TV...when it is TV that is worth watching.

Unless you are one of those people who will sit on the couch watching re-runs, reality shows, and terribly written sitcoms all night after work or you simply channel surf because you have nothing productive to do you shouldn't be happy about paying for all the content you never use either.

Quote :

"paying for cableTV now produces better cableTV in the future."

I disagree. Channel X getting sold to cable providers (and then sold to customers) automatically simply because it is tied to Y channel that people actually want does NOT make channel X work any harder to make their content decent. It only makes them work just hard enough to get half-decent viewership...just enough to sell adverts.

You want better cable TV in the future? Make cable a la carte. If a channel produces crap for programming and no one wants to watch then they're done. What better incentive to create quality programming than people only paying for channels that are worth it? How does that not produce better TV but the current situation does?

I never said I didn't like TV. I said I had hardly any reason to keep TV after sports right now - this is due to a lack of quality. I enjoy it when it is quality. In regards to non-sports: I said I'd gladly pay for AMC, HBO, Showtime...channels actually putting out content I want to watch.

If every channel produced shows as good as The Wire, Sopranos, Dexter, Mad Men, Breaking Bad, etc. I wouldn't be complaining at all about paying for crappy channels.

[Edited on December 22, 2010 at 3:24 PM. Reason : .]

12/22/2010 3:18:57 PM

Keep in mind, one man's garbage is another man's treasure. Also, you are mis-representing the way programming is paid for. Disney gets paid for its channels only because customers want to watch it. If no one wanted to watch, then the cable company would refuse to pay and cut the channel until Disney lowered its demands. Some channels must pay the cable company to get put into the lineup because no one wants to watch it. In order for a channel provider to get paid, they must first get people to want the channel enough to be upset when it is cut off. Also, the defense of bundling for customers is very similar to the defense of bundling of channel X and channel Y. If the cable company would pay to not have to carry channel Y, then it will negotiate a lower fee for Channel X as compensation.

To say it again, you are not paying for crap. You are paying for the bundle. If the only channel you care about is ESPN, then bite me, you are paying $65 a month for ESPN, the rest of the "crap" as you call it, you are getting for free. I personally care nothing for ESPN, so I am getting it for free.

As you do not care for CrapTV, you can rest assured that you are in no way putting money into their coffers, because if the cable company cut off CrapTV, you would not care and the cable company knows this and uses this information to negotiate a lower or even negative subscriber fee for CrapTV. It is possible for the cable company to mis-judge the consumer desire for a channel and over-pay, but all that does is lose them money. If people don't actually care for the channel, then the cable company could cut their price by the amount of the subscriber fee and ultimately wind up with even more customers. That they do not, implies that the channels they are paying for are relatively well priced.

[Edited on December 22, 2010 at 5:45 PM. Reason : .,.]

12/22/2010 5:40:05 PM

There are legal ways you could get content from Showtime and HBO without having a cable television subscription.

12/22/2010 10:51:41 PM

Quote :

"That's kind of the point. 99.9% of tv channels have absolutely no redeeming content, yet you get stuck paying for them because they are part of one of the few packages available."

only as far as you see; as LoneSnark already mentioned, if it were up to him (and me, and a substantial portion of America), the sports stations would be near the bottom of the barrel of "CrapTV"

I'm sorry you're so unadventurous that you would write off all but the few most popular stations as "crap for programming" just because it's not marketed at the greatest possible demographics; Logo and Bravo shouldn't be condemned just because more than 90% of the TV audience is straight, MSNBC occupies an important position in our political discourse, and C-SPAN (like MSNBC) has disproportionately high influence compared to its viewership.

A cable TV landscape with just HBO, Showtime, TNT, TBS, USA, AMC, Disney, Nickelodeon, CNN, Faux News, and sports channels is dreadful to all but the most narrow-minded viewers; everyone else would prefer to see his or her own niche continue to be represented, perhaps in the hope of showing other people the wonder of G4 or Comedy Central with a few presses of the remote-control...that is, if those people had not already prejudicially shunted them into the category of "CrapTV"

12/22/2010 11:16:58 PM

^actually you are dead wrong.

ESPN is absolutely mandatory for a cable provider to be profitable. There were a few attempts back in the late 90's by smaller cable and satellite providers to drop the Disney networks (specifically ESPN) because they wouldn't play ball with the insane premiums that ESPN charges.

And they all went under. We live in a sports dominate culture and ESPN is one of the most heavily demanded and watched properties on television. ESPN360 is yet another example where they have fucked the distributors into paying for their demands because of customer demand for the content. TWC fought ESPN for almost two years on paying the premiums for ESPN360 (now espn3.com) and finally caved in this year after pretty much every other big player fell into line.

You have a very, very skewed and incorrect view of where the money is made in television. I'm not saying it's right (ESPN is actually a pretty damn good channel though, but not nearly worth the money we all pay into it), but it is the reality.

12/22/2010 11:26:11 PM

the point is that there is a significant minority that doesn't give a shit about sports programming

12/23/2010 12:12:59 AM

I am the "worst" tv viewer ever. I pretty much only watch sports. I have DVR but hardly ever use it (literally maybe 6 times in 3 years), and when I use it I dont use it correctly (I never fast forward through commercials, they just dont bother me that much to use the remote to skip by them every 10 minutes). I dont have any must see shows, I am not loyal to any show (aside from sports). I hate sitcoms, I hate shows that just try to outdo each other with being "wild and cutting edge" (Lost, The Wire, etc.), I hate reality shows. I pretty much turn on the tv and if there is a show on the channel that comes up then I hardly ever change the channel. I could get by with sports, local news and Hitler documentaries and be totally happy

12/23/2010 12:50:22 AM

Quote :

"f it were up to him (and me, and a substantial portion of America), the sports stations would be near the bottom of the barrel of "CrapTV""

Huh? Do you not see the graphic in this very thread showing that the two top fee getters are sports channels? Just how the hell are they doing that if a substantial portion (whatever that even means) doesn't give a shit about sports?

12/23/2010 7:39:38 AM

I haven't had cable or satellite since October of last year. I don't miss it at all.

I don't care much for sports. I'm happy enough to watch the highlights on the news or go to a bar or restaurant for a big game.

There are very few channels I would watch regularly (HBO and Showtime mostly) and you need to buy into a whole lot of other crap to get what you want. I have no interest in subsidizing all the other networks to get what I want.

I don't think I will ever go back to paid tv until the business model changes. I'd be happy enough if they just had a monthly fee for a "point" system. $X for Y points and each channel has a point value assigned to it. Say you pay $40 for 25 points and just use the subscriber fees from the above chart as the point values.

12/23/2010 3:08:46 PM

Quote :

"only as far as you see; as LoneSnark already mentioned, if it were up to him (and me, and a substantial portion of America), the sports stations would be near the bottom of the barrel of "CrapTV" I'm sorry you're so unadventurous that you would write off all but the few most popular stations as "crap for programming" just because it's not marketed at the greatest possible demographics; Logo and Bravo shouldn't be condemned just because more than 90% of the TV audience is straight, MSNBC occupies an important position in our political discourse, and C-SPAN (like MSNBC) has disproportionately high influence compared to its viewership. A cable TV landscape with just HBO, Showtime, TNT, TBS, USA, AMC, Disney, Nickelodeon, CNN, Faux News, and sports channels is dreadful to all but the most narrow-minded viewers; everyone else would prefer to see his or her own niche continue to be represented, perhaps in the hope of showing other people the wonder of G4 or Comedy Central with a few presses of the remote-control...that is, if those people had not already prejudicially shunted them into the category of "CrapTV""

Wow. /facepalm

Not trying to be mean but you need some major critical reading skills ITT. I also think you lack the understanding of a la carte.

Quote :

"only as far as you see; as LoneSnark already mentioned, if it were up to him (and me, and a substantial portion of America), the sports stations would be near the bottom of the barrel of "CrapTV" "

I don't care for the "sports stations." I enjoy getting ESPN because I enjoy watching my college football team once a week in the comfort of my own home. 3 hrs a week for 4 weeks a month is worth having the channel to me. I don't watch any of the other shows on there (unless I'm at a friend's house or something who is watching). I think you'll have a VERY hard time substantiating the claim that the substantial portion of America doesn't care about college football (or other sports) considering ESPN is one of the most watched cable channels (if not the most).

Quote :

"I'm sorry you're so unadventurous that you would write off all but the few most popular stations as "crap for programming" just because it's not marketed at the greatest possible demographics; Logo and Bravo shouldn't be condemned just because more than 90% of the TV audience is straight, MSNBC occupies an important position in our political discourse, and C-SPAN (like MSNBC) has disproportionately high influence compared to its viewership."

I'm not sure where you got this from. It's pretty lol-worthy if you think that I am the kind of person who is so "unadventurous" that I am only watching the mainstream stuff. At least it would be lol-worthy to most the people that know me.

Also, I don't care whether you are straight or not, there is nothing on Bravo hardly anything worth spending your time on that you couldn't be doing something else more productive. However, that is beside the point and just my opinion

My point here is where did I ever say these channels should be done away with? Where did I say they shouldn't exist? Nowhere. You're attacking me based on something you made up in your head apparently. A la carte doesn't mean "to do away with all the channels I don't like," it means that I don't have to pay for the channels that I don't like. You can pay for the channels that you like. And, just because fewer people are interested in X channel doesn't mean it will go away. Look at independent movies and music. Smaller budget, still the chance for a great and sometimes superior product. 90% of the stuff you are watching on Bravo probably gets produced on such a small budget that it wouldn't need tons of viewers and wouldn't get axed in an a la carte situation.

Quote :

"A cable TV landscape with just HBO, Showtime, TNT, TBS, USA, AMC, Disney, Nickelodeon, CNN, Faux News, and sports channels is dreadful to all but the most narrow-minded viewers; everyone else would prefer to see his or her own niche continue to be represented, perhaps in the hope of showing other people the wonder of G4 or Comedy Central with a few presses of the remote-control...that is, if those people had not already prejudicially shunted them into the category of "CrapTV""

Once again, I don't think you are reading my posts. I NEVER said that I wanted to see a TV landscape with just certain channels. A la carte means you get to CHOOSE your "tv landscape." Music is basically "a la carte." I purchase/acquire probably close to 100 albums a year. You know how many of those ever get played on a major FM radio station? Probably less than 10. Music seems to be doing fine this way and even though the mainstream/major label stuff is still the most "popular" the smaller and indie stuff has not gone away.

I never watch TNT, Disney, USA, CNN, Fox News, Nickelodeon...not sure where you got those from. I also never said that "niche" channels should be done away with. The people that want them can pay for them. And you act as if I've never seen any of these other channels you speak of. I've watched G4 occasionally, and CC, and IFC, but there is certainly a gray area for me. It isn't all great tv vs crap tv. G4, CC, and IFC aren't crapTV. To me they are OK channels that occasionally have something I am interested in, but not enough so that I want to pay for a subscription to them. I certainly don't think they should be done away with, I just don't need to keep them around.

/rant


I don't mind people disagreeing with me, but it is rather annoying to have someone quote you, then argue against points you never even made or stood for.

[Edited on December 27, 2010 at 8:20 AM. Reason : .]

12/27/2010 8:20:07 AM

Quote :

"A la carte...it means that I don't have to pay for the channels that I don't like."

It would. But as I have explained, the content owners (Disney, etc) would get less money if they unbundled. You have said nothing against this assertion. As such, accepting my position as true, A la carte == less revenue, then the content owners and their fee collectors (the cable company) will never voluntarily opt for such a system. No matter how much you would like it, you cannot have it...unless Congress gets it for you.

This means you must convince a majority of the rest of us that a la carte is a great enough thing for Congress to wrest control of the nation's content and force it all into a particular distribution model. This brings up my second position: less revenue today == less content in the future and my opinion is that less content in the future is not worth the revenue savings.

Therefore, even if I did not object to the violation of content producers rights to distribute their product as they see fit, I would still object to the future production of less content, even accepting I was getting it for far less money, and I think most people would agree with me.

12/27/2010 6:16:38 PM

From what I understand, the networks have the upper hand in this right now. They sell all their channels as a package to the cable company based on the number of households they service. If the cable company chose to offer a la carte channel selection it would not change their contract with the network, so they would simply lose money on the deal. I don't think the cable companies will ever get the networks to voluntarily give up their current situation.

12/27/2010 6:28:07 PM

Quote :

"This means you must convince a majority of the rest of us that a la carte is a great enough thing for Congress to wrest control of the nation's content and force it all into a particular distribution model. This brings up my second position: less revenue today == less content in the future and my opinion is that less content in the future is not worth the revenue savings. "

You've been drinking the kool-aid big time.

You're operating under the presumption that things must always be how they've always been, which history has shown time and again is a deeply flawed presumption.

The fact of the matter is that thanks to technology, it's WAY easier to produce entertainment, and market it, than in the past. Just look at any of the YouTube sensations. Things are only going to continue to evolve in this direction. The entrenched model of media distribution that cable companies are using, and that you are supporting, is going to die, unless the Corporate Overlords can fool enough people like you into thinking the old ways are the best.

The fact of the matter is that the way TV is distributed is ludicrous, and the content producers who can't adapt to the jump to a la carte need to die. There's no reason to think the Bravo or Logo won't make this jump, because they have access to the same intelligent creative people that anyone has, that can adapt their content to the new generation of media.

12/27/2010 9:24:22 PM

Quote :

"It would. But as I have explained, the content owners (Disney, etc) would get less money if they unbundled. You have said nothing against this assertion. As such, accepting my position as true, A la carte == less revenue, then the content owners and their fee collectors (the cable company) will never voluntarily opt for such a system. No matter how much you would like it, you cannot have it...unless Congress gets it for you. This means you must convince a majority of the rest of us that a la carte is a great enough thing for Congress to wrest control of the nation's content and force it all into a particular distribution model. This brings up my second position: less revenue today == less content in the future and my opinion is that less content in the future is not worth the revenue savings. Therefore, even if I did not object to the violation of content producers rights to distribute their product as they see fit, I would still object to the future production of less content, even accepting I was getting it for far less money, and I think most people would agree with me."

I understand how the cable structure currently works and I understand that the current biggest swindlers would probably lose some money which is why it won't happen anytime soon. That combined with the fact that we obviously have different ideas of what we'd like to pay for on TV led to me not responding was all. You seem to be stressing that you are worried about less content and I think TV is over-saturated with lots of worthless content as it is.

I don't pay for any other entertainment medium in a way close to the way TV does it. Why do supporters of the current system think it's the best way to do it? What about movies, music, games, etc.? There is certainly no lack of quantity or quality with any of those mediums and I only have to pay for the stuff I want. What makes TV so special besides the fact that that is how it currently is?

12/27/2010 9:49:54 PM

Quote :

"You're operating under the presumption that things must always be how they've always been, which history has shown time and again is a deeply flawed presumption. The fact of the matter is that thanks to technology, it's WAY easier to produce entertainment, and market it, than in the past."

Content producers did not distribute their wares with the goal of maximizing revenue because it was difficult to produce. They want to make money, as much as they can, and bundled cable allows price differentiation and therefore maximum revenue. This is not something technology will break up because this arrangement is entirely human, a product of law, so to change it will require an act of Congress.

Quote :

"What makes TV so special besides the fact that that is how it currently is?"

It isn't. When content owners can bundle, and therefore price differentiate, then are desperate to do so. I am not a subscriber, but I suspect XM Satellite Radio is bundled. Whether you like jazz or not, you get it. Netflix bundles; whether you have the means of accessing Netflix on-demand or not, you get it with your subscription. And, in a sense, your internet is bundled. To get some content TWC must pay, to access some other content TWC gets paid. Whether you ever use ESPN360 or not, the owners are getting paid per TWC internet subscriber.

As long as the law says content producers own their product and can distribute it however they see fit, they will do so in whatever way maximizes revenue, which means bundling whenever possible.

12/28/2010 1:45:03 AM

Why would this ever survive? If there is a market for ala carte media (and I'd argue it's already alive and well), then won't someone eventually come in and offer it? Are we not seeing the Hulus of the world thriving yet because the content producers are trying to push the bundle here as well?

ESPN is the king in the sports world right now, but I can imagine eventually some upstart (likely Mark Cuban owned) will come in and start competing and force a change in practice.

I'm shocked that you think this won't change with technology. It's already happened to some extent with radio. Your pointing out that SiriusXM is bundled ignores that people are more than happy to pay to not put up with commercials, and as the price is so low already they aren't bothered with needing ala carte. Could it be that people wouldn't actually mind bundles if the price was more reasonable? Just eyeballing that list above it looks like the bill would be in the $20 month range for the top 15 channels with the others being virtually free, tack on $10 for fees/taxes, and you're talking about a huge discount to the current pricing structure and the talk of ala carte would disappear.

12/28/2010 7:44:02 AM

The problem with your argument there is that both music and movies are available a la carte in addition to bundled options. If people want to pay for XM radio, that's cool, but you also have the option of only buying what you like as soon as it is available. Same for movies out on DVD. Besides the fact that Netflix is awesomely priced, people do also have the option of buying or renting only the movies they pay for (but in the case of Netflix, their pricepoint makes their service worth it).

Also, "premium" channels like HBO and Showtime have basically said they would rather NOT be part of cable but the only reason they can't break away and just have people pay for their service separately is because of the current cable structure. It pretty much handcuffs them into playing ball with the cable companies even though they have hinted that they think they would have MORE subscribers over time if they were sold individually instead of on top of other cable packages.

I do understand though that the way cable is currently distributed a la carte probably will not happen for a long time if ever and I do understand that for someone who actually watches 20+ channels regularly or something that it might even be more expensive. I just disagree with the way cable companies operate as a whole which I guess skews the way I feel about paying for their services. I mean these are the same people who will tell you that you can't get a true stable internet connection unless you rent their own modem and wireless router instead of using their own and also make you pay for an HD upgrade on network stations...even when those are broadcast free OTA already...I mean they have no shame in trying to scam their own customers out of a buck. They are not a very transparent business.

Planning to switch to dish or direct soon anyway since my cable company can't come close to competing with the pricing there. I'll still be paying for channels I don't want but will be getting a nicer package overall for cheaper.

12/28/2010 8:09:25 AM

Glad it all worked out. I'm sure you will be happier with Dish's bundle than you were with cable's bundle. No legislation needed. Different providers allow price differentiation between bundles, content creators profit even more.

[Edited on December 28, 2010 at 6:33 PM. Reason : .,.]

12/28/2010 6:32:42 PM

Quote :

"won't happen in our lifetimes. which sucks"

lol i don't know how old are you, but with the pace of technology it seems pretty short sighted to say something isn't going to happen in our lifetimes.

12/28/2010 7:42:39 PM