Cable a la Carte

[Ksyrup]

I don't know about this...


FCC May Endorse
Cable à la Carte,
In a Policy Shift

By AMY SCHATZ in Washington and JOE FLINT in New York
Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
November 29, 2005; Page A3

Federal regulators are on the verge of suggesting that cable companies could best serve consumers by letting them subscribe to individual channels instead of offering only prepackaged bundles.

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin is expected to announce today at a Senate forum on indecency that the FCC will soon reissue its review of cable industry "à la carte" pricing with a wholly different conclusion. While the original report concluded that consumers would pay more for individual channels, the new one concludes they could pay less.

"This report will conclude that à la carte could be in the best interest of consumers," said an FCC official familiar with the revised report's contents. The report also finds that "themed tiers" of channels could be "economically feasible," the official said.

This is of concern for the cable industry, partly because it opens a new front in the government's efforts to impose indecency standards on cable and satellite providers. Until now, the cable industry has resisted suggestions from Mr. Martin and some lawmakers to voluntarily offer à la carte choices or set up a "family-friendly tier" of channels suitable for children. By suggesting that consumers won't necessarily pay more for individual channels, the report calls into question the cable industry's revenue model.

While the FCC can't force the cable industry to change its business model, its voice will add considerable weight to the debate and could embolden lawmakers eager to give consumers, particularly parents, more control over which television programming enters their homes.

Aside from the technical challenge of offering hundreds of channels on an individual basis, cable programmers and operators say such a switch would raise costs and reduce choices for consumers. That's because, they say, pooling a group of channels into one cable package effectively lowers the cost of offering all of the channels.

Cable and satellite operators pay a monthly license fee to carry channels and pass along those costs to subscribers. The fees vary tremendously. Walt Disney Co.'s ESPN costs more than $2.50 a month per subscriber, while Time Warner Inc.'s Cartoon Network costs only about 15 cents.

WSJ's Gerald Seib3 discusses the FCC's recommendation that cable companies should begin "à la carte" pricing of channels.Many subscribers without children might drop such offerings as Viacom Inc.'s Nickelodeon and Cartoon Network. To make up that lost revenue, channels aimed at children could have higher subscriber fees. And since advertising dollars depend on potential viewership, the end result would be that many channels would have less money to spend on programming.

In large part, the high costs of sports channels have led regulators to push for à la carte. Even some cable operators have taken issue with ESPN's high price. But the fear is that if a separate tier for sports channels is created, then other channels soon could be put on tiers. Mr. Martin has in the past been an advocate of a so-called family-friendly tier that would package such fare as Nickelodeon and the Hallmark Channel.

Earlier this year, Mr. Martin expressed concerns about the earlier report and asked the FCC staff to review it. The staff concluded that the original report relied in part on faulty analysis of data, according to one FCC official.

A year ago, an initial report concluded that consumers would save money on an à la carte plan only if they subscribed to fewer than nine channels. The average cable subscriber watches 17 channels, the FCC staff found, suggesting a rate increase of anywhere from 14% to 30%.

A spokesman for the National Cable & Telecommunications Association said the cable-industry lobbying group would have no comment until it had time to review the new report.

Mr. Martin's testimony today will likely find a receptive audience on Capitol Hill, where lawmakers have expressed interest in expanding indecency regulations to cover the cable and satellite industries.

Over the summer, the cable industry floated a proposal acquiescing to the federal government's interest in imposing indecency regulations on cable and satellite programming. It was the first time the industry had opened the door to such regulation, but a caveat included in the proposal -- that the industry would agree to indecency legislation only if the law didn't take effect until after the courts ruled on its constitutionality -- bombed on Capitol Hill.

A committee aide for Senate Commerce Chairman Ted Stevens (R., Alaska) said he "doesn't feel a legislative solution predicated on a court decision is the way to go."

[rkmsuf]

this is stoopid. let cable package it anyway they want.

[DanGarion]

I agree, let cable package it. If you take that away you will see cable channels go off the air (cable).

[FrogMan]

I agree, let cable package it. If you take that away you will see cable channels go off the air (cable).
you'd rather be forced to pay for channels you don't watch than see those channels go off the air?

I hate paying for something I don't use/watch and that applies to cable/digital TV...

FM

[Joe]

I watch about 5 different cable channels, so it works for me

[Butter]

Yes! We need more government regulation!

Wait, aren't these supposed to be Republicans?

[rkmsuf]

It would be funny though. Go over a guys house and all he's got is Playboy, Spice, ESPN and the Weather Channel.

[DanGarion]

you'd rather be forced to pay for channels you don't watch than see those channels go off the air?

I hate paying for something I don't use/watch and that applies to cable/digital TV...

FM
Well I'm a little biased since I work for Time Warner Cable. :)

But if they did this and forced cable companies to do al la carte you would see the demise of a lot of TV channels. There would be less choice because of the change, not more.

[Ksyrup]

As much as I complain about there being "nothing on," there's something to be said for flipping channels and coming across a show on a channel I've watched maybe twcie in 5 years. I'd like to have the opportunity to see what those channels offer at any given time, rather than just pick out the 25 most-watched channels in our house and have nothing else but that.

[FrogMan]

Well I'm a little biased since I work for Time Warner Cable. :)

But if they did this and forced cable companies to do al la carte you would see the demise of a lot of TV channels. There would be less choice because of the change, not more.
ahh, I see where you're coming from. Don't bite the hand that feeds ya ;)

As far as less choice, what good is more choice when it's not good quality? Simply thinking out loud...

FM

[ISiddiqui]

Yeah, I'd imagine that some channels like Fox Soccer Channel would be dead. I don't think that many would suscribe to it seperately. The fact that Fox owns it allows it to stay on the air, IMO.

[Ksyrup]

There is a reference to "themed tiers" in the article, though - don't you think that niche sports channels - soccer, horse racing, OLN, etc. - could be packaged together? That would make the most sense to me. As a channel, I wouldn't want to see myself on a menu at $.03 anyway. I'd want to cast my lot with a number of other channels that the customer could buy for $1.50.

[sovereignstar]

Good idea.

[spleen1015]

Just give me the channels I want.

[flounder]

You can take my ESPN 8, "the Ocho" when you pry it from my cold dead hands.

Seriously though. Just let phone companies offer TV over IP and let competition sort it out.

[JonInMiddleGA]

But if they did this and forced cable companies to do al la carte you would see the demise of a lot of TV channels. There would be less choice because of the change, not more.

And there's likely to be more cost too, or maybe more likely, fewer channels for the same total cost to the consumer.

The combined individual pricing for the most frequently bought channels will somehow magically end up costing slightly more than the current typical package rate, you wait & see if it doesn't.

[DanGarion]

ahh, I see where you're coming from. Don't bite the hand that feeds ya ;)

As far as less choice, what good is more choice when it's not good quality? Simply thinking out loud...

FM
Yeah, no worries.

A lot of channels exist because of other channels. There probably wouldn't be an ESPN News of ESPN-U or whatever it's called if everything was al la carte. Like the guy says in the post under yours Fox Soccer Channel is on today because Fox owns it and packages it with their other sports channels. I see the draw to doing al la carte, because it probably would be cheaper at first. Untill the cable companies then have to start having more customer service people to field the requests for changes on accounts. And then the cable company will probably out-source because they can't afford to have so many local customer service people, so then the customers will complain because the customer service rep is from India or something like that. I just see this a long winding road that could prove to end up bad.

I work in the business internet support department so the TV world doesn't really affect me, but I was on that end before and I can see it happening.

[Crapshoot]

And there's likely to be more cost too, or maybe more likely, fewer channels for the same total cost to the consumer.

The combined individual pricing for the most frequently bought channels will somehow magically end up costing slightly more than the current typical package rate, you wait & see if it doesn't.

Yup - even money says ESPN jumps from the $2 or so subscriber fee right now (JIMGA - that is correct, right ?) to about $6 or $7 - easy.

[Honolulu Blue]

I think a la carte would work very well for me. I always prefer more options to fewer. And I'm sure Comcast (the local monopoly) would still bundle some of my favorites together such that there would be a considerable discount.

As for those cable channels that would go dark because of this, oh well. Free enterprise forever baby.

[Ksyrup]

The combined individual pricing for the most frequently bought channels will somehow magically end up costing slightly more than the current typical package rate, you wait & see if it doesn't.
Considering these are the same people who currently charge me $53 a month for internet AND basic cable, but wanted to charge me $58 a month to drop basic cable and only pay for internet...I have no doubt this is true.

[Ksyrup]

Yup - even money says ESPN jumps from the $2 or so subscriber fee right now (JIMGA - that is correct, right ?) to about $6 or $7 - easy.
The article says that ESPN is "more than $2.50."

[flere-imsaho]

Yeah, I'd imagine that some channels like Fox Soccer Channel would be dead. I don't think that many would suscribe to it seperately.

Except for a good percentage of all Hispanic and Irish households, the households of Latin American & European expats and of course all the bars that serve those demographics. ;)

We had this discussion a few months ago and I have to say I still don't see the problem for cable companies. If ESPN costs Time Warner $2.50/subscriber to "broadcast", simply charge the subscriber $3.00 and walk away with $0.50 profit. Do this for the rest of the channels.

That way we allow the free market to do its work. If no one watches the Sewing Channel, then it doesn't make any money and goes out of business.

I think the real issue here is that offering this a la Carte service would represent a technical challenge for the Cable companies, and they'd have to spend money implementing it which would have no really obvious Return On Investment. They may argue otherwise, but I'll bet you good money that's the real reason they're against it.

[RendeR]

Anyone who thinks your cable bill will go down in any significant manner with these proposed changes is a fool. the cable companies won't allow it to happen, even if a la carte is offered it will be at such an inflated price per channel that you'll have the same bill and only 17-25 channels instead of 200.

[flere-imsaho]

Untill the cable companies then have to start having more customer service people to field the requests for changes on accounts. And then the cable company will probably out-source because they can't afford to have so many local customer service people, so then the customers will complain because the customer service rep is from India or something like that.

It doesn't have to be that way. Order a la Carte should be as simple as ordering On Demand movies via your already-existing digital cable box. No need for huge support costs.

[DanGarion]

It doesn't have to be that way. Order a la Carte should be as simple as ordering On Demand movies via your already-existing digital cable box. No need for huge support costs.
Yeah then they will call in and bitch like this.

"But I didn't order that! waaaaa I want credit! waaaaaaaa! waaaaaaaaa"

Or something like that. Customers are bad. :)

[sovereignstar]

"But I didn't order that! waaaaa I want credit! waaaaaaaa! waaaaaaaaa"

Shouldn't have fucked up their order.

[DanGarion]

Considering these are the same people who currently charge me $53 a month for internet AND basic cable, but wanted to charge me $58 a month to drop basic cable and only pay for internet...I have no doubt this is true.

Ever buy a single can of soda?

[DanGarion]

Shouldn't have fucked up their order.
They ordered via their remote. How do we fuck it up? :)

[FrogMan]

Or something like that. Customers are bad. :)
yes they are, sadly they keep us all in business, heh... :)

FM

[DanGarion]

Ever buy a single can of soda?
Or even better, a combo meal?

[Joe]

Or even better, a combo meal?

combo meals suck, they make you pay for the drink

[Ajaxab]

Theoretically, advertisers would love something like this as it enables them to target an even narrower demographic even more specifically. So theoretically, the cost per channel should go down as advertisers pay more to reach specific audiences. But it's wishful thinking to imagine this revenue would get passed on to consumers via reduced cable costs in an a la carte system.

[flere-imsaho]

Yeah then they will call in and bitch like this.

"But I didn't order that! waaaaa I want credit! waaaaaaaa! waaaaaaaaa"

Or something like that.

So they don't do this about On Demand?

Customers are bad. :)

mmmkay.... :p

[JonInMiddleGA]

Theoretically, advertisers would love something like this as it enables them to target an even narrower demographic even more specifically. So theoretically, the cost per channel should go down as advertisers pay more to reach specific audiences. But it's wishful thinking to imagine this revenue would get passed on to consumers via reduced cable costs in an a la carte system.

Umm ... not really, since advertisers generally don't buy "systems", we buy "networks", be it at the national level or at the market-by-market level. There might be a minor uptick in viewers for, say, ESPN when News/U go away or for CNN when Headline/Fn goes away, etc. but it'd be pretty negibile (since the total audience for those is very small anyway).

If anything, there'll be some negative pressure on the vast majority of networks, who will lose all those "casual viewers" who aren't willing to pay for them ala carte. If ala carte is made mandatory & catches on for any length of time, it would be, in my estimation, the death of at least half the existing cable networks within two years; i.e. the ones who depend on casual viewers or loyal-to-one/two-program viewers. Very few operations with more than one network (not just ESPN, CNN, but stuff like History Channel, Discovery, etc.) will keep those niche networks around -- they'll need to try to drive all of that traffic to their primary brand in order to keep viewership up/ad rates
up. I don't believe that'll work, but they'll have no choice but to try.

The other elephant in the room would appear to be the loss of countless small cable systems in rural areas. The hardware/support costs of a place like my home county, with low population density, would drive ala carte costs through the roof compared to densely populated urban areas (remember, Comcast considers Jasper County/Monticello cable separately from Covington/Newton County cable, or Fulton County/Atlanta cable, etc).

So let's see here ... ala carte leads to:
1) Fewer channels for ultimately the same cost
2) "Blackout" areas for cable service altogether
3) Fewer channels, more homogenized programming

Damn, I've having a hard time finding a positive in this hare-brained notion for anyone except the broadcast networks who stand to benefit more than anyone from the whole scheme.

[stevew]

If Dangarion lived in Georgia, and therefore was able to get a specialized title, i would suggest "The Cable Guy"

But since he's not from GA, and has no chance of getting a special title, he can remain "learning the ropes."

[panerd]

How many of us really pay attention to what channels we are watching though? I wonder how many times last season Mizzou was on ESPN2 or TBS or Fox Sports or etc. I don't pay attention because I get all of these channels. I could see ESPN intentionally spreading out events like Big Monday or NFL Primetime so you have to order the a la carte ESPN2, EPSNU, etc.

Even with that said, I sort of like the idea. My directv guide is set right now to only list about 20 channels anyways and of those I regularly only watch maybe ten. My worry, that not many are posting about, is the reason for the change. Put an antenna on your roof and watch PBS if you are offended by cable, don't go crying to the fucking government because your kid turned on comedy central at 2 in the morning. The government's job is not to raise your kids and protect them from things you pay for! Is it the Post Office's fault if your kid opens your playboy magazine before you get home from work?

[DanGarion]

If Dangarion lived in Georgia, and therefore was able to get a specialized title, i would suggest "The Cable Guy"

But since he's not from GA, and has no chance of getting a special title, he can remain "learning the ropes."
Why do I have to live in George? I used to have a cable guy poster on my wall years ago, this was before I ever worked at a cable company and we never had cable growing up. The first time I had cable was when the company installed it for me after I was hired. :)

[sovereignstar]

The first time I had cable was when the company installed it for me after I was hired. :)

Why didn't you have it before?

[DanGarion]

Why didn't you have it before?
Because I lived at home and my parents thought it was too expensive. But after I moved out they kept the cable (be it just basic) because they had grown used to have the channels.

[st.cronin]

I like the idea in principle, although I can see that in the short term it would cause some chaos (some channels going broke, some cable bills going higher, advertisers being confused.)

There's nothing wrong with the principle of it, though.

[DanGarion]

How many of us really pay attention to what channels we are watching though? I wonder how many times last season Mizzou was on ESPN2 or TBS or Fox Sports or etc. I don't pay attention because I get all of these channels. I could see ESPN intentionally spreading out events like Big Monday or NFL Primetime so you have to order the a la carte ESPN2, EPSNU, etc.

Even with that said, I sort of like the idea. My directv guide is set right now to only list about 20 channels anyways and of those I regularly only watch maybe ten. My worry, that not many are posting about, is the reason for the change. Put an antenna on your roof and watch PBS if you are offended by cable, don't go crying to the fucking government because your kid turned on comedy central at 2 in the morning. The government's job is not to raise your kids and protect them from things you pay for! Is it the Post Office's fault if your kid opens your playboy magazine before you get home from work?
Exactly, wasn't the "V-chip" supposed to resolve this?

[JonInMiddleGA]

There's nothing wrong with the principle of it, though.

Well, other than the whole "it's not going to do anything positive for the vast majority of cable users" thing. Minor detail I guess ;)

[sovereignstar]

See, I don't even have the option of "basic" cable. It's 50 dollars for the whole shebang (3 shopping channels and 20 news channels included) or nothing. I've chosen nothing and sit home and watch Masterpiece Theatre on Sunday nights.

[st.cronin]

Well, other than the whole "it's not going to do anything positive for the vast majority of cable users" thing. Minor detail I guess ;)

You know more about this than I do - but I doubt very much that *anybody* can state with definity what long-term impact this will have on the industry and consumers. Short term, yes - I agree that it will probably be bad for consumers. But long-term, who knows?

[gstelmack]

Well, now that the networks are starting to investigate the option of "buy the show you want to watch for streaming over the Internet", a-la-carte channel selection may be a thing of the past. I mean, if I could buy a "Season Pass" for Survivor for like $50, maybe Good Eats for $30, Sunday Ticket for $200, Dora the Explorer for $30, etc, I could drop satellite or cable entirely. I spend around $800/year on TV, and if I could get all the shows (rather than channels) I want for that price over the Internet, screw dealing with the cable OR satellite OR phone company.

[stevew]

The cable nets could probably make a fair deal of money by putting their shows on their website, and making you watch 10-15 mins of commercials to view them. But we'd all rather have the archaic system we got now.

There's no reason that some channel like ABC couldnt put the newest episode of lost on their site on Thursday morning, the only cost to watch would be to absorb the 16-18 minutes of ads. Instead i guess by default they would much rather you download it from bit torrent or watch it on your tivo, sans ads.

[stevew]

Well, now that the networks are starting to investigate the option of "buy the show you want to watch for streaming over the Internet", a-la-carte channel selection may be a thing of the past. I mean, if I could buy a "Season Pass" for Survivor for like $50, maybe Good Eats for $30, Sunday Ticket for $200, Dora the Explorer for $30, etc, I could drop satellite or cable entirely. I spend around $800/year on TV, and if I could get all the shows (rather than channels) I want for that price over the Internet, screw dealing with the cable OR satellite OR phone company.
How about they let the advertisers pay for the programs, and you watch them for free with ads. Or a charge of at most a dollar an episode.

[gstelmack]

The cable nets could probably make a fair deal of money by putting their shows on their website, and making you watch 10-15 mins of commercials to view them. But we'd all rather have the archaic system we got now.

There's no reason that some channel like ABC couldnt put the newest episode of lost on their site on Thursday morning, the only cost to watch would be to absorb the 16-18 minutes of ads. Instead i guess by default they would much rather you download it from bit torrent or watch it on your tivo, sans ads.They're doing some of this now for like 99 cents for the episode. I haven't purchased one, so I'm not sure how many ads are included.

[gstelmack]

How about they let the advertisers pay for the programs, and you watch them for free with ads. Or a charge of at most a dollar an episode.Because I hate ads, especially when they don't match the show (i.e. commercials for adult shows in family programming). But that's a whole other political discussion that belongs in other threads...

[JonInMiddleGA]

How about they let the advertisers pay for the programs, and you watch them for free with ads. Or a charge of at most a dollar an episode.

I believe that exists already ... they call it broadcast tv and cable tv.
;)

[GrantDawg]

Anyone who thinks your cable bill will go down in any significant manner with these proposed changes is a fool. the cable companies won't allow it to happen, even if a la carte is offered it will be at such an inflated price per channel that you'll have the same bill and only 17-25 channels instead of 200.

Yup. It is amazing how many people can be suckered on these things. "I'll only pay for the channells I want!" Yes, you will, but you'll pay as much as or more than you are paying now. You'll have less choice for as much or more money. Whoo-hoo!

[ISiddiqui]

Except for a good percentage of all Hispanic and Irish households, the households of Latin American & European expats and of course all the bars that serve those demographics. ;)
Considering the ratings for the channel, I doubt it'd find the audience you think it would. I don't know why Hispanics would tune in, since they don't show the Mexican Soccer League or even La Liga from Spain. Irish Americans may tune in if they are fans of the English Premier League. FSC basically shows mostly EPL, some MLS, a few games here and there of Bundesliga and Serie A.

And most Hispanics will watch soccer on Telemundo or other Hispanic channels.

[Joe]

it would be more choice for some people. i cancelled my cable when they kept jacking up the prices, so if I could get a few channels that I'd watch and not have to pay for some garbage crap, I'd do it. I'm not gonna pay $80 a month, but I'd consider $20

[Ksyrup]

Ever buy a single can of soda?
To me, this is like comparing Coke to Pepsi (har har). Seriously, though, maybe someone can explain to me how this would cost them more to provide a single service, when my house is already hooked up for both (installations that I paid for separately, btw) and they would just be disabling one of the services. What justifies the increased cost at this stage? I can understand them giving me a break on both to sign me up, but that's not the case. I subscribed to the mseparately, paid for separate installations, and now want to disable one of the them. How does that cost them more?

[st.cronin]

To me, this is like comparing Coke to Pepsi (har har). Seriously, though, maybe someone can explain to me how this would cost them more to provide a single service, when my house is already hooked up for both (installations that I paid for separately, btw) and they would just be disabling one of the services. What justifies the increased cost at this stage? I can understand them giving me a break on both to sign me up, but that's not the case. I subscribed to the mseparately, paid for separate installations, and now want to disable one of the them. How does that cost them more?

I don't think what they charge has anything to do with their cost, but rather has everything to do with your willingness to pay.

[Desnudo]

I've always liked the idea of a la carte choice. I watch about 8 channels with any regularity. If I could get only those plus the major networks, I definitely would. In the short term, it would create some chaos, but in the long run, I think programming would improve (later Stu Scott).

[panerd]

To me, this is like comparing Coke to Pepsi (har har). Seriously, though, maybe someone can explain to me how this would cost them more to provide a single service, when my house is already hooked up for both (installations that I paid for separately, btw) and they would just be disabling one of the services. What justifies the increased cost at this stage? I can understand them giving me a break on both to sign me up, but that's not the case. I subscribed to the mseparately, paid for separate installations, and now want to disable one of the them. How does that cost them more?

Well I know Charter Communications executives went to prison for something like this locally, but it wouldn't suprise me if cable companies in other parts of the country still think they are coy enough to pull it off. They probably would rather take the $10 hit and list you under both cable subscribers and internet subscribers for their books. Admittly I don't know exactly how that would be of benefit (the local scam was keeping people on the books for one more quarter that had ended service already), but it's a possiblitiy.

[panerd]

I've always liked the idea of a la carte choice. I watch about 8 channels with any regularity. If I could get only those plus the major networks, I definitely would. In the short term, it would create some chaos, but in the long run, I think programming would improve (later Stu Scott).

Stuart Scott is a main sportscenter anchor and Monday Night Countdown host. I doubt he is going anywhere. If anything ESPN would probably dump ESPNnews which to me just the best job of actually explaining what happened in games.

[Desnudo]

It would depend on demand. Right now you get whatever the cable company feels you should have. I don't like the idea of government fronting the idea, but then again, the cable industry isn't exactly an unfettered free market.

[sterlingice]

As far as less choice, what good is more choice when it's not good quality? Simply thinking out loud...

FMYeah, but how many times have you liked shows that get cancelled because "no one watches them". This would just be an extension of that, only whole stations. It's great right up until that station that you really liked goes belly up.

I mean, if Cartoon Network only costs me 15c, as it says in the above article, great. If Turner decides that selling it for 15c doesn't make them money like they need and cans it, then what does that low price get me? Nothing. I watch quite a few stations like that: FoodTV, OLN (hockey), Sci-Fi, etc- that I doubt pull big cable ratings. I'd rather have the plan where I pay $20 for a bunch of useless stations like Lifetime and Home Shopping yet still get to see my stations than have a bunch wiped out because I'm one of only a few hundred thousand across the country who wants it.

SI

[gstelmack]

Stuart Scott is a main sportscenter anchor and Monday Night Countdown host. I doubt he is going anywhere. If anything ESPN would probably dump ESPNnews which to me just the best job of actually explaining what happened in games.I think it would be funny as all get-out if ESPN subscriber numbers dropped to nothing while ESPNews stayed way up there...

[JonInMiddleGA]

I watch quite a few stations like that: FoodTV, OLN (hockey), Sci-Fi, etc-

So you're that guy. Another mystery of the universe solved ;)

(Seriously, you would have needed to work at picking out less watched networks than those)

[-Mojo Jojo-]

I'd say the government should just disaggregate the physical cable infrastructure from provision of services and content. The physical infrastructure is a natural monopoly. As long as content provision is tied to the physical infrastructure, it too is a monopoly, which is why we get the government messing with it. In some areas regulated competition has been introduced. But if we just severed the business connection between the wires and the content, the government could just regulate the infrastructure like any other utility, and the provision of services could be an honest to god unregulated free market. If a company wants to sell packaged channels, great. If a competitor wants to sell channels ala carte, more power to them. Let the market decide. Why should we have to rely on Congress micromanaging these things. Just restrict the monopoly to the smallest possible area (infrastructure) and expose the rest to the market.

[vex]

SciFi Rocks:D

[Ksyrup]

How far off are Food Networks ratings from when Emeril was at his peak 5-7 years ago? Or put another way, did they ever get really good ratings at any point?

[rkmsuf]

How far off are Food Networks ratings from when Emeril was at his peak 5-7 years ago? Or put another way, did they ever get really good ratings at any point?


I guess good is a relative term. I mean what is good for a cable channel? 1? 2?

Based on the expansion of the Food Network I'd say they are doing well.

[sterlingice]

So you're that guy. Another mystery of the universe solved ;)

(Seriously, you would have needed to work at picking out less watched networks than those)Put a Nielsen box in my home and double the ratings? ;)

I didn't figure that Sci-Fi and FoodTV were the absolute bottom of the barrel but they were probably the ones I watched that the least amount of other people watched. OLN, well, it's a joke of a network. I weep for the NHL.

SI

[JonInMiddleGA]

OLN, well, it's a joke of a network. I weep for the NHL.


Thing is, they haven't always been this bad. The Outdoor Channel has been stripping away audience for, I dunno, a couple of years I guess.

OLN still has something like double the TOC audience at any given moment in primetime, but when you lose 1/3rd of your viewers & don't replace them ... well, it hurts. I just learned this week that one of their most popular outdoor programs is migrating to TOC, and it isn't the first one to do so. If the Tour DeLance tanks the ratings next time around, they're really going to be hurting.

Honestly though, having dealt with both networks fairly recently, I think the biggest thing that hurts OLN is that they're pretty much run like any other Comcast operation ... which is to say by people who shouldn't try to run a hot knife through butter, much less anything of value. The Peter Principle is alive & well as far as I can tell.

[DanGarion]

They're doing some of this now for like 99 cents for the episode. I haven't purchased one, so I'm not sure how many ads are included.
I'm not sure if there are ads with the Ipod tv shows. I'm pretty sure there aren't.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I guess good is a relative term. I mean what is good for a cable channel? 1? 2?

Based on the expansion of the Food Network I'd say they are doing well.

Depends on who you're talking to & what their perspective might be, but I generally consider anything anywhere near a 1.0 (Household rating) pretty damned good for a cable network.

Here's last week's ratings info
http://www.tvweek.com/docs/docs/chart112805.pdf

Primetime
USA 1.9 (2.1m HH)
ESPN 1.8
Disney 1.5
TNT 1.4
FNC 1.3 (1.4m HH)
NickAtNite 1.2
TBS 1.2
Lifetime 1.2
Cartoon 1.1
History 0.9 (961k HH)

Total Day ratings are similar, except that Lifetime & Adult Swim show up at the bottom, while FNC & HIS drop out
Nick 1.5 (1.67m HH)
Nick @ Nite 1.1
USA & Disney tied at 0.9
TNT, Cartoon, ESPN, TBS, & Adult Swim tied at 0.8 (852k HH)
Lifetime 0.7

Now here's a table from the previous week that has more detail
http://medialifemagazine.com/artman/publish/article_1312.asp

Here's the primtetime top 25 in order (Total HH for reference):
ESPN (2.48m), USA, TNT, TBS, NAN, FNC, LIF, TOON, SPK, FX (869k), MTV, TVLND, AMC, HIST, HGTV(791k), Hallmark, DISC, COURT, SCIFI, CMDY, FAM, A&E, FOOD, CNN, ESPN2 (620k)

If you look at total day ratings, the order shuffles a bit & a couple of notables appear. AdultSwim is 6th at 917,000 (continues to impress considering their narrow time slot), while Nick and NickAtNite are solidly #1 & #2.

By now, you're probably sick of numbers but I'm on a roll, so here's some things that might help put all this in perspective:

-- 17 of the top 25 cable programs (wk of 11/7) were SpongeBob Episodes
-- the #25 show was SpongeBob, with 2.57m HH's.
-- ESPN had 3 shows in the top 25, USA had 2 (both WWE hours) & MTV had 1 (Laguna Beach). Nick claimed the other two spots with Fairly OddParents.
-- Reunion on the WB had a 2.7 rtg/2.9m HH's, it would have been #16 in the cable universe. Joey on NBC had a 5.5 rtg/5.96m HH's -- it would have been the #2 show on Cable, trailing only the Steelers/Browns game.

Point being -- cable is such a huge factor, finally beating broadcast for total viewers in the past year, because of the massive amount of variety it has. There's extremely few shows that draw an audience that would be considering large in network TV terms, it's the combined weight of the thousands of hours that makes it such a force. Start dropping networks, start losing hours, and like I said earlier -- the big winner in all this will be the broadcast networks.

[JonInMiddleGA]

... But the real issue remains. A la carte may have great political appeal but is it practical?

The answer appears to be no. Consumers would end up paying a lot more for a lot less. That's according to a new study by Kagan Research.

Cable subscribers now pay an average $45.40 per month for about 64 networks. Under a la carte, they'd pay about the same but for a far smaller number of channels, somewhere between six and nine. That's the number of channels Kagan thinks subscribers would choose.

The research company, of Monterey, Calif., estimates that consumers now pay an average $0.71 per channel per month, slightly down from $0.72 in 2004. Under a la carte, they would be paying between $5 to $10 per month for the top-tier networks most would likely select.

That $5 to $10 PER NETWORK being estimated there.

You can read the whole article at: http://medialifemagazine.com/artman/publish/article_1948.asp