Another attempt to push TV providers to a la carte.....
 

This would do a tremendous amount of damage to the sports industry. The ever-growing rights fees come out of revenue that is gained from spreading the cost of these sports channels over a large subscriber base (why the bundle exists - to get a cut from every subscriber to the package, not per channel) and not just those who want the sports channels. Right now some sports channels cost as much as $5 or so out of what every subscriber pays. Make that pool smaller, and the cost per subscriber goes up quite a bit.

The cost per channel will go up dramatically, but some people would save a lot by paying more per-channel for the handful they actually watch while dropping all the others.

Im concerned about the very real chance that each channel costs so much that I can only get 5 or 6 channels for the amount I pay now.

McCain has always been a halfwitted moron when it comes to anything related to broadcast (listening to him discuss the radio business before one of the rounds of deregulation was downright painful).

I gave up on thinking this idea would work out better for consumers about 3 years ago.

Indeed. It sounds like a good idea at first, and for some it would be (probably would turn me into a subscriber again), but it would turn the whole industry upside down. We would end up with even less choice and pay more for it. That has always been the case with these kinds of things. People end up paying more for less.

I have to think that McCain is actually being paid handsomely by the lobbyists for the cable companies to push this, since unbundling would ultimately work in their favor in terms of higher rates.

I believe you're giving him too much credit. He's simply not very bright when it comes to matters in this area.

It would also bring more transparency to the actual costs to carry each channel, which I'm not sure the distributors really want. There are two cabals here (creators/distributors) that don't really want the average person being privy to that part of the business. It changes the relationship.

I dunno. There are scores of channels that we never watch. Outside of MNF, I think I could even survive without ESPN. And even then, MNF has sucked for the past few years.

HGTV, SyFy, CN, Discovery, Food, Disney, Animal Planet, Boomerang, DIY. That's probably 90-95% of what is in our DVR list outside of locals.

I think I'm at the point where I could fill hours reading (I have SO many comic books alone that I haven't read), playing on the computer, or watching Netflix if my TV options were limited past what I list above.

Just out of curiosity, I wanted to see what your ownership distribution looked like with that list.

HGTV, Food, DIY - Scripps
SyFy - NBCU
Cartoon, Boom - Turner(Time Warner)
Discovery, AniPlan - DCI
Disney - Disney/ABC


Of those, Boomerang looks like the most likely to die without either a hefty pricetag or a hefty premium attached to other networks (like Cartoon) to help pay the freight.

DIY could be in trouble as well, although surcharges added to Food could generate enough revenue to save it. HGTV at this point is probably right in the middle of the pack & could pay its own way.

SyFy is still pretty niche but probably survives with help from the hefty surcharge that would surely be applied to USA.

Disney likely becomes one of the 5 most expensive ala carte networks.

Wouldn't matter for us. We've disconnected the cable altogether. Public TV + Netflix only.

Yeah, and I think Disney would be the most expendable, really. Fish Hooks, Gravity Falls, and the occasional P&F is pretty much all we watch there. DIY I think would also be ok to go. We just finished watching Rehab Addict, but that's because my daughter didn't want to watch the Orioles (hmm - don't know how regionals like MASN fit into this). Holmes on Holmes is pleasant but filler. I do get a kick out of the idiots on Renovation Realities.

Boomerang is basically an extension of Cartoon, showing its old stuff like Dexter, J. Bravo, Lazlo, Fosters, etc either stand-alone or packaged as Cartoon Planet. Doesn't even have commercials. Seems like it would be attached to Cartoon, but I don't know.


edit: can't believe I didn't even think to list Nickelodeon. Used to have that on pretty much as default, but I guess we've burnt out on the Sponge, and with no more iCarly I can't even tell you what's on there for original programming. So much more CN with Looney Tunes Show, Regular Show, Adventure Time, Mad, Incredible Crew, Gumball.

Funny to see that description of their current lineup. Last time I saw Boomerang it was showing classic 60's/70's Hanna-Barbera stuff.

It was much better then. Now it is the Cartoon Network rerun channel most of the time. Not as cool as it once was.

I guess it depends on the time of day. Looking at it now, the after-dark block is still "action" - Teen Titans, SWAT Kats (ok, can't believe they still show that), Ben 10. Overnight and early morning are T&J, MGM, Flinstones, Secret Squirrel, Huck, Yogi, Top Cat. So yeah, definitely still playing some old H-B. Some Garfield, Smurfs.

Afternoon and evening - when kids will be home - it looks like it is more CN stuff. Powerpuff Girls, Almost Naked Animals, Dexter, Foster's, Johnny Bravo, Krypto, Ben 10, 2 Stupid Dogs, Cow and Chicken.

Well, I am a big fan of Dexter and Foster's, so I am happy that I can catch them now that they are out of their original runs (heck, some Dexters are 17 years old now).

I felt the same when Nick at Nite started moving in shows from the 80s. I didn't want to see them - I wanted Dick Van Dkye, Mary Tyler Moore, Bewitched (ok, nevermind that I had the hots for both young MTM and Elizabeth Montgomery. Oh right, Babs Eden too.)

That is where I have been. I've found some appeal in watching cricket these days, oddly enough, which I got into via some coverage on ESPN3 ("free" for Comcast Internet customers). I've recently subscribed to the cricket package that DishWorld offers through Roku to watch the Indian Premier League. Just a temporary indulgence through somebody that seems to understand the potential of an alternative distribution method (no commitments, you can cancel and restart whenever you want, and they gave me a full month for free to start off with as a trial).

That, Hulu Plus, Netflix, Amazon Prime, and an antenna for over-the-air TV provides way more programming than we ever get to. All for less than what basic cable would've cost us.

I like some Donna Reed as well.

I'm with you. McCain has been pretty clueless when it comes to broadcasting and the FCC.

I think consumers really need to be careful what they ask for with this. Unless you completely ban ala carte pricing, you're still going to have bundling. ABC/Disney will just sell all of their channels in a bundle, NBCUniversal, Viacom and the rest will do the same. Channels that aren't part of an empire will go away or be a part of a corporate group. The end result regardless will be an increased cost and fewer channels.

Cable companies are starting to adopt the idea of ala carte for a couple of reasons. One is that it gets them out of the pricing business -- they're tired of dealing with the increased costs from programmers, and would prefer just to make their money delivering the pipe and let the programmers sell programming to customers directly. Second is that if channels go away, it reduces their infrastructure costs and need for bandwidth.

That's a heck of a tightrope to try to walk. If channels go away, it also reduces the need for cable at all.

Wonder how many providers survive if they end up with internet delivery as their primary product? Maybe that's the end game they've got in mind here ... more people drop cable & go to online services that are narrowly focused, and then the cable-turned-internet provider sends pricing for that much bandwidth through the roof.

I think I would love this. Even if it were highly expensive, I am paying $130 now and these are the only channels I would pay for: TNT, NBAtv, ESPN, HBO, Showtime, MTV, AMC, food network. I think that's it. I never, ever, browse around anymore so this would not be a problem.

With 100+ channels and the move to 22 minutes of commercials per hour (if you're lucky), what's disappeared is the ability to effectively channel-surf.

I'd be happy with 8-10 channels. If a la carte really meant the end of any kind of bundling, I think it could work. It would be nice to take the cable providers out of the pricing mechanism.

However, being Congress, it will take its cut from the lobbyists and whatever comes out of this will be far worse than the current situation.

The industry will make sure they're the real winners.

I think it would fundamentally hurt the creation of new shows. A show like Duck Dynasty doesn't succeed if half of viewers didn't have that channel subscribed.

ESPN gets like $6/month (I believe, someone can correct me) from the cable companies from damn near everyone with cable at this point. That's a ton of money. What would they need to charge if their subscriber base was cut down to just the people who truly want it, and it didn't include all those who get it out of convenience or because it's part of a package? Something like $30/month seems like it could be in play.

Then you have your two movie channels, those cost me about $30/month combined here in NYC...maybe yours is lower. I have no idea what AMC might cost, but I know they have expensive programming and are getting killed...in an a la carte, maybe they're $10/month. Would you pay $30 to watch a season of Mad Men? Another $30 to watch a season of Breaking Bad? Many people already do through online streaming, and that's not necessarily live and on your big screen TV.

TNT, MTV, and Food Network are probably expensive to run on their own...let's call it $5 each to get it for simplicity. NBAtv as a niche product would probably be $5 if not more.

My numbers could be way off of course (or even low) but you're paying $90/month now for your seven channels and you haven't paid for your DVR, or taxes etc which I assume is in your $130 original cost.

I agree with your general point (a la carte would send prices through the roof in levels we couldn't imagine), however, online streaming can be done on your big screen TV in HD - Roku will do that for you (through Amazon Instant). But yes, not live. And Mad Men and Breaking Bad seasons are roughly $30 each.

Yep, this was a quick off-the-cuff post. After thinking about it, I'd probably get reamed or drop some of those channels. Also, my cable bill is roughly $130, but that includes internet... I think TV alone is like $90...

Yeah I figured, I was doing it more for my own benefit as I'd be in a similar situation.

This is a concern of mine as well. I dont think AMC ever becomes a channel that can afford to develop shows like Mad Men or Breaking Bad under an a la carte model. Even if they did develop them i doubt they wouldve succeeded.