# McCain Releases A La Carte Bill



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

Sen. John McCain on Wednesday formally introduced the Consumers Having Options in Cable Entertainment (CHOICE) Act, his attempt to inject a la carte programming choices into the pay-TV business.

McCain said the bill would encourage broadcasters and cable companies that own networks to sell channels individually to subscribers. It would also promote cable programming distribution via the internet, the senator said.

Said McCain, "There is only one option available: Buy a package of channels, whether you watch all the channels or not. The alternative is to not receive cable programming at all. Why have cable companies and cable programmers refused to give consumers the ability to buy and pay for only those channels consumers watch? Simply because they do not have to. They are the only game in town."

There was a wide spectrum of responses to McCain's legislation.

EchoStar said in a statement consumers want more control over the content they purchase in pay TV packages, and the company would like that flexibility to respond to consumer demands.

"Senator McCain introduced a bill that moves in the right direction. Content owners are given an extra incentive to sell programming to video providers outside of a bundled package. We applaud Senator McCain for his leadership, and we hope that other policymakers will help provide Americans with more choice over their TV viewing experience," the satellite TV company said.

http://www.skyreport.com (Used with permission)


----------



## dodge boy (Mar 31, 2006)

hard to believe a Republican actually doing something for the consumers.... may just be all smoke and mirrors.


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

It's about time!


Thank you!!!!!

-JB


----------



## booger (Nov 1, 2005)

Bring it on. I'm ready for A La Carte!


----------



## balanceok (Jul 22, 2004)

is why can't I purchase the right to receive satellite broadcast of network stations located in another state.

If I'm from California and move to Ohio, I should be able to purchase the rights to see my old CA stations in Ohio.

I wish it were so.


----------



## AllieVi (Apr 10, 2002)

I'm cautiously optimistic about this proposal.

I can only see it working if an underlying fee is charged that covers the basic operating costs and a reasonable profit to the satellite and cable companies. It's not like someone's bill would drop to $5 because they only want to watch one channel.


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

AllieVi said:


> I'm cautiously optimistic about this proposal.
> 
> I can only see it working if an underlying fee is charged that covers the basic operating costs and a reasonable profit to the satellite and cable companies. It's not like someone's bill would drop to $5 because they only want to watch one channel.


Why not?

Seriously... I understand and expect a "minimum" usage fee but allowing us to pick the channels we want with each channel having a differnt price or groups of channels plaed in the Free, 50 cent, $1, $2 etc...

As I have often said before:

If I pay 100% for the equipment, 100% for the install and a "network upkeep" (yes I understand I have to pay my fair share to keep the birds in the sky so to speak) then why can't I subscribe to one channel if that's all I want?

I envision the day in which Dish charges the same "distribution" fee for each channel you subscribe to. (in an ideal world it should cost the same to distribute a channel of HBO as it does the Food Netword but yes I understand about compression and such)

We would see what each channel costs in one section of our bill and the other section we would see what Dish charges to distribute the channels as well as any rental costs for equipment and/or other option services Dish offers.

Much like your current gas bill.

-JB


----------



## minamelos (Sep 30, 2003)

AllieVi said:


> I'm cautiously optimistic about this proposal.
> 
> I can only see it working if an underlying fee is charged that covers the basic operating costs and a reasonable profit to the satellite and cable companies. It's not like someone's bill would drop to $5 because they only want to watch one channel.


McCain has been trying to do this for years, every year it get's shot down. Cable company's claim it would cost more for A La Carte than package pricing. Just like how 1 premium service is $16.99 but you can get 2 for $24.99 (example).


----------



## deraz (Sep 25, 2004)

jrb531 said:


> Why not?
> 
> If I pay 100% for the equipment, 100% for the install and a "network upkeep" (yes I understand I have to pay my fair share to keep the birds in the sky so to speak) then why can't I subscribe to one channel if that's all I want?
> 
> -JB


Because D* and E* are private companies. They should be able to sell and market thier products and services as they wish.

This is just another example of big government interferring with how private companies conduct their businesses.


----------



## deraz (Sep 25, 2004)

I never read the sports section of the newspaper. Can we get McCain to force the newspapers to a similar program?


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

balanceok said:


> is why can't I purchase the right to receive satellite broadcast of network stations located in another state.


You'll need to take this up with the National Association of Broadcasters, Congress and the FCC. The NAB wants you wathing network content from your local broadcaster so that you see the local advertising that is inserted locally.

If we all paid for locals, we could probably get whatever we wanted, but as long as the local programming is offered based almost entirely on a local advertising model, it isn't going to happen.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Chris Blount said:


> Why have cable companies and cable programmers refused to give consumers the ability to buy and pay for only those channels consumers watch? Simply because they do not have to. They are the only game in town."


As long as they chase after the distributors and not the producers, they aren't going to get anywhere. Putting the squeeze on Comcast, Time Warner and Cox is an indirect route.

If they truly want to effect change, they need to go after Disney, Universal and the like. Of course this would get vicious press from these same organizations that the gummint was trying to tinker with their successful business model.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

AllieVi said:


> It's not like someone's bill would drop to $5 because they only want to watch one channel.


It would certainly level the playing field for Satellite as everyone would need to have an STB to deny them the content that they didn't want to pay for.

A similar situation existed in the infancy of DTMF "touch tone" telephone dialing. Implementing the capability didn't take very much, but denying customers access to it was very complicated and expensive. Telephone companies typically charged $0.50/month for the service when it was costing them nothing to provide it and a non-negligible amount to deny it to everyone else.

Cable probably wouldn't mind doing away with their analog material tomorrow and they could blame it on the government, but the whole subsidy model that they currently use ($9.99/month with no down on a digital box) would be out the window. You would see something that looked a whole lot more like the satellite model in a matter of days.


----------



## AllieVi (Apr 10, 2002)

jrb531 said:


> ... Much like your current gas bill. ...


*Oh My GOD!*

Wait, maybe you meant *natural* gas bill. Whew!


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

deraz said:


> Because D* and E* are private companies. They should be able to sell and market thier products and services as they wish.
> 
> This is just another example of big government interferring with how private companies conduct their businesses.


Just as Microsoft is a private company and can do "anything" they want.... right?

-JB


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

AllieVi said:


> *Oh My GOD!*
> 
> Wait, maybe you meant *natural* gas bill. Whew!


LOL sorry about that. I indeed meant natural gas bill 

-JB


----------



## jonsnow (Apr 18, 2006)

Chris Blount said:


> Sen. John McCain on Wednesday formally introduced the Consumers Having Options in Cable Entertainment (CHOICE) Act, his attempt to inject a la carte programming choices into the pay-TV business.
> 
> McCain said the bill would encourage broadcasters and cable companies that own networks to sell channels individually to subscribers. It would also promote cable programming distribution via the internet, the senator said.
> 
> ...


You know something is wrong when Zaraqawi is killed, yet I do not have any right to buy a major cable news channel ala carte, since I subscribe to a locals pack, to see major breaking news live. News is important to me, yet I'm being blackouted from receiving a product I would be willing to pay good money for, just to satify some programer who thinks he knows better than me how to run a cable company. It would literally take a nuclear bomb going off for my local channels to break into Judge Judy to cover a major event live, and even then they might not cover it. Good for McCain, at least on this issue he is reasonable.


----------



## fredtx (Sep 5, 2005)

I really would like to think that this will happen, but after the last five years of this congress, it will probably go down in flames. The lobby group in DC will be busy buying the votes to blow it away. I live in an area of West Texas which and is serviced by network affiliates that will never provide digital much less HDTV signals and yet they will not provide us with waivers. I have told D*and E* that I need to have better access to HDTV and since they will not offer what I am willing to pay for (DNS) I believe that they are unfairly hiding behind SHEVRA. The net effect is that instead of my purchasing a high end TV reciever and spending a lot more monthly, I'll just keep my money out of circulation and the local Circuit City, Best Buy, et. al. can fold up and go away since their lobby group does not understand that anybody who checks is not going to buy a product and not be able to get the full benefit.

Sooooo, until the consumers start electing people to represent them instead of politicians greasing their bank accounts like Duke Cunningham, Roy Jefferson, Tom Delay, Ney and god knows how many more, we are never going to see any real benefit to new technologies!!!!


----------



## deraz (Sep 25, 2004)

jrb531 said:


> Just as Microsoft is a private company and can do "anything" they want.... right?
> 
> -JB


Of course not. They can't go around killing the competition. The government has laws to protect against unfair competition and monopolies.

If enough people actually wanted ala carte, one of the cable companies or sats would have tried it and the others would have been forced to follow.

When it is mentioned, many people believe that they will be able to just get their favorite 5 to 10 channels for only $10 to $15/month. We all know this will never happen.

Like I said before, I don't like paying for the sports section of the newspaper. But I don't believe that they would deliver it to my house for any less without it.

I don't eat the french fries in a McDonald's meal, but I don't want the gov't involved. Don't they have bigger things to worry about.


----------



## BobaBird (Mar 31, 2002)

> EchoStar said in a statement consumers want more control over the content they purchase in pay TV packages, and the company would like that flexibility to respond to consumer demands.


Note this is the same E* that just 6 months ago stopped allowing new HD customers to choose whether or not they want the Voom channels in their HD package. Also, DISHFamily was introduced not in a press release, but before a congressional panel investigating why consumers don't have more choice. Thank you to Sen McCain for recognizing that the issue is not closed. I still believe E* does everything it can to keep package prices in check but this makes me wonder if E* really is willing to share control with the consumer.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

fredtx said:


> I live in an area of West Texas which and is serviced by network affiliates that will never provide digital much less HDTV signals and yet they will not provide us with waivers.


I bet that changes before never. The shut-off date for analog broadcast is 986 days away!


> I have told D*and E* that I need to have better access to HDTV and since they will not offer what I am willing to pay for (DNS) I believe that they are unfairly hiding behind SHEVRA.


Your beef should be with the local affiliates for not offering HDTV programming and denying waivers. There is an additional provision in the SHVERA that kicks in for smaller markets July 16, 2007 where you can get around a waiver by being declared "unserved" in an FCC approved signal test. The distributor needs to be in on this so you don't waste your money on the survey.

D* and E* are not allowed to deliver distants without a waiver (or an "unserved" test) so I don't think it is fair to say that they are hiding behind SHVERA.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The official bill is not posted yet (it is always interesting to see if these bills do as advertised) When posted it should appear here: Text of Legislation. (The working draft from the Senator's website can be read here.)

The Senator's press release.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I can't believe we still have people ready to jump up and salute to more government control/interference in private matters.

Some of the same people who like to talk about freedom and democracy, seem to want everything legislated. If people got everything they wanted, I think we would end up looking more like a communist state than a democratic republic.


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

deraz said:


> Of course not. They can't go around killing the competition. The government has laws to protect against unfair competition and monopolies.
> 
> If enough people actually wanted ala carte, one of the cable companies or sats would have tried it and the others would have been forced to follow.
> 
> ...


And the "programmers" who mandate must-carry packages with "all" forms of pay TV distributors do what for competition?

Dish-Direct TV-Cable are only competing for your "distribution" $$$'s - the "real" issue here (and one I hope congress does address) is the same programmers "mandating" all distributors into these must carry contracts.

How many times must we prove time and again that "true" competition works. I am not a fan of government intervention but in this case someone has to break up the "programmer" monopoly.

Show me what distributor will sell me what I want and I will back off. Just like Microsoft has limits placed on them because we are near forced to use their software, such should the programmers be forced to play fair.

Until, for example, I have a choice between 2-4 difference "sci-fi" channels, or 2-4 "history" channels my choice should not be:

1. Subscribe to unique channel at "any" cost
2. Do not subscribe

While competition works when you have actual competition, in the pay TV world you seldom have overlapping programming aside from some of the generalist channels so it's not like I can switch from one brand of soda to any number of competitors.

If I want certain specialized pay TV channels it matters not what distributor I select and the programmer places the same monopolistic rules on all the distributors.

Answer this if you would:

Can Dish Network create a new package with "any" channels Dish network sees fit?

If the answer is no then why? Why in the name of --- does a provider of content have "any" say in how their channel is packaged????

Dish to History Channel: How much will you charge us per customer?
History Channel: $xx.xx per customer, $xx.xx rate for 500,000 customers, $xx.xx rate for over 1,000,000 customers.

THIS is the market. Discounts for volumn for sure but also the ability to select higher rate single unit prices. Now Dish, as a distributor, can offer incentives by reduced rates for us taking a large number of channels like then do now but for crying out loud....

If I want to select package A and only want one additional channel that happens to be in package C then what justification can anyone give for requireing me to subscribe to package A, B and C???????

IMHO the only reason the current system goes against all forms of logic is the almighty $$$ which goes a long way to convince both congress, the FCC and even us sheep called customers that we are somehow better off with 300 pay channels at a near average cost of over $75-100 instead of having the "option" to pick only those channels we wish to watch.

If people want to watch 300 channels I don't give a rat's behind but stop making me subsidise your excessive viewing habits!

-JB


----------



## AllieVi (Apr 10, 2002)

James Long said:


> ... When posted it should appear here: Text of Legislation. (The working draft from the Senator's website can be read here.) ...


James,

Thanks for the links.


----------



## riffjim4069 (May 15, 2004)

deraz said:


> I never read the sports section of the newspaper. Can we get McCain to force the newspapers to a similar program?


I think you're missing the point with your analogy. By creating bundled channel packages, the programmers and service providers are often making you, the consumer, purchase channels you don't want. That's akin to buying a copy of the Washington Post, only to be forced into buying it bundled along with the New York Times, Detroit Free Press, and the Pocatello Spud - all in one great big expensive package. Why should we, as consumers, be forced into buying three additional news publications when all we want is the Washington Post? Likewise, if you wish to purchase the Fox News Channel (FNC), then why should you have to pay for a News Package consisting of CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, etc.?

Now, if you were to purchase the Washington Times then you also be purchasing the content of said publication: news, weather, sports, advertising, etc. You cannot selectively reject the sports page simply because you don't read it...it's part of your individual (not packaged nor bundled) purchase/subscription. Likewise, if you purchase FNC, you cannot selectively pick and choose the lineup. Love him or hate him, you're gonna get Bill O'Reilly if you subscribe to FNC; and you can't have Hannity without Colmes.

This is the kind of linear thinking that a la carte is all about! Cable and Satellite are still free to offer bundled programming packages. They just can't force you to select from three or four packages...each containing more than 50% of channels most consumers don't want and will never watch.

I agree that government should largely keep their collective noses out of private sector business. However, the cable cronies and programming pundits have held the public hostage far too long and have monopolized the free market video system. It's time to release and public from their shackles, and Senator McCain's legislation may be another important ingredient in bringing real cable competition and consumer choice.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I like RC (Royal Crown) Cola, but my local grocery stores don't carry it. I think the government should force Food Lion & Target & Kroger & Harris Teeter all to carry RC Cola!

Note for people who can't tell... the above was sarcastic.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

Please, no more analogies. They're all flawed, and it's easy to pick one for either side of the issue.

And please consider that this debate is not about _whether_ the government should regulate multi-channel delivery systems. From must-carry to single-dish to OOM locals, there are already a lot of regulations that run counter to what businesses and the marketplace have shown that they prefer. So the debate should be about _how_ the government should regulate multi-channel delivery systems. And that can be a deep question.


----------



## audiomaster (Jun 24, 2004)

I think the issue is with the content providers and how they want E and D to bundle things. Legislation would force the providers to offer programs ala carte to both DBS and cable operators. 

What I want is true Pay Per View. I select a program and 60 seconds in a pop up asks if I want to purchase it for $?.?? I click yes, it stays on, I click no it goes off or if I change the channel I don't pay. I have the option to choose from any program offered on any sat I can see. In effect ALL channels are Pay Per View, just at different rates based on cost from the provider.

This would be the equivalent of telling the newspaper what types of articles you wanted to read and having them downloaded and printed out for you every morning. Would save a lot of trees!!


----------



## kb7oeb (Jun 16, 2004)

As I understand this bill it only applies to Cable and it is optional. If a cable company offers ala carte they get a national franchise at a lower rate. If they don't want to offer ala carte things stay the same. The text of the bill that I saw said it doesn't cover DBS at all since DBS does not need to franchise.


----------



## Fifty Caliber (Jan 4, 2006)

dodge boy said:


> hard to believe a Republican actually doing something for the consumers.... may just be all smoke and mirrors.


While Republicans do alot to help consumers, one thing being keeping the unconstitutional minimum wage from unconstitutionally being increased, McCain is definitely not a Republican any more than they Mayor of NYC Mike Bloomberg is. These two politicians are known as "RiNOs", Republicans in Name Only.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

kb7oeb said:


> As I understand this bill it only applies to Cable and it is optional.


Yep ...(5) VIDEO SERVICE PROVIDER.-The term ''video service provider''-(A) means a provider of video service that utilizes a public right-of-way in the provision of such service; and
(B) does not include-(i) a provider of direct broadcast satellite service;​Does this thread belong in the general satellite discussion forum?


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

A better question is why does this only apply to cable?

-JB


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

As I understand it, the bill only applies to cable because it's offering a carrot in exchange for compliance. But that carrot, national franchising, doesn't apply to satellite.


----------



## grooves12 (Oct 27, 2005)

If any of you took the time to look into how the business of pay tv REALLY works, you would see that it would NOT be much cheaper, if any, to offer a la carte programming. It is not, like many beleive, that you are paying for channels you don't want... ADVERTISERS pay for the majority of the upopular channels, and the content providers are bundling these channels for nothing with channels that we DO want. If we got rid of all the channels that have small subscriber bases that are bundled with popular channels, the networks' revenues from ads goes down, and they just increase the prices of the popular channels. So, we end up paying the same or more for less, and there is now less content available to choose from.


----------



## grooves12 (Oct 27, 2005)

FTA Michael said:


> As I understand it, the bill only applies to cable because it's offering a carrot in exchange for compliance. But that carrot, national franchising, doesn't apply to satellite.


True... but if cable successfully negotiates with the content providers to get this, and it works as a business model, they will be forced to do the same with the satellite companies.


----------



## grooves12 (Oct 27, 2005)

jrb531 said:


> A better question is why does this only apply to cable?
> 
> -JB


Because it is not a bill that would mandate anything... it is incentive based. The National Franchising that they are using as an incentive does not apply to Satellite companies, so therefor Cable Co's will have to be the leaders in getting this started.

The wildcard here is that it should also apply to FIOS TV providers based on the wording of the bill. Local franchise agreements are one of the major roadblacks that has kept FIOS TV from taking off. ATT has been lobbying to get the franshise agreement rules changed and has been running ads all over California in an attempt to do so. If this bill goes through and they can use a la carte as a way of circumventing the current rules, by getting a national frachise agreement, in order to get their product to market in more areas sooner, you can bet your ass they will do everything in their power to make it happen.


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

grooves12 said:


> If any of you took the time to look into how the business of pay tv REALLY works, you would see that it would NOT be much cheaper, if any, to offer a la carte programming. It is not, like many beleive, that you are paying for channels you don't want... ADVERTISERS pay for the majority of the upopular channels, and the content providers are bundling these channels for nothing with channels that we DO want. If we got rid of all the channels that have small subscriber bases that are bundled with popular channels, the networks' revenues from ads goes down, and they just increase the prices of the popular channels. So, we end up paying the same or more for less, and there is now less content available to choose from.


I keep hearing this over and over and over yet no one has been able to demonstrate an ala cart system that has failed.

I don't buy it for one minute that if I want (1) channel that happens to be in package C than somehow it's in my best interest (and cheaper) for me to be forced to subscribe to packages A and B just to get something I want in C.

Why can't I take A and C and not B?
Why can't I take just C?

Just admit it.... the entire package structure is set up to try and force us to take more and more channels. While this may be good business for them... it's NOT good business for me!

I only watch 8 channels ever! Those 8 channels are spread over all three packages. Are you going to tell me that those 8 channels will cost me $75 per month if I was able to select just the 8 I wanted via ala cart???

I don't care about the 100 other channels I am also getting for my $75.... I do not watch them. You could give me 100000 channels for $75 but I still only watch the 8. So get the channel cost down to 1 cent each and try and convince me how much I am saving yet I will continue to point out that I only want 8 channels.

Do I expect to pay $5 for those 8 channels.... of course not but even if I only saved $10 it would still be $120 more a year in my pocket that I did not have before.

-JB


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

jrb531 said:


> I keep hearing this over and over and over yet no one has been able to demonstrate an ala cart system that has failed.


I'm really trying to stay out of this one... deja vu and all... but I wanted to respond just to this one statement.

When has anyone demonstrated an a la carte system that has worked?

You ask for demonstration of a failure... but where is the demonstration of success? If anyone could show a business model of a la carte that worked both for the consumer AND the business, then I'm sure businesses would look harder at it.


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

HDMe said:


> I'm really trying to stay out of this one... deja vu and all... but I wanted to respond just to this one statement.
> 
> When has anyone demonstrated an a la carte system that has worked?
> 
> You ask for demonstration of a failure... but where is the demonstration of success? If anyone could show a business model of a la carte that worked both for the consumer AND the business, then I'm sure businesses would look harder at it.


If the status quo was working then I would be all for keeping things the way they are. People only want change when something is not working.

I'm sorry I just cannot accept that there cannot be even limited ala-cart while still offering volune discounts via packages.

I'm a firm believer in "If it ain't broke don't fix it"

Well in this case it's broke. Not from the standpoint of the programmers but from the standpoint of the consumer.

Once again:

If I pay 100% for the installation...
If I pay 100% for the equipment...
If I pay the same network upkeep costs...

then

Why can't I subscribe to one channel?

I've been asking this for over a year and to date no one has been able to answer this question. The programmers and distributors would rather deny me service rather than make only a small profit on me.

Name any other industry that works in this "all or nothing" approach?

Dish has publically stated that they wish to offer ala-cart (whether true or not in reality LOL) so what right do the programmers have in refusing to sell their product unless we take "all" their channels?

Free enterprise? Yes but only if I could then take by business elsewhere and in this case we have a non-competative envirorment that the programmers wish to keep the status quo because change means competition and competition means less profit.

So leep the current setup and allow a limited form of ala-cart... then see which wins?

Untill we have a modern day ala-cart we will never know what competition will do. I can't help remembering the gloom and doom about the breakup in At&T (now reforming ROTFL!) and how our service and rates would go up. Seem we now enjoy long distance that is now cheaper than most local service.

Competition always wins. The programmers do not have ANY form of competition because we cannot elect to cancel select channels if their content gets poor or their price gets too high. Until we have a say in what we pay for their is zero competition.

Pay TV yes or Pay TV no is NOT a choice in 2006.

-JB


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

HDMe said:


> I'm really trying to stay out of this one... deja vu and all... but I wanted to respond just to this one statement.
> 
> When has anyone demonstrated an a la carte system that has worked?


I agree that I'm tired of pacing the same floor. But there are _forms_ of a la carte available to Canadian consumers, to C-band subscribers, and to commercial customers. Whether they "work(ed)" depends on your definition, so I suspect proponents will say they work and opponents will say they don't work.

All of which goes back to a favorite point of mine: We don't even have consensus about what _kind_ of a la carte we're talking about. Absolutely every channel individually? Small clusters of channels? Reverse a la carte? Until I see the details in the McCain bill, it's all theoretical, and even afterward, it'll still be unlikely. IMHO.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

FTA Michael said:


> I agree that I'm tired of pacing the same floor. But there are _forms_ of a la carte available to Canadian consumers, to C-band subscribers, and to commercial customers. Whether they "work(ed)" depends on your definition, so I suspect proponents will say they work and opponents will say they don't work.


Yeah, I almost mentioned C-band. People who say "a la carte works" often bring up C-band as an example... but then don't want C-band because it isn't a small dish like DBS. So it may be an example of functional a la carte, but it isn't a successful example since people who want a la carte have left there for something else they wanted more.

Ends up being a retread circular argument that we could probably just put links in to old posts! 



FTA Michael said:


> All of which goes back to a favorite point of mine: We don't even have consensus about what _kind_ of a la carte we're talking about. Absolutely every channel individually? Small clusters of channels? Reverse a la carte? Until I see the details in the McCain bill, it's all theoretical, and even afterward, it'll still be unlikely. IMHO.


Also true... so many people in these discussions have wanted different things, even when they all think they want the same thing. If there isn't a consensus then it will be hard for a consumer group to force change when all consumers don't appear to want the same thing.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

jrb531 said:


> If the status quo was working then I would be all for keeping things the way they are. People only want change when something is not working.


Thing is... it appears the status quo is working for most... just not for some... and the some haven't gotten together or aren't enough of a group to force change... so that too implies the status quo is working.



jrb531 said:


> I'm a firm believer in "If it ain't broke don't fix it"


I don't believe the majority of consumers think it is broken. That's really the bottom line. If a significant portion of consumers actually wanted the kind of a la carte that some have discussed and actually believed it would save them money and the companies feared loss of revenue from those customers leaving... then change would occur.


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

What customer of Pay TV would not want to be able to add a single channel or two instead of being forced to take the next tier just for a single channel?

What about three groups of channels:

1. Cheap channels
2. Mid priced channels
3. High priced channels

For each package you could pick:

Package A: 10 cheap channels, 5 Mid, 1 High
Package B: 20 cheap channels, 10 Mid, 3 High
Package C: 30 cheap channels, 15 Mid, 7 High

These are but two examples of but a few ways it "could" work.

How does it appear that the status quo is working? Because we all continue to pay these wild rates?

There just has to be a middle ground here. I see nothing wrong with offering the same packages but allowing us to pick a certain number of channels based on price. I would even like the "opt-out" approach in which I could cancel select channels in a package for a small credit.

I just cannot accept the total and utter lack of compromise. Are they that afraid of letting the genie out of the bottle so to speak?

I think they are. Once the monopoly is broken up there will be no going back.

If there was "any" logic to the current set up at least there would be something to stand on but right now there is little sence to the current set up aside from placing "just enough" in each package to try and force us to take more more more.

If the packages were even "themed" it would make sense. Put sports in it's own package. Is there any logical reason why sports is not a separate package?

My compromise:

Multiple packages each costing $10 each (HD would be included in the appropriate package so no separate HD package)

1. Sports
2. Education
3. Movies
4. Classics
5. yadda yadda yadda

Any channel could be added to any package for $2 each

Simple, fair and allows "some" choice.

Numbers can be adjusted so they make business sence but I think my point comes across... or so I hope 

-JB


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

jrb531 said:


> How does it appear that the status quo is working? Because we all continue to pay these wild rates?


Essentially, that is it in a nutshell. If most people truly wanted a la carte (in any of the various suggested scenarios) then most people could very easily petition with the threat of cancelling their pay TV... and change would have to come or the market would collapse.

As long as you keep paying the bills, it implies support for the system. Truly want change? You have to fight for it. That's the American way!


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Say you were a channel provider who had a variety of channels to provide.
You're looking at covering your costs and making a little money - after paying for the rights to the programming you wish to air and your other costs you set a price based on getting a certain number of subscribers.

If you can get on the 'basic' tier of systems that per subscriber charge can be lower than if you are an 'a la carte' request channel for you to make the money you wish to make.

This is also understanding that if your channel carries advertising (most do) you can more easily sell advertising and charge more if you are in a higher number of subscriber homes. Ratings are good, but you can't get ratings unless you're in homes in the first place. So, as a channel provider, you want to be in as many homes as possible.

I mentioned that you provide more than one channel. Selling them individually may work, but convincing viewers that they need CH2 when they already have a CH1 from you might be a challenge. (One trick is to take half of your best programming and move it to CH2, but that ticks off CH1 viewers.) Bundling these two channels together and selling them as one serves you and your viewers - and it isn't all about the money - since you may sell the bundle for less than the individual channels.

Back to the advertising for a moment. Each channel with advertising has a certain number of minutes available for advertising. You can try to increase the number of minutes but there is a pain threshold where you lose viewers because they forgot what they were watching when the ads started and changed to another channel. Adding the second channel is a way of increasing the space available for ads. When your viewers get tired of your CH1 they can always flip to your CH2 - and still see the ads you're getting paid to air.

Factoring in the advertising, you will make more money having two channels on the air than one. So you can afford to charge less for a pair than a single, and less for a set than a pair. For one channel you charge $3.85, for two you charge $3.65, for three you charge $3.25, for four or five you charge $3.10 . Not $3.10 per channel but for all five channels ... and you can AFFORD to do that knowing that with the extra channels you have extra ad space and an extra chance of having something on your five channels that the viewer paying $3.10 is willing to watch.

Now comes congress and Sen. McCain ... they want to break up that pricing structure. CHOICE is an option that I don't see the major bundlers taking unless the "national franchise" is so much better than individual deals. Hopefully a deal that doesn't hurt local franchising authorities too much.

Now imagine having a la carte. Many on this list would like that --- just the channels you want. Say you took up the offers of the major program package providers and ended up taking all of their channels because they were good. Where does that leave new entrants? In the a la carte world each new channel has to prove itself ... which is hard to do when people have to choose to subscribe just to see what your channel is all about. And as a channel provider you have to at least break even on your channel ... which means charging a lot per customer or needing a big investment bankroll to lose while your channel is gaining ground.

So a new entrant goes out and invests a lot of cash in programming rights and starts up a channel or set of channels to sell a la carte. For the first year they lose money but they gain popularity enough that they can stay in business for another year ... the only trouble being is that they need to make money to pay off the debts of the first year. So they cut back on new programming and reair the stuff they already have the rights for. Early adopters have seen it all already and spend all of their time complaining and chasing off new subscribers by saying "it's always a rerun". How do you stay afloat? You do it by getting in a package where you reach more people the first year (enough that the loss isn't as big the first year) and where you can't be cancelled 'a la carte' the second year.

A full a la carte system would hurt new entrants and smaller channel providers. Fortunately this bill will not create such a monster.


----------



## KingLoop (Mar 3, 2005)

HDMe said:


> I can't believe we still have people ready to jump up and salute to more government control/interference in private matters.
> 
> Some of the same people who like to talk about freedom and democracy, seem to want everything legislated. If people got everything they wanted, I think we would end up looking more like a communist state than a democratic republic.


Well, that's the Democrats and Mc Cain for you.


----------



## kb7oeb (Jun 16, 2004)

Copyright was not intended to be the same as private property, the limitation starts with the constitution. The government has forced licensing of copyrighted works going back to player piano rolls. Some of this also gets into the antitrust area like how ESPN demands to be in the basic package of every provider.

Are you saying to be republican you have to be pro monopoly, pro cartel?


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

Unless someone wants to point to official party documents describing a position on a la carte, I am of the opinion that the words Democrat and Republican have no place in this thread. :nono2: 

A senator with a long history of tilting at the a la carte windmill says that he's introduced a new bill to lure cable companies into accepting it. I haven't seen any links to the text of the bill, and I haven't read many new arguments in this thread. If you want to talk politics, go to Potpourri. If you want to talk about issues relevant to this new shred of news, stick to those issues.


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

James Long said:


> Say you were a channel provider who had a variety of channels to provide.
> You're looking at covering your costs and making a little money - after paying for the rights to the programming you wish to air and your other costs you set a price based on getting a certain number of subscribers.
> 
> If you can get on the 'basic' tier of systems that per subscriber charge can be lower than if you are an 'a la carte' request channel for you to make the money you wish to make.
> ...


How do companies introduce new products into the marketplace? (not talking about pay tv)

If other markets can survive and thrive what is so different in regards to pay TV?

Everything you said makes sense but you could also say that magazines or other consumer goods. It will always be cheaper to sell in bulk but yet I can subscribe to one magazine without taking 10 of them. I can by a can of pop without a case.

Nothing is a true apples to apples comparision and I do not dispute your logic. It is good sound "business" logic but IMHO what is often good for business and "their" bottom line is not always good for the consumers bottom line.

-JB


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

KingLoop said:


> Well, that's the Democrats and Mc Cain for you.


What is one thing that both Democrats and Republicans have in common?

They are both working for special interests and "not" the common man.

To think otherwise is to have your head in the sand. Do I mean 100% of them? Of course not but politics is politics so as was posted I agree... lets not turn this into a political muck slinging.

IMHO the pay TV industry has crossed the line. They have gone too far this time and because the programmers supply "all" the product to be distributed this is no different that natural gas distribution. We are forced to pick from one supplier and because of this lack of choice there has to be "some" regulation otherwise the supplier could raise the price to anything they saw fit.

In a free market we would have the option to switching to another supplier if we felt the product was not to our liking. In the case of pay tv programming there is no second supplier.

ALL pay TV comes from one source. We "pretend" that we have a choice because we get to pick who delivers the product to our homes but it's the same product whether we get it via UPS, FedEd or USPS.

While we may save a few cents on delivery charges depending on who we pick to deliver pay tv to us, the produce costs the same.

So a few years ago Dish wants to buy DTV but congress blocks it because it would be anti-competitive. What form of competition do the programmers have?

Should they have total free reign to charge what they want and even dictate how their product will be distributed without any influence from outside market forces?

The free networks compete with each other based on ratings. If they do not provide what we want to watch they lose $$$. They exist totally based upon ad revenue and while much of the pay tv we watch also is based on ad revenue as long as they are subsidised by our $$$'s then anytime they screw up and have bad product they can just raise rates to make up for it.

ESPN wants to bid on more sports... why just raise your rates and the fools who subscribe to pay tv will have to pay it because they forced themselves into the lowest packages even though they are one of the biggest "nitch" programming there can be.

-JB


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

jrb531 said:


> How do companies introduce new products into the marketplace? (not talking about pay tv)


They find a way of reaching their audience and use it. The way you reach that audience varies by product. If you are selling a toilet brush you could set up a website, advertise said site via other websites or on TV, or just take telephone orders. If you wanted to enlist a sales force to go door to door that is another option. Or you could approach businesses that already sell similar products and convince them to put your product on their shelves. But before we go too far into the toilet, remember that we ARE talking about subscription TV - so we MUST treat the product as if it were the subject of this thread. Subscription TV channels cannot be delivered door to door like a toilet brush.

So how do companies introduce new products when they are TV channels? They go to cable and satellite providers directly and at trade shows and try to convince them that their channel is worth the space needed to carry it on their system. They may try to start a grass roots effort among potential subscribers to have them contact their cable/satellite system and ask for the channel. But EVEN IF THE CHANNEL IS A LA CARTE the programmer must convince cable/satellite providers to carry the channel.

How do they get people to subscribe? That's a harder issue. If it is not an a la carte channel the program provider does not have to worry about getting people to subscribe - their job is finished when the channel is added and they can move on to getting people to watch. (Even if a channel is a la carte and paid for does not guarantee that it will be watched.) If the channel is presented on an a la carte basis the plea to get people to watch becomes secondary to getting people to subscribe.


jrb531 said:


> If other markets can survive and thrive what is so different in regards to pay TV?


The delivery systems are different - and congress CANNOT change physics. There is limited space on cable systems (and satellite systems). If a cable/satellite provider cannot guarantee a return on their investment of space on their system they may not bother adding the channel.


jrb531 said:


> Everything you said makes sense but you could also say that magazines or other consumer goods. It will always be cheaper to sell in bulk but yet I can subscribe to one magazine without taking 10 of them. I can by a can of pop without a case.


Neighbor kids have knocked on my door selling magazines. You can also buy cookies from a girl who knocks on your door and delivers them several weeks later (although you are more likely to buy them from a girl who has a relative working where you work). There are ice cream trucks that cruise the neighborhoods. Channel providers have not figured out a way of delivering their collection of live playback TV channels without cable or satellite (although similar technologies are emerging and there are a proud few with BUD satellite setups). Until we find a comparison that has a similarly restricted delivery path they all are flawed.


jrb531 said:


> Nothing is a true apples to apples comparison and I do not dispute your logic. It is good sound "business" logic but IMHO what is often good for business and "their" bottom line is not always good for the consumers bottom line.


The only way package subscription TV is going away is if it is made illegal --- I don't believe that will happen. If a la carte becomes an option I believe most people will still subscribe to packages, if only because it's easier on the consumer who just wants to watch TV.

There is a market for a la carte, but I believe most people want it because they believe that it will save money. If a la carte is federally forced there will probably be congressional investigations into why a la carte ISN'T saving people money. Which, of course, will cost those people more money.

Consumers do not always know what is best for their bottom line. I don't believe the government knows any better than the consumers. The capitalist system that we are working under has chosen a way - I'd rather see a la carte become a reality because it worked than because it was forced down consumers throats by the government.


----------



## AllieVi (Apr 10, 2002)

James,

An excellent synopsis of reality...


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

Anyone care to comment on a compromise way to do ala-cart on a limited basis... or if they wish to keep packaging, to stop the "stacking" requirement. IE I could take C without being forced to take A or B.

You see I'm not stupid. I understand why things are the way they are. I just fail to understand (well I do but it seems that some will just not admit that the current system is set up for one purpose - to squeeze as much $$$ out of our pockets) why:

When we had 50 channels we had 3 packages.
When we had 100 channels we had 3 packages.
When we had 500 channels we had 3 packages.

Instead of adding additional packages (or grouping the packages into any form of theme) they just keep upping the price.

Now I am not talking about some fringe packages but rather the traditional 3 basic tiers that "every" distributor seems to have. If the market was free why would every single ditributor of pay TV only offer the same 3 packages or tiers.

I will grant that their are slight variances (kind of like people change a few words around when they copy someones term paper so they will not get caught LOL) and I am not counting HD or family packs which, IMHO, the family pack was allowed in order to head off congress forcing ala-cart and pulling the rug out from under those who were championing all-cart using "family values" as the excuse.

So why the three packages? Why not six? Why not "logic" based packages.

Oh I know why... and I think you know why but I just wanted to see you all admit it.... it you dare *smiles*

IMHO there is room for change. We do not have to tear down the entire current system but offering a limited form of ala-cart or more logical forms of packages would go a long way toward a compromise solution.

Dish has come forward and said they would welcome ala-cart. Why are the other distributors silent? Perhaps because many of them have side-companies that are a part of the scam? What is different about Dish that they seem to be the only ones (at least publically LOL) who fight for the consumer?

-JB


----------



## lacruz (Feb 24, 2005)

jonsnow said:


> You know something is wrong when Zaraqawi is killed, yet I do not have any right to buy a major cable news channel ala carte, since I subscribe to a locals pack, to see major breaking news live. News is important to me, yet I'm being blackouted from receiving a product I would be willing to pay good money for, just to satify some programer who thinks he knows better than me how to run a cable company. It would literally take a nuclear bomb going off for my local channels to break into Judge Judy to cover a major event live, and even then they might not cover it. Good for McCain, at least on this issue he is reasonable.


I bet they would break in if they found Natalie Holloway's body in Aruba! It seems that CNN, FOX, and the networks are more interested in sensationalist "entertainment" news than events affecting the entire world.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Please also keep in mind that even IF you add all the regular members here and at Satellite Guys you have less than 100,000 members. Even IF all those were with Dish (some are DirecTV, others are cable, and a few with FIOS)... and Dish has about 12 million subscribers, we are talking about only .833 percent! Not even 1 percent of their total customer base! And again, counting DirecTV and cable + FIOS, that percentage goes down even farther!

So even if every single person here agrees and wants the exact same kind of a la carte (and we don't all agree on that at all)... it simply isn't going to happen.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

jrb531 said:


> You see I'm not stupid. I understand why things are the way they are. I just fail to understand (well I do but it seems that some will just not admit that the current system is set up for one purpose - to squeeze as much $$$ out of our pockets) why:
> 
> When we had 50 channels we had 3 packages.
> When we had 100 channels we had 3 packages.
> ...


Good lord, JB, you answered your own question! When the investment community looks at the quarterly numbers, it usually comes over like this:


> ENGLEWOOD, Colo.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--May 11, 2006--EchoStar Communications Corporation (NasdaqISH - News) reported total revenue of $2.29 billion for the quarter ended March 31, 2006, a 13 percent increase *compared with $2.02 billion for the corresponding period in 2005.*
> 
> Net income totaled $147 million for the quarter ended March 31, 2006, *compared with net income of $318 million during the corresponding period in 2005.* Basic earnings per share was $0.33 for the quarter ended March 31, 2006, *compared with a basic income per share of $0.70 during the corresponding period in 2005.* Net income for the quarter ended March 31, 2006, includes a $23 million charge related to early redemption of debt securities during the quarter and a $74 million charge related to the Tivo litigation. *Net income for the quarter ended March 31, 2005,* included a $134 million gain related to settlement of our EchoStar IV insurance claim.


Notice how the investment community wants to know how the business INCREASED over the same period, last year.


jrb531 said:


> Dish has come forward and said they would welcome ala-cart. Why are the other distributors silent? Perhaps because many of them have side-companies that are a part of the scam? What is different about Dish that they seem to be the only ones (at least publically LOL) who fight for the consumer?


And that is the issue. Dish Network is _publicly_ concerned with their image. Yet they are no different than any other provider, other than with the spats that cause programming to be blacked out for extended periods of time.


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

Greg Bimson said:


> Good lord, JB, you answered your own question! When the investment community looks at the quarterly numbers, it usually comes over like this:Notice how the investment community wants to know how the business INCREASED over the same period, last year.And that is the issue. Dish Network is _publicly_ concerned with their image. Yet they are no different than any other provider, other than with the spats that cause programming to be blacked out for extended periods of time.


I do tend to get a bit "rantish" *smiles*

Since other businesses have been forced to operate in a different manner then we just need to force the issue.

-JB


----------



## BobMurdoch (Apr 24, 2002)

Here's an idea that might work......

Break them into genre packages.....

The News Bundle has all the CNNs
The Sports bundle has all the sports channels (and your RSN)(Make it a plus channel to add MultiSport etc.)
The Kids Bundle has the Cartoon Networks, Nickolodeons, etc.
The Music bundle has all the music channels
etc. etc. 

Allow a la carte, but give a substantial discount to encourage people to support niche channels. OR Give a credit to unsubscribe from channels they find offensive ...

Just a few ideas, they may or may not do it for you, but they should provoke discussion.

Personally, I'll be getting the Cadillac Pak with everything I can..... I know others will not....


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

BobMurdoch said:


> Here's an idea that might work......
> 
> Break them into genre packages.....
> 
> ...


You sold me. When can I sign up?

-JB


----------



## BobaBird (Mar 31, 2002)

I really like the idea of genre packaging as a compromise between full a la carte and the current restrictive bundling. Off the top of my head:

- Consumers won't be forced to buy programming of no interest to them.
- Programmers can be assured their product is available to their entire target demographic. Current placement in Total Choice or AT180 means that a large chunk of their potential viewers can't see them.
- Advertisers will be reaching more actual eyeballs even though the "potential" count goes down.
- New and struggling channels will continue to have the nurturing protection of a bundle, again with all potentially interested viewers having access to the channel.
- Providers can still offer tiered bundles, say 3 genres, 5, all 7 (or however many). A problem I see here is that average revenue per subscriber is likely to go down. The entry-level package may need to be priced higher but it will be more focused to the desires of the viewer. I'm sure there are more than just jrb who stay at AT60 because they can't justify the leap to AT180 for 1 or 2 channels.


----------



## WRBreland (Jul 26, 2004)

The following was one of the reasons I switched to Dish a few years ago. DirecTV would not let me have HD without a Basic Package so I said goodbye after 10 years with them!!

Ala Carte Programing from Dish Network

Access Fee $6.00
Encore Movie Pak	$4.99
2nd Receiver Access $5.00
CD Music Pak $4.99
HBO $14.99
Showtime Unlimited $11.99
Discount $(3.99)
HD Pak $9.99
Voom HD Pak $5.00
Sub Total $58.96
Tax @ 7% $4.13
*Total $63.09*


----------



## dodge boy (Mar 31, 2006)

*Just in case it wasn't mentioned, this bill gets rid of must carry laws for public access or public interest tv..... Conservatives and Liberals both be warry.... If someting is not part of the main stream.... Ex. PBS, Religious, LinkTV or Free speach TV etc. can be eliminated...... A very bad deal when information is key to preserve a democracy. This is a pay off to Bell South, AT&T & Verizon who want to enter the TV market, for giving call records of private citizens to the NSA. So if the only news you watch is on FOX, CNN or all the other pro government and corporate propaganda then this should be o.k. with you, but if you look to alternative sources to find the real truths then this is scarry stuff* :eek2:


----------



## durl (Mar 27, 2003)

While ala Carte seems like a good idea, I really don't want the federal government legislating it. They have no place telling businesses what services they should offer.

I'm skeptical of anything proposed by McCain. He wanted to "take the money out of politics" and pushed through McCain-Feingold which allowed for 427's to pop up. Now there's more money in politics, special interest money at that, and people's freedom of speech has been limited. I don't want to make this a political thread. I merely want to say that this piece of legislation may look good but it ends up causing more problems for consumers.


----------



## FLWingNut (Nov 19, 2005)

BobMurdoch said:


> Here's an idea that might work......
> 
> Break them into genre packages.....
> 
> ...


How does this help me? I like two of the music channels, I don't want the others. I want two news channels -- don't need MSNBC, CNBC, etc), I want my RSN and the ESPN suite, but not Golf, and Speed. Don't want kids stuff, but I want TV Land and Nick at Nite. So why should I pay for the other channels in the bundles I don't watch? 

Seriously, do you see how this a-la carte thing can get out of control? Even with themes bundles, some will complain in situations like I've described. You either do true a-la carte (which I don't believe will work) or you do packages, but I don't think you can compromise and try some hybrid.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

A la carte themes have a much better chance of working than individual channel selection. It is a lot easier to change the channel authorization system to deal with 20-30 "mini-packages" than 300 individual options.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

James Long said:


> It is a lot easier to change the channel authorization system to deal with 20-30 "mini-packages" than 300 individual options.


What's your source for that? I see Dish Network broadcasting to millions of receivers with thousands of channels, and I'd bet a buck that there are at least 300 options for them. Not only does Dish keep track of every channel on every receiver, it even knows to when and where to impose sports blackouts on some of those channels.

In summary, Dish's database system has shown that it can handle as many channels as you can throw at it. IMHO, a bigger problem is the human factor when ordering -- many (most?) subs won't want to make 300 yes/no buying decisions just to hook up ESPN or HBO. That's why I think packages will be around for a long time even if subs get the option of going a la carte.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

There are about 2549 channel numbers in E*'s system (about 2872 individual channels with some sharing numbers). Many of them share the same MPEG code where E* cannot authorize one channel without authorizing another (although I am surprised that they bother having separate codes for each channel in a locals package). At an MPEG level there would have to be hundreds of options (about 1513 unique options at the moment). Getting the billing system to address each one individually as a package is a greater challenge.

20-30 is low considering that each RSN and each local market needs to be unique - so let's just say:It is a lot easier to change the channel authorization (billing) system to deal with 200-300 "mini-packages" than 3000 individual options.​... Just to keep the scale.


----------



## agreer (Apr 7, 2006)

BobMurdoch said:


> Here's an idea that might work......
> 
> Break them into genre packages.....
> 
> ...


That doesnt work: I would want 1 or 2 things from each pack;

CNN and CNBC from news
ESPN and NFL Net from sports
Cartoon network (for adult swim) in "kids pack" 
VH1 Classic from music
and the unmentioned...
Food net and TLC from the "happy women make happy homes pack"

That is all I need...nothing else...but I would have to take ll the packs? that is insain!


----------



## BobMurdoch (Apr 24, 2002)

Once again, I was just suggesting this as a lot of senior citizens might want the news channels, but could care less about the kids channels (unless the grandkids are coming over).

I know the feds supposedly get people griping about channels they HAVE to pay for that they don't want since they despise the content of a channel. I don't know what other way you could do this. I remember hearing that E* used to have some a la carte system years ago that let you pick your own 10 basic channels. I may have this wrong as I didn't use this program, maybe someone else has heard of it....

I do like the idea of the feds outlawing forced bundling in renegotiations. NickToons is only on E* since Viacom had a gun to their head over CBS. Carry NickToons or no deal. THESE type of hardball tactics should be curtailed to give the distributors a way to reject channels they don't want.....


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

BobMurdoch said:


> I know the feds supposedly get people griping about channels they HAVE to pay for that they don't want since they despise the content of a channel. I don't know what other way you could do this.


The way you _could_ do it is so-called "reverse a la carte". You could opt-out of any given channel and get a discount equal to the the per-sub wholesale cost for that channel. So if you hate MTV, you fill out a form and mail it in to get it off your channel guide and score the 15 cents or whatever per month off your bill.

IMHO, this system ought to be appealing to a lot of factions:
* Channel-haters no longer have to suffer the stigma of subsidizing content they hate.
* Very, very few (IMHO) subs would bother opting out for such a meager return.
* Therefore the content suppliers could say they were offering "full choice" or some other buzzword while suffering minimal impact to subscriber counts.

But the content providers really love the status quo, and they've got Congress's ear for now, so I think it's very unlikely that any of these discussions are anything but academic.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

I foresee that Ala carte will increase, not lower costs and carried to its logical and
ultimate conclusion, ala carte will eventually result in fewer programming choices.

Be careful what you wish for...


----------



## BobMurdoch (Apr 24, 2002)

Everyone wants those channels they hate to go away.

The problem is that YOUR faves are on someone else's "go away" list...

The same lil' ole' lady who wants MTV to go away is gonna be real ticked when the same system kills Soapnet on 70% of the subscriber rolls....


----------



## AllieVi (Apr 10, 2002)

Nick said:


> I foresee that Ala carte will increase, not lower costs and carried to its logical and
> ultimate conclusion, ala carte will eventually result in fewer programming choices.
> 
> Be careful what you wish for...


I agree...


----------



## jonsnow (Apr 18, 2006)

Cable is overpriced by over 70 percent and perhaps more since since deregulation in the the 90's, which is why cable prices is only behind illegal immigration in complaints to congress. Hence they demand for some sort of price control on this piece of "trash" that may, to quote dish network, "contain mature content". Enter, a la carte.


----------

