# Sides Face Off on a la Carte



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

Programmers came out in force against any proposed a la carte regime in comments filed with the Federal Communications Commission Friday.

In its filing, Turner Broadcasting said a la carte would harm programmers and consumers, making it more costly to create and distribute - as well as more expensive for consumers to view - fewer video offerings.

"High quality video programming is extremely expensive to create, and bundling is the most efficient way to price and distribute it," the programmer said. "Undermining efficient distribution would not benefit consumers. Instead, they would pay more for less."

Viacom, which controls key programming assets such as MTV Networks and Showtime, challenged supporters of a la carte.

"The suggestion of a few parties that an a la carte option would save consumers from being forced to pay a 'tax' for unwanted program services misses the mark entirely," the company said in its FCC comments. "As has clearly been demonstrated in this proceeding, the current program distribution system is highly efficient for all consumers."

Court TV said an a la carte regime would destroy some existing cable networks, discourage the emergence of new networks, disrupt business models, and lead to higher prices for consumers.

However, some voiced support for a la carte, including New Jersey's Division of the Ratepayer Advocate. "It comes as no surprise that the cable industry would so fervently oppose any form of a la carte pricing but the fact remains that cable prices have been increasing at an alarming pace since the deregulation of the cable industry in 1996 and a la carte pricing, if applied appropriately, is the first step in controlling these escalating cable prices," the entity said in its comments.

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


----------



## SimpleSimon (Jan 15, 2004)

Of course the providers want to keep their packaging. It lets them gain revenue for cheap to produce channels that very few people watch.

There's nothing wrong with having "fewer video offerings". I prefer QUALITY over quantity. Maybe if the programmers narrowed their focus we'd get better shows.


----------



## MikeSoltis (Aug 1, 2003)

> ...making it more costly to create and distribute...


Translation...no one would pay for the two dozen shopping channels, which cost almost nothing to "create and distribute"

A la carte would definitely separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak. While I am amused to have a couple hundred channels, in reality I only regularly watch a dozen or so.


----------



## sikma (Dec 11, 2003)

MikeSoltis said:


> Translation...no one would pay for the two dozen shopping channels, which cost almost nothing to "create and distribute"
> 
> A la carte would definitely separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak. While I am amused to have a couple hundred channels, in reality I only regularly watch a dozen or so.


A BIG DITTO.


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

Chris Blount said:


> Court TV said an a la carte regime would destroy some existing cable networks, discourage the emergence of new networks, disrupt business models, and lead to higher prices for consumers.


YEAH! And it'll make the Baby Jesus CRY TOO !!!!

Give me a break... For once ratings would mean something. A channel could tell it's advertisers "Yeah, we only have 500,000 households, but thesee households WANT our channel - we're not just riding in on the back of a 'carry me if you want CNN' contract".


----------



## Big Bob (May 13, 2002)

Personally, I like the way it is. 

Why?

Because I watch a number of channels that have low ratings. The Travel channel for instance. These lower rated channels are subsidized by the channels with higher ratings. 

There is no way I would pay the actual price that would be necessary to keep these channels on the air.


----------



## SimpleSimon (Jan 15, 2004)

That makes the voting 18,436,486 to 1. 

Sorry, couldn't resist.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

Big Bob said:


> Because I watch a number of channels that have low ratings. The Travel channel for instance. These lower rated channels are subsidized by the channels with higher ratings.


The Travel Channel is free to cable/DBS. (Ever notice that it's in the shopping channel neighborhood?) As long as tourist destinations subsidize programming and buy ads, the Travel Channel ought to be as immutable as Shop NBC.

I don't know that any channel really subsidizes the others in its stable. That would imply that one channel or another wouldn't be viable without the other propping it up financially. Someone may find an exception, but I doubt that any single conglomerate-owned channel is losing money.

Pick a low-rated channel, and you'll probably find a channel that uses its parent's leftovers for its programming. When programming is effectively free, it's hard to lose money.

A la carte might knock off a little-watched channel or two, but that would free the bandwidth for independent channels such as B-Mania that might be able to survive with smaller numbers paying $2/month or so to subscribe.


----------



## jpurkey (May 15, 2003)

If the programmers are against a la Carte then it must be GOOD for the consumer. 

Seriously, I'd like to see an A la Carte system where the free/cheap and paid to be carried (shopping) channels are still bundled, but the more expensive channels are sold A la Carte. Set a maximum price for a channel to be included in the bundled package (10-25 cents) and any channel that wants more money would be sold sepeartely. That way, the niche channels would not have to worry about losing subscribers, only the greedy ones (Disney, ESPN) would.


----------



## Mike Richardson (Jun 12, 2003)

Remember that if a-la-carte were to become a reality, channels such as shopping would still exist. Such channels pay MSOs to be carried.


----------



## Mike123abc (Jul 19, 2002)

What a la carte cuts down is cross station promoting. Programmers hope that people watching one of their channels might see an ad for another one of their channels and watch a show over there. If a la carte goes into effect, it will really be hard to promote adding and paying for a channel. The consumer says "hmm that might be interesting, but it is too hard to go add a channel just to see if I would like that program."

Yes the current programming model would collapse and there would be A LOT of problems for content providers. But, I think after the industry shakes out, suddenly there would be a lot of money to be made. HBO/SHO/etc show it can be done. They charge heafty $$ for their programming and people subscribe. I would suspect that it would come down to little packages. For example you might get the Viacom kids pack will all the kids oriented channels from Viacom. They could be tied together, but they could not demand to be forced on someone just because they order the Disney/ABC package.


----------



## SuperJack (Jul 6, 2004)

I'm with most of you guys. The fact is that most of the 100+ channels in the TC package are worthless to me. I can't speak for everyone as we all have different interests. So I may choose to pay for ESPN, TBS, NICK, and MSNBC, another may choose E!, The History Channel, and HGTV. It's a matter of choice, and that's what consumers want. This would also weed out the overabundance of cable networks -- and it's not my place to decide what gets cut, we all as consumers will make that choice. It may be that some programming is destined for special interest videos and DVDs and undeserving of a 24-hour cable network. Consumers WILL choose what is viable. Seems perfectly logical.


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

All one has to do is look at the way ExpressVu sells THEIR packages. If Canada can have a choice, why can't we? It puts the "we can't do a la carte" line down for what it is - a lie.

I wouldn't mind a compromise between all-bundled and completely a-la-carte. I mean, if I'm interested enough in ESPN to buy it, I'll most likely want ESPN2. In my case, I'm interested enough to get Discovery - and would want all of the Discovery channels.


----------

