# FCC: Cable 'a la Carte' Would Save Money



## sb40 (Nov 29, 2005)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060210/ap_on_bi_ge/cable_tv_pricing


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Needs a third choice:

"No, we would pay about the same but for less channels"


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

or maybe "Don't know"


----------



## JM Anthony (Nov 16, 2003)

HDMe said:


> Needs a third choice:
> 
> "No, we would pay about the same but for less channels"


I suspect this is closer to reality. The companies need to cover their fixed and variable costs plus profit margins one way or another.

John


----------



## gregleg (Jan 4, 2004)

I think my own costs would go up, since I actually DO watch quite a variety of channels (not a lot off of any one channel, but a bunch of them...)


----------



## foxfan (Feb 5, 2006)

It can save you money.

In Quebec, the main cable operator is Videotron, and they offer an "à la carte" option. There's a basic package of $12/month (includes local channels, news channels, weather, etc.), then you add $22 for 20 extra channels for a total of $34 (about only 29.99 US). Also, if you just want TMN (the Canadian equivalent of HBO/SHO) along the the basic package, your total is only $24.


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

The story on ABC news that aired the other night mentioned that if someone only subscribed to 17-20 channels, they would pay the same or maybe a little less, possibly between 3 and 13 percent less(whoopdie doo). Now, isnt the reason we have 150 or so channels choices in many instances was because people wanted more variety in the first place? I couldnt come up with just 20 channels, I'd still want my current package for variety. I am one that knows that many of the channels I do not watch I'm paying literally nothing for anyway, and I'm smart enough(lets face it a trained monkey is smart enough) to block any content I choose not to get....


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

CCarncross said:


> The story on ABC news that aired the other night mentioned that if someone only subscribed to 17-20 channels, they would pay the same or maybe a little less, possibly between 3 and 13 percent less(whoopdie doo). Now, isnt the reason we have 150 or so channels choices in many instances was because people wanted more variety in the first place? I couldnt come up with just 20 channels, I'd still want my current package for variety. I am one that knows that many of the channels I do not watch I'm paying literally nothing for anyway, and I'm smart enough(lets face it a trained monkey is smart enough) to block any content I choose not to get....


A la cart would be limiting. I bet people would want to add channels for a day or two & remove em. That would inflate prices.


----------



## Mike D-CO5 (Mar 12, 2003)

I posted this else where but in my opinion , Ala carte would work and most people would save money, but not with Dishnetwork. 

They would add all their "BECAUSE WE CAN" fees and nickel and dime you to death. I 'm sure that in addition to the new fees like the hd enabeling fee $6.00 and the new lease fees for $6.00 for anyone who does a dish n up upgrade they would add the new Ala carte fee of $6.00 PER RECEIVER . This in addition to the dvr fee of $5.98 and the no basic pack fee of $6.00 and the new popular no phone connected fee of $5.00 and you would quickly see the savings from Ala carte vanish. 

Maybe that would be the shake up that Dish needs though. Most people who want ala carte would quickly defect to the competition and Dish would have to rethink all of these damn fees or they would quickly put themselves out of business.


----------



## boylehome (Jul 16, 2004)

Just a thought here. If every channel offered was, "Ala Carte'," there would be much more room for bandwidth in the future because those channels that most people don't care about, hopefully would disappear. Having more bandwidth means less compression resulting in a better picture. Okay, everyone has their own tastes. Perhaps every channel would have some subscribers. If that be the case, they will have to drastically increase the subscription price for those less significant view channels just to keep them. Sounds like a Win Win or a lose lose to me.


----------

