A la Carte?

[Greg Bimson]

All cable and satco's can do it there and it works fine

Because it's way regulated up there...

 

[Ghpr13]

If it works in Canada per se, why wouldnt it work here?

In Canada you can get "themes" and some channels you can get as "pick and pay"
Here is what I mean. On Shaw Direct the themes are broken up by type.
So Sports is NFL, Golf, TSN2, The Score, Speed and OLN
Real Life has CNBC, CNN, Headline News, Discovery, History etc

Then there are some channels that I can get with a theme like ESPN Classic, Fox Sports World, NHL Net, Gol, WFN, Bio, G4, MSNBC, Animal Planet, IFC, Sundance etc. they are in package for $5 or if I want lets say NHL Net and say Bio. Instead of paying $10 I can get them for 2.99 for 2 (or if I just want NHL Net I can pay 2.49)

All cable and satco's can do it there and it works fine

Have a base package that you have to subscribe to and make everything else themes or alacarte so if you dont have kids, why pay for Nick, Disney etc? There are people that dont like sports so maybe they dont want that type of package.

Because it's way regulated up there...

Greg,
Regulated how?

What surprises me in this poll is the number who want "a la carte" but without paying a little more for it. I would gladly pay a little higher fee if I could get a good choice of channels I really want to watch.

Ghpr13

 

[goresnet]

I have absolute, and I would pay about $50 a month, if I get get ONLY the channels I wanted. There are about 30 channels that I watch. So under $2 per channel. I could handle that. Hell, charge me the whole $2 per, I'd be OK with that, just to avoid all the crap that I have blocked out of my favorites now!

 

[Greg Bimson]

Greg,
Regulated how?

Let's say I am an entrepreneur. And I want to start a cable channel.

I have to get a license from the CRTC. Here in the US, I can simply start a business and not apply to the FCC. There, it needs to be approved by the CRTC.

If you purchase your programming from a distributor (their satellite or cable companies), at least 50 percent of the channels you receive must be defined by the CRTC as Canadian. That kind of makes the programmers and the distributors get crafty when it comes to package bundling.

There are more, but people want the "benefit" of Canadian-style TV (picking add-on packages), but not the bureaucracy that comes with it.

I'm sure no one here wants MORE FCC INVOLVEMENT.

 

[Joe The Dragon]

Let's say I am an entrepreneur. And I want to start a cable channel.

I have to get a license from the CRTC. Here in the US, I can simply start a business and not apply to the FCC. There, it needs to be approved by the CRTC.

If you purchase your programming from a distributor (their satellite or cable companies), at least 50 percent of the channels you receive must be defined by the CRTC as Canadian. That kind of makes the programmers and the distributors get crafty when it comes to package bundling.

There are more, but people want the "benefit" of Canadian-style TV (picking add-on packages), but not the bureaucracy that comes with it.

I'm sure no one here wants MORE FCC INVOLVEMENT.

AT least we can start with sports put espn in a pack like HBO.

You know in the UK, NZ sky sports is a add on pack. Same thing with fox sports in Australia.

 

[Joe The Dragon]

If it works in Canada per se, why wouldnt it work here?

In Canada you can get "themes" and some channels you can get as "pick and pay"
Here is what I mean. On Shaw Direct the themes are broken up by type.
So Sports is NFL, Golf, TSN2, The Score, Speed and OLN
Real Life has CNBC, CNN, Headline News, Discovery, History etc

Then there are some channels that I can get with a theme like ESPN Classic, Fox Sports World, NHL Net, Gol, WFN, Bio, G4, MSNBC, Animal Planet, IFC, Sundance etc. they are in package for $5 or if I want lets say NHL Net and say Bio. Instead of paying $10 I can get them for 2.99 for 2 (or if I just want NHL Net I can pay 2.49)

All cable and satco's can do it there and it works fine

Have a base package that you have to subscribe to and make everything else themes or alacarte so if you dont have kids, why pay for Nick, Disney etc? There are people that dont like sports so maybe they dont want that type of package.

In Canada you guys also get the better WGN the (OTA one) that has more sports and many cable and satco's put it a sports pack.

 

[yaz96]

It's never gonna happen.

 

[Ghpr13]

Let's say I am an entrepreneur. And I want to start a cable channel.

I have to get a license from the CRTC. Here in the US, I can simply start a business and not apply to the FCC. There, it needs to be approved by the CRTC.

If you purchase your programming from a distributor (their satellite or cable companies), at least 50 percent of the channels you receive must be defined by the CRTC as Canadian. That kind of makes the programmers and the distributors get crafty when it comes to package bundling.

There are more, but people want the "benefit" of Canadian-style TV (picking add-on packages), but not the bureaucracy that comes with it.

I'm sure no one here wants MORE FCC INVOLVEMENT.

Greg,
Thank you for your answer.
Ghpr13

 

[Greg Bimson]

AT least we can start with sports put espn in a pack like HBO.

You know in the UK, NZ sky sports is a add on pack. Same thing with fox sports in Australia.

Okay, but...

How does one FORCE ESPN to negotiate from a basic pack to a sports pack?

 

[mike123abc]

If you purchase your programming from a distributor (their satellite or cable companies), at least 50 percent of the channels you receive must be defined by the CRTC as Canadian. That kind of makes the programmers and the distributors get crafty when it comes to package bundling.

I thought half the TV shows in the US were shot in Canada anyways, buy yeah I know they probably do not count.

 

[Bobby]

You know in the UK, NZ sky sports is a add on pack. Same thing with fox sports in Australia.

And in Germany as well...

 

[navychop]

Perhaps we should look at this from another angle:

The content providers have certain expenses, which are not going to go down, short of moving from a market economy to a command economy (which did not work well for Russia, Viet Nam, Cuba, China, etc - and it ain't working for N Korea, either). They are going to need to cover those expenses, plus profit. So if we go to a la carte, they will have the same expenses to spread over fewer people. A LOT fewer people, in some cases. That means your bill for that channel goes up. And if you think you'll sub to fewer channels, cutting your bill, that means some channels will disappear. We'll become plain vanilla, with only channels that appeal to the majority. Surely there is something you have an interest in, that most don't.

 

[pabeader]

if you are interested you should be willing to bear the cost.

a la carte would be the ultimate neilson rating system...

(i wonder if all that will be left is porn)

 

[MrDogDad]

some of you get it and some of you don't. I would actually be very happy to pay more for the channels I actually want. Not only that, it would cause the downfall of all the filler like QVC and HSN and all the rest. if the loss of even one of those channels would make my bill go up $4.00 I would gladly pay it.

the joy of a la carte is it could be set up on a reverse sliding scale. the more junk you allow in your package the less you would pay per. and if you let in enough of it, you would probably be paying the same as you are now. but then it would be in your control not the providers.

am i living in utopia. you betcha. but it's a real nice place to go to once in a while.

You know you don't have to watch the shopping channels. In fact you can setup a favorites list so that you never even know that they are there. I like the fact that the shopping channels subsidize the channels that I do watch.

I would love cheap a la carte but I know the providers want to increase market penetration for their products and bundling channels is how they do it.

I would also love to have a nice full flavored Oktoberfest beer with only 5 calories per glass, but it aint gonna happen either.

 

[navychop]

Yep. A la carte will probably make new channel introductions very difficult.

I can see the future now: "QVC3 now sponsors your show. In a few minutes, we'll present a minute from the programming, then back here for more great deals!"

 

[zim2dive]

Yep. A la carte will probably make new channel introductions very difficult.

Based on the # of channels that exist, and which are full of %@%@%, that would be a good thing.

But actually I don't think its true... ie. ABC/ESPN/Disney could _easily_ start a new channel.... and "a la carte" channels would be just like I keep saying new "a la carte" episodes/series would be...

season 1 (or the pilot and the 1st few episodes) is sold for free, or cheap.. to get you hooked. then the prices go to normal (whatever normal is).

Those businesses which so love to wax poetic over the virtues of capitalism and a free economy would then actually be exposed to both sides of that sword.

 

[Yespage]

I think what people mean when they say they want "a la carte", they mean "I want to pay less... though am willing to get fewer channels to do so".

 

[navychop]

I think what people mean when they say they want "a la carte", they mean "I want to pay less... though am willing to get fewer channels to do so".

I think what they really mean is, they want to watch the channels they are interested in, while paying less. They want the same, for them, but at less money. Never happen. We may get less, but we'll pay more for it.

 

[Scherrman]

A la carte would not work. People are going to be paying for the most popular obvious channels and the more obscure channels will have very few people paying for them. Whats going to happen is, those obscure channels will lose so much money that they will no longer exist. The only channels that will survive will be the most popular ones.

Now think about the people that like to watch The Military Channel, RFDTV, STYLE or BIO. Those channels may dissapear due to lack of money and what will their fans watch? They will get hosed. Everyone has some kind of obscure channel that they like and would probably lose. Back to people being unhappy again.

 

[navychop]

Moreso.