John McCain Wants Pay Channels Sold Individually, Not In Bundles

[inazsully]

I think we've been brain washed to think a la carte can't work. If one company came up with a reasonable package structure like say choose 12 channels from a list of 35 (based on the top watched channels) at $4 per channel and set aside ESPN and regional sports channels at a $10 each premium ad on. That would sure make the folks happy that do not like sports. All locals would be included as a base and not part of the 12 channels to be chosen. Any channels above the first 12 could be had for $7 per. Yes we'd lose a whole bunch of channels and that would be a shame, but the times they are a changin.

 

[dare2be]

The problem I see with the bill is that it tries to push channel providers into doing this, not actually creating regulations that require them to do it.

If that's the case, and there is no teeth to the bill, then it's all just political lip service.

 

[sam_gordon]

Instead of a channel-by-channel ala carte, could providers to a 'programmer by programmer' ala carte? So, if you want ESPN, you also Disney. If you want CNBC, you also get Bravo. I'm using those as examples, I'm not up on what's "bundled" to the cable/satcos.

 

[osu1991]

Instead of a channel-by-channel ala carte, could providers to a 'programmer by programmer' ala carte? So, if you want ESPN, you also Disney. If you want CNBC, you also get Bravo. I'm using those as examples, I'm not up on what's "bundled" to the cable/satcos.

That has been suggested before and might help some and might be an option to start, but considering most of the channels are owned by 5 or 6 media groups, I don't think it would help most people.

Disney alone, has ABC, espn, espn2, espnu, espnews, espn classic, disney, disney jr, disneyxd, soapnet, abcfamily, plus 50% ownership in lifetime, lifetime movies, lifetime real women, a/e, history,h2, bio, and I'm sure I left some off.

Disney/Hearst, ComcastNBCUniversal, Viacom, Time Warner, Discovery and Fox covers probably 90% of the channels.

 

[sam_gordon]

That has been suggested before and might help some and might be an option to start, but considering most of the channels are owned by 5 or 6 media groups, I don't think it would help most people.

Disney alone, has ABC, espn, espn2, espnu, espnews, espn classic, disney, disney jr, disneyxd, soapnet, abcfamily, plus 50% ownership in lifetime, lifetime movies, lifetime real women, a/e, history,h2, bio, and I'm sure I left some off.

Disney/Hearst, ComcastNBCUniversal, Viacom, Time Warner, Discovery and Fox covers probably 90% of the channels.

True. I was thinking passing along the "forced" bundles the programmers are sending to the satcos/cablecos. Does Disney "bundle" all those together when doing the contracts?

And wouldn't ala carte have to involve the networks? It's not really fair (IMO) cable/satcos being pushed to break things out if they can't get the channels individually from the networks.

 

[dishcomm]

Instead of a channel-by-channel ala carte, could providers to a 'programmer by programmer' ala carte? So, if you want ESPN, you also Disney. If you want CNBC, you also get Bravo. I'm using those as examples, I'm not up on what's "bundled" to the cable/satcos.

That's what we have now....If a customer wants CNBC, they must take Bravo, all the shopping channels and a few others.
I would want CNBC and Bravo. They rest are of no interest to me.

 

[sam_gordon]

That's what we have now....If a customer wants CNBC, they must take Bravo, all the shopping channels and a few others.
I would want CNBC and Bravo. They rest are of no interest to me.

It's not what we have now. We are forced into the bundles the satcos/cablecos decide to offer. What I was suggesting was satcos/cablecos passing along the bundles from the networks. So I could choose the Disney/ESPN bundle, and not bother with Viacom or NBC.

 

[inazsully]

It will just take one major provider to offer some kind of a la carte option to start the snowball rolling. Won't happen. Can you say collusion?

 

[ohioankev]

It's not what we have now. We are forced into the bundles the satcos/cablecos decide to offer. What I was suggesting was satcos/cablecos passing along the bundles from the networks. So I could choose the Disney/ESPN bundle, and not bother with Viacom or NBC.

Seriously ? That's a bad idea. That would force someone who wants the SYFY channel and ABC to have to subscribe to Disney and NBC channels. What if you watch something on FX? Then you need all the channels from Disney, NBC and now FOX.

The only true Ala Carte is where the consumer picks the channels without strings attached for a disclosed price. Now with that said If i choose to subscribe to more channels from said media conglomerate then the Ala Carte prices should become cheaper.
So lets say I order the SYFY channel and it costs $4.95 but later want USA Network they should offer that for a cheaper price, say $3.47 (30% off) then they should offer next channel 45%, etc. (the more channels you bundle from a media conglomerate the more you save, but it's by choice not forced)But say If I choose to have SYFY, FX, and ESPN there would be no bundled discount because they are from different companies.

I still don't know how I feel about this because I could see quite a few things happening. Channels becoming defunct, less money being put into development of TV shows based on subscriber numbers. Providers charging additional outlet charges because they don't want some dude having just a $5 cable bill. They'll need to charge $10 for a cable box per month, $15 DVR fee, a $7 Ala Carte Access Charge, Future Upgrade fee, etc.

 

[mike123abc]

It will just take one major provider to offer some kind of a la carte option to start the snowball rolling. Won't happen. Can you say collusion?

It cannot happen because the content providers do not let the cable/DBS/etc. carry their channels if they are not bundled in with all their competitor's channels in the same tiers.

Lets say you manage to get your hands on a satellite or decide to be the next Google and wire up a town. If you then go to say Disney and say you want to carry their channels a la carte, Disney will say nope, you have to carry all these channels and put them in your basic tier. You will find the same answer at all the major content owners. That is why a la carte does not exist, you as a pay TV provider cannot get content without agreeing to their terms.

 

[TNGTony]

Yup... In order for a cable/satellite company to be allowed by ABC/Disney to carry the Disney channel they will be forced to carry ABC Family, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNews, ESPN Classic, DisneyXD, and others.

 

[TheTechGuru]

I once had a PDF showing WHOLESALE individual channel prices from the C-Band days said "confidential", wish I could find it.

 

[mike123abc]

I once had a PDF showing WHOLESALE individual channel prices from the C-Band days said "confidential", wish I could find it.

There are a lot of cable price lists circulating. Here is a 2010 list http://allthingsd.com/20100308/hate-paying-for-cable-heres-the-reason-why/

Cband was different because the government said they had to offer every channel to individuals.

 

[Quarkinator]

I believe it's going to kill some channels, but I find it incredible weird that we can't choose what channels we'll pay for. This is the first time I've ever agreed to something John McCain have said.

 

[dishcomm]

It cannot happen because the content providers do not let the cable/DBS/etc. carry their channels if they are not bundled in with all their competitor's channels in the same tiers.

Lets say you manage to get your hands on a satellite or decide to be the next Google and wire up a town. If you then go to say Disney and say you want to carry their channels a la carte, Disney will say nope, you have to carry all these channels and put them in your basic tier. You will find the same answer at all the major content owners. That is why a la carte does not exist, you as a pay TV provider cannot get content without agreeing to their terms.

The solution is to force them to allow customers to choose bundling or a la carte.

 

[Teehar]

Killing off all these watered down extra channels would be a great benefit imo.I can remember a day when there was only the big 3 plus pbs.There was always quality programming.Nowadays you have channels that have maybe 4hrs a week of decent programming,the rest is just filler.For instance,AMC,could have all the Sundance,and IFC shows,and be a much better single channel.Also,do we really need MTV and MTV2?Not in my opinion.One is bad enough.

 

[sam_gordon]

Seriously ? That's a bad idea. That would force someone who wants the SYFY channel and ABC to have to subscribe to Disney and NBC channels. What if you watch something on FX? Then you need all the channels from Disney, NBC and now FOX.

The only true Ala Carte is where the consumer picks the channels without strings attached for a disclosed price. Now with that said If i choose to subscribe to more channels from said media conglomerate then the Ala Carte prices should become cheaper.
So lets say I order the SYFY channel and it costs $4.95 but later want USA Network they should offer that for a cheaper price, say $3.47 (30% off) then they should offer next channel 45%, etc. (the more channels you bundle from a media conglomerate the more you save, but it's by choice not forced)But say If I choose to have SYFY, FX, and ESPN there would be no bundled discount because they are from different companies.

Yea, THAT'S more realistic than what I suggested. . In a TRUE Ala Carte, each channel is available to each subscriber individually. The cost for each channel will vary based on the popularity of the channel. I'm willing to wager if there would be a discount for multiple channels from a single provider (ESPN & ESPN2 for example), the discount would only be applicable to the cheaper channel.

It cannot happen because the content providers do not let the cable/DBS/etc. carry their channels if they are not bundled in with all their competitor's channels in the same tiers.

Lets say you manage to get your hands on a satellite or decide to be the next Google and wire up a town. If you then go to say Disney and say you want to carry their channels a la carte, Disney will say nope, you have to carry all these channels and put them in your basic tier. You will find the same answer at all the major content owners. That is why a la carte does not exist, you as a pay TV provider cannot get content without agreeing to their terms.

Agreed. This is why I was suggesting end customers get to choose which bundle they want to receive. Would that be an ideal solution? Of course not. But it's a start.

 

[sam_gordon]

Killing off all these watered down extra channels would be a great benefit imo.I can remember a day when there was only the big 3 plus pbs.There was always quality programming.Nowadays you have channels that have maybe 4hrs a week of decent programming,the rest is just filler.For instance,AMC,could have all the Sundance,and IFC shows,and be a much better single channel.Also,do we really need MTV and MTV2?Not in my opinion.One is bad enough.

What I bolded is the key though. What YOU think is decent programming is different than what *I* think is decent programming. So who gets to decide? Think about it... how popular is/was "Honey Boo Boo" and "Jersey Shores"? Personally, I don't like "The Voice", "American Idol", "America's Got Talent", "Dancing With the Stars", etc. However, they all get good ratings.

 

[Teehar]

What I bolded is the key though. What YOU think is decent programming is different than what *I* think is decent programming. So who gets to decide? Think about it... how popular is/was "Honey Boo Boo" and "Jersey Shores"? Personally, I don't like "The Voice", "American Idol", "America's Got Talent", "Dancing With the Stars", etc. However, they all get good ratings.

I bet there is programming that we all can agree upon.Infomercials! Also for the record,none of those shows you mentioned comes on MTV.I still say one MTV is enough.One Discovery,one History,etc etc etc.I mean honestly,how many original shows does a network like MTV2 or H2 have?If they have any at all they could easily be placed in the lineups of the main networks.

Furthermore,I'm not judging anyone for liking MTV or TLC,all I'm saying is one each of those channels is gods plenty.

 

[sam_gordon]

I bet there is programming that we all can agree upon.Infomercials! Also for the record,none of those shows you mentioned comes on MTV.I still say one MTV is enough.One Discovery,one History,etc etc etc.I mean honestly,how many original shows does a network like MTV2 or H2 have?If they have any at all they could easily be placed in the lineups of the main networks.

Furthermore,I'm not judging anyone for liking MTV or TLC,all I'm saying is one each of those channels is gods plenty.

And I'm sure there are people who say one ESPN is plenty, why have more? My point is there are different opinions on programs. As far as H2, I actually turned it on yesterday because it was showing 'Modern Marvels' (which I enjoy) and History had something I didn't like.

As far as infomercials, you do understand the channels get paid to carry those. So if you were in charge of a channel does it makes sense to get paid to carry a 30 minute commercial, or have to pay (and then try to sell commercials when few people are watching) to fill the time slot?

I would love to get to a true ala carte system, but is it fair to force satcos/cablecos to provide ala carte to their customers, when they don't have the same option from the networks? On a related note, do we really want government intruding in how a company does business (except for safety and a few other rare instances)?