Sign up for a new account or log in here:
Home › News › Industry News
Cable operators considering "a la carte" channel service
Cable operators are said to be mulling over the idea of offering channels “a la carte” in an effort to combat increasing popularity from online video streaming providers and regain lost subscribers. Such a move would represent a massive shift in how providers have traditionally offered programming to customers, as reported by Reuters.
Consumers have been asking for such a model for as long as I can remember but providers had little reason to oblige. With no competition in the market in terms of alternate delivery methods, programmers were free to bundle channels together, forcing the customer to subscribe to channels they didn’t necessarily want in order to have access to a few that they were interested in.
But with new online delivery methods, higher programming production costs and a slow economy, cable operators may have to force programmers to unbundle networks and let customers subscribe only to the channels they are interested in. Comcast and Time Warner Cable collectively reported a loss of 1.2 million video customers in the last year ending on June 30.
"We feel that some of those expensive channels should be offered a la carte so only those people who want to watch them actually pay for them," said Jerry Kent, chief executive of Suddenlink, which has 1.3 million cable customers.
Allowing customers to opt out of certain channels in a package could save viewers a lot of money. For example, EPSN is the most expensive channel in the US at around $4 per subscriber. Customers not interested in sports could nix this and other ESPN channels from their lineup.
There’s no doubt that such a move would have a significant impact on major networks and they are likely to fight a shift.
Are you in favor of a la carte service, are you happy with your current bundle or have you washed your hands completely of traditional paid television programming?
User Comments: 52
Got something to say? Post a comment-
milwaukeemike said:
Our system has some serious flaws. The current political strategy is 'Let the other party be in control for a while, because the easiest way to get elected is to let them screw up for a bit.' It's a sick irony..
Anyway... back to cable...
A la Carte! GO! Do It!
*SIGH* Yeah, you're right man. I'm sorry if I come across as being too extreme myself. I'm constantly trying to check my own head before I go spewing accusations at others. It's difficult though, because I have the dual problem of not only not having a job -- but being disabled on top of it. Being disabled means many things, but I assure you that my disability is very real, physical, and causes me physical problems.
Anyway -- look -- you're also right. A-la carte IS the way to go. At least we can save some of that money and put it where it BELONGS -- in our savings accounts, in our credit-card accounts, and in our checking accounts. And maybe we'll be able to dig our way out of this mess -- simply by spending less money on crap that we don't need that gets advertised to us by companies whose designs are far from benevolent.
- S
P.S. Go and see The Daily Show for Sept. 26th. Great commentary by Jon Stewart, who said [while showing a photo of Ronald Reagan]: "I feel like if this guy came along now and tried to run for president today -- most Republicans would say: 'Ah -- I'm not really into those Hollywood types...'"
-
Vrmithrax said:
If you suddenly give consumers a choice, I would guess that about 80% of the channels out there today (that are not sports or premium movie networks) would fail due to lack of subscribers.
Yep. Although advertising might stem the tide so that it won't be that bad.
Without getting into politics, I can understand how even in a very capitalistic society as ours we still subsidize certain things, I draw the line at entertainment.
-
gwailo247 said:
I can understand how even in a very capitalistic society as ours we still subsidize certain things, I draw the line at entertainment.
Gwailo -- I agree with you. Entertainment meaning sports, movies, and pop music, among other such exploits.
I still feel that we should subsidize school music and art education programs, because let's face it -- kids who excel in art and music typically also excel in mathematics and computer skills.
You need to learn about subdivisions in time in music, and you need to visualize spatial structures and geometric shapes in art. This all comes back to computer programming, which is at the root of why everyone on Techspot is here.
-
About frickin' time. I absolutely HATE that I'm stuck paying for a brazillion channels I could care less about.
-
TomSEA said:
About frickin' time. I absolutely HATE that I'm stuck paying for a brazillion channels I could care less about.
You could NOT care less about them.
If you COULD care less about them, then you are suggesting that you care about them at all. Which you probably don't. And I agree -- because I hate TV. Well, not really. But I could live without it.
My computer, on the other hand, I could NOT live without.
-
"If you COULD care less about them, then you are suggesting that you care about them at all."
Ahh...I've been duly busted for bad grammar. Correction: I care less about paying for a brazillion channels I never watch.
-
One each of the major networks, USA, TNT, SciFi, Cartoon, Weather Channel, one each of Liberal and Conservative News (so I can possibly figure out the truth between them), every general sports channel, football specific channels, and The History Channel. That should do it
-
Tekkaraiden said:
I'd actually subscribe to cable again.
-
I dumped cable and am probably unlikely to go back. However this would defintily make it more likely. It would also likely help keep cable companies keep costs down by showing customers which channels cost the most (ie putting presure on the networks to keep costs down).
-
I think this would also help with the bandwidth as well during streaming, you know how one channel that has alot of action in it would steal resolution from a channel that doesn't! And finally, pay for what I want to watch.... Please, no commercials!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Timonius said:
Sorry, too little too late. I ditched cable over a decade ago. I don't like commercials and network television in general and prefer to actually support well crafted entertainment selectively by purchasing it directly (eg. dvd, bd, tv show box sets, etc.) or streaming it (eg. netflix, youtube, etc.). I find this is the best way to support what is actually good and not have all the crap shoved down my throat.
-
I doubt the ala carte would be true to the phrase. I'm sure it would not be, "pick 5 or 10 or 15 channels from this list". It would more than likely be, "pick this group or that group of channels from this list of groups". I subscribe to Cox and only get broadcast basic cable (broadcast channels, cable access and spanish/portuguese channels). If they came out with true ala-carte, I would certainly consider it.
-
Guest said:
I doubt the ala carte would be true to the phrase. I'm sure it would not be, "pick 5 or 10 or 15 channels from this list". It would more than likely be, "pick this group or that group of channels from this list of groups".
I suspect that this might be the compromise, buts its better then paying for a 100+ channels you never watch
-
Good idea but somehow I think the price will not go down with this model. We will just get less channels for the same or slightly less money. Streaming content like Netflix, Hulu etc have a LONG way to go. I subscribe to both and other than a few older sitcoms and documentaries there is really not much there for me. But then again, I really don't watch a lot of TV so I'll live. However, I do miss one or two HBO series' ... If I could get one or two news channels and HBO for a few dollars a month I would consider it but you know it will never go below $30/month no matter what. Plus add all the equipment rental fees, surcharges and god know what else we are right back up to where we are now.
-
supertech said:
It's about time. Why should I pay for 100 channels when I watch 10 channels and have no interest in the others. For example, I want HDnet only but I have to pay an extra $10/month for a package that includes that. NO THANK YOU.
The cable companies have been living in the stone ages so they better get with the program.
-
I vote for Darth Vader Every Election.
True story
I've voted 2 times already, both darth vader.
ANd my local elections?
Luke Skywalker
or General Akhbar
True story.
-
I work for a cable company and actually suggested this two years ago to them. The answer from my company was "great idea! But we can't do that". The reason was actually contractual. We have contracts with content providers, aka channels. These company own a lot of channels, not just one, and our contracts with them require us to carry and provide a certain set of channels together. So for example if we want to offer Fox, we must also provide the Fox News channel to those same people, as well as FX, however their SPEED channel can be offered as a separate, higher level of service.
All broadcasters operate this way, you want one channel, then you have to pay us for two and must offer both to the same customers. Exceptions can exist, but they tend to be rare and similar to our deal with the SPEED channel, we still have to buy it but we're allowed to charge a premium for it. The way this works out is we pay for these channels regardless of whether our customers pay to get them. So if we have 100 customers that upgrade to that SPEED channel or 1 million, we still pay $700,000 a year to have the channel. Cable companies want to use an ala carte system. It's the broadcasters that don't. They like getting a few hundred checks every year for over $10 million for all their channels, and they use that money on lawyers to make their contracts rock solid.
So unless we can get broadcasters to change how they structure their system, this will not likely happen.
-
Renrew said:
Amazing---the Cable co's actually are listening to the consumer--could it be because they're losing millions of subscribers?
Hear this--I refuse to pay for TV and then be hit with commercials every 5 minutes or so, you have more housecleaning to do than promising al la carte to get back your subscribers.
-
Staff
A la carte is the way to go, but it'll be 20 years before this happens....
-
I work for a cable company and actually suggested this two years ago to them. The answer from my company was "great idea! But we can't do that". The reason was actually contractual. We have contracts with content providers, aka channels. These company own a lot of channels, not just one, and our contracts with them require us to carry and provide a certain set of channels together. So for example if we want to offer Fox, we must also provide the Fox News channel to those same people, as well as FX, however their SPEED channel can be offered as a separate, higher level of service.
All broadcasters operate this way, you want one channel, then you have to pay us for two and must offer both to the same customers. Exceptions can exist, but they tend to be rare and similar to our deal with the SPEED channel, we still have to buy it but we're allowed to charge a premium for it. The way this works out is we pay for these channels regardless of whether our customers pay to get them. So if we have 100 customers that upgrade to that SPEED channel or 1 million, we still pay $700,000 a year to have the channel. Cable companies want to use an ala carte system. It's the broadcasters that don't. They like getting a few hundred checks every year for over $10 million for all their channels, and they use that money on lawyers to make their contracts rock solid.
So unless we can get broadcasters to change how they structure their system, this will not likely happen.
Hadn't really considered the contractual side of things, that makes the whole idea a hot sticky mess, doesn't it? Ah well, if the content providers decide to remain dinosaurs and make a stand, they'll eventually be performing for an empty room. The times they are a-changing, and they had better learn to adapt.
-
What I want to know is it the broadcasters who are responsible for taking a two hour movie and stretching it to 2 and half to four and a half hour event, i.e. greater length = more commercials = more $, or is it the cable companies doing this crap?
Seriously, it has become epidemic.
-
Renrew said:
Ah well, if the content providers decide to remain dinosaurs and make a stand, they'll eventually be performing for an empty room. The times they are a-changing, and they had better learn to adapt.
Well said.
-
Great news if they do it right. 10 channels I don't want that are $0.50 each is still $5 of waste. I want to be able to knock off EVERY channel I do not watch. Not just the "more expensive" ones. Also with this a la carte method I would be able to subscribe to channels I would watch that aren't on my block subscription. I'd be more willing to pay for a channel like HBO in this case.
-
This is long time overdue. I can get 240 channels but only watch 5 on a regular basis.And, there is only so much I can buy on QVC. But as usual the pols will take the cableproviders "contributions" and nix the deal. And then the providers will say we tried. And the publuic will again roll-over and take the sharp end.
-
Please hurry!
I'd love to drop ESPN and all of its sub-channels and save $4. That alone woujld be a step in the right direction.
Most Popular
| Trending | Featured |
Featured on Mice
Subscribe to TechSpot
Get free exclusive content, learn about new features and breaking tech news.