Why don't cable companies let us pick and choose channels?

[Jesus Pimp]

I think this would be great for the consumer. Pick and pay for the channels you want instead of being forced to get 50 channels of crap that you'll never watch. Why don't cable companies do this? I guess the obvious answer would be they probably would lose money, but people have so many tastes. What do you think?

[pan6467]

When I lived in Mansfield, Ohio and we had Adelphia (before they sold the area to Time Warner) Adelphia gave us a choice and said it was a law. We could take one of their "option" packages or we could pay for each channel individually and pick and choose what we wanted.

In the long run it was cheaper to just take the package and delete the channels you didn't watch from your tv. I don't see that it would change much because cable companies make a lot of money on selling the cable company commercial time, and the more channels they can show those ads on the more they can charge, regardless if anyone watches them.

[shortynickel]

i have suggested to my cable company channels that they need to add...cause they are just a local company they havent had many "good" channels...2 years ago i only watched techtv and tbs for the most part....espn on occasion but they added lots of channels such as foxnews and the like, hgtv , but about the picking ur channels i would have to agree with pan cause cable companies have enough problems imo with sateilite...cause at least in my area dishes are popping up everywhere even in the city and such where comcast is...they also took over alot of local cable companies.

[tropple]

I'm dumping comcast.

channel after channel of pre-digested pap.

DirecTV may have similar crap, but I'll be charged only half as much for it.

[warrrreagl]

Actually, I think if people were able to pick their own channels, the weirder fringe channels would fold up because not as many people would select them. Having an a la carte selection process would limit the diversity of channels, as each channel would strive to be a carbon-copy of the more successful channels.

For example, I watch C-Span maybe twice a year. If I were given a choice, I wouldn't pay for it. But then I would lose the opportunity to catch those two rare shows a year that snag my attention.

[dawiz73]

I think I would get 3 channels other than the locals. Here is your problem with the dishes. I was tracking Hurricane Francis, and as soon as the stuff got important, the Dish-Network dish in my backyard would not get a signal. Add that to the fact that unless you get premium channels they charge you for changes and nickel and dime you for the rest.
I guess what I am trying to say is that I am paying bungloads of money for three channels that I get most of the time, unless it is important that I get them, in which case they are not reliable.

The big question is: Where do we go from here? I am not really happy with what I have, but it is like picking the president, what is the best choice of the crappy options that we have?

[Gortexfogg]

Originally Posted by warrrreagl

For example, I watch C-Span maybe twice a year. If I were given a choice, I wouldn't pay for it. But then I would lose the opportunity to catch those two rare shows a year that snag my attention.

C-Span is actually free with cable I believe. It's either all the cable companies or channels that pay to have it free for the public. You can also watch it on the internet too (which is awesome).

But, it is true most niche channels would fold. HGTV for example...

[the_marq]

Originally Posted by warrrreagl

Actually, I think if people were able to pick their own channels, the weirder fringe channels would fold up because not as many people would select them. Having an a la carte selection process would limit the diversity of channels, as each channel would strive to be a carbon-copy of the more successful channels.

I think this is the major reason why you have to buy full packages of cable TV channels. Also, if you were able to buy channels individually you would be paying a helluva lot more for them.

[Cynthetiq]

two articles from July as this was recently being discussed by the FCC:

FCC: Why No a La Carte Cable? By Michael Grebb
Story location: http://www.wired.com/news/technology...,64399,00.html

02:00 AM Jul. 30, 2004 PT

WASHINGTON -- Staffers at the Federal Communications Commission grilled cable industry reps Thursday about their opposition to letting viewers pick their channels individually, or "a la carte," expressing skepticism that it would destroy the economics of the industry.

Thursday's FCC symposium was part of the agency's research as it prepares to issue a report to Congress on the controversial a la carte model by Nov. 18. The House Commerce Committee requested the report earlier this year. Consumer advocacy groups have been asking Congress to look into why cable companies won't let subscribers pick the channels they want in their subscription packages instead of being forced into accepting dozens of channels they may never watch while still paying for them.

The FCC won't make recommendations to Congress, but its findings could determine whether Congress passes a bill to force cable companies to offer channel menus.

At Thursday's hearing, FCC staffers pounced when officials from consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton presented a study (PDF), funded by the cable industry, that warned that a la carte would hurt cable networks.

"How rigorously have you tested the assumption that ad rates would go down?" asked FCC Media Bureau Chief Kenneth Ferree. "It seems like a somewhat irrational result."

Matthew Egol, a principal at Booz Allen Hamilton, told Ferree that "cable would be a much less attractive buy compared to other outlets."

Ben Golant, a senior attorney in the Media Bureau, pointed out that some start-up programmers and even some small cable operators seem to support a la carte pricing.

"I'm not too convinced that voluntary a la carte or themed tiers would be bad," he said. "How is it that your study does not reflect ... the feelings of very smart and astute business people?"

Indeed, Bennett Hooks, chief executive of Buford Media Group, a company that's buying tiny cable companies, said small rural cable systems would be willing to test a la carte if Congress would prevent programmers from requiring bundling of their content. Under these bundling arrangements, large media companies like Viacom and Walt Disney force cable operators to broadcast their less popular channels in exchange for the rights to broadcast their top properties, like MTV or ESPN.

"Let's give it a try," Hooks said. "Tying and bundling is killing this whole system. It's putting everything out of balance."

But Geraldine Laybourne, co-founder of the Oxygen cable channel, called a la carte "one of the worst ideas I have ever heard" that "would lead to more consolidation and fewer voices."

Michael Willner, chief executive of cable company Insight Communications, said he wouldn't have considered carrying Laybourne's network had she tried to launch in an a la carte world. "I would have thrown her out of my office," he said.

Consumer advocates, however, said other channels have been unable to get carriage.

"Ms. Laybourne is a drop of success in an ocean of utter failure," said Mark Cooper, director of research at the Consumer Federation of America.

The Booz Allen Hamilton study projected it would cost $17 billion to $34 billion to outfit cable homes with new digital boxes to enable an a la carte system. But Hooks said that's nonsense. Traps -- small electronic devices installed at customers' homes -- would suffice to enable a la carte pricing, he said. Traps are in wide use currently to block premium channels like HBO from basic cable subscribers.

"I heard comments that you need a box," he said. "That's ridiculous. You don't need a box. We can buy a trap."

But Willner said traps applied to so many channels would cause signal leakage and other problems.

"The more of these devices we put in line, they more capability there is for the system to break down," he said.

Consumer groups insist that simple digital routers similar to those already used for home networking would be a cheaper option.

"What we have here is a $500 solution to a $50 problem," Cooper said.

In its report, the FCC could highlight possible compromises such as test markets or "themed tiers" -- grouping of similar programming -- rather than full a la carte.

"The cable industry may have to select a compromise," said Margaret Smyth, a managing partner at consulting company Deloitte & Touche. "There would be some cost to it, but it would be a compromise solution in the political environment we're in right now."

FCC to Sample TV a la Carte By Michael Grebb
Story location: http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,64382,00.html

02:00 AM Jul. 29, 2004 PT

WASHINGTON -- The ongoing debate over whether TV viewers in the United States should be able to pick their cable channels on an a la carte basis continues Thursday when the Federal Communications Commission holds a symposium on the controversial question.

Already, several lawmakers in Congress support new rules that would require cable operators to offer an a la carte option rather than force viewers to take all-or-nothing "tiers" of programming.

The cable industry, however, derides a la carte as a faulty concept that would destroy the economics of the industry and put some cable channels out of business.

Unlike many FCC events that involve broad questioning from commissioners, Thursday's symposium will feature staffers in the FCC Media Bureau. They are collecting data for an upcoming report on a la carte cable due to Congress on Nov. 18.

The report won't include any specific recommendations, but its tone -- especially on whether a la carte could result in huge price hikes -- could influence whether forces in Congress continue to pursue the issue.

The cable industry has been girding for the symposium.

"We certainly expect an opportunity to present our viewpoint on why a la carte would be harmful to consumers," said Brian Dietz, a spokesman at the National Cable & Telecommunications Association.

Cable industry reps are expected to argue that additional investments in equipment and other administrative costs would result in higher prices for all cable customers.

The FCC will also examine the situation in Canada, where several cable operators offer a la carte programming choices to TV viewers. Philip Lind, vice chairman of Canadian cable operator Rogers Communications, will testify.

A la carte backers have used the Canadian model as an argument for a la carte in the United States.

But Michael Hennessy, CEO of the Canadian Cable Television Association, has called a la carte a "none-too-successful aspect" of the Canadian system. Dietz noted the "irony" that digital TV penetration is actually lower in Canada than the United States.

Consumer groups will wage their own assault at the symposium.

In a presentation, the Consumer Federation of America will lay out a "mixed bundling" concept in which a la carte channel menus would only affect existing digital subscribers, to keep down equipment costs.

The group also argues the cable industry exaggerates costs to scare lawmakers.

"They have painted a doomsday scenario with no relation to reality," said Mark Cooper, the CFA's director of research. He criticized a cable-industry-funded study (PDF) released by Booz Allen Hamilton earlier this month.

The study warned that even partial a la carte could cost the cable industry between $17 billion and $34 billion, pushing up cable prices by 7 percent to 15 percent. It assumed that cable operators would need to deploy a digital set-top box for every TV hooked up to cable, at a cost of $185 per box.

"We think that's just bunk," said Cooper. "They have a whole series of costs that are just fiction."

A Booz Allen Hamilton representative will be on hand Thursday to defend the study.

FCC staffers, on the other hand, will try to make sense of an increasingly complex debate.

[Cynthetiq]

In short, the smaller companies like Oxygen would be squeezed out of existence because they would have to charge more in the ala carte world.

Disney and Viacom create pretty attractive deals to bundle all of thier programming together. It makes it very easy for MTV to launch LOGO whereas if someone was to start up on their own it would be cost prohibitive to even start. Something the reality channel is having problems currently making sure that it's got enough financial backing to stick around longer than just a few months.

[dawiz73]

What if they made smaller bundles, the way that they do with the movie channels. There can be the viacom bundle of their couple of channels. (these are the ones I watch) but you can bundle between 3 and 10 channels together and even charge a little bit more than you would for all 50 or 120 or 180 channels. I would not need to buy the H&G channel unless it was bundled with SciFi.

[tropple]

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

two articles from July as this was recently being discussed by the FCC:

Seems like a very large load of particularly smelly crap to me. Lies, all of it.

With a digital box, it is possible to feed or block any channel as desired. It would create more, not less, opportunity for new shows and material. It would foster "public access" on a tremendous scale. It is incredibly hard to get a new show onto an existing "specialty channel" (e.g., Outdoor Life). The exiting networks have too much invested in advertising and "market" identity to risk straying beyond their current offering. Newcomers with good ideas are prevented from airing what could become a popular show simply because the network is afraid to take a chance.

A couple hundred channels showing new, possibly wonderfully innovative programming could introduce programs worth watching instead of the same tired shit that we're currently being subjected to:

1. reality shows
2. team competition shows
3. sitcoms of old situations with ethnic twists
4. talk and advice shows
edit: 5. Makeover shows

Also, I think that the networks are afraid to lose the few viewers they still hold to some show that doesn't owe their existance to the network.

[World's King]

For the most part cable has been shit for the past ten years.

Until this whole Comcast On Demand thing. It's like TiVo but not as annoying.

[Cynthetiq]

Originally Posted by The Original King

For the most part cable has been shit for the past ten years.

Until this whole Comcast On Demand thing. It's like TiVo but not as annoying.

My TiVo showed me the light.. that I didn't actually watch, see, need those extra channels. Everything that TiVo harvests for me is pretty much on the lower tiers of Basic Standard Cable... the digital world of 8 HBOs etc, are lost on me. I do like to watch Boomerang once in a while, but honestly, I should be watching the programming that the TiVo harvested for me.

One must also understand the lineups... when channels move from the top of the dial to the bottom, the channels on the bottom tend to lose viewers. Viacom tries to bundle their channels all together and to be close together on the dial.

Someone in the thread mentioned that digital cable boxes would be able to handle it.. yes the boxes would, the backend infrastructure could not. It would have to be reprogrammed and recoded, which after the cable ISP infrasctructure upgrads of the last 8 years, are finally seeing profitabilty. Will they see profits go up from doing that reprogramming? Nope...

[PulpMind]

everyone I know says the same thing "I want cable just so I can have Comedy Central, Discovery/NationalGeographic/etc, and the Food Network" plus maybe one or two other stations, like SciFi or MTV2. If cable companies offered these small bundles, I think the number of new subscribers they would get would counter balance the amount of advertising they lost on the crap channels.
Maybe they could offer a month-to-month extra channel of your choice option. So you could try out that new station all about under water basket weaving, then try out the channel all about trains and planes.
yup.

[brandon11983]

I believe I can answer this question quickly and concisely. The cable companies won't let you do a la carte programming because they won't make any money like that. What moron wouldn't realize that it would be a great thing for consumers to be able to pick and choose their programming? But you must understand that cable companies aren't in the business for the consumers, but rather to make money off them. If you could just pick and choose from the drivel available, you could pay drastically less per month, and therefore less in the cable co's pocket. I have over 120 channels available to me, but I watch (literally) less than 10 of them. Those 10 channels have the stuff on that I want to watch, and the channels are scattered throughout the various programming packages.

[Porkchop]

This is similar to sky in britain. They say it would be more costly to do this. Individual channels would mean less choice etc. I say you wouldnt get so much crap. Although in a way they do have a point specialist channels such as sport would get costly .

[DDDDave]

Originally Posted by brandon11983

I believe I can answer this question quickly and concisely. The cable companies won't let you do a la carte programming because they won't make any money like that. What moron wouldn't realize that it would be a great thing for consumers to be able to pick and choose their programming? But you must understand that cable companies aren't in the business for the consumers, but rather to make money off them. If you could just pick and choose from the drivel available, you could pay drastically less per month, and therefore less in the cable co's pocket. I have over 120 channels available to me, but I watch (literally) less than 10 of them. Those 10 channels have the stuff on that I want to watch, and the channels are scattered throughout the various programming packages.

How do you figure that? The cable companies would just charge the most for the most popular channels and give you the less watched one's for cheap (In actuality, isn't this what they do now).

You: Ok, I just want my local news, ESPN, and the Outdoor Life Network.
Comcast: That will be $34.78.
You: How much if I get the other 37 channels?
Comcast: That will be $42.19.
You: OK, OK, just ESPN.
Comcast: That will be the minimum $29.95.
You: That's highway robbery.
Comcast: Tuff


The real issue I think is advertisers. One of the real advantages to advertising on cable as opposed to local broadcast stations is the ability to target your customers. If I was advertising my product I would want to be able to 'rifle shot' my message. This is what cable does well. This is why advertisers pay what they do. When I wanted to advertise on ESPN only, the sales guy told me 'We can't do that'.. I said 'Why not'. He says cause that is what everybody wants. ESPN would be nothing but commercials and the other channels would have no commercials.

Anyway, this is a complex issue but it is mainly a business decision.

[Cynthetiq]

FWIW ESPN is about $2.50 / household sub. It's the highest amount per subscription, YES Network is about $1.50 in comparison. I don't care for either of them, yet there's $4.00 of my cable bill that goes to something that I will never watch nor ever use.

Back in the 70's people said,"Pay for TV??? Why would I ever want to do that..." yet we got what we wanted and we're not happy that it's not as cheap as we want it to be.

Be grateful that we don't have to pay for television and radio licenses like they do in other countries. Every year, a TV tax just to own it, some countries have a government channel, and you have to subscribe to that, and it's very expensive. Like gasoline, I think that we get a bargain and should just be happy that it's not that expensive and not controlled by the government.

[brandon11983]

DDDDave: what my statement was trying to show is that people don't realize how much particular channels cost. The mentality I ran into the most when I was in the satellite business is people thinking that

number of channels / price per month = price per channel

We obviously know this is not true. If consumers were given the option of picking their programming, they would first assume that they could get a significantly lower bill per month. As your little mock up showed, this will not be the case. The closest thing I have ever seen to this is with big dish satellite systems, in which they let you get as close to "picking and choosing" as you will get. But then again, they are down to less than 800,000 customers nationwide, probably because the programming is so cheap...

[Fire]

I do not have cable- have not for 9 years (since being on my own)

I might if they had ala carte, and it was affordable
been pushing for that for years- big thing is, with the ever increasing flood of series on DVD, and the net, I simply do not need them anymore so the affordable part is a biggie - it would be nice to get the history channel, discovery, ect- but I just do not feel much loss these past years- so if they cannot bring themselves to offer just what I want, then fuck em- (and I hope lots of other people agree with me, and remember they do not need to be force fed their entertainment)

I thought about that. If they offer digital cable, why not pick & choose? I'd love to have digital, but I would NEVER watch 700 channels! MY GOD who would? Even if you had all the time on your hands, how could you afford it?

[Speed_Gibson]

I have had cable for the first time ever for just over a month now and dropping the whole bloody thing has been crossing my mind increasingly often now. There was no TV in my apartment for over a year until two months back and I was fine with that. Forgot to add there is ZERO reception with an antenna in this area and you must have cable or the Dish to get more than PBS.
Many of the worthless channels like all of the news channels, and a good portion of the others are never on the onscreen for me. All I watch typically is CourtTV, Scifi Channel, CMT, and a few others.