NIELSEN: 1.5 MILLION CUT THE CORD IN 2011

[ansky212]

I don't think anyone argues that point: on a per-channel basis, ala carte would be more expensive.  The idea is that most households would cut the number of channels they receive by 75% or more and save money on their total bill; simultaneously putting dozens of low-rated channels out of business.

The other thing nobody has mentioned yet is the actual cost of delivering service.  I would think there would have to be some base charge for "delivery" of service, similar to what the utility companies charge.  So if a person chooses to only subscribe to Discovery Channel at say, $3/month, there is no way their bill is only going to be $3 (plus taxes).  The whole cable infrastructure would collapse.  Plus you would likely still need to rent a receiver at about $5/month or more, so now you're already paying over $10/month (including tax) for the 1 single channel you are subscribing too.  It just doesn't work.

[PTBoardOp94]

In your example, the subscriber would save at least $30 per month compared to their previous package with 64 channels he/she didn't watch.  How is that not workable?

[ansky212]

In your example, the subscriber would save at least $30 per month compared to their previous package with 64 channels he/she didn't watch.  How is that not workable?

Of course it's workable for the subscriber.  My point is that it is not workable for the cable company.  What I was trying to illustrate is that the cable company would have to raise the fee of the channel and charge delivery fees in such a manner that it is still a good value to the subscriber (paying for the 1 channel vs. dropping cable completely).  But what is a good value to the subscriber is not enough to be economically sustainable for the cable company.  Do you really think a company that currently rakes in $50+ per month from every sub is now going to accept just $10/month?  Not gonna happen.  The cable companies would be out of business.

[mnradiofan]

In your example, the subscriber would save at least $30 per month compared to their previous package with 64 channels he/she didn't watch.  How is that not workable?

I'm certainly not paying $10 per month for one channel.  I can't think of a single channel that is worth $10 to me.  But I'll certainly pay $70 for 100 channels.  Sure, most of the time nothing is on them that I'd like to watch.  But, chances are I'll find enough programming in 30 days over those channels to justify the amount spent.

[Lkeller]

Everytime cable/satellite comes up, this debate about "a-la-carte" comes up again...so I guess I'll contribute what I've said about 50 times before.

If you watch just a few channels, "a la carte" would have to be cheaper.  But I estimate that I watch about 30 channels regularly, and about 50 within any month.  At just $3.00 per channel, I'd be paying $150 per month, and that's WAY more than I pay now for 200+ channels.

And a la carte would be more complicated for the cable companies to adminster, so it would be more EXPENSIVE to administer, which means $3 per channel is probably a pipe-dream, and they would find a way to pass the extra costs on to the customer by either charging MORE than $3 per channel, or by adding "service fees" or some other kind of fee.

So I have to say to those that watch just a few channels - put a big-ass antenna on your roof, or watch shows on the internet, and stop bitching.

In my opinion, Cable/Satellite is fine the way it is.  Yes - I'd like it to be cheaper, but I'd also like to pay $2.00 per gallon for gasoline, and $1.50 for a loaf of bread. Ain't gonna happen!

[carolinaradio]

Everytime cable/satellite comes up, this debate about "a-la-carte" comes up again...so I guess I'll contribute what I've said about 50 times before.

If you watch just a few channels, "a la carte" would have to be cheaper.  But I estimate that I watch about 30 channels regularly, and about 50 within any month.  At just $3.00 per channel, I'd be paying $150 per month, and that's WAY more than I pay now for 200+ channels.

And a la carte would be more complicated for the cable companies to adminster, so it would be more EXPENSIVE to administer, which means $3 per channel is probably a pipe-dream, and they would find a way to pass the extra costs on to the customer by either charging MORE than $3 per channel, or by adding "service fees" or some other kind of fee.

So I have to say to those that watch just a few channels - put a big-ass antenna on your roof, or watch shows on the internet, and stop bitching.

In my opinion, Cable/Satellite is fine the way it is.  Yes - I'd like it to be cheaper, but I'd also like to pay $2.00 per gallon for gasoline, and $1.50 for a loaf of bread. Ain't gonna happen!

+1
Agree with everything you say.  I have a cheaper package and watch about 25 channels out of like ~130 (that includes XM, shopping channels, etc, so I technically don't get that many "real" channels).  I come out better also.  My household's not couch potatoes, but I feel we definitely get our money's worth, especially since that's about all we really spend on "entertainment."  Everything increases in cost.  I have no complaints.

[landtuna]

If you watch just a few channels, "a la carte" would have to be cheaper.  But I estimate that I watch about 30 channels regularly, and about 50 within any month.  At just $3.00 per channel, I'd be paying $150 per month, and that's WAY more than I pay now for 200+ channels.

In the C-band days a programmer offered virtually every channel ala carte but also offered tiers just like today - at a discount.  You could buy one or more tiers or one or more individual channels.  The subscriptions were all handled by computer so the only "complication" was for the programmer to set up the subscription list on the web site. 

And a la carte would be more complicated for the cable companies to adminster, so it would be more EXPENSIVE to administer,

See above.  As everything is automated and all cable boxes are now addressable there is no added complication.  Each channel still has to be accounted for by subscription and also needs to be included or excluded in each of the tiers.  Virtually no change from today except for individual channel pricing - but they already know what the channel is costing them and all they need to calculate is the kicker.

So I have to say to those that watch just a few channels - put a big-ass antenna on your roof, or watch shows on the internet, and stop bitching.

The problem is, of course, that most cable channels are not available OTA.  I would gladly pay a monthly charge for Turner Classic Movies but that's about the only one.  It would also be nice if OTA customers could somehow subscribe to some of the specialty sports channels.  There is money to be made there and it will be filled eventually.