No. It wasn't.
You said the package was unpopular. You never mentioned WHY it was less popular. The "extra" detail is the reason why. Without MTV, ESPN, Nickelodeon and others most people won't even consider cable! It wasn't the "cost effectiveness" as much as it was the lack of choice!
Well, I did say it was because it wasn't cost effective. I also cited limited choice. I guess I should have written a book instead of a sentence here. Look, we are not really disagreeing on this point, but I guess my hackles are raised because you accused me of spouting BS when I disagreed with you. That brings me to:
Look, I know I am not going to convince the FUD slinging "it'll never work" crowd. I am just baffled and completely aghast at the mentality that FORCING people to buy something completely unrelated to what they want to buy is good. I want a certain product. The cable/satellite industry is really the ONLY place where it is common practice.
I am becoming concerned at how easily we are starting to sling that FUD obscenity at anyone who disagrees with us. Tony, I generally respect your opinion. I respect this one, but I don't happen to agree with it. You seem to be absolutely positive you are correct. I am a little less certain, but I don't think open ala-carte will work as wel as what we have now.
First, I don't think we will end up having an opportunity to see this because the current system is working for the content providers and common carriers. You think not? 80% of US homes are connected to some sort of cable or satellite system. I think that could be considered "significant market penetration". Tony, if you can convince 5 or 6 million of your closest friends to disconnect until ala-carte is available, they might just listen to you. No incentive now.
Second, you have said nothing that changes my mind about cost/benefit. I believe that ala-carte would end up costing about the same as we pay now, but we would only get our first level choices. Right now, I have the ability to lock out ESPN, highlight TCM, but still keep Bravo available as a second tier choice. I believe I have more flexibility for the same price.
I can get behind smaller packages and selecting one or more. Say something like sports (the obvious one), movies, family, women's, men's, lifestyle, etc. This would have 5-15 channels per group and might work. However, I suspect that there would be just as much bickering about the "useless" channels in each group. Someone is saying "I gotta buy that expensive ESPN, just to get Speed" and someone else saying "That useless Speed channel is driving up the price of my football"
The exception to this not happening is if the government got involved. McCain has said that he supports ala-carte. If he is elected, I could see legislation happening. I don't consider this a good thing. A lot of people on this board argue against government regulation of anything, example healthcare. They use the argument that the government never gets it right and we end up paying more for less than if they had let industry regulate themselves. Why would you believe it would be different in this case. The government would probably write a bill where you had to pay an unregulated access fee and would allow the operator to provide a "standard pack" followed by unregulated ala-carte options. That bill would allow the operator to do business the same way they are doing it now, except that there would be an additional blessed access fee, and probably a new "national cable tax"
Finally, as Greg pointed out, the cable companies only give 40% to the providers and keep about 60% for themselves. This system is again working well for them. When ESPN raises its rates $1, the carrier gets to raise its rates $2.50 (1/.4) and blame ESPN for the increase. Why would they possibly want to get rid of that sweetheart deal?
