Did Charlie help convince on a la carte?

[iKramerica]

The FCC reversed itself and now says a la carte programming IS cheaper than package programming.

I wonder if Charlie's "family" tier helped convince them on this. After all, not only does it provide a lot of channels people want, but also EXCLUDES Disney because of their forced all or nothing scheme. Once it became obvious that being forced to pay for ESPN Classic just because you want Toon Disney would necessarily cost more, it made the idea that a la carte was cheaper pretty much a no brainer.

I would also bet the Liftetime spat, the OLN problem (must carry vs. a la carte) and all the fee raises that include channels nobody is asking for makes the question a bit different than it was even 5 years ago.

 

[iKramerica]

BTW - the argument that it would hurt niche channels is silly. Right now, niche channels are forced on you if you want them or not, and you are forced to pay. They don't have to prove themselves.

But the way a free market works more effectively is that if a new network comes around, they need to say to the consumer: "here's a free trial. if you like it, why not subscribe?"

It's how HBO, Showtime, etc. have been doing it for years. Why can't commercial channels do the same?

Why can't Lifetime Real Women offer their channel free 4 three months, then let people decide after that date. Why do they instead try to force it on us along with a cost increase and make it so if you don't take it, they'll take Lifetime away, too?

If ESPNU is so great, why does it need to be charged for before we got to even see it? Because we have no a la carte option, that's why. Once that comes on line, it allows for channels to succeed and fail on their own merit, not on the merit of a must carry package piggy backing on channels people really want.

 

[Stargazer]

If channels cannot be supported in whole by advertisement then it should be available ala carte. If they cannot get enough subscribers to their service then they need to get better content and/or drop their price because they may be overpriced.

 

[Peter Parker]

a la carte means buying channels individually. The family pack is not really a la carte.

 

[shanewalker]

Oh, Stargazer, you with your common sense and impulse for fair play in the marketplace. Where's your drive for unrestrained profit margins and the like!? How un"American™"...

 

[Jeff_R]

I'd still like to see something more "in the middle", and like ExpressVu in Canada - themed packages. Start with local channels (mandatory), then add in the packages of other channels you want. Sports, news, kids and family, general entertainment, standard movies (LMN, FOX, etc that have commercials), premium movies (HBO, etc.), adult, and whatever other packages they can come up with. I'd take a couple of those, skip the rest, and probably still have a cheaper bill.

 

[Roger]

Of course la carte channels will be much cheaper. Do the math... 20 channels will be cheaper than 180 channels or what have you. It's really simple.

 

[Jeff_R]

Of course la carte channels will be much cheaper. Do the math... 20 channels will be cheaper than 180 channels or what have you. It's really simple.

The argument from the MSOs, however, has been that TBS by itself, for instance, could cost $5.00 a month, same with Discovery, TNT, FX, etc. Not long before the bill is exactly the same, with a lot fewer channels. I think that with a la carte, most channels will be in the neighborhood of $2 a month per channel, with some higher and a few lower.

 

[Peter Parker]

I don't think that we have seen the math yet.

 

[Jeff_R]

I don't think that we have seen the math yet.

Just giving my opinion of what we'd see. We know generally what is paid now, with all subs paying a portion. With low take rates for most of the channels, it's not unrealistic to expect somewhere around $2 per channel under a true a la carte system.

 

[drfreeman]

When Might We Ever See This Ala Carte!!!!!!????????

 

[Sarang]

I'd still like to see something more "in the middle", and like ExpressVu in Canada - themed packages. Start with local channels (mandatory), then add in the packages of other channels you want. Sports, news, kids and family, general entertainment, standard movies (LMN, FOX, etc that have commercials), premium movies (HBO, etc.), adult, and whatever other packages they can come up with. I'd take a couple of those, skip the rest, and probably still have a cheaper bill.

Now I agree with this. If Dish and the rest would've followed this model from the beginning the FCC might not be talking about A La Carte right now. Instead I'm going to get royally screwed with this and have to pick up the slack $'swise for TCM and IFC which royally pisses me off. FX I could care less about. $5 for that channel is overpriced and shows how much Rupert wants to charge people for "Fox Primetime at 9" if they take it individually.

 

[mrschwarz]

Just giving my opinion of what we'd see. We know generally what is paid now, with all subs paying a portion. With low take rates for most of the channels, it's not unrealistic to expect somewhere around $2 per channel under a true a la carte system.

Perhaps it's not unrealistic to see some channels not have an economic viability (not necessarily a bad thing).