The Cable Industry's a La Carte Bait and Switch 447
jfruhlinger writes "For years, cable operators have insisted that a la carte pricing, in which users could chose the channels they want, would undermine the both their own business models and the existence of important but less-watched channels currently wrapped into bundles. That's why it was surprising to hear that major cable companies are privately working towards offering a la carte pricing. But when you look at the details, it seems more like a bait and switch: those lesser channels (which pay cable companies for their place on the dial) will still be bundled with the local stations cable companies are required to provide, whereas pricey sports channels (which cable companies have to pay for) will become HBO-like premium services."
Makes sense actually (Score:5, Interesting)
For those of us who don't like sport and don't like subsidizing those who do, this is a win. For a sport fan, it's a good way to part him from his money.
Re:At this point, only bandwidth matters to me (Score:4, Interesting)
+1
It isn't a la carte until you can choose when, where and on what you want to watch your show.
Re:Sounds like what most people would want (Score:4, Interesting)
This may have been true for me a few years back, but Discovery Channel isn't compelling anymore. Most of it is scripted "reality" show drivel... Hardly any good documentaries like the good old days. MythBusters is good, and I still like Modern Marvels on the history channel, but most of that is available online through netflix or some other avenue. Nearly all new documentaries worth watching come from PBS or the BBC. These days the only 'documentaries' on the Discovery channel are pipedream speculation about absurd engineering projects that will never be built.
Re:stupid suckers (Score:2, Interesting)
Apparently.
I watch all my TV over the Internet, sans commercials. All hail Bittorrent and TV release groups.
I remember someone commenting on why sports figures get paid in the tens of millions, and it was 'because people are willing to pay to see them". Teams pay players because they can jack up prices on ticket sales and TV rights for ESPN. Because they in turn can jack up charges to cable providers, and they in turn can jack up prices to cable subscribers. Lebron gets a 50m paycheck because of the idiots who pay for ESPN. Count me out of that nightmare.
What cable companies need to do is not cave in to ESPN's $4/subscriber pricing, or anyone else's. Then ESPN can go back to the league and offer less for the rights. Then teams can pay their players less. Everyone wins except a few hundred pro athletes. Sure, some competing channel to ESPN will crop up, offer more, and hopefully fail when they cannot sell their channel, but that's how markets work.
But then I watch mostly Scripted television, documentaries, and anime, so what do I care. Channels are supposed to earn their revenue off of advertising sales. Cable companies are supposed to sell a service (high quality image distribution of content) not the content itself. Like many, I will either watch ads, or pay for content, but not both.
So now I download all the TV I watch off the Internet. Have been doing so for 10 years now. And I will never go back.
Re:unintentional humor alert (Score:4, Interesting)
Cable is getting real competition from Over the Air and streaming content. They know they have to offer something compelling to get me to stay. If they can get me the basic channels + all of the science channels that are hard to find on streaming for a reasonable cost, I'll stay. If they can't, then I might leave. OTA is free, and free almost always beats better.