Smaller cable TV packages would be good for consumers, but a la carte pricing would be better

[RedEarth]

latimes.com
Smaller cable TV packages would be good for consumers, but a la carte pricing would be better
The industry may finally be responding to the threat of cut-rate online alternatives.
David Lazarus

July 13, 2010


Looks like the cable industry is finally responding to the threat of cut-rate online alternatives such as YouTube and Hulu.

No, that doesn't mean cable companies will at last allow people to pay only for the channels they want to watch and not stick them with hundreds they don't. But it may soon mean smaller, cheaper packages that could lower your monthly bill.

.......


I reported in March that cable execs were weighing the possibility of packages of 40 or 50 channels rather than the 118 forced upon the average subscriber. The typical cable customer regularly watches only about 17 channels, according to Nielsen Co.

.......

Now it appears that discussions about smaller packages are far enough along that a big dog like Britt can go on the record suggesting that change is in the wind.

"Obviously the marketplace is evolving," said Brian Dietz, a spokesman for the National Cable & Telecommunications Assn., an industry group. "It's clear that consumers have a multitude of options to watch video."

For instance, Google-owned YouTube last week unveiled a free service called Leanback. It streams high-definition videos based on viewers' preferences. The idea is to create a more TV-like experience, prompting people to kick back and stare at the screen for hours on end.

Meanwhile, Hulu is offering a premium service for $9.99 a month that allows subscribers to watch every episode of the current season of top shows, along with multiple seasons of other shows.

With such offerings on the ascent, more than a few cable customers are probably wondering why they're paying $80 or more a month for dozens or even hundreds of channels they never watch.

Smaller cable packages would be a step in the right direction. But that's not good enough.

Imagine being forced to subscribe to Field & Stream if you want the New Yorker, or being forced to buy a pair of gabardine trousers if you want blue jeans. No consumer would stand for such treatment.

So why should cable companies get away with it? So-called a la carte cable pricing is the way of the future, especially in an app-happy, iTunes world where media consumers pick and choose what they want to see and hear.

The sooner the cable industry accepts this reality, the sooner it can start genuinely competing for increasingly finicky digital subscribers.

http://www.latimes.com/news/la-fi-lazarus-20100713,0,5915393,print.column

[mikelgb]

1. Cable and DVDs are going the way of the dodo

[Atman]

4. I wanted Fuel TV for the snowboarding and surfing...

...and Charter said I couldn't get it unless I subscribe to a whole sports package. I don't like sports...I don't watch football or baseball or hockey, but I have dozens of such channels. And Jesus channels, too. Loads of 'em. WTF? I don't want Jesus or football on my tv, but I have to pay for it. It's complete bullshit.

.

[digitaln3rd]

6. Ugh.

Same here. The digital cable is a sham. If I wanted one channel, I'd have to order the entire package for $20 more.

I remember in the 90's you'd get everything for about $30 now it's upwards of $100 before adding digital cable. You can't even order special events anymore because all the PPV carriers have moved to the digital tier.

I'm ALL for ala carte' pricing - always have been.

[RKP5637]

2. I pay so damn much for cable channels here I don't want to get the ones I want because

of digital tiers and bundling. I'm about ready to dump TV all together and just use the internet. And if the internet gets screwy I'll dump that and just go back to reading hardcopy books.

[msongs]

3. Charter uses its city granted monopoly to gouge customers nt

[Donnachaidh]

5. I cannot wait for ala carte -- have at LEAST half a dozen *jesus* stations to drop

It really pisses me off that these theocratic bullshit stations get another form of welfare thanks to bundling packages. I personally think they would not survive, at least not be as big as they are if people had the right to cut them out of the package.

[Better Today]

7. I've still just got the simple antenna and local channels. I had cable

once for about three months. What I noticed was that without cable it took me about 2 minutes to browse the channels and determine there was nothing worth watching on tv. With cable it took nearly half an hour. When I see someone browsing through the listings and then the channels with cable, I often remark, "yep, with cable it simply takes longer to determine there's not a damn thing on worth watching." and pretty much everyone nods their heads in agreement. The exception would be sports nuts.

[dem mba]

8. look at investor analyst reports on cable companies

the ONLY bright spot for most of these cable companies financials are the bundled services they offer (phone, internet and cable).

they will hold on to this business model for their dear, dear lives. only cable conglomerates that own content (time warner, cablevision) will think about doing something different.

the current business model also allows cable companies to distribute niche networks which in turn allow them to rake in niche advertising and affiliate dollars. a la carte will severlely hamper their efforts.

to the poster who wants to watch Fuel TV, well a la carte would be nice to have, but there is a real possibility that Fuel TV wouldn't be profitable enough to run on a la carte. some of these smaller networks might need the "subsidy" that being in a cable tier brings.

it's a tricky issue.

[LynzM]

9. I won't pay for cable until a la carte is available...

Apparently people like me aren't a big enough market sector to cause that change, though.

[damntexdem]

10. What, I'll only have 100 channels and nothing to watch ...

instead of 1000 channels and nothing to watch? Oh, well, I guess it's good if it costs less to have nothing to watch. ;-)

[corkhead]

11. too bad it isn't about what is good for consumers, only stockholders.

we are being back-handed by the invisible hand.

[Mopar151]

12. I cannot subscribe to satellite TV without .....

Paying for religious channels and shopping/infomercial channels, not to mention PPV preview channels. We are on Dish, and those three categories make up about half of the channels on any given tier.
I'm a nut for Speed Channel, and I can see taking ESPN and a couple other sports channels to get it - but why should I have to take 15 channels of kiddy 'toons and Rod fucking Parsley to get it?

[mwb970]

13. I'm about to drop my Time Warner cable subscription.

I get over 100 channels but I mostly look at the Weather Channel now and then and get some news from MSNBC. If I could have just these two, plus the local weather radar channel, that would cover 95% of my viewing. Instead, I have to pay an outrageous fee to receive dozens and dozens of channels I've never tuned to even once. Plus, I don't like dealing with mega-corporations.

It doesn't make sense to keep the cable. I've got my laptop hooked to the TV and my library has thousands of DVDs - who needs Time Warner?