A la carte cable? how much it could cost...

[Easy Mac]

Well, maybe/maybe not. These are wholesale prices offered to cable companies. I somehow think the prices would change if it were pay for what you want.

A quick review of the channels puts my total around $16.35 a month. Some of the channels I don't get, and some I do currently get I don't want. I could probably drop it even more, as I hedged that something might appear on a channel or two that I might someday watch.

My list:
ESPN
FSN
TNT
Disney
NFL
HDNet
USA
ESPN2
CNN/HLN
TBS
HDNet Movies
Nickelodeon
Fox College
MTV
Discovery
MLB
Syfy
E!
Bravo
CBS College
Fox Sports Espanol
ESPN Classic
ESPN News
ESPNU
FSC
TLC
ESPN Deportes
SOAPNet
Comedy Central
HGTV
Gol
Weather
Food Network
G4
Animal Planet

[larrymcg421]

But I wonder how many channels would fold under this format.

[spleen1015]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

But I wonder how many channels would fold under this format.

Just shows you how many pointless channels there are.

[Big Fo]

Wish I could add GolTV to my Time Warner plan for 11 cents a month. I'm pretty sure they don't offer it no matter what your plan is though.

[Masked]

I suspect those prices are much lower than the end consumer could ever get. The cable companies would charge some amount for distribution - maybe a flat fee for access and then an additional percentage on top of the cost for each channel.

[Easy Mac]

oh, and if Jon sees this, maybe he could answer it for me:

Why is ESPN Classic not part of the sports package for Charter? ESPN U and News are, and its lumped into the same channel range for all of the other sports channels I do get, but I don't get the channel. It makes no sense.

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by Masked

I suspect those prices are much lower than the end consumer could ever get. The cable companies would charge some amount for distribution - maybe a flat fee for access and then an additional percentage on top of the cost for each channel.

If they charged me a flat fee of say, $25, then let me pay for the channels I want, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

[Mustang]

Wedding Central? Really?

What do they do, play Bridezilla 24/7?

[SackAttack]

My hunch is what you'd be more likely to see is that you'd have to buy a 'core' package of some kind first, and then the à la carte would go on top of that.

I mean, I can't imagine Time Warner would allow me to cherry pick the channels I'd watch (TCM, AMC, Fox Sports, ESPN, maybe Sci-Fi) for $7/month. They'd look for a way to offer à la carte and still get their $20-30/month out of it.

[stevew]

Still dumb that I can't add NFLN for .75 cents because of the tw/nfl pissing match.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

Well, maybe/maybe not. These are wholesale prices offered to cable companies. I somehow think the prices would change if it were pay for what you want.

Undoubtably. The wholesale prices are so low because they have a guarenteed market of everyone the cable company serves (for basic tier channels). Take that guarentee away and the prices shoot up to make up for people who would be paying for their channels but don't watch it. And yes, a lot of channels, especially niche channels (hello SyFy) would fold.

[vex]

$12.77 for me. Yes, please.

[gstelmack]

$45/month for RoadRunner, $11/month for Netflix with Blu-Ray, maybe a one-time $40 fee for PlayOn, and maybe $2/episode for Amazon VOD for some shows.

That's my price tag for a la carte viewing.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Of course, if you stopped paying for many of these channels with your monthly cable bill, the prices of those channels would all go up.

Exactly- it's like the insurance debate. You're subsidizing all those other stations. You may only watch 10 stations, but think about your cable bill- you're paying for somewhere between 30 and 300 of them.

It's also not a completely accurate chart for price, for everyone licking their chops at their theoretical $15 cable bills.

Again, add up all your stations on your cable provider and see how much they cost compared to your cable bill. I have a feeling that you're paying double what the stations cost on the chart. Clearly they aren't broadcasting things to you at wholesale prices. They're marking up the price to make a profit.

And this doesn't just apply to *evil* cable but also Verizon/AT&T and satellite, too.

SI

[Castlerock]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Undoubtably. The wholesale prices are so low because they have a guarenteed market of everyone the cable company serves (for basic tier channels). Take that guarentee away and the prices shoot up to make up for people who would be paying for their channels but don't watch it. And yes, a lot of channels, especially niche channels (hello SyFy) would fold.

Yup. No one is going to get that channel for $0.33 in an a la carte world. That $0.33 cost only exists because your neighbor who doesn't watch that channel is also paying $0.33. When he stops paying, that channel has to do one of 2 things... charge more or fold.

I'm not saying that things would not be cheaper in an a la carte world (they might) but that $0.33 is not a real number.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Exactly- it's like the insurance debate. You're subsidizing all those other stations. You may only watch 10 stations, but think about your cable bill- you're paying for somewhere between 30 and 300 of them.

It's also not a completely accurate chart for price, for everyone licking their chops at their theoretical $15 cable bills.

Again, add up all your stations on your cable provider and see how much they cost compared to your cable bill. I have a feeling that you're paying double what the stations cost on the chart. Clearly they aren't broadcasting things to you at wholesale prices. They're marking up the price to make a profit.

And this doesn't just apply to *evil* cable but also Verizon/AT&T and satellite, too.

SI

Agree 100%.

On the other hand I will say this. Before the cell phone rage our local phone company used to tack on an additional $25/month fee to call the St. Louis metro area. There was really nothing we could do to fight this either even though it was from like the 1950's. (Unless of course we wanted to be limited to about 10% of the people I talk to that live near my house) Eventually cell phones got cheaper and I dropped them all together. The lesson? Eventually other technologies are going to come around and if cable companies don't try and do something to change their outragous pricing structure they will be left with the landlines, VCR's, and Blockbuster video.

(Of course I didn't read the article so maybe this was what they already said. )

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

$45/month for RoadRunner, $11/month for Netflix with Blu-Ray, maybe a one-time $40 fee for PlayOn, and maybe $2/episode for Amazon VOD for some shows.

That's my price tag for a la carte viewing.

The problem is that for most people, tv and internet are from the same provider. As soon as a significant number of people get wise to the idea that they can access most of their television programming over the internet and start getting internet only, the providers will start blocking domains for non-tv subscribers, or some such thing.

One thing I am fairly certain of - they are not going to sit idly by while their customers switch from accessing cable tv programming in a manner by which they profit (by reselling the programming to you as a tv package) to one they lose money on (increasing the internet bandwidth per customer).

[JediKooter]

I have no problems with a company wanting to make a profit. With cable, I just wish I could pick and choose what I want. I have no problems paying 45 to 50 bucks a month to watch the maybe 30 or so channels (from the list above) that I watch on a regular basis. I don't count the channels you can get over the air though.

[Crapshoot]

I'm just waiting for Jon to see this thread.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

I'm just waiting for Jon to see this thread.

+1

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

I'm just waiting for Jon to see this thread.

Eh, looks like I've done my job, more than one person already pointed out how these numbers have pretty much nothing on earth to do with what individuals would have to pay ala carte.

And we haven't even gotten into the whole "fewer households = fewer total viewers = less advert revenue = even more costs passed directly to the end user" part of it.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Samdari

The problem is that for most people, tv and internet are from the same provider. As soon as a significant number of people get wise to the idea that they can access most of their television programming over the internet and start getting internet only, the providers will start blocking domains for non-tv subscribers, or some such thing.

One thing I am fairly certain of - they are not going to sit idly by while their customers switch from accessing cable tv programming in a manner by which they profit (by reselling the programming to you as a tv package) to one they lose money on (increasing the internet bandwidth per customer).

They aren't. It's in part why we are so far behind the rest of the world internet speed and cost wise.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

Why is ESPN Classic not part of the sports package for Charter? ESPN U and News are, and its lumped into the same channel range for all of the other sports channels I do get, but I don't get the channel. It makes no sense.

I can answer this for you.

It's because ESPN negotiates it that way. Similar to other providers like Viacom (MTV, Comedy, VH-1) they use their flagship channel to leverage carriage on basic tiers for their lesser channels.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by Samdari

The problem is that for most people, tv and internet are from the same provider. As soon as a significant number of people get wise to the idea that they can access most of their television programming over the internet and start getting internet only, the providers will start blocking domains for non-tv subscribers, or some such thing.

One thing I am fairly certain of - they are not going to sit idly by while their customers switch from accessing cable tv programming in a manner by which they profit (by reselling the programming to you as a tv package) to one they lose money on (increasing the internet bandwidth per customer).

On your first point...this is not only illegal, but is just isn't done in large operator networks. There was a time when some operators were doing this with p-2-p in some markets...but those were local decisions being made by local engineers to manage traffic (more cost effectively). Just saying it isn't policy nor implied policy of any of the major cable ops.

On the second point...cable ops profit marginally from video programming and actually make the majority of profit from internet access. It's much easier to be a "dumb pipe" than an intelligent one with moving parts, special restrictions, tiers, billing interfaces, and the whole host of technology updates required every 2-3 years to maintain a modern video system.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Samdari

The problem is that for most people, tv and internet are from the same provider. As soon as a significant number of people get wise to the idea that they can access most of their television programming over the internet and start getting internet only, the providers will start blocking domains for non-tv subscribers, or some such thing.

One thing I am fairly certain of - they are not going to sit idly by while their customers switch from accessing cable tv programming in a manner by which they profit (by reselling the programming to you as a tv package) to one they lose money on (increasing the internet bandwidth per customer).

Actually, there are typically at least two options for internet, with the phone companies also running DSL, and in many cases fiber that is FASTER than the cable company. Yes, I get my high speed Internet from my cable company, but I could switch to DSL tomorrow if I wanted to (and take my phone with it), plus AT&T is currently running fiber for U-Verse service. I am strongly considering a switch since AT&T has much faster Internet speeds. Keep in mind that AT&T is getting into TV to keep customers / lure the ones they've lost to cable back, not as their primary income stream or reason for their network. I'm sure they'll be happy to have me back getting phone and Internet from them.

And if they want to play games about Internet service, I'm sure Google or Cisco would be more than happy to step into the gap, or other providers will step up.

Or I'll just keep building up my physical media collection, buying the TV shows on DVD/Blu-Ray with all the money I'm saving from my cable bill, and not worry about the streaming part.

There are people who don't watch TV much at all because they think it's crap. With the current pricing scheme, a second group of folks (which I fall into) is just starting to realise it's too expensive for what they get. In the other threads we've discussed this in, it's been pointed out that BOTH sides of this pricing equation are squeezing folks out. Sure, I can get broadcast cable for $20-something, but how much longer will that last with the networks starting to get uppity about their prices? Otherwise you're looking at typically $60+/month for a fairly basic digital cable package, and that's just absurd. Go to two rooms with DVRs and you're up approaching $100. Screw that.

FWIW, even my parents are starting to gripe about how much cable costs for what they want to watch. This is a growing undercurrent that the people involved in this pricing war really need to start paying attention to, or all of a sudden they'll find a whole host of people that decide they really didn't need traditional TV that bad after all.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

oh, and if Jon sees this, maybe he could answer it for me:

Why is ESPN Classic not part of the sports package for Charter? ESPN U and News are, and its lumped into the same channel range for all of the other sports channels I do get, but I don't get the channel. It makes no sense.

Most likely because Classic is expected to be dropped from the network lineup pretty much at any time, although it has lasted longer than expected (rumors of its impending demise began as far back as 2007).

Mostly Classic has been used as a swap item as ESPN sacrificed it with providers in order to get U bumped up a tier. Deals like that with Direct TV and Comcast led to Dish Network filing a federal lawsuit against ESPN last fall because they weren't offered the same terms.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

FWIW, even my parents are starting to gripe about how much cable costs for what they want to watch.

Umm ... yours are only starting to gripe? WTF?

I've been hearing my parents, grandparents, and in-laws bitch to the high heavens about the cost of cable for as long as I can remember.

[Shkspr]

Looking at those rates, my intuitive guess is that we would end up with a la carte pricing of about a buck a channel for anything under MTV. Then two or three channels would decide to get together and bundle to split a dollar, and before you know it you're back to essential tier pricing, with the decision whether or not to pick up the ESPNs for $15-17 being the only meaningful distinction. Easy Mac's opening post list of shows he'd want to watch, for example, I would guesstimate at closer to $55-60 per month.

The apartment complex I lived in the first year I was married decided to leave the local cable company and buy a channel lineup individually for internal broadcast so that they could essentially bring all utility bills in-house and offer a comprehensive price for each tenant. They found that only 15% of the units watched ESPN regularly and figured they'd cut it from the channel lineup. This, needless to say, didn't fly. The cost of getting all the ESPN channels (since the contract was all or nothing), plus the cost of switching to a higher number of channel slots that this entailed, ended up costing us an additional $20 per month over the initial estimates, which ended up making it more expensive than the local cable provider. Eventually, I think they just threw dishes on top of each building and sprang for DirecTV for the whole complex.

So, yeah. Basically, a la carte programming is really only going to be a money saver if you don't watch news or sports. In this forum, I feel pretty confident we're all going to be watching sports, so I don't think we really need to be thinking too hard about the idea around here.

[Philliesfan980]

Great thread. My friend and I were discussing this very subject today over e-mail.

For me, my only real hangup would be over watching live sports (specifically local sports). Does anyone see any way around this? I have an MLB.TV subscription, but I believe the only workaround is to connect via a Proxy Server.

I'd love to drop my $120/month cable bill.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Philliesfan980

For me, my only real hangup would be over watching live sports (specifically local sports). Does anyone see any way around this? I have an MLB.TV subscription, but I believe the only workaround is to connect via a Proxy Server.

A good old fashioned antenna for OTA service works. And in the digital age it works much better than it used to.

[Philliesfan980]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

A good old fashioned antenna for OTA service works. And in the digital age it works much better than it used to.

That's a good point for NFL games, as they are generally broadcast on CBS or FOX, but what should I do for Phillies games, which are broadcast on a local cable affiliate?

[RainMaker]

So Comcast went to war in my area with the NFL Network over $0.75 a subscriber?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Shkspr

The apartment complex I lived in the first year I was married decided to leave the local cable company and buy a channel lineup individually for internal broadcast so that they could essentially bring all utility bills in-house and offer a comprehensive price for each tenant. They found that only 15% of the units watched ESPN regularly and figured they'd cut it from the channel lineup. This, needless to say, didn't fly. The cost of getting all the ESPN channels (since the contract was all or nothing), plus the cost of switching to a higher number of channel slots that this entailed, ended up costing us an additional $20 per month over the initial estimates, which ended up making it more expensive than the local cable provider. Eventually, I think they just threw dishes on top of each building and sprang for DirecTV for the whole complex.

So, yeah. Basically, a la carte programming is really only going to be a money saver if you don't watch news or sports. In this forum, I feel pretty confident we're all going to be watching sports, so I don't think we really need to be thinking too hard about the idea around here.

That's a great post. Especially about trying to do it without the bundling of cable companies.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

So Comcast went to war in my area with the NFL Network over $0.75 a subscriber?

Well...to put into perspective. Assuming the number Comcast could get is $0.75...that's for every Basic Subscriber.

Comcast has approx 22mil customers...likely about 75% of which are Basic subs (likely higher). That comes out to $12m per month or $144m per year.

I know most people on this board (including myself) would say, "so what" to that cost/mo increase (which likely would be higher that $0.75) but it isn't necessarily an easy cost to justify in addition to all the other rate increases from programming.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Philliesfan980

That's a good point for NFL games, as they are generally broadcast on CBS or FOX, but what should I do for Phillies games, which are broadcast on a local cable affiliate?

Well, I decided Carolina Hurricanes NHL games weren't worth the exhorbitant fees I was paying, so I'm just not watching them. With all the exclusive and broadcast deals going on, and with cable companies getting involved and hoarding the signals, you have to decide how much those are worth. If enough people stop watching, they'll have to make them more widely available, but if that's too painful for you you'll have to keep paying their demands.

NFL would be more painful for me if the fact that age-inappropriate commercials kept being shown during the day meant that I had to give most of that up a few years ago thanks to having kids around.

[claphamsa]

mine would be .42