If you’re like most people, you look at your “basic” cable line-up and think: “Why do I have all these stupid channels? Wouldn’t it be cheaper if I could just subscribe to the ones I actually like?”
You’re probably convinced that there’s a huge conspiracy going on to get you to pay for a bunch of crap you don’t want.
You might be right. According to the American Cable Association (an organization that is obviously quite biased toward the cable industry) it’s not your cable company’s idea to force “Lifetime Movies” on you, it’s the big media companies themselves that dictate cable line-ups through a technique called “tying and bundling.”
According to the ACA, big media companies “tie” certain less desirable channels to the “must have” channels. For example, if you’re a cable company and you want to offer ESPN, Disney says that you have to also offer a whole menu of other channels in order to get ESPN for a reasonable price. Big media companies will also mandate that these other channels be placed on the “basic” tier, regardless of how many cable subscribers are actually interested in the channel.
ACA says that in order to get the 13 most “desirable” channels, cable companies are obligated to distribute over 60 other channels. They say that this is preventing or limiting the cable company from offering more customizable options to the consumer. For example, if a cable company wanted to offer an expanded tier of kids programming, it might be prevented from moving certain stations away from the “basic” tier, because they had been bundled with a popular channel like Nickelodeon or The Disney Channel. The smaller the cable company, the harder it is to stand up to big media.
Here’s a few examples of bundled channels from the ACA’s FCC filing:
If you want: Disney Channel
You get: ABC Family, SoapNet, Toon Disney, ESPN Channels
If you want: USA
You get: MSNBC, CNBC, Sci Fi, Comedy Central, Bravo, Olympics surcharge
If you want: ESPN
You get:ESPN2, ESPN News, ESPN Classic, ESPN 360 (Internet), ESPNU
If you want: USA HD
You get: Chiller, Sleuth
If you want: Disney Channel HD
You get: ABC Family HD, Toon Disney HD, ESPN News HD
If you want: Fox Sports
You get: National Geographic, Fox Soccer, Fox Business, Fox Sports College, Fox Reality, Fuel, Big 10 Network, Fox Movie Channel
If you want: Food Network
You get: HGTV, DIY, Fine Living
If you want: CNN
You get: Headline News, TBS, TNT, WTBS
If you want: MTV
You get: TV Land, CMT, VH1, Nickelodeon, Noggin, VH1 Soul, CMT Pure Country, MTV Jam
If you want: Discovery Channel
You get: FitTV, Animal Planet, TLC, Travel, BBC America, Discovery Kids, Science Channel, Discovery Channel, Discovery Health, Discovery Home
The ACA argues that they’d be able to offer more cost-effective and consumer friendly cable packages if big media was forced to offer reasonably priced single channels and was prevented from dictating which channels they had to place on which tier.
What do you consumers think? Would you like to see more themed tiers? Do you trust the cable industry to provide more consumer friendly packages? Do you think things are fine the way they are?
More From Consumerist
-
Time Warner Cable CEO: "There Are Too Many Networks"
-
DOJ Reportedly Investigating Cable Companies For Squashing Online Competition
-
Cable Companies Should Be Worrying About Kids Who Have No Plans For Ever Getting Cable
-
Here’s The Most Honest Cable Commercial You Will Ever See
-
Time Warner Cable Charged Me Rental Fee For Modem I Returned Months Ago
Video on Demand for all shows besides Live Shows.
@erstwhile: When the cable systems are allowed to go all digital, this may happen. You’d probably have to pay a $20 access fee to cover basic operational expenses associated with having you as a customer (billing, plant upkeep, ect) that will get you the local channels and ones that the cable company gets for free, can then be able to pick and choose ones past that at a rate reflecting what it’s costing the cable company per-customer to server that channel. So, your ESPN will be in the $7 range, while your channel that just runs reruns might be $.10″
the problem with that is, the cable co, is never going to allow the pricing system to go down. its only going to go up. they dont want to lose money
I’m sorry, but screw cable! Channels are dead. Themes are the new channel. IPTV is the new cable. Why make a bunch of totally shitty channels? Just put the shows into a giant library that we can access at any time! Charge us something like 25¢-99¢ per episode, and offer season passes for $5.99 through $9.99. For 24 hour news channels (I mean REAL news, like CNN Headline, not commentary like Fox or MSNBC) do a nominal $2/week fee, only for weeks viewed. Of course, my numbers are probably a little off, in that casual/average viewing will be more expensive, but you get the idea.
Rig things so you can buy shows as a household, and don’t charge us twice if we watch the show twice. If you want to cut down on bandwidth, put a hard disk in the machine (40 GB minimum) and have it download episodes we choose to watch, and allow them to auto-delete like a PVR, with an option to prevent that for convenience sake. Throw in an auto-download feature for nabbing new episodes, and give people one free episode of every show (so they can experience new programming), free access to Local Programming (you know, local access channels), free access to local news shows (like your 6 ABC Action News), some free national news (like your Weekly World News with Charels Gibson, just the shows you already get free over the air, plus probably stuff like debates), and allow shows to sponsor episodes (like the Boscov’s Thanksgiving Day Parade, sponsored much in the same way shows are sponsored on iTunes) and rigging up a method for doing live broadcasts.
the problem is that you want per channel. you should do per show. I highly recommend disconnecting the cable and just get DVDs when they come out. You save time by not channel surfing, no commercials, and then finding better things to do when you have nothing to watch.
Or just go with iTunes for your TV needs.
If you are particularly nefarious, you can just download them off of the torrents… which apparently is the most convenient and “cost effective.”
I wouldn’t really like a la carte for the “basic” and “Advanced Basic” channels. They often have movies or shows that are entertaining. It would end up costing more for me to remove lifetime, travel, CNN and all that other suff than it would to just buy the first 72 channels. The “Premium” and “Extended” channels are different though, I really don’t feel like getting three types of Disney, the 2 versions of nikcalodeon, and G4 when I only want one thing.
I’ve wondered about this myself! I only watch a handful of channels. These would include History, Discovery, Animal Planet, and Adult Swim on Cartoon Network…. That’s it, really. Of course through a snafu my cable is free so I can’t complain to much…
With all of the advertising on cable TV these days, I wouldn’t be surprised if most of the channels that are required to be bundled are given away for free to the cable companies.
This is what I do. I don’t pay for TV. I use my Digital TV receiver to watch HD broadcast TV. I then use Hulu, AOL TV, Revision 3, Joost and Bit Torrent to watch anything else I want. Granted there are some shows that I miss, but I don’t REALLY miss them. I sincerely would pay for HD only Cable but since that is not possible, I don’t. I honestly only miss the News Channel’s and the Daily show (and pretty soon I can watch that online as well). Cable simply doesn’t have anything worth (at least) $35 a month, at least to me.
@mercurypdx: I’ve had far too many things I like canceled on network TV and too many wonderful niche radio stations switched to mainstream formats to think that they’ll keep the channels that don’t bring a lot of subscribers. It would only be a matter of time before channels like Sci Fi Channel went kaput. While the viewers are loyal, there just aren’t enough of them. If the channel isn’t bringing in a whole lot of a la cart subscribers, there isn’t any incentive to keep it, just as there is no incentive for the networks to keep a show with low ratings, or a radio station to keep broadcasting a format with few listeners. Any time you go to a system that depends on the number of ears or eyeballs, they’re going to put their money on the mainstream because that’s what brings the most revenue in.
I really hate to beat a dead horse, and I feel I’ve already posted way more than enough on this topic, but the reason we have those channels like Sci Fi, and The History Channel, and and GAC is because we pay collectively for the broad range of choices. We pitch enough of a fit that they let us pick and choose individually, we lose that collective bargaining power that says “Screw ratings, we want more variety than network TVs give us!” We lose that and it becomes just another ratings based system. And ratings based systems like network tv and traditional radio have consistently cut quality and variety for more listeners and viewers, resulting in less choice and more mainstream fare. I thought the whole reason to buy cable was to get stuff you can’t get on network TV because network TV is much more limited in what they can do due to ratings.
I’ll stop posting in this thread because I’m just repeating myself. I can understand the initial appeal of a la cart, but it’s short sighted. It doesn’t take into account that cable companies won’t simply let us pay a lot less for fewer channels because they’ll have to make up the revenue some. We may get only the channels we want, but the channels will have to cost more to make up for the fact that not everyone gets them, and we risk losing the channels that drew us to cable in the first place.
@timstep: Yeah. It’s also like imagining that there is only one grocery store chain allowed in your area (e.g. Safeway) that offers milk (short of ordering for delivery e.g. DirectV), and because of that they charge “whatever the market will bear” which is about $7.96 a gallon. If you don’t like it, don’t buy milk. There certainly won’t be any other stores allowed in the “franchise area.”
I still have a moment of shock whenever I see someone’s cable bill. How people can be just fine with paying $100+ a month… for television… is beyond me. I can get Netflix, Internet, phone service, library services, and magazines for less than that.
@Geekybiker: Bingo. Do you really think every channel is going to cost the same? The Bat-Guano network subsidizes ESPN.
It all totally backwards. Almost all basic cable channels carry massive amounts of advertising – more than free broadcast TV even. Problem is these channels have no over-the-air transmitters and NEED the cable and satellite companies to deliver the commmercial bearing programs to the viewers. The media companies should be paying the cable companies to carry their signals, NOT the viewers. Cable companies should be sending bills to the programmers, not the TV viewers. How it got the way is is I have no idea. Ask yourself how NBC/ABC/CBS and all the TV stations survive without charging the viewers.
I like the idea of consumers having a choice, especially if you’re opposed to certain types of programming for example, let’s go backwards: you want TVLand, and so you have to get MTV. Maybe you feel MTV is inappropriate and you do not want to pay for it. Well, if you want TVLand, you must have MTV. That’s a good reason. But then the small channels really wouldn’t have a chance to survive, because their niche is so targeted. I don’t really know which side I pick, but I’m leaning towards the a la carte programming.
Two points here:
The cable companies have figured out how much you’re willing to pay each month. Regardless of how you line up the channels, they’re going to get their $50-$100 out of you.
Secondly, the same way people (used to) browse a newspaper and would occasionally stumble across an interesting article on a topic they might not normally care about, having a wide selection of channels will mean that occasionally you’ll watch a show you might not have normally wanted to see.
A wide choice is not a bad thing.
That being said, who the hell watches QVC?
Any option that allows me to avoid MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann’s stupid smirk is fine with me.
@Tracy Ham and Eggs:
read what you wrote how am I wrong? The nfl network wants everybody to get it wether you want it or not. The other weay you would get it only if you like sports and order the sports package. So how am I wrong?
IT shows that the content providers are the reason why we cant get alacarte.
One point. Every channel out there has at least a few people that watch it. You may even enjoy watching a channel that most people aren’t interested in or have not discovered yet. If there was a completely a la carte system in place the channels getting low viewership would quickly wither away because not enough people are choosing them to add to their package. With a bundle approach you keep some control over which channels you have while possibly keeping the more obscure(not necessarily less valuable) around for yourself or others to enjoy.
There are definitely two sides to this issue. I would hate to see my fav. classic movie channel give way to channels that show WWE, Idol, Survivor and other worthless fodder. Remember, 80% of the population is no smarter than the grass on my front lawn – I would hate to have that majority dictate what channels live through funding shortage.
…Nor would I want to pay for censored shows.
@harshmellow: I read somewhere that the reason why the govt won’t force cable companies to offer a la carte plans is because of the religious channels. The owners of the religious channels know that many, if not MOST, people would dump these in a heartbeat. Fools like Pat Robertson and the like have such sway with legislators that they don’t “go there” and introduce a bill that allows us to choose the channels we want to pay for.
Sorry but that is a load. The Jump for Jesus channels PAY to be broadcast. If the cable companies wanted they could offer a la carte packages. Truth is it would cut into the profits of the cable companies.
Another reader describes “ghetto” cable but mine is even ghettoer…I just plug it into the wall, and lo and behold I get free network channels, TBS, TNT, PBS, and then depending on how the signal is adjusted, several others (TLC, Food TV, Bravo, Cartoon Network, etc.). Every several months they seem to reboot the signal to mess with the bootleggers. So, if you live alone like I do and can’t fathom paying cable companies for all the crap they bundle, then try just plugging the cable into what may not be a dead line.
Do people really think that they will end up paying less with an a la carte system? The cable companies would not want to do it if they didn’t think it would make them more money. And if they’re making more money, we, the consumers, are paying more money. And all the cool shows that are starting to appear on the more obscure cable networks these days? Gone. So let’s hope they don’t go to a la carte too soon. Do you want a la cart? It’s called DVD. Compare the price of a season of The Sopranos on DVD to a year’s worth of HBO. A la carte will suck big time if they ever do it.
Perhaps this was already mentioned and I just missed it, but what about scarce bandwidth on behalf of the cable companies (I know, I know, they just want to screw everyone and they’re nasty and mean and evil and just generally icky)? One of the original arguments in favor of bundling was that there’s only so much bandwidth to go around, Comcast couldn’t afford to lay a pipe – particularly the last mile of pipe to every individual home – big enough to support ala carte pricing on the 2.3 gazillion channels.
Unlike, say iTunes, where the differential cost in hosting another thousand MP3 files is negligible, the differential cost in broadcasting a few more terabytes of programming (per day, give a take a bit) for a channel that maybe .01% of the customer base wants and is willing to pay. My understanding of the prior broadcast model was that the cable was essentially streaming every channel at once to every box, with the box functionally dropping both whatever channel(s) were not authorized and all the other channel s that are not being watched at the time. If that model still holds, then the long tail approach is not particularly attractive to either the Cable companies or the consumer.
lol free market..it’s more like a de-regulated free market. They lobby so strongly against everything and they’re growing too large – buying radio, tv, news stations and publications and now even buildings in local cities.
You still have choice though, you could use one of these to watch some internet channels granted its not as fast as normal tv-
[www.freetube.110mb.com]
[www.sopcast.com]
[www.tvants.com]
[www.hulu.com] *i got invites*
I don’t pay anything for my tv–$0–I use rabbit ears and have done so for several years. I subscribe to netflix so I watch tv shows as series, I get my news online–and when there is a show I have to see, I can watch them from a friend or family member’s house for free. That is rare though, I’m happy with the basic channels.
Compared to some of the posters, let’s say ten years at $50 a month, I’ve saved over $5000 and I can honestly say I haven’t missed a thing.
I would kill to be able to choose the channels I want. We only watch about 6 really random channels. We should be able to get basic cable + 6 a la carte channels + a sports package and have that be it! If I really only want 15-20 channels why should I have to have 200+ just to get access to all them?
Something that doesn’t get said enough is that the Christian Right is responsible for some of the heaviest lobbying to keep channels bundled. (How many people do you think would subscribe to the Jesus Freak Channel if they had to pay individually for it?)
For my part, I’d like to see both options — maybe bundles could be a little cheaper than buying channels individually, and (hold onto your hats now) the consumers could pick which option(s) worked for them.
The main reason they do this is because they would loose money if they allowed their customers to select only the channels they want to pay for. I for one would love to see this model, because most of the channels provided are crap.
I get USA but Comcast took away Sci Fi. What gives? Are you saying they’re actually paying *more* to not give me Sci Fi? That would explain the rate increases..
What if it was not a set price for every channel say 1.99. What if in order to keep the niche channels alive they got to charge a higher rate based on the number of subscribers. So say ESPN is the most watched channel then it is only 2.99/month and Lifetime is 6.99/month. If you like the channel that much then pay more for it if they are fewer people that watch it. So needless to say the channel I want Fox Soccer Channel will end up being like 10.99/month. I will pay it though because I WANT it.
On a side note would this allow for more content to come through in HD or allow a larger selection of channels if the bandwidth is not all being used up to send all the channels all the time? I am all about it if I could extend my options or open up a larger pipe for my internet connection!
Should we focus all of the hate on the providers for agreeing to the package or the networks for forcing it on the provider or both?
I was hoping to be the first one to mention this, but i DO have ala carte pricing. I have a C-band dish, one of the big dishes. I have had it for over ten years now! I can not only pay for the channels i want (it bugged me too that i had to not only get channels i didn’t want, but my provider didn’t offer what i wanted!) i can also pay for a channel for a month, 3 months, 6 months or a year!
I get the handfull of channels i want. If i need a channel, i can call my provider and get a new channel right then. The prices vary, but, for example, i wanted the Sci Fi channel and USA. I paid $12.00 for the YEAR for those!
The catch is that you have to be able to have the ability to install a C-band dish and get someone to do it!
The C-band providers are kind of struggling because all you guys are buying the small dishes, paying for the channels you DONT want!! So why don’t you stop that and find youself a C-band dish!
Russ
I used to work for one of the networks that bundles channels alongside their top network.
Here’s the hidden thing that they’re not telling you:
Advertising revenues are partially based (and it’s a significant part) on POTENTIAL viewers for cable networks since it’s assumed that plenty of people watch something and aren’t metered/diaried.
So, lets assume a good network would get 4 million subscribers. (this is probably a high estimate for almost all of the smaller cable channels). A “reasonable” a-la-carte price would be $3/mo right? Can any cable network produce programming on 12 million a month? Probably not. Will advertising revenues be anywhere near their current levels with only 4 million potential viewers? Probably not.
In the end, we’d see less original programming on cable networks, if they’d even stick around at all. That, or we’d have to pay an unreasonable amount of money for cable channels like say $10/mo+ for the ones we like. (and even then, they’d be even bigger “Top5″ recyclers and rerun factories than they already are)
Your bills will not shrink. Your choices will become less, and it definitely won’t be a good thing. Yes, you’re paying too much for cable, but this is not the way to go.
What we NEED are more cable system operators, more competition and more incentive for cable operators to insist on smaller prices from cable networks and let the market shift prices that way. Unfortunately, we get cable monopolies and inferior competition from satellite providers. I lived in a city that had actual compeition on cable TV. The electric company started running coax along with their electical lines and sold TV/Internet/VOIP at $20/mo less than the cable people. Almost instantly there was real competition, the rates went way down and the services offered increased in quality.
The real evil is government sponsored monopolies on cable TV lines. Prices NEVER go down when you split up a single product into multiple smaller products! Prices go down when there are multiple suppliers of the same product. It’s economics people, think about it!
Almost everyone here is saying that they will pay a-la-cart. But the way they set it up its easer and cost less to stay with a bundle. I tried. the channels i watch cost me $10 more to get than to get it with a bundle, Nice choice. They don’t deduct for channels you don’t watch just add cost for the one you want and not give you the one’s you don’t watch. just the way of getting around the law and saying “we told you so” to the government
—————————————————–
Am i the only one who thinks we should not be paying for cable at all. Seriously. Look at how much money goes into advertising and that money goes to the networks to “offset” cost. My butt. Advertisers are paying for us to watch Tv and were giving our money to them as a nice thank you for screwing us each month.
there will be some that says ” oh the cost of infrastructure blah blah blah. Hmm, dish systems, i pay for box, Ok i can under stand. but i don’t see cable running from the sky. And why am i pay for them to chose where they want to install cable lines. how many time have they denied people because the live to far away.
——————————————————
Tell me why are we people sheeping themselves for HD. cable says pay for it and you do. HD should be part of you service no extra charge especially since there taking out the analog signals. but its only 5 dollars, Its just another excuse to raise you bills there not paying extra for it. they receive the signal in HD already and then down grade it for those who don’t pay for HD causing it to look crappy so you want to buy HD.
the whole cable system is screwed up and screwing people left and right and we just keep letting them and they will keep screwing harder. i have so much more to say but i probably hurt some peoples head trying to follow what i already have said.
what if we just got charged for what we watched? make all the channels available, and just charge us for the time we use the service. even if programs on the ‘upper tier’ channels cost more. on demand services ftw!
For all you people complaining about losing niche channels, just a thought, but the channels could always have their own pricing. So niche channels like “Pro Glass Stacker Championship Review” would be $9, while a popular channel like ESPN or whatever could be $3.
À la carte please.
@Buckler: Or stupid decisions like “replace Heroes with American Gladiator” that means I stopped watching NBC. Nice going NBC.
Face it everyone. Cable companies will never allow you to pick your own channels. This is the american industry. This is the way it is and the way it will be forever unless the goverment gets off there a@@ and does something about it. Direct TV and Dish network same way. THERE WILL NEVER BE A CHANGE!! WRITE TO YOUR CONGRESSMAN AND LET HIM/HER KNOW YOU WANT CHANGE!
@BStu: I think you entirely missed the point of ala carte. I won’t rebuild my basic cable lineup with ala carte. And your ESPN example is exactly how it works right now, except we have no choice in the matter. You do pay just a little extra for the ESPN package; its included in the “basic” (or whichever) package cost. When ESPN adds a new channel to your lineup, your rates go up whether you watch it or not.
I don’t want ESPN. I don’t want any of the package. I get my “networks” in HD over the air just fine. I want cable for Comedy Central and… uh… and… Yeah, here’s my quarter. Give me ala carte channels.
@Buran: That has WAY more to do with the writers strike than anything else. They ran out of Heroes episodes, so they cut the season short. As bad as American Gladiators is, it would be a much stupider decision to replace Heroes with dead air.
@vermontwriter: I would guess the Home Shopping Networks actually keep your rates lower. People spend boatloads of money on that crap, and the cable company surely get a cut of it. That extra revenue stream offsets some of their costs and keeps my bill down. As long as I’m not paying extra for HSN, I don’t care. In fact, if they want to add another HSN instead of raising my rates, I’m totally cool with that.
What I’m not cool with is when they raise my rates to add another ESPN (or Fox news, or NFL Network, or whatever) that I don’t have any interest in watching.
I watch very little TV. In theory this would be great for me, because I’d probably only subscribe to the Independent Film Channel, HBO, Comedy Central and ESPN 2 (for tennis). Everything else I watch is on network TV.
But part of me wonders if a la carte Cable would simply mean that less popular channels that are currently being subsidized though bundling would simply cease to exist if the media conglomerates couldn’t force people to subscribe to them.
Well, part of the reason channels are sold in groups is to support the media sell packages that the channels’ owners can offer to advertisers.
Remember, if they can’t sell ad space, your channel dies, no matter how many people watch it.
For example, if you *really* like Comedy Central, having MSNBC piped to you as well (for the combined ad sell package) is subsidizing keeping CC alive.
A lot of my favorite channels are in that ‘long tail’: they wouldn’t survive on their own ability to sell ad space So yeah, give me the other stuff too, as long as it keeps BSG on the air.
And did you know a lot of cable systems let you hide the channels you don’t want to see from your menu? I only display the 10 or 12 I’m interested on Dish!
One important thing to remember…. The cable companies could only sell “a la carte” to digital subscribers. Selling individual channels on the analog cable is virtually impossible….. the analog coax line carries all of the analog channels and groups are filtered out by bandpass filters, high-pass filters, and low-pass filters. Filtering out individual analog channels (or allowing individual channels through the filters) is technically impossible. So analog cable will continue to be sold in two or three groups.
With digital cable, since the cable companies have control over the digital boxes, they could turn on and turn off individual channels…. but remember, even with digital cable, the channels below 100 are actually analog channels that are still available at all the other jacks at your home, so technically the cable company wouldn’t be able to turn on and off channels below 100.
I don’t subscibe to cable. I don’t pay for tv. Anything i watch to watch I can stream over the Internet or download.
I’d be more inclined to get a tv package if I could choose which channels and shows I wanted. Pick my shows, pick my channels.
I would like a a-la-Carte programming package. First thing to go are the Spanish Channels. If I can’t understand Spanish, why would I want those channels? Next channel to go is Lifetime!
And none of these bundled channels are the big offenders – the damned religious channels and the super annoying shopping channels.
I call BS on this “it’s not our fault” whining.
How about if these clowns just give us the ability to black hole certain channels, so they will never be seen again on that STB? Then we can take all the channels we don’t want to know about and “disappear” them. I can see this option would be great for parents – far better than even locking them. The kids won’t even know they exist.