This is very interesting and even exciting news. It seems that due to "indecent programming" which is available on cable and satellite TV, the FCC is very much interested in doing away with current cable packages offered and giving consumers the choice to only pay for programming they want! Of course the industry is opposed to this arrangement. The benefit to us would be that if we decided to get cable or satellite and we were sports fans, we could choose all the ESPN stations. Or say that you were an all adult family, you could elect to drop Nickelodeon. Why pay for something you never watch? In addition, young families with small children could select the Disney channel and leave out MTV for instance.

"Advocates of a la carte marketing have said individual channel sales would lower consumers' costs by not forcing them to pay for programs they don't want. Family groups also say consumers wouldn't have to subscribe to channels with indecent content to get access to programs they like."

Hey- don't forget satellite!!!

In addition we can read this quote: "The idea attracted attention this week on Capitol Hill when Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin told industry leaders they need to give parents more tools to help navigate the hundreds of channels on cable and satellite TV."

I am all for the a-la-carte method.

I am tried of paying for Crap that I don't watch or need.

If I go to a buffet diner I get to pick what I want to eat or they have the special plate of prearranged items to eat, but it is still my choice to make.

I would rather pay more to pick and choose what I want rather than be force fed drivel.

Also, why should I have to go to the trouble to program the blocking function of my TV! Moreover, many people don't even know how to set the timer on their VCR much less program the blocking function to stop offensive programming.

That would be nice!

The problem is that the cable and sat providers don't buy the channels ala-cart, so there's really no way to set a value for one channel or even a group of channels. Odds are very good that if congress gets involved in this, costs will go up even more. Current prices for , say, HBO are based on the viewer already having the full channel package. If you were to buy HBO separately, and nothing else, the cost would be at least x2 what it is now, maybe more.

People already have the ability to block any channels they don't want the family to see, best leave things well enough alone. Let the marketplace drive what's offered.

The a-la-carte thing sounds great but what may happen is by the time you get everything you want you'll pay more then you did with the package deal. They'll charge a bit extra for each channel, say you dont have to have them all, and claim you'll save money becuase you'll only get 5 channels you like. They tried that here too and thats pretty much how it went but I just get the usual favorites and I think they're mostly doing packages now again. Every year they jack up my bill the maximum they're allowed to do and they keep editing my shows so nobody gets offended or they get sued.
What we really need is competition by opening up the market to more then one cable provider per area, then they would have to compete to keep customers rather then the take it or leave it most areas have now. Since satellite showed up and DSL they haven't really dropped prices yet but they keep trying to add features or speed upgrades to compete.

That's the thing. They keep adding junk to justify the price. Same as with DVD movies...more stuff is added games, etc. to keep the price the same rather than dropping the price which BTW, the entertainment companies are loath to do.

More competition is helpful in keeping TV programming from escalating in price. I just read an article that stated the average increase where there was competition in cable services was 3.3 percent...in areas without competition the increase was over 5 percent.

The FCC is going to pursue this as they are waving the flag of decency which makes them look good and gives them a warm and fuzzy feeling inside to think they are doing something positive. (they aren't). Grimes may be right, that it will be difficult to place cost on each channel with the present paradigm, but if the new system is mandated, then there will be a free market supply and demand for all of the channels offered. Maybe there will be specials due to people dumping channels. Maybe there will become an increased awareness as to what a lot of people like and this will create a feedback means for us - the lowly consumer.

It better not get too expensive as people will drop the service all together. They can still offer the packages if people want them. Yet, if you can order your channels all la carte there is a possibility of savings.

Right now I have a DirecTiVo. In a short amount of time, I figured out what I like to watch and I tell you, it is a VERY small fraction of what is available. Probably 12 channels out of the hundreds offered. This is why I dumped High Def- it was a rip off!

I think I would drop XM radio so fast everyones heads would be spinning in the marketing dept. Not only that, I would drop all the kiddie channels and the channels for ethnic groups that I can't even understand. Also, that silly soap operas channel that tells what the hell happened on All my Children the day before. Everyone is different. Why should I pay for channels, just to block them? Hell, maybe I could afford some porn channels if I didn't have to buy all this other crap! But I guess this is not what the FCC wants me to do. But that's tough. LOL it would be funny after all the hub bub that surveys indicated the vast majority of people were glued to indecent programs all night and it was made possible to find out by a la carte...

The bottom line is if the industry is against it...I'm all for it!!!

This is long overdue, I'm sure most of us have wondered about this at one time or another.

If this does become a reality, I would assume that package deals would exist at a discount compared to the same channels chosen on a channel per channel basis, but the option for choosing what channels you want should exist.

While the basic Sky Digital satellite TV package has been rather expensive here, apparently they finally started offering the ability select or exclude channel groups. Originally the full entertainment package was mandatory and the premium channels were optional extras. Now they have broken down the entertainment package into 6 individual packages which consists of Kids, Music Videos & MC radio, Documentaries, Culture, Variety and News. While it still does not give the choice of excluding or choosing individual channels, at least one does not have to pay for groups of packages they never watch either.

Interestingly, the Music Choice package was always an optional extra on Sky, so I’m surprised DirecTV decided not to do this rather than cause problems with by replacing it with XM radio and still forcing it as a mandatory part of their ‘basic’ package.

A la carte may be taking off! Even Cablevision is bucking the other competitors in their realm and think it is possible.

And as we can read in this article at the Red Herring, the Telcos are throwing gas on the fire.

Verizon Communications and AT&T, the two largest telecommunications carriers in the United States, see the unbundling of television packages currently being pushed by regulators as an opportunity to steal subscribers from the incumbent cable and satellite operators.

Both carriers have spent billions on upgrading their networks to support TV programming. At first blush it would seem like the unbundled, or à la carte, programming issue presents an additional hurdle as the two companies seek to establish their business models.

But both carriers seem quite amenable to à la carte pricing, even as the cable and satellite operators fight tooth-and-nail to nip the idea in the bud.

“There is some feeling that this may be a differentiator for Verizon or AT&T,” said Verizon spokesperson Eric Rabe. “This could be something that either company adopts to differentiate themselves, but we are still examining our options in this area.”


‘The cost to serve the market that will be interested in à la carte pricing will be marginal.’

-Sameer Mithal,

An AT&T spokesperson said his company is not opposed to à la carte pricing and will offer that option if the market demands it.

“If consumers want à la carte programming, we will be happy to offer it so long as we are able to obtain access to the programming in that manner,” said Michael Balmoris, an AT&T spokesperson. “As we enter the video market, it is our goal to deliver more choices to our customers when they want it, in the way they want it.”

The hidden message there jumped out at me. Remember that most of the cable/satellite channels are owned by a few corporations, and are offered as a bundle. The companies that own the channels will have to be dragged kicking and screaming to agree to un-bundling the programming. They know that many of their channels could not survive outside of a bundled pricing strategy.

I would be happy subscribing to nothing but the premium services - HBO, etc and the HD channels. But un-bundled, they will cost as much as the total package does now.

Yep, but think of the power to the consumer as well. You don't like it you dump it. The stats show no one is watching the ad revenue goes in the toilet. I think this will be the biggest reason we will not get this option. It would cause a lot of work to the networks and also would cause them to have to get off their asses and provide quality programming. Something that has not been necessary due to the present paradigms. They can shovel pablum all day long right now and you will take it.

There's a lot of complexity to this whole issue. Certainly people have been wishing for alacarte for as long as there have been cable providers. The end result of alacarte might well be that ALL channels will become "premium" channels with premium pricing. The reasoning being that advertisers will not pay for spots on channels that no one is watching, so the only way to pay for the programming is to charge the viewer. Pay-per-view is another possibility, where you have access to all channels and only pay for the programs you watch. This, to me, seems a far better way to go. Of course, with broadband, you could just as easily download the programming you want, for a fee.

But since our entire entertainment scheme is financed by advertising dollars, there are no quick and easy solutions. A few politicians mucking about in the system will certainly not improve anything.

I read that the top cable companies have agreed to create a "family tier" programming package in 2006. That will likely be the end of the feds looking at alacart pricing. That was probably the intent from the start: threaten them with something they can't accept to get them to do something else.

Clever, very clever indeed!

I envision a new sorting for the channels, with a new tier of "family" fare and a new extra fee to get the "adult" tier. Lord only knows what will be considered "adult". Maybe National Geographic will be adult?