So people who watch a lot of channels would pay more, and those who only watch a few would pay less?
sounds terrible
Intel to offer a-la-carte TV channel subscriptions
- Thread starter CLONECONES
- Start date
So people who watch a lot of channels would pay more, and those who only watch a few would pay less?
sounds terrible
I don't doubt channels will have to charge a premium for this al-a-cart option, such as Disney having to charge more than $5 for ESPN. However, what makes or breaks this option is if the increases are such that this equation holds true:
Increased final cost of al-a-cart channels you actually want < Current cost of cable subscription with a bunch of channels you don't want
I know this is a slightly differnt model for everyone, but if this can hold true, I can see it being successfull. It is mostly just a manner of how much premium the channels are going to need to be offered al-a-cart.
Increased final cost of al-a-cart channels you actually want < Current cost of cable subscription with a bunch of channels you don't want
I know this is a slightly differnt model for everyone, but if this can hold true, I can see it being successfull. It is mostly just a manner of how much premium the channels are going to need to be offered al-a-cart.
Where I live I'll always get 15-20 over the air HD channels for free. I'd prefer just adding ESPN and HBO to that than a cable package unless the full cable package wass only 10% more than just ESPN/HBO. The fact that people in big cities get all these free HD channels already is somehow a big secret, even to people living there.
I'd like to see this happen, but as others have said, it seems unlikely. There are about 75-100 cable channels that need to die.
Also I will throw this in here.. I have been wanting to vent about it..
It seems like ESPN is getting smart to "us people" who dropped cable over the last couple of years. In the Omaha/Council Bluffs area ESPN3 was the bomb! could literally catch any basketball game/football game needed. Well I was looking threw football/basketball games this weekend on my Xbox and couldnt watch ANY LIVE Content on it! It was requiring a cox user login and password.
So I called cox, who is also my internet provider, and they said that I would have to get there basic cable subscription to now be able to watch any LIVE content on ESPN3/watchespn.
And low and behold Janurary 1st. Used to be Football on every OTA channel and ALL day long. ONE football game on the OTA.
ok I feel better. But I really really hate ESPN/Disney!
It seems like ESPN is getting smart to "us people" who dropped cable over the last couple of years. In the Omaha/Council Bluffs area ESPN3 was the bomb! could literally catch any basketball game/football game needed. Well I was looking threw football/basketball games this weekend on my Xbox and couldnt watch ANY LIVE Content on it! It was requiring a cox user login and password.
So I called cox, who is also my internet provider, and they said that I would have to get there basic cable subscription to now be able to watch any LIVE content on ESPN3/watchespn.
And low and behold Janurary 1st. Used to be Football on every OTA channel and ALL day long. ONE football game on the OTA.
ok I feel better. But I really really hate ESPN/Disney!
What's the impetus for the content providers to unbundle their channels?
Unless there is some kind of mass subscriber exodus from cable and satellite, or Intel has some mystery blockbuster programming of their own, it's hard to see how this is going to work (as many others have already stated here).
I suppose if the economy tanks really badly, folks might start cutting cable/satellite TV...
Unless there is some kind of mass subscriber exodus from cable and satellite, or Intel has some mystery blockbuster programming of their own, it's hard to see how this is going to work (as many others have already stated here).
I suppose if the economy tanks really badly, folks might start cutting cable/satellite TV...
Seems like things are changing - but slowly.
as mentioned before, the rising costs of huge cable packages with watered-down programming to get the five channels you want to watch + the advent of streaming media/ hulu/ Netflix is driving people to drop cable.
However, media companies are some of the most powerful entities in the country, and changing their model in a way that decreases their profit will be an uphill climb.
ultimately, maybe the middle man can be eliminated. If individual stations can offer their product directly to consumers via the net, maybe that's more profitable for them? I suppose that doesn't work with the big conglomerates though...
as mentioned before, the rising costs of huge cable packages with watered-down programming to get the five channels you want to watch + the advent of streaming media/ hulu/ Netflix is driving people to drop cable.
However, media companies are some of the most powerful entities in the country, and changing their model in a way that decreases their profit will be an uphill climb.
ultimately, maybe the middle man can be eliminated. If individual stations can offer their product directly to consumers via the net, maybe that's more profitable for them? I suppose that doesn't work with the big conglomerates though...
This thread could actually be on the football or b-ball board. Represents why third-tier package is important to Big 12 schools.
You are looking at the future (or something close to it).
You are looking at the future (or something close to it).
D
DistrictCyclone
Guest
Eventually, I'd guess that cable channels will lose their grip on content and ala carte will take off. Bad ideas (like cable bundling) tend not to last when a superior alternative emerges; technology and the market does an amazing job sorting it out. It's killing print media, taking down record companies, and drastically changing brick-and-mortar retail...there's every reason to think the current model of cable distribution will not be immune, either, even if this is only a step in that direction.
Anyone else see that Netflix hosts their service on Amazons cloud? Thought that was funny, didnt think it was funny on Christmas Eve when it took a dump, but I do find it interesting that Amazon hosts a competitor to Prime. those two should just combine, they basically have the same library anyway.
For us, as subscribers, it doesn't matter whether this happens or not. It will not save the consumer any $$.
Instead of paying say $100 for 200 channels, of which you watch 12, you're going to be paying 100 bucks for just those 12 channels. A la carte is not going to be cheap.
ESPN still has to pay for all those tv deals, so instead of charging a high rate forced on everyone, they will force an obscenely high rate forced on the segment that will actually a la carte it.
Instead of paying say $100 for 200 channels, of which you watch 12, you're going to be paying 100 bucks for just those 12 channels. A la carte is not going to be cheap.
ESPN still has to pay for all those tv deals, so instead of charging a high rate forced on everyone, they will force an obscenely high rate forced on the segment that will actually a la carte it.
