said by King P :

although, this really could be a boon for the cableco's also. If the price is 1 dollar per channel, and there are 50 channels you want, then they are really making more money off of you than someone that gets the 13 dollar a month basic package (comcast).

said by MxxCon :

i'm sure cable industry doesn't want alacarte
but what if their original statement that it'll be more expensive was true..
now they see that ppl are pushing for it so they'll say "screw you customers idiots. you want your alacarte, here have it: cnn will be $4/month, discovery chan will be $5/month, comedy central $5/month" so in the end it will indeed be more expensive

said by celeritypc :

Actually, the cable providers would love a la carte. Now, with digital technology, it is really easy for it to happen, cable companies stand to make a good deal of money and at the same time, give the people what they think they want. It's the programmers that are not all that interested in a la carte as they would lose potential eyeballs from their programming. This is why they bundle channels to the cable companies. Disney/ABC/ESPN and Viacom are the two biggies here.

said by MxxCon :

i'm sure cable industry doesn't want alacarte
but what if their original statement that it'll be more expensive was true..
now they see that ppl are pushing for it so they'll say "screw you customers idiots. you want your alacarte, here have it: cnn will be $4/month, discovery chan will be $5/month, comedy central $5/month" so in the end it will indeed be more expensive

said by rtcy :

»www.callnps.com/alacarte.htm

look at what I pay for ALA CARTE on a big dish, since there are so few of us BIG dish users it would seem the buying power of this company would be no where near what cable or small dish companies *really* pay per subscriver per channel deal.

said by rileyjam514 :

All I need is TNT, TBS, USA, Court TV, the locals, VoD, and Cartoon Network's Adult Swim (yes, I am aware it's not a separate channel yet). Seriously, Comcast gives me nearly 500 channels and I never watch any of them.

Oh I ALMOST FORGOT. Spike and G4 (only for ST:TNG, DS9 and coming soon Voyager - any of the other programming is crap).

said by N3OGH :

I DVR the ST:TNG episodes of G4 like a junkie. I love being able to fast forward through the commercials. I can watch 2 or 3 of them in a row.

I would have to go with Discovery, History, G4, Spike, High Def local channels, FNC.. and sheesh, that's about all I watch!

said by dvd536 :

Doesn't SpikeTV air those STTNG's? i thought it was against the broadcast law for two different channels to air the same programming?

said by LilYoda :

But I guess then Charter wouldn't be able to suck $40 out of my wallet every month....

The corrected calculations show that a subscriber could receive as many as 20 channels, including six broadcast signals, without seeing an increase in his or her monthly bill. This is more than the 17 channels that the average television household watches.

if a la carte were only implemented on digital cable systems with appropriate set top boxes in place, then a la carte could result in a 1.97 percent decrease in consumers’ bills.

said by TK Junk Mail :

The new study really hasn't changed the fact that using a la carte still gets you a lot less channels for the same price. If you only watch a few channels, maybe it will work for you. But look at these items from the press release of the new study:
Sure, I am going to go a la carte and get 20 channels instead of the 150 I have and save nothing. Just break even.

And these studies don't mention at all the costs of premium packages that include HBO, Sho, etc.

Will the cable companies do a la carte without being forced to by a law?? I doubt it. And if they do, it will surely be priced so that they make more money - not less.

said by jwersan :

See that's where the FCC has to put their foot down...

If I am paying $50 a month for 125 channels, then A La Cart for the same channels can NOT cost more...

Otherwise they are just gouging the customers...

This way you ONLY pay for the channels you want and save a BOATLOAD of cash!!

said by clickie :

You're missing the point on how a la carte affects content creators. It pushes a free-market system upon them, and they'll need to compete for viewers rather than achieve revenues based upon overall system subscribers.

said by Skippy25 :

Maybe you misunderstood what you posted.

It doesnt matter if I pay $50 for 150 channels or 1000 channels. If I only really watch 17 channels and those are the only ones I want, then I should have the option of not even getting the others and only paying for those 17. Even if it only saves me $5-$15 a month. Maybe I don't want them because of the content they deliver (TBS and MTV fall into that category). Regardless, getting and paying for channels I don't want just so we can say the cost per channel is lower is pure BS. If you honestly watch more than 20 channels regularly, then you would still opt to bundle. That's your choice and would benefit you more. I personally would only subscribe to 6 channels and get my locals (in HD) over the air.

The studies don't need to mention the premium channels. I may be going out on a limb here, but maybe that's because they are ALREADY a la carte.

Personally I would say yes, they need to be required to do this and pricing should be mandated by the FCC until the water settles. They certainly won't opt to do it on their own so someone needs to make them.

As mentioned in the report, they have no idea how much some of the channels are truly costing so until all that is ironed out the FCC should make sure the consumers are not gouged. Until the subscriber base is settled, it may be hard to determine the price per sub a channel is costing. However, that can be estimated based on the licensing fees required for the channel(s). Based on the report if a household can get 20 channels (average only watches 17) and pay about the same, than that should be the target the FCC shoots for.

I am not sure how much of the report you read, if any. I personally just went over the first 25 or so pages. It is a pretty good report and does a much better job of delivering both sides instead of being industry biased like the other one. It is simply amazing that that other report made so many assumptions, many of which are false, and delivered them as facts.

said by yock :

FCC does one study, then another. Do you all believe this one more than the previous because it says what you want to hear?

said by StudioTech :

It's the sports programming that's driving up the costs for the most part. Make ESPN and the regional sports channels a la carte.

said by clickie :

You're worried about losing channels you probably don't watch?

said by Dirtyping :

Forget about the Neilsens, the customer deciding which channels they want will more accurately show which channels have superior programming. So I would expect an improvement in programming should ala-carte come along.