Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Television Government Media The Courts United States Your Rights Online News

Suit Seeks 'A La Carte' TV Channel Choices 350

An anonymous reader writes "A breathtaking lawsuit was filed this week against every major player in the 'for-pay' television industry. Every major broadband and cable company in the US was named in the federal suit, which seeks the right to obtain content piecemeal rather than in the large (and expensive) packages that cable companies offer as the only option right now. This follows closely on the heels of encouraging comments from the FCC chair that he supports this kind of service. 'The complex web of contractual arrangements among service providers and networks amounts to a monopoly or cartel that has "deprived consumers of choice, caused them to pay inflated prices for cable television and forced them to pay for cable channels they do not want and do not watch," [antitrust lawyer Maxwell M. Blecher] wrote in the complaint filed on behalf of cable subscribers in several states. The complaint, which alleges a conspiracy to monopolize as well as violations of federal antitrust laws, names nine plaintiffs, but Blecher wants the U.S. District Court to certify it as a class action.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Suit Seeks 'A La Carte' TV Channel Choices

Comments Filter:
  • by Lumpy ( 12016 ) on Friday September 21, 2007 @08:02AM (#20695061) Homepage
    Networks like Discovery DEMAND that the lesser channels of theirs also be carried and forced upon the viewers and subscribers. Lots of Content networks do this to ensure their lesser and crap channels get viewership.

    They need to start there making it illegal for networks to demand that if you want to carry or subscribe to XYZ channel you do not have to get DEF and the crappy ZBZ channel as well.
    • True... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by SatanicPuppy ( 611928 ) * <Satanicpuppy@nosPAm.gmail.com> on Friday September 21, 2007 @08:05AM (#20695093) Journal
      But even so, it's hard to see how anyone could possibly find it justified at this point in time. If it weren't for the DMCA, we could get it by show off of YouTube...Clearly there is no technical limitation.

      It comes down to the fact that their business model is more and more dated by technology. No one is obligated to provide them a free ride.
      • Re:True... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Lumpy ( 12016 ) on Friday September 21, 2007 @08:11AM (#20695143) Homepage
        Exactly but suing the cable companies will do nothing. they need to sue the content providers.

        digital cable boxes can do alacarte Tv channels right now. we demoed it 4 years ago at a comcast meeting in detriot. current gear and billing and control system can do it RIGHT NOW. It's the content providers that are forcing most of the bundling.

        Oh and the greatest profits are from the bundling, but all the cable companies will use the "we cant under contract" excuse to wiggle out.

        you have to attack the content creators first.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward
          Except the cable customers have no direct standing in agreements with the content providers. By suing the cable companies they get a legal ruling breaking those agreements. The cable companies can then go up against the content providers.
        • Not true (Score:2, Informative)

          by camperdave ( 969942 )
          digital cable boxes can do alacarte Tv channels right now.

          Not true. Cable companies offer packages of channels. They carefully separate their "money maker" channels (sports, movies, documentaries) into different packages. If you want the local stations, they're on the basic package. If you also want the sports channels, you have to buy the bronze package. If you also want, say, the Discovery channel... no you can't just add one channel. You have to upgrade to the silver package. No, you can't tra
          • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

            The poster wasn't referring to what the customer is allowed to do with the boxes, which is what you'll see from the buttons on the front and the remote's options.

            The poster was referring to what sorts of things are technically possible with a digital cable box.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by nairnr ( 314138 )
            Shaw Cable in calgary has the basic set of channels, but all of the other channels are individual choices with discounts for 3 channels, 5 or whatever but you can pick them. There is also no time commitment, all you do is phone them up say I want to have this channel now and bingo, charges are prorated and it appears instantly on your set top box...
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by somersault ( 912633 )
        I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to watch whole shows at youtube quality if I could just buy a DVD (which is what I do.. I don't tend to watch TV as it generally is a complete waste of time).
      • But even so, it's hard to see how anyone could possibly find it justified at this point in time. If it weren't for the DMCA, we could get it by show off of YouTube...Clearly there is no technical limitation.

        Oh? Well if you don't mind watching it on youtube--with crappy sound and resolution--sure, there's no technical problem.

        However, if we all wanted even NTSC resolution/sound fidelity at fairly good bitrate and framerate (read: better than iTunes), we would be in a world of sh!t.

        There really isn't enough
        • Err, I think you are confused about what the article is talking about. The lawsuit doesn't seek on Demand type services for every channel. They want to be able to do what you described in your last paragraph, pay per channel that you actually want to watch, rather than getting bundles.
        • Re:True... (Score:5, Funny)

          by Hoi Polloi ( 522990 ) on Friday September 21, 2007 @09:38AM (#20696177) Journal
          I'd love to ditch CNN. I only read their website nowadays. That network is 99.9% talking heads endlessly pontificating or theorizing. "Well Bob, IF they had planted a bomb here it would've blown up the world. Senator, do you have a world destruction prevention plan? We have a report that it MIGHT have been painted blue, more on that later. What, we still have 28 minutes to kill? Shit..."
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Volante3192 ( 953645 )
      Lots of Content networks do this to ensure their lesser and crap channels get viewership.

      Course, I wouldn't count 'viewership' as actually watching it. There's a world of difference between making something available and someone actually taking advantage of it.

      Sadly this is often overlooked by media companies.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Lumpy ( 12016 )
        When selling ad's on your channel it does not matter. saying "Discovery Rome lite" is available on 3500 cable networks is all that matters.

        you have to justify to the guy buying your Ad air time why he is not wasing money on a channel that is probably not going to get viewed.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Seumas ( 6865 )
      It's not going to matter, because they will make ala-carte so expensive that nobody will use it. It'll be this sort of "sure, we'll comply -- and fuck you -- it's going to be $20 per channel".

      I'm fucking tired of paying through the nose so that I can have 10 religious channels, 15 infomercial channels and half a dozen "public access" channels where my hard earned tax money goes to provide facilities for nutjobs, lunatics, religious freaks and potheads to shake their jonk (Jim Spagg) or drone on with poor pr
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by oyenstikker ( 536040 )
      You want to demand that a company offers to sell you a product in a way it doesn't want to sell. We should demand that record stores be required to sell the CD only with no case or liner notes for less! We should demand that McDonalds sell you the burger without the bun for less! We should demand that car companies sell the car without the rear seats for less! We should demand that pasta sauce companies sell the sauce without the garlic for less!

      Seriously. Why do you want to legislate that private corporati
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by jedidiah ( 1196 )
        In non-monopoly markets, all of that is actually quite possible.

        Several burger chains sell extra paties ala carte. "OEM" versions of cars and trucks exist and as well as plenty of aftermarket mosds. You can get marinara in ANY variety you want. They even sell versions without the high fructose corn syrup.

        In real capitalism, there's someone to scoop up every last available penny and niche players and products thrive.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by oyenstikker ( 536040 )
          Right. In real capitalism, companies offer variety if they think it will make them more money. Why not, instead of trying to force the monopoly to do what they likely would if it were not a monopoly, remove the government-sanctioned monopoly?
      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        No dude... A CD is a product that you're buying. Now, if they only way you could buy a CD is when it was bundled with Kelly Clarkson's greatest hits (which you also had to pay for) that would be more like what's going on here.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        Seriously. Why do you want to legislate that private corporations sell something they don't want to?

        Because they are being granted a monopoly on service in a given area. When the consumer cannot influence the supplier through the free market, other methods must be used.

        The cable company has the choice to not offer cable in that area if they don't like the terms. You can't force the company to sell to you, just mandate that if they would like the monopoly to sell to all town residents without competitio

    • by mikael ( 484 )
      I would have moderated that 'funny and sad but true'. Discovery has really gone downhill. They used to have some really good future technology shows (Discovery 2000), but now it only seems to have war machines, with maybe "Megastructures" the exception.

    • If they are crap channels then who the heck is watching them anyway? Sounds like a waste of effort.
  • My old cable so in Maine offered just this. You bought interrelated channels a la carte. But then the media cartels began forming, and they found their channels forced together when they were irrelevent, aggrivating the customers.

    It wound up bought by Time Warner over a decade ago, and one of the first moves TW did, removing a la carte.
  • I'll have my red channel

    A little bit of the green

    But none of that blue stuff! Hold the blue channel!

    The colors, they're breathtaking!



    Wait, that's not what it meant? But i want 73 channels of garbage just so that i can watch my history, discovery, and cartoon network!
    • If this goes through, you just named the 3 channels that will get the widest subscription rate...at least among Slashdot readers (myself included).
      • by AndersOSU ( 873247 ) on Friday September 21, 2007 @08:31AM (#20695363)
        See, that's why ala carte is stupid, while those channels might be popular with slashdot, they are massively unpopular with the public at large. What this means is that they will be expensive. Right now the reason there are some geek friendly channels on cable is because they are subsidized by the popular stuff. If ala carte pricing ever happens, the only affordable channels will be the popular ones, and all the niche channels will cease to exist, or be prohibitively expensive.

        Look people, ala carte might sound good, until you realize that in order to remain revenue neutral the people who watch the popular channels will pay less, and those who watch the more obscure stuff will pay more. And who are we kidding the cable companies aren't going to roll out a new pricing scheme that is revenue neutral, so in reality only those who choose the only the most popular networks will pay the same (and get less), and anyone who wants anything out of the ordinary (read: slashdot) will pay more.
        • See, that's why ala carte is stupid, while those channels might be popular with slashdot, they are massively unpopular with the public at large.

          Then again, many channels that are never watches are also included in the rate. So while a single channel may go up, it is likely offset by not having the other 90 channels we never watch. Besides, ala carte does not mean packages can not be offered. Which in turn means, low priced channel packages. Rather, it likely means real channel packages which people will
  • My inner geek is gonna miss programming my remote. My Harmony and I have had a long love affair skipping useless channels like HVC, Fox News, and Disney. I'm gonna miss her.

  • Excellent News (Score:3, Interesting)

    by GWLlosa ( 800011 ) on Friday September 21, 2007 @08:06AM (#20695101)
    This is awesome. I have a 'digital plus' cable package with over 200 channels, which I had to buy because the 4-5 channels I regularly watch were on that list. I would love to get rid of the other 190 channels or so, (200-(5 I watch)-(5 or so others I occasionally use/check)) and if I could get a price cut at the same time, that'd be even better.
    • I'm really skeptical that this would lead anywhere. When is the last time we've benefited from a class action lawsuit? Would we get $5 off the next month of TV while the business model remains the same and lawyers get rich off of nothing?
    • Re:Excellent News (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Mr. Underbridge ( 666784 ) on Friday September 21, 2007 @08:40AM (#20695459)

      This is awesome. I have a 'digital plus' cable package with over 200 channels, which I had to buy because the 4-5 channels I regularly watch were on that list. I would love to get rid of the other 190 channels or so, (200-(5 I watch)-(5 or so others I occasionally use/check)) and if I could get a price cut at the same time, that'd be even better.

      That won't happen. If anyone thinks they can take their current bill and divide by the fraction of channels they watch to get a new a la carte bill, they're deluding themselves.

      I'm also not quite getting the basis of the lawsuit. Can I sue the grocery store for refusing to sell me one egg?

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by vtcodger ( 957785 )
        ***That won't happen. If anyone thinks they can take their current bill and divide by the fraction of channels they watch to get a new a la carte bill, they're deluding themselves. ***

        Of course. BUT, if you look at the rates for C-band which is a la carte you will discover that news, sports, adult material and current entertainment channels are MUCH more expensive than routine Discover channel, TV show rerun, etc channels. Ask not who pays the ridiculous salaries of top athletes -- you and I do when we

      • Can I sue the grocery store for refusing to sell me one egg?

        Maybe not, but the grocery store (at least mine) also offers eggs in packages of 2, 6, 12, and 18.

    • by readin ( 838620 )
      It's awesome for me too. I can't afford to get the 4 or 5 channels I would regularly watch because they're bundled with hundreds of other channels. Perhaps if this suit is successful I'll be able to get the channels I want. Until then, more time for Everquest!
      • The problem is, a lot of people are dumb. They can't look at more than one step of a problem.

        Dumb person:

        I am paying $100/month for 200 channels, but I only watch 5. If I could pay ala-carte, I could get the 5 channels I want for only $2.50!

        Smart Person:

        If I and everyone else only pay for 5 channels instead of 200 channels, each channel gets 97.5% less revenue, and either raise their rates by 4000% to compensate, or they go out of business. (Even that isn't quite right as it ignores the components of cos
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 21, 2007 @08:06AM (#20695103)
    If this happens the providers will respond by separating popular shows on to their own channels. The top rated content will be padded with junk you don't want to watch. The only answer is to sell shows individually.

     
  • no need to buy 6 TVs times the rent for 6 converters !!!
  • by Moirke ( 613197 ) on Friday September 21, 2007 @08:09AM (#20695123)
    I only ride 20% of the rides at the local theme park, should I get an 80% discount?
    • by way2trivial ( 601132 ) on Friday September 21, 2007 @08:18AM (#20695223) Homepage Journal
      you can go to a park with per ride admissions, or to a park with all day admissions.
      and you have a choice.

      I am juste olde enough to remember pinning myself at Disneyland CA with the cute pins and my ticket to indicate having an all day pass-- as opposed to paying per ride... but-- I don't have to go to disneyland... I can go to the local carnival....

      furthermore, amusement parks don't have governmental granted monopolies over a certain geographical area.
      Businesses with Gov granted exclusive privleges by god do need clamping down/regulations.. or they will certainly run rampant... and this goal has no real hurdles, other than the desires for a fat bottom line on the part of the corps.
      nothing else... and if the 'people' grant them the exclusive privlege of serving the 'people' then the 'people' should be able to place limits on what they get..
    • by daeg ( 828071 )
      Sure. Go to a fair instead of a theme park. Most fairs offer rides a la carte.

      You have choice in the matter.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      If all the theme parks got together and said. I will only let my customers by a all ride ticket you do the same and we make 80% extra for each customer. Then you would have a point. Or as a more related deal. If the ride builders got with the theme park owners and arranged that all parks would only sell tickets on their latest ride if they included the little ladybird ride as well. Because the individual theme parks have decided that this is a good model you have no fight. If I wanted to start a per ride
  • Go Lawyer, Go! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by bockelboy ( 824282 ) on Friday September 21, 2007 @08:12AM (#20695147)
    Of course I'm rooting for this one -

    In my area, I can get basic cable ($50), the local high-def channels ($0), and a DVR ($9). Sounds pretty good, right?

    Oh wait, if I want the "Navigator" functionality (the ability to use the digital cable's menus and program recordings), I have to pay $3 AND purchase a $30 "Digital Tier" pack of complete crap channels.

    If I built a new MythTV box (no local phone line, so no TiVo... has that changed lately?), it would take several years to recoup my costs. Monetarily, I don't think it would be worth it; however, it's tempting to take a hit just to make sure the money I do spend doesn't end up in Time Warner's pocket.
    • You don't have to have a phoneline for tivo anymore. You could get around it all the way to the series 1 models if you did a little modification.
    • You could probably build a Myth TV box for probably around $400. If you went with local High Def ($0), you could save $50 a month, and your costs would be recouped in less than a year.
    • by Enry ( 630 )
      no local phone line, so no TiVo... has that changed lately?

      Yes [hackrag.com], and it's been that way for a while. I don't even think the Tivo HD has a phone line plug on it, just wired Ethernet and USB for wireless. The series 2 had only USB for wired or wireless Ethernet with a separate phone plug.

      I'll admit to having tinkered with MythTV and it has a lot of potential, but without investing more than I would on the box than I would for a Tivo, it would be hard to pass the Wife Test. All three of the Tivo's I've purch
  • Should this be the option for everything?

    I want an a la carte TV channel as well. I only want to pay for the shows I watch. I also want an a la carte newspaper. I don't care about the sport section so stop charging me for it. The thing is though that a cable company can offer channels for less by packaging them. I might not really be too keen to pay as much as someone with kids for a kid's channel, but there's occasionally something good so I'm willing to pay a small extra in addition to other chann
    • A la carte TV channels will almost certainly come. The cable companies don't want it, because it means that they become nothing more than bandwidth providers, and there is a lot more competition there. You can already get some shows a la carte from the iTunes Store; buy the season pass and they are downloaded to your machine when they are released, and the Amazon Unbox / Tivo partnership is another option. Once there is a large enough installed base of people with broadband, it makes sense for the conten
  • by palladiate ( 1018086 ) <<moc.liamg> <ta> <etaidallap>> on Friday September 21, 2007 @08:16AM (#20695191)
    Disclaimer: I work in accounting for a large cable company, so I'm going to be a bit biased.

    We would love to offer a la carte programming, but there are two huge obstacles.

    1) Many times, we are charged per cable subscriber for a network even if we don't offer it the subscriber. ESPN is this way, as well as some of the sports channels. You'll pay for it as a customer even if you don't want it, because we get charged for it. That charge is comming to you one way or another, either through a package price or a base price as a cost of business. If you don't want ESPN, we're still paying for you to have it.

    2) Many networks like Discovery and Fine Living give us massive price breaks if we show their second and third tier channels to a certain percent of subscribers. If we ran an a la carte service, this would be a nightmare. It means that if in a given month, if 30% of our subscribers didn't want Fine Living, but wanted Food TV, your price would triple. Do you really want to have a monthly bill that fluctuates that badly from month-to-month based on the whim of a TV network?

    This isn't meant to FUD you. God knows, we'd like to be able to offer you a la carte, we have the technology to do it. And honestly, even though cable and sat companies piss customers off, we don't really want to. You are our customers. But to the networks, YOU ARE NOT THE CUSTOMER, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT. The advertisers are the customers, and they are selling your eyeballs. Until that situation changes, and the networks have less power over us in contact negotiations, you probably won't see a la carte. For all the malfeasance you can lay at the feet of cable companies, this is surprisingly not included.

    • For #2, offer the main channel and include hte add-ons for free. At least in most of those cases (multiple discoverys, fine/food, etc) the content offered is similar and probably would have some overlap of people who want it.
      • Innovative (Score:5, Interesting)

        by palladiate ( 1018086 ) <<moc.liamg> <ta> <etaidallap>> on Friday September 21, 2007 @08:33AM (#20695395)

        But we can't do that. They wouldn't let us show Fine Living but NOT Food Network. We could potentially do a la carte for packages, but we kinda do that already. The only improvement would be to break the bigger packages along networks. But you'll still see lots of crap channels bundled with the likes of Viacom.

        Remember, our relationship with networks isn't friendly. Comcast got sued, and we're under current litigation over the remote DVR "Start Over" service. It's copyright infringement to start the show over if you switch the channel, because we're the ones recording it, not you. Heck, we get threats all the time during negotiations over offering the DVR service. Networks are convinced that home recording is illegal and think we may be liable because we aren't forcing you to watch your show in 3 days without skipping commercials or delete it. They think shifting the commercial time as much as 30 minutes ruins the value of the commercial.

        Sure, we may be incompetent from no weak competition. But we don't get get our jollies by screwing customers. Remember, if a network can keep your eyeballs, they'll run roughshod over you. Viacom knows there's no substitute for MTV, but God knows if we piss off enough customers, sat TV would destroy us.

        • Re:Innovative (Score:5, Insightful)

          by SydShamino ( 547793 ) on Friday September 21, 2007 @10:20AM (#20696777)
          They wouldn't let us show Fine Living but NOT Food Network.

          I see this as an illegal use of a monopoly. Fine Living as a product has a monopoly granted to it by copyright. No one else can take Fine Living and resell it without permission (and a contract) from the content owners. Yes, there may be other channels that offer shows on the same theme, but they are not the same thing.

          And so the owners of the Fine Living monopoly force their customers to also buy Food Network if they wish to buy Fine Living. This is what I see as the illegal part. It's not illegal to have a monopoly - heck, copyright law grants it every day, even to this post to Slashdot. But it is illegal (or should be illegal) to use a monopoly to force your way into other markets, or to use your monopoly to expand your monopoly. That's how I see content providers' bundles.

          Note: If you wish to republish this post, you are required to exclusively buy and use SydShamino brand toothpaste. That's right, SydShamino brand toothpaste, with less glycol than the competition!
      • by theguru ( 70699 )
        No, don't let them do this. It'll just open the doors for them offering only one channel, and you get all the others for free if you take it. That's not a la carte.

        The GP says that their negotiations with the content providers is our problem. It isn't. It's their (the cable company and content providers) problem. Let me pick the channels I want and pay for them. If content providers want to give me channels for free, with no strings attached, fine.

        A commercial free network with premium content (HBO, etc)? I
        • Interestingly, channels like HBO and Cinemax (Time-Warner companies) are cheap compared to ad network channels like ESPN (around $6 a head). Our basic access, which is dirt cheap at under $10 a month, you get the local channels, and the shop-at-home channels. It's pretty much free to send it to you, because the shop-at-home channels pay us per subscriber, subsidizing the line.

          But places like NFL network and ESPN charge us for them, even though we don't send them the signal for their channel. NFL costs

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Hoi Polloi ( 522990 )
        Personally I belong to that elite "Telemundo-Fox-HSN-Oxygen" viewer demographic.
    • by 140Mandak262Jamuna ( 970587 ) on Friday September 21, 2007 @08:35AM (#20695403) Journal
      Palladiate,

      You seem to be a nice guy. Just leave the whole damnded cable tv company when you get a chance. Their business model is doomed and they are headed to where radio is. As you correctly point out, in the advertisement supported video content model, the viewers are product, not customers. People with more discretionary income will be quickly cherry picked by internet based content delivery systems. As the high income people drop out of the viewership, you need to get louder and shriller with the ads and that will drive more people out. Once all people who are willing to pay for the content leave, the disposable income of the viewers left in your domain will be very small. You might still have 50% of the current viewers, but disposable income is very unevenly distributed towards the higher end. Your top 20% of the viewers have 80% of the disposable income. It does not take much for the ad supported model to lose 50% or 66% of the value.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by p0tat03 ( 985078 )

        I have trouble imagining how a non-ad-supported model would work, especially for the majority of Americans who watch a lot more TV than the average Slashdotter. Let's take Friends for example - that show reputedly would pull in $500K per min per new episode in commercial revenue. Considering there are some 8 minutes of commercials, that's $4M per night.

        Now, that show was immensely popular, so let's say it had... 10M viewers that night (I'm pulling this number out of my bottom, but I imagine 10M is fairly

    • Many networks like Discovery and Fine Living give us massive price breaks if we show their second and third tier channels to a certain percent of subscribers.

      This system isn't written in stone. I assume the people involved are smart enough to come up with another system that works for an A La Carte cable network. Maybe limit the pricing to the average over a whole year? How about pricing based on subscriber demographics? Just because you use one business practice now doesn't mean that is way it always has to be.

    • I appreciate you taking the time to post an insider perspective on things, but your conclusion of "For all the malfeasance you can lay at the feet of cable companies, this is surprisingly not included" does not follow from the two reasons you gave. Your company entered into a contract involving viewer-hostile terms rather than negotiating a better deal, and somehow you expect viewers to only be upset with the network providers who proposed this crappy pricing structure, not the cable companies who agreed t

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by bryan1945 ( 301828 )
      "Disclaimer: I work in accounting for a large cable company,"

      If you work for Comcast, could you PLEASE put the CEO and the president of the Big Ten into a room and let them beat each other until they can come to SOME agreement about this Big Ten Network fiasco? I really don't care which way it goes (basic, sports level, ala carte, whatever), I just want to watch my Penn State, damnit! I'll pay extra for it, I just want the option.

      Yes, I've already called and emailed both sides berating both of them.

      And th
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by AK Marc ( 707885 )
      1) Many times, we are charged per cable subscriber for a network even if we don't offer it the subscriber.

      Then don't offer it. If you have to pay $20 per month for ESPN (because it comes bundled with 40 other sports channels) but no one would pay $20 for just that one channel, then you drop it. If there are a few people that would pay for it, offer it. I don't see the problem.

      2) Many networks like Discovery and Fine Living give us massive price breaks if we show their second and third tier channels t
  • Short memories (Score:5, Interesting)

    by beavis88 ( 25983 ) on Friday September 21, 2007 @08:20AM (#20695239)
    My local cable company did just this in the mid 1980s or so. I don't remember the exact numbers, but it was something like $20 for all 30 channels. Or, you could pay $10/month for the first tier of channels, plus $2/ea to add more channels. If you wanted anything more than a small handful of a la carte channels, it was vastly more expensive to purchase them outside of the bundle. We may think we want a la carte, but the devil is in the details. As long as cable companies are monopolies, you can bet on any such "changes" remaining a better deal for the cable companies than anyone else.
  • ESPN (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Y-Crate ( 540566 ) on Friday September 21, 2007 @08:20AM (#20695253)
    ESPN is one of the most expensive, if not the most expensive channel on your cable system. It costs them a ton of money to carry it, and the costs are passed on to you whether you watch it or not. I'd be more than happy to be given a chance to get rid of it forever.
  • I think this should be from the "I DON'T want my MTV" dept.
  • ESPN (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Detritus ( 11846 ) on Friday September 21, 2007 @08:25AM (#20695295) Homepage
    It's always aggravated me that I have to pay for ESPN, reputedly one of the most expensive channels on cable, because ESPN has the market power to force their inclusion in the basic tier. To receive the Science Channel and the National Geographic Channel, I have to pay for a tier that includes all sorts of crap that I don't watch.
  • I think it's silly (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Flimzy ( 657419 ) on Friday September 21, 2007 @08:26AM (#20695311)
    If this lawsuit results in a change in policy, it will mean nothing for most people. Selling channels on a per-channel basis is more complicated for the cable providers, and will thus be more expensive per-channel. Unless you literally watch only one cable channel, you will probably pay more to pick-and-choose 2-4 channels than you would pay for an entire package, including 90% channels you don't care about.

    I used to work for Cox Communications, and in my area, "limited" cable is $11/month (channels 2-22, aka fancy rabbit ears). "Expanded" is an additional ~$30 (23-72). And the digital tiers are something like $2/month (for 5 to 20 channels per tier each). (HBO, Starz, Cinemax, etc, are priced entirely differently).

    The digital channels (which are most popular to complain about--probably because there's the perception that there are "hundreds" of them due to their channel numbers reaching into the 300's and 400's in some cases) are by far the cheapest channels there are, and it doesn't make sense to break up a package that cheap.

    Where it might have an impact for some people, is breaking up the "Expanded" tier (most cable companies have something similar), as the bulk of that $30/month price is the subscription fee the cable network pays to ESPN (something like $24/mo, if I recall).

    If my memory is accurate, and the ESPN fee is $20+/month, then that means the other channels (23-72 minus ESPN) are $10/mo or less. And then it's suddenly very "reasonable" again.

    Of course... if cable channels are sold a la carte, then the price per channel will go up by necessity. The *average* cable bill will still be roughly the same as it is now (assuming the programming also stays the same--and of course it wouldn't). The difference would be that families with 8 members who actually use 2 dozen channels would pay a higher cable bill, and single-member households (like mine) will only subscribe to 2 channels, and pay less.

    I guess what it all comes down to me is: It's a lot of fuss about something that isn't a big deal, and it's just as likely (if not more likely) to hurt the consumer as it is to help them, except in fringe cases.
  • Hopefully the end result is lower package prices. My cable bill is around $150 per month. :(
  • by Lord Bitman ( 95493 ) on Friday September 21, 2007 @08:32AM (#20695371)
    The apartment I just moved into REQUIRES all residents to have basic cable. (You can't have just Cable Internet, and because you don't have cable on your own account (it's built into the rent), you can't get a "package discount" by having Internet + Cable. Oh right, they also charge about $10/mo more for basic cable than the cable company directly would sell you, even without any discounts.

    Has anyone ever heard of this? This sounds like more of an abuse than a cable company setting prices however /they/ want. (after all, you can always just choose not the have cable, you whiny handout-wanting bastards). This "cable is required" thing was sprung on me after I'd given notice at my previous apartment.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      I looked at an apartment complex once and as I was walking around I noticed DirectTV dishes on people's balconies. So I said, "That is cool, you allow satellite dishes on the balconies." The employee said, "No, not anymore, those are grandfathered in. You have to get Comcast if you want cable." This sounded really fishy, so we promptly left. Living in the rust belt we ended up buying a house instead since the costs were similar (but now i have to do yard-work).
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Politburo ( 640618 )
      Call your local Board of Public Utilities or other agency as appropriate. That sounds illegal, but local laws vary, especially when it comes to apartment buildings.
  • by Applekid ( 993327 ) on Friday September 21, 2007 @08:33AM (#20695393)
    But, how else am I going to enjoy my guilty pleasure of E! without the cover of subscribing to the "extended lineup"?

    It's the cable equivalent of walking up to the rental counter with Super Slut Cum Fest #9 sandwiched between Howard the Duck and Sleepless in Seattle.
  • Given the easy availability of single episodes (and entire seasons) with no DRM and the adverts cut out on Torrent sites, I figure it's only a matter of time before you can legally download single shows - the adverts will still be there of course, with the lack of illegality as the selling point to stop people downloading (or even bothering to make) the advert-free versions.
  • I know you can do this here in Ontario Canada with Cogeco Cable (owned by Rogers Communications).

    It is actually called a la Carte. You have to get basic digital. Then you can pick 1, 5, or 10 or something like that channels. The crappy part is for the privilege of doing this it seems to cost you more, and also some channels don't seem available in these packages.
  • I used to work at a cable company, so I'm getting a huge kick out of these replies...

    No, wait. Let me start over.

    I used to work at a cable company, about... crikey, ten years ago. This is in southern Ontario, where average cable penetration is rather higher than it is in the States. I remember hearing from people back then that the hot new thing was going to be the offering of individual channels rather than bloated packages.

    Of course, about a year after I left, the company was bought out by a larger one. I
  • by dirk ( 87083 ) <dirk@one.net> on Friday September 21, 2007 @08:53AM (#20695615) Homepage
    While this sounds like a good idea, it would ultimately mean the death of a lot of good programming and channels. Yes, you may only watch 10 channels, but are those the most popular 10 channels? If they aren't, they may not make enough money to survive in an ala carte setup. Something like G4 (which yes, is nowhere near as good as it was but still has some good shows like X-Play) probably would never make it if it was subscriber only, as it is a niche channel. There just wouldn't be enough people willing to pay $3 a month (or however much) to get the channel. Same thing with VH1Classic, Discovery Science, and many other niche channels that have some good programming. Ala carte means every channel must cater to the lowest common denominator, as they survive on getting as many people to order their channel as possible. That means lots of things like MTV and less things like SciFi.

    Ala carte sounds great for my pocketbook, but I'm not willing to give up the good, niche programming that would die off to save a couple extra bucks a month.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Bemopolis ( 698691 )
      One problem with your argument: all of the channels you mention run COMMERCIALS. It already chaps my ass that I have to pay to watch a channel that runs COMMERCIALS, but since I have paid for DVDs that make me watch COMMERCIALS I have become inured to it.

      However, one thing that chaps my ass even, er, chappier. Paying for channels that run COMMERCIALS that I will never ever fucking watch (e.g., ESPN*). So, I am basically throwing more money into the pockets of channels that already get revenue from COMME
  • Well, tied selling is generally frowned upon or outright illegal in some states. The cable companies' systems always struck me as borderline illegal. It will be interesting to see where this goes.
  • Doesn't C-Band satelite offer this, that you pay only for the channels you want? I was looking into this about a year ago, it seems that it is roughly $2 a channel. Of course, who wants a big C-Band dish in their yard this day and age?

    I have actually been complaining about this for years. I never watch OLN, BET, ESPN, the Golf Channel, the NFL channel, Fox Sports Network, orh the Soap Opera network, so why am I paying for them? I let myself be talked into a more expensive package simply for the reason of ge
  • I swear I heard horses twice when I read the blurb. Something about that lawyer's name... Hmmm.
  • This should get dismissed as a frivolous lawsuit because the guy is asking for something that is:

    a) not available with broadcasting (it being BROADcasting an all,)
    b) already available with podcasting (or should be.)

    The complaint about selection and choice of programs is entirely immaterial.

    The material was not available over the broadcast channels either until is was MADE available at some point in time by the content provider and the broadcaster.

    The material was not available over the podcast channels eith
  • A la carte will define the true value of channels. With these insane packages (that essentially force you to get far more channels than you want), the big name providers can use their larger markets as leverage. What cable company would say "no" to ESPN? So, the cable company gets shafted. Now, if the cable company can say "Hey, a la carte just proved to us that 40% of your market came from female-headed households that only got your channel to watch Lifetime and Oxygen in the same bundle," ESPN (and Di

  • Cable company profit margins are not outlandish; figure 10% or so. If many people choose just a few channels, the people who choose a lot will have their bills go up. Likewise, if everything is pay-per-view, the people who watch very little will see their bills decline and people who keep the TV on 24 hours a day will see their bills become enormous.

    If restrictions on bundling are enforced on the providers, less popular channels from 1 provider will be at an economic disadvantage and will tend to disappear

  • by cdrguru ( 88047 ) on Friday September 21, 2007 @12:38PM (#20699041) Homepage
    There is this little thing that some people like to refer to as "diversity". In some ways, it means catering to minorities and in others is means broader cultural vision.

    Today, there is a cable/satellite channel dedicated to running old movies. How many people actually watch that enough to justify paying for such a channel? Damn few. How about a cable channel dedicated to television shows with Black actors? Today, there are more than one of these and considering both the number of people interested in such channels and their disposable income, it is doubtful that such channels would survive.

    Sure, there would be plenty of people supporting the mainstream pablum that is on USA and FX. Movies with every questionable word silenced or redubbed. SciFi channel might survive, but it has a rather narrow appeal.

    Unfortunately, the money required to operate an enterprise as a cable/satellite channel is pretty high. Today, if your offering gets picked up by cable systems you can operate and if not, every goes home to find something else to do. It isn't cheap to do this and it isn't going to be cheap in the future. This means that anything marginal or not clearly focused on the mainstream entertainment experience is going to go by the wayside.

    I would miss the SciFi channel. I would miss TVLand and AMC (old movies). But my purchasing these channels on an ala carte basis would not be anywhere near enough to keep them operating.

    Ala Carte is a method by which the larger media organizations get to push their message at everyone even more consistently than they can today. Anyone without a dedicated majority of the viewers loses. This has already happened with radio - there are few formats today and they all have mass appeal. Anything for smaller audiences is gone. Ala Carte cable will have exactly the same effect.
  • My greatest worry (Score:3, Interesting)

    by quag7 ( 462196 ) on Friday September 21, 2007 @03:04PM (#20701625) Homepage
    This is going to come off, possibly, as a little elitist, but I am a bit worried about this and I think I have good reason to be. I don't watch Dancing with the Stars, or Deal or No Deal or Survivor, or anything like those shows. My concern is that the channels I do watch - channels like Discovery, FLIX, Sundance, IFC, Encore, etc - the kinds of movies that don't show *the latest blockbusters* - almost none of which I want to see - will not make enough revenue to survive. I'm not some kind of artiste who only likes stuff no one else does, but I also cannot handle insipid, and if there is one thing the United States has proven in recent years, it's that it loves to get its Stupid on. Big time.

    Maybe this is fair and I can understand people making a free market argument here. But as much as I enjoy the prospect of not giving my money to the bottom-of-the-barrel networks like, say, E!, I am afraid that in the long run this may reduce the amount of quality channels available to me.

    I'm not at a point yet where I have the energy to hunt down everything I want to see on the internet and put myself at risk by downloading stuff.

    All I'm saying is, be careful what you wish for - you might not like what you get. As much as I can enthusiastically envision my cable box de-crufted of idiocy like the Golf channel (you have got to be kidding me, and this is not a slag on the sport itself), I also see a lot of the stuff I like dying away because the amount of subscribers cannot sustain it.

    A better model for TV watching might be direct-to-DVD series that you could rent or buy from a Netflix-like operation. Even on the channels I like, I actually watch a very small percentage of the programming they make available. I don't object to the idea of foregoing cable altogether and instead getting DVDs of shows like Mythbusters or Survivorman, as well as the novel independent and foreign films I have come to rely on for sanity. Ditto bigger shows like Lost (maybe the most high-profile show I've ever liked) and The 4400. This might also provide the opportunity to be able to watch a show with all sorts of random crap popping up on the screen, which drives me batshit insane.

    Also, completely offtopic, I'd love to see some kind of NIGHT FLIGHT themed channel which shows random weird crap all day. Wouldn't you? I know I'm not the only one who is sometimes too tired and bored to do anything but watch TV. Wouldn't it be great to have a channel that showed random animation clips, obscure music videos, 50s school scare films, acid-drenched biker films from the 60s, and so on, specifically for people who, like me, can easily flip through 200 channels and find not one thing I want to watch? And it should be a channel with an absurdly lax standards and practices department. Lots of titties, guns, Satanism, and kaleidoscopic psychedelic interludes. John Lydon's mug all up in the camera at least once a day. Boyd Rice racing Ivan Stang on a unicycle. Documentaries on anarchists, neofascists, Moonies, Scientologists, and Extropian VR gurus with no hair. Retro commercials, at random. I am talking Preparation H commercials from 1967. Ads proclaiming the lung-cleansing, expectorant effects of Lucky Strikes. Commodore and Atari 8 bit computer commercials from the 1980s. Drug hysteria films from the 1930s that aren't Reefer Madness. And also Reefer Madness. Nick Zedd films shown without comment or context between Terrytoons shorts. Random outbursts of Sonic Youth. Maybe show the Death Valley '69 video every night at 3:00 AM as some kind of tradition. Dog Police. Racist cartoons. Anti-Nazi WW2 propaganda cartoons. Random weird crap from Japanese television. Movies like Fantastic Planet. Documentaries on Raymond Scott, Laurie Spiegel, Esquivel, Can, Magma...insert your artist or band here. Propaganda films. Obscure blaxploitation flicks. Satanic panic documentaries and films which exploited the phenomenon (there are few things more satisfying to me at 3 AM than a movie like The Devil's Rain).

news: gotcha

Working...