Let me be the first to admit I was wrong, a la carte *cable is coming sooner than later - *Sorta

[OttosBestFriend]

Not cable necessarily, but the channels currently offered by cable and satellite providers.

HBO announced today that it will begin offering its programming via a streaming subscription, utilizing a blueprint similar to Netflix's model, by 2015.

I never thought the cable companies would offer a la carte networks, but if the more popular nets (ESPN, Nickelodeon, FX, AMC, A&E, TBS, TNT, etc...) all begin to stream, then what choice will the cable providers truly have?

There are dozens of articles online covering this mammoth announcement from every conceivable angle.

The one that I've linked below (from Ad Age) seems to suggest that other cable nets who are positioned well might follow suit.

All of a sudden, la carte ESPN, via a streaming subscription, now seems like a no-brainer to me.

I was wrong - sorta.

http://adage.com/article/media/hbo-offer-standalone-web-streaming-service-year/295425/

 

[Millhouse]

Not cable necessarily, but the channels currently offered by cable and satellite providers.

HBO announced today that it will begin offering its programming via a streaming subscription, utilizing a blueprint similar to Netflix's model, by 2015.

I never thought the cable companies would offer a la carte networks, but if the more popular nets (ESPN, Nickelodeon, FX, AMC, A&E, TBS, TNT, etc...) all begin to stream, then what choice will the cable providers truly have?

There are dozens of articles online covering this mammoth announcement from every conceivable angle.

The one that I've linked below (from Ad Age) seems to suggest that other cable nets who are positioned well might follow suit.

All of a sudden, la carte ESPN, via a streaming subscription, now seems like a no-brainer to me.

I was wrong - sorta.

http://adage.com/article/media/hbo-offer-standalone-web-streaming-service-year/295425/

hbo was never really part of the cable bundle. it kind of was ala carte. cable was a prerequisite and now it's not, but you always had to pay for hbo individually.

 

[Cuseregular]

Not cable necessarily, but the channels currently offered by cable and satellite providers.

HBO announced today that it will begin offering its programming via a streaming subscription, utilizing a blueprint similar to Netflix's model, by 2015.

I never thought the cable companies would offer a la carte networks, but if the more popular nets (ESPN, Nickelodeon, FX, AMC, A&E, TBS, TNT, etc...) all begin to stream, then what choice will the cable providers truly have?

There are dozens of articles online covering this mammoth announcement from every conceivable angle.

The one that I've linked below (from Ad Age) seems to suggest that other cable nets who are positioned well might follow suit.

All of a sudden, la carte ESPN, via a streaming subscription, now seems like a no-brainer to me.

I was wrong - sorta.

http://adage.com/article/media/hbo-offer-standalone-web-streaming-service-year/295425/

i have no idea if related as to why this may happen...I know so many who have up and cut the cord that I wonder if their bottom lines are being effected enough to allow a la carte to happen. Curious to hear the take from those in the know or semi know.

 

[Millhouse]

i have no idea if related as to why this may happen...I know so many who have up and cut the cord that I wonder if their bottom lines are being effected enough to allow a la carte to happen. Curious to hear the take from those in the know or semi know.

HBO's not the best example because they're already ala carte and already expensive. It's only bundled with other premium channels and it costs real money because the people who don't want it aren't paying for it.

I'd love for some regular cable channel that's part of a giant bundle to go ala carte just to prove that they will charge more than they do as part of a bundle

 

[FAL]

HBO's not the best example because they're already ala carte and already expensive. It's only bundled with other premium channels and it costs real money because the people who don't want it aren't paying for it.

I'd love for some regular cable channel that's part of a giant bundle to go ala carte just to prove that they will charge more than they do as part of a bundle

Amazon has already stole some of HBO's thunder. I can now get The Walking Dead on Monday, less than 24 hours after it initially airs on Sunday night. Yeah, I have to pay for it but I don't mind paying for something I really want to watch.

 

[Scooch]

Yeah, HBO is probably an outlier given that their model is somewhat different than a traditional cable network.

The price point is what will be interesting to see. Something tells me you're not going to buy a direct-to-consumer, HBO streaming service for $9.99/month.

In a more general sense, I've always said that people here are too declarative when it comes to these things. The future of video subscription is one of many, many different models. Bundling will still make economic sense for some, cord-cutting makes sense for others, etc.

The one thing that's not really debatable is that a la carte, while viscerally appealing, will not be the cost saving home run that some think it will. Yes, if all you want is HBO and that costs $29.99/month, then that'll save you from a larger cable bill. But in a purely a la carte world where someone may want a movie channel, a news channel, a sports channel, and a couple of general entertainment channels, you'll be paying the same, or more, than you do now. There's no way the economics work otherwise. And you're broadband bill probably goes up too, absent Google coming in and throwing trillions at building free broadband for everyone in the country.

 

[upperdeck]

I cant even support low bandwidth streaming with my internet service. Dont know what would happen if i tried to watch from 3-4 devices at once in HD but it wouldnt look near as good as my SAT service.

 

[OrangeCrush22]

The one thing that's not really debatable is that a la carte, while viscerally appealing, will not be the cost saving home run that some think it will. Yes, if all you want is HBO and that costs $29.99/month, then that'll save you from a larger cable bill. But in a purely a la carte world where someone may want a movie channel, a news channel, a sports channel, and a couple of general entertainment channels, you'll be paying the same, or more, than you do now. There's no way the economics work otherwise. And you're broadband bill probably goes up too, absent Google coming in and throwing trillions at building free broadband for everyone in the country.

Pay the same for less!

 

[rottweiler44]

I would actually like to see a hybrid model, in which I can buy a bundle from a cable company that gets me a certain number of channels by category, and then I can select the channels Chinese menu style. This gives me the ability to ensure I don't get or pay for the B1G channel and that I get bundle level pricing.

For Example...Lets Say I get the choice of 7 sports channels and I am able to select:

ESPN
ESPN2
ESPNU
Comcast
MASN1
MASN2
Fox Sports

 

[Millhouse]

I would actually like to see a hybrid model, in which I can buy a bundle from a cable company that gets me a certain number of channels by category, and then I can select the channels Chinese menu style. This gives me the ability to ensure I don't get or pay for the B1G channel and that I get bundle level pricing.

For Example...Lets Say I get the choice of 7 sports channels and I am able to select:

ESPN
ESPN2
ESPNU
Comcast
MASN1
MASN2
Fox Sports

if other people have their choice of their chinese menu bundle and pass on those 7 channels, you're paying more for those channels

 

[Crusty]

I have long though that the B1G model was going to blow up sooner than later. Every conference is going to find out that they need a product people are actually willing to pay for (proactively) in order to generate revenue. A model where the price goes up and the demand goes down is doomed in any free market. Only a matter of time.

 

[SWC75]

Aren't we likely to just wind up pulling whatever you want to see on the internet?

it was always absurd that you had to pay for 1,000 channels you never watch tthe dozen or channels you actually watch.

 

[Millhouse]

Aren't we likely to just wind up pulling whatever you want to see on the internet?

it was always absurd that you had to pay for 1,000 channels you never watch tthe dozen or channels you actually watch.

i think it's absurd that i have to pay for 1000 hours and shows on espn you never watch. i want ala carte sportscenter. minus anything with herm edwards and barry melrose, I don't want to pay for that.

i only read part of the newspaper, i demand ala carte

this video is 15 minutes, i wish people would watch it

http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/05/bundling.html

 

[SWC75]

i think it's absurd that i have to pay for 1000 hours and shows on espn you never watch. i want ala carte sportscenter. minus anything with herm edwards and barry melrose, I don't want to pay for that.

i only read part of the newspaper, i demand ala carte

this video is 15 minutes, i wish people would watch it

http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/05/bundling.html

Does posting on this website require that you post on 1,000 other websites as well?

 

[Millhouse]

Does posting on this website require that you post on 1,000 other websites as well?

how is a newspaper bundle or a network bundle different than a cable bundle?

 

[orangeinjersey]

Aren't we likely to just wind up pulling whatever you want to see on the internet?

it was always absurd that you had to pay for 1,000 channels you never watch tthe dozen or channels you actually watch.

but if the alternative is you lose the 1000 channels and are still forced to pay 80% of your original bill for the dozen you do watch, wouldnt you argue the former is actually the better value?

Folks, ala carte is coming, but it is NOT going to save you boat loads of money. If each channel cost 99 cents a month, yes, you could argue it would save you money. But My guess is HBO is going to be like $25 a month. An ESPN package would be like $30-$40 a month. You wont save and end up with a lesser product.

 

[SWC75]

how is a newspaper bundle or a network bundle different than a cable bundle?

How is the present system different than going to a restaurant and being forced to buy the entire menu? Why can't the open market just be allowed to function?

I watched the video. he gives an example of two people, (Amanda and Yvonne) who value two different things differently. How about valuing 10-12 things highly and the rest of the 1,999 (the actual number), channels not at all? And why doesn't the internet work the same way? Time- Warner connects me to the internet but then I just go where I want to and pay for what i want to pay for- their charge is the same. if you put all the channels on the internet, won't that be the model? The present system is about making the middle man rich.

 

[supp]

Yeah, HBO is probably an outlier given that their model is somewhat different than a traditional cable network.

The price point is what will be interesting to see. Something tells me you're not going to buy a direct-to-consumer, HBO streaming service for $9.99/month.

In a more general sense, I've always said that people here are too declarative when it comes to these things. The future of video subscription is one of many, many different models. Bundling will still make economic sense for some, cord-cutting makes sense for others, etc.

The one thing that's not really debatable is that a la carte, while viscerally appealing, will not be the cost saving home run that some think it will. Yes, if all you want is HBO and that costs $29.99/month, then that'll save you from a larger cable bill. But in a purely a la carte world where someone may want a movie channel, a news channel, a sports channel, and a couple of general entertainment channels, you'll be paying the same, or more, than you do now. There's no way the economics work otherwise. And you're broadband bill probably goes up too, absent Google coming in and throwing trillions at building free broadband for everyone in the country.

It's not going to be a steal but they're going to have to price it so that people stop stealing it. If you read the articles stopping theft is what they're most concerned about. Most cable subscribers are paying between $10-20 for HBO on their cable box along with a streaming subscription. Yes, you're getting a "subsidy" of some kind for HBO because you're a cable subscriber. The question is how much? AT&T is already offering in some markets basic cable and HBO to cable-cutting broadband subscribers for an additional $10 a month. They've got to pick a price point to make it worthwhile for those who are torrenting shows or using someone else's HBOGO pass to stop doing it and pay for the service. Otherwise, what's the point? They also have to compete with Amazon Prime (about $6-7/month) and Netflix ($9/month). It likely won't be more than $12/month with a discount for longer commitments like with Amazon Prime.

I agree that the big question is that if we go in the direction of al a carte, will we have corresponding rises in broadband bills? They may claim that the added bandwidth to stream all this content costs them more but in the big cities they've already created much of the fiber optic infrastructure to make this happen. Broadband costs will especially go up in smaller markets with less competition. Interestingly, cable-cutting is most prevalent in SF, Seattle, and DC---three of the most affluent markets in the country with the highest average broadband speeds.

 

[Millhouse]

How is the present system different than going to a restaurant and being b=forced to buy the entire menu? Why can't the open market just be allowed to function?

I watched the video. he gives an example of two people, (Amanda and Yvonne) who value two different things differently. How about valuing 10-12 things highly and the rest of the 1,999 (the actual number), channels not at all? And why doesn't the internet work the same way? Time- Warner connects me to the internet but then I just go where I want to and pay for what i want to pay for- their charge is the same. if you put all the channels on the internet, won't that be the model? The present system is about making the middle man rich.

you're showing that not everything gets bundled. i agree.

i'm pointing out other examples of bundling and you ignore it.

restaurants don't force you to buy the whole menu. newspapers do bundle different stories.

you refuse to think about why that is. are newspapers nicer than restaurant owners? or do consumers benefit from a bundle. i never read the horoscopes ever. zero value for me. does that mean i'm ripped off?

the point of a 2 person 2 channel model is to show that a bundle can benefit everyone. the logic can still hold true with a thousand channels where some channels have no value

ESPN worth 10 to me. History channel worth 3. Bravo worth zero.
History Channel worth 10 to you. Espn worth 3 to you. Bravo worth zero.
Bravo worth 10 to a woman. History channel worth 3. ESPN worth zero.

what do you prefer? ala carte cable company charges 10 for each. we each get one channel we each value at $10, cable company gets $30.

cable company says, hey we can bundle for 12. they've already paid for the cable it doesn't cost them more to deliver 3 channels to each person. Everyone gets $13 value for $12. Cable company gets $36. win win

until the three of us start whining like dummies that we're paying for a channel we don't watch

 

[Scooch]

How is the present system different than going to a restaurant and being b=forced to buy the entire menu? Why can't the open market just be allowed to function?

I watched the video. he gives an example of two people, (Amanda and Yvonne) who value two different things differently. How about valuing 10-12 things highly and the rest of the 1,999 (the actual number), channels not at all? And why doesn't the internet work the same way? Time- Warner connects me to the internet but then I just go where I want to and pay for what i want to pay for- their charge is the same. if you put all the channels on the internet, won't that be the model? The present system is about making the middle man rich.

It probably will soon enough, at least if you consider "open market" the a la carte model (or some permutation of it).

All I've been saying is that there is a contingent of people who think a la carte will inherently cost them less. That will probably not be true for those who want to purchase more than just 1 or 2 "channels".

 

[supp]

For those looking for other existing pricing models for a la carte, the NFL Sunday Ticket streaming service (with a very limited rollout at the moment) has the same price structure that is offered to DirectTV customers.

I believe ESPN charges $5.75 per customer in carriage fees. ESPN2 is about $.75. ESPNU is $.21. ESPNews is $.23. If WatchESPN ever goes standalone, I'm thinking $10/month.

 

[TheCusian]

Yeah, HBO is probably an outlier given that their model is somewhat different than a traditional cable network. The price point is what will be interesting to see. Something tells me you're not going to buy a direct-to-consumer, HBO streaming service for $9.99/month. In a more general sense, I've always said that people here are too declarative when it comes to these things. The future of video subscription is one of many, many different models. Bundling will still make economic sense for some, cord-cutting makes sense for others, etc. The one thing that's not really debatable is that a la carte, while viscerally appealing, will not be the cost saving home run that some think it will. Yes, if all you want is HBO and that costs $29.99/month, then that'll save you from a larger cable bill. But in a purely a la carte world where someone may want a movie channel, a news channel, a sports channel, and a couple of general entertainment channels, you'll be paying the same, or more, than you do now. There's no way the economics work otherwise. And you're broadband bill probably goes up too, absent Google coming in and throwing trillions at building free broadband for everyone in the country.

You're assuming what people want. The best thing to gain from this will be choice. More options always benefits the consumer.

 

[supp]

It probably will soon enough, at least if you consider "open market" the a la carte model (or some permutation of it).

All I've been saying is that there is a contingent of people who think a la carte will inherently cost them less. That will probably not be true for those who want to purchase more than just 1 or 2 "channels".

In the end, a la carte is largely targeting the single and under 30 crowd that's cut the cord, bought a digital antenna, subscribed to Netflix, and steals everything else that they want to watch. For everyone else, bundling will still make sense because you're looking to accommodate the tastes of 3-plus people per household.

 

[TheCusian]

In the end, a la carte is largely targeting the single and under 30 crowd that's cut the cord, bought a digital antenna, subscribed to Netflix, and steals everything else that they want to watch. For everyone else, bundling will still make sense because you're looking to accommodate the tastes of 3-plus people per household.

That's a big assumption. My kids watch Netflix and YouTube exclusively. My wife watches Netflix. I watch Netflix + sports (mostly ESPN).

So if my current bundled cable + Netflix costs $100... But ESPN is unbundled for $45 + Netflix = $55. We'd gladly lose a bunch of bundled stuff we never watch for $45 savings. For some - that stuff is worth the extra $.

But the best part about it is choice. It may cost the same for replicating a bundled package - but the choice is in your families hands. You get to make the choice - rather than the cable companies deciding what content you have access to and at what price.

 

[TheCusian]

you're showing that not everything gets bundled. i agree. i'm pointing out other examples of bundling and you ignore it. restaurants don't force you to buy the whole menu. newspapers do bundle different stories. you refuse to think about why that is. are newspapers nicer than restaurant owners? or do consumers benefit from a bundle. i never read the horoscopes ever. zero value for me. does that mean i'm ripped off? the point of a 2 person 2 channel model is to show that a bundle can benefit everyone. the logic can still hold true with a thousand channels where some channels have no value ESPN worth 10 to me. History channel worth 3. Bravo worth zero. History Channel worth 10 to you. Espn worth 3 to you. Bravo worth zero. Bravo worth 10 to a woman. History channel worth 3. ESPN worth zero. what do you prefer? ala carte cable company charges 10 for each. we each get one channel we each value at $10, cable company gets $30. cable company says, hey we can bundle for 12. they've already paid for the cable it doesn't cost them more to deliver 3 channels to each person. Everyone gets $13 value for $12. Cable company gets $36. win win until the three of us start whining like dummies that we're paying for a channel we don't watch

Your describing a bundling or nothing proposition. For some bundling makes sense. For others choosing one channel for $10 is exactly what they want and can't get. Like in our family - I'm the only one who watches cable, and only sports. The. Only. One.

It's really hard to justify the expense. And we don't have a choice: it's buy the bundle or no sports.