A La Carte Cable Channel Selection
February 9, 2006 – 9:51 pmI had no idea this had actually been seriously discussed before, but it turns out that a recent FCC report may be the first step toward á la carte cable. Á la carte cable is the idea that customers can pick and choose to which cable channels they would like to subscribe. I wrote about my desire for exactly this option about three months ago.
It turns out a 2004 study funded by the cable industry said á la carte cable was unprofitable and would be more expensive for consumers. A more recent, independently funded, study showed otherwise. Imagine that!
This circumstance is one rare instance in which social conservatives and I agree. The big push for á la carte cable is coming from the likes of the Parents Television Council, who would like families to have the option to not subscribe to channels they deem inappropriate or unnecessary. That’s fine by me. As long as consumers are granted the freedom to choose what it is they will or won’t purchase, I’m a happy camper.
2 Responses to “A La Carte Cable Channel Selection”
As much as I would love to pay 10 bucks a month for the 10 channels I tend to watch, you can be assured that that’s not how it’s going to be. How much is cable around here Jeff? ~$40-50/month? While this generally works out to less than a buck per channel, my guess is that the price per channel for a la carte cable will be well over $1/month. So, people might save money, but they probably won’t end up saving as much as they think they will. And where will the cable companies and tv stations make up their money? Higher installation/equipment fees, higher internet fees (for the cable companies that provide cable internet), more commercials on the poorer networks, lower production values on the poorer networks (Home & Garden, Food Network, maybe Sci-Fi, etc.).
So, like I said, I’d love to be able to get cheap cable, but there *are* downsides to a la carte cable.
With that said, the study done by the cable companies was *certainly* bogus. Just like all of the Microsoft-funded studies saying that Linux is more expensive, less secure. There may be some validity to the arguments, but that doesn’t mean the conclusions are sound.
By Adam on Feb 10, 2006 at 12:27 am
I should preface what I’m about to say by admitting that I know exceedingly little about the economics of modern cable television. However, in a purely capitalistic system, one would have the various cable channels duking it out in the marketplace, and customers would choose which channels succeeded and which channels failed.
In the current system, weaker channels are being subsidized by stronger channels, and this market inefficiency would definitely correct itself in an á la carte system. I think you’re right that the price per station would increase with an á a la carte arrangement, but think about how many cable channels are just pure crap. Even if the channels are $2 per month, the 10 “good” channels would go for $20 per month, compared to the $40 or $50 that people pay for a current cable package. Saving $20 to $30 a month adds up.
Now, you bring up an interesting point about how it would work with installation/equipment fees and the like. It is not clear to me who the middleman would be that would bridge the gap between the consumer and the particular channel(s) to which the consumer would like to subscribe. That’s probably a pretty important infrastructural issue.
There are very few cases where I am in favor of impediments to the free market. And the current cable television system is another unnecessary impediment.
By jjk on Feb 10, 2006 at 12:47 am