Intel to offer a-la-carte TV channel subscriptions

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...

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bos

Cable will definitely need to drop their ******** bandwidth caps.

---

You can still download a lot of pr0n with 250G a month.

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brianhos

You can still download a lot of pr0n with 250G a month.

---

CableOne gives me 100gig. Its lame and yes I go over it all the time at .50 a gig.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CysRage

I can't see every channel agreeing to this. Most media companies forced cable companies to add less popular channels to get the more popular channels. For examples they force them to add Nick Jr in order to get MTV. These media companies will lose money in an ala carte model. In addition, read the bottom of the article, the prices could actually be more expensive for somebody who watches more cable than the average user since costs would raise for some channels in an ala carte model. Don't get me wrong I would love for this to happen but it could and probably be very watered down.

---

I laughed my *** off when you said that MTV was "more popular."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by klamath632

I laughed my *** off when you said that MTV was "more popular."

---

You underestimate girls 15-22

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jbhtexas

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...

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FDWxMan

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.

---

Yep, media companies will structure a la carte in such a way that their losses will be minimized or negated.

All I want is AMC, A&E, FX, Sports Suites (espn, fox, etc) hbo and showtime... Oh yea, and TWC and the local ABC NBC CBS stuff. That is literally the only channels I watch. Would love to get rid of Bravo, lifetime, TLC, etc. Even Discovery is bootleg now.

Btw, even apple can't seem to get this model out the door, so doubting intel does with any significance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FDWxMan

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.

---

While I know that a la carte channels won't save the consumer a lot of money, it still may save a little. Channels will still have to find a price consumers will be willing to pay. If channel X is priced too high, they'll miss out on viewers, and that will affect their advertising sales.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FDWxMan

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.

---

I'm not sure that it is going to be that simple. At some point, price elasticity is going to come in to play. I would love to cut back my cable package because I don't want much of it, but my motivation is going to be price. The idea that ESPN can charge $20 per month to the people that actually watch it to make up for the 75% that drop it assumes that the watchers are willing to pay that. ESPN may be on my list of channels to keep, but at that price I may think twice, or I may just pick it up for football season and drop it the rest of the year. I view ESPN as a must have, but I don't view it as a must have all year, nor would I pay that much for it by itself. I have a feeling there are many of us in the 25% that feel the same way.