Comments on: Would A La Carte Cable Plans Reduce Cable Bills?

By: Shannon Christman

Shannon Christman — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 12:07:53 +0000

A few notes of response to these comments:

I am not arguing that cable companies should not offer a la carte programming, simply that this plan would be more expensive for customers than many might expect. I agree with most of your arguments.

Even if my husband did not work for the cable company (a fact I included because I believe in full disclosure), I would stand by what I said in this article.

Also, before we got cable as a job perk, we were some of those people Alex mentioned who went without cable because we were unwilling to pay $50 (at that time, less) for it. We still do not subscribe to the triple play.

By: stan

stan — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 00:35:17 +0000

This sounds like it has been written by a cable employee. Of course Comcast argues that the company’s prices shouldn’t be judged solely on basic subscription rates…because when they are it shows how bad they are. That bundled savings doesn’t come from a reduction in cable TV prices, but reduction in the prices of the Internet and phone services which hides the increase in cable prices. One of the poorer articles I have seen on this site and quite disappointing.

By: Tati

Tati — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 19:58:48 +0000

the plugin Show Top Commentators doens’t work in 2.2.1 version of wordpress. DOens’t apear the link/name of Commentators

By: Brad

Brad — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 19:42:43 +0000

ESPN is notoriously expensive for cable providers to carry– if their per-subscriber fee is just $2, I can’t possibly imagine why in the world a la carte programming would be as expensive as some suggest. Many people would remain as package subscribers to get more bang for their buck, and for the a la carte crowd you could easily charge 2x-3x what your marginal cost is for that channel and the customer would be thrilled. I’d pay $7 per month for the ESPN family, and that’s the most expensive channel set to provide. If the rest are $5 or less, then my 7-channel habit would run me less than $37– and I currently pay twice that for a bunch of channels I don’t watch.

I think there is merit to both sides– a la carte would truly raise the price per channel dramatically, for various reasons. On the other hand, it would not be as expensive as cable providers tend to claim it is. A la carte would fill a previously untapped market niche, bringing less cable to some, more cable to some, and the same service to most. I think it ought to be an option.

By: Lazy Man and Money

Lazy Man and Money — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 19:40:24 +0000

I don’t see the problem with offering both a la carte and a package. Let’s extend the concept and suggest that Comcast gets rid of it’s cable offering and only offers it’s Triple Play (phone and internet bundle) at $99+. Suddenly anyone who wants to watch a game of football on ESPN has to pay $99 and get services they don’t want or possibly don’t need.

The best model (at least for consumers) is something like what McDonald’s has. If you just want a burger, you can order that. If you want more, they’ll offer a better overall price than if you ordered separately. Unfortunately, the cable operators are going with a pricing plan that you have to order everything on the menu if you want to have anything.

The lower adjusted price for all three services is a result of the adoptation of VOIP, not something affiliated with cable. They didn’t even offer that 10 years ago, so they are erroneously doing comparisons of two unlike things. Comcast’s Triple Play is still more expensive for most people than buying cable, Internet, and VOIP (through something like Vonage or even Skype) through a third party.

I have heard more people complain about the cost of college than the cost of cable, but your circle may vary.

By: Mike D.

Mike D. — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 18:10:25 +0000

I don’t think you needed to tell us your husband works for Comcast…we could have figured that out

By: Alex

Alex — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 18:03:22 +0000

This article does a good job of unquestioningly adopting the cable companies’ claims.

The cable companies are wrong however. There is an economic theory called price discrimination, wherein the more a company can differentiate between consumers and charge them according to their demand, the better the equilibrium point will be between supply and demand and the greater the surplus will be enjoyed by both suppliers and consumers.

What this means is this: there are people right now who enjoy tv, but are unwilling to pay $50 for it. What do they do? They don’t buy it. This is a market inefficiency: these people are willing to pay something for some lesser package, but the market is not serving their needs. Now say that ala carte cable comes along: suddenly these people can pay $30 and watch 4 channels, voila! the suppliers have captured the surplus which would have otherwise not been capture.

But what about the people who were paying the $50? They will be able to pay for the cable channels they actually want, and the market will more efficiently offer them a product priced towards their demand. Both the cable companies and the consumer will profit, because the cable companies can charge more per service (channel) offered since only people who watch the channel will buy it, and the consumer will pay only for those services he wants. The more efficient market outcome will make both groups more happy.