On 06/05/2010 22:56, M.J. Sammon wrote:
> On 5/6/2010 4:55 PM, Mac Breck wrote:
>> Doug Freyburger wrote:
>>> Duggy wrote:
>>>> "Mac Breck" wrote:
>>>>> Chris Adams wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> As the Internet allows more people to find smaller
and smaller
>>>>>> groups with ever more specific like interests, TV
is going the
>>>>>> opposite direction, turning more homogeneous.
We're going to have
>>>>>> 150 channels, and the _same thing_ on all 150 of them.
>>>>
>>>>> ....and then there's no reason to *have* 150 channels.
>>>
>>> I used to make sure the Sci Fi channel was on whatever lineup I had
>>> with the cable company. I would upgrade my package if it didn't
>>> include the it. Now I don't care if it's on the list any more.
>>>
>>>> There's always people who will get them so they can say
they have 150
>>>> channels.
>>>
>>> Or because the cable companies offer a discount for the package with
>>> that many channels. I think that's part of the cause. If I got to
>>> pick my channels cafeteria style I would have under 2 dozen and I
>>> would be happy to pay for them as such. Then the cable company would
>>> know what channels are the profitable ones and what channels are not.
>>> I figure they decided they might not like the answer if they offered
>>> that.
>>
>> 100% ala carte, available to every customer, would probably be a
>> selection/switching nightmare for them.
>>
> I don't think 100% ala carte would be a technological problem for the
> cable companies.
> My provider, Cablevision, can already do that with VOD movies. They have
> 100's
> of movies available to several hundred thousand customers. There's
> plenty of
> bandwidth if you compress a SD signal to the set top box.
>
> The real problem with ala carte is how do you bill for it? The cable
> company
> no longer has a steady revenue stream.
>
> Mike
>
The cable company can still charge a fixed fee.  It just pays adjusts
the amount it pays each channel.

Andrew Swallow
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32