a la carte

On Saturday, NCTA President & CEO Michael Powell was on C-SPAN’s  The Communicators discussing sports broadcasting, political ads, and how social media might impact the future of TV.

We haven’t heard about a la carte cable in quite a while, but this week we saw several items on the topic that we thought were of interest.

We return to the topic of “cord-cutting,” thanks to a few recent developments. Before we start, it’s worth noting that much of the cord-cutting coverage I see online seems to begin with frustration at prices (somehow never compared to the costs of other entertainment options) or by desired flexibility in purchasing options (they just want to get the one network or the one show).

With lots of activity happening in the media and entertainment sectors in 2010, we’ve recently seen several stories about the carriage of programming services by cable and other video providers.

I hope you are following the very vibrant debate that’s been taking place over the last week, involving  Boxee CEO Avner Ronen, Chairman of HDNet Mark Cuban and a host of other people about the relationship between free online video and the programming available from multichannel video distributers, such as cable, satellite and phone companies.

Stories about “cord cutting” seem to be all the rage right now, but many of them are overlooking some pretty basic – and readily available facts – which suggest that consumers may enjoy online video but they certainly aren’t ditching their set-top boxes by the truckload (just the opposite).

Stories come and go in both the general media landscape and the blogosphere, but often the same issues remain on the radar, but driven by different players and events.

For some time, I’ve been noting on my Twitter account the rising tide of people who have decided to cut the cord that ties them to servicing their television needs through cable, satellite or other wired means, instead turning to the Internet to be informed and entertained.  The topic is blowing up now, with Washington Post tech columnist Mike Musgrove now examining the issue in his column this past weekend (“TV Breaks Out of the Box”).

There was a column in the L.A. Times yesterday from David Lazarus entitled: “Let’s pay only for the TV we watch.” So, once again, back we go to the topic of “a la carte” cable service.

We can only repeat ourselves on a la carte so many times before our heads burst in frustration. I think we’re one or two posts away from that point, so this may be my last word on the subject.

In the last few months, a number of blogs have written about “a la carte” consumption of content as a cost-savings measure. In these tough economic times, managing your entertainment and information budget is certainly a good idea.

Given the FCC approval of the XM – Sirius merger, and the release of the “voluntary commitments and other conditions” that sealed the deal, one natural question that has arisen is “If satellite radio can do a la carte, why can’t cable providers do it?” The answer, of course, is buried in the details.

It’s worth revisiting a topic that never goes off the radar: Concern about content. Everybody can agree that cable transformed the television landscape by vastly expanding viewing choices, but not every viewing option is to everybody’s taste.

The issue of mandatory “a la carte” for cable television service continues to be a hot topic. This is actually a pretty broad and complex topic, so I’d like to break it down a bit.

There are any number of issues that come up all the time in the cable business. And one of them is the pay-per-channel scheme known as “a la carte.” Sure, it sounds attractive.