Before cable, viewers had a handful of choices: ABC, NBC, CBS, and maybe a few local independent stations. That set of options was free. If you subscribed to cable, it was just to get better reception (as my parents did). As the number of channels exploded in the Eighties, so did the number of subscribers. I jump to the conclusion that they saw a value (and were willing to pay a price for it) in having more channels.

You make the argument “The value of the service is in the content I view, not in the content you make available…” I would counter that the value of the service is in the array of choices from which you can select. If I give you ten choices and you pick one, the value may be in the one you pick. If I give you 100 choices and you pick 10, the value is in having a wide array of choices from which you were able to select 10 things that met your needs.

I think of it as a bit like the difference between going to the diner and a swank brunch buffet. I can go to the diner and get just what I want and nothing more: 2 eggs, bacon, juice. But I can go to the big buffet brunch and choose from a wide array of food. I didn’t waste money if I don’t eat from every dish; the value was in having a lot to choose from.

Remember that the economics of selling eggs and selling a 24-hour television channel are completely different. The buffet model happens to work best in delivering a wide set of choices today.

You also argue in an a la carte world, programmers would have to be competitive, which you then think will lead to programming costs lowering. The only way they go down is if there are fewer channels and the cost & quality of the programming on those channels also goes down. You seem to argue that you’ll select the channels that are of value to you, those channels that don’t meet your needs will be weeded out, leaving just the channels you want. You also seem to assume that in a market-based model, the remaining channels won’t have to charge a very high price in their new “a la carte” world that requires them to market to each individual viewer and convince them to but their service.

Go back up and read the post again. I don’t think that’s going to work to your benefit.

It is unfortunate that cable doesn’t recognize in an a la carte model, each channel will be competing with each other and as a result programmers will be forced to become more competitive. Cable saves programming cost and the consumer’s bill is reduced. As it stands now, the cable company is forced to represent its entire customers interest in negotiation. If it goes badly, cable just has to raise its prices. What can the consumers do about it? Basically, there are no equal alternatives at this point. And if the public cry gets louder about its increased bill, cable can always add another channel and show that the cost of the service (on a per channel basis) is the same – so the value must be the same or better. Also the fact that some of my channels will cost me more because they are subsidized is not a reason to maintain the current system. If they cost more than I have the choice of excluding them. In other words, my choice will help indicate what survives in this market based model. And although I recognize that some channels will increase in cost doesn’t mean that my bill will increase because I have the option and power to remove the channels that are marginal until the value of the programming meets my needs.

The funding of new content should be a risk proposition of cable and not the consumer. I suggest that cable package new programming and offer it on a trial basis to solicit subscriptions. For other programming, the FCC can institute regulation as it does in broadcasting. The ad based model should be used to cover these costs.

Cable had better create a workable model that reflects my interest and sense of value or they will be overcome by events.