Unfortunately it is the content providers that have forced bundling onto the cable providers. Verizon FIOS was the first major cable provider though to successfully implement unbundling. As you said, the FCC would do well to restrict forced bundling.
While your point about content providers is well-seen, let's be clear about what we mean by "unbundling." I think the consumer expectation is true a-la-carte, i.e., channel-level granularity in package choice. What Verizon has implemented is packages of bundles of channels, plus a required minimum base package. While this is progress, it is not real a-la-carte.
Personally, the add-on fees and mandatory equipment rental accounted for 50% of the nominal price of my FiOS TV bill. Packages would have barely dented this. Therefore I canceled FiOS TV earlier this year.
By the time the cable providers actually implement a-la-carte, no one under the age of 40 will be subscribing.
People only think they want truly a-la-carte. The fact that most people don't watch most channels is already built into the system.
The average consumer won't save any money because the price of these channels already reflects average viewership. Those who watch a bunch of different channels would pay a lot more. Only those who watch a very small amount of channels would actually save money.
But paying for access to a channel doesn't really make sense anymore. Why should anyone care what channel content is broadcast on?
Why should someone watching a few hours on two channels pay twice as much compared someone one watched one channel all the time? The later is consuming much more content. Paying by channel is just a shitty way of gauging usage.
A la carte will reduce the amount of content without really reducing prices. Every station will essentially be like TNT or TBS.
Netflix shows that people want the opposite of a la carte. They want an unlimited plan.
It's probably a moot point, video on demand is going to kill cable no matter what.
It's probably a moot point, video on demand is going to kill cable no matter what.
Cable is a major channel for video on demand, and the cable companies are also the major ISPs, so VOD is win/win for them anyway (especially if they succeed in challenging the FCC Open Internet rules.)
They are going to be "killed" by it the same way that the incumbent wireline telcos were killed by mobile.
Comments
Unfortunately it is the content providers that have forced bundling onto the cable providers. Verizon FIOS was the first major cable provider though to successfully implement unbundling. As you said, the FCC would do well to restrict forced bundling.
http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/17/media/verizon-fios/
While your point about content providers is well-seen, let's be clear about what we mean by "unbundling." I think the consumer expectation is true a-la-carte, i.e., channel-level granularity in package choice. What Verizon has implemented is packages of bundles of channels, plus a required minimum base package. While this is progress, it is not real a-la-carte.
Personally, the add-on fees and mandatory equipment rental accounted for 50% of the nominal price of my FiOS TV bill. Packages would have barely dented this. Therefore I canceled FiOS TV earlier this year.
By the time the cable providers actually implement a-la-carte, no one under the age of 40 will be subscribing.
People only think they want truly a-la-carte. The fact that most people don't watch most channels is already built into the system.
The average consumer won't save any money because the price of these channels already reflects average viewership. Those who watch a bunch of different channels would pay a lot more. Only those who watch a very small amount of channels would actually save money.
But paying for access to a channel doesn't really make sense anymore. Why should anyone care what channel content is broadcast on?
Why should someone watching a few hours on two channels pay twice as much compared someone one watched one channel all the time? The later is consuming much more content. Paying by channel is just a shitty way of gauging usage.
A la carte will reduce the amount of content without really reducing prices. Every station will essentially be like TNT or TBS.
Netflix shows that people want the opposite of a la carte. They want an unlimited plan.
It's probably a moot point, video on demand is going to kill cable no matter what.
Cable is a major channel for video on demand, and the cable companies are also the major ISPs, so VOD is win/win for them anyway (especially if they succeed in challenging the FCC Open Internet rules.)
They are going to be "killed" by it the same way that the incumbent wireline telcos were killed by mobile.
Do you think they maybe meant the bundle of channel subscriptions?
So continue to offer the bundle as well.