Would you pay per channel if you could?

So i recently read through the post I made about whether people are watching TV or if they stream now. My next question comes from the news about Hulu.

If you haven't heard but the ownership behind Hulu consists of ABC, NBC, FOX, and an investment firm. Well the investment firm is going away and that means certain agreements the three networks had no longer apply. One of those is exclusivity. For example, they can now air programs on their websites without linking to Hulu, or they can make exclusivity agreement with Netflix or YouTube. This could expand content out to other providers, while at the same time weakening Hulu and their Hulu Plus service (NBC is required to maintain exclusivity with Hulu as part of NBC Universal being acquired by Comcast).

So I was thinking. What if, just as an example, Fox released an app for mobile and home platforms that allowed you to watch their programming. And all you had to do was subscribe to Fox Network for $10 a month (of course this wouldn't be commercial free). Would you do it (for any network)?

I ask because I barely watch traditional TV. Its all streaming now for me, but if Networks were to individual start offering their program like that, I think I'd drop cable all together. Some channels I never watch.

As in all channels under that company?  No.  Give me the option for specific channels?  Maybe.

In Canada they just mandated that satellite providers must offer all channels individually instead of requiring that you buy a package. I personally don't watch TV, but my mom is thrilled about this.

Hold on how much is each channel are some channels more than others or is it like a flat rate per channel.

It depends, so I would only do this if:

1. I could pay for specific channels.
2. The price was reasonable.
3. The price never raises.
4. Each channel has more than one good program.
5. Longer seasons for each show. I feel that a few shows would benefit from longer seasons. For instance, Luther has relatively short seasons and it's capable of so much more.
6. Only one (1) commercial during each episode (preferably at the beginning).

I think that's it. Also, screw Comcast.

@nintendoeats:

Well let's hope those geniuses in canada also mandated that the content providers couldn't price gouge the satellite companies or your mom's smile is going to turn upside down fast when her satellite company goes out of business.

@Shakezula84: Protip. the big four: Fox, NBC, CBS, ABC are all already available for free almost everywhere in the United States, all you need is an antenna. As for their side channels, this is the way of the future. Eventually once connectivity is where it needs to be there will be no "cable" style providers it will probably all come direct from the content creators and you will have to pay on a per service basis. However. if Fox thinks i am going to pay 10 bucks for one channel then slam me with 5-10 minutes of ads every 15 minutes they have a rude awakening coming. Most people wont stand for that and will expect their premium price they pay to be rewarded with premium benefits. However the odds that services will be "per channel" are also low to begin with. Likely they would simply offer a blanket service that covered all of their offerings with a cheaper option (if not free) that would be add based. If they follow the current model the cheaper offer would see delayed release dates and potentially a lower quality image or stream as well.

I might have 5 years ago, but now the internet exists.

@triviaman09 said:

I might have 5 years ago, but now the internet exists.

I have two television's in my room. I haven't legitimately sat down to watch television in over 4 years. Never will I pay for this.

@Karkarov said:

Most people wont stand for that

I'm pretty sure they will actually.

@BraveToaster said:

1. For instance, Luther has relatively short seasons and it's capable of so much more.

Isn't that how most British TV is?

I would. All I watch is A&E, FX, SHOtime and the CW (Supernatural, The Arrow)

@Bocam said:

@BraveToaster said:

1. For instance, Luther has relatively short seasons and it's capable of so much more.

Isn't that how most British TV is?

Yeah, and I'd love for it to stay that way. Shorter series means no filler.

@triviaman09 said:

I might have 5 years ago, but now the internet exists.

Also, this.

Probably not, because that'd be fucking expensive. I like Netflix because it restricts me enough so that I'm not constantly consuming new content, and it leads me to explore the back catalog. I appreciate the wait, unlike most people. I have no desire for "channels" - I will choose the media I consume myself.

Maybe if it was cheap enough and I could just stream the channels through my xbox or ps3 without having to have a whole separate cable set up. That would be pretty cool.

@nintendoeats said:

@Karkarov said:

Most people wont stand for that

I'm pretty sure they will actually.

Every current successful streaming site that operates with premium membership levels tells me they won't. Truthfully the smart companies are already looking at integrated advertising and completely eliminating traditional commercials as much as possible anyway.

Let me pay $10-20 a month for AMC and HBO and I'm all over that shit. But make it available on the Internet. I don't wanna deal with cable boxes and getting cable routed and all that crap.

probably zero.

All my entertainment money goes into pro sports and video games.

Currently paying $140/month to Dish for every single channel (local, premium, HBO, Showtime, etc.)

If I could pay $5 a month for each AMC, USA, MLB Network, etc. and the standard prices for HBO and Showtime, I would. It would probably cut my bill in half.

The problem with doing this and the reason why it isn't done unless mandated by some law is that 75% of the channels will go off the air. There are way too many channels that no one would pay to watch, but watch because they have them. I highly doubt enough people would pay for the Hallmark channel and people without kids probably won't pay for the Disney Channel or Nickelodeon.

maybe, i don't watch half the channels that i get. i only watch a few channels, comedy central, fox, and spike are the main channels i watch. every once in a while i'll watch mtv, E, fx, discovery, history channel.

one thing i hate about tv is there isn't anything on tv during the day, and paid programming late at night. it's one reason why i got netflix recently.

@PillClinton said:

Let me pay $10-20 a month for AMC and HBO and I'm all over that shit. But make it available on the Internet. I don't wanna deal with cable boxes and getting cable routed and all that crap.

This. Also sports. For the love of god, make sports streaming easier and cheaper, and I will be all over it.

I don't even have a TV

I'd love to pick up channels that have interesting, high production value shows like HBO and Showtime. I'd even pay a reasonably high amount for them individually (Of course, not if those amounts ultimately neared the cost of cable). I don't see how this isn't the future. More and more people are just buying seasons of shows digitally because they can't afford cable or think cable is an overall waste. I highly doubt some of those bigger channels will make enough money off digital and DVD sales to make up for the loss in revenue for subscribers to cable in the long run, so I imagine this sort of thing is coming.

As someone with basic hd cable for years, I know what channels I watch & at least one half of them aren't something I ever watch that I get with my cable box. So I'd gladly cut my bill down by limiting it to specific channels.

@nintendoeats said:

In Canada they just mandated that satellite providers must offer all channels individually instead of requiring that you buy a package. I personally don't watch TV, but my mom is thrilled about this.

Really? That is fantastic since I only want TSN, Sportsnet and CBC Newsworld. I haven't watched TV for ages since it's not worth getting a package just for those three. If I could just get E4 and Eurosport then I'd be all set.

@mosespippy said:

@nintendoeats said:

In Canada they just mandated that satellite providers must offer all channels individually instead of requiring that you buy a package. I personally don't watch TV, but my mom is thrilled about this.

Really? That is fantastic since I only want TSN, Sportsnet and CBC Newsworld. I haven't watched TV for ages since it's not worth getting a package just for those three. If I could just get E4 and Eurosport then I'd be all set.

http://www.thestar.com/business/article/1229816--crtc-rulings-promise-more-channel-choice-for-consumers

No because there would be no standard pricing. Companies like CBS, HBO, AMC, etc could charge an arm and a leg if they so chose to. Plus Ads would have to be rethought. I imagine they would stay on the station for a while which then poses the question "Why am I paying for ads?".

If I had a family and they watched certain things on television then sure, that sounds reasonable. But I don't so I really don't care right now. I only really watch things on Youtube and original content makers like GB, AVGN, Nostalgia Critic and the like.

No. I dislike television programming.

I would want HBO and Espn. that's it. so I need cable a la carte lol

In the UK we kind of already do have to pay just for the BBC. It's about £170 a year and its ilegal to own TV without the license. If you buy a TV the retailer must inform the licensing people so there's no getting out of it

The concept of being able to pick your channels a la carte sounds great but in practice it'd work out poorly for the consumer. The channels people want would charge astronomical monthly fees. Consumers actually benefit from having the cable and satellite providers negotiate discounted prices. Except for cases where it doesn't all work out so nicely.

If you're a sports fan in the US, you've probably been a victim of this at some point when the local cable or satellite provider decided to take a stance against a RSN (regional sports network) because it wanted a high monthly access fee and then you end up missing some of your team's games unless you switch providers or go over to a friend's house or a bar.

Here's a pretty interesting article and chart of the prices you actually end up paying for each channel. It's based on 2009 figures so it's a bit dated but prices probably haven't changed significantly.

http://allthingsd.com/20100308/hate-paying-for-cable-heres-the-reason-why/

Keep in mind when you're reading that, while you might only be paying pennies for the channels you like, they'd end up charging a lot more if you had to buy each channel individually in order to make up for the advertising revenue they'd each lose from having a drastically reduced number of subscribers compared to what they presently have.

All I really want is HBO, then I'm good with that and NBC, CBS, and ABC.