3 ms·
The dream of a la carte (before streaming was even a remote possibility) was to choose which channels you actually watched and which you didn't want and you wou
by godshatter 4y ago
The dream of a la carte (before streaming was even a remote possibility) was to choose which channels you actually watched and which you didn't want and you would be charged accordingly. It was a reaction to too many channels that people didn't want but were charged outrageously for anyway. Cable was highly priced back then as I assume it still is today. Instead of all-or-nothing, people wanted to pay only for what they wanted in the hopes of reducing their overall bill.
- DerekL 4y agoBut why would à la carte be that much cheaper? If a user watches a certain amount of streamed video, it doesn't cost more to stream it if it comes from ten different channels than if it comes from a single channel.
- iudqnolq 4y agoIt's not. But the branding works because Americans are socialized that "customization" must be good. And because changing things often temporarily makes things better. (Liberty Mutual Insurance takes this to the limits of absurdity by advertising "insurance customized so you only pay for what you'll need to use".)
- lotsofpulp 4y agoWhy would it not be cheaper? I have no interest in paying for sports, so I do not buy sports. I can buy individual episodes, seasons, or month to month subscriptions within seconds now. I now wait until all the episodes are out, and word of mouth from multiple sources has established quality of the content, to purchase it. I can then consume it within a month or few months, and cancel the subscription. Or rent the movie for a few dollars. I probably pay $150 per year at most. Before a la carte steaming, that would have easily been $75+ per month with contracts and equipment fees or whatnot to Comcast. Mostly to pay for other people’s interest in sports.