If we had a la carte cable, they'd offer what they seriously thought people would specifically seek out and buy. FOX News is a shoo-in, but PBS and Al Jazeera would be much riskier bets.
If that's the case, then why don't they do that now? Carrying less channels would reduce costs, while raising the price would increase profit. One would think that we wouldn't have to force them to move in that direction it what you say is true.
When the cable industry itself says that that's going to happen, I tend to believe that they will make it happen.[1]
"# Forcing cable operators to sell each channel separately (a la carte) would reduce the size of the potential audience for each channel, adversely affecting a network’s ability to attract the same level of advertising dollars. Networks would also incur much higher marketing costs to persuade customers to purchase their programming. As networks lose the advertising revenues that make up the bulk of their programming and operating budgets and face higher marketing costs, they would need to increase the license fees paid by cable operators in order to continue to deliver high quality and diverse programming.
# These higher license fees would be reflected in higher retail cable prices. To the extent that customers were unwilling to pay the higher a la carte prices for certain networks, those networks would have no choice but to reduce the quality and attractiveness of their programming or go out of business."
Also:
"Mandatory a la carte could cause the demise of many existing basic programming services and hinder the creation of new ones, reducing choice and diversity."
I don't usually parrot industry group talking points. However, in this case, we're debating about what the cable industry would do if a la carte were forced on them, and I think they've already answered that question.
