I don’t know if you’ve heard, but there’s a bit of a debate raging on a la carte television—allowing you, the cable television consumer, to pay for only the channels you’re actually interested in watching.
Consumer groups like it, because it saves the consumer money, but the cable channels don’t, because small cable channels would be more likely to find an audience if cable companies pushed them on companies.
But really, the large cable channels would be hurt more than the small ones, because channels most people find useless, like Oxygen, wouldn’t be picked, saving money for smaller channels people might have more interest in. That would reduce the resources of all of cable and possibly swing some of the cable channels’ advantages back to broadcast, as well as make niche networks, appealing to niche markets, more viable.
But to claim, as this blog did in July, that it would completely revolutionize the news and sports industries?
It’s become mandatory to have cable if you’re a sports fan, and a la carte would take away a significan...
Read Complete Article at Bleacher Report - Sports & Society
Article is property of BleacherReport.com