Verizon FLICKS FINGER at Netflix with skinny à la carte-style TV package for fibre munchers

U.S. cable giant Verizon vowed last year that it would offer channels à la carte to its customers simply because the demand was there. From tomorrow (19 April), the telco's fibre network subscribers will be able to pick and choose the pay-TV they want. Verizon's change in strategy is a direct stab at the likes of vid-streaming …

[Ragequit]

Business as usual then...

It's hard to say for sure without knowing the specifics of their FiOS service (don't know the slowest speed on offer) but it seems to me they are offering pretty much the same price point cable networks always have for "basic" cable. The devil is in the details (no mention of HD, number of devices, streaming to PC, etc). But it's certainly not what I'd call a la carte when they are doing channel packs more or less like they've always done. The only change is probably from a cablebox to an IP based streamer. I know, I know. That's the point of the article. Just never ceases to amaze me that these cable companies believe their own tripe.

[Mark 85]

Re: Business as usual then...

Just never ceases to amaze me that these cable companies believe their own tripe.

I'm of the opinion that they don't believe their own tripe. But the Marketing Department thinks that the customers believe it. After all, isn't this what PR and Ad companies do: Shovel the BS long enough and pile it high enough and a major proportion of the population will believe it as a fact and a great deal. Sort of like political parties.... err.. no.. exactly like political parties.

[ecofeco]

Re: Business as usual then...

I think you are right, Ragequit. That's what it looks like to me as well.

[John Brown (no body)]

Re: Business as usual then...

Yep, agreed, à la carte, to me, means you get to pick and choose the channels you want to pay for, not to pick and choose from a selection of packages. That would be a bit like going into a restaurant and not being allowed to choose your own starter, main course, dessert but only to choose from a list of the chefs "pre-selected" courses.

You want the fish? Then you have to have the soup starter and the apple pie.

[Charles 9]

Re: Business as usual then...

So you fire back you're a caeliac with a religious objection to the soup. See how they fire back.

(That's how some people can get food into a cinema or sports arena—medically-ordered diets mean they can't have anything else, so taking the food away becomes a crime.)

[Swarthy]

WooHoo!

Now I can get rid if the 20 some odd channels that i needed to get for the one I need.

And maybe get one or two others that were in separate $50 packages.

[joed]

so called "Custom TV" - this sums it up perfectly

"so-called "Custom TV" offers will start at $65 a month. The entry level package apparently includes broadband access, 36 fixed basic television channels and two channel packs.

Extras can be added at the cost of $10 a pop."

So what's the difference compared to the crap they've forced on us this far? And at 65$ (to start with) looks like a great value (not). I can see converts lining up.

[CliveM]

Re: so called "Custom TV" - this sums it up perfectly

So what's the difference compared to the crap they've forced on us this far? And at 65$ (to start with) looks like a great value (not). I can see converts lining up.

Quite. I've adopted the practice of converting monthly charges to annualized ones, or over whatever the minimum term is where that is longer. It's a lot more difficult for a salesman to justify when you remark along the lines of "$1500 seems a lot just for TV and Internet..." It seems they rely on people not seeing the bigger picture.

[John Brown (no body)]

Re: so called "Custom TV" - this sums it up perfectly

"It seems they rely on people not seeing the bigger picture."

So buy a bigger TV!

[Tom 13]

Re: so called "Custom TV" - this sums it up perfectly

Make it $35 for 35 channels I get to pick, with additional packs available at $10 for 5 picks and you might have a deal. Call it $5 a channel for premiums (I don't subscribe to any myself because they cost WAY too much) and you might even save the industry.

[Anonymous Coward]

fug ESPN

Soon hopefully many people on basic cable won't be paying the ESPN tax which is I believe approaching double digit dollars per month. Isn't lovely to have no choice (if you want cable) but to indirectly give your money to Aaron Hernandez? Its because of that kind of bull why I cut the cord and never looked back. Seems the channels are finally figuring out this were all in it together drowning is why Netflix stock price keeps climbing.

[Kraggy]

Re: fug ESPN

Seems like ESPN think differently:

http://www.cnet.com/news/verizon-fios-shift-to-skinny-bundles-runs-afoul-of-espn/

[John Brown (no body)]

Re: fug ESPN

Maybe in the early days of cable when the cablescos were smaller, but surely the cableco has the power now to tell any one specific broadcaster to piss off now. The broadcaster would potentially lose millions of viewers. I suppose it depends who has the deepest pockets and blinks first. Unless the broadcasters can find a different route to the viewer, and that's probably not going to be in a big, expensive, multichannel bundle.

ISTR that Telewest and Nickelodean had a similar spat over carriage costs. I don't remember the exact cause or the deal done, but the channel was AWOL for a while then came back.

[Charles 9]

Re: fug ESPN

Only two problems.

One, ESPN is one of the earliest and most popular cable channels. Basically, any sports fan will demand it as a prerequisite. If ESPN can command a princely sum, it's because the demand is there.

Two, ESPN is owned by Disney, who also owns ABC, one of the big broadcast networks. ABC is basically a must carry so Disney can leverage this in negotiations. Not to mention Disney is ANOTHER of those highly-popular "prerequisite" channels.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: fug ESPN

>If ESPN can command a princely sum, it's because the demand is there.

For how much longer? Its pretty obvious the a la carte cartel is starting to fall apart. They are fighting a propaganda war (see Nielsen antics) but ultimately money speaks. About the only channels I am willing to pay for on cable (for the missus) is the FX channels and they are missing out on the $10 to 15 a month I would be willing to pay simply because they insist I buy ESPN and a bunch of other garbage as well (and they don't offer internet only and being a Fox property will be one of the last to do so). Keep on drowning together and leaving money on the table.

[Charles 9]

Re: fug ESPN

"For how much longer?"

For as long as people watch sports, I think. Even with local blackouts, there are literally millions of sports fans out there willing to pay. Especially since it's still cheaper than tickets. That translates to a whole lot of money, and none of the other channels come close, not even the Fox Sports networks.

[Tom 13]

Re: Only two problems.

For the moment, I agree. But not forever.

The first brick in the wall has already been removed. One of the major sports (can't remember if it was NFL or baseball) just stopped blackouts for games in the home team area if the stadium isn't sold out.

[Tom 13]

Re: surely the cableco has the power now to tell any one specific broadcaster to piss off now.

Meh. Depends on the channel. The Food Channel, sure no problem. ESPN, not so much. Even The Weather Channel can be a bit of a challenge, although in my area they have recently done that.

[phil dude]

having a larf?

They don't sell FIOS where I live, so I don't care.

But $65/mth?

Icon.

P.

[kend1]

Re: having a larf?

For the past 2yrs FIOS basic internet access, with no cable TV, was $65.99 month. Now its bumped to $69.99 bundled with basic TV, which I can't see (no cable box). There is no copper in the apartment complex, so the only choices are Verizon or Comcast.

Used to have Verizon DSL for $30.00 month. Was cheap and sufficient for my needs.

[thomas k.]

How can this be competing with Netflix?

Netflix shows movies, some episodic shows it produces itself, and back seasons of some TV shows, not current TV shows. It would seem Verizon's plan would put them more in competition with Hulu.

And since it's only aimed at FIOS users, it's going to have a very limited market, indeed.

[Morrolan]

Re: How can this be competing with Netflix?

I have Netflix in Canada, so I don't know about other countries, but here Netflix is showing new episodes of The 100. They get added to the list when they air on The CW in the US. It's not just back seasons anymore.

Most of the popular live-action stuff they show is their own shows, as well. Most of the back season stuff is anime. And it's quite clear from the Popular on Netflix category that Canadians at least are pretty much getting Netflix to watch TV shows, every once in a while a movie shows up there but it's dominated by episodic television.

[Tom 13]

Re: How can this be competing with Netflix?

People buy Netflix for the movies and stay for the TV and original content.

And you should get your eyes checked if you think only FIOS users is a small market.

[Michael Habel]

Is it not possible

Is it not possible to just pickup a "decent ISP" with Land-line(s), ~51.4Mbps Down 10Mbps Up for less the $40.00(USD), per Month? I mean I could throw whatever sticks to the Wall, and find no less then a Hand-full of Options here... Including Cable. I don't know why I should have to be tied into payint OTT for things I wouldn't need. When a such Services as Amazon, or Netflix exist, I guess the better question might be can the Cable Co's get the sh-- enough together to in order to take the fight back to them... This Article (As I read it...), seems to fail at this task. In as far as we still don't know the entire T&C's about how many People can access this "Service" at One time.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Is it not possible

>~51.4Mbps Down 10Mbps Up for less the $40.00(USD), per Month?

Not in the US at least in my area. You can however get 15Mbps down DSL for $35 a month which is more than good enough to watch internet TV on several TV's screens at once (what my family does).

[Tom 13]

Re: Is it not possible

The problem in the US is that because of badly handled deregulation of cable tv back in the 1980s we wound up with a national cable monopoly (Comcast) which competes with a couple of morphed phone companies (Verizon on the east coast, forget the west coast company) and a couple of cable wannabes like Cox. All of them integrated cable tv, phone and internet services in large areas although is some places, they opted not to add some components (my Dad has FIOS for phone and internet, but they don't offer tv). So OTT services like Hulu and to some extent Netflix compete with their cable bundles. This is the real heart of the FCC issue at the moment. If neither Comcast nor Verizon had the cable portion of their business, you wouldn't see filtering for Netflix and the like.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Is it not possible

I don't think deregulation was the problem. Othewrise, I think we'd have been using dialup internet for a lot longer. The increased competition encouraged affordable broadband, and the shark action was simply the inevitable consequence of capitalism.