I think that AT BEST there will be an ala carte system that is good for folks that just want a very small number of channels. But I think most people who currently have a cable sub are going to want more than just a 1 to 3 channels, and are going to find that it is more economical to just keep the cord. I don't think any single cable channel is going to offer as much bang-for-the-buck as Netflix currently offers. More in lines of Hulu - you pay and they still rape you with ads.
The "rape" to which you refer can otherwise be seen as a subsidy (other people paying instead of you or I). That subsidy money helps us get the quality, breadth & depth of the programming we do want. Kill it and it either needs to be made up for in higher costs to us consumers OR that quality, breadth and/or depth of programming needs to come down to align with the reduced cash flows.
How much is that? I did the math a few years ago. Comparing total TV commercial revenues for a year to number of U.S. households, some kind of switch to a commercial-free new model that would replace that subsidy would require EVERY SINGLE HOUSEHOLD in America to chip in $54 per month. That's $54 per month paying for zero channels (just keeping the same amount of cash made from TV commercials flowing in a replacement commercial-free, "new model"). In all the threads about this topic, I rarely see anyone craving a new model setting their desired price at somewhere north of $54/month. Instead, it's almost always the foolish math of:
-about $100 (being paid now) for 200 channels = 50 cents per channel.
-I only watch 10-20 channels, so
-I want my new model, al-a-carte bill to be 10-20 times 50 cents per channel OR
-I want my "new model" bill to be cut to $5-$10 per month.
Some will favor something more realistic such as keeping the subsidy of commercials, picking a handful of favored channels or programming and paying $25-$50 per month. But I just about never see anyone spinning any variation of the full "new model" dream with an expectation of paying more than about $50 per month.
Netflix at $8 or $9/month won't last forever. It works now because it is artificially supported by roaring stock prices. As content contracts with Netflix end, the squeeze will be employed by every supplier and Netflix will either have to raise that fee, tier their offerings, burn cash reserves on losing money or lose content to other options.
Hulu is more along the lines of what can be possible, but it is mostly free* (over the air) television monetized. As a network like CBS comes to learn that it can get it's $6/month on it's own, I expect the others to expect the same and Hulu will then be pressured to raise prices or sacrifice content deals until it is no longer desirable.
In the end, I suspect some variation of al-a-carte will lead to people wishing they could have a bundle of channels at a cheaper bundled price, leading us full circle right back to what will probably be a relative bargain of some kind of cableTV-like offering like we have now. The whole "dream" of this "new model" seems to mostly revolve around a naive concept that we might be able to get everything we could want to watch, commercial-free
at a huge discount off of what it costs now. As soon as the last part of that clashes with the reality that nobody else in the chain wants that too and that the commercial-free part means at least $54/month for zero channels, the rest of the dream loses much of it's appeal.
The best way to approximate the dream now is to use the FAVs option in on-screen guides. Block out the "190 channels" we don't want so that only our favorite 10-20 channels show up in our guides. Commercials running on the 190 channels keep running, subsidizing the total cost to get the programming we do want. Use commercial-skipping DVR technology to manually skip commercials. That's almost the dream without killing the golden goose (of subsidy) or reducing the quality, breadth and/or depth of available programming while still keeping the surplus upside opportunity in the model to keep motivating the high-risk gambles of bringing brand new shows that might be our favorites in the future to market.
That latter benefit of the "as is" is also often ignored in all the "new model" dreaming. Shows like Seinfeld and Cheers were not hits right out of the gate, both finding their audiences upwards of a year after they first aired. In this "new model" where we pay for only the shows we want, it seems a Seinfeld or Cheers wouldn't survive long enough for us to discover that we want them. Somehow all "us" dreamers imagine the new shows will just keep on coming too when we suck 75%, 85% or more cash flow out of the model and kill the subsidy paid for by commercials mostly running on channels "we" never watch.
