<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Do People Really Want A La Carte Usage Fees For Media?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://mobhappy.com/blog1/2007/11/20/do-people-really-want-a-la-carte-usage-fees-for-media/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://mobhappy.com/blog1/2007/11/20/do-people-really-want-a-la-carte-usage-fees-for-media/</link>
	<description>Russell Buckley and Carlo Longino on mobile technology.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 19:56:58 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: shoobe01</title>
		<link>http://mobhappy.com/blog1/2007/11/20/do-people-really-want-a-la-carte-usage-fees-for-media/comment-page-1/#comment-117242</link>
		<dc:creator>shoobe01</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Nov 2007 14:03:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mobhappy.com/blog1/2007/11/20/do-people-really-want-a-la-carte-usage-fees-for-media/#comment-117242</guid>
		<description>&gt; Ignore for the time being that such a system would likely raise their cable bills.

Yeah. I have always found such arguments to be very self-serving to the cable providers. To get the 30 or so channels I want, I have to subscribe to a 535 channel plan, plus about 140 channels of music. It would seem totally plausible to charge, say, 2x the fractional cost per channel for a la carte service, and I pay another 50% premium on that for temporary access (day pass, say) if I want to watch a specific show on a channel available on the network, but not available today. 

The problem as I have always seen it with the pay-per-view or pay-per-content model in cable/dbs or mobile is the cost per unit. $6-10 for a movie? Several dollars for a ringtone? Its never gonna happen because it doesn&#039;t compare favorably with the costs of other media or my own time to hack a solution. Micropayments (sub $1 fees), with the difference made up for in the volume would seem a totally workable model, and one I have never seen anyone try. 


I have, in my time working on user experience design for a large US operator, seen so many customers totally lost and frustrated with the monthly-recurring-charge system that I have to believe a fee for content structure (hey, like physical books and magazines are sold like already) makes sense.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&gt; Ignore for the time being that such a system would likely raise their cable bills.</p>
<p>Yeah. I have always found such arguments to be very self-serving to the cable providers. To get the 30 or so channels I want, I have to subscribe to a 535 channel plan, plus about 140 channels of music. It would seem totally plausible to charge, say, 2x the fractional cost per channel for a la carte service, and I pay another 50% premium on that for temporary access (day pass, say) if I want to watch a specific show on a channel available on the network, but not available today. </p>
<p>The problem as I have always seen it with the pay-per-view or pay-per-content model in cable/dbs or mobile is the cost per unit. $6-10 for a movie? Several dollars for a ringtone? Its never gonna happen because it doesn&#8217;t compare favorably with the costs of other media or my own time to hack a solution. Micropayments (sub $1 fees), with the difference made up for in the volume would seem a totally workable model, and one I have never seen anyone try. </p>
<p>I have, in my time working on user experience design for a large US operator, seen so many customers totally lost and frustrated with the monthly-recurring-charge system that I have to believe a fee for content structure (hey, like physical books and magazines are sold like already) makes sense.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

