In the U.S., proponents have argued that the model would deliver lower prices, while opponents maintain that bundling offers more customer value and program diversity.
[6] On December 1, 2016, as per policy implemented by the CRTC on March 19, 2015, all television providers in Canada were required to offer an a la carte scheme.
While the CRTC required a basic offering of local television services and mandated channels costing $25 or less, it did not regulate the pricing of individual stations.
[7] Multiple-system operator (MSO) Hathway was the first to offer channels on an a la carte basis in India, announcing such a service on September 3, 2003.
[13][14] Several broadcasters, such as Star India, Zee Turner, Set Discovery and Sun TV, challenged TRAI's order in the Telecom Disputes Settlement Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT).
TRAI challenged TDSAT's order in the Supreme Court, and stated in proceedings on July 22, 2010 that "in the analog, non-addressable environment, the authority is of the view that a la carte should not be made mandatory at the wholesale level as technological constraints in any case make it impossible for the benefits of a la carte provisioning to be passed on to subscribers".
[19][20] TRAI ordered that pay television customers in India must be given a free choice of channels rather than be forced to choose package deals, enforcing a January 2011 deadline to implement the changes.
In 2011, for example, a combined loss of 1.2 million subscribers to Comcast and Time Warner Cable prompted rumors that program distributors themselves would push to unbundle at least some of their services.
Cable analyst Craig Moffett argued that a modified a la carte model, consisting of smaller programming tiers, was more economically feasible for distributors and customers alike.
[31][32][33][34] IDC analyst Gary Ireland called such skinny bundles "simply a placeholder for a la carte" and predicted that consumer demand for the pricing scheme would eventually triumph.
In 2006, Kevin Martin, then chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and one of the best known advocates for the pricing scheme, presented a report to Congress arguing that, on average, consumers would save 13% on their monthly cable subscription rates if they were able to subscribe only to channels that they actually watched.
Senator John McCain introduced legislation that would have encouraged, through regulatory incentives, programmers and distributors to offer a la carte services.
He cited an FCC survey finding that the cost of expanded basic cable has effectively risen from about US$25 a month in 1995 to over $54, greatly exceeding inflation.
Plaintiffs for the first include Comcast, Fox, CBS and Disney, who argue that Federal law supersedes state legislation in dictating 'how cable programming is presented to consumers.
[44][45] In 2008, the National Congress of Black Women and fourteen other groups argued that case in a letter to the FCC, writing that a la carte pricing would "wreak havoc" on programming diversity.
The firm based its estimates on the assumption that the average annual operating cost of an entertainment cable channel is $280 million, which would require at least 165,000 viewers to break even.
[48][49] In a May 2014 New York Times column, Josh Barro pointed to academic research concluding that an a la carte system would not benefit customers.
Analysts saw those moves as part of a shift in how ESPN distributes its programming, including the expected launch of a subscription streaming service:[54] the functional equivalent of an a la carte channel.
A notable example was Time Warner Cable's agreement to pay the Los Angeles Dodgers $8.35 billion over 25 years to exclusively carry the team's games on a jointly owned television outlet, SportsNet LA (since renamed Spectrum SportsNet LA), with the intent of reselling rights to other regional distributors.