I call BS on this "it's not our fault" whining.

How about if these clowns just give us the ability to black hole certain channels, so they will never be seen again on that STB? Then we can take all the channels we don't want to know about and "disappear" them. I can see this option would be great for parents - far better than even locking them. The kids won't even know they exist.

I'd be more inclined to get a tv package if I could choose which channels and shows I wanted. Pick my shows, pick my channels.

One important thing to remember.... The cable companies could only sell "a la carte" to digital subscribers. Selling individual channels on the analog cable is virtually impossible..... the analog coax line carries all of the analog channels and groups are filtered out by bandpass filters, high-pass filters, and low-pass filters. Filtering out individual analog channels (or allowing individual channels through the filters) is technically impossible. So analog cable will continue to be sold in two or three groups.

With digital cable, since the cable companies have control over the digital boxes, they could turn on and turn off individual channels.... but remember, even with digital cable, the channels below 100 are actually analog channels that are still available at all the other jacks at your home, so technically the cable company wouldn't be able to turn on and off channels below 100.

Remember, if they can't sell ad space, your channel dies, no matter how many people watch it.

For example, if you *really* like Comedy Central, having MSNBC piped to you as well (for the combined ad sell package) is subsidizing keeping CC alive.

A lot of my favorite channels are in that 'long tail': they wouldn't survive on their own ability to sell ad space So yeah, give me the other stuff too, as long as it keeps BSG on the air.

And did you know a lot of cable systems let you hide the channels you don't want to see from your menu? I only display the 10 or 12 I'm interested on Dish!

But part of me wonders if a la carte Cable would simply mean that less popular channels that are currently being subsidized though bundling would simply cease to exist if the media conglomerates couldn't force people to subscribe to them.

@vermontwriter: I would guess the Home Shopping Networks actually keep your rates lower. People spend boatloads of money on that crap, and the cable company surely get a cut of it. That extra revenue stream offsets some of their costs and keeps my bill down. As long as I'm not paying extra for HSN, I don't care. In fact, if they want to add another HSN instead of raising my rates, I'm totally cool with that.

What I'm not cool with is when they raise my rates to add another ESPN (or Fox news, or NFL Network, or whatever) that I don't have any interest in watching.

I don't want ESPN. I don't want any of the package. I get my "networks" in HD over the air just fine. I want cable for Comedy Central and... uh... and... Yeah, here's my quarter. Give me ala carte channels.

Face it everyone. Cable companies will never allow you to pick your own channels. This is the american industry. This is the way it is and the way it will be forever unless the goverment gets off there a@@ and does something about it. Direct TV and Dish network same way. THERE WILL NEVER BE A CHANGE!! WRITE TO YOUR CONGRESSMAN AND LET HIM/HER KNOW YOU WANT CHANGE!

For all you people complaining about losing niche channels, just a thought, but the channels could always have their own pricing. So niche channels like "Pro Glass Stacker Championship Review" would be $9, while a popular channel like ESPN or whatever could be $3.

what if we just got charged for what we watched? make all the channels available, and just charge us for the time we use the service. even if programs on the 'upper tier' channels cost more. on demand services ftw!

-----------------------------------------------------

Am i the only one who thinks we should not be paying for cable at all. Seriously. Look at how much money goes into advertising and that money goes to the networks to "offset" cost. My butt. Advertisers are paying for us to watch Tv and were giving our money to them as a nice thank you for screwing us each month.

there will be some that says " oh the cost of infrastructure blah blah blah. Hmm, dish systems, i pay for box, Ok i can under stand. but i don't see cable running from the sky. And why am i pay for them to chose where they want to install cable lines. how many time have they denied people because the live to far away.

------------------------------------------------------

Tell me why are we people sheeping themselves for HD. cable says pay for it and you do. HD should be part of you service no extra charge especially since there taking out the analog signals. but its only 5 dollars, Its just another excuse to raise you bills there not paying extra for it. they receive the signal in HD already and then down grade it for those who don't pay for HD causing it to look crappy so you want to buy HD.

the whole cable system is screwed up and screwing people left and right and we just keep letting them and they will keep screwing harder. i have so much more to say but i probably hurt some peoples head trying to follow what i already have said.

Here's the hidden thing that they're not telling you:

Advertising revenues are partially based (and it's a significant part) on POTENTIAL viewers for cable networks since it's assumed that plenty of people watch something and aren't metered/diaried.

So, lets assume a good network would get 4 million subscribers. (this is probably a high estimate for almost all of the smaller cable channels). A "reasonable" a-la-carte price would be $3/mo right? Can any cable network produce programming on 12 million a month? Probably not. Will advertising revenues be anywhere near their current levels with only 4 million potential viewers? Probably not.

In the end, we'd see less original programming on cable networks, if they'd even stick around at all. That, or we'd have to pay an unreasonable amount of money for cable channels like say $10/mo+ for the ones we like. (and even then, they'd be even bigger "Top5" recyclers and rerun factories than they already are)

Your bills will not shrink. Your choices will become less, and it definitely won't be a good thing. Yes, you're paying too much for cable, but this is not the way to go.

What we NEED are more cable system operators, more competition and more incentive for cable operators to insist on smaller prices from cable networks and let the market shift prices that way. Unfortunately, we get cable monopolies and inferior competition from satellite providers. I lived in a city that had actual compeition on cable TV. The electric company started running coax along with their electical lines and sold TV/Internet/VOIP at $20/mo less than the cable people. Almost instantly there was real competition, the rates went way down and the services offered increased in quality.

The real evil is government sponsored monopolies on cable TV lines. Prices NEVER go down when you split up a single product into multiple smaller products! Prices go down when there are multiple suppliers of the same product. It's economics people, think about it!

Russ

On a side note would this allow for more content to come through in HD or allow a larger selection of channels if the bandwidth is not all being used up to send all the channels all the time? I am all about it if I could extend my options or open up a larger pipe for my internet connection!

Should we focus all of the hate on the providers for agreeing to the package or the networks for forcing it on the provider or both?

The main reason they do this is because they would loose money if they allowed their customers to select only the channels they want to pay for. I for one would love to see this model, because most of the channels provided are crap.

For my part, I'd like to see both options -- maybe bundles could be a little cheaper than buying channels individually, and (hold onto your hats now) the consumers could pick which option(s) worked for them.

You still have choice though, you could use one of these to watch some internet channels granted its not as fast as normal tv-
[www.freetube.110mb.com]
[www.sopcast.com]
[www.tvants.com]
[www.hulu.com] *i got invites*

Perhaps this was already mentioned and I just missed it, but what about scarce bandwidth on behalf of the cable companies (I know, I know, they just want to screw everyone and they're nasty and mean and evil and just generally icky)? One of the original arguments in favor of bundling was that there's only so much bandwidth to go around, Comcast couldn't afford to lay a pipe - particularly the last mile of pipe to every individual home - big enough to support ala carte pricing on the 2.3 gazillion channels.

Unlike, say iTunes, where the differential cost in hosting another thousand MP3 files is negligible, the differential cost in broadcasting a few more terabytes of programming (per day, give a take a bit) for a channel that maybe .01% of the customer base wants and is willing to pay. My understanding of the prior broadcast model was that the cable was essentially streaming every channel at once to every box, with the box functionally dropping both whatever channel(s) were not authorized and all the other channel s that are not being watched at the time. If that model still holds, then the long tail approach is not particularly attractive to either the Cable companies or the consumer.

Sorry but that is a load. The Jump for Jesus channels PAY to be broadcast. If the cable companies wanted they could offer a la carte packages. Truth is it would cut into the profits of the cable companies.

@Tracy Ham and Eggs:

read what you wrote how am I wrong? The nfl network wants everybody to get it wether you want it or not. The other weay you would get it only if you like sports and order the sports package. So how am I wrong?

IT shows that the content providers are the reason why we cant get alacarte.

Two points here:

The cable companies have figured out how much you're willing to pay each month. Regardless of how you line up the channels, they're going to get their $50-$100 out of you.

Secondly, the same way people (used to) browse a newspaper and would occasionally stumble across an interesting article on a topic they might not normally care about, having a wide selection of channels will mean that occasionally you'll watch a show you might not have normally wanted to see.

A wide choice is not a bad thing.

That being said, who the hell watches QVC?

I still have a moment of shock whenever I see someone's cable bill. How people can be just fine with paying $100+ a month... for television... is beyond me. I can get Netflix, Internet, phone service, library services, and magazines for less than that.

I really hate to beat a dead horse, and I feel I've already posted way more than enough on this topic, but the reason we have those channels like Sci Fi, and The History Channel, and and GAC is because we pay collectively for the broad range of choices. We pitch enough of a fit that they let us pick and choose individually, we lose that collective bargaining power that says "Screw ratings, we want more variety than network TVs give us!" We lose that and it becomes just another ratings based system. And ratings based systems like network tv and traditional radio have consistently cut quality and variety for more listeners and viewers, resulting in less choice and more mainstream fare. I thought the whole reason to buy cable was to get stuff you can't get on network TV because network TV is much more limited in what they can do due to ratings.

I'll stop posting in this thread because I'm just repeating myself. I can understand the initial appeal of a la cart, but it's short sighted. It doesn't take into account that cable companies won't simply let us pay a lot less for fewer channels because they'll have to make up the revenue some. We may get only the channels we want, but the channels will have to cost more to make up for the fact that not everyone gets them, and we risk losing the channels that drew us to cable in the first place.

With all of the advertising on cable TV these days, I wouldn't be surprised if most of the channels that are required to be bundled are given away for free to the cable companies.

the problem is that you want per channel. you should do per show. I highly recommend disconnecting the cable and just get DVDs when they come out. You save time by not channel surfing, no commercials, and then finding better things to do when you have nothing to watch.

Or just go with iTunes for your TV needs.

If you are particularly nefarious, you can just download them off of the torrents... which apparently is the most convenient and "cost effective."

Rig things so you can buy shows as a household, and don't charge us twice if we watch the show twice. If you want to cut down on bandwidth, put a hard disk in the machine (40 GB minimum) and have it download episodes we choose to watch, and allow them to auto-delete like a PVR, with an option to prevent that for convenience sake. Throw in an auto-download feature for nabbing new episodes, and give people one free episode of every show (so they can experience new programming), free access to Local Programming (you know, local access channels), free access to local news shows (like your 6 ABC Action News), some free national news (like your Weekly World News with Charels Gibson, just the shows you already get free over the air, plus probably stuff like debates), and allow shows to sponsor episodes (like the Boscov's Thanksgiving Day Parade, sponsored much in the same way shows are sponsored on iTunes) and rigging up a method for doing live broadcasts.

the problem with that is, the cable co, is never going to allow the pricing system to go down. its only going to go up. they dont want to lose money

Video on Demand for all shows besides Live Shows.

channels should be a thing of the past anyway, we have the technology to do it all on demand.

of course if its all on demand, the pricing much like an a la carte option would only end up costing us more money, like itunes probably 2-5$ a show( if you watch 5 sitcoms at any given time of the year, 1 episode of each a week, 4 episodes of each a month is 20 episodes , thats $2-5 x 20 = $40-100 a month just to watch your favorite 5 shows, now thats 30mins-1hr of shows a day 5days a week, anyone with a tv watches more then 5hrs a week

a la carte: they arent gonna let a channel go for less then 5$ a month, currently i pay 50$ a month for basic cable, that would get me 10 channels at the most

i dont watch much tv, but the shows i do like are spread across every network, jus to help myself count: 14, 15, 21, 23, 31, 34, 37, 38, 39, 42, 43, 53, 55, 56, 62, 66

16 channels id be paying a min. of 80$ @ 5$/channel

its a sad world we live in when people care only about themselves, instead of bettering ourselves as a whole

Try again.

See, I'd want all the ones that come with USA network, but without the USA channel. Seems backwards to me.

I'll just stick to Hulu. I've come to like that site a bit.

But even more than ala carte channels, I want to see competition for cable. One cable company per area is a monopoly. I want to see as many cable companies in an area as the market demands. If cable companies had to really compete for your subscription, watch how fast things like lower prices and ala carte programming come about.

Break up cable!

We ran into issues with Viacom in trying to do a limited deal when MTV first came out to make it a channel that you could chose not to get and thus not have to pay for (We're in the south, people think it's the Devil), but they would have none of it. They even tryed to pull Nick (the only real kids channel at the time) for not carrying MTV, but we called there bluf on that one.

We also had a demonstration of how some of these channels will die if it's a pay for only what you want. When Disney said they wanted to be a basic cable only deal and we could no longer offer it as a premium channel, it was good by to them because there was not enough intrest in the channel to justify making everyone's rates go up to git it if they liked it or not.

With the current analog channels, this isnt going to happen. The filters to notch out individual channels are just too expensive to implimente. Blocks are easy, but if the customer wants ones that are scattered aroun it might cost $5000 in filters just to give them what they want. When the cable systems are allowed to go all digital, this may happen. You'd probably have to pay a $20 access fee to cover basic operational expenses associated with having you as a customer (billing, plant upkeep, ect) that will get you the local channels and ones that the cable company gets for free, can then be able to pick and choose ones past that at a rate reflecting what it's costing the cable company per-customer to server that channel. So, your ESPN will be in the $7 range, while your channel that just runs reruns might be $.10.

And since I have cable, and I'm participating in a cable related discussion, I think I'm fine with over-the-air signals going away.... the cable will still work. :)

The cable company offers us a billion channels I don't want, too, sure. I don't care for golf, ESPN, Weather Channel, or QVC but I like the option of finding new shows that I enjoy. I -need- every channel that shows Law and Order (at least 3 at any given moment), and a wide array of other random shows I like to watch. The cable company that I use is really a pushover about it. If you just tell them you're gonna switch providers they'll take 20 bucks off your bill. I called and told them my mom got cable internet and extended basic tv for 45 dollars, and they said no problem! Of course, she doesn't, but don't tell them.

If you're looking to drop specific sorts of content, what will happen is that you'll have to buy channels by the channel, and you won't see any discounts going that route. In fact, you'll end up paying considerably more per channel doing it that way.

While people like you are screaming whenever you lose another analog channel to digital, the cable companies have plenty more customers who are screaming at them to add more HD or increase internet connection speeds. Unfortunately the pipe can only hold so much (this is Verizon's big advantage with FiOS).

It comes down to a question of economics: who would you risk losing? The customer buying just the basic analog tier at $40 or $50 a month? Or the customer who's got HD everything, is paying you $150-$200 a month and is ready to jump to DirectTV to get more HD channels?

Incidentally, you are aware that your analog TVs won't be able to even receive over-the-air signals from broadcasters without a digital converter after February 2009, aren't you?

Unfortunately, analog TV, for better or for worse (and I personally think that it's considerably for the better, although I understand where you're coming from) is going away.

What the ACA is talking about has more to do with which channels get to go into the most subscribed to tiers. Bug media companies with a lot of channels use their most popular channels to force cable operators to push the media companies' new and/or less popular channels on populars. Companies which own only a single cable channel or two, though, face enormous obstacles on getting cable system owners to place those channels on any tier.

@Com132: I believe that the a la carte option would not be channel by channel, but groups of channels that are offered by the same company as outlined in the article. This would be the only way that the media companies would not loose their less popular channels.

Yes, I'd love to have this kind of setup—I'd probably subscribe to a news tier (CNN, MSNBC, Fox, CBC Newsworld and other foreign sources if I've lucky), some kind of Science/Nature/History/Educational tier (Discovery, History, that sort of thing).

I almost never watch sports on TV, and when I do it's almost always on a broadcast network, so ESPN and the like would go. I don't have kids, so Nickelodeon and the like would go too (although I do enjoy Adult Swim on the Cartoon Network).

The tough one to figure out would be the one-offs...TMC (probably the best thing on cable), Sci Fi, Comedy Central, USA, TV land (I like the classics), BBC America...

-

TBH, I think we're moving away from a model where content is delivered in TV channels and is moving towards an "on demand" setup, ultimately with any show you want available any time you want to watch it (this is obviously where Comcast is heading with the new services announced at CES).

I think we'll see a similar setup in TV to the VoIP market today. Cheaper providers will operate over the public internet delivering content that way (like Vonage does with phone service). But there may be issues with how long it takes a show to download, the quality of that show, etc.

Meanwhile cablecos and telcos will continue to beef up offerings of on demand content, which will provide guaranteed quality with little or no delay while content downloads, just as they offer VoIP with better QoS over their own networks at slightly higher prices.

Charges will probably range from plans that charge by the show to "all you can eat" plans that offer unlimited service. Local stations may continue broadcasting for a while, but eventually they'll move to streaming over the net as well. Tivo and similar devices will be a thing of the past, as will DVDs—you'll just find that classic Doctor Who episode you want to watch and it will stream right then and there.

Just my guess for where things are heading...

What they would need to do, as well as mandating that channels be available individually, would be to set a maximum discount permitted for channel bundles.

That way, companies couldn't charge outrageous prices for individual channels, unless they wanted to price all their customers away, including the ones who actually want the 200 channel package.

Wow , SO i say something thats true and everybody ignores it?

Stop with this cable bashing. The telecom tv, and satellite companies do it also.

Most of you dont seem to know the truth. ITs the content providers that are preventing a-la- carte.

Companies like discovery and NFL Give the providers demands (ex you must carry a certain channel on a certain package or we wont allow you to have our channels)

Dont blame the cable companies. Blame the content providers.

Just look at the nfl network fiasco .that should be proof enough.

The irony of this whole discussion is that each one of you paying for cable television are paying these bums a second imcome for their content. This is the huge scam of this whole enterprise! They are getting paid by the advertisers that slip ads into your "paid" content, then paid by you to watch it. Then they cry because they really want to open up their channel offerings to a a-la carte selection but BIG media won't let them? Puleez. That's the last thing they want because the more channels they force you to channel surf through the more ads you're watching, and the more money they're making from the advertisers.

Free-to-air T.V., sure I can agree to watch ads because I'm getting the content for free but paying someone that is already being paid to distribute it is insane.

@soke2001: No, but they're paying for you to get everything else. Same with the home shopping channels.

@Libertariot: Yeah, all the cool kids are calling it "Fixed News" or "Fox Noise". ;)

Eventually when they move everything I like to the realm of "Above channel 71", I'm sure I'll have to make the switch.

They could always just offer ala carte pricing and force the bundled ones together. Set up some kind of online order form to automatically calculate the dependancies, and just let us pick and choose what we want as long as the dependancies are met.

Let the cable companies make the media companies' annoying bundling transparent. If enough people decide they're willing to forego, say, the Disney channel to not have to pay for ESPN, Disney might just get rid of the bundle.

@braindesign: (crosses off box on Consumerist Meme Bingo card)

Sweet, I'm just one "CREDIT UNIONS!" away from bingo.

Also, what if you actually do watch some of the bundled-in channels? I mean, I probably watch the Discovery-bundled channels more than Discovery Channel proper. And these bundles can't be that binding, as I get Fox Sports, but no Fox Reality, Big Ten Channel, etc. (although we do get Fuel and Fox Soccer channel, we don't get ANYTHING else in that bundle). Does Cox just have incriminating pictures of the Ailes clan?

Every niche channel would always have SOME following that I'm sure a revised pricing structure could accommodate. An extra $5 to $10 a month per channel is $60 to $120 a year more in their pockets, than $0. Even a station with as little as 1000 viewers in a given city/system is sustainable.

As to people being locked in with no reason for expanding: I remember way back when the cable company used to offer "Free HBO Weekends" in an effort to get people to upgrade. If cable companies would reserve 10-15 stations for new and current offerings to be shown in a similar fashion, people will buy and add them.

Everything I posted is freely available on the internet if you look in the right place. I've just taken an interest in educating myself about how the system works. But I'm kind of screwy like that...my idea of a fun way to pass the time is learning about things like SS7 and HFC networks just because I like knowing how the technology works, at least at some level :)

However, I have a sneaking feeling that Food Network would die if a la carte pricing went into effect, and I need my Alton Brown fix.

@WillScarlett: Because then there's more of a chance you'll enjoy all those channels you're paying for. I used to hate bravo, but since they diversified their lineup, I've found great shows like Top Chef and Real Housewives (ok, really great trashy shows... but whatever). Wouldn't it be great if FX had more than a couple really good shows? Or at least re-ran a variety of shows during the off-peak times?

Hm, how about all those GOD channels with preachers and ppl fainting... am I paying for that?

Cablevision keeps taking away stations for people without the box. But I refuse to pay extra just for Soapnet which I had previously gotten included. Bring on ala carte and I can get rid of all these blocks of Spanish stations that I don't watch nor understand.

Everyone else who is yelling "TORRENTS" as if they are the best solution, you are stealing. You are getting your TV for free, but the programs still cost the same amount to produce and distribute. If more people were like you you could kiss those shows you download goodbye, since there would be no profit in it for the networks.

And it feels good.

You want a la carte? Fine. But they won't be priced the same. You want ESPN? Well, that'll cost you some more. But, since you're already paying so much for ESPN, why not get the ESPN package of channels for a little bit more.

Getting just the core channels will end up costing about the same as Basic cable does now. But you'll get NO interesting or niche channels around it. So, you'll pay the same for less product. All so you could have "choice". As soon as they realize what a racket this is, they'll eliminate full packages like they have now and force everyone to buy a la carte because it'll be designed to further maximize revenue.

No thanks. I think the current system is fine and anyone who thinks it *would* be improved through a la carte are unrealisticly optimistic. And probably dirty hippies.

Why is everybody bashing just the cablecompanies, dish network, direct tv,att,and verizon fios tv does the same thing.

@sleepydumbdude:
This is exactly what I do; no cable, just the box seasons. I really wish the ACA would consider this problem with a more serious attitude, though.

@maristcf1:
You must have been out of the inudstry for a while. Fox News is $0.60-0.70/sub/month in most markets, and they're getting about $1/sub/month in renewal contracts.

Also, ESPN2 isn't carried in analog on most systems, but there are very few out there that carry ESPN that don't carry 2 on digital.

Sorry for the repeat posts, but I'm really having a hard time understanding why this idea appeals to people. Do you really think they'll just let you have whatever channels you want and pay less? These are cable companies we're talking about. In fact, I bet they love this idea, and it's the content providers that are keeping them from doing it. This would be a huge boon for them. Offer fewer channels and charge everyone more for them. When people start crying that their favorite channel got shitcanned because not enough people wanted it, they won't even care.

Ala Carte, baby. I bet there are dozens of channels that would wind up only charging 25 cents a month. Competition WORKS.

For example, on Mythbusters (or really any Discover show), each segment goes something like this:

- The narrator recaps everything that has happened so far
- The hosts discuss what they've done
- They do the next step
- Narrator gives a "coming up next" teaser
- Go to commercials (most of which are for other shows on one of the bundled networks. To me that suggests that they aren't able to sell their existing adspace, so why make 4x as much? But I digress).

After the commercial, the cycle repeats. In the end, the show has maybe 15 minutes of interesting content, but they pad, recap, tease, and repeat it until they fill an hour (OK, 45 minutes not counting commercials). What should be a half hour show is stretched to an hour. They double their amount of programming for free.

Then spill it over to create a new channel, and force the cable cos to bundle it. Ad infinitem.

Meanwhile shows become watered down versions of themselves, barely worth watching without a DVR to skip over the filler.

iTunes TV downloads are looking more and more appealing every day.

My question for the media/distribution companies is: How many commercial-free channels do I get ? The answer is NONE. That mean I'm paying for something that's already paid for unless the 'content' distributors are really stupid. So the basic bundle is mainly the pre-paid channels, maybe with more commercial interruption, that play repeats of previously aired content. I think it also means that 'content' creation and distribution is just a circular process for getting subscriber money... the sure sign of non-competitive monopoly.

We will eventually get to completely ala carte programming. Get away from 'channels' all together. A lot of people watch shows on dvd or pay per watch on the internet anyway. If you do this, you don't even need cable or the networks. Much the way youtube works except with more defined pathways to make navigation easier.
Watching shows on the internet (with much improved speed, quality and reliability) is the future of television.

Just a couple of comments. First, I worked for a large cable channel for 4 years dealing with the contracts that they made with the cable carriers so I am well aware of the issues above. For the most part they are true, many channels try to bundle, but the media company doesn't have to accept those terms and can still carry the channel. As an example I have Comcast expanded basic cable. I receive ESPN and ESPN2, and no other ESPN channels. According to the article above in order to get ESPN, I have to get all of them, NOT TRUE! Check your own tv, its probably similar. As far as going a la carte or something like that the only thing I have to offer that debate is this example. Fox News Channel charges 0.01 or 0.02 cents a subscriber (public information and may be slightly higher now). Lets say it goes a la carte, and you want that channel, now for Fox to make ends meet instead of charging pennies they charge you $5.00 (bc far fewer people want the channel than actually get it now). And for arguments sake, lets say all channels cost $5.00 (a la carte), now you want the 13 most "desirable" channels, your now spending $65 a month, which is a little more than an average expanded basic cable package. So for a little more money you'll only get 13 channles instead of 60-70. This all before you figure in HD, DVR's, On Demand... Just some food for thought.

I'll stick with my Pansat to test all the channels I want, when I want, how I want.

Cable can offer a wider variety than network TV because they don't have to rely entirely on ratings for any one of its individual channels. They can keep carrying the niche channels that they wouldn't otherwise because the small viewership is made up for in revenues that are spread out. A la cart basically lets customers vote with their dollars and becomes another ratings system, and cable companies will indeed dump the channels with smaller viewership. There's no incentive for them not to. They'll just hike the prices on the remaining popular channels. So, we'll all pay pretty much the same, but have far less choice. That is why a la cart is a bad idea to anyone that values a broader range of choices outside the mainstream. And I could be wrong, but I think a major reason why people get cable is because they want something that network TV doesn't offer. Why dump a system that allows for a broad range of choices for one that offers fewer, for little or no financial gain?

I know that the cable companies actually detest when the larger media companies (i.e. Discovery Networks) pull the "You have to offer the Discovery XXX Channel in order to get the actual Discovery Channel at a rate that won't be outrageous" bit. I have been in many a meeting where the blow ups were quite huge. The only saving grace is that some companies will allow them to put them on higher digital tiers so that all consumers will not have to pay for it - only the ones that want it. Cable companies have been fighting the fight for years about this, and there have been many public disputes over this (Big 10, Disney).

I believe that the a la carte option would not be channel by channel, but groups of channels that are offered by the same company as outlined in the article. This would be the only way that the media companies would not loose their less popular channels.

PS - when I left the cable company, I actually ditched cable all together and now have a set of rabbit ears! My life is so much simpler.

@Tracy Ham and Eggs: The difference between Fox News and every other news channel is that Fox News tries to pass its opinionated rants off as news, and oftentimes blatantly fudges facts and makes up sources.

Keith Olbermann is considered an editorial program, and everyone knows it. People watch Bill O'Reilly like it was news.

I'm not a shill for cable companies by any means. They pretty much suck, and if it weren't for two or three niche channels I like, I'd dump them. But, I do like the ability to buy those channels for the quality programming they offer, and I'd hate to see them ditched because the whole system went the way of network TV. I'm willing to buy into a collective group of channels in order to get it.

i wouldn't believe what either of them said
(force of habit with cable company)

These are the cable channels I watch

Lifetime (for Will & Grace and Frasier)
USA
TBS
Weather Channel
HGTV
TLC
MTV
VH1
E!
History Channel
Cartoon Network
Discovery Channel
Comedy Central
G4 TV
BBC America

ok, so 15 not 8 or 9, but still If I pay 5 bucks a month for each channel I'm ahead.

Whats everyones problem with Fox News? They seem about as biased as every other news network.

ORielly=Olberman
Is it just they arent biased the same way you whiners are?

As for the Shopping and Religious channels, I actually think they pay the cable networks to be on the basic tier, so if the companies let you cut them you would probably wind up paying more.

Here're some related questions: would you pay for each individual show (or channel) to have it donwloaded to your local device (PC, Tivo, whatever)? How much per month? What about accepting advertising within that download? Even if it's theoretically non-skippable?

If so, then perhaps the producers of content can be enticed to offer more shows that way.

Just saying that more than likely if you like things other than the most popular channels there is a good chance that ala carte will be bad for you. Even if you only like the most popular channels I'm betting your overal rate wont change much as they will be priced to be revenue neutral.

Pretty simple . . . . having dealt with these dinosours before. Because we allow them to. Because the CEO's of these companies are major contributors to presidential campaigns.

I know . . . . Its all Bush's fault! That's it. It's all because of Bush.

Frankly, requiring Ala Carte programming is stupid, but they should offer it. However, don't be surprised if getting just the Disney channel is 90% the cost of getting the Disney channel package. And also be prepaired for no new networks to appear without major hassle and some networks with niche viewership but high subscribership disappear. Poor Sci-Fi Channel.

If you really want to learn about Cable TV pricing, read into the NFL Network vs. Time Warner battle and read up on Time Warner being a utility and Content provider.

.

I would like to opt out of paying for CMT, FAUX NEWS, QVC, GOD CHANNELS 1-25, LOS ESTACIONES ESPANOL, BET, ETC, ETC. there are 8 or 9 cable channels I actually watch, and would love ala carte cable to get rid of the 130 I DON'T WATCH, EVER.

i'll add my two cents.....i would like to be able to choose my channels......if we could choose, the broadcasters would probably have to up the quality of their offerings cause of the competetion for our buck....

I've been cable-free for over a year. I miss certain shows and channels. But most networks are providing their shows on their website for free. And most shows are released on DVD after the season is over. And then there's bit torrent. Thank goodness for the internet! :-)

@Pithlit: Well let me put it this way. I pay $90 a month for basic cable with HBO and the HD tier. HBO costs $12 a month. The 2 boxes cost $16 a month total. HD tier costs $5. That means I'm paying $57 for basic cable.

Back in the day, basic cable meant basic cable. You didn't pay much, and you didn't get much. Now you have to pay more, and you end up with a lot more, most of it garbage. Instead, what if I could pay $20 for basic cable that included maybe 30 channels and take it from there?

Again, I don't mind paying $5 for a bundle of channels - that's closer to a la carte pricing than anything else - it's the absence of choice when it comes to buying a basic cable package.

There were a few short weeks of withdrawal symptoms, but apart from having to go to a friend's house to see the occasional live sporting event, and not seeing episodes of Lost or Prison Break until a few months after they've aired (when I can get them from Netflix), I now never look back. And I've got $100+ more in my checking account each month.

In fact when I do see ordinary commercial TV these days, it's kinda hard to take, what with the commercials, the breathless news teasers, the ticker at the bottom of the screen and the logos and icons in the corners. Even if you're a savvy media consumer you can't completely tune that stuff out, and after you'e been out of the constant barrage for a while you realize how accustomed you'd let yourself get to its noxious presence, like an ex-smoker finally realizing how much his clothes have been stinking all along.

Add to that the various ways in which the big media companies are screwing with our democracy and I wouldn't give them my money even if I wanted to.

You couldn't pay me to go back! Try it for a month yourself. If you really can't live without cable, don't worry: your provider will be clamoring to get your business back, sending you better and better discount offers. But my guess is you'll throw 'em right in the trash like I do and wonder what ever took you so long.

They canceled my HBO2 and HBO3 and gave me the Home Shopping Network and the Disney Channel instead.

Those bastards.

If you want: Discovery Channel
You get: FitTV, Animal Planet, TLC, Travel, BBC America, Discovery Kids, Science Channel, Discovery Channel, Discovery Health, Discovery Home

Looks good from here, how do I drop the others?

Disney Toon HD? Huh?

@braindesign:
Is the air that much thinner up there on your high horse?

For a good example, there's been a lot of complaining about the shopping channels. The shopping channels typically don't charge a rate to be carried, but are instead paying to be carried. Choosing to drop these channels from your lineup would actually increase your bill, rather than decrease it. Having those shopping channels means a lower bill for you, and it does NOT mean that you're paying for them, but rather that they are paying for you to have either cheaper rates or more channels available, in the hope that you might watch and buy something from them.

Niche channels like Sci-Fi don't charge much of a fee, but their small fee is precisely because it's bundled with other, more popular networks, like USA, who are owned by the same company. The fees for those channels would skyrocket under an a-la carte system, and the high fees would likely mean that so few people are willing to pay that much for the channel that the channel eventually goes under.

Sure, if you don't like arts and crafts, you're subsidizing the arts and crafts channels you don't like. But somewhere out there, there's someone on your cable system who's a fan of the arts and crafts channels, but isn't a fan of the history channels that you like, and they're subsidizing those channels for you. By keeping a wide base subscribed to a wide variety of channels, everyone gets the best rates. Once you lose that, rates will go up on everyone across the board.

A-la carte pricing would be a disaster if you value the wide range of programming available on cable. If you just want safe, sterile programming for the masses, stick to the networks or the most basic of basic cable lineups, and leave the pricing scheme for the rest alone for those of us who enjoy having a range of programming available.

Get off the couch and you might discover (much to your horror!) that not only are you not alone on this continent, most people are not like you. They actually have likes and dislikes completely different from yours!!

I know, I know, it's quite a stretch for you to believe that at this point. Trust me, it's true. Go outside and check for yourself.

Netflix, DSL, and Bittorrent FTW!

@Buckler: I know, my attitude totally destroyed TV. It's not because Networks discovered they could make tons of money by not paying actors or writers. Because Bravo isn't overloaded with shitty reality shows or anything.

And too bad my attitude destroyed shows like 30 Rock. Yeah, I mean, there's nothing on TV at all anymore because everyone wants Dancing with the Stars.

@Buckler: Uh, yeah. It's my "personal preference" that doesn't want a cable package designed to have something for everyone but offers very little to anyone. I don't necessarily think that every channel should be a la carte. I DO think that basic cable shouldn't have 130 channels that I have to pay $60 for, or no cable at all. If I want one niche channel and have to pay $5 for a bundle of them, fine. But don't make me pay for MULTIPLE religious, shopping, and Spanish channels that I want NONE of.

"Hello, I just turned on my TV and all I have is Oxygen and the Home Shopping Network"
"Sir, according to our records, that's what you ordered. If you want to change your plan, it will be a one time fee of $59.95, and a technician will be there in five to ten weeks to perform the swap."
"..."

@TheUncleBob: Amen, Uncle. (Increased) government regulation will only screw this system up worse.

And while I'm thankful for the advice from the "turn it off and liiiiiivvvveee, maaaannn" crowd, their point does make sense for those who don't want to watch FOX News - don't most cable boxes let you block unwanted channels?

Which, unfortunately, is I why I suffer from a certain amount of cognitive dissonance regarding the whole issue.

@vermontwriter:

You'd still get all the shopping channels - they actually pay the cable and satellite companies for carriage.

The cable companies could make a KILLING if they switched to a la carte services like iTunes and XBOX Live.

I've lived without cable for over 2 years now and only watch what's available on DVD, through iTunes or on my 360. I did a price comparison between my current media consumption and the equivilant if I had cable and it comes out about the same (around $60/mo) PLUS I get the benefits of:
- no commercials
- only being exposed to programming that is of the highest quality or entertainment value (based off reviews, recommendations, etc... and if I'm unsure I can just rent it)
- no "hidden fees", rate hikes, channel package changes, annual contract, etc...
- I can back everything up on DVD or an external HDD to take with me (WITHOUT paying for TiVo)

And most importantly: I'm ALWAYS in control (priceless)

And BOY, did that work out for the music industry or WHAT?

> Give consumers what they want, at reasonable prices, or watch your business evaporate.

And, I have less problems (problems, but LESS) with similarly-positioned channels on a tier than the forced genre programming. I'd like to nuke all Family stuff (no kids), all Fox stuff (no starched brown shirts in closet), sports stuff (I play, not watch), no religious stuff (not into buying preachers' Rolls Royces or seeing a President Huckabee) or shopping (I don't buy crap).

Which is a related problem, but different.

For me, it is all the home shopping channels. I counted them this morning - Dish Network added a couple new ones in my area.

I now have 14 home shopping channels. Two of them are repeated in the lower numbers as well. I can't imagine anyone needs that many channels!

My other beef are all the religious channels. I understand that somewhere they have viewers, but I'm not one of them and all 8 seem like a huge waste of space.

Right. Because personal preferences are irrelevant, and programming that appeals to other-than-mainstream tastes should simply die on the vine. This attitude is what led to "Dancing With the Stars" and "Your-Favorite-Humiliate-This-Week's-Loser-And-Exclude-Them-From-The-Group" shows.

There is value in buying into that variety so you can watch those niche channels, even if you don't watch every single one of them. That's what higher tier cable is about. If you just want to watch the popular shows that exists to appeal to the broadest audience possible, why not save your money and just get basic cable for the network channels?

@Pithlit: I don't understand why people are upset about this whole "But my Sub Saharan Africa Documentary channel will go away!!!"

If not enough demand is created to keep a channel afloat, then the channel probably shouldn't exist in the first place. The only reason it does exist is so the parent company could force it to be bundled with a bigger channel and extort more money from the cable company. You will see me playing the world's smallest violin on the day "CMT Pure Country" goes dark.

Why do all these forums go off topic onto politics? We don't care what you think of Fox News or Current TV.

If nothing else, I'd like to see regulatory changes made to stop media companies from forcing packages. At least we might see some savings from satellite/cable competition that way. (Although we'd all be better off if there were more TV providers to choose from)

Why not pay by the hour?
Maybe by the hour with price by show?

My TV bill would be about $10/month then.

Never happen.

@Hossofcourse: Probably around $750 a month. That includes granting every single person access to every single camera that's turned on at any given moment in the country.

We all want the cable companies to "stand up to" the media companies, but I think we're missing whats going on here. These groups are two parts of the same drug operation, and we are the addicts. They might occasionally fight over their cut of the profits, but they certainly aren't going to change their basic business model as long as we keep coming back for a fix. We're hoping they'll sell us less product because we're trying to cut back, but *they don't want us to use less!* The only thing that's going to get their attention is if we start quitting cold turkey.

That being said, I use OTA digital TV exclusively, and I would love to be able to pay, say, $10/month just to supplement that with ESPN and ESPN2. Because man, I gotta have my college football fix!

I wonder what the cost would be if they took the internet approach and gave everthing to everyone. Seems to me that part of the cost of cable is the technology and labor it takes to provide customized access.

I canceled my cable subscription for two years in protest over the fact that I could not get a la carte programming.

I told Time Warner that I wanted *exactly two* channels -- Showtime and HBO -- and they quoted me a price that was higher than the bundled "package" of 1000+ channels.

I agree with the comment above that media and cable companies will not voluntarily take this action. LET'S ALL BOYCOTT CABLE FOR ONE YEAR TO SEND A MESSAGE!

Outside of that I have no intention of paying any money. So if I could get those for $30 a month instead of having to pay $50 for the whole deal - they'd be getting $30 a month instead of $0 a month from me.

So - if enough consumers are like me, they will indeed fit this package because as-is they are getting $0 as opposed to $30 even though they really want $50. Better to get $30 than $0.

(actually of course I wouldn't, but the idea of not even having Faux News sent to me is a nice thought)

Do you honestly think for a second that the monopolies that are our cable companies would ever do anything to change their pricing that would be a benefit to the consumer?

They are looking for ways to increase their revenues, not lower them...

@harshmellow: Yes. I currently have over 10 religious channels, 15 shopping channels, and almost 20 Spanish language channels. I even have three Korean channels. I want none of them. I'm annoyed they're even on my lineup, and I have to scroll through them.

I don't want change, there is no way changing this will benefit customers it will make all tv service just go up as a whole.

Price per channel would certainly go up, yes. I'm not convinced that the average cable bill would, though. Additionally, the costs to the cable/sat provider to carry all of these channels no-one wants would go away, and the market would dictate what got carried in their stead.

I recently had to upgrade to get a channel I wanted and already had (National Geographic), because my provider wanted to move Fox Sports up a notch to make room for another sports channel. I don't give a rats ass about sports, and I find it very irritating that this bundling/tying practice pushed me into an upgrade.

Ultimately, it cost someone else, though, because I dropped premium channels to make up the difference in the bill.

A la carte pricing ain't gonna happen in any meaningful way until Congress steps in and amends the Communications Act to do away with local cable franchising. Because local franchising authorities tend to set the rules for your particular cable TV provider (or competing providers, if you're in a pro-competition jurisdiction), there's literally a crazy-quilt of services and pricing offered by various cable companies; even by the same company in adjacent municipalities. My city requires half a dozen "local access" channels (a waste of broadband and money if such a thing ever existed) and a U.N.'s worth of narrow-interest foreign language programming on the basic tier. Neither Verizon's FiOS nor RCN want to comply with these requirements, so we're stuck with Comcast or satellite dishes hanging from our apartment windows for video programming, whereas the neighboring towns a few blocks over offer both competing providers. I'd much rather not have to subsidize the "local access" hobbyists and foreign language programming just because I am paying to watch sports and movies at home. And now that I can get uncompressed HD on the major networks and PBS over the air with my 80s-era antenna, why should I have to pay extra because someone *requires* the cable system to carry (and pay for) that content?

I don't watch a great deal of TV, but what I do watch generally ends up running the entire spectrum of what I currently am offered. I watch ABC, NBC, Fox, CBS, ESPN, Nickelodeon, MTV, Spike TV, MyNetwork, WB, FX, USA, Sc-Fi, CSN, Comedy Central, MSNBC, VH1, E!, HBO, Showtime, Fuse, IFC, Bravo, Versus, etc....

So I watch way too many different stations to say I'd want to only pay for the channels I watch, because there's a little of something for me on almost every channel.

Now if this type of service were available for Sirius Radio, yeah, I'd choose it, because I listen to MAYBE 20 different channels.

@JustAGuy2:
Sci-Fi wouldn't die, the people who watch it do so religiously.

I miss the days when the channels you got depended on your level of ingenuity in augmenting your rabbit ears.

If you have to subscribe to every channel, advertising dollars will go down and exciting new series will never be attempted, or will be ignored. I'm no scifi geek, but Tin Man really interested me, for example. If I had my way I would have never ordered Bravo, and would not know the greatness that is Top Chef.

There's a good reason for bundling, and limiting the selection offered in "basic" seems like a terrible idea to me.

Comedy Central
Cartoon Network
Sci-Fi Channel

I dont even scan anything else.

Sucks though we just lost Comedy Central East on C-Band on the west coast. That makes me a sad panda - I used to be able to watch brand new south park at 7pm!

BTW Satellite service is the same - all bundles.

@CurbRunner:

Fox News would do fine in an a la carte world - they've got the best ratings. CNN would feel more of an effect, and Current TV would be toast, as would a lot of smaller channels: SciFi's gone, BET's history, so are Oxygen (most likely) and possibly Lifetime. TNT should be fine, as should TBS. ESPN would likely make even more money.

I would consider less "desirable" channels if they were offered at a lower rate. It would be great if I could just go online and change around my channel lineup each month.

It'll never happen though. They want us to pay through the nose, even when programming sucks (summertime). No thanks, I'll keep Netflix and save a great heaping wad of cash.

i would love a la carte. i only watch 7 channels. paying $32 a month for that ability has been difficult, but paying $54 will be even more difficult when my discount expires in the next month or so. considering dropping to the basic channels at $12 a month.

screw tv.

First of all, if a channel can't survive based on ala carte pricing, maybe it SHOULDN'T. Obviously it's got some sort of faulty business model or programming model or whatever they call it in the industry. It's either not appealing to enough consumers or it's not advertising itself enough, or well enough. When shows can be bought or moved to another network to stay alive, why keep a whole channel around?

Secondly, you CAN live without your "favorite" niche channel. I used to love Sundance, but when I stopped getting it, imagine that, life went on. Until I saw it on the list again, I'd forgotten about it.

Would I pay to get it back? Sure, at per-channel pricing. Would I be willing to tier or bundle it? No.

Whatever you're watching just one show of, you'd be amazed to learn what you can live without. Seriously.

With TV and movies on instant, cheap download from the internet I think cable needs to adapt or die. Per channel pricing should be the way to go but change is always hard. Maybe by the time I'm 50?

What I'd like to see is the ability to make MONTHLY changes to your per-channel pricing. If you know Sundance is running something good the next three months, add it on. If you discover that FX isn't as entertaining as you thought it was based on two shows, ditch it. If the cable companies charge a fee for these changes, I'm sure it'd make up for the cost of someone, somewhere, pressing a button on a computer.

If so, tell the right hand man that I want to watch "To Catch A Predator" on all my televisions, not just my digital connected one.

Everyone is all "I shouldn't have to pay for channels I don't want."

Yet, it's my understanding that you don't have to subscribe to cable or satellite in the first place.

If you're unhappy with the service you're being provided, then stop giving them money. Unless enough people stand up and stop giving in, nothing will change.

Those of you who are foolish enough to think the government will be able to stop this, you're living in a fantasy world. If they even did stop the bundling, you'd just end up paying around the same price for less channels.

Better change that "Discovery Health" to "Oprah Health" or whatever shes going to call the soon failed channel.

As for 'I don't want to flip through too many channels'. I can't speak for your television, but on mine, I can deprogram stations. I haven't seen Golf Network or Weather Channel, or shopping, for years.

I read somewhere that the reason why the govt won't force cable companies to offer a la carte plans is because of the religious channels. The owners of the religious channels know that many, if not MOST, people would dump these in a heartbeat. Fools like Pat Robertson and the like have such sway with legislators that they don't "go there" and introduce a bill that allows us to choose the channels we want to pay for.

The cable company is well aware that you get basic basic cable along with internet service. That's why they charge you more for your internet if you don't subscribe to cable TV. In many parts of the country, you actually come out ahead if you "go legit" and actually subscribe to your basic cable TV.

@Eury: I don't quite get it. I get USA but Comcast has taken my MSNBC and placed it on digital. What gives?

This is a separate issue. Comcast is moving channels off analog and onto digital as fast as they can in order to free up more spectrum on the coax coming into your house (digital channels take up far less frequency "space" than analog channels). They're doing this to free up space to offer more HD channels, get ready for DOCSIS 3.0, etc.

Great for the folks who subscribe to premium services, not so much for folks who only want the basics. Guess which group is more profitable.

Of course, I want my HD and my faster internet, so I'm happy with this shift; it benefits me.

The cable companies may not be able to offer more specific genre packs but having all the basic channels for $50-70 is much better than have 20-30 ( even if they are the "only" channels you watch ) channels for the same price because you all know there wouldn't be a cheaper offer for less channels ( it just doesn't make business sense) .

We shouldn't even have channels anymore! How many of the shows on any given channel do you actualyl watch?

Eventually it's all going to be on demand anyway.

How much will that be?

Time to just cancel. Period.

The will not pass that choice onto you. The will simply use it as bargaining leverage with the content providers, to their benefit. Not yours.

Let's not forget, you're just the end user. The one who pays for it. You mean nothing in this equation.

'twould make flipping so much faster!

In order to get DIY, Sundance, IFC, BBC America, History International we have to pay for digital and the hundred or so versions of ESPN and other unwatched crap.

We watch about 20 channels total between everyone in our house. I would be all about buying blocks of channels and then getting to pick what is in those blocks or some other form of ala carte.
It sounds like we need to go after the media companies first and the cable providers after that.

Cable companies should tell the channel bundlers "take the shit channels out now and lower the price, or we won't carry you at all." But they will only do this if consumers continue to push - HARD - for some type of protective legislation. Never count on the cable/satellite companies or channel bundlers to do ANYTHING in the consumers' best interests. Force this issue!

An even better solution is a Free to air satellite.

Pull the plug on your cable company. It's your money, and you're their bitch.

I'm tired of paying for hundreds of channels that do not intrest me at all.

Why should I pay extra money for the benefit of a handful people I don't know or care about just so that they can watch a channel I think is stupid?

Answer: I shouldn't.

So, the channels which are "treasures" to the majority of people will get to stay, and those that arn't will stop bogging down the system.

Out of the 71 channels I get (including locals), I only need to flip through the 25 or so I actually watch.

I'm with others that worry that channels like Sundance, Indie, FX, etc. will disappear as they cater to a narrow audience. Perhaps a higher a la carte rate for some of these "niche" channels will give them the almightly dollar and keep them in business. I scare myself when I consider how much I'd be willing to pay for "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia."

I can't be the only person who watches the Law and Order Channel - er, TNT.

Question about the tier stuff: My cable company has Discovery Channel in its basic lineup. Does that mean I'm supposed to be getting all the other channels listed above in the basic lineup, or do they just have to be part of "some package" somewhere in their offerings (eg. Silver package, Gold Package)?

@brent_w: One man's trash (network) is another man's treasure (network).
@kidgenius: That would be perfect, obviously if you don't have kids then getting rid of the whole kid "tier" would be a great way to save money. Similarly, for people who wouldn't normally have cable, but have kids, they would be attracted to just signing up for the kid tier. Everyone wins.

I only watch about 10% of the channels I get. So yeah, it seems like a huge waste of bandwidth and money.

I would like the idea of a la carte cable in theory, assuming it would save me money. But I agree with those who point out that small channels might suffer. I'm a big fan of History International (although I don't get it now because we downgraded our cable package). But with a la carte cable, I would bet on that channel not getting enough buy-ins and going under. Sure, it's the law of supply and demand at work, but perhaps losing a small but quality channel can be avoided somehow.

Perhaps something like what @bladefist suggested would be a decent compromise.

As it is, I wonder if all the cable companies will start losing customers after the big switch to digital next year. I live close enough to Boston that I can pick up HDTV over the air from all the major networks with an antenna sitting on top of my tv. With cable tv prices going up every year, more and more garbage filling the channels, and their customer service as lousy as ever, I'm very tempted to give up on cable entirely and go back to the days of just having ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, etc. It's probably just a matter of time before you start seeing more and more antennas popping up in the neighborhoods surrounding major cities where HDTV over-the-air signals are strong.

CANCEL THE CABLE ENTIRELY AND TURN THE IDIOT BOX OFF

@8abhive: The cable company/big media collusion is a perfect example of a free market in action.

I'm all for kicking the media companies in the face with some legislation and forcing a reasonable pricing model.

One which will ultimately lead to garbage channels going down the tubes permanently and forcing real and channels to actually compete with decent programming for customers.

I live in Columbus Ohio and that bullshit big10network wanted to be forced into the basic package and spread the price hike across everybody.

One of the cable companies tried to stand up to them, and the media company launched a mud slinging campaign on TV and the radio trashing the cable company. The cable company fought fire with fire and we had a couple months of political-esque mud slinging ads berating us from all angles.

When you get right down to it though, the cable company was right, and everyone should not be forced to pay for a one channel that only some people are going to watch.

I want to pick and choose what I want to watch! I go to McDonald's and order a cheese burger for .99 cents. They don't make me order a "McBundle" for $6.99 and throw in a lot of "McOtherStuff" they normally can't sell.

Drop the collusion, let the customers decide, and then maybe we'll have an example of a free market in action.

Taking this a step further, why should I have to pay for an entire channel that shows a ton of crap when I really just want to watch one or two shows? Right now my options are to wait until things are released on DVD (this takes too long), hope that it's available via iTunes or the network's website, or download it via torrent.

I'm just waiting for the day when every channel/series/episode is available to purchase on an individual basis.

@masonreloaded: True. I'd hate to see a good channel like FX go down because their brand only caters to a narrow audience. Then again, that's how HBO and Showtime have to make a living. Maybe we'd see a little more diversity within each channel? That would be nice.

Likely it would be sold in packages. A package of 10 channels would be 15$, pick 10. Etc.

Patent Pending.

So until they get it straight and let me pay for what I want and not a lot of other stuff too? I guess I'll keep my money.

What a great article. Just the other day I received a thicker-than-normal bill from ComCast. It seems that they are raising their rates again and included in my bill was an explanation and breakdown of all the changes, costs, channels, etc. I skimmed over the bill, looking for anything interesting, and noticed a section that read 'A La Carte choices'. Wow, right?!?! I sat there thinking how much less my cable bill would be next month after I went through and selected the handful of channels I wanted. But alas...it seems that ComCast hasn't fully grasped the concept of 'A La Carte'. It's simply a marketing ploy for picking-and-choosing which upper-tier viewing package you want to select and pay for. Nice try, ComCast. Your bait-and-switch almost worked.

(This is my first post...I've been lurking here for months. LOVE the site and occassionally send links to friends, etc. Thanks!)

I would be willing to pay $1.00 per channel that I watch per month. Any channel that I flip the channel to and watch for more than 5 minutes in the month would add a $1.00 to my bill. Seems fair to me!

The current system spreads the money out over the channels a bit more and probably props up some channels that, given true consumer choice, wouldn't actually be profitable.

There's no way that would ever happen without some iTunes-ish pricing scheme (2.99/month per channel). There are a ton of channels that I watch only one show on (SoapNet for 90210, FX for Nip/Tuck) so I'm not sure how interested I would be. Besides, I got a pretty good deal with a local cable provider that gets me almost everything for 29.99/month

It would be sweet as hell if I pay a fee per channel and only get the ones I want to see. If you think about it, most poeple pay atleast 50$ a month for cable. 25 channels until your up to your normal rate. I need about 5 channels. Not too many people would need more then 25.

Media companies would never allow this. I'd pay a 20$ surcharge to not get ESPN and CNN. Just knowing those channels arent floating out there on my copper wires would make me feel better.