Digital Domain

By Alex Stamatovich

February 10, 2006 02:42 PM | Link to this

Yes, I’d love to be able to choose. Kroger lets me buy just the food I want, so why can’t I buy just the channels I want. With all the “on demand” technology, clearly this can be done. The hunger for corporate profits will be the only thing keeping the status quo. Corporate America only wants a “free market” when it benefits THEM, never when it benefits the consumer! Do away with ALL cable-related monopolies and give consumers REAL freedom of choice!

By D

February 10, 2006 03:37 PM | Link to this

Its a great idea, but I have one worry. There may be some channels I watch only occasionally but really like having. If subscribers pay only fro what they watch “most of the time” those channels watched occasionally might be out of business next time you want to tune in. By spreading the cable dollar, marginal performers can still provide niche programming riding on the coat tails of giants like ESPN and Disney.

By Statmike

February 10, 2006 04:29 PM | Link to this

Kroger does not let you buy just the food you want. Try buying just 1 hot-dog bun or just 4 slices of bread. Just like intelligence: the sum of the channels ($) would be greater than the whole.

By E. Lewis

February 10, 2006 04:29 PM | Link to this

I would be will to pay more per channel for the channels I watch than the rate I am paying now. As it is I am supporting better than half a dozen sports channels that I don’t watch. I have no children so I would just assume not to pay for those channels either. I am a devout member of a religion and attend church regularly, so I don’t need all those preachers on my television. I don’t like to hunt or fish so those outdoor channels can go to.

I would prefer to subsidize the programming I like and not have to give my $$$ to all those others. I think most people would agree even those sports or hunting nuts (I use the term affectionately) who have never seen an episode of the original series of ‘Coupling’ or ‘The Office’.

By Vincent T. Bell

February 10, 2006 04:33 PM | Link to this

Statmike - bad analogy! How about going to Kroger and finding that you couldn’t just buy hotdog buns - that you had to buy buns, the dogs, mustard, jar of relish, and a six-pack of beer?

That’s Cable.

-Vin

By Vincent T. Bell

February 10, 2006 04:36 PM | Link to this

Making it a la carte would be great.

You could choose a channel package if you like, just like today.

But if you prefer, you wouldn’t have to. Granted the sum of the a la carte price would be much larger than a package with the same line-up. But if I could save even a few dollars a month and STILL get the same channels I watch, then it’s a no-brainer!

-Vin

By dale

February 10, 2006 04:46 PM | Link to this

great idea.out of all the channels offered i watch maybe 8. they should charge $1 per channel and that would satisfy all of the customers and it would also keep them from switching providers. EXCELLENT IDEA !!!!

By William McDowell

February 10, 2006 07:23 PM | Link to this

I recently udgraded to HDTV (high definition television) and my local cable provider provides 11 channels of HDTV. I called my cable provider to inquire about adding the other 4 premium channels (HBO, Cinemax, Showtime, and Starz) they offer in HDTV but was informed that in order to receive the other 4 premium HDTV channels was only included when you buy the premium channel packages which consist of 39 “movie” channels I would never buy. Cost to receive additional 4 channels of HDTV from cable provider = $40 extra per month!!

By Gael

February 10, 2006 07:26 PM | Link to this

I have been asking about this for years! I would rid myself of all the shopping stations, religious stations, and local government stations and all foreign speaking stations. That must cover a zillion stations already huh? I also think that the consumer should have their pick of any particular telphone options also. I hate paying for a ‘package’ just to get one or two options.

By Patrick

February 11, 2006 05:05 AM | Link to this

Choose my own? ABSOLUTELY! I spend $90 a month with DirecTV. I bet a fair amount of that goes to pay for channels I’m stuck with.

First to go away would be all the expensive ESPN channels (there are four or five of them, they alone are probably $15-20 of my monthly bill and I never watch them), the NFL channel, The NCAA channels, the Golf channel, the horse race betting channel, the multiple shopping channels, the endless church channels, G4, Spike, the music video channels that never actually play music videos, the “reality TV” and Soap channels, and let me reject all the local Atlanta channels too, other than PBS.

I’d keep A&E, the Discovery suite of channels, NGC, History, DIY, Food, HGTV, Style (it’s not bad, really), AMC, the news channels, Boomerang, and maybe a few others.

What’s REALLY got me stoked is IPTV. I finally got around to hooking my PC up to the TV and now I can watch internet TV just as easily as satellite, and more inportantly, it’s offering me solid content like ZD’s “Digital Life TV” that just isn’t on satellite. Combine the power to choose the content you want with the free/lower cost of IPTV and it means the cable and satellite companies and the satellite channels should be worried.

By Documentme

February 11, 2006 09:13 AM | Link to this

I watch 6 channels i’d love ala cart. Any given season its never more than 10 channels.

At 13 cents per channel… oooohh shivers

By anita j

February 11, 2006 09:30 AM | Link to this

I too, have been begging for this for a long time. I abhor subsidizing channels like the BET or spanish language channels. It would be ok if they offered WET or some such thing but its all very discriminatory now. Only channels I would pay for are the sci-fi and science channels. The rest is propaganda for the masses and pedestrian crowd.

By James McCoy

February 11, 2006 10:51 AM | Link to this

I would love to choose my channels,there ten channels that I watch on a regular basis,with C-Span being the most watch. I use to be a big fan of CNN but it’s gotten just as bad as FOX News.

By George Weaver

February 11, 2006 10:56 AM | Link to this

Everyone should be able to choose the channels they want. Not to allow this is anti-competitive and should be considered an unlawful tying arrangement (like forcing you to buy a washing machine if you buy a dryer). I don’t want to pay for channels we never use and I don’t want my kids stumbling across inappropriate channels that I don’t want in my house.

By SM

February 11, 2006 11:21 AM | Link to this

Anita, people like you scare me.

By Jim

February 11, 2006 03:19 PM | Link to this

People don’t be gullible. The cable business model will fight “a la carte”. They are in the business of making money and the only way they can is to get you to pay for something you don’t watch or want. That allows the “fringe” channels to survive.

If you want to lower your monthly rate seek out competition. Several of the baby bells are getting into the cable business. Seek them out. The future is competition not “a la carte”.

Government run or subsidized cable is the only way “a la carte” will work. That’s a bad idea, look at natural gas deregulation.

Jim

By anita j

February 11, 2006 05:09 PM | Link to this

to SM, good keep it that way!

By Charles Mason

February 11, 2006 10:36 PM | Link to this

It would be great if we could pick & choose who we wanted to watch instead of all these channels that are not worth even skipping over. Why do we have to pay a cable fee and then watch all these channels that are full of commercials?

Also, why can’t the channel programmers make their channels available via satellite for a free?

By time for free speech

February 12, 2006 08:43 AM | Link to this

This is LONG overdue. I’d love to DUMP the moronic shopping channels, the odious christian brainwashing channels, the noxious BET, nascar/golf drivel, any vile celebrity fawning channel like ‘E’, ALL the bloody mexican channels, worthless channels like CBS, UPN elove, oxygen, bravo, tnt, soaps, we, game shows, style, the self serving unobjective financial channels, the sci-fi channel, the dire DIY channels, most of the pointless ESPN channels, the equally pointless food and travel channels, the chinese commie propaganda channel, the execrable yoof and kuntry music channels etc.

I am utterly sick of paying for garbage that I dont want and never watch, which means I am subsidising other people’s TV, just as they are quite possible subsidising mine. There’s maybe six - eight channels I watch regularly and up to another dozen occasionally. FREEDOM of choice is not available in America in so many areas, this is one of the very worst examples. There is no longer ONE prime time show I watch on the four major networks. There are no even half decent comedy shows left - except some endlessly repeated re-runs. The idea of paying channels to re-run the same film or couple of films all day or 200 + times a year is a sick and pathetic joke!!

WE pay for the channels, WE endure the moronic endless noisy constant commercials and the smug swines drastically edit films -treating adults as if they were children, destroying the point/enjoyment of films. All these thousands of 30 minute ‘infomercials’ - we’re effectively paying for this crap too …

Dont tell me I dont have to watch … like you I’m paying for this!!

This is a superb idea, lets hope the corrupt venal lobbying system in D.C doesn’t stop this - but I fear it will!!

By TV/Cable Lobby Assn.

February 12, 2006 10:18 AM | Link to this

Are you kidding me?? As an executive of a national cable lobby I can tell you that we will never allow your congressmen to do away with the current system. ESPN would lose millions of DOLLARS, cable companies would lose millions of DOLLARS, the TV lobby would lose millions of DOLLARS, then your congressmen would lose millions of DOLLARS.

If we ever did let congress change the system we would be forced to increase the amount of commercials from over 20 minutes per hour to 40 minutes per hour. You can’t stop us either since congress deregulated the tv business they can air as many commercials as they want.

We won’t let them, so please SHUT UP.

Yours truly, TV/Cable Lobby Assn.

By peter tinkham

February 12, 2006 10:53 AM | Link to this

Here’s a thought! Ask your local television station if they would be willing to be offered on an a la carte base via the local cable company?

Peter W. Tinkham / Canton, GA

By Moon

February 12, 2006 11:36 AM | Link to this

Can it be true? Will it ever happen? Oh how long have I dreamed of NOT having to pay for all those CRAPPY channels. Here’s an idea…make the people who want the niche channels pay more for them! Don’t force the rest of us to subsidize the channel!

By Jim Walters

February 12, 2006 02:49 PM | Link to this

As a career cable person, the technology is in place in addressable converters. By cutting waste in spending such as corp. salaries, perks, travel,trade shows,etc. the industry will not suffer much of a loss. If anything, an increase in customers should off set any loss’s. Marketing people cannot understand this. The lineups are loaded with shopping channels for adittional income. Have you noticed that when new channels are added, at least one shopping channel is among them.

By Scott

February 12, 2006 04:09 PM | Link to this

I find the cable industry to be quite interesting. It’s really one of the few times in most peoples’ lives that they deal with a virtual monopoly, and the government does nothing about it. Then, when satellite dishes become an actual cost effective competitor instead of something that only people in the middle of nowhere use, the cable companies spend more money running smear campaigns against the satellite companies than they would just making their product more cost effective and competitive. I’m just waiting for a cable industry funded study to be released claiming that satellite dishes cause cancer, because their commmercials have made just about every other claim to discredit the value of satellite dishes. Oh, and to the cable company marketers, I’ve watched plenty of satellite dishes during rainstorms and never had a problem. And IF there were to be a problem, it would go away as soon as the storm passed, unlike having to wait 24 hours for the cable company to fix your cable if IT goes out due to a storm. Maybe if you don’t charge me $80 dollars a month and force tiered programming packages on your subscribers just to get HD or ONE premium channel, you won’t have to worry about satellite dishes.

By Mad As Zell

February 12, 2006 06:56 PM | Link to this

First of all, I would dump the pure, unmitigated filth that is the MTV channels (MTV2, VH1, etc.) because I’m tired of them pushing an unseemly, un-American, Eurotrash-like, anti-family values-driven secular agenda of sex before marriage and open homosexuality through shows like (for example) “The Real World” and blatant materialism through rap videos and those “Lifestyles of the Rich & Famous”-type shows on innocent children and in the face of sometimes unsuspecting parents who may not be entirely “up” on what is going on today in the popular culture.

Those MTV/E!-type channels are some of the biggest purveyors of overly-materialistic values and images pornographic filth. In place of one or both parents, who are often working multiple jobs just to get by, children are often being baby-sat and taught the wrong values by MTV and the music video/reality show-culture that is so prevalent in our society today.

These MTV channels teach youngsters that having the most “bling” and material things is the most important thing in life and that it is more than acceptable to have multiple sex partners (sometimes all at once) before even thinking of marriage. I’m sick and tired and completely fed up of them pushing their disgusting and destructive images of the lowest common filth on the country and aiming it directly at all-too-vunerable and impressionable young people.

By The72John

February 12, 2006 07:14 PM | Link to this

gee Mad as Zell…you’ve got some serious issues, you know?

Tell ya what - just strangle yourself with your television cord…then you can go be with Jesus and not have to worry about all us sex-crazed, evil open homosexuals, ok?

Drop dead, c**.

By Mad As Zell

February 12, 2006 08:56 PM | Link to this

72John: people like you are what’s wrong with our country today. People of your misguided ilk are why the nation is drowning in filth. You can’t just politely disagree or intelligently debate your point with me on this issue, you’ve got to threaten or wish bodily harm to anyone who doesn’t see things your way. Your ignorance shines through in your lack of a coherent position and your unwillingness to have a civil conversation with others who disagree with you.

If you choose to represent yourself and your position to the masses like that in that ignorant of a manner, you will have no chance to win broad support from where it counts the most: Middle America. That’s why extremist liberals just don’t get it. Left-wingers don’t know how to validate their arguement by showing that their political position will not threaten traditional family values and the American way-of-life.

You sir have shown yourself to be a threat to our entire way of life by not being able to justify your position without getting angry enough to wish someone dead. 72John, I don’t agree with your lifestyle but I’m not so angry about it that I would wish you dead.

By hunter

February 12, 2006 08:56 PM | Link to this

The72John, Mad As Zell is expressing an opinion. As a gay person, I don’t agree with his/her opinion, but I won’t knock it. People like you, who comment on others in a derrogatory way, and use language as you did at the end of your “rant” are viewed as the norm and not the exception, and you make the rest of us homosexuals look bad.

As a wise man once said, “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to my death your right to say it” — it is the American way - let’s remember that.

By Mad As Zell

February 12, 2006 09:14 PM | Link to this

Hunter: Don’t get me wrong, just because one person who is gay goes too far with a comment doesn’t mean that I’m ignorant enough to think that all people who are gay would do the same. I, myself hate when an entire group of people are painted with a broad brush over the comments or actions of one or a few. In my eyes, the ill-advised comment of one in a group doesn’t make me blame everyone in a group. I know that everyone is an individual and I am willing to talk and debate to, maybe one day, find some kind of common ground.

By The72John

February 12, 2006 09:15 PM | Link to this

Zell.

It’s ironic that your entire post was a hate-filled rant, and that you then chose to play the martyr when I responded in kind. My anger is directed at hate-mongers like you, who believe that they dictate to others how they should live. You and yours wish harm on me every day of your lives. If I do the same, it is only what you deserve.

I don’t waste my time arguing with people like you. Why should I - you made up your mind a long time ago.

Hunter. I wish you luck when the Nazis swoop down and carry you away. Voltaire - the wise man you mentioned - never intended for those words to apply to people actively seeking to destroy others. Your appeasment of the hate-mongers may make you feel morally superior, but I assure you it will do you no good when trash like Zell strips your rights away.

By Mad As Zell

February 12, 2006 09:16 PM | Link to this

Contrary to popular belief, I know that 72John does not speak for all gay people in America.

By The72John

February 12, 2006 09:20 PM | Link to this

Lol, Zell. Seriously.

You launched the first volley in this debate. Rather than discussing the merits of having the ability to pick-and-choose which channels one picks, you chose to make an anti-gay statement…

Do you think that I don’t speak for every gay person in America when I say that your kind of bigotry is unnacceptable? Do you think I don’t speak for every gay person in america, whether they are willing to admit it or not, when I suggest that people like you who wish nothing but ill on people like me would do all of us a favor by taking the easy way out?

Here’s a little bit of info for you, on the topic - it’s called parental controls. It’s a simple solution. You can rant and rave about channels and their filth all you want, but the easy answer is for you to Turn. Off. The. TV.

It’s that simple. Turn it off. Take responsibility for your own children. But no - you’d rather rant about “open homosexuals”.

Thanks, but I refuse to live in your closeted ghetto. For every ill you wish on me, I wish a thousand more on you.

By The72John

February 12, 2006 09:22 PM | Link to this

And you, Hunter, are a coward who would rather tip your hat obsequiously to those who despise you and chant “yes, massa, yes” than stand up for yourself.

Why don’t you go join the Log Cabin Republicans and continue to kow-tow to the very people who are trying to vilanize your every action?

By Mad As Zell

February 12, 2006 09:26 PM | Link to this

72John: You got mad because I mentioned open homosexuality? If it makes you feel any better, I don’t like the display of open heterosexuality any better either, I meant both gay and straight sex. Call me old-fashioned, but I think that thing should be kept behind closed doors and I don’t like it when people put their personal lives, especially their sex lives, out on open exhibition for the world to see. I’m pretty much an equal-opportunity prude when comes down to it.

By Mad As Zell

February 12, 2006 09:33 PM | Link to this

72John: And I did tell you that I would dump all of the MTV-type channels and why I would. It was you who told me to “drop dead, c**”.

By What a shame

February 12, 2006 11:47 PM | Link to this

Folks, we are talking about cable TV. What a shame it is that we cannot get this sort of debate or action in play when we speak about education in this state. Dead last or close enough to see last.

By Ron

February 13, 2006 03:00 AM | Link to this

While this is a fantatic idea, the cable/satellite industry are not about to give up their profits. I guarantee you they will do like Bellsouth has their products. They will set the price at a level your paying almost the same thing for fewer channels and the best deal will be stay the way it is. Notice how quick call waiting, caller id and call forwarding costs more than the complete choice package.

By Watt

February 13, 2006 07:35 AM | Link to this

This should be an excellent idea, but cable companies would still find some way to give the consumer the shaft. After a year+ of constant badgering on my part, Adelphia finally offered up ESPN News and ESPN Classic as part of the same package that includes ESPN and ESPN2 (and now there is also ESPNU).

It situations such as this that could make the change a change for the better, or it could be a change for the worse. it would be a keen idea to simply pick the channels you want and pay for them. There are so many awful channels that I could care less about.

Hey, we used to get by with eight channels here in Atlanta, and two of those were public broadcasting. Give me the choice of about 20-25 channels and I’ll be a happy consumer.

By Allen

February 13, 2006 07:44 AM | Link to this

There are many cable channels that I do not watch. I would love to delete all channels that I wish not to view. I also wish there was a way to only scroll the channels that were active on the screen. I do not subscribe to HBO and other premium channels.

By Lynne

February 13, 2006 09:10 AM | Link to this

Uh, does everyone understand that cable isn’t mandatory to live? People are complaining about what appears to be every cable channel offered. Get your antenna or rabbit ears out and shut the H*ll up! No one is forcing you to subscribe to anything. So now we have a right to a clear picture on the TV? “I don’t want Oxygen, but I want TNT” “I don’t want my kids watching MTV”…good grief, who controls who? If your remote control is sending you hidden secret messages to control you, then cable channels AIN’T your problem.

By Rom

February 13, 2006 12:28 PM | Link to this

I like the one comment: “If you want to lower your monthly rate seek out competition… The future is competition not “a la carteâ€?.”

That’s what I did — by subscribing to a niche satellite TV provider called Sky Angel. I sought out a television service that offered family entertainment, news and Christian-based TV and radio, from HGTV, Hallmark, Hallmark Movie, and Fox News to Worship Network and Faith TV, and found it with Sky Angel at only $15/month! I get what I want for a price that is very affordable.

By Scott

February 13, 2006 04:56 PM | Link to this

I love people like “Lynne”, that take the time to click on a link about a particular topic, and then to read all of the numerous blog entries, and then take the time to post to tell people that they should get a life..lol. If you think this is a stupid topic than don’t click on the link. Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure THAT out.

By Mike

February 15, 2006 10:24 AM | Link to this

Just like everyone else, I don’t watch most channels offered on my satellite service. The thing that bothers me most is neither cable nor satellite really care that much about PICTURE QUALITY. They only care about revenue from ads. The more channels that are on a system, the worse the picture is on ALL of the channels. With HDTV being the big thing now, both services better get with the program and start improving their picture quality. DirecTV has just introduced a new conversion process in Atlanta (MPEG4) that is supposed to give a better picture. But the reason they had to do this was they were out of bandwidth, which is what determines picture quality on your set. I’ve read reviews of this new format and many say it does’t look that great. I get my locals with an antenna for free in HD, so I can’t see myself ever getting this service until their whole system is transferred to the new format (which could be a while). Here’s my dream: Since I want the best HD picture I can get (and this is going to become more important in the next few years since most people will be purchasing HD sets) I wish DirecTV would move all of their HD signals to a seperate satellite that is dedicated to HD only. That’s the package I would pay for: all HD signals at the best picture quality. I think this could be achieved if there were a satellite that was dedicated to PICTURE QUALITY. To me, that’s what it’s about.