Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm undecided. There will be several channels that will end up being very expensive(because fewer would watch them) and many that would simply not exist anymore. I image though that this would be benefit me.
I am, too. Seriously, I would dump ABC, NBC and CBS and I only watch Fox because of one show but FX on cable is my favorite channel. If that's bundled with Fox, I'd have to take both of them. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like there is an option to drop broadcast channels in the legislation or I'm sure it would have been mentioned.
I am, too. Seriously, I would dump ABC, NBC and CBS and I only watch Fox because of one show but FX on cable is my favorite channel. If that's bundled with Fox, I'd have to take both of them. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like there is an option to drop broadcast channels in the legislation or I'm sure it would have been mentioned.
You get broadcast channels for free. The cable and satellite providers are mandated to carry them.
But we dont live in a Democracy, we live in a Representative Republic. You dont get to vote on what bills get passed.
they seldom even allow us to witness the deliberations of Congress, these fools in Congress are trying to side-step federalism. A step in the right direction would be to repeal the 17th amendment.
I don't see why any channels would go out of business under your theory. They wouldn't currently be in business if nobody watched them. The same people watching them now would subscribe to them later, presumably.
Of course with less revenue from subscriber fees you could just kill the entire industry with a la carte. I could see every cable company fold without the extra fees they generate from the current system and we'd be back to where we were pre-1985.
"Of course with less revenue from subscriber fees you could just kill the entire industry with a la carte"
I disagree. If a channel had shows "worth" watching" people will pay for it. Free market should determine which channels make it and which channels don't.
This is how the network channels work. If a particular show doesn't get enough viewers the show is cancelled.
It is up to the channel to have shows that people actually watch.
I have been for a la cart ever since cable came to be. I think that is how it was sold originally. You pay for what you want. Just like 'premium" channels like HBO, etc.
They could offer bundles, 10, 15, 20 channels etc., with a minimum of channels, say 20 but, you pick the channels.
what we need for pubic school is " a la carte classes"
take history if you feel like knowing the past,
take art if you care about that.
take a second language if i really want to speak it.
take english if you feel like it, most kids these days just want to LOL, LMAO, ect.... everything anyway. As long as you make them take a facebook course, and get them in sports.
That's a terrible idea. Why would anyone be in favor of this?
Because it stops the federal government from mandating the states pay for x, y, z, without funding them. When the Senate answers directly to the state, who has to come up with the money, then the people lose the ability to vote themself benefits that cant be paid for.
Yep, thats the argument against it.. It works for other channels as well, for example, would you order MTV, if you dont have teenagers, (or whatever their watching nowadays)? If the cost isnt spread out among a group, then offering it is is "expensive", and thus not affordable to produce.
I dont agree with the strategy, would love to pay for what I want, but from discussions when I was running for county commissioner a decade ago, that was the reason provided.
I dont have cable either, I dropped it when I couldnt justify the cost for the 2 channels we watch in this house, went with internet tv.
I would rather pay for a few qualityb channels the pay more for a bunch of garbage, my opinion, channels.
If they get enough viewers to make the channel profitable, they stay. If not, they are gone.
MTV is a perfect example. I have blocked it from my TV's for 20/25 years. I would never let my teenage kids watch it.
If enough parents want it, fine, let THEM pay for it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
