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.
"Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is working on legislation that would pressure cable and satellite providers to allow their customers to pick and choose the channels they pay for, his office confirmed on Wednesday. Consumers have long complained about the rising costs of cable TV packages and having to pay for dozens or even hundreds of channels just to gain access to the few that they watch."
I was undecided whether to post this here because of the legislation aspect or in the television forum where they don't usually address anything except specific show content.
What about you? Would you support something like this where you only pay for the cable channels you watch? I would like to get rid of ABC, NBC and CBS because I don't watch anything on those broadcast channels but it sounds like you would only get to pick and choose cable channels and still be stuck with broadcast channels you don't watch. I'm sure some cable channels would go out of business. Besides the cable industry, I bet Hollywood would be up in arms because it's bound to mean less avenues for work.
I would love this. Out of 200 channels there are maybe 20 that I regularly watch. There are a few I would like to watch, but have to jump up to the next package to get those 3 or 4 channels.
I never watch ANY of the 30 or so sports channels, HSN, church channels, etc.
"Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is working on legislation that would pressure cable and satellite providers to allow their customers to pick and choose the channels they pay for, his office confirmed on Wednesday. Consumers have long complained about the rising costs of cable TV packages and having to pay for dozens or even hundreds of channels just to gain access to the few that they watch."
I was undecided whether to post this here because of the legislation aspect or in the television forum where they don't usually address anything except specific show content.
What about you? Would you support something like this where you only pay for the cable channels you watch? I would like to get rid of ABC, NBC and CBS because I don't watch anything on those broadcast channels but it sounds like you would only get to pick and choose cable channels and still be stuck with broadcast channels you don't watch. I'm sure some cable channels would go out of business. Besides the cable industry, I bet Hollywood would be up in arms because it's bound to mean less avenues for work.
Laura, you and I don;t agree on much, but I would love a la carte. I have a bunch of channels that I would drop in a heartbeat if I had the choice.
"Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is working on legislation that would pressure cable and satellite providers to allow their customers to pick and choose the channels they pay for, his office confirmed on Wednesday. Consumers have long complained about the rising costs of cable TV packages and having to pay for dozens or even hundreds of channels just to gain access to the few that they watch."
I was undecided whether to post this here because of the legislation aspect or in the television forum where they don't usually address anything except specific show content.
What about you? Would you support something like this where you only pay for the cable channels you watch? I would like to get rid of ABC, NBC and CBS because I don't watch anything on those broadcast channels but it sounds like you would only get to pick and choose cable channels and still be stuck with broadcast channels you don't watch. I'm sure some cable channels would go out of business. Besides the cable industry, I bet Hollywood would be up in arms because it's bound to mean less avenues for work.
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.
When I had a large dish in the backyard, the channels were priced both ala carte and in packages. The packages were cheaper than the individual channels added up to unless you picked relatively few. I have my remote programmed to skip all the channels I can't stand like the shopping ones. I would have far fewer but others in my family have different tastes than I. Maybe the cable and sat companies would benefit. They are being blackmailed by the networks like ESPN. It could be that many people would skip ESPN if they saw how much it cost them. Right now it is hidden in the overall bill.
It is good to see McCain going back to "Maverick" again and standing up for immigration reform and background checks while thumbing his nose at the big business interests if even so slightly as this bill. It is amazing how our reps change and start to do the people's business again when they are not looking at re-election.
I would switch to an "a-la-carte" system if it resulted in lower cost to me. We normally watch less than 10 channels so that might work. The system would have to allow time shifting like TIVO.
I would like to see the providers offer this on their own. I would NOT like to see a law mandating it.
The Internet is changing the game with regard to visual entertainment. Ten years ago, I might have supported this bill. Not today. Today, the cable companies are already losing large numbers of people to Netflix & Hulu. This trend will continue until they give people more choices and lower prices. They will get to an "a la carte" system on their own - no need to force it at the barrel of a gun.
They wouldn't currently be in business if nobody watched them.
Well, that's one of the odd things about the current TV market. "Providers" (the companies that deliver the channels to individual consumers) usually pay package deals for the redistribution rights to a particular channel. Some companies require broadcast providers to buy a package of channels in order to obtain one particular highly-desirable channel.
So even if something like ESPN-U is not on your cable lineup, a slice of your cable bill is very possibly going to pay for it, depending on the deal your cable service signed with Disney in order to carry ESPN in the first place.
"Regional" sports networks make a lot of money this way. If your cable/TV company carries the Northeast Sports Network (NESN) for example, you are personally paying a few dollars per month to the Red Sox. That's due to the way the contracts are set up.
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.
