Changing the channel on cable costs

I just recently had this conversation with my wife and we determined that it would be nice to pick the channels you want. I have dish network and we only watch may 15 channels out of the 100 or so we pay for. Which is still better than the cable i was paying for where i only watched 8 channels. I think allowing the consumer to say 10 to 15 specific channels along with their normal budle packages would alleviate alot of the issues with programming.

YES. I WOULD LIKE TO ORDER ONLY THOSE CHANNELS I WANT TO WATCH.

I am tired of paying for 200 channels, when I only watch 12. I would be so grateful if I could get the few I really want at a decent price. But, this is just too practical and thrifty to ever catch on! Pretty soon I’m going to just bite the bullet and get rid of the cable all together!

Between Netflix (and its great WatchNow feature), network websites, and iTunes store downloads, why would anyone pay for cable? In fact, most libraries have a dvd section that contains movies, documentaries, and tv series at no cost to members.

I looked at the price list for my local cable company – and the rate I would pay for the premium channels I love and the on-demand capabilities that Netflix and the internet afford me, the total was nearly $70/month + the price of internet (which my boyfriend and I both need to have anyway for work). Compare that to my free library card and $17/month for Netflix, and the choice to cancel cable was pretty easy.

With Netflix, the local library, and our own DVD collection, we always have something to entertain us and never have to deal with commercials, channel surfing, or a cable bill!

It is time that people realized that they need us more than we need them. The entertainment industry and it’s delivery systems (cable, satellite) have created an incredible situation in which we pay THEM for the privilege of watching advertising. Ala carte terrifies the owners of marginal channels and even big ones, as well as the delivery operators. They know that most people would drop many of the channels they offer. This will hurt the cable and satellite operators because their revenue and income would drop precipitously. The simple solution – get only the most basic cable you can or better yet, buy a decent antenna. I get better reception on most broadcast channels than my neighbors do on cable. It is amazing how little you miss the extraneous channels. Sure, I miss some sporting events, but then for the $1000 I save a year I can go to a couple games.

It’s funny to me that people continue to blame the big bad cable company, when in reality, the cable companies are the ones who are being held hostage. The distribution companies that own channels like MTV, ESPN, etc… force the cable companies to take extraneous channels in addition to the popular ones. So it’s the same for them; either take the logo channel, or you don’t get MTV either! And unless everybody has had their head in a hole, the price of everything keeps going up. I’m less worried about the extra $20 a year in cable rate increases than I am about the extra $1000 a year for gas, and a single family home over-valued by $125,000!

We dropped Comcast two years ago. We put up an antenna – now we get all the local stations & PBS in high-def for free. We also got Netflix – now we pick what movies & shows we want. We get news from the Internet. It’s great. Also, no more paying through the nose to watch about 20 minutes of advertising per hour on TV.

Give us a la carte options!!!!!!

I have Directv with a bundled package. I never watch about 25 of the channels in my package (religious, paid programming, etc.), BUT I have discovered channels I probably would have never ordered a la carte. The various Discovery channels and the Nick and Disney channels are great. I would not have ordered BET, MTV, VH1 etc., but after trying BET, I find that I watch it several times a month. POINT: If you are getting enough channels that do or might interest you, chill out. My husband wants the Outdoor Channel. To add just that channel is $1.90 a month since we have the medium package. If I paid $1.90 for all of the 50 or so channels I actually watch occasionally each month, my bill would be $95. I pay only $85 with the added channel. I don’t imagine the channels will be only about $2 per channel if we went to all a la carte channels. The cable/satellite companies still have to pay the distributers for all the channels they offer even if only less than 10% are paying for them. This would surely make a per channel charge more expensive than bundling.

This has very easy solution. DO NOT GET CABLE OR DISH! We have done it and are not regretting it. I wish everybody would do it and wham, what a wake up call. There would be no fees to pay by consumers and no fees to fatten the silly companies. Now we have no stupidity TV, what a good feeling. Get on the wagon and reap the benefits!

All of the people complaining about the cost now, just wait until a la carte happens. Everybody will pay more for less. You are going to take away the many channels a lot of us enjoy and drive up prices for everybody, just because you you whine and cry about paying a few dollars for unwanted channels. Thanks a lot.

The media crowd are very lucky that I am not wealthy. If I were, I would sue the socks off these people over the 24 hour programming issue. You see, I work nights. That means that I am up at night when I am off work. Although I pay for the middle tier, there is nothing on but infomercials after 1:00am until 6am. I think that I have a real issue here. Let me know what ya’ll think.

They should also include Mediacom Cablevision in their lawsuit. They are just as bad as the others…. We have to pay for channels we don’t watch….

How much would we pay per station? $5.00-$10.000. What would it cost for them to make it happen? $2-3, an extra filter in my cable box? let’s get some engineers to give us an honest answer.

One way to beat the cable monopolies is to have your city install a Information Utility (fiber), just like your power, water and sewer. As such the city would maintain the fiber and head end as a utility and not for profit. Now the content and services providers (phone, long distance, movies, news, internet, medical and security monitoring, shopping, etc etc) can compete for your business at the headend with billing services handled by the city or third party. Only when these content or service providers are forced to compete minute by minute for our business like storefronts will we get true value pricing. We all know this but the providers have more money to spend on lobbyists, but we do have the votes. Get busy and make your city leaders do their job.

I too opted out the bundle of crud and went down to limited basic cable (13$/mo). High speed internet (lowest tier for 26$) and the fact that we are rural are the reasons we have cable at all.

I never subscribed to anything more than basic cable and I gave that up years ago.Why can’t Americans understand that we can control business practices much better with our wallets than legislation.Trust me no one will die if you give up cable for a while.You want the cable companies to dance to your tune, everybody cancel it, and anything else that you like but can live without that’s annoying you.When the providers are faced with making no money and going out of business, they will be very willing to meet the demands of the consumer.

In Minnesota cities, cable companies are a government regulated monopoly. We don’t have a choice of picking what we want. I have to pay over $100 a month to watch 10% of the programming offered. Big scam. Let in the competition!

How about this for compromise? Have some tiers, such as basic and premium, and then for the packages, it would be based on the number and type of channels selected. You want only the Speed Channel, ESPNU, and HBO (one channel)? Then please select the 10 Basic/1 Premium package. Select any 10 basic channels, plus any one Premium Channel. You have to keep the selected channels for the whole month, but can change channels each month. We get choice, cable companies still get volume. Fair?

Cable is a total waste. I get HD tv via my antenna of better quality than cable, the news is better from the internet and you can see most shows on the interenet (e.g. Lost ) and BBC now is showing on the internet http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/. Why would I pay COMCAST for a substandard service.

Say you only watch ten channels, you don’t watch them all at the same time do you? You are all opening up a can of worms. In 2009 whe anolog is history cable companies will impliment a new technology called IPTV, streaming video only when one customer or more is wathing. Ah, the magic of an all digital system. That’s when they can charge you BY THE MINUTE. If the FCC forces there hand, this new billing wonder which has already been proven will be rolled out. Cable plans are a good deal, and easier for everyone invovled. Lets stop the Cigarette companies and leagalize pot, it makes as much sence.

Someone please tell me a situation where you were “forced” to purchase any product, including cable. Everyone continues to attack this issue from the standpoint of their own belief that they have no other choice than to pay for the unwanted channels. I say again, “cancel the service if you’re unsatisfied with the product.” Companies exist for two reason, to make profits and benefit shareholders. Believe me, if the companies could deliver the channels ala carte and make a profit it would happen. Unfortunately for you, companies will make decisions that maximize their profits and they aren’t concerned if you would rather not tune into the Home Shopping Network. Get over it!

Cable is a service and I do not mind paying for service, but the unannounced rate hikes, limited or no selection of providers, and being forced in to a situation do you take the good with the bad or take nothing. I agree with one of the earlier posts. Why can’t they work out a pay as you use approach. They already collect all sorts of information from us and it would be easy for them to pull weather or not your watching the TV and their stations. Give us the 300+ channels and charge as we use. I am sure if it was set up this way I wouldn’t have to wait for 2 or 3 days for them to come fix my cable when it goes out.

Coaxial cable is a dying technology – soon it won’t matter what cable providers offer. Our family got out of the cable rate increase game and settle now for the most elemental coverage for a comparatively small price. We refused to keep paying for the junk programming we didn’t want. Clearly, many of those channels would not survive without being subsidized by cable customers.

I just signed up for Dish network in Florida. All I really want is HBO and Speed Chanel.
I had to get the $20 basic family package (with 40 mostly useless chanels). Then had to pay $15 for 9 HBO channels (when I only need one), and I could not get Speed Chanel unless I got the $50 package with 200 channels. So in order to get Speed Channel, I would have to pay an extra $30 a month, and be forced to pay for 160 channels (most of which I will never watch)…
When you consider that most of these cable/satelite networks still have commercials, it is a pretty horrible deal, no matter how you look at it.

We should be able to choose. If a channel can’t stand alone or can’t stand without being bundled in a package deal then that ought to be a red flag that no one wants to watch that channel. Let us choose

I agree 100% that most if not all cable bundles today are a ripoff. I for one don’t speak Spanish and don’t want to pay for them and don’t want to pay for channels that broadcast shows I don’t agree with. I think people ought to be able to choose their channels. Maybe what cable companies need to do is just offer bundles with basic channels and then let the customer fill in the rest of the channels or pick them all themselves.

I have an idea. We, the consumer, put a list of the shows we like and post them on some cyber geeks website. The cybergeek pays for cable or dish netword. He records the shows you’ve pre-selected. It can be 1 show or 100, totally your choice. During the day, we get a text, on our mobile handset, that says “your programs are ready for download”. We go back online and download the program (free of charge). The cybergeek gets some proceeds, generated from the text messaging service.

I think cable companies are out of control. Rates are up significantly and they blame ‘incresed customer service costs.’

I hate having to pay for bundled stations that I never ever watch!

Let’s figure out how to have a consumer revolt and change this!

All I really want on Cable is ESPN for college football, but it’s not worth it for me to pay for 138 channels of mostly garbage that me or my kids don’t need. You can only wacth one channel at a time. Therefore we don’t have cable! My friends can’t believe it, say its un-American!

I only watch about a half a dozen channels out of the hundred or so I have to pay for.It is time for consumers to get a price break and cable suppliers can still make a hefty profit.I don’t want anymore then I care to watch.It should be the number I subscribe to,not what I am forced to take.

Cable company constantly raise prices without any real justification. I am tired of not having an alternative to my cable company. Where is the competition in the market place. In my market austin we only have one real choice for cable service TWC

Cable is a luxury, it is not a necessity. It is not that we are tired of paying for services we don’t need. We are paying for services we don’t want. I agree with the restauarant analogy. If I want the steak, I should have to pay for the fish and chicken, too?

How many more times does the consumer have to listen to all the lies from the cable companies such as comcast. They have the market cornered in some areas of the country and they continually increase the prices on an annual basis. I am tired of the ripoff and I think it’s about time the government steps in and either start to regulate these companies or not allow them to keep the unrealistic increases up every year.

YES, the price model is a raw deal. It is only one part of the mess that is the US telecom industry. It has always been an anti-competitive kludge, and one day we consumers will beat them. Future posters: Please stick to the direct question and avoid unsolicited advice; we do not need to be told to cancel cable, buy a PC, or read a book. We alrady know what we want. Thanks.

A few years ago I went down from the premium bundle to a less expensive plan on my cable, and I’ve seriously considered cancelling my cable altogether… if it weren’t for C-SPAN I would. The prices are way too high and the quality of the programming is terrible… even if you have 80 channels there’s nothing good on. I guess that’s what you get when you let the conservatives run the media… they want people to focus on Brittney Spears and bloody car wrecks instead of the real news. I get most of my news from the internet. It’s quicker and easier and I can check 7 different news sources in the time it takes me to watch the evening news.

Back in the days when everyone had an antenna, you could select what you wanted and not pay for anything. The stations were supported by the advertising dollar. Why should the cable companies be allowed to make our selections for us? The strong channels will survive and the weak will have to terminate. Let me make my individual choices and don’t gouge me by jacking up the costs for individual stations.

Every time government deregulates an industry, the consumer ends up paying more not less

why are so many people just suggesting cancelling your cable? That is so ignorant. Yes you could cancel, but why should you have to? If they are engaging in unlawful practices then is should be stopped. You shouldn’t be forced to choose all or nothing.

I am middle aged and have never purchased cable TV. In large part because I have not been not allowed to purchase only the channels I want. In addition, I fail to see why I should pay for a connection when I am not using it, I work all day and sleep most of the night and am not watching TV. I pay for long distance phone service unless I use it. If the cable industry really wants market share let them earn it. Maybe they could come up with a slick marketing slogan like “Have it your way”, well, maybe not.

When I was 3 years old, and first started watching TV, we only had channels 2 – 13. 1 channel was public access, and 1 channel was HBO (which we didn’t subscribe to). So, 10 channels, a few of which shut off at midnight.

Now, I get virtually everything in the world that I could ever want. All the sports options are amazing. XM radio to boot, which sounds great coming through my Bose Radio.

I could care less that Directv throws in some extra channels – thankfully, they package the MTV Lesbian channel with some other off-the wall channels that I don’t get.

I have never, ever felt like I am getting the squeeze by having to accept the weather channel, to go along with ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNnews, ESPNclassic, TNT, TBS, WGN, and all the other channels that I absolutely want. I pay $50 a month. That, to me, is not asking too much, especially with all the additional flexibility I am afforded by paying that amount, such as being able to order ESPN Gameplan on a weekly basis, if there is a game I want to see, or subscribing to the NBA League Pass, and getting every NBA game for just $160 a year.

I was tired of paying over $70 per month to watch a handful of cable channels so as a consumer I made the choice to cancel cable. The debate over channel bundling has been going on for years and will continue to go on for years. Until we as consumers make the choice for them by cutting off their funding, the cable operators will not change. I am waiting for the cable networks to offer subscription streaming via the internet. I will then subscribe directly to the networks of my choice, thus bypassing the cable operators all together.

I have approximately 300+ channels, which includes all the premiums. Most of the station we’re not interested in, many are repeated through the spectrum giving you a false sense of 300+ stations. I pay $120 for 2 boxes. We have no choice — only Time Warner. Why not make more Cable Companies available for the consumer to choose from! Let the cable companies compete for our business instead of the consumer having to settle.

I will not subscribe to either cable or satillite TV until I can get only the few channels the my wife and I want. We get our TV via antenna, including HD on prime time programming. Local weather on the side bands of HD channels is for more useful than the face-time, doomsday forecasting on the Weather Channel. I spent 7 years as a charter fishing captain, and the Weather Channel was the least accurate and frustrating slow when the weather was dicey. My biggest dissapointment with broadcast TV is the lack of live sporting events. Depending on the area, even cable does not provide the events I want.

I agree that no one has to purchase cable access however the arguments against offering ala carte services are not valid, except that it is less profitable. In a free market economy, why should I have to support cable stations that can’t survive on their own?

Hurray for ending the cable nightmare. 107 channels of sh$%#$T to choose from. I’m not sure why i have to have 4 bible stations, 6 shopping channels, and a host of other garbage. I’m a single guy, movies, sports, comedy, weather. biogrpahy, discovery,National Geographic, PBS history, and Turner Movie Classics are all that I need. Not Lifetime, QVC, TBN,.

A bit of contrarian here. Without bundling, the cable offerings will be reduced to merely a handful of very popular channels–basically a cable version of broadcast TV. The smaller offerings will simply dry up and then no one will get to watch their favorite low-rated channels. It cuts both ways.

A couple of years ago my cable bill went up three times the inflation rate. I called the local office and asked why. I was told that they had put up a new building and someone had to pay for it. I switched to satellite.

Bundling only benefits the cable companies – it was never about lowering costs for consumers or giving more to comsumers. I use about 10 of the 90 channels I receive. Why can’t I pick and pay for the ones that I want? Channels should cost more if no one wants to watch them but a few folks and less if lots of folks want them – that is capitalism and the American way. I do not want to use my entertainment dollars to subsidize those bundled channels that are less popular that I do not care about. With computer automation on-line is should be very easy and cost effective to let comsumers request and only pay for that which THEY WANT to subscribe to!!!!!!

Do you really think any cable operator is going to voluntarily allow consumers to choose three channels for $15/month? For more insight, why do you think the first 13 stations that are called “broadcast channels” can no longer be picked up using a wire antenna like when we were kids, but can be accessed only through a cable hookup? Because the only choice is the high priced option they give you or nothing. As for deregulation, that is a joke also. Does anyone remember when Jimmy Carter deregulated the airline industry in 1978 and got rid of the Civil Aeronautics Board? If you remember what the airline industry was like then and what it is like now, you have your answer.

Maybe I’m missing the point, but the way I look at it is like this: No one is forcing you or me to purchase the programming. The cable and satellite industries have every right to charge what they want for what they offer. You have two choices (unless you’re so addicted to entertainment that you can’t get yourself awway from it), (1) keep your present programming and continue to complain; (2) disconnect. Listen, the Cable and Satellite industries aren’t holding a gun to your head saying, “purchase the program or else.”
I made the choice last month to disconnect. The company asked why and so I told them, “who would purchase a product of which they would only use 10%, and yet pay for the 90% they wouldn’t use? hey were willing to offer some deals, but none would suffice, so I simply requested to be disconnected. I’m not hot and bothered by it. It’s their business, and what they do is practiced all the time in every store you walk in. There’s products on the shelf that would never stand alone, so other products in the store carry their weight.

The bigger point missed is in a free market economy, competition for the dollar is what makes companies improve. By throwing in all the dreck with the “good” channels that people actually want, the dreck channels have no incentive to improve. If there is a special interest who would have their channel bounced, they might have to improve their selection to gain a wider audience or charge more or go out of business. The point is that these things are all acceptable.

No one has mentioned that COMCAST makes you pay $42.00 a month for the exact same cable that comes into your house for cable television. Shouldn’t that be half the price since you are already paying for cable tv coming into your house? A lot of shows are now on the internet. I am starting think I am going to cancel my TV cable. At night it is all in informercials anyways.

Cable is a right-odf-way monopoly, just like the railroads of old. Initial low rates were prromised with little advertising, then cable changed and got greedy- they bundled programs that few wanted and were forces to subsidize, raised rates (especially with HD TV, and they pay off the local governments that provide them the franchise. Americans are getting dumber and fatter with cable and satellite TV. Start watching PBS and use the Internet, at least these venues force one to think or interact with the medium of transmission.

Ed

It’s absurd what COMCAST and other cable providers are charging. I have been a long time customer of Comcast and the rates went up and I had to commit to a 2 year contract to get a bundled package when new customers get bundled packages for far less than what I am being charged. Meanwhile, the television is only on for about 2 hours each day for us working people and what we are watching are shows on local channels during the week and perhaps something on a premium channel on the weekends. What’s the alternative though, the cable industry has monopolized the tv viewers world.

Hmm, so I spend $120.00 a month on cable or satellite TV, that’s approximately 250 channels including audio, DVR and some HD content. Cost approximately $2.08 for each channel. So how come I can not pick the ones I want? Out of those 250 channels I maybe watch including DVR and HD content about 12. With the advent of TV series on DVD, I now wait for the combined package to come out buy it, not have to watch all the commercials. So I would spend approximately $25.00 for channels, $5.00 for DVR oh and lets not forget the access fees maybe $5.00. Hmm $30.00 a month. With modern information processing systems users could do their ordering and programming online or for a fee call the provider and have them do it. So now the providers will say I have over simplified the system.

Just like telecom deregulation happened we need deregulation of the cable industry, there is no real competion with satelite. Prices are fixed alternatives are minimal and the consumer is getting taken. Where is our goverment to step up and break this (Oligopoly?)?

it’s a total ripoff,the only channel’s i watch are discovery,history,and cnn news.i don’t have the slightest interest in sports or any other entertainment.

I canceled our cable because of the high price. Now we spend more time with family and friends. and the $60.00
a month now goes toward savings.We do not miss it.

I just read in my newspaper last week that FoxSports and ESPN are a fourth of my total cable bill. Guess I could save a ton of money through ala carte, just drop those two channels. It irritates me that I have to support the saleries of these mulitmillion dollar athletes and I don’t even watch the crap.

Cable and satellite companies have had no reason to listen to the desired of their customers because there was no other alternative. That is changing. We are now seeing content offered online and ATT has a new service offer called Uverse that streams cable over DSL. Remember when we had to pay for long distance…

You have all missed the answer. Although I quit watching years ago, the family still does. The easy answer is allow my choice of two or three cable companies to choose from. Customer service will go up, prices will go down, content will improve. What would cars look like if someone said I could only buy a Ford? Competition would drive excellence.

Why stop with complaining about the cable companies? I don’t want AM on my car radio. Never use it. Don’t need the mudflaps either. But couldn’t get the car without them.
It is not just the cable companies that bundle. The big complaint I have about cable is not bundling, but rather that I have no choice about which cable company serves my home. Wireless phone companies offer lots of different plans because of the option to consumers to switch. I’m a big fan of the free market sorting things out–I’d rather see an option to switch my cable company than regulation on bundling.

I’ve made my choice, and you can make yours – unplug. Most TV is a waste of time anyway. I’d much rather waste my time in front of my computer reading inane stories and comments about cable!!

Switching to an à la carte system would be more cost effective in the long run. Package deals offer more channels that most of us don’t watch; ever. Switching to an à la carte system would offer consumers more choice and actually pay for what they watch. The only way switching to an à la carte system would cost more is if the broadcasters charge to much. The greed of many companies is what drives the cost up. Every company can make a profit from switching to an à la carte system. You have to have basic packages to start off and then go from there. Consumers already do it by buying extras such as HBO, Showtime to name a few. Paying for so many channels that I do not even watch is and will always be a waste of money… It would be better business to let me choose what I want to watch instead of the broadcasters. Yes, the cable companies are wasting our money. Until consumers stand up and fight, we will never win the battle people. Wake up already !!

I got tired of being screwed by Charter for a bunch of crap that I did not want and unreliable service to boot. No more cable, no more satellite, no more assinine bills. Better things to do with my time.

I work hard for my money. If I wanted someone to tell me what I have to buy with my money, I’d remainded a pre-teen and stayed with my parents. CABLE PROVIDERS -> Give me what I ask for and not what you want to sell to me!

I’m amazed at the total lack of understanding regarding free markets and freedom of choice. 70% of the individuals posting on this site continue to make comments such as; “I have to pay for these channels” and “why should I have to pay for channels I don’t watch”. Last I checked, nobody is making anybody pay for cable or satellite. It’s your choice and if you don’t want the service then cancel it. And please spare me the inevitable comments that you have a “right” to receive channels and watch TV. You have the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

What’s to prevent cable companies from just charging really high prices for the really popular channels and offering the others for free? Maybe I don’t understand the bundling-as-monopolistic argument because it seems to me that consumers can at least choose between satellite and cable, and most can add to that list a decent rooftop antenna (free local channels in HD people!).

There are too many commercials on tv anyhow. They should be paying US to sit through that mountain of ads they put on. I ditched cable about 2 years ago. Now I rent, mostly from Netflix. Most shows are on DVD now anyhow and I can read the newspaper or articles online for my news. So giving up cable was extremely easy. Besides without ads, I get to know what my kids REALLY want instead of what the commercials TELL them they want.

Okay, guys – I’m going to play “devil’s advocate” – so bear with me!
1. The spanish population is a minority – but they pay for the english speaking channels too!

2. I watch a few shows on channels that I would otherwise have never known about and thoroughly enjoy!

3. Nothing – and I mean NOTHING is cheaper “a la carte”! That’s why we get our car and house insurance on the same policy…for the discount…duh!

4. YES – the prices need to come down – after all, they have been in business for a long, long time and the initial costs have been paid for many times over!

5. I would be very sad to give up my BBC, Nova, Discovery or NASA channels! And don’t tell me they’re on the internet – not yet!

Thanks for letting me put in my two cents.

Why must I pay for religious programming, ancient reruns, shopping and about 60 other bundled channels to get the few I really want? What other service milks $600 dollars a year from me providing unwanted pap. Greed and monopolistic tyranny. The Steven Jobs method of extracting revenue is not a user friendly business model. However, the cable companies will price ala carte to make up the difference.

Stop complaining. Cancel your cable and tell your cable company that you’ll come back when you can pick only the channels you want. Cable companies should not be forced to offer a la carte by the FCC. They are not holding a gun to anybody’s head.

<>

It IS free enterprise. You and I are free to cancel our cable any time we want to. When (and if) enough of us do, they’ll be forced to give us more options. Bottom line… If you want a la carte cable, cancel it and let them know why you cancelled.

I guess nobody saw the report that the cable companies gave to the FCC in regaurds to what the said it would cost for ala-cart cable. They were projecting a min of $4.50 a channel for the cheap ones and all channels would be priced based on popularity.
Bundled or ala-cart it don’t matter
we the consumer will still be paying out the nose no matter what we want.
You want to fix it stop watching TV for about six months and then see what happens. If you think your going to get major network TV over the internet for free better think again they are already figureing out how to make us pay for that and pay alot too. We can’t fight big business cause they are all in bed with our crooked politicians.

Imagine you went to a restaurant and had to buy the entire menu to get the one meal you want. That’s package TV, cable or dish.

I agree, consumers should be able to choose a list of channels they wish to purchase in a package rather than buying channels in a packaged deal deemed by the cable companies and pay for what they do not want or need.

Cable is a business so I agree they should be able to make money but not by forcing me to buy something I don’t want. You want my money? Put some effort into making something I want to buy. I have no sympathy for no-rating stations like WE, DIY, and the freakin Golf Channel. As for which stations to offer, why can’t they do both? Offer single choice and package choice. Let me decide which I want to pay for.

Why does everyone keep saying cable companies and not the names of the corporations that control them. You are all yelling at the wrong people. the media is owned by 5 major conglomerations. 5!!! The monopolistic breakdown needs to start there.

Nice to read the lively discussion on this. dudes, yall dont understand that it is all about capitalism, hegemony and the belief that I DO IT BECAUSE I CAN !! and you (us, me included) cant do nothing about it. They only understand one thing…how much profit they make at the end of the day. customers be damned… Want more proof … just try calling any of the so called customer “service” centers and see how long you have to wait and how many songs you have to listen to before you speak with a human voice…

so much for american “free” enterprise.

There’s a sense of arrogance that goes with saying the cable company will have to increase rates if they are forced to offer ala carte options, and that the weaker stations would fail if not for bundling. That would be the nature of business – the strong survive, and usually through adapting to the market.

Forget cable. I have an antenna and an internet connection and I see all the shows I want for no additional cost. If you want movies, get netflix for half $15/month. The cable companies are huge and will fight forever to keep making tons of money but the internet is the great equalizer. Shows will start airing exclusively on the internet eventually.

One thing I haven’t heard of being discussed is that this is hurting good cable companies. For example, I would rather get rid of 30 to 50 % of the channels I don’t use and purchase a pay channel like HBO. If a customer has been paying $50 a month for 40 channels, and they can save $20 dollars by getting rid of half the channels they don’t watch, they might consider purchasing one or two pay channels. It is likely these companies make up for this with bundled packages, and the consumers are the only losers. Corporate welfare? Nah, couldn’t be.

I’ve had a rather heated exchange with Cox regarding their bundling practices. I asked them why am I paying for 12 Spanish, 4 Korean and a host of other foreign language channels that I don’t understand. Their asinine response was that it was analogous to receiving the sports section in the local paper, which some people wanted and others didn’t but it was included anyway. I pointed out that the newspaper was written in English, which seems to have terminated their argument. However, I’m still paying for a host of foreign language channels that I neither use or want.

What I don’t understand about this bundling — and I’ve asked Comcast about this before but of course never received a response — is who decides what neighborhoods get what channels? I don’t want 5 infommercial channels or spanish speaking channels or religious channels. Like the other comments below — what am I paying for? If it were up to me alone, there would be no cable in my house!

Who is kidding who… The only way anything is going to change is if everyone whom is tired of paying ridiculous premiums cancels their cable, or satellite service. Until they change and offer a reasonable service, as long as you are paying they have no reason to change. Going to the a-al-cart system will eliminate the worthless channels no one wants to watch or pay for, you bet. But you can also bet you will be paying threw the nose for the channels everyone does want and you will still watch rerun after rerun. They will get what they want in the end it just depends on which column they count it in and the government knows it. Another worthless policy by the government that achieves nothing but the ability to claim they did something. If they did do something it could possible affect their future campaign contributions. This is nothing more then a smoke screen from the real issues of today. While you are celebrating having the choice to pay more for less, or at least the same for less… you won’t have social security or any other important issue you can think of, will go unattended too. I used to have cable and I spent more time watching the free channels and paying threw the nose. The price was not worth the clarity. So the only way you are getting cheap cable is if you watch the channels everyone else is complaining about. Ask your self how much do they make off of advertising / commercials? It seems like commercials are on more then actual programming. How do the free channels pay for themselves?

I have kept my big dish for over 24 years to advoid paying for these ripoff bundles. Many of these channels have advertising on them. These cable providers are ripping of the public. Jail these provider’s. Alacart for me.

I quit watching TV 5 years ago. Cable prices were too high for the 3 channels I actually watched and there is no reception of public TV in my area. I found other things to do with my time, and haven’t looked back. The cable companies permanently lost a customer with their pricing model… but they’d have kept one if I could have chosen the 3 channels I wanted for $20 a month instead of 120 channels for $60.

I refuse to get cable or satellite tv for exactly these reasons. There are maybe 4 channels I am ever interested in and increasingly, if I am able to wait until the shows of interest are out on dvd, I don’t even miss those shows. It’s a treat to watch when I am housesitting or visiting family with cable, but not worth paying a couple of bucks a day for tons of channels that I don’t care about or force myself to become a slave to the tv so that I can watch the new season of xyz. With all the shows that are out on DVD now and the fact that you can easily rent them or borrow them from a library at a fraction of the cost or for free, there is less and less reason to have cable. In general it seems like cable channels must have something on all of the time, but it doesn’t mean it is something good and worthwhile. TV watching will take up as much time and money as you give it.

We paid over $35/month for basic cable. After getting annoyed at having to scan through everything we never watched when changing channels, I started programming out the channels we never watched.

That immediately got rid of about 2/3’s of the channels. I added more as I figured out they weren’t being watched.

After we got down to 6 channels we watched occasionally, I cancelled the cable. 6 so-so channels for $35/month was not worth it. We get a steady stream of DVD’s from Netflix for half that much. And there is an endless amount of online content.

I’m all for picking our channels, have DirectTV and just reduced our package to lowest available, wanted out but didn’t read fine print when we got the pause record live tv box and we had agreed to 2 years service, Will cancel at the time and hopefully we can pick our channels by then.

I’m all for a la carte, though the cable companies SAY it would cost us more money as consumers. Prove it! Show us the numbers. I work in the media planning business, and like most viewers, I watch 8-12 channels. I don’t want to pay for a bunch of others I don’t watch, and I don’t want to subsidize those channels for other people, either. IF the channels are needed, let them get paid for by the consumers who want to watch them. Let demand determine supply.

i only speak english and there are a number of foreign language channels i don’t use but pay for. if cable as advertised is giving the option to all the foreign speakers to get that language only why is it in my cable bundle.i have at least 10 non english speaking channels.

I’m all for a la carte. Let us choose the channels we are willing to pay for and btw…am I wrong in thinking that would boost ratings for the individual networks or does that not matter in the cable world. It be simple really, pick 6 for this price, 12 for this, etc. or at least group them by demographic. I too am DONE with Spanish already. Same goes for shopping channels. I’d LOVE to have SOAP network, Hallmark channel and Oxygen. Could care less about ESPN2, speed and golf. Bring on a la carte please!

It’s not so much that you have to buy bundles as that cable companies do not compete for our business that makes prices go so high. Since they split their coverage areas, if you want cable tv you have only one choice. If you cut out this monopoly, prices would have to be competitve.

The current execs from all the Cable companies should be deported for being too dang greedy. Down with Charter and their constant screwed up bills. Charging for stuff 2x a month is not right.

With the new digital broadcast TV the total number of channels free over the air has more than doubled. Our PBS station now has 5 channels it broadcasts. Only one is shown on cable. I have more than I can watch on free TV without having to pay for it.

You aren’t addressing the real issue. Cable has a rerun of every show on more then one channel. There have been so many movies may but we only get to see a 1/4 of then and they are rerun constantly. Take I Robot with Will Smith how many times are we going to see that on this summer. We are actually paying for repeat after repeat. Only the prime channels give you a new series sitcom every seasonfor 10 weeks. on Cable we get reruns every month. The movie goes fromHBO 1 to HBO2 ,from SHo1 o SHO@, big deal, they should have different movies not alternate movies for each month, that is the rip off

Even if a-la-cart svc is offered, you can be SURE that the cable companies will price them so that bills will go up, not down. The business model is broken. Congress needs to put them out of business and start over. End users should be paying for plant and equip, not programming. Why am I paying thru the nose for an avalanche of advertising? All I really want, is a clear picture, and a modest selection of channels. And why am I paying for 4 Spanish channels when I don’t want any??

I have not subscribed to cable for years. The reason I quit was that I was paying $50 to watch only 3 stations, and one of them I had to pay for the higher priced package to get it. I will not subscribe to satellite for the same reason. I will welcome a choice package.

Bundling is absolutely a raw deal. We should be able to subscribe only to the channels that we want… heck… only to the specific TV shows that we want! I’ve been waiting for this type of flexible TV, along with flying cars, for years. Sheesh. It might still be impossible to make cars fly, but the technology exists to make TV service more flexible. I had to upgrade to digital service with Comcast just to buy the Major League Baseball package, and as a result, we have all sorts of worthless channels that we don’t watch.

There’s not even a question that cable companies exhibit monopolistic behavior. Even worse, whereas in many other (non-healthcare-related) areas of our economy prices have recently stayed stable (rising at or less than inflation rate), cable prices (per channel offered in a basic package) have increased massively. Market capitalism is based on the general concept that competition produces more optimal solutions than monopoly or government: why should cable companies get an exception to that rule, especially when every other industry is being forced to layoff workers, cut costs and prices and rapidly innovate in order to compete globally?

Another pricing scheme our local (Time Warner) cable provider is employing is to move popular channels from the lower cost standard tier to the higher cost digital tier. The cost of the standard tier is not reduced accordingly but the total number of channels available is reduced. The consumer must now pay for the higher digital tier service, plus additional equipment, if they still want to watch those channels.

We have had cable and satellite and we discovered that the only thing worth watching was John Stewart and the BBC news so we no longer have either cable or satellite and we use the internet. Cable and satellite TV is a big ripoff. Get a computer and go read a book.

We canceled our DirecTV because of the lack of choice and paying too much for channels we didn’t want anyway.

Even if they offered a-la-cart now, not sure if we’d sub again. It’s rather nice not having the TV on.