Posted on 12/03/2005 6:43:34 AM PST by cloud8
I think it's a great idea. We don't have cable or satellite TV, but we probably would if we could pay for only the channels we want.
I think it's a great idea, too. Why pay for what you don't want?
I suppose because the cable/satellite companies get more money that way! But they're not getting any from us, with the current setup.
If ala carte does happen, many of the channels will disappear without the subdizing they are getting now with tier programming.
What is the fewest number of actual viewers (subscribers) that a channel can have and survive? Unless they expand their advertising, they will go under. And we already have too much infomercialling anyway.
I would like ala carte just to get rid of the clutter channels I have to have now to get the channels I want. Through my expanded basic, I have to filter through 70 channels to get to 30 I watch occasionally-frequently. 40 are "remote-through's" to get to the other channels.
Buh bye CNN, MSNBE, CNBC, Lifetime, Oxygen, The Commie Channel, etc....
Let's add Good-Bye Sundance Channel to the list. Robert Redford would no longer be able to push his liberal spin at every election cycle while we're forced to pay for it!
I am thinking of just getting basic cable.
I only have expanded now, no HBO, Max or so called "premium" channels because
1. I get channels that I have no interest in and never watch and
2. Its getting quite costly!
With a la carte I would just add to basic, FOX News, History, FX...done!
I have what is probably a stupid question - why does it have to be just "a la carte" or just "by the channel?"
All the negative things about "a la cart" have to do with losing the packages -like the difficulty for new channels to get started.
Why can't they still have packages at current prices for those who want them but also have by the channel prices?
I was thinking the same thing! If I had the option to pay for which news outlets I wanted to see, FoxNews would be it. I suspect THAT is the real reason they are upset over these changes. People will pay for porn. I don't expect the Playboy channel, HBO or Showtime to go under. Cinemax might have some trouble, but they show enough soft-core porn on weekends to stay afloat.
IMHO, the REAL nervous ninnies are the news outlets and those "every-woman-is-a-victim" channels.
IMO,there's not *nearly* enough worthwhile stuff coming out of Hollywood to justify the cost of HBO,etc.
My biggest complaint at the moment, and it's more of an issue with my wife, really, is that I'm actually paying five bucks a month for a handful of local UHF stations. But, hey, I'm paying for it, you don't have to have them, which is the way it should be. (BTW, originally, I was paying for all the local stations, so it was worth it. Now, the VHF channels are included in the package, but not the UHF. We rarely watch UHF, but occasionally we do.)
I wouldn't mind not having to see all those shopping channels show up. Hell, they should REDUCE my bill for having them.
TS
There woudl have to be a minimum monthly charge...say, to get 20 channels..then you could add additional ones at a specific additional rate..However, the REAL aim of ATT here jumping in as the good guy is the attempt to allow/force the phone companies to also distribute cable services..
"In a free market we should be able to pick and choose what comes into our homes and not pay for crap we don't subscribe to. If that were the case, the highly watched stations would cost a bit more and the slightly watched stations would cost less, because the demand for them would be less."
In a free market isn't the corporation entitled to offer whatever package deals they want without government regulation? Dell doesn't have to sell individual hard drives if they don't want to - they are free to focus on selling complete systems if they choose.
But,as I mentioned before I think the cable companies should offer their lineup each way - choose up to 10 channels at $5 a piece or take the whole package for $60. They shouldn't do it because the government has added more regulations - they should do it in response to consumer demand -to make more money.
We may, one day, get an à la carte cable choice system....but it will very likely cost us more than what we are paying now.
Of course each channel will cost more but a la carte-ing it might open Hollyweird's eyes to what the public doesn't want. I can see this being the death of many channels and a huge bonus would be getting rid of all those annoying Spanish channels we have to pay for and never watch.
We only watch 10 of the basic 45 channels we're currently being charged. Perhaps - 3 local channels, FNC, Weather Channel, Food Network, Discovery Channel, History Channel, HGTV, and TBS (yeah, I know).
HBO and Showtime are the only sources of top boxing matches. I subscribe to both solely for the boxing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.