Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
I don't want my MTV
boston.com — Remind me again: Why am I paying $50 a month for services I don't want? Oh, that's right. Because the cable TV monopolists say I have to.
bostond- 1722 diggs
- digg it
- HarryBauzonia, on 10/12/2007, -4/+136If I could pick the channels I wanted, I'd end up with 10 channels, and be as happy as a pig in mud.
- Johndoe777, on 10/12/2007, -81/+44Actually..... I picked ONLY the channels I want.... I have a MASSIVE 0 Channels.... I stopped watching tv a LONG time ago, sick of paying over 100 a month to the cable comapny (55 for internet / 65 for cable) just for the privledge of watching ads on a service that I am already paying an outragous price for.
- ldhertert, on 10/12/2007, -12/+53Oh, well in that case, we probably shouldn't bother discussing it. I didn't realize that YOU stopped watching tv a long time ago. I guess it's a moot point now. Reported as old news.
- pabster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+35Unfortunately, the cable monopolies would make sure your bill was just the same, whether you had those 10 channels you want or 100.
- Johndoe777, on 10/12/2007, -14/+26So ldhertert 1, Your telling me that you enjoy paying a buttload of $$ every month.... and then be saturated with ads? Sorry... but until the cable companies drastically cut the price, or drastically cut the ads.... TV is useless...... all the entertainment can be found online, free and without commercials...
- awfulshot, on 10/12/2007, -7/+13Johndoe777, I'm with you. although i still have an antenna hooked up for the basic channels... i never actually watch TV other than Conan and some PBS specials.
- ldhertert, on 10/12/2007, -5/+18I just find it silly that whenever a discussion starts about a la carte tv, people come out of the woodwork (you) who don't add anything to the conversation other than the fact that it doesn't really matter what the business model of the cable companies is, because they (you) gave up cable years ago.
- NippleNutz, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7But more than likely one or two of the channels you choose wont be available in this new system. The current system we have is what funds the smaller cable channels. With an al a carte system say good by to variety.
- Cerberus047, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7i think cable is the biggest rip off since bottled water you pay monthly fees and still get ads.... and its funny as im writing this i just got a phone call from a satallite company asking if i wanted this special discount plan with bunches of channels for less money... i almost died
- merreborn, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10"So ldhertert 1, Your telling me that you enjoy paying a buttload of $$ every month.... and then be saturated with ads?"
He *is* paying for it, isn't he? I'm pretty sure most people don't pay for things they don't either enjoy or need.
"i think cable is the biggest rip off since bottled water you pay monthly fees and still get ads...."
I think the internet is the biggest rip off since cable, you pay monthly fees and still get ads... - itanshi, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5mm i so agree, once i get my own place, no tv, no radio
life should be fun, i may even get a futon - socbret, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1if only I could choose a plan to make fox soccer channel and gol actually work during the day ( I usually have to wait till 9 PM for them to go out of the "channel available shortly" screen)
- DisposableRob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"like ESPN cost the same as the Game Show Network. or MTV equals OLN."
Yeah, ala cart will end up costing more and could lead to the death of niche channels. It would be nice to have ala carte pricing, but package deals will still be preferred by most people. Like fast food value meals, you pay less by ordering more, not by removing ingredients. - hello2usir, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"sick of paying over 100 a month to the cable comapny (55 for internet / 65 for cable) just for the privledge of watching ads on a service that I am already paying an outragous price for."
By that reasoning you might as well abandon your internet connection too. There are ads all over the internet, including here on Digg. But just like with cable TV, you aren't directly paying for those ads, you're paying for the service that delivers the content, be it an ad or not.
Don't get me wrong though. I agree with the underlying sentiment. There is something fundamentally wrong with the system when we have to pay to be subjected to unsolicited advertising, no matter what medium. This is something that needs to change. - AgentBirdman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Analogy:
Cable bill = pays for delivering content
Commercials = pays for content
Shipping on NewEgg = pays for item delivery
Item Price = pays for the item itself
To combine the two would be stupid. That is like saying all items on NewEgg should be sold for their shipping price, because that is the cost for delivering the product.
- addakorn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Free to Air
- Drewjames, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I'd only have 3.
So much crap on TV. - MrSunshine, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I would end up with 2 and probably not even watch them.
Johndoe777 is absolutely right and shouldn't have been downvoted.
- afractus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11not really news, but yes i'm sure most people would rather choose the channels that they get rather than packages. I dont think you can win by bickering and still paying. They won't listen if they have you by the balls. Don't pay for tv, whine about it, and then download the shows you want.
- xerokitsune, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Or pick them up on DVD. A lot of shows hit DVD rather quickly lately.
- maklershed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19I think the idea of paying for individual channels is great .. however .. cable companies are going to make sure to rig the pricing in such a way for individual channels that most customers will decide the current packages and pricing is the way to go.
- MrUnderbridge, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Well, of course. Here's what the idiots seem to think: If I pay $X for cable and get Y channels, then channels cost $X/Y. Since I only want 10 channels, I should only pay $X/Y*10.
Yeah, right. The cable companies aren't going to put into place a system that results in every subscriber paying a fraction of what they are now. If they allow a la carte, it has to result in you paying about what you are now.
So you can pay what you are now and get 10 channels, or pay what you are now and get 800 channels. - klang, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6The cost of billing thousands of different customers for as many different combinations is huge. (even phone companies screw up billing once in a while because it is a hard thing to do consistently correct).
The cost of making 3-4 different "packages" is ideal to keep costs down..(as not having to bill local calls does in a phone company)
With time, and IPTV, a pay-per-view / pay-per-channel, system could be put up .. but most people couldn't care less .. they'll just pay for their 80 channels and not bother with selecting.
iTunes, download your favorite TVShow for $2.99 .. expensive but convenient.. maybe even the future trend.. - bacon_skoda, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5the thing people are assuming here is that every channel on cable cost the same. like ESPN cost the same as the Game Show Network. or MTV equals OLN.
Guess what? the channel most people watch? they cost alot. and most of the channels are linked by the same parents. they won't "give" this if they don't "get" that. this article is dreaming, and just a useless rant.
- MrUnderbridge, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Well, of course. Here's what the idiots seem to think: If I pay $X for cable and get Y channels, then channels cost $X/Y. Since I only want 10 channels, I should only pay $X/Y*10.
- kneu1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+50Screw getting individual channels - how about some competition.
Allow multiple cable companies in each city. Get the telecoms and the electric companies to get in the market.
Where is my IPTV?
Competition will bring the skyrocketing television prices back down to earth.- architectzero, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2Not to worry. Broadcast and cable television have a limited shelf life and "a la carte" is coming whether they like it or not. It's called BitTorrent, and then it will be called iTV (well, probably not considering that there already is an iTV, but I think you get the picture), and then there'll be hundres of people jumping on the bandwagon.
The networks want this kind of thing even if the cable companies don't. After all, if you pick one of their stations/feeds, that's likely a couple of competitors stations/feeds that you're not watching. It's garaunteed eyeballs each and every day without worrying too much that you're going to escape them (as you're self limiting).- - kb9vgr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1if you get the power companies to do broadband over power lines (bpl) doom will for shadow the earth as the radio wave are POLLUTED bye bye radio
- architectzero, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2Not to worry. Broadcast and cable television have a limited shelf life and "a la carte" is coming whether they like it or not. It's called BitTorrent, and then it will be called iTV (well, probably not considering that there already is an iTV, but I think you get the picture), and then there'll be hundres of people jumping on the bandwagon.
- kms007, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15A la carte cable is something I have wished for since the advent of cable. I do not need 120 channels - just 10 or so would be fine. I would love to see an underdog company come up with a way to implement this and beat the cable monopolies once and for all.
- mage1129, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I think it would be ironic for an "underdog" cable company putting "underdog" networks out of business. I am all for capitalism, but this pseudo-socialistic view of tv make sure there is no tyranny by the majority, and that only 10 channels do exist because all the others are driven out because they to expensive or simply put out of business.
The greatest force that has been used to circumvent cable packages are DVDs, and or course our friend the internet. This I think will lead to better selection then a la carte cable. Also cable competition couldn't hurt either.
Kudos to the man who is free from the clutches of TV though. - tankko, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Yes, but here is the problem. If one or more of those 10 you want are obscure channels (si-fi), then you're going to be paying a lot for it. Don't for a minute thing that if you're paying $100 for 100 channels that you'll now pay $10 for any 10 of those. Fact is, the people paying for the popular channels are subsidizing the smaller ones. This is important for variety. Take this way and all we'll have is what is the 10 channels the masses want, unless you're willing to pay $100/month for just the si-fi channel.
- mage1129, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I think it would be ironic for an "underdog" cable company putting "underdog" networks out of business. I am all for capitalism, but this pseudo-socialistic view of tv make sure there is no tyranny by the majority, and that only 10 channels do exist because all the others are driven out because they to expensive or simply put out of business.
- Wardvark, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4I stoped watching satalite about two years ago when I got into bittorrent. The only show I watched was TSS, and we all know what happened there...
Now that I am living on my own I will never get cable or sat. The only thing you could need it for are sports, but in most places you can get those over the air. - fatcat, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10i dont watch tv normally anymore, the last time i watched actual when it aired was the new years eve count down and it was about 10 min late, i cancled my cable and connected my computer to my tv and now im 100% iptv and coughtorrentcough um iTunes. i think it is the future of television, watch when you want and virtually no commercials, the qualitie isnt always perfect and there arnt really any good online sitcoms yet, but i dont watch them that much
- jtibble, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21screw MTV and VH1. I just want my discovery channel, history, nat. geographic, speed, and most importantly, TECHTV BACK [crying]
- BobTurtle, on 10/12/2007, -22/+6Nobody cares what channels you want. This isn't a poll.
- Ludwig, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5An a la carte cable plan may well have prevented the loss of ZD/TechTV.
Cable companies have monopolies in their juristictions, but equally as bad, cable channels have a huge security blanket of their inclusion in packages. If consumers had a stronger voice, I'm sure we'd see a lot better programming in an attempt for us to /want/ the channel. Instead, even a channel that gets the occasional viewer flipping through channels can survive.
I've got über-mega-joy-luck-basic-basic cable at home, which basically means I don't need to use bunny ears to get decent reception. I'd have no problem paying an extra 15-20 bucks a month to get the 5 channels I want. There's no way in hell they're getting the 50-60 they're asking for their packages. - DarthTurducken, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2*sigh* I miss Speed World
Yeah cable sucks for movies - us afficianados want widescreen, unedited ad-free goodness.
- joebrodie, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15Digg++ for the title. Money for nothing... Chicks for free...
[hunts down Dire Straits in MP3 collection] - Strongoloid, on 10/12/2007, -11/+24I want Adult Swim but not Cartoon Network.
- BobTurtle, on 10/12/2007, -13/+5Why did you feel the need to tell us that worthless piece of information?
- DCJoeDog, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2I all with you on that, in fact, kill off boomerang and change it to an [as] channel
- merreborn, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7I want a ***** pony, dammit.
- DarthTurducken, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4I want more STIMUTACS!
- ichthus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I want more episodes of Samurai Jack.
- CosmicJustice, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Part of the formula for setting advertising rates is how many homes a channel is AVAILABLE in. Therefore the cable company does not want you to be able to block channels.
- djgump35, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5money makes the world go around, and everyone has bills to pay. I agree with you mak, that is exactly what they are going to do. The broadcasting companies are trying to take care of the advertisers, the cable companies are trying to take care of the broadcasters and the advertisers. I say to make things competitive, give me the a la carte, and then give me the other shows in an on demand capability where I can pay for certain shows and not have to watch commercials. I wouldn't mind paying $4 for 4 episodes a month commercial free from a certain channel, as opposed to the $10 for it, when I just don't watch it.
I think the irony is people are wanting to pay for separate channels, and saying that this is a good thing, but complaining about the internet being dealt in such a way where you have to pay for certain access rights. You don't know what you've got until its gone, so be careful what you wish for. - grated4life, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Truer words have never been better to describe the ripoffs that are going on with the cable companies. I thought there was supposed to be some sort of a la carte channel purchasing in the works. I guess just like everything else the US Gov gets involved with, it takes time and more time for Joe Schmo to benefit.
- deadbaby, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Doesn't satellite TV sort of prove this argument wrong? Satellite isn't a monopoly and they do channel bundling as well. The truth is, providers get cheaper rates from content providers if they bundle packages together. It has nothing to do with cable being a monopoly -- it's how the business works.
- zydeco, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0But one satellite company covers the whole country, reaching 10-15 million people in a crack. No cable net has that many people in range of their office, except for maybe some in NYC.
- jvux, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4seriously, i am outragiously charged for a bunch of channels i never watch. as a directv customer, i am given 500+ channels. the only person that needs that much channels is a couch potato and i'm sure as hell not one. i only watch acouple of channels, less than 10. all i want is the history channel, spiketv, national geographic, discovery, and maybe comedy central.
- Johndoe777, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Comedy Central, and scfi channel are the ONLY things I miss since i unplugged my TV a few months ago... comedy central, the ONLY thing i liked was southpark, and thanks to www.southparkx.net i dont need that.... as for sci fi... o well... they were getting too many ads in anyways....
- PiGuy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2And is basic cable not an option to you for some reason?
- cptmorgan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8how could one put the sci-fi channel in the "don't want" section? that channel kicks ass! bostoned is clearly a fool.
- DarthTurducken, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4SCI-FI is okay for Battlestar and such, but it's got an awful lot of schlock on there too.
Oooohhhhhh......Snakehead terror! Sabretooth 3! Genetically altered poodles from Hell! - pokey9000, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2One word: Mansquito.
- DarthTurducken, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4SCI-FI is okay for Battlestar and such, but it's got an awful lot of schlock on there too.
- njfinn, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Yeah it is un-American being forced to buy stuff you don't want or need....or is that the American way.
Either way I am sick of these bastards. Dugg and Blogged.- bseaver, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4You aren't being forced... If America changes the way it watches it's shows, the stations will have to adapt to what we want...
- njfinn, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1No we are forced. They don't care if I don't turn on my TV, they will keep the packages. Until we force them to change how they offer it we can't change how we order it.
- thez, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2hooray for bittorrent...though in the end the bill could be more expensive than 50 bucks a month
- astrotrain, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Cable TV is overrated...Too many channels of BS on.
MTV should be named to CTV (Crap TV), and VH1 is piggy backing off of MTV. Orginally VH1 was
supposed to be aimed to the older audience members but looks like it is showing the same amount
of junk MTV shows.- kevnaca, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Yes i totally agree. VH1 is just MTV3. It has pretty much the same content targeted at the same audience.
- zensmile, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2This is a good article. It is about ridiculous to keep paying for blocks of channels. BTW, MTV and VH1 suck. How about playing some videos for a change?
- bseaver, on 10/12/2007, -8/+4Two words....... iTunes store.
- thez, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4yea but i dont think you should have to pay for something you already pay for (cable and itunes)
- geekee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10"Two words....... iTunes store."
Yeah, $2 for a half hour show that I only want to watch once. That a great deal.
- klang, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15T.V. ... that's short for Torrent Vision, right?
- MatttK, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Channels ares stupid in and of themselves. Just let me buy the shows I want for a reasonable price (i.e. if I want to watch 10 tv shows a week - which I don't - it shouldn't cost me more than a monthly cable subscription). Maybe this could be done through a monthly digital download subscription? I don't know. But all cable, satellite, etc. packages are stupid. I find I waste more time watching garbage when I have access to cable, so I'd just as soon not have it (actually, I cancelled it last year but they haven't bothered to disconnect it).
- CosmicJustice, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"I find I waste more time watching garbage when I have access to cable, so I'd just as soon not have it"
If you can't stop yourself from watching garbage, how would you ever be able to censor what your children watch?
- CosmicJustice, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"I find I waste more time watching garbage when I have access to cable, so I'd just as soon not have it"
- manumitx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Lets say there are 10 channels you would like access to per month. Lets say limited commericals. At $5 per channel. Thats $50 right there. And you know there is no way in hell people are going to let you view a channel per month for less than $5 even with commericals. Companies are marketing user control, but most of us in the long run will be paying the same if not more for media, if we take this selective approuch.
Also lets say I watch 100 shows total of anything a month. Thats at $2 or even $1 a show? you do the math. - porcelina, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2One thing no one thinks about is the most popular shows will prevail while lesser known shows will suffer if no one buys them. In the whole scheme of things do you really think enough people are going to purchase the history channel or even SciFi for that matter to ensure they stay on the air and are able to produce enough revenue to keep up? The media companies bundle the crappy shows with the money makers to fill up the time. If this happens every channel will have just the O.C., and crap like that since its the most popular.
- ryanknapper, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1How much would cable companies have to charge per channel to profit. They need to make money in order to offer better services, but if suddenly a million people only want the Sci-Fi channel...
Also, I have wondered about finding new shows. If I didn't subscribe to Comedy Central and a new show came out that everyone loves and could be worth adding that channel to my subscription list, how could I legally watch it to decide? - Knots, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I'm sorry to say that Al La Carte is actually a good sounding idea. But not really. Here is why. If Al La carte cable would've existed 15 years ago. There would be no FX, Speed, Animal planet, or TEchTV. Why? Because in order to set up those cable channels they had to have to revenue that is GUARANTEED by cable contracts. How long do you guys think Leo, Kevin, etc would've stayed on the air if they HADN'T been able to get that guaranteed money?
I would love Al La carte cable for my wallet and I think the eventual IPTV coming out party is well on it's way. But what I'm saying is be careful what you wish for. Because not long after you subscibe to the Speed network on an al la carte basis, it will probably go off the air due to low revenue. - beggersfunk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Torrent kill my Cable!
- JamesBrown, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Have analog cable? Do this: Call the cable company to cancel. I did this when I decided I was fed up paying for something I hardly ever use. The thing is though that even though they'll stop billing you, chances are they'll leave your service connected. Analog cable has to be physically disconnected at the box, which means they have to dispatch a tech out to disconnect you. They're too lazy to do this, so they usually just leave you hooked up. I did this, and so did my sister. A year later I still have service.
- geekee, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Great so the rest of us are pulling your weight. Thanks.
- JamesBrown, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Not my fault. I cancelled my cable with the expectation that it would be disconnected. Blame Comcast for being lazy.
- KissTheRing, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Pay per channel, hell most channels are full of so much crap with a few good shows now and then I say pay per show and not $1.99 like on iTunes. If cable channels start to broadcast their shows on-line like ABC does I'll just stop paying for cable all together and eliminate the monopolistic beast.
- kubedawg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I don't know about you all, but sometimes, I don't know what I want to watch on TV. Sometimes I'm in the mood for an infomercial, or a chick flick. While I do think it should be a choice, I'd rather stick with knowing I get over 255 channels with my TC Premier package from DirecTV. I'm a channel surfer. If I'm watching G4tv, which doesn't happen often, and something ***** comes on, I'll tune to A&E and watch my fav episode of Dog the Bounty Hunter or somethin, but with DVRs available these days, who needs anything but all channels at your dispoal? Verizon is the closest thing I can think of with ala carte packages. Now, what's a a really good idea that cable com's have done is VOD programming, where I can view the shows I want for a little extra, and sometimes even free. I know DirecTV is making that move soon as well, so they are moving in the right direction.
If you have a comment or suggestion about how the shows you watch are broadcast or about what shows you want/don't want, DON'T complain to the companies, instead, suggest these things, as I work for DirecTV, and any customer who calls in CAN suggest anything they want. And I garuntee, if you are polite about it, the more often your words will not go unnoticed.
Anywho, TV is TV, no matter what the format, and for now, I'm fine with what I've got. Good digg though. - stealthboy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Sci-Fi and Discovery are the only channels worth watching. The rest is filler.
- dongiaconia, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Whaaa? Someone on Digg that doesn't think The Daily Show is worth watching? That's blasphemy in some circles.
- OneAndOnlySnob, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2And yet, this person continues to pay for cable. If the service isn't worth the money to you, don't pay it. Cancel it. Nobody is forcing you to watch TV.
Those evil cable monopolists!!! - picaman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1One person's "crap TV channel" is another person's "must-see TV".
It's odd to have to apply socialist principles to a capitalist market segment, but the current system at least ensures that there's plenty of choice and airtime for a diversity of views and opinions via a plethora of channels. A la carte pricing will lead to a shakeout and fewer choices for viewers, and guess who the remaining players will be? Large well-funded media companies.
We need more choice, not fewer choices controlled by two or three huge conglomerates. - jimbouk, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2"Must have: Outdoor Life (for the Tour de France); E!; C-SPAN (for Parliamentary Question Time and the two-hour Tony Blair press conferences); the major networks, plus Fox and PBS; FX (for ''The Shield"); NESN and the ESPNs, except Classic; Spike; Comedy Central (where's Conan?); TBS and TNT; the all-important Weather Channel; and A&E."
crap i wish i had that much spare time! is he jokin about the two-hour Tony Bliar press conferences?- stealthboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Dude, British Parliament is a blast to watch. You should seriously check it out sometime. All they do is insult eachother for hours, throwing in the "honorable gentlemen" every few minutes. It rules.
- jimbouk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2and it's free too on BBC parliament...
- stealthboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Dude, British Parliament is a blast to watch. You should seriously check it out sometime. All they do is insult eachother for hours, throwing in the "honorable gentlemen" every few minutes. It rules.
- statmobile, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1And has anybody realized how these cable stations are beating out the regular broadcast stations when bidding for sporting events (a.k.a. Monday Night Football). Of course their revenue stream is much better, I am forced to pay for their station, only to sit through the same proportion of commercials as ABC, NBC or CBS.
- orbitalleader, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1> And has anybody realized how these cable stations are beating out the regular broadcast stations when bidding for sporting events (a.k.a. Monday Night Football). <
They're called loss leaders.
- orbitalleader, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1> And has anybody realized how these cable stations are beating out the regular broadcast stations when bidding for sporting events (a.k.a. Monday Night Football). <
- beakerflips, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1If people chose there own channels then channels like G4, scifi, and others may not make money and shutdown. With the system now small channels still make money and stay afloat.
- Kitsune818, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Umm, but if only a handful of people like those channels, why should they even be on?
G4 could easily be net based. - samdu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"why should they even be on?"
Because they serve a niche audience. G4 or Logo or SciFi probably wouldn't be sustainable in an al carte system because they would be measured against more broadly applealing channels. As it is, they turn a profit for their owners (although I'm not sure how G4 does it). At least enough of a profit to keep them up and running. Because they're part of a package, they don't have the same pressures to get network numbers to stay on the air. Plus, the cable/satellite companies can use them when it comes to advertising the scope of their offerings. Probably a good 85% of the channels on a run of the mill cable or satellite lineup couldn't stand under the pressure of an a la carte system. You'd be left with the networks, the premium movie channels, ESPN, and probably MTV. Even Comedy Central probably couldn't pull in the numbers to stay afloat. Slowly but surely, your overall choices would diminish until you basically had network TV but with a good picture. Who wants that?
As others have mentioned, a la carte would end up costing you more (much like it does in pretty much every other market). If you don't like the channels, unsubscribe or skip the channels you don't want. No one's forcing you to watch them.
- Kitsune818, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Umm, but if only a handful of people like those channels, why should they even be on?
- wshwe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1A la carte pricing will result in many niche channels going out of business. Only the most watched channels will survive. This is just like Internet providers requiring people to pay to view each different website. I hope Internet providers start doing the same thing and then you'll all be sorry!
- Kitsune818, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2This person wants to keep E! and Fox News, but claims CNN is useless. That tells me something right there in regards to bias.
That said, I watch about 7 of the 200 channels I get, and of those, I Tivo out maybe 5 or 6 shows. I don't want the right to choose channels... I want to be able to download those 5 or 6 shows on a subscription basis.
However, I have to agree with "the History Channel (all Hitler all the time!)"
And, of course, the real solution is that if we had some backbone and refused to pay 100 dollars a month for something we don't use, the prices would plummet.. but we're addicted like crack. - thehans, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1 It would be nice to have an a la carte system, but this sort of system could make it near impossible for new channels to be created. There are several popular cable channels now that have been around less than 10 years. The big stations have everything to gain by this. The big stations will have hard numbers to base their advertising fees, while small stations will lose their ad revenue. I could be wrong though, I am assuming this is how channels are setup now.
- danpsmith, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I used to rely mainly on my computer for entertainment, meanwhile I'd have the TV running in the background on either MTV or Comedy Central for background noise or while I was waiting for something to load.
I bought a media center computer and now have two computers on my desk instead of a computer/TV setup. I find this to be much the same, except for that I am not as tapped into the ad culture perpetrated by the cable companies. I can watch everything I actually want to see through DVR, fast forward through commercials, and watch movies or something else on demand on my second computer.
That being said, I do miss TV from time to time as it has a kind of dulling effect where you forget where you are for a minute. But you hardly stay better informed or in touch by watching TV.
I could probably do without it altogether at this point. The problem comes when someone else is in the room, reading a website isn't exactly a two-person activity. - tinktanker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0All that was missing was for him to yell at the kids to get off his damn lawn.
- das7282, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Right now I have all the MTV's (and VH1 & BET) blocked so my kids can't watch that crap! If I could get rid of it without getting rid of other channels that are included in that package I would.
- jasqwerty, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I love when this comes up, and people don't understand how pricing and demand works in this system. Fine, yell and scream for a la carte programing all you want. When it comes and MTV, E!, and ESPN cost $1/month and your eccentric stations cost $45/month, don't come whining to me to help spread the cost. Are you the same people that want your insurance payments refunded because you didn't make any claims?
- tazamore, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Good point. If Cable Co's are forced to charge per-channel they'll just cook up a price formula that amounts to average consumer paying more. The real problem is lack of competition.
- hipsterelitist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1For all the people touting BT as the solution to this problem, I'd like to remind everyone of two things: it requires at least some tech inclination to download and watch BT'd stuff the same way you do with cable (on a tv, more or less instanteously), and that for the most part it is illegal. While most of us don't have any sort of compunctions about the legality or the tech side of things, the average joe just can't hack it.
Obviously something needs to change here, since about the only legal way to get first run tv shows is through cable or tiny weeny itunes/ad streams.
/monopolies uber alles - INHUMANITY, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1No Digg, but if this ever comes true (which I doubt) I will easily drop over half the channels I have in my Dish Network Top 40. Hell I only watch Spike, USA, History, and a few locals for TV shows. Even then I use the DVR to record all the stuff.
I really wish I could chop all the crap channels I don't watch. - yoda715, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I hate MTV! Bring on the A'la carte!
- BlvdKing, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I cancelled my extra channels and now have basic service. My wife and I found out after 2 months of service that we only watch NBC, ABC, CBS, and comedy central. We didn't think Comedy Central was worth $25/month, so the cable company loses out on any money they could have by letting me add that channel to my basic service.
Stupid cable companies.... - lukeamotion, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1All i need is one channel, Nick Gas.
- mage1129, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Is everyone forgetting that TV is pretty much generated by ad revenue? That is the majore hinderance to ala carte cable, less channels will generate less ad revenue. That is why the cable company hates Tivo
-
Show 51 - 100 of 107 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by