Picture this: Pay for only the cable channels you watch

Full story: KUSA Denver

Imagine a world in which you only pay for the cable channels you actually watch.
Comments
1 - 20 of 156 Comments Last updated Oct 26, 2012
First Prev
of 8
Next Last
abouttime

Aurora, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Sep 11, 2007
 

Judged:

1

I actually think that this is a great idea. I predict that in the next 5 years ALL TV will be delivered in a "on demand" format. You will simply subscribe to (and pay for) only those shows that you
actually want to see. The only "live" content will be news, sports and a few other shows. Everything else (sitcoms, movies, etc) can and should be delivered on demand.

Anybody that disagrees just needs to think back to what happened with MP3's and the music industry. It's going to happen again, and advertisers and the TV industry might as well prepare for it (and prosper from it) rather than run from it (and suffer the same fate as the music industry). The technology is already here- IPTV, Tivo, DVR and the Apple TV are all leading examples of a trend that will only continue to grow.

The writings on the wall- and it's good for consumers IMHO.
JHB

Arvada, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Sep 11, 2007
 

Judged:

1

A solution to cable a la carte rests in compromise. The cable companies want to group channels, but us consumers don't want all those useless channels. The cable companies can group the channels by topic, and charge consumers less than they are now. Grouping will allow smaller channels to make it, and consumers to have a little more control than they have now.
i.e. a sports package, kids package, discovery package, drama package, syndicated sitcoms package, etc.
Michael

Denver, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Sep 11, 2007
 
abouttime wrote:
I actually think that this is a great idea. I predict that in the next 5 years ALL TV will be delivered in a "on demand" format. You will simply subscribe to (and pay for) only those shows that you
actually want to see. The only "live" content will be news, sports and a few other shows. Everything else (sitcoms, movies, etc) can and should be delivered on demand.
Anybody that disagrees just needs to think back to what happened with MP3's and the music industry. It's going to happen again, and advertisers and the TV industry might as well prepare for it (and prosper from it) rather than run from it (and suffer the same fate as the music industry). The technology is already here- IPTV, Tivo, DVR and the Apple TV are all leading examples of a trend that will only continue to grow.
The writings on the wall- and it's good for consumers IMHO.
I disagree not because I think it's a bad idea, but because I don't think the cable companies and the FCC can move that fast, and that's assuming the cable companies will go along with it at all.

Plus, a lot of the most popular TV is already on a la carte channels (Think Sopranos, etc,). I think the owners of those channels might push back when all of a sudden their prices look sky high compared to the price of Bravo or TNT.
Dan M

Brighton, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Sep 11, 2007
 
This story lacks any real balance or objectivity. The logic which concludes that a la carte pricing would increase cable subscription costs seems flawed and contrived. I'm sure there are many families like ours that have canceled cable and satellite subscriptions because the high cost only netted a scant amount of worthwhile programming. It would seem more logical that if more subscribers could select a few high quality channels that the result would be greater competition. The further result of this would be either better programming or lower costs or more likely both. Did somebody skip out on their economics 101 class?
homechief

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Sep 12, 2007
 
It seems to me that the Advertisers pay enough to take care of all the channels. In which case, we should pay much less to start with.
Beedlebum

Colorado Springs, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Sep 12, 2007
 
Why can't the freakin' government put a cap on the skyrocketing costs? Comcast especially is a complete rip-off. I have an HD set, however they are the last to add new HD channels. When you call their customer service, they never have answers or get offended when you complain. I'm sick to death of paying $150 per month for cable and internet.
Nudnik

Pueblo, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Sep 12, 2007
 
Comparing cable to pizza is a bad analogy.
Cable abd the newspaper is a better analogy. When you subscribe to the paper, you're paying for some stories and ads you're not going to read.
But then we all know what's happening to the
newspaper industry.
James M

Littleton, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Sep 12, 2007
 
Amen!
We gave up on cable a year ago because we were subsidizing a lot of junk. And the pizza analogy is ridiculous. It's more like being told you can't buy a pizza unless you also include bread sticks, spaghetti, and a few calzones. And if, when you get home, you throw out everything but the pizza, it's OK because you're keeping the calzone maker employed.
Bruce

Englewood, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Sep 12, 2007
 
As worthy as a la carte programming is, Iím afraid it will be like water. Water distributors want reduced consumption to conserve water, but then raise the price of water so their income is sufficient to cover costs and still make money. It will be the same thing with a la carte programming. You watch fewer channels but the distributor still needs a minimum income to cover costs and make a profit so what happens? The subscriberís cost goes up.
Sothatsit

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Sep 12, 2007
 
I think it is more of an example of the 500 pound gorillas coming up with a scheme to make more money from the programming they sell now. the popular networks will make a LOT more money under this plan.

They just have the juice to make the FCC do the selling for them.
Mikey

Broomfield, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Sep 12, 2007
 
Yay for this. Hey, if you produce junk, why should you have the benefit of being able to stay in the business? There are so many useless, worthless channels on cable, Im all for this move and will gladly pay for quality channels. Why should I pay $60 which is deemed a good deal considering how many channels there are, when I only watch 5% of them?
gabe

Denver, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Sep 12, 2007
 
We subscribe to dish. Out of the 160 channels we have we watch only about 10.The rest are junk channels.Why do they put these on seems like a waste of time flipping thru these.I would go for on demand because all that is worth watching is the movies.They have way to many commercials also.
SparksMom

West Orange, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Sep 12, 2007
 
We gave up cable partly because of the cost and partly because of the content. Reading has increased in our house.
kjfdiiem

Denver, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Sep 12, 2007
 
Beedlebum wrote:
Why can't the freakin' government put a cap on the skyrocketing costs?
Because we live in a free market economy. The consumer is setting the price by what they are willing to pay. You don't have to have HD or even TV. But you have decided it is worth the price you are paying. So they continue to charge it.

The more control you give the government, the more they will control you.

“Who wants to buy my condo?”

Since: Aug 07

Denver

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Sep 12, 2007
 
Sothatsit wrote:
I think it is more of an example of the 500 pound gorillas coming up with a scheme to make more money from the programming they sell now. the popular networks will make a LOT more money under this plan.
They just have the juice to make the FCC do the selling for them.
Competition never hurt anybody. If the networks need to start competing for viewers, and their paychecks, maybe they will start offering beter sitcoms and programs. I think it is a great idea. No altitude will not go under. There are plenty or Avalanche and Nugget fans that will EASILY pay a monthly fee to see their favorite team on the tube. Make the fee 12.95 per month, and maybe not... but make the fee only 2.95 a month, and half the citizens of this city will pay for it.
kjfdiiem

Denver, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Sep 12, 2007
 
In a country where every other show is reality nonsense, this will not be a cheaper option. Everyone assumes that the 'good' programs are the ones they watch. It is likely you will have a slew of cheap garbage on tv and the 'good' channels will be gone because no one is willing to pay.
Angrytom

Denver, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Sep 12, 2007
 
So the smaller cable companies are afraid they won't be able to operate under an ala carte system. Guess what-this is the United States, where we embrace the free market concept, under which you offer the consumer a product at a price you deem fair. If the consumer doesn't like your product or price, he goes somewhere else, and you either adjust or fail. Or whine to the government like every other mendicant out there.
shane

Fort Collins, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Sep 12, 2007
 
homechief wrote:
It seems to me that the Advertisers pay enough to take care of all the channels. In which case, we should pay much less to start with.
I agree. As an example, try watching the SciFi Channel. It seems they have commercials every 10 to 15 minutes, and they seem to last in the vicinity of 5 minutes. I also agree with what some of the others are saying...how many of the other "packaged channels" do you watch? Yet, we are all paying for them anyway.
Sharon

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Sep 12, 2007
 
I've been asking Direct TV to do this for YEARS.

I only watch the discovery channel grouping and sci fi and local. I have a few others I watch once in a blue moon I'd pick as well.

I'm irritated that I can't get the science channal because it's in the next package up. I'd have to pay 10 to 20 dollars (don't feel like looking it up right now) more just for one channal - and a whole bunch others I wouldn't watch.

Of course there has to be some guidelines.. you shouldn't be saying - swapping out channles on a monthly basis might be tedious.

I figure local channals (which should be free anyway)+ 10 NON-primium channals would be a base package. then maybe a package with 20 or 25 and a package for 50.
and a package for all. Plus a few of the old style.

Basically make a la carte a choice don't do away with the old packages all ready in existence.

And a person has to pay for at least a small pizza... not a few bites.(ie can't pick one or two channels.)

- Sharon
Taylor

Davenport, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Sep 12, 2007
 
I think it's a good idea as long as cable co. are limitied to what thay can charge per chanel.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 8
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Denver Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 9 hr DNF 2,931
last post wins! (Feb '11) 11 hr AmyFaith 24,645
D Unknown written about on the Disc of Nebra Tue Dial America is Feds 1
Republicans the party of LIARS (Dec '11) Tue KarlVIIIII 12,410
Denver Health Medical Center, place of horrors (Jul '13) Tue Bev Jamison 20
You rule the planet. How do you save the human... (Dec '12) Aug 25 Respect71 1,294
Broncos # 1---14/15 Aug 23 DenverFan 1
•••
•••
•••

Denver Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Denver People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Denver News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Denver
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••