Picture this: Pay for only the cable ...

Picture this: Pay for only the cable channels you watch

There are 156 comments on the KUSA Denver story from Sep 11, 2007, titled Picture this: Pay for only the cable channels you watch. In it, KUSA Denver reports that:

Imagine a world in which you only pay for the cable channels you actually watch.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at KUSA Denver.


United States

#21 Sep 12, 2007
Huh. I don't know why it says I'm in WY. I'm not, I'm in westminster, co.

Longmont, CO

#22 Sep 12, 2007
I like the idea. Mostly because I wouldn't pay for channels that I have no use for like spanish speaking channels and I am tired of paying for something I can never use.

Arvada, CO

#24 Sep 12, 2007
In my opinion, I would be willing to pay more for the channels that I want to be able to watch, rather than have a whole load of channels that I will NEVER watch. Comcast basic cable includes at least 5-7 Hispanic channels, and also the shopping channels.

I would rather NOT have all that [email protected], and be able to, for a few dollars more, select channels I would actually like to watch.

In reality though, it's all a scam. In the end, consumers are mindless lemmings and will go with whatever is given to them. We pretty much will take whatever they have, as long as we get a good deal.

Denver, CO

#25 Sep 12, 2007
Small cable-based networks say a la carte would put them out of business.

Whats good for the truckers and IT people who have suffered losing there jobs due to competition should be good for this industry. I would love the idea that we can pick and choose. Out of 200 channels of crap there is only 5 to 10 channels that are worth watching. In Louisville there is a company called Cable Labs they set a lot of the TV standards. A few years ago I saw a demo like this but with VDSL and it was amazing the quality you got out of your phone line.(Type 3 Cable)

Aurora, CO

#26 Sep 12, 2007
The first company that offers me a reduced price to eliminate sports channels gets my business. We've asked for this option for ages, but apparently if you want the "geeky" channels included in the "everything" packages, you must also receive 43 channels devoted to sports.

Topic-based channel selection? Please!

Denver, CO

#27 Sep 12, 2007
Bruce wrote:
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.
I fear you may be right.

Littleton, CO

#28 Sep 12, 2007
I think you should have the option of buting what channels you want from a cable or satalite company. It's getting really rediculous. So many times I flip through several cable channels and there is not one good thing to watch. I also think that certain channels should focus more on what they are about. A great example is the History Channel - they currently have more shows about modern stuff than they do actual history. Most of the the programs the history channel currently runs belong on channels like the Discovery channel.

Colorado Springs, CO

#29 Sep 12, 2007
The pizza analogy is stupid. You can buy a slice of pizza if you so desire, so there go that stupid argument. I would welcome paying only for the channels I watch. Right now I have to take a bigger package to get what I want and the trouble is I don't watch over half of the other channels in this package.

Colorado Springs, CO

#30 Sep 12, 2007
kathrynne wrote:
The first company that offers me a reduced price to eliminate sports channels gets my business. We've asked for this option for ages, but apparently if you want the "geeky" channels included in the "everything" packages, you must also receive 43 channels devoted to sports.
Topic-based channel selection? Please!
Sad but true

Longmont, CO

#31 Sep 12, 2007
This seems like a good idea, but it could end up hurting people aswell. Comcast could decide to drop all unpopular programming, greatly reducing the number of channels available. Sure, not everyone watches altitude, but the people that do watch it will be hurt by a decision like this.

United States

#32 Sep 12, 2007
What is this Altitude guy talking about? If I could choose a la carte, I would be watching Altitude network. The reason I DON'T have Altitude right now is because I WOULD have to pay for the extra channels I won't watch.

Aurora, CO

#33 Sep 12, 2007
Cable isn't like pizza. If I order a small pizza, I can pay for a small pizza with mushrooms. Cable's like a pizza company which tells you that a small pizza can only be cheese pizza, the medium comes with green peppers, olives and sausage, and the large is a garbage pizza with everything on it, including the anchovies you hate. If you really want the mushrooms on the pizza, you'll have to order and pay for the large, and pick off what you don't want.

I don't think Domino's would be the success that it is if that was the model they followed.

Right now the cable deal is that you have to buy 38 channels of junk you don't care about in order to get the three or four you want. Sure, some channels would go away under a la carte pricing, but hey, those are exactly the channels people didn't want in the first place.

Denver, CO

#34 Sep 12, 2007
I remember when there were no commercials on cable channels. Since you had to pay for it, they didn't need to advertise. Now, it's all commercials. Something's wrong with this picture.

Denver, CO

#35 Sep 12, 2007
Beedlebum wrote:
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.
Dude,$150 a month!! Nobody's holding a gun to ypur head! I pay $15 a month for basic (yeah only basic)...and I'm not surrering much. Qwest dsl at $25/month...that's it.

Denver, CO

#36 Sep 12, 2007
$20 a channel? I'm in!
Les J

Denver, CO

#37 Sep 12, 2007
Someone said that the companies would charge what they think it's worth. That was the old way. 20 years ago they went from that system to charging whatever they think the customer will pay and the prices of good in America have skyrocketed. Remember when you used to be able to buy a good pair of blue jean pants for $10 or $12? How high do you think they will charge for this PREMIUM service?

Denver, CO

#39 Sep 12, 2007
I would love paying for channels a la carte. I am a Dishnetwork customer and my husband and I love the Golf Channel but the only way we can get it is if we subscribe to the 250 channel package we don't watch half of those channels but we get the package so we can have the Golf Channel. If we could get the lowest number of channels and just pay for the Golf Channel I would be very happy.

“Colorado Native”

Since: Mar 07


#40 Sep 12, 2007
Dan M wrote:
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?
My family is one that canceled all television.! I do not like many shows in face most of them and then having to pay for 30 minutes of commercials per hour show. I disliked paying for Reality and shopping networks no I blocked the ones I did not want to watch, but I was left with 3-4 channels and thats a lot of money for nothing.
I get outside more, I read more and a computer offers my pick of news and weather. I get my movies from NetFlix, the ones I want and watch when I want.
I have asked for just getting the channels I want I want for many years. I would be willing to pay more if that cost more ( which I doubt).

“I'd rather be fishing”

Since: Aug 07


#41 Sep 12, 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.
Agreed.. why stop with getting rid of the "filler" stations in a cable package when we can get rid of the "filler" shows on a network and just pay for what we actually watch?

Unfortunately, I think it's a pipe dream for this to happen in 5 years because the cable/satellite companies will fight tooth and nail to keep their huge monthly checks coming in. Ultimately, I seem them like the record stores.. they are pure middlemen in the process, and eventually content delivery will find a way around them if they don't adapt.

Monroe, LA

#42 Sep 12, 2007
People are missing the point the reason Tivo and VCR's added commercial skip capability is programmers wanted more advertising $. Shows have actually gotten shorter so more advertising can be done, we all know in the last 10 years advertising has increased 10 fold and that means big $ for someone. Of course those people do not want to change, I think the advertising industry are scum bags, period.... You can't even go to the bathroom in some places or the elevators without a screen pumping crap. I personally do not buy from companies that put advertising everywhere.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 1 hr Ulysses 51,263
Lookin in denver 10 hr Heavenlee50 7
New president and crew ideas Sat TheOneAndOnlyEpic 1
Republicans the party of LIARS (Dec '11) Fri ReplaceGOP 28,730
CHI-St. Lukes Fri anonymous 1
Connect for tar Jun 22 No thanks 2
Rembering Veterans lost during Memorial Day Jun 22 Try therapy 2

Denver Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Denver Mortgages