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.

Breaker

Morris Plains, NJ

#126 Sep 12, 2007
The cable companies would find a way to charge for it, were it on the internet. Be confident. their hands will be out like a hobo and his cardboard sign.
ReadMe wrote:
<quoted text>
I do agree with others that the government should stay out of it.
And as to the garlic-and-chocolate flavored tofu sundae (yummy concoction, I must say!).. If there is a market for it, it can be offered direct-to-consumer (internet or some form of in-demand) and avoid the cable company altogether. There may not be enough demand to satisfy the cable conglomerate, but some little production company would be happy to take a bigger cut of a small profit.
I think the ultimate form of the ala carte model will let consumers pick individual shows on demand (a la iTunes) for a set or even package rate. If there's demand, someone will be smart enough to make it happen.. we just have to watch out for cable companies and their exclusivity agreements.
Let the free market reign!
Elwood

Broomfield, CO

#127 Sep 12, 2007
How about buying bundles with one channel from group A, one channel from group B, and 4 from group C. Customer gets some selection and doesn't have to get all the crap! Of course there would be premium bundles available as well.
Tamara Dalvit

Monroe, LA

#128 Sep 12, 2007
I am not sure how the Altitude channel can justify being upset by this. THey took all of the AValanche games and made it so that we HAVE to have cable in order to watch them from home. They created a monopoly on Avalanche and Nuggets games and now they're upset because people will be able to order this channel to watch their favorite sports teams after they stole them from public television. Are they upset because they cant rip us off anymore? Oh by the way, I can order a pizza in any size I want and with any topping I want. You dont have to order a "specialty pizza" maybe the CEO of Altitude should check with the major pizza chains to see how well this works for them.
RITA

Englewood, CO

#129 Sep 12, 2007
I think that sound good, could you also make cable TV, cabless?? we have three TVs and have black cords going all over. only watch about 4 of the cable shows anyway, a lot of good shows on regular TV or crack open more books.
Liz

Ouray, CO

#130 Sep 12, 2007
Beedlebum wrote:
Why can't the freakin' government put a cap on the skyrocketing costs?
yes...let's give momma government even MORE control over what we can and cannot do. good freakin' plan!
milehighmaddness

Aurora, CO

#131 Sep 12, 2007
who cares
ccAUDI

Denver, CO

#132 Sep 12, 2007
The very reason that there are so many uninteresting channels on cable is the reason why I don't subscribe. Allow me to pick those I wish to receive and I'll sign up tomorrow. That's money the cable companies aren't getting at all right now.

“Please Register!”

Since: Sep 07

Lakewood, CO

#133 Sep 12, 2007
RITA wrote:
I think that sound good, could you also make cable TV, cabless?? we have three TVs and have black cords going all over. only watch about 4 of the cable shows anyway, a lot of good shows on regular TV or crack open more books.
Actually, yes. You can put the cables in the walls.

You can also do what I'd like to do if I can get some disposable income going... create a media center in a closet with Wireless N networking to set-top boxes for each TV. If interested, simply google "homegrown HTPC"
zenith

Windsor, CO

#134 Sep 12, 2007
Picture this: Everyone in America all at once just stops watching TV. That would really show em. Ef up their ratings a little bit.
They always win

Denver, CO

#135 Sep 12, 2007
This is the cable company, after all. You just know they'll find some way to stick it to you, no matter what the FCC says.
For example, no one is saying that they can't offer packages as an option (just that they must also offer a la carte programming). So they do this- charge you $5 a channel OR $45 for the whole banana. Either way you pay nearly the same, or perhaps even more. And they laugh all the way to the bank.
Bill

Colorado Springs, CO

#136 Sep 12, 2007
Pay less, get more. Dump your cable and switch to the Dish!

Since: Aug 07

LaLa Land

#137 Sep 12, 2007
What would be cool is package deals, like all of the history, discovery, learning channel stuff in one package, sports channels in another package, etc... so you get groupings of the stuff you like, and none of the stuff you don't.

Since: Aug 07

LaLa Land

#138 Sep 12, 2007
zenith wrote:
Picture this: Everyone in America all at once just stops watching TV. That would really show em. Ef up their ratings a little bit.
That would actually be really funny
Tim

Portland, OR

#139 Sep 12, 2007
What a great idea - to pay for only the channels you watch!

What a farce of an explanation from the head of the Denver channel. We should be forced to pay for the smaller companies that cannot compete? Perhaps there is a reason why they don't have viewership. Why should I pay for a company that cannot compete against other channels. Gimme a break!

Thats like going to a store buying a product and going to another store and saying "Hey I just bought a hammer at your competition but I feel bad so here is some money for your store so you can stay in business".

Perhaps these executive "heads" decline their multi-million dollar salaries? Then maybe they can compete with the others...

“I'd rather be fishing”

Since: Aug 07

Colorado

#140 Sep 12, 2007
Breaker wrote:
The cable companies would find a way to charge for it, were it on the internet. Be confident. their hands will be out like a hobo and his cardboard sign.
<quoted text>
right as rain.. if they see their bottom line being threatened, they'll find a way to make a profit off of it. I'd still like to see them go the way of the dodo bird.
TV Tom

Denver, CO

#141 Sep 12, 2007
This will drive the cable guy nuts
Mike

United States

#142 Sep 12, 2007
I read a lot of the comments but not every one and I'm not too sure folks really understand this situation.

The first thing to keep in mind is that the practice of bundling channels is dictated by the cable/satellite companies. Does anyone think they do that to "benefit" the consumer. If you do, you are very naive. They are in business to maximize profits. Period. Anyone ever see the channel that only shows a fireplace burning? Some folks are actually paying for this.

The program providers bundle packages of channels to the cable/satellite companies. To get one, they have to buy several. The program providers do this because, standing alone, many of the channels in the program bundle cannot stand on their own. Unless they are forced on consumers who are required to pay for them, they would disappear. The program providers know this and even admit it at times, but their "excuse" is that these mostly unwanted, unwatched, and unneeded channels provide employment, boost local economies, and are a stepping stone for employees, actors, etc. to the next level - Altitude to ESPN as an example. Survival of the fittest is not a concept program providers want applied to them.

Will some channels go under, such as Altitude? Sure they will. Remember that Altitude didn't exist until Stan Kroenke decided he could make more money by discontinuing his relationship with FSN and start his own cable channel. If Altitude disappears, does anyone think Mr. Kroenke won't arrange for a "survivor" such as FSN to carry the Avs & Nuggets? When/if that happens, subscribers costs will go down, say 15 cents to 50 cents per month because that's what Altitude cost you. Multiply that by all of the channels that will cease to exist and your cable/satellite bill will go down. Other "quality" programming on other channels that may go under will find their way to surviving channels.

Will the cost to provide the surviving channels go up? Don't think so. Does anyone really believe that these channels are losing money now. Sure, with a loss of subscribers, total revenue will decrease. But it won't fall below fixed, minimum costs and it will ensure that the surviving channels are accountable via competition from other channels and competition to win you over as a subscriber. Those two concepts don't exist today.

I would love to dump all of the children's channels, the soap channel, and only buy ESPN and ESPN 2 (I have no use for their news or classic channels) as examples.

The bottom line here is that whatever the cable/satellite/program prividers want is probably something you don't want. They want as much of your money as they can get their hands on. You want to keep as much of your money as you can.
Val

Loveland, CO

#143 Sep 12, 2007
This is a great idea! I hate paying for cable. Two-thirds of the shows are crap and the rest are re-run after re-run. I can only watch the same episode of Mythbuster so many times. This would be a much better alternative!

“'Facts are stubborn things'-RR”

Since: Jul 07

Boulder, CO

#144 Sep 12, 2007
Mike wrote:
If Altitude disappears, does anyone think Mr. Kroenke won't arrange for a "survivor" such as FSN to carry the Avs & Nuggets? When/if that happens, subscribers costs will go down, say 15 cents to 50 cents per month because that's what Altitude cost you. Multiply that by all of the channels that will cease to exist and your cable/satellite bill will go down. Other "quality" programming on other channels that may go under will find their way to surviving channels.
Will the cost to provide the surviving channels go up? Don't think so. Does anyone really believe that these channels are losing money now. Sure, with a loss of subscribers, total revenue will decrease. But it won't fall below fixed, minimum costs and it will ensure that the surviving channels are accountable via competition from other channels and competition to win you over as a subscriber. Those two concepts don't exist today.
I would love to dump all of the children's channels, the soap channel, and only buy ESPN and ESPN 2 (I have no use for their news or classic channels) as examples.
The bottom line here is that whatever the cable/satellite/program prividers want is probably something you don't want. They want as much of your money as they can get their hands on. You want to keep as much of your money as you can.
I can see your logic, and while it sounds good on at the outset, it doesn't take into account that ole familiar demon - greed.

It is my belief that the cable companies and channels will raise the price of the remaining channels as high as consumers are willing to pay for them. I suspect that after a year or so of "lower" cable rates, we'll be right back to where we are now, with rates only going higher, but with a whole lot less choice.

Not all of the channels are making money. They will cease to exist if interested consumers were charged the extremely high amount required to keep them in business.

The cable companies know that you are paying a set amount of money for a select subset of popular stations in a certain cable package.

What's to stop them from charging nearly the same amount for the single very popular channel ala carte, knowing that that channel was the sole reason most people bought the packages in the first place?
Rodney

Aurora, CO

#145 Sep 12, 2007
Holy smokes!
You mean I would only have to pay for Home Shopping Network and the pregnant Asian midgets who like to get covered in whipped cream and spanked while eating raw oysters channel?

I'm going to save a mint!

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 PHOTOS: Historic 150-ton Kirkland Museum moves ... 53 min Culture Artist 2
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 1 hr TomInElPaso 56,040
Denver Health Medical Center, place of horrors (Jul '13) 6 hr Tilly 39
Male on Female Facesitting topix? (Nov '16) 13 hr Wrestler facesitter 17
Republicans the party of LIARS (Dec '11) 14 hr tbird19482 29,998
Men wearing panties and bra and sex with women (Jul '16) 23 hr Joe 21
broncos hoof the cowboys Sep 18 BlueandOrangeCrush 1

Denver Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Denver Mortgages