I watch 14 channels plus Starz/Encore but Cox charges me over $100 for that.
There is so much garbage on there it's unbelievable.
WisCoug & RedshirtMIT are both right.In my case, I only watch 12
to 15 channels yet pay for the whole shebang.I'd gladly trade
E!, shopnbc, NBATV, qvc, Lifetime, hallmark, & the Religion channels for say
the Big10 network, all the Showtimes, and both USA's (east & west) as
well as Both TNT's.
Over the air local channels, netflix and hulu streaming, plus the networks
usually stream their last four shows. You can still watch AMC and SYFY etc on
line. For $16 you can have it all. (except the sports packages) however the NBA
streams league pass.Dish, Direct, Cable are losing people every day.
They need this to survive.
This is a great example of someone trying to do a good thing in a very bad way.
I have wanted a la carte tv for a long time! But, having the Federal Government
mandate it is a bad idea. We need someone who can find a marketing strategy
that will allow it in the free market. Until then, we still have a choice,
bundle or find some different form of entertainment!
I don't see why this would have to cost any more than current bundles.I could see a base fee to cover the cost of the cable/sattelite
provider's expenses, then a fee for each chanel. Right now for each
subscriber the cable/sattelite provider pays a set fee to each chanel in the
package. If you break up that package, you could save all sorts of money.Some chanels will become more expensive as they get fewer subscribers.
Some will dissappear all together once they no longer have enough people buying
I liked the idea of a "family package" initially until I saw that one
such package assumed that all men wanted to exclusively watch sports and violent
movies, and all women wanted to watch sleazy soap operas and insipid movies.It's too stereotypical and caricature-like and at heart
fundamentally false. Many women "come from Mars" and there are Venutian
men in plenty; the fact is that all of us are stuck on a planet smack in the
middle of those other two, regardless of gender. Get it?There is no
suitable alternative to a la carte programming. We already can eliminate
unwanted channels from the menus of cable and satellite companies, and simplify
/ separate and de-clutter them from the channels we never use - but we still
have to pay for them all. Often people bought a more expensive package for one
channel not included in a cheaper band.This is not a time that most
people can afford to do that. It is a time, though, that cable and satellite
companies desperately want to attract new customers and hold onto old ones. Let
them know how you feel - politely of course.
@WisCoug has hit the mark. PayTV packages are bundled for cost reasons. While
it may be cheap to buy the Military Channel a la carte buying ESPN channels that
way might just break the bank. And you're leaving it up to the channel to
decide then what is paid by the consumer. And I guarantee that the cost the
consumer pays will be much more than the cost the cable/dish provider pays. 12
channels a la carte will most likly cost more than the bundled price.All this legislation will do is cause the cost of bundles to climb.
@WisCoug - Your concern is valid, but would you rather pay for 12-15 channels
that you'd actually watch, or have access to 250 channels, 70% of which
you'll probably never even watch? By adopting an a-la-carte model, you
could pay to have a few premium channels, that would include sports programming
and you wouldn't have to upgrade to a "plus" package just to get
the additional 10-15 channels that you actually wanted in the first place... My
guess is that providers will still offer package deals, but for those who want
quality over quantity will now have an option too.
I worry that when 250+ channels for $55-$75/month changes to 12-15 channels for
the same price, people will be wishing there had been a different kind of reform
in this area. The fact is, the costs remain relatively low by packaging
higher-demand channels with lower-demand channels and I think this proposed
change could have some unintended negative impacts on the cost of
cable/satellite television.Don't get me wrong, I certainly wish
there was more flexibility when it comes to selecting providers and getting the
channels you want (and eliminating the ones you don't), but I am not sure
this is the best way.
Why did it take so long to at least start talking about this. What consume
would not want to choose their own programs? I switched to another provider from
Comcast because everything was bundled.
Best bet is still free digital tv.
As is often the case, Congress is acting a day late and a dollar short.
Consumers are now opting for Internet streaming services where they can pick
specific series or individual programs a la carte and on demand. The market is
finding a way to fill the demand, as it always does. Issues such as these do
little more than raise new questions about the balance between intellectual
property rights and the rights of consumers to be protected from monopolies and
trusts, and their demand for information and content.
What will have most effect on getting control over you television programming is
the cancellation of subscriptions to cable and satellite companies where
subscribers give, as their reason for terminating, the lack of choice, or the
inclusion of unwanted and offensive programs, in the current "packaging"