Cable companies should let customers pick and choose

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • eagle Provo, UT
    Nov. 13, 2013 9:55 p.m.

    When the cable tv people figure out a way to profit from choice, they will make it happen...

  • Liddle Bruda Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 13, 2013 3:15 p.m.

    Do you understand how the channel operators sell their content? It doesn't make any sense to "unbundle" certain content because of the way the content is sold to the proivder. Lets just say that Disney who owns Disney Channel, ESPN, ABC and other channels, comes to DirecTV and says ok, you can have all of our content for 2 million a year for 5 years, or you can have just ESPN for 1.5 million a year. Of course DirecTV is going to with the 2 million a year because it is the better value.

    I would be willing to bet if you just wanted Local Channels, ESPN, Disney and HBO you would be paying around $50 a month.

  • SlopJ30 St Louis, MO
    Nov. 13, 2013 1:08 p.m.

    It is quite eye-opening to see that people who don't watch TV (or only watch it for things like news and General Conference) are all such noble, high-minded sorts who probably eat their veggies, too. Role models, one and all, always out there building houses for the homeless in their spare time.

    How did "I don't watch TV!" become a point of personal pride? The implication that people who find certain shows entertaining can't or don't help the widows, veterans, scouts, etc is absurd and speaks to an immense ego.

    My previous comment was blocked by the moderators, who apparently agree with you.

  • Johnny Triumph American Fork, UT
    Nov. 13, 2013 10:34 a.m.

    The problem is that if we purchase a la carte we'll probably still end up paying a similar amount to our bundled packages anyway. Pricing is not as easy as saying I currently get 100 channels for $50 so that means I should pay $.50 for each channel I really want. The bulk of the cost goes to the more expensive channels, like ESPN. So I may end up paying $20 for ESPN, $10 for ESPN2, $5 for foodnetwork, $5 for CNN, $5 for HGTV, $15 for Disney, it all adds up. Movie channels will be expensive too. So in the end will we really save? I don't think so (unless you want to only watch the Military and Weather channels, then it might get cheaper).

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Nov. 13, 2013 8:26 a.m.

    Mike Richards
    South Jordan, Utah

    Gee Mike,
    We ... AGREE!

    We don't have cable,
    and we don't watch television - with few exceptions.

    My teenaged son watches PBS - Nature and Nova -
    As a family we watch Semi-annual General Conference,
    and Sunday Mornings before Church, I like tuning into Music and the Spoke Word, and History of the Saints.

    My wife watches PBS News Hour for national stories,
    [She says the local news is a variety reality show - more interested in reporting about Utah's abused cats, lost puppies, and children's shoes and what they have for lunches rather than "real news".]
    To find out what happening in the World -- we have found Al Jazeera by far being the most unbiased and relible news source.

    We could care less about Utahns showing up on "American Idol" or "Biggest Loosers" and then voting for them 50 times so they can win....

    I have widows in my ward who need help and visiting,
    Scouts who need merit badges, service projects and rank advancements,
    Fellow Veterans at the VA who need visiting and PH Blessings,
    and homeless people who need food and shelter.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Nov. 13, 2013 4:15 a.m.

    Gee. If only you could make all the decisions for the rest of us.

    What a wonderful world it would be. NOT

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Nov. 12, 2013 4:53 p.m.

    No one needs cable. I won't have it in my home. I don't want it. I don't need it. It offers nothing.

    We only have a limited number of hours to spend on earth. Watching cable TV is a waste of time and a waste of money. We also don't watch network TV except for a very limited number of programs that only air twice a year. Why would anyone watch 30 minutes of "news" to get 5 minutes of content, when that content has already been reported ad infinitum on the Internet?

    Intelligent people should know how to make proper choices. Most of us decry the use of alcohol and drugs as a detriment to society. Why, then, would we invite nudity and violence into our homes? Or, why would we sit and watch over-paid actors act like fools. Do we really need a "circus"?

  • Lightbearer Brigham City, UT
    Nov. 12, 2013 4:10 p.m.

    Re: (2 bits) "KSL not airing 'The Playboy Club' is absolutely 'Censorship'. Do you not see that?"

    I do, in fact, because KSL is the only NBC affiliate available here. The right and courageous thing for KSL to do, and more in the spirit of individual "free agency," would have been to broadcast it despite their disapproval and let viewers decide for themselves, instead of deciding for them.

    And by the way, I have nothing against it if Comcast decides to carry "The Blaze."

    Re: (2 bits) "Did anybody say it was NOT censorship?"

    Actually, yes. See the comments on Lois Collins's article "KSL will not air 'Playboy Club' in fall", June 12, 2011. The following selection is just from the first page:

    "... this is not censoring because it will be available on other stations and through other means."

    "Excellent decision ..."


    "It's refreshing to see a ... TV station that sets standards ..."

    "Good decision ..."

    "I applaud this decision and hope that other stations will boycott the program ..."

    "Thank you for taking a stand."

    "Good for you KSL! I wish more stations had the moral courage to do the same!"

  • SlopJ30 St Louis, MO
    Nov. 12, 2013 3:51 p.m.

    "I know for a fact that millions of their customers are asking them to provide this channel . . "

    Realllllly. You know this for a fact, do you? What; did Glenn Beck say it was so? Or do you "know" it because you, your brother-in-law, and Some Guy You Know From Church all talked about it for ten minutes once?

    The whole "liberal agenda/conspiracy" thing is scary (but funny) in its naivete. Big compainies exist to make money, plain and simple. If the cable companies' corporate leadership thought that adding "The Blaze" would make them money, they'd offer it. End of conversation. I realize it's much more fun to lash out at make-believe liberal oppressors, but it's a silly little fiction.

  • 2 bit Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 12, 2013 3:41 p.m.


    I didn't say the decision is not "within their rights"... of course it's within their rights, it's their company, they can do whatever they want. But that doesn't mean they don't practice censorship.

    Censorship is USUALLY an evil word (to leftist liberals). I used it in this case just to watch them spin and defend one of their own doing it (because defending Censorship is very hard to swallow for MOST liberals).

    I don't know for sure if they are censoring this by not allowing it... or if they just can't afford to provide this type of content to their customers. I had no idea Comcast and NBC Universal was having such a hard time paying their bills and providing the content their customers want. Who knew?

    Somehow the Dish Networks have enough money to broadcast it. And they charge 1/3rd what Comcast does.

  • Samson01 S. Jordan, UT
    Nov. 12, 2013 3:01 p.m.

    "Cable companies should let customers pick and choose"

    This is an odd headline. I chose several years cancel.

    Great decision and until their business model changes to something more palatable, permanent.

    Also...Their decision to not carry the BlazeTV offering is wholly within their rights. It is your right not to purchase their product. That is a right I wholeheartedly support! Besides, you can pony up the 6 bucks a month and watch it online. Anybody who doesn't think our media outlets are political are simply blind.

    We vote with our dollars. I voted Comcast down years ago.

    I also have not been voting for broccoli...for a long time - yuck!

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Nov. 12, 2013 2:26 p.m.

    2 bits
    Cottonwood Heights, UT
    But the one channel you CAN'T get no matter what you offer to pay is... the Conservative issue based network called "The Blaze". Wonder why that is?

    Is that not Censorship?

    I know for a fact that millions of their customers are asking them to proved this channel... but they absolutely refuse. Why do you think they would risk losing customers to Dish rather than let them have access to The Blaze?


    Under "Capitalism" things are sold to the highest bidder.

    My guess is Glenn Beck is asking too much for his "product", and ComCast is just not willing to pony up and pay it.

    Rather than tell his listeners that he is a greedy businessman,
    He tells them he is a victim of dirty Politics.

    Rush Limbaugh has used the same schtick for decades,
    and it's made him a Capitalist Billionaire.

    BTW - Rush Limbaugh used to have his own Cable Network show,
    but it was cancelled, due to his controversial comments.

    The Free Markets then dropped him like a hot potato.
    Just like his "sponsors" are doing now, again.

    But, you have made your conspiracies to fill in your gaps of reality.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 12, 2013 2:22 p.m.


    KSL not airing "The Playboy Club" is absolutely "Censorship". Do you not see that? Did anybody say it was NOT censorship?

    The DesNews not publishing Paul Krugman would be a good comparison IF a large percentage of their readers were requesting Paul Krugman.

    It could be a totally economic decision for Comcast. You never know... they charge me $200/month and can afford to broadcast all these channels I've never heard of or wanted to watch... but they can't afford the one I want to watch. And Dish can charge $35/month and they are able to afford to broadcast this content... That just doesn't make economic sense to me.

    If you do some research you will find that Comcast and NBCUniversal are the same people. Do you think the same people who produce MSNBC are going to allow a Conservative point of view on the air (IF they can help it)?

    You would think IF it was PURELY a matter of economics... they would provide it in a premium package like they do their nitch sports packages. But they won't. That makes me think it's about more than just money to them.

  • Lightbearer Brigham City, UT
    Nov. 12, 2013 1:08 p.m.

    Re: "The Blaze," Comcast, and censorship.

    Directv refuses to carry the PAC-12 network. Is that censorship?

    Directv doesn't offer "The Blaze," either. Is that censorship, too?

    As far as I can see, DISH is the only big TV provider that includes "The Blaze" in its lineup, so does that mean everybody but DISH is practicing censorship?

    The Deseret News doesn't publish opinion pieces by Paul Krugman or Leonard Pitts. Is that censorship?

    KSL declined to air the TV series "The Playboy Club" and "The New Normal." Is that censorship?

    If you don't like Comcast's policy in this matter, take advantage of the alternative free market capitalism offers - switch to DISH.

  • silo Sandy, UT
    Nov. 12, 2013 12:40 p.m.

    "Free Market Capitalism is driven by supply and demand (not political censorship)"

    It's also driven by cost controls, marketing and other factors.

    Since you are absolutely certain that Comcast's motives are solely political, and not simply free market, feel free to show the following details in support of your claims:

    What are the costs to Comcast to air 'The Blaze'?
    What is the estimated revenue gain to air 'The Blaze'?
    What are the potential subscriber increases/losses by airing 'The Blaze'?
    What are the positive/negative marketing impacts of airing 'The Blaze'?
    What are the legal/contract implications to Comcast in airing 'The Blaze'?
    What is the current status of negotiations by Comcast to air 'The Blaze' at a later time?

    I'm sure you've already considered these elements before yelling 'conspiracy', but take as much time as you need to share those details...we'll wait.

  • Aggie238 Logan, UT
    Nov. 12, 2013 11:44 a.m.

    Cable companies are already dead. Not only are cable companies losing subscribers, but they're not picking them up in the younger generation. There is no incoming pipeline. The numbers show that younger consumers are extremely unlikely to sign up for expensive cable and satellite TV. The people keeping cable alive right now are the older digital immigrants, and when they're gone, cable is gone. I have basic cable because my internet prices were about to go up and it was cheaper for me to add basic cable than to pay the rate hike, but I use it maybe once a week, if that. Most things I have any desire to watch I can get in better quality and on-demand via Netflix, Hulu, or the various online network services.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 12, 2013 11:41 a.m.

    Thanks for summarizing the points you claim I made (3 of the 4 were things I didn't say). I don't appreciate it when people put words in my mouth I didn't say.

    1. I didn't post the free market capitalism is wonderful (but I do believe it's better than the alternative)

    2. I didn't post that "fairness doctrine" is a bad thing. But IF it's censorship... it probably is. Thanks for reading my mind.

    3. Comcast embraces censorship... I still maintain that it looks more like censorship than Free market Capitalism.

    Free Market Capitalism is driven by supply and demand (not political censorship). In Free Market Capitalism if millions of your customers are asking for a product/service you can sell them... you would sell it to them. How is it Free Market Capitalism to NOT sell your customers something they want to buy? (Hint.. it's not)

    Comcast would probably block it on the internet too if they could. But American ISPs are not allowed to censor the internet.

    If you can't acknowledge Comcast's well known ties to liberal politics... get better informed. But they contribute to both sides to cover their bases.

  • gopconder Draper, UT
    Nov. 12, 2013 11:28 a.m.

    Cable offers a wide variety if great services at competitive rates including large Video on Demand libraries and now home security. . Content providers who sell to operators have strings attached in their contracts. If you want channel W in your lineup you also have to take channels X,Y and Z. I think the free market will find the appropriate levels not regulatory handcuffs on operators. If they get it wrong the problem will take care of itself.

    Dan Conder

  • silo Sandy, UT
    Nov. 12, 2013 10:18 a.m.

    Interesting post 2 bits. Let's see if we can summarize the salient points you made.

    Free market and capitalism are wonderful (except when a company won't sell exactly what you want)

    Fairness doctrine is a bad thing (except when you want media companies to provide you with balanced content)

    Comcast embraces censorship (except when they allow you to access the blaze on their internet service)

    Comcast is liberal (except when they donate large amounts to Republican candidates like Hatch and Romney)

    You are a conservative (except when you are a liberal)

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Nov. 12, 2013 10:05 a.m.

    The Blaze ha ha ha ah, yuck.

    It's Glenn Beck's opinion channel. Nothing more, nothing less.
    Anyone who wants it can have it. You go to his website, you subscribe. Simple as that.

    Nope NOT Censorship, it's called free market, you know that thing that conservatives pretend to believe in.
    Maybe there are more tennis playing anti mormon muslims who subscribe to Comcast or maybe just maybe they are cheaper to procure than GBTV.
    So many Conspiracies maybe a new channel just for daily conservative conspiracy updates, and additions.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 12, 2013 9:40 a.m.

    Comcast provides liberal agenda programming to ALL it's viewers at no extra cost. But the one channel you CAN'T get no matter what you offer to pay is... the Conservative issue based network called "The Blaze". Wonder why that is?

    Is that not Censorship?

    I know for a fact that millions of their customers are asking them to proved this channel... but they absolutely refuse. Why do you think they would risk losing customers to Dish rather than let them have access to The Blaze?

    And why would they absolutely refuse to broadcast this network's content even on a select and pay basis... when they offer Al Jazera and other liberal channels, and tons of channels I'm sure NO ONE has ever asked for (boutique networks like the Tennis Network, the channel that broadcasts anti-Mormon programming all day, etc)... for free?

    Just something to think about.

    Scan all the channels Comcast provides you for free and ask yourself... are ALL these channels more important to me than a Conservative issue channel??

    Why do they refuse to give us access to this network's programming? Could it be because they criticize Democrats?

  • Star Bright Salt Lake City, Ut
    Nov. 12, 2013 6:46 a.m.

    Are they afraid they might loose mtv/msnbc/cnn and many, many others? I would love to choose and if not, thinking of doing the same thing and getting rid of the cable company.
    I certainly agree with the article. Thanks.

  • Hamath Omaha, NE
    Nov. 12, 2013 6:44 a.m.

    Cable is mostly likely dead. It just doesn't know it. It's a dying business model and it's executives just haven't realized the insanity of their position. I refuse to pay all that money so that my neighbors can watch ESPN. I have refused to do so for a few years and now many many more people are jumping ship.