Fantasy Cable TV (If you could save by paying $1 per channel what package would you pick on TV ?)

[april15Bendovr]

Create your own fantasy cable TV package and imagine you only have to pay one dollar per TV channel.

Even if I only had to pay only $15 for basic service and had

1. Fox News

2. Discovery Channel

3. History Channel

4. The Learning Channel

5. Sci Fi Channel

For $20 dollars a month I would be very happy.

Sometimes other than watching Fox News I feel I am supporting the Moveon.org cable company

I dont care for the rest of the liberal dribble on the other channels. This is all I want.

[SoothingDave]

Hey, since we're being stupid and pretending that if we don't watch, the costs are lower, shouldn't I pay less for cable if I watch less of it?

That's the real answer, when the technology permits. Metered viewing. All information is accessible. Pay for what you watch.

SD

[IronJack]

The industry is wary about offering ala carte cable service. I suspect the cable giants make major money from small producers whose exposure (and hence, advertising dollars) comes solely from the fact that their channel is packaged with something someone wants. Left to their own devices, nobody would buy that service, or it would have to be so exorbitantly expensive it would price itself out of the market.

However, billing services are equipped to bill for ala-carte-only, if and when the cable companies elect to deliver it.

[Mixer]

I certainly like the idea but someone had suggested $1 per channel. With the DirecTV package that I currenlty have (no HBO or other Movie Channels) it is something like 24 cents a channel. If they would charge 25 cents per channel I would be all over this idea.

[dangus]

I think part of this is caused by the misconception that people's cable bill amounts to them paying for content they find objectionable. It doesn't. Most channels with advertising -- with exceptions -- don't get any of your basic cable costs. They make more from ads than they would from cable rights, so they want to make sure that their programming is available to the widest possible audience. Those networks which do charge for coverage, such as HBO and ShowTime, usually are available as premium packages or a la carte. YES (Yankees) is a notable exception.

[april15Bendovr]

People complain about price gouging with the oil industry but quite frankly I get more service from the oil companies than I get out of the cable industry.

[Casloy]

Food channel
FOX
HGTV
Discovery
History
A&E
HBO


I'd pay a dollar per channel for the Networks to just go away.

[dangus]

>> I certainly like the idea but someone had suggested $1 per channel. With the DirecTV package that I currenlty have (no HBO or other Movie Channels) it is something like 24 cents a channel. If they would charge 25 cents per channel I would be all over this idea. <<

So would everyone else, which would mean that they wouldn't get nearly the revenue that they currently get and would have higher costs. So you'd end up paying a LOT more than 25 cents per channel.

[SoothingDave]

I certainly like the idea but someone had suggested $1 per channel. With the DirecTV package that I currenlty have (no HBO or other Movie Channels) it is something like 24 cents a channel. If they would charge 25 cents per channel I would be all over this idea.

Good point. I have Dish network. People who have cable are accustomed to paying $70/month for 60 channels. I get 120 for $45.

SD

[IronJack]

The point is that the cable company pays to provide you with the infrastructure to send you the channels. What channels you actually view is irrelevant.

Irrelevant to THEM, but not to the consumer. From the consumer's perspective, the infrastructure is irrelevant; the product is the PROGRAM. To them, it doesn't mean a thing to have the capability of receiving 900 channels of garbage they don't watch. It makes even less sense that they're required to pay for it.

Your comparison with the phone company is illustrative. Where metered billing -- "pay as you go" -- is available, people use it and love it. Notice the proliferation of pre-paid long distance cards, for example. Consumers rightfully resent being forced to pay for services they don't use, don't want, and which, in many cases, they find offensive.

[newgeezer]

Anyone who thinks they could get a la carte cable TV for $1/channel without a minimum charge of something along the order of $50 is probably dreaming.

[SoothingDave]

It makes even less sense that they're required to pay for it.

But they're not required to pay for it, unless there was some law mandating people buy cable I missed. They can either buy what the cable company is offering or not.

SD

[Little Pig]

Hitting a rock at 130 looks the same on a 1200 or a 250. They're limiting the bikes to 150km/h this year per the official site, and limiting the fuel range to 250km. They claim that this will make the bikes safer, and the extra fuel stop will help the riders stay more alert and reduce the weight of the bike. I agree with the alertness issue, but part of navigating one of those bikes through the desert was trimming the weight by switching around between the various tanks. I also postulate that it requires a different skillset to pilot a large-displacement bike than one with a smaller engine. Small light bikes can do things the big ones can't and vice versa. It makes racing them a different proposition. They should add an open class again.

[SoothingDave]

Anyone who thinks they could get a la carte cable TV for $1/channel without a minimum charge of something along the order of $50 is probably dreaming.

That's true too. There would be either an infrastructure charge (like the gas company you pay for service plus what gas you use) or a minimum number of channels required to be bought to make it worth bothering with maintaining the equipment.

[dangus]

>> Irrelevant to THEM, but not to the consumer. From the consumer's perspective, the infrastructure is irrelevant; the product is the PROGRAM. To them, it doesn't mean a thing to have the capability of receiving 900 channels of garbage they don't watch. It makes even less sense that they're required to pay for it. <<

Well, then tough sh!t on the consumer. Try telling a car dealer that you should be able to pay only $4000 for a brand new Lexus because you're only going to drive it on Sundays to go to church. Try telling the phone company you don't want to pay for the ability to call the 270 million people in America you don't know and probably wouldn't like. Try telling AOL you only want to pay a few cents per month because the only web site you visit very often is Free Republic. Try buying a new lawn mower for ten dollars because you live in a row house in Boston.

A consumer cannot force a seller to sell something against the seller's economic interest. It doesn't matter that you have less use for a product; you either have sufficient use to be willing to pay for the product, or you don't.

Criminey!

[TruthWillWin]

Until a year ago I'd have the same list. Now I'd leave out the Discovery Channel. Have no interest in watching a chopper being made.

[IronJack]

Well, then tough sh!t on the consumer.

Let me guess: you're not in business for yourself, are you?

Try telling a car dealer that you should be able to pay only $4000 for a brand new Lexus because you're only going to drive it on Sundays to go to church. [etc.]

Try telling a car buyer that he's going to have to pay $40,000 for a car because it's got a built-in butt-warmer and hydraulic cupholders, when he doesn't want a warm butt and he doesn't drink in his car.

A consumer cannot force a seller to sell something against the seller's economic interest.

And a seller can't force a buyer to purchase something for which he has no use! Oh, wait. If he's a cable company, yes, he can!

It doesn't matter that you have less use for a product; you either have sufficient use to be willing to pay for the product, or you don't.

Let me say it again slowly: the PRODUCT is the PROGRAM, not the CAPACITY. I'm buying the History Channel, not the History Channel plus Bravo plus USA plus the Home Shopping Club plus ... I don't WANT Bravo or USA or HSC or any of that other drivel.

And don't tell me the cable company HAS to deliver all those other services. They have the option of delivering any combination of services you -- the guy who pays the bills -- desires.

To use your lawn mower comparison, you probably won't sell a lot of $10,000 Dixie Choppers to Southies. But if you offered a Weedeater on steroids, you might generate some sales. The seller doesn't define the market; the consumer does! Criminey!

[IronJack]

They can either buy what the cable company is offering or not.

Agreed. And I would be the last to support any governmental coercion on the cable companies to force ala carte delivery. But what a golden opportunity for a forward-thinking company to meet a pent-up consumer demand!

[jiggyboy]

This would cut cable / satellite bills in half or more for probably 90% of the viewing public. Look for the cable / satellite companies to resist. Note that I'd love to be able to pick and choose my channels, but I do not want the gummint to force them to do it.

Where do those giant sports salaries come from? Cable and satellite companies paying for ESPN, which pays ever higher money to the teams and leagues.

[SoothingDave]

And a seller can't force a buyer to purchase something for which he has no use! Oh, wait. If he's a cable company, yes, he can!

Did they put a gun to your head, or kidnap one of your children?

I'm buying the History Channel, not the History Channel plus Bravo plus USA plus the Home Shopping Club plus ... I don't WANT Bravo or USA or HSC or any of that other drivel.

Sorry to break this to you, but you are buying a package of channels. Look on your bill again. Maybe I only like cherry Life Savers, but if I buy a roll of 5 Flavors and throw away the rest, I'm still buying all 5 flavors.

SD

[mission9]

1. Fox News

2. Discovery Channel

3. History Channel

4. The Learning Channel

5. CSPAN

6. Local Channel Package

7. Sci Fi Channel

8. Turner Movie Classics

9. AMC

10. SkyAngel Package

It really burns me that a portion of my Satellite dollar goes to channels in which I have no interest. I canceled my DISH when I told them for the third time that I would not tolerate cross-promotion of the gay channel (HERE) on the HISTORY channel.