Posted on 11/29/2005 11:20:05 AM PST by april15Bendovr
This would be awesome.
Imagine surfing 5-7 channels instead of skipping through tons of spanish speaking channels and shopping channels.
I don't believe it would happen but if it does I would be psyched.
FOX, FNC, the Weather Channel, and the WB. Ten bucks. I'm in.
>>>In my area, Comcast only offers Military and the Discovery Channels with their most expensive packages. It's either pay their $72.49 a month Silver plan or you're getting none of it.
I am theoretically in favor of a la carte, but I don't think it would necessarily make cable any less expensive. You'd just be paying the same for what you already watch. The cable companies already know what you're willing to pay for their service, and now they will be selling you fewer channels for close to the same amount of money.
>>>FOX, FNC, the Weather Channel, and the WB. Ten bucks. I'm in.
Without the entire cable community around to subsidize your viewing of those channels, the price per channel may rise to $10 each, especially for more of the niche channels. Or they may diappear completely.
It will also be the death of those damn Spanish channels that 99% of cable watchers dont want but Im forced to pay for.
I vehemently oppose government regulating how cable companies package or bundle their channels and services. I fully support cable companies offering customers a pay-per-channel option or any package or bundle.
This probably won't happen anyway. The cable companies will probably tie this up in court forever. They will probably also complain that the logistics of having a customized program in every household is just too much to handle.
It will force the crappy channels to compete. What good is 150 channels if I only watch 30 of them?
Exactly, they not only will be ratings, they will be exact figures.
Now Dish Network has their 150 channel package, of which 100 of them are total garbage and another 30 are pretty much a waste of time. You get about the same number of good channels but have to wade through a lot more junk to get to what you want. This is what we call "progress".
The oppressor no longer acts directly and with his own powers upon his victim. No, our conscience has become too sensitive for that. The tyrant and his victim are still present, but there is an intermediate person between them, which is the Government - that is, the Law itself. What can be better calculated to silence our scruples, and, which is perhaps better appreciated, to overcome all resistance? We all therefore, put in our claim, under some pretext or other, and apply to Government. We say to it, " I am dissatisfied at the proportion between my labor and my enjoyments. I should like, for the sake of restoring the desired equilibrium, to take a part of the possessions of others. But this would be dangerous. Could not you facilitate the thing for me? Could you not find me a good place? or check the industry of my competitors? or, perhaps, lend me gratuitously some capital which, you may take from its possessor? Could you not bring up my children at the public expense? or grant me some prizes? or secure me a competence when I have attained my fiftieth year? By this mean I shall gain my end with an easy conscience, for the law will have acted for me, and I shall have all the advantages of plunder, without its risk or its disgrace!" - Frederic Bastiat
I would expect that my $45 cable bill might only be $30-$35 if I could go A la carte. The reason is that the cost of providing the service doesn't change regardless of the number of channel provided. Each channel, of course, adds so much to my bill, but I would expect each channel to only contribute 25 cents to $2.
Of course, the congress critters would then add additional taxes to the cable bill because anytime they are involved with a price reduction they believe we won't notice a little more tax added in.
No, what I would like is for the whole cable thing to be like a taxi meter -- it doesn't start charging until you turn on the cable system (as opposed to just turning on the TV). That way you only pay for which channels you watch, and only for how long you watch that particular channel. Therefore, no need to pay $XX a month for the, say, Turner Movie Classics Channel, when there are only 3 or 4 movies in the month that you want to watch.
(sigh) 'Course I wish I had a pony too...
The 19.95 basic package was a joke IMO. Had the local networks and the rest were junk or channels like HSN. After a year or so they stopped offering the basic package and now the lowest price for cable is $54.99 for about 70 channels.
Now I see a problem with it:
Sweetie happens to like the "all men are a$$holes chanel".
I would gladly forsake MTV, BET, CNN, etc., but we would still have to maintain certain other worthless stuff such as (sniff)Lifetime.
>>>No, what I would like is for the whole cable thing to be like a taxi meter -- it doesn't start charging until you turn on the cable system (as opposed to just turning on the TV).
You'll note that the vast majority of people choose to own their own cars rather than pay by the taxi ride. You may be the exception, but I'm guessing this system wouldn't work well for most people.
exactly, I'd settle for just having all the sports channels in a seperate package, since I hear the sports channels are what make most of the packages so expensive. Since I never watch any sports on TV I am spending big bucks for a product I never use.
What is this "market" of which you speak?
This thread is about cable television -- a business from which competition has been banished by government-granted local monopolies.
How much just to get Fox News, MTV2, Encore, and VH1 Classic?
Goodbye BET, MTV, Speed TV, and every Spanish Language Network, Travel (aka The Poker Channel).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.