[gondramB]

I have what is probably a stupid question - why does it have to be just "a la carte" or just "by the channel?"

All the negative things about "a la cart" have to do with losing the packages -like the difficulty for new channels to get started.

Why can't they still have packages at current prices for those who want them but also have by the channel prices?

[MineralMan]

"All the negative things about "a la cart" have to do with losing the packages -like the difficulty for new channels to get started.

Why can't they still have packages at current prices for those who want them but also have by the channel prices?"

---

They can. And they will. Most consumers won't bother to pick through the channels. It's a PITA.

One of the first group of channels to disappear, by the way, will be the religious channels. Already almost nobody watches them, but they're on the cable, thanks to requirements that local on-air programming must be included in basic cable lineups.

So, they fire up lots of low-power stations, all fed via satellite with the same programming. Since they have a local transmitter, the cable company is obligated to carry their programming. Fun stuff.

Here's an interesting little experiment. See if you can pick up any of your local religious channels with an antenna on your set. Odds are you can't. Their local transmitter is a very low power unit, designed to barely meet the requirements for local broadcasting. It's funny.

Do a la carte, and all of these little stations will go bye-bye instantly.

[cloud8]

> All the negative things about "a la cart" have to do with losing the packages -like the difficulty for new channels to get started.

Good point. A gift to MSM, and darn near impossible for the fledgling newcomers (sniff, poor Al Gore).

[AmishDude]

New channels still have trouble "getting started". What don't have trouble getting started are additional channels owned by the big players.