I wish cable companies would charge us based on...

[Quiksilver]

Anyone else wish cable companies had a plan where they could charge your based on which channels you want to watch? Instead of coming up with some package that gets you 300 channels or more and of all of them you only watch like 30? Yet, you still have to pay for all the other channels?

 

[hanoverphist]

i just got an ad urging me to switch to qwest bundle with direct tv. the all english is 34.95 and the espanol/ english is 29.95 a month.

 

[WaTaGuMp]

There are alot of things I am sure we all wish for, how about cell phone companies NOT charging someone for text messages SENT to them. Bottom line companies only care about the mighty $$$ and will try every way to get that.

 

[KeithTalent]

I think people have been wishing for this since cable TV came into existence.

KT

 

[Crono]

A la carte is what I would love, but apparently television providers have to sustain the crappier channels (which some people watch very rarely, and some not at all) by bundling them, and it would be more expensive for the average household to buy a la carte.
I don't watch more than 5 cable channels, though: CNN, History, History International, BBC, and occasionally CBS (60 minutes, only).

 

[PingSpike]

Yes, but then how would cable companies be able to eliminate their cheaper packages while cutting channels from the more expensive ones and then claim its a better value to the customer when they end up paying more for less channels?

See, you really didn't think this through.

 

[Newbian]

The only problem would be they would charge a nickel for the ones people never watch and $20 for the good stations. 🙁

 

[mugs]

People always wish that, but the math doesn't add up in your favor. You won't come out ahead, because the channels you want to watch will become more expensive due to people who don't watch them no longer paying for them. Instead of 20 million subscribers @ $.10 apiece, a channel will have 2 million subscribers @ $1 apiece. The less popular channels, which cost you next to nothing, will disappear entirely.

 

[BillGates]

Originally posted by: WaTaGuMp
There are alot of things I am sure we all wish for, how about cell phone companies NOT charging someone for text messages SENT to them. Bottom line companies only care about the mighty $$$ and will try every way to get that.

US Cellular doesn't charge for incoming text/picture messages (or calls, for that matter) -- but you might not have them in your area.

 

[villageidiot111]

Originally posted by: mugs
People always wish that, but the math doesn't add up in your favor. You won't come out ahead, because the channels you want to watch will become more expensive due to people who don't watch them no longer paying for them. Instead of 20 million subscribers @ $.10 apiece, a channel will have 2 million subscribers @ $1 apiece. The less popular channels, which cost you next to nothing, will disappear entirely.

ftw

 

[HardcoreRobot]

ala carte cable has been being discussed for quite some time now

seems like many content providers do not like it, as currently popular stations subsidize unpopular ones. i think i read some analysis that predicted the consumer would be worse off - either paying about the same or less to get a subset of channels, but not proportionally less.

 

[HardcoreRobot]

Originally posted by: WaTaGuMp
There are alot of things I am sure we all wish for, how about cell phone companies NOT charging someone for text messages SENT to them. Bottom line companies only care about the mighty $$$ and will try every way to get that.

For real. Especially due to the spam/unsolicited messages. It would be like the post office charging you the price of a stamp to have someone send you junk mail.

I expect a class action lawsuit for price fixing across all the major carriers ala CD prices, hard drive prices etc. They are morons too, should be encouraging texts vs voice...

 

[HannibalX]

I would love pay per channel cable but I don't think it will happen. From the cable company's perspective why offer pay per channel and have the average person only subscribing to maybe 50 channels that they actually watch for maybe $25/month when you can just offer subscription packages and charge that person $100 a month?

As it stands I don't pay for TV at the moment. I have been getting advertisements in the mail from Dish Network for 250 channels for $29.99/month. So far I haven't bitten but I have been thinking about it.

 

[PricklyPete]

Yes...you're not the first person. The only argument I've heard regarding this is that if cable/satellite companies started allowing you to choose just want you want...than the channels enjoyed by a minority of viewers would never get the funding necessary to exist...and start up channels could never break into the market without huge capital backing.

 

[rh71]

They are a business looking to make the most money possible. They know you don't watch more than like 10 channels.

 

[me123]

I wish the Government would only use my tax dollars for roads I actually use.

 

[Modelworks]

It would not be cheaper. It would be like going to itunes and paying for each show you want to watch. The cost would be about the same if cable companies did service a la carte

I watch about 9 channels of the 200+ I have on directv. , but oh well.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
It would not be cheaper. It would be like going to itunes and paying for each show you want to watch. The cost would be about the same if cable companies did service a la carte

I watch about 9 channels of the 200+ I have on directv. , but oh well.

Yes, but consider this. If everyone watched the same 9 channels you did, and the cable companies only carried those channels then they would cost you a far far greater amount since you would have to pay for the whole cable system based on those 9 channels.

Think of this way. The cable company built and maintains their whole infrastructure. And say they find out the 20 top channels and set the price to pay for everything and their profit together. How much does it cost them to offer one more channel? A penny or two? Because they have already paid off the entire system each additional channel is next to nothing in cost.
So, basically if they went to a la carte, the AVERAGE bill will stay the same cause the cable company has the same overhead just to provide the basic 20 channels say. And yet it is possible that by adding the additional channels which cost them very little they ATTRACT more customers who maybe WANT to watch some of those off channels. And then they end up paying for ALL the channels. Which keeps YOUR bill down.

Studies have indicated that a la carte will, in total for the whole cable consuming market, cost MORE than it does to get all the extra channels now, because those extra channel consumers are paying for the ones THEY don't watch. And without those extra channel consumers the remaining customers will have to pay more.

 

[nageov3t]

low rated channels like history, etc would go under and all we'd be left with are 10 flavors of MTV* and 30 ESPN's



*none of which will actually play or have anything to do with music

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: loki8481
low rated channels like history, etc would go under and all we'd be left with are 10 flavors of MTV and 30 ESPN's

Gotta go. ESPN 26 is showing the Sherpa Yak Bowling finals.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Modelworks
It would not be cheaper. It would be like going to itunes and paying for each show you want to watch. The cost would be about the same if cable companies did service a la carte

I watch about 9 channels of the 200+ I have on directv. , but oh well.

Yes, but consider this. If everyone watched the same 9 channels you did, and the cable companies only carried those channels then they would cost you a far far greater amount since you would have to pay for the whole cable system based on those 9 channels.

Which is what I was saying. I was comparing the cost of using itunes equal with a la carte tv.

 

[Aikouka]

I'd be happy if I could just get the HD local affiliates without having to buy some huge package from Time Warner. I get CBS and FOX from OTA, but I do watch some shows on NBC as well 🙁.

 

[Modelworks]

The problem is broadcasters also force cable companies to carry other channels. If you want USA, you have to take SCIFI. If you want discovery then you have to carry history, TLC.

They both have each other in a hard spot. Cable companies require channels to stay in business and the broadcasters need the cable companies to host their channels. One can't do it without the other so they often force each other to do things they don't want.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Modelworks
It would not be cheaper. It would be like going to itunes and paying for each show you want to watch. The cost would be about the same if cable companies did service a la carte

I watch about 9 channels of the 200+ I have on directv. , but oh well.

Studies have indicated that a la carte will, in total for the whole cable consuming market, cost MORE than it does to get all the extra channels now, because those extra channel consumers are paying for the ones THEY don't watch. And without those extra channel consumers the remaining customers will have to pay more.

Whose studies? Show me one of these "studies". Give me a reason why *overall*, there should be any significant overall change in total revenues. If anything, total revenues should go *down* because the shittiest channels would go off the air. Shopping channels? I'd like to think these are provided for free. If I'm paying even 1 cent for those 50 shopping channels to be included in my directv package, well, screw those people who I'm helping to support the viewing habits of. Let them pay $1 per shopping channel if they want to continue watching them. Let the shopping channels go out of business. Boo-hoo.

Maybe I'm just a little disgruntled because just for ONE channel that I enjoy watching, I had to select a higher package. I hardly think it would cost me the same, or more, to purchase just one channel vs. an entire package.


And, while I'm thinking of it, Americans are fat. (in general) Maybe if the government forced a la carte pricing on the cable providers, and people were faced with fewer channels, they'd get their rear ends off the couch & do something other than sit and watch the television from the time they get home til the time they go to bed at night, save for the few minutes it takes them to microwave a dinner.

😛

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Crono
A la carte is what I would love, but apparently television providers have to sustain the crappier channels (which some people watch very rarely, and some not at all) by bundling them, and it would be more expensive for the average household to buy a la carte.
I don't watch more than 5 cable channels, though: CNN, History, History International, BBC, and occasionally CBS (60 minutes, only).

yeah, pretty much.

more than half of the cable channels would cease to exist soon after a widespread a la carte service were offered. So much worthless crap on cable.