Cable TV options?

[farmerisme]

Lots of discussion about this in congress and whatnot. What do you think?

[discom]

lol i was the only person to vote "no"

[Mustard's CoffeeMaker]

Give me Food Network, NBC, CBS, and Cartoon Network and I'm ok.

[Rashad]

I'd be happy with just PBS, and Discovery channel. oh! and BBC for news.

[nut]

no cable =/ ...

 

i got the choice between

 

 

2 5 6 8 10(opb...) 12 24 36 38 49 56

 

 

gimp channels 256812 are all News.. 10 is opb 24 and 36 are TBN (trinity brodcasting network (God TV) ) and 38 is spanish channel and 49 is upn 49 and 56 is PAX..

 

 

not very good selection

 

[appalachian_fox]

I voted no cable. However, if it's about the debate in Congress, that's a good question. I like the a la carte method, but the bottom line is that the cable companies will get theirs either way. At least with the a la carte method, the consumer has more choice.

 

Of course, there are so many channels that might be a bad thing: Can you imagine the most reduced case, where everyone has to pick which of 900 channels they want to subscribe to? Sure, it may reduce the issue of the cable companies forcing you to buy channels you don't want, but under the current system those channels get enough "subscribership" (I am a word mint) to keep them going. What happens to the less-watched channels once only a few people subscribe? Will the Food channel go? Will Sci Fi? Which channels have enough of a subscriber base to stay, and which channels do you watch now that you never would have bought on their own but instead after having it shoved down your throat you decided you liked?

 

The more I think about it, the less of an opinion I have. No cable!

[YoMamma]

We have basic cable at home, but I dont even watch TV, so I would never get it myself.

But for people who watch TV, the a la carte option makes the most sense to me.

[akaM2]

well i work for twc so this is a big issue right now, the main thing is that most people, like 3/4 of the customer base would pay more if it wasnt packaged, because littler channels would be very expensive such as Food Network and those because it would cost them so much more money because they wouldnt be getting the funding they get from cable companies for packages.

[farmerisme]

Yeah it seems to me that the consumer would get less channels for their money without packages.

[NOFX]

I would love to be able to purchased only certain channels for a buck or so a month..

 

All Discovery Channels, History Channel, Travel Channel, Comedy Central, A Few News stations, and a few music channels and I would be set.

 

I mean seriously do they think EVERYONE has to have the lifetime channel?

[Guest ash-]

I voted no cable. However, if it's about the debate in Congress, that's a good question. I like the a la carte method, but the bottom line is that the cable companies will get theirs either way. At least with the a la carte method, the consumer has more choice.

 

Of course, there are so many channels that might be a bad thing: Can you imagine the most reduced case, where everyone has to pick which of 900 channels they want to subscribe to? Sure, it may reduce the issue of the cable companies forcing you to buy channels you don't want, but under the current system those channels get enough "subscribership" (I am a word mint) to keep them going. What happens to the less-watched channels once only a few people subscribe? Will the Food channel go? Will Sci Fi? Which channels have enough of a subscriber base to stay, and which channels do you watch now that you never would have bought on their own but instead after having it shoved down your throat you decided you liked?

 

The more I think about it, the less of an opinion I have. No cable!

 

These channels will probably move to the internet where anything niche belongs. I'm all for a la carte. Nothing pains me more than having to have to pay for 60 channels I could care less for when I only watch about 4 of them. Of course, we all know the cable companies are gonna gouge us by charging ridiculous fees even if we get one channel.

 

I would love to be able to purchased only certain channels for a buck or so a month..

 

All Discovery Channels, History Channel, Travel Channel, Comedy Central, A Few News stations, and a few music channels and I would be set.

 

I mean seriously do they think EVERYONE has to have the lifetime channel?

 

Yeah, I hope they do it just like the sattelite companies where you can buy channel packages from different companies as well as singles. This way everyone wins, I hope. Keep the old school packages too, I know there's alot of people out there that like having all those channels even if they don't watch them.

[farmerisme]

I would love to be able to purchased only certain channels for a buck or so a month..

 

All Discovery Channels, History Channel, Travel Channel, Comedy Central, A Few News stations, and a few music channels and I would be set.

 

I mean seriously do they think EVERYONE has to have the lifetime channel?

 

The problem is that they channels would not be nearly that cheap. If the big packages stopped, the subscription to almost every cable channel would drop way down. Meaning they would have to either charge an arm and a leg for the channels or vastly reduce the amount of channels offered. Probably both. It seems that you would pay maybe 25% less for 75% less channels (my guess). And maybe some of the channels that you do like would not exist anymore.