Should cable TV be required to be provided "a la carte"?

[they don't love you like i love you]

The FCC Chairman wants to. This system basically is where you order each channel separately, instead of the current bundle packages offered. Basically this is more stealthy nanny-stating, the idea is people can block out channels that have programming they find offensive (instead of, you know, just not watching them). Cal Thomas had a column today against this, which surprised me because he's such an extreme social conservative, but I completely agreed with him.

The flaws with this are numerous. It basically kills channel surfing, one of the advantages of having numerous channels, nothing else to do? There must be SOMETHING on. But people aren't going to pay for channels they hardly ever watch just for the ability to channel surf easier. What if you hear of some special you want to see on a channel you hardly ever watch? Odds you won't have it ordered. Same for some new show you want to see. Plus it's estimated that about 20 channels on this plan (a rather meager selection) would cost the same as your typical current 150 channel plan. The current system is fine, I'm not whining about Fox News and demanding it be removed from my cable plan, I just opt not to watch it. Problem solved.

God I hate the FCC.

[Gabu]

Quite honestly I'd like it if this happened, though not necessarily by the government enforcing it.  When I was in the States, I found like one, maybe two channels I'd actually want to watch something on.  The rest was garbage.  If I could pay for one single channel at a time, I might actually pay for TV.

[CultureKing]

Quite honestly I'd like it if this happened, though not necessarily by the government enforcing it.  When I was in the States, I found like one, maybe two channels I'd actually want to watch something on.  The rest was garbage.  If I could pay for one single channel at a time, I might actually pay for TV.

Agreed, though many options should be available

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

a la carte should be required as an option only for those cable/satellite companies that also own channels.  If a cable company couldn't force its new channel into the homes of its subscribers they might actually have to make it good enough for people to want on its own.  That said, a la carte should never be the only option.

[MaC]

Quite honestly I'd like it if this happened, though not necessarily by the government enforcing it.  When I was in the States, I found like one, maybe two channels I'd actually want to watch something on.  The rest was garbage.  If I could pay for one single channel at a time, I might actually pay for TV.

for once I agree with the digimon

[Ban my account ffs!]

Stupid idea.

Should ordering each individual cable station be an option?  Yes.

Say you really like package bundle A, but two channels you really like are not included in it, but the next best package is $10 more per month with 20 other channels you don't want... a la carte would be a good option here.

But I agree with BRTD:  The FCC sucks.

[The Man From G.O.P.]

The FCC Chairman wants to. This system basically is where you order each channel separately, instead of the current bundle packages offered. Basically this is more stealthy nanny-stating, the idea is people can block out channels that have programming they find offensive (instead of, you know, just not watching them). Cal Thomas had a column today against this, which surprised me because he's such an extreme social conservative, but I completely agreed with him.

The flaws with this are numerous. It basically kills channel surfing, one of the advantages of having numerous channels, nothing else to do? There must be SOMETHING on. But people aren't going to pay for channels they hardly ever watch just for the ability to channel surf easier. What if you hear of some special you want to see on a channel you hardly ever watch? Odds you won't have it ordered. Same for some new show you want to see. Plus it's estimated that about 20 channels on this plan (a rather meager selection) would cost the same as your typical current 150 channel plan. The current system is fine, I'm not whining about Fox News and demanding it be removed from my cable plan, I just opt not to watch it. Problem solved.

God I hate the FCC.

Wouldn't you be supporting personal freedom and choice by allowing people to choose what channels they want to buy?


Now, I know you want all the little kiddos to be able to sneak the movie channels when mom's not watching (a right granted by the Constitution of course) so they can get the full effect of TV reality form the time they can push buttons, and maybe one day post sex related topics on a political forum like you, but I don't see how personal choice detrements personal choice?

[Sensei]

Quite honestly I'd like it if this happened, though not necessarily by the government enforcing it.  When I was in the States, I found like one, maybe two channels I'd actually want to watch something on.  The rest was garbage.  If I could pay for one single channel at a time, I might actually pay for TV.

for once I agree with the digimon

?
now that I have that out of the way. I think cable and satellite providers should only have mandatory a la carte service if they own channels and force consumers to buy them with basic cable.

[KEmperor]

Quite honestly I'd like it if this happened, though not necessarily by the government enforcing it.  When I was in the States, I found like one, maybe two channels I'd actually want to watch something on.  The rest was garbage.  If I could pay for one single channel at a time, I might actually pay for TV.

for once I agree with the digimon

?
now that I have that out of the way. I think cable and satellite providers should only have mandatory a la carte service if they own channels and force consumers to buy them with basic cable.

Please post pictures of yourself in the "Post a Picture of Yourself" thread.  Thank you.

[??????????]

This is a good idea. Why the hell should I have to pay for the Spanish channels, I have no use for them, and I can't understand the language. I know someone that complained to the cable company about this and got 6 months of free HBO so it worked out for her pretty well I suppose.

Another thing I don't understand is, why can you run CC or SAP on English speaking channels and hear them in Spanish but you can't watch Spanish channels and have the CC or SAP in English? Maybe they have a TV that is capable of it, anyone know?

[MasterJedi]

Bad idea, though there are channels I watch more frequently there are times when I watch random stuff on a lot of the other channels which I wouldn't order if this would come into effect.

[Bono]

The FCC shouldn't have ay power over cable TV period.

[Bacon King]

It shouldn't be enforced by the government, but I'd love if I could buy tv channels a la carte. In the past month I've watched maybe six different channels, tops.

[YRABNNRM]

Of all the reasons to hate the FCC this isn't one of them.

[they don't love you like i love you]

This is a good idea. Why the hell should I have to pay for the Spanish channels, I have no use for them, and I can't understand the language.

You aren't though. You're paying for a bundle that includes them. As I said above, 20 channels under this plan would cost the same as 150 channels under the current plan. Now wouldn't you rather have the larger number of channels for the same price even if you don't want most of them?

The FCC shouldn't have ay power over cable TV period.

YES! That's the core of the whole issue really.

Here's the Cal Thomas article: http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/daily/opinion/55909.php

[DWPerry]

Cable companies should be forced to compete for customers. Currently each company works out a deal with a municipality and then has a monopoly.

[MODU]

"Required?"  No.  Would cable companies receive more customers if they did?  Yes.

[AkSaber]

The FCC shouldn't have ay power over cable TV period.

I agree. The FCC should not have that kind of authority to make cable companies do that.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

"Required?"  No.  Would cable companies receive more customers if they did?  Yes.

But more customers doesn't guarantee more money.

It is not the government's place to stick itself in stuff that is not broadcast over publically accessed channels - so NO!

[bullmoose88]

This is a good idea. Why the hell should I have to pay for the Spanish channels, I have no use for them, and I can't understand the language. I know someone that complained to the cable company about this and got 6 months of free HBO so it worked out for her pretty well I suppose.

I agree completely.

[Verily]

I'd love it if this happened. Then I could pick and choose between the channels for actually decent ones. Right now, I only have the very minimalist basic cable package because it isn't worth buying the other bundles, all of which contain one worthwhile channel and nine useless ones.

[Sensei]

Cable companies should be forced to compete for customers. Currently each company works out a deal with a municipality and then has a monopoly.

If there's more than one company in a municipality, then there will be wires for different companies all over the place and it would be a mess. People still have the choice of Satellite TV, too.

[DWPerry]

Cable companies should be forced to compete for customers. Currently each company works out a deal with a municipality and then has a monopoly.

If there's more than one company in a municipality, then there will be wires for different companies all over the place and it would be a mess. People still have the choice of Satellite TV, too.

That argument is flawed & there doesn't seem to be a "mess of wires" with competition for providing phone service.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If there's more than one company in a municipality, then there will be wires for different companies all over the place and it would be a mess. People still have the choice of Satellite TV, too.

That argument is flawed & there doesn't seem to be a "mess of wires" with competition for providing phone service.

That's because the government forces the owners of the current wires to carry the calls of competitors.  Back in the early days of the telephone, some cities had multiple carriers.  Indeed, some companies had multiple telephones so they could be connected to customers on the different services.