Comments

1 Posted by Alan Kardoff at 03/27/07 03:24 PM

I have a TV antenna and mostly make microwave
meals. I get a few stations and rely heavily
on NPR/Internet. I want cable TV but Brighthouse
has a #29.95 basi package with many useless channels. I want ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, MSNBC, A&E, Discovery and the local stations that show city council and county board meetings. A package like this would have to include many cartoon, fashion and rock channels of no interest and stil be $50. The dish networks presume I have 2-4
tvs always going.

I would pay $29.95 for 10 channels of my
choice. The basic packages offer 14-18. Who
wins?

2 Posted by Cindy at 03/29/07 01:42 PM

This is so true! It is one of my pet peeves. I was just arguing with my provider about this last week. I have maybe 5 channels I watch but had to suscribe to the second tier to get those channels. It is time they stopped the tier approach for those of us who wish to buy only a couple of channels.

3 Posted by Serena Larson at 03/29/07 01:48 PM

I think this is a terrific idea. Some satellite
companies have been offering this for awhile so
why can't cable companies be doing the same thing?
I certainly would be happier with them if they did.

4 Posted by John at 03/29/07 02:45 PM

I've often thought in the past that a channel-by-channel option would be best, but now I'm not so sure. That seems like it would be an incredible hassle for the cable company, to keep track of 100+ different options for each customer as opposed to a dozen or so now (basic, extended, premium1, premium2, etc.) It seems like costs would go up and service would go down in that instance. I'd still like to see more options, such as having the basic and premium tiers broken up a bit (news, sports, kids categories perhaps).

5 Posted by Datsmar at 03/29/07 03:02 PM

This is a way the media can pay for the shows that they love but nobody watches. If you could pick and choose I would expect ( by the numbers above ) that you would end up with 15 to 20 channels of good TV that would even get better because there would be more money available.

6 Posted by Peter Naylor at 03/29/07 03:19 PM

I am always amazed about the things people complain about.

We choose the ones we want and those are all that appear in the guide we look at.

Interesting that you don't state how many people are, in fact, watching all those "unwanted" channels.

"Get a life"

7 Posted by Linda at 03/29/07 04:11 PM

I can remember where consumers voted on whether they wanted paid TV or not. The voted it down. Then came the time where you had the option again and it was passed. There was a little box that sat on top of the TV and mother putting money in it to watch her programs. One day she was very low on money and the TV turned off right in the middle of an important part of the show. Boy, was she mad.

Since then paid programing has come a long way and with all the choices who watches so many channels? We even have the terrible choice to watch the paid commercials for half an hour on late night. I detest those but you have not choices too much but to watch or turn off the TV.

The way of consumers having to pay businesses for court fines and settlements from their losses is also a pain in my side.

So, to Bob, I say this. I agree with you 100% on your post. But unlike you I will not be choosing the two hamburger buns and tossing the others out.

Until I can pay for only the channels I wish to watch I will go back to the TV anntena and be happy for something that is still free.

8 Posted by Fussy at 03/29/07 04:30 PM

We not only don't have a choice of channels,we don't have a choice of a cable company

We watch only about 10 channels. The rest are
junk channels

9 Posted by Lloyd Seibel at 03/29/07 05:12 PM

Totally agree. Should also be applicable to satelite users also.

10 Posted by M. Cartwright at 03/29/07 06:03 PM

I agree 100 per cent.

11 Posted by Tracy at 03/29/07 07:08 PM

I'm with you 100% on wanting to be able to select & pay for just the chanels I want and leave the rest.

I go through the wrong number of rolls thing with hot dogs. With hotdog rolls, you get 6 to a package, while the hotdogs come 8 to a package. So your forced to buy extra rolls you don't need to have buns for the other 2 dogs.

Here's an i dea for your buns. Instead of leaving the hamburger rolls on the counter to go stale, just put the remaining ones in a zip bag in the freezer and use them next time. They take about 15-20 minutes wrapped in a towel or papertowel to thaw at room temp. Save a potato:-)

Tracy

Organic Foods Mom

12 Posted by michael boerer at 03/29/07 07:11 PM

what could be better. i get about 50 channels of which 40 are absolutley worthless. the last time my rates went up i called to complain and was told of all the new channels i am receiving. well i really don't need the golf station, cartoon channel, and 3 religious channels. i was also told i could go to another provider. well there are none, but as soon as their is i will drop comcast like a brick.

13 Posted by j perkins at 03/29/07 07:12 PM

Think this is bad for a residential customer, you ought to see what they force on the commercial customer.

14 Posted by Carolyn at 03/29/07 07:24 PM

I totally agree. I continually debate canceling my cable service as I pay so much for so little. If it is truly a market driven system, then the consumers should be able to make the progrmming choices they wish to receive and pay for. I'm tired of supporting cable companies and advertisers making money off me in this coercive manner.

15 Posted by Fred krohn at 03/29/07 10:24 PM

I definitely agree. I watch very little TV nowadays: I peruse less than 20 channels out of Comcast's 'basic' lineup. The computer (with Comcast's broadband Internet) takes much higher priority.

I feel it a poor deal when they insist on serving outright garbage (QVC, HSN, Golf Channel, 'pay-per-view' access, CBS) and useless-to-me channels (anything in languages other than English, Norsk, or Español, channels intended for audiences other than a somewhat atypical 50-year-old male Scandinavian-American...) along with the few channels I actually use (Discovery, TLC, History, Science, Animal Planet, PBS, TVLand, some classic movie channels, Cartoon Network 'Adult Swim', Fox, UPN, ABC, NBC) in the basic lineup. Choosing up to, say, 16 or 32 channels from an 'expanded basic' lineup for basic service and discarding garbage and irrelevant channels would be a much better (and less wasteful of bandwidth) way of building a loyal cable TV customer base. I would love to shed the outright garbage channels for the SciFi and Military channels currently offered as the only two worthwhile additions if you sign up for some 50 more trash channels too in an overpriced 'digital premium' package. That song '57 Channels and nothing on!' is only inaccurate in the count - it should be '257 Channels and nothing on!'!

16 Posted by Andrea Richard at 03/30/07 12:39 AM

I absolutely agree. I am tired of paying high fees to the cable company when we don't care to watch 75% of what we have to pay for. Reduce the cost and allow us to pay for a custom package of what we want.

17 Posted by CHARLES at 03/30/07 12:30 PM

ALONG WITH OUR PROBLEMS WITH T.V. IS COMMERCIAL AIR TIME, COMMERCIALS ARE RUNING 50% OF OUR AVAILABLE AIR TIME,'TOO MUCH' CUT DOWN ON THE ADVERTIZING. I SIMPLY TURN OFF MY T.V.WHEN I AM BOMBARDED WITH ADVERTS. DISCUSTED!

18 Posted by John R Jensen at 03/31/07 03:25 PM

Most TV programs are pure mindless garbage. I don't understand how any one can watch that drivel.

19 Posted by Ann Callahan at 04/02/07 05:45 AM

It would be nice if I could get EWTN with my current cable network and not have to switch to satellite to get it. My husband is pleased with the lineup we currently have. Why have to switch. Why can't we pick and choose if we just want 1-10 extra or different programs.

20 Posted by Mark Griggs at 04/02/07 10:57 PM

I certainly would like to see the dissolution of packages for cable as well as satellite. I believe that the consumer should have the ability to choose which channels he wants. Of course, I would want this ability without an unsubstantiated additional charge!

One matter in particular that I am very upset about is the premium on HDTV channels. Congress mandated that the television industry change to digital broadcasts yet I have to pay more for the privilege of having the service? I have an antenna for over the air digital which in my area is poor at best. These predatory practices should be regulated by law and stopped.

21 Posted by Chris at 04/03/07 08:26 AM

Selecting the channels you like, or a-la-cart programming, has been shown to cost the average consumer MORE than tier programming. Yes you get a lot of channels you may not watch but the value per channel is greater. I, and others in my town, have been fighting this scheme for a while. More than 1/2 the subscribers we spoke to would pay more for a-la--carte than what they are currently paying, me among them. I have 5 people living in my house and with the mix of age groups and interests, Even if I only purchased 1/2 of channels I already get it would increased my cost.

Think of it like a combo printer scanner fax machine. You may need only 2 of the options but the cost is generally better than the 2 items you need purchased seperately so you buy the device and never fax a thing but you've saved money and have the additional functionality should the need arise.

The only way that it would work is if the cable companies charged everyone the same price per channel as they currently pay for tiered service ($50 per month/150 channels = $0.34 per channel)and I don't see them passing up the opportunity to make additional money at say $0.75 to $1.00 per channel.

22 Posted by Tony at 04/06/07 05:36 AM

All of us would like "Chinese Menu" ordering for cable, but the cable companies have to buy the channels in packages just the way we get stuck with them.
I'm not necessarily sympathetic to the cable companies because their markup is a bit too stiff, but I know they have to pay E$PN for each potential viewer - those million-dollar football player contracts don't come from ticket sales and overpriced hot dogs, and no cable company is going to stay in business without E$PN, so E$PN can really call the $hot$. The cable co. puts E$PN in tier 2, which includes a few inexpensive channels that appeal to non-sports fans. Then the cable co. pays E$PN for EVERY last customer who has Tier 2, including people who never watch that particular channel, and rabid sports fans who only watch that channel. This is very carefully audited by the channels selling services.

One company frequently owns 5 or 6 channels like Discovery or HGTV, and the only way a cable company can buy DIY is to include another channel, like Fine Living. If the cable co. says they don't want Fine Living, then the channel owner says, "Pity. I'll just take DIY, as well." and the customers go nuts.

Competition betwen cable co's is not likely because various towns assigned areas to specific cable companies for a nice piece of the cable profit years ago in order to avoid 3 or 4 wires going down each street. Nowadays, cable co's could all use the one wire and have the homeowner choose which company he wants, but that would mean having a cable box in the home that acts like a meter and sends info back to the office. No customer wants anyone to know exactly which channel he's watching, and many people do not want a cable box in the house at all.

23 Posted by Daron at 04/10/07 10:45 AM

Another problem with an "a la carte" system is that many of the less mainstream channels would not survive if they were not bundled with popular channels. Most viewers have a special interest channel or two that we like to watch depending on our interests, hobbies, etc. and the current tiered programming system enables them to be funded. An "a la carte" system would ultimately result in a thinning of the channel lineup to only those channels that are popular with the masses, and we don't want to lose that diversity. So no, we can't have our cake and eat it too!

24 Posted by Kevin at 04/11/07 06:32 AM

An a la carte pricing structure would just encourage cable companies to charge more for each channel a customer wants to have in their home. One thing cable companies should stop doing is raising rates year after year. Cable rates are ridiculous. Where I live, I have Time Warner Cable. Their new package prices have gone through the roof. To get their top package that includes every channel offered, digital phone, and broadband internet, the monthly fee is over $170 a month after fees and taxes are added. That is outrageous! As of Feb 1st of this year, rates increased once again.

25 Posted by Judy at 04/11/07 11:39 AM

Then why don't you folks stop complaining and make a statement that hits them where it hurts?

Cancel your cable!

As long as folks are willing to pay anything, your rates will never go down.

Judy
St. Louis
free tv only

26 Posted by George Shaeffer at 04/12/07 03:29 AM

Tiered programming SUCKS! I have analog cable basic service (about 70 channels, most of which I don't want) and a new HD TV. To get ANY HD programming I first have to sign up for digital cable (about 300 channels in the package I need just to get the few channels I do watch in my analog package) at a significantly higher cost, THEN I have to pay an ADDITIONAL $20/month for the HD package. And the satelite packages are just as bad. WHEN ARE WE EVER GOING TO GET ALL HD PROGRAMMING? WHEN ARE WE EVER GOING TO BE ALLOWED TO PICK AND CHOOSE TO ASSEMBLE THE PACKAGE WE WANT, CHANNEL BY CHANNEL? Until then we're all just getting ripped off!

27 Posted by Ruth Grunberg at 04/17/07 10:37 PM

The uproar over Imus offers new ammunition for a la carte programming, or at least a law that requires cable companies to reduce the bill
when the customer blocks objectionable channels from arriving at their home.

I tried to get MTV and VH1 blocked from my cable TV because of objectionable content. Surprise! The cable company can block it from entering my home, but they STILL collect the monthly fee for those channels and obligingly send the money along to the offending media outlets.

The consumers have no way to vote with their pocketbooks as long as THIS policy is not altered. If a customer requests a channel blocked, they should not be forced to pay for it. The big media companies are holding
us hostage to their filth.

The advertisers acted in the case of Imus,
but why not lobby for tools that let people be empowered all on their own?

28 Posted by Gail Neely at 04/20/07 08:33 AM

Consumers Union should spearhead a campaign to designate a National “Just say no!” to Subscription Television Week. This would be a week during which people are urged to contact their cable, satellite, etc. provider to cancel their subscription, as a means of expressing their dissatisfaction with the lack of choice and outrageous price of these services. CU could take out ads in major newspapers (similar to the “Just say no” to extended service agreements campaign that was launched during the holiday season). When cable and satellite providers are hit hard in the pocketbook by losing subscriptions, only then will they be willing to seriously reconsider their business model to offer such services as cable a la carte which does not force the consumer to pay a hefty price for lots of channels they don’t want and don’t watch. This movement would then have a ripple effect, forcing media companies who own such channels to break up the packages they sell to cable companies and offer their channels separately. This would be due to the fact that cable and satellite providers could legitimately tell these companies that their customers are outright rejecting such packaged offerings, and thus they will be unable to purchase any of that company’s channels unless these channels are offered separately, or unless the package is offered to the cable company at a much lower price.

More people would be willing to go along with canceling their subscription TV if they understood that Internet DVD subscription services can provide movies and television on DVD for prices that either compare, or could be much lower that what they are currently paying for cable or satellite. With these services you are able to select and pay for exactly (and only) the programs and films you actually want to watch. The TV programs from such services would not be the current season, but a truly good program is worth the wait (especially when it doesn’t include the mind-numbing commercials from the original broadcast). Also, a great many films on DVD or VHS are available for free loan from one’s local public library. Or, in an effort to wean themselves from subscription TV, people could do something even more radical to entertain themselves, such as (gasp!) reading a book. News and weather can be obtained from the Internet or radio or even from a newspaper for folks willing to go that far.

There are so many alternatives -- We see subscription television as a necessity of life only because we have brainwashed ourselves into thinking that way. On the contrary, it is possible to lead a very full (and potentially more rewarding) life without handing over ridiculous sums of money to the cable company each month in return for the mindless drivel they attempt to pass off as entertainment. As consumers, it is high time that we start taking responsibility for our own choices. Indeed, subscription television companies are not exactly holding us at gunpoint and forcing us to hand over these huge wads of cash to them. But as long as we continue to hand it over, they will continue to take it. We can’t rely on government agencies to force cable and satellite companies to offer services such as a la carte channel selection, as the officials that run such agencies have too many political ties to these big businesses. No, the time has come for all of us to stand up together and just say “No!” to subscription television.

29 Posted by Jonathon Mullens at 04/26/07 06:47 PM

Yeah it sucks being a Dodger fan in the midwest. It almost sucks to be a white sox fan. I know I could pay for a package to watch all the baseball I want but lets face it. If I have time to watch all that baseball I wouldn't be able to afford to have some form of cable/sat. to begin with. Oh well, a man can dream.

30 Posted by Chris at 04/27/07 07:55 AM

It's a perfect idea now what can we do as consumers to make it happen??? I would walk door to door to get the support needed to get something like this available.

31 Posted by Texas Cable Guy at 08/05/08 09:38 PM

Would a-la-carte really lower the price of cable TV?

As a retired cable TV engineer, I've been thinking about this issue for a long time.   I don't think a-la-carte will lower the price of cable TV.   But that's not the purpose of this post.   I'm posting this in an attempt to explain what might actually happen if a-la-carte were mandated by Congress.

Continued here...

Texas Cable Guy
texascableguy@gmail.com

32 Posted by 24hourtourist at 11/30/08 08:05 AM

Think of it as being in an upscale restaurant: When you order an all inclusive ("prix fixe", as the French say) menu, the choices and courses are pretty much set which usually keeps the price about 15-25% lower; should you order a la carte, you will have a lot more choices but chances are the final bill will be a lot higher. Nonetheless I'm all for a la carte in the TV signal provider business because it will keep the price for you, the consumer a lot lower since it is true that most people only watch one of eight channels in their complete lineup. In Los Angeles, Fios TV is currently giving DirecTV a run for its money by experimenting with just such an offer. What would happen if companies actually allowed such a choice? Initially, net profits would go down but in the long run customer loyalty would increase because of higher satisfaction with their service, after all you're getting exactly what you are paying for - what a concept! Then again this country has lost its confidence in doing efficient business. You can see that when you consider the present situation in which customer loyalty is not valued anymore and people just complain about being ball & chained until they quit whatever service they have altogether. Meanwhile, companies like Comcast are trying to limit their customer's ability to access the internet. Shoddy business practices of big monopolies have eroded the market (remember Adelphia?). The answer? Insist on quality service as a consumer and you might just get value for your money - look at the movie rental business Netflix, the little company that would rise to the occasion, while Time Warner, the big giant that gobbled up most areas here in LA is having a terrible time providing good subscriber service. In the end what matters most is being smart about your choices and don't let them hoodwink you into being "bundled" to death. Just because they provide decent internet service doesn't mean they are a good cable company.

Post a Comment (* indicates a required field)