What is Digg?126 Comments
- indiefan, on 10/10/2007, -5/+50You mean i could tell Fox News to go to hell?
- DoctorDiamond, on 10/10/2007, -3/+42This would be a major step for consumer choice if it moves forward.
- jdotter, on 10/10/2007, -2/+38This is so badly needed it's ridiculous. I watch about 10 or so different networks (That includes 3 ESPN's and Comcast SportsNet here in eastern PA - Go Phils!) and have no need for the rest. I'd probably pickup HBO and Showtime for their programming under this billing method, but at $60 a month for basic cable I'm not willing to pay for them right now. I rent or torrent(legal stuff I swear!) the rest of my viewing. I have no problem paying for the content I consume. Why must I pay for the 95% I don't?
- gweedoz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+22I for one would not "pay" to keep receiving all those stupid shopping channels. Now, maybe if they had a shopping channel for geeks, great deals on gigabit switches, nice deal on a usb2 300gb external drive, etc.
- geekee, on 10/10/2007, -3/+25Be careful what you wish for. If a la carte becomes standard and everyone dumps sci-fi channel except you, it may go under.
- TheRemoteViewer, on 10/10/2007, -1/+16You're kidding, right? Most areas are only serviced by one cable company.
- kaidovak, on 10/10/2007, -1/+16If they do this, who's to keep them from changing the price to $10 a month for every channel you order?
- master_of_fm, on 10/10/2007, -3/+15what most people fail to realize that all the "good" channels are subsidized by the bundling of "crap" channels. in the end you would end up paying even more for a la carte channels than you would for a bundle
- Dysarthria, on 10/10/2007, -3/+14A - la - carte = bye bye MTV!
Lets just pray it happens. - gothsquirrel, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11I might actually pick up the Food network or The Travel channel as well as the Discovery channel if they would do it like that. I just moved and refuse to pay the extra for cable this time around.
- Shorties, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11Why would you pay any money to get G4TV, hell they should pay me to watch that trash.
- kindrobot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Ok, I agree. So, I say we collectively re-evaluate the use of public land and put fiber in place instead of that outdated coaxial crap. Choice and rights go both ways, buddy.
- kettlehead, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12who the ***** cares? do you watch oxygen, espns 1-163, or God TV? because I sure as all hell don't. How many people do you know actually use all 100 channels in the basic subscription? A lot of these channels only get by because people are forced to subscribe to them when they get cable at all. Not only will this reduce overall cost to the average consumer, it will encourage *actual programming quality* by making the channels compete for real.
- nusuni, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8this will only be good if you watch a few channels. Chances are they will be like $2-$3/piece, so if you watch 20 channels you're up to $40-$60 anyway.
- mwdcodeninja, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Just think, soon you could be paying $4.95 per channel! Don't think for a second that if the cable companies are forced to go al a carte that they will do so quietly or without finding some way to screw us.
- deadbaby, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8That's exactly what will happen. A lot of people falsely believe it's the cable companies fighting this but it's really the broadcasters. Prices of programming are negotiated based on what other channels the cable provider is willing to bundle. It may still workout well for some consumers , especially people with a strong interest in only one type of programming, but I think the majority of people will continue to opt for packages.
- insomniac8400, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5If you can drop a channel that raises its price, they won't raise it.
- EXreaction, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4It'll get replaced by the religious scam shows that try to sell you "holy water" for $100 a gallon.
- erinspice, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6So you could subscribe to only Playboy? Greeeeeeeeeeeat. There goes my place in the bedroom.
- sekhui, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4hi comcast! stop trolling please. that's like your fiftieth pro-cable comment on this story.
- pak314, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Yesterday I realized that Comcast recently jacked up my price of extended cable to $52. If I get basic cable it only costs $14. I looked through my Tivo listing and realized that a majority of the shows I watch are covered by basic cable. Thus I figured it would be better for me to get the basic package plus a Netflix subscription and I would save a lot of money.
- _skin_, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I hate the fact that part of my $60 a month goes to MTV. If mommy and daddy will keep anything from their kids it should, and I would bet they would keep MTV from them.
- fredkreuger, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3"Watch spam @ http://www.digg.com/users/wal9958 "
- retawd, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I don't trust it, they will use bandwidth and accounting issues to charge $5 per channel or something, but it would be fun to get EPL games at some time besides 3am on FSN without having to buy the deluxe silver plan or something.
- geminitojanus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Or maybe, just maybe our cable bills with actually go /down/ because consumers will only be buying the channels they want in the first place. The channels they don't want might increase in price, but that will only show how terrible those channels actually are in the first place, and hopefully will make them work harder towards producing content someone would actually want to watch.
The days of companies propping up their feet and collecting the "Cable Tax" is about to end, either forcibly by law, or via the Internet revolution. Either way, it's exactly what they don't want to see happen because it means they might actually start having to work again. - maj0rm0j0, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6Be careful what you ask for. If this goes through your going to be paying for each individual channel just like it's a premium channel (HBO etc..). It will be similar to purchasing every item individually instead of your combo meal. If all you want is a handful of channels it's good for you, but if you want alot of choices you'll be paying about $70 for your 20 channels. I like having 200. Also, conglomerates like ABC/ESPN will still force you to buy all of their channels at a bundle price. You will also lose most of the cable/satellite companies ability to negotiate with the channels for lower prices.
- erinspice, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4You're telling me that you would willingly pay $100 per month for 10 channels? I certainly wouldn't. Are you denying the existance of your right to refuse service altogether?
- maj0rm0j0, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6If this goes through and you keep the channels you have now your bill will be through the roof! You are leaving the pricing up to the channels. Your cable provider negotiates lower prices and bundles them for a cheaper rate. We will still be forced into bundles by the large channel conglomerates, and that is not who we want setting the prices. You will be paying for these cheap channels like they are premiums.
- Atomic1fire, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4but still better viewing then if you payed so much for a load of crap
- stonr2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3are you crazy?! Don't you think teens will beg their parents for MTV just like in the 80's? "i want my MTV!" all over again.. sad but true
- BlackCow, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3If they no longer make a profit then they go under. The channels will have less mediums to broadcast so they will keep the prices fair.
- arcooke, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Yep, I was just about to come and post that. It's going to end up being a "better deal" to order the package than it will be to have a few individual channels. Plus, they'll probably have some required base fee. I hate corporations.
- Barbarino, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3It's coming eventually, the FCC is on board. ESPN would be by far the most expensive channel Out of all my Direct TV channels probably have 200 of them, only 70 of them show up in my guide, the others I have blocked. Some channels pay the operators to carry their stations others such as ESPN charge the operator.
- lucas22, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2wtf
- kaidovak, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I already pay 60 for 70 channels and internet, and I only watch 3 channels.
- Fairly, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3It took twenty two minutes for the first person to react. It's good you did - it's scary no one else did before you. Only proves once again education in the US has long since gone down the tubes. All the rest of you: stop teaching yourselves grammar and spelling by reading spam subject lines, OK? ;)
- maj0rm0j0, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Your bill will go way up if you keep your current channels. This will put the pricing in the hands of the channels, and trust me when I tell you that cable companies negotiate for lower prices.
- Lane, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4So where do i sign up?
- finkployd, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I can't believe I just dugg a story about a Class Action Law Suit. I must be getting older than I thought.
- sekhui, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2newegg and woot? ;P
- str3ama, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Here you go - nice and free and sure there's a lot of garbage channels or content on here, but at least it's free garbage!
http://www.freetube.us.tc
http://www.getdemocracy.com
http://www.joost.com
http://www.tvtonics.com
http://www.tvuplayer.com - Create, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The problem isn't the cable companies, its the content providers. The providers tell the cable company, "We will sell you this this, this, and this, but you have to carry this other channel to get that nice price". so of course to get the best overall price for a customer the ***** channels get added.
I can hardly wait for the day you can do channels a la carte, customers will call on Monday morning to add ESPN for Monday night football, and then call to cancel Tuesday morning, can see people changing their channels like they change underwear... and that's before they get a great big bill full of prorated charges and now don't understand the document they are looking at.
Don't get me wrong, I am all for consumer choices, and knowing what I know, I hate the content providers for the way they extort customers and force their ***** channels on the air, but I suspect a more broken down package pricing would work better... i.e. a news section, a sports section, an entertainment section, etc., each with a group of channels that fall under each heading, it would at least bust up the bundling channels together, and give people a choice... I really don't think overall cable rates would be dropped (content providers will charge the same anyway) but would at least allow people to drop chunks of costs from their bill for content they really aren't into - insomniac8400, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2If you think this relates to religion, your a retard. Watch what happens to the religious channel when no one subscribes.
- insomniac8400, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2But republicans don't like abortions.
- ZenMojo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I watch about 10-15 channels on a regular basis and am stuck with dozens upon dozens of others that are of no use to me. The real reason this isn't being pushed harder is because those Christian networks that piggyback on cable bundles would have almost no viewership at all if we had free choice and the cable networks wouldn't even bother trying to carry them if they knew how little they're wanted by the consumer.
- insomniac8400, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Microsoft vs. the EU is a perfect example that when your a monopoly you get ***** in the ass. But cable companies are far worse because they operate geographically. Unlike using windows as your os with the ability to use linux at any time, cable companies can force whatever they want on you and you can't do anything about it. Satellite no matter what anyone says is vulnerable to interference from storms and therefore is not even in the same league as cable that will not go out during a lighting storm.
- indiefan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Yes, by only tuning in to one channel and ignoring everyone else you could save more money. Not only that, you'd also make a perfect metaphor...
- insomniac8400, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2It matters because they are paid to air it. If they are going to make money by forcing a channel on me, I deserve the benefits, not them. If QVC makes pays 10 dollars a tv, we the consumer deserve a 10 dollar deduction. The cable company forcing the channel on us and keeping the money involved is pure abuse of monopoly powers. It's the key issue of the whole debate. Consumers should only pay for what they want, and if they pay for a channel that costs -10 dollars, it should be added to the a la carte bill.
- BlackCow, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3G4 wouldn't be so bad if they were Tech TV.
- BlackCow, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3As long as we have a choice.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 125 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is