What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
$52 and Up-Airlines Slash Fares On Peak Holiday Flights. view!
travelzoo.com - This year, waiting until the last minute is NOT the best strategy. See why.
174 Comments
- HarryBauzonia, on 10/12/2007, -4/+136If I could pick the channels I wanted, I'd end up with 10 channels, and be as happy as a pig in mud.
- kneu1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+50Screw getting individual channels - how about some competition.
Allow multiple cable companies in each city. Get the telecoms and the electric companies to get in the market.
Where is my IPTV?
Competition will bring the skyrocketing television prices back down to earth. - ldhertert, on 10/12/2007, -12/+53Oh, well in that case, we probably shouldn't bother discussing it. I didn't realize that YOU stopped watching tv a long time ago. I guess it's a moot point now. Reported as old news.
- pabster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+35Unfortunately, the cable monopolies would make sure your bill was just the same, whether you had those 10 channels you want or 100.
- maklershed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19I think the idea of paying for individual channels is great .. however .. cable companies are going to make sure to rig the pricing in such a way for individual channels that most customers will decide the current packages and pricing is the way to go.
- jtibble, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21screw MTV and VH1. I just want my discovery channel, history, nat. geographic, speed, and most importantly, TECHTV BACK [crying]
- kms007, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15A la carte cable is something I have wished for since the advent of cable. I do not need 120 channels - just 10 or so would be fine. I would love to see an underdog company come up with a way to implement this and beat the cable monopolies once and for all.
- klang, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15T.V. ... that's short for Torrent Vision, right?
- ldhertert, on 10/12/2007, -5/+18I just find it silly that whenever a discussion starts about a la carte tv, people come out of the woodwork (you) who don't add anything to the conversation other than the fact that it doesn't really matter what the business model of the cable companies is, because they (you) gave up cable years ago.
- Strongoloid, on 10/12/2007, -11/+24I want Adult Swim but not Cartoon Network.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -14/+26So ldhertert 1, Your telling me that you enjoy paying a buttload of $$ every month.... and then be saturated with ads? Sorry... but until the cable companies drastically cut the price, or drastically cut the ads.... TV is useless...... all the entertainment can be found online, free and without commercials...
- joebrodie, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15Digg++ for the title. Money for nothing... Chicks for free...
[hunts down Dire Straits in MP3 collection] - afractus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11not really news, but yes i'm sure most people would rather choose the channels that they get rather than packages. I dont think you can win by bickering and still paying. They won't listen if they have you by the balls. Don't pay for tv, whine about it, and then download the shows you want.
- geekee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10"Two words....... iTunes store."
Yeah, $2 for a half hour show that I only want to watch once. That a great deal. - fatcat, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10i dont watch tv normally anymore, the last time i watched actual when it aired was the new years eve count down and it was about 10 min late, i cancled my cable and connected my computer to my tv and now im 100% iptv and coughtorrentcough um iTunes. i think it is the future of television, watch when you want and virtually no commercials, the qualitie isnt always perfect and there arnt really any good online sitcoms yet, but i dont watch them that much
- MrUnderbridge, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Well, of course. Here's what the idiots seem to think: If I pay $X for cable and get Y channels, then channels cost $X/Y. Since I only want 10 channels, I should only pay $X/Y*10.
Yeah, right. The cable companies aren't going to put into place a system that results in every subscriber paying a fraction of what they are now. If they allow a la carte, it has to result in you paying about what you are now.
So you can pay what you are now and get 10 channels, or pay what you are now and get 800 channels. - stealthboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Dude, British Parliament is a blast to watch. You should seriously check it out sometime. All they do is insult eachother for hours, throwing in the "honorable gentlemen" every few minutes. It rules.
- cptmorgan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8how could one put the sci-fi channel in the "don't want" section? that channel kicks ass! bostoned is clearly a fool.
- merreborn, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10"So ldhertert 1, Your telling me that you enjoy paying a buttload of $$ every month.... and then be saturated with ads?"
He *is* paying for it, isn't he? I'm pretty sure most people don't pay for things they don't either enjoy or need.
"i think cable is the biggest rip off since bottled water you pay monthly fees and still get ads...."
I think the internet is the biggest rip off since cable, you pay monthly fees and still get ads... - awfulshot, on 10/12/2007, -7/+13Johndoe777, I'm with you. although i still have an antenna hooked up for the basic channels... i never actually watch TV other than Conan and some PBS specials.
- CosmicJustice, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Part of the formula for setting advertising rates is how many homes a channel is AVAILABLE in. Therefore the cable company does not want you to be able to block channels.
- Knots, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I'm sorry to say that Al La Carte is actually a good sounding idea. But not really. Here is why. If Al La carte cable would've existed 15 years ago. There would be no FX, Speed, Animal planet, or TEchTV. Why? Because in order to set up those cable channels they had to have to revenue that is GUARANTEED by cable contracts. How long do you guys think Leo, Kevin, etc would've stayed on the air if they HADN'T been able to get that guaranteed money?
I would love Al La carte cable for my wallet and I think the eventual IPTV coming out party is well on it's way. But what I'm saying is be careful what you wish for. Because not long after you subscibe to the Speed network on an al la carte basis, it will probably go off the air due to low revenue. - deadbaby, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Doesn't satellite TV sort of prove this argument wrong? Satellite isn't a monopoly and they do channel bundling as well. The truth is, providers get cheaper rates from content providers if they bundle packages together. It has nothing to do with cable being a monopoly -- it's how the business works.
- Cerberus047, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7i think cable is the biggest rip off since bottled water you pay monthly fees and still get ads.... and its funny as im writing this i just got a phone call from a satallite company asking if i wanted this special discount plan with bunches of channels for less money... i almost died
- bacon_skoda, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5the thing people are assuming here is that every channel on cable cost the same. like ESPN cost the same as the Game Show Network. or MTV equals OLN.
Guess what? the channel most people watch? they cost alot. and most of the channels are linked by the same parents. they won't "give" this if they don't "get" that. this article is dreaming, and just a useless rant. - astrotrain, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Cable TV is overrated...Too many channels of BS on.
MTV should be named to CTV (Crap TV), and VH1 is piggy backing off of MTV. Orginally VH1 was
supposed to be aimed to the older audience members but looks like it is showing the same amount
of junk MTV shows. - JamesBrown, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Not my fault. I cancelled my cable with the expectation that it would be disconnected. Blame Comcast for being lazy.
- DisposableRob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"like ESPN cost the same as the Game Show Network. or MTV equals OLN."
Yeah, ala cart will end up costing more and could lead to the death of niche channels. It would be nice to have ala carte pricing, but package deals will still be preferred by most people. Like fast food value meals, you pay less by ordering more, not by removing ingredients. - klang, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6The cost of billing thousands of different customers for as many different combinations is huge. (even phone companies screw up billing once in a while because it is a hard thing to do consistently correct).
The cost of making 3-4 different "packages" is ideal to keep costs down..(as not having to bill local calls does in a phone company)
With time, and IPTV, a pay-per-view / pay-per-channel, system could be put up .. but most people couldn't care less .. they'll just pay for their 80 channels and not bother with selecting.
iTunes, download your favorite TVShow for $2.99 .. expensive but convenient.. maybe even the future trend.. - samdu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4You should probably see someone about that stick up your ass.
- MemoryDump, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3does MTV even play music anymore? oh that's right.. that stopped in the 90's.. and THAT'S why I don't watch that station anymore along with MuchMusic here in Canada. THANK God for the Internet!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Analogy:
Cable bill = pays for delivering content
Commercials = pays for content
Shipping on NewEgg = pays for item delivery
Item Price = pays for the item itself
To combine the two would be stupid. That is like saying all items on NewEgg should be sold for their shipping price, because that is the cost for delivering the product.
- das7282, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Right now I have all the MTV's (and VH1 & BET) blocked so my kids can't watch that crap! If I could get rid of it without getting rid of other channels that are included in that package I would.
- Ludwig, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5An a la carte cable plan may well have prevented the loss of ZD/TechTV.
Cable companies have monopolies in their juristictions, but equally as bad, cable channels have a huge security blanket of their inclusion in packages. If consumers had a stronger voice, I'm sure we'd see a lot better programming in an attempt for us to /want/ the channel. Instead, even a channel that gets the occasional viewer flipping through channels can survive.
I've got über-mega-joy-luck-basic-basic cable at home, which basically means I don't need to use bunny ears to get decent reception. I'd have no problem paying an extra 15-20 bucks a month to get the 5 channels I want. There's no way in hell they're getting the 50-60 they're asking for their packages. - djgump35, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5money makes the world go around, and everyone has bills to pay. I agree with you mak, that is exactly what they are going to do. The broadcasting companies are trying to take care of the advertisers, the cable companies are trying to take care of the broadcasters and the advertisers. I say to make things competitive, give me the a la carte, and then give me the other shows in an on demand capability where I can pay for certain shows and not have to watch commercials. I wouldn't mind paying $4 for 4 episodes a month commercial free from a certain channel, as opposed to the $10 for it, when I just don't watch it.
I think the irony is people are wanting to pay for separate channels, and saying that this is a good thing, but complaining about the internet being dealt in such a way where you have to pay for certain access rights. You don't know what you've got until its gone, so be careful what you wish for. - ifthenelse, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Screw per-channel selection. I want per-show selection.
It's coming. IPTV, webcasting, torrents, PVR's, and everything else are all signs of where it's going. TV/cable/satellite companies better adapt quickly or they will eventually be dead. - grated4life, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Piping free cable service from apartment complex into video card for the cheapest yet.Freeeeeeee..take that Cox Cable
- tankko, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Yes, but here is the problem. If one or more of those 10 you want are obscure channels (si-fi), then you're going to be paying a lot for it. Don't for a minute thing that if you're paying $100 for 100 channels that you'll now pay $10 for any 10 of those. Fact is, the people paying for the popular channels are subsidizing the smaller ones. This is important for variety. Take this way and all we'll have is what is the 10 channels the masses want, unless you're willing to pay $100/month for just the si-fi channel.
- fletchowns, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2MTV killed kurt cobain :(
- xerokitsune, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Or pick them up on DVD. A lot of shows hit DVD rather quickly lately.
- speel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Lol some one get this guy some pamprin.
- hello2usir, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"sick of paying over 100 a month to the cable comapny (55 for internet / 65 for cable) just for the privledge of watching ads on a service that I am already paying an outragous price for."
By that reasoning you might as well abandon your internet connection too. There are ads all over the internet, including here on Digg. But just like with cable TV, you aren't directly paying for those ads, you're paying for the service that delivers the content, be it an ad or not.
Don't get me wrong though. I agree with the underlying sentiment. There is something fundamentally wrong with the system when we have to pay to be subjected to unsolicited advertising, no matter what medium. This is something that needs to change. - danpsmith, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I used to rely mainly on my computer for entertainment, meanwhile I'd have the TV running in the background on either MTV or Comedy Central for background noise or while I was waiting for something to load.
I bought a media center computer and now have two computers on my desk instead of a computer/TV setup. I find this to be much the same, except for that I am not as tapped into the ad culture perpetrated by the cable companies. I can watch everything I actually want to see through DVR, fast forward through commercials, and watch movies or something else on demand on my second computer.
That being said, I do miss TV from time to time as it has a kind of dulling effect where you forget where you are for a minute. But you hardly stay better informed or in touch by watching TV.
I could probably do without it altogether at this point. The problem comes when someone else is in the room, reading a website isn't exactly a two-person activity. - osbjmg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2He doesn't want discovery or history? Wow.
- pabster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Yeah, C-Band had (still has) A-La-Carte programming. Problem is the cost of the equipment and the rather rudimentary steps required to tune in to the programming.
- Chompy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2That's a nice, simple argument.. unfortunately it starts to fall apart when you get into slightly more advanced concepts like "monopoly pricing", "protectionism", and "barriers to entry".
- DarthTurducken, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2*sigh* I miss Speed World
Yeah cable sucks for movies - us afficianados want widescreen, unedited ad-free goodness. - CosmicJustice, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"I find I waste more time watching garbage when I have access to cable, so I'd just as soon not have it"
If you can't stop yourself from watching garbage, how would you ever be able to censor what your children watch? - merreborn, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7I want a ***** pony, dammit.
- floorman56, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2C-band dishes had A la carte. Hows that working?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 175 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is