A La Carte Cable TV Channels?

ryantate writes "I was reading TV Tattle and came across an interesting story in the Washington Post about people who spend less than $30 per month on cable buying a la carte. To do this you need a huge C-band dish, but Sen. John McCain wants to require a la carte pricing on digital cable. Content companies like Viacom are fighting it -- they don't want people to be able opt out of their less established channels. And at least one economist type, this guy in the Financial Times, seems to think we'll end up paying just as much under a la carte pricing. EchoStar is game but says Viacom and others are refusing to go along. "

Comments

The Illuminati will control you, sheep!

[grub]

The TV broadcasters don't want a la carte programming. The reason they say, cost, is not the real reason. For years the broadcasters have been using extremely low wattage, spread spectrum messaging to program our minds via channel packages.

For example, if you have a "Family Package" consisting of a cartoon channel, Lifetime, etc, the broadcaster will send a weak Bogon-Lyston Mind Control signal of approximately .02 nanowatts across each of the family networks to your television set. (TVs have uniquely addressable IDs in them, they don't want you to know this)

To date this has been undetectable by standard means, however donning a tinfoil hat will block the signal and you will feel the difference within a few weeks.

Now, if a la carte programming goes through the broadcasters and their masters (The Illuminati) will have to use a stronger signal on their most popular channels. A stronger signal may be detected which would reveal their nefarious plans.

History
Back in the mid 1960s, a brilliant electronic engineer had detected an odd signal embedded into television signal of The Ed Sullivan Show. Decoding the signal, he found messages saying "DRINK MORE SOFT DRINKS" and "SUPPORT THE VIETNAM WAR". The engineer sounded the warning bell, but to the media itself. Bad move. He was heavily drugged for over 3 years then was placed at the center of a CIA/NSA/Illuminati organised mass murder crime scene. That engineer, Charles Manson, is still in jail suffering the ravages of the drug therapy.

Don't believe me, search the net! The truth must be tol... wait a sec, there's someone at my door..

Re:The Illuminati will control you, sheep!

[FrYGuY101]

"SUPPORT THE VIETNAM WAR", eh?

Well, I don't think we have much to worry about then...

An idea

[va3atc]

One time payment category
Cheap terrestrial antenna : $40
HDTV decoder to pull stuff off antenna : $130

Monthly stuff
Netflix for unlimited DVD rental: $20/month

Grab your local news off the antenna (in HDTV if available), watch your favorite TV shows with your Netflix account

FYI: There is some unlimited DVD rental folks that work exactly like Netflix here in Canada
Movies for me
Cinema Flow

I'm interested in trying one of them, anyone have previous experience with them?

Re:An idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Also in Canada, I believe the community co-op cable supplier in Regina, SK has long offered channels a la carte. I think they also pay less per average, not more. They put in the infrastructure to do it years ago.

The difference between this sort of system and the more commonly seen kind seems to be that they're a co-op, hence not driven to bilk their customers out of as much money as possible for programming they don't watch.

"Bundling" in generaly is far too often about the scaling of a con than the economy of scale.

Re:An idea

[-tji]

I have *almost* gotten to this level..

I've been addicted to Netflix for over 3 years now. That instantly cut my TV viewing to almost nothing. I always had a movie that I wanted to watch, rather than the junk that happened to be on TV.

After getting a widescreen TV to view DVD's in their native format, I tried out the HD capabilities of the TV with an HD tuner. I was very impressed with the quality, and my ability to get a perfect picture via antenna - even though using analog reception my picture always sucked. Now, I can get the big sporting events I want, as well as a couple TV shows (The West Wing & Fear Factor) with no monthly costs.

But, I didn't take the plunge and cancel DirecTV yet.. For most people, there will always be a small number of stations they must have. For me, it's ESPN-HD, HBO-HD, and HDNet Movies. For my grandfather, it's The Weather Channel and CNN. For my Dad, it's the Golf Channel.

So.. I think that the suggestions you gave make ala carte channel selection even more useful. If I can pay $15-$25 for the few channels I actually want, that's a big improvement over what I have today - paying for dozens of SDTV channels that I literally never watch.

Re:An idea

[timmyf2371]

Netflix or your local video store is a better deal than paying extra for movie channels, but there are few alternatives to the basic cable/satellite channels if you want to watch sports and cable only shows like South Park or The Shield. What else can you do? They're all pretty inconvenient compared to cable. - You can find some popular TV shows on BT. - Some official sports websites like motogp.com and mlb.com have live streaming video for pay. - You can go to a friend's house to watch a favorite show.

In theory, it's a perfect idea. However, watching a video stream on my 17" CRT just isn't the same as watching a soccer game on a widescreen TV.

The selling point of cable is that it's convenient.

I currently pay 38 per month which gives me the different sports channels, movie channels, and all the other channels. Yeah, you do pay for many channels you don't watch, but then how do you decide the value of the channel? Is it unreasonable to value one cable channel at 5 (the cost of a movie ticket) for a whole months programming? If you watch over 8 channels the value begins to sink in.

this would be good...

[utexaspunk]

a la carte would be a good thing, in the end, for the quality of programming- it might get us more commercial-free tv, too. look at the quality of the programming on HBO compared to the rest of TV. now, if we can get a la carte programs. I'd pay a few bucks to subscribe to a season of the Sopranos and not get Sex in The City...

This will never happen

[cscx]

You need the entire cable system on digital cable, to prevent cable theft. It's either that or install 60 traps on everyone's drop line!

Of course, many people will complain about digital terminal rental fees, cry extortion, blah blah; which is why it won't happen. That and people will complain about renting a terminal for every TV set. Right now cable can brag that it works without special equipment (analog, that is) on any modern TV.

Places like NYC which were using addressable terminals since the early 80s can do this, but for 99% of the cable-wired USA this will never happen. Too much infrastructure to change.

Re:This will never happen

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm an electrical engineer now, but I worked for the cable company 14 years ago. I've never heard of an addressable trap, and I don't think it's practical. To paraphrase the grandparent post, we DON'T have the technology -- not outside the lab, anyway.

Consider a system with 100 channels. You want to offer the customers total a la carte programming: any combination of any channels they want.

Can you make a digital filter (your programmable trap) that operates at VHF frequencies? Possibly, but I doubt you could put 100 of them into a modest-sized box, and have reasonable power consumption, reliability, low cost, etc.

Digital is all that's left, as the original post in this thread pointed out. But if you want your TV to do the tuning -- and if you want to use your TV's remote, hook up extra sets, etc. -- then you need 100 separate decoder circuits in the box, 100 separate RF modulators, etc. It's horribly impractical.

Having said all that, the cable companies should be made to use a standardized digital box, with a la carte programming, decent encryption to prevent theft-of-service, etc. You should be able to buy such a box if you want, and it should work with any cable provider. (Maybe this already exists -- as I said, it's been 14 years...)

Oh yeah -- if the decoder's in the home, the customer pays for the electricity it uses, rather than the cable company.

First "Kill Your Television" Post

[Neil Blender]

$tv_show? What are you talking about? Never heard of it. I don't have a tv, haven't owned one since $date. You should get rid of yours and spend more time on $activity[0], $activity[1], and $activity[2].

Re:First "Kill Your Television" Post

[mph]

You should get rid of yours and spend more time on $activity[0]

C'mon, everybody knows that Slashdot readers can't get $activity[0].

Good luck writing this law

[Control Group]

That would have to be some pretty carefully-worded legislation. Just demanding that a la carte pricing exist doesn't mean it will be attractive.

"Well, Mr. Consumer, we recommend getting the 'all you can eat' package; for just $50/month, you'll have access to over 1,000 channels!"

"But I'll only watch ten of them, can I only pay for those?"

"Absolutely! We're pleased to offer a la carte pricing! And we can offer you each of those channels for...you said ten channels? Let me see...$6.00 a month per!"

Re:Good luck writing this law

[dasmegabyte]

Very insightful. In fact, you've drilled to the core of the problem with A La Carte pricing. It'll save negligible cash, because the channels you don't want to pay for aren't really costing you anything. They're just there to make what you have to pay seem like a better value.

If the COST of a delivering a single satelite feed -- channel licensing, cable, maintenance, customer service, etc -- for a single feed was $5, they'd need to charge you at least $5 per channel to cover costs. I think we can agree on that. However, on that same feed is a LOT more than just your channel. There may be a hundred channels, or there may be three or four. The cost BEYOND that $5 to deliver another channel would be pennies per.

So, assuming a 50% markup (which is pretty good), they can sell you one channel for $10. Or, they can sell you a dozen channels for $11. Most cable companies figure you'd prefer the latter. That's why channels are offered in such unusual tiers.

Let's say you want Comedy Central. Along with Comedy Central, on the same satelite feed, come 30 other channels. It costs very little above the recoupment cost to give you all 30. So that's what the do. Those 30 might include some strange bedfellows -- religious channels, channels of syndiated programming, shopping channels, nature channels -- but really, you're getting all of them for free, or close to it. You're just paying for Comedy Central. It's not like $35/70 channels = $.50/ channel. It's more like ($28/first channel) + ($.10/additional channel * 70).

The cable companies would have to mark up the per channel cost -- or set a "channel mimimum" -- to the point where getting three or four channels was less money, but it wouldn't be that much less. And why should we legislate that? What's next, legislating that K-mart has to sell me only pair of boxer shorts out of the three pack if I want it?

I have never used the valet key that came with my car. But I did not have the option of getting the car without said key. I could have made a fuss about this, but look: the cost of the key was probably close to zilch -- figure it took a few weeks to engineer, a few minutes for a robot to install. Split that over the production run of a several hundred thousand cars, it's still less than a dollar a car. Would I bitch and moan about a dollar when I'm already shelling out 15,000 of them?

Re:Good luck writing this law

[rainwalker]

I agree with about 95% of what you have said, except for your per-channel costs.

Note that Echostar (Dish) is for this, but the cable companies aren't (or are indifferent). It costs Echostar virtually zero to split up their channels. They already have a 100% digital system, with all company-controlled boxes. Their distribution costs are fixed, until a satellite falls out of the sky. They are already providing all channels to all viewers, and the boxes limit what you can see. Since they already have an account management system you can access via their website or an on-TV menu, all they have to do is add checkboxes for what channels you want to watch, and change you some minimum fee plus a nominal fee per channel. Add, say 15% to make it a good deal to keep the packages, and everyone's happy. This is very much not the case with the cable companies, which is why they aren't interested.

I sort of agree with Viacom

[esac17]

A lot of times small cable channels get their business or make their money by late night channel surfers who have nothing better to do. Or the mom who is at home watching days of our lives and decides that during commercials she is going to flip through channels. The show that they are watching will very often catch the eye of the 'surfer' and next thing you know, you have a customer.

If it was cheaper to go a la carte, I can't imagine anybody wanting to pay for anymore than what they already know, so you are are sort of screwing out the little guys who want to get recognized. They can't afford to buy commercial spots on other television stations (plus why would they let them), so this is their only form of advertisement. I remember a television channel that started up a couple years ago, and I was just flipping through and they had a show on the history of sex. I was interested so I started watching it.

But hopefully this will all be gone with OnDemand starting to become more common. The little guy can create a show and have it on OnDemand, and then you pay .30 or so for it. Now THAT would be cool.

Re:I sort of agree with Viacom

[dj245]

during commercials she is going to flip through channels. The show that they are watching will very often catch the eye of the 'surfer' and next thing you know, you have a customer.

The problem with this is that people creat favorites lists with a very limited amount of channels on them. Customers have been flipping channels, but only seeing the ones on their favorites lists. Direct TV collects statistics on their customers, and apparently notices this trend. What they have been doing lately to combat this is removing all the channels from the "master list" and then adding them all back on again. This effectively adds all the channels to all the favorites lists. Its a dastardly little trick that makes favorites lists completely pointless. I might as well memorize channel numbers. Its been happening about once a week lately. Its like DirectTV wants to put us all back in the 1980's when the favorites list hadn't been invented yet.

If I wanted to watch channels other than the ones on my favorites list, I would go looking for them. I don't need help finding new stuff to watch. And I don't need help screwing up my favorites list. The cat can do it all by itself.

Potentially a Good Idea, But Suceptible To Abuse

[tealover]

Ordering cable channels a la carter provides a tempting opportunity for the cable providers and their content-provider cohorts to bleed us to death with fees.

I can imagine it now.

"Yeah, I'd like the MTV 14 Channel"

"That will be $2, sir....in addition to the $10 activation fee"

"$10 activiation fee ?!? What the hell is that?"

"Sir, this is a fee we assess to cover the cost of processing your transaction, as we have to send the truck out to your house"

"Why can't you just flip a switch at the computer?"

"Sir, our systems don't work that way."

"Well forget my order. In fact, I want to drop MTV 2 that I'm currently getting"

"No problem sir. That will be a $10 deactiviation fee"

Similar to buying whole CD's of music?

[Not_Wiggins]

Seems to me that the cable companies/media companies want you to purchase bundled products so they can justify higher prices.

To my subject, I'd equate it to record companies making you buy a whole CD of some artists songs when there's really only 1 or 2 hits on there that people want (I say "make" with respect to not offering just the one or two songs individually).

Sheesh... it *really* ticks me off that Disney is forcing cable companies to buy ESPN for big bucks if they want to carry the "kids" channels, especially since I have no interest in the sports channels (not a fan).

I don't know about you, but I'm sick of paying for channels I never watch.

The way it should be

[Outosync]

With my current Dish Service I'm on their minimum plan that gets me the channels I wish to watch. I only watch about 10% of the channels provided yet I'm paying for all of them. I recently decided that I wanted Showtime so I can watch a couple of the shows on there (Penn & Teller's BS, Dead Like Me) but to get it I have to upgrade my entire plan and pay for more channels that I wont watch.

And they wonder why people are just downloading shows off the Internet.

Pre packaged isn't that bad

[Anonymous Coward]

If we were able to get TV channels a la Carte, our choices would simply be driven down to what the majority of people want to watch. As slashdot readers, most of the channels you watch (Tech TV, the Discovery channels, and others like that would simply not have enough subscribers to continue operation. We would eventually be stuck with two channels: The FRIENDS channel and ESPN. Sure we'd be able to pick what channels we want for a while until the voice of the masses is heard via their cable bills.

Re:Pre packaged isn't that bad

[bechthros]

I personally think that the potential audience for the "high-brow" channels (discovery, history, et al) is much larger than anybody gives it credit for being. Of everybody I know that has cable, we all watch the same ten channels (Discovery, History, TLC, Comedy Central, DisWings, Science Channel, TechTV, Spike/TNN, VH1, MTV2). Of course, that could be my excellent taste in friends...

My prediction is that once ala carte cable is available, we will have proof that, Neilsen ratings be damned, nobody likes Friends, or crappy lowest-common-denominator shows like that anyway. I think ala carte cable and TiVo will be dealing the Neilsen system some serious blows in the future (I mean, could it *be* any more outmoded?).

In response to people fearing for the demise of lesser-subscribed to channels... they won't go away, they'll just cost more. And to me it would be worth it. You pay $3.99/month for USA or PAX, you get... $3.99 worth of programming. You pay $12.95 for the Science Channel, you get considerably more. Especially since Science is one of the few channels that don't go to all informercials, all the time, after 10PM.

Besides, my final prediction is that most cable providers will take the initial step of still having bundles of channels, they'll just make more sense (ie all discovery channels in one package, $12.95 a month) Seems like a reasonable comprimise, and not an unlikely outcome. This will give some added security for the channels nobody watches by way of the main, "flagship" channel in the bundle.

But I am fed up with having to surf past channels I absolutely HATE to see the 5-10 channels I want to watch.

The financial times author is correct...

[deanc]

... but mostly because of consumer stupidity. Basically, people pay the $50/month for basic cable for the 2 or 3 channels they're interested in. Over the past 25 years, enough channels have become available that almost everyone has their 2 or 3 favorite channels that they want to watch and are willing to pay $50 for.

A la carte pricing would have the effect that people would simply buy the 2 or 3 channels they want, pay the same $50 they always did -- because that's what they were always willing to pay -- and any additional channels, which they now get for free, they'd have to pay extra for if they wanted to watch. This pricing scheme would have made send 15-20 years ago when there was still an untapped market for cable television, but in this day and age, cable TV subscribers are so ubiquitous that there's no untapped market that would be willing to subscribe to cable TV because it costs less. Everyone who would subscribe has subscribed and is already ready and willing to pay $50/month for television, and that is what they will continue to pay, even if government regulations change.

Re:Another Idea

[poot_rootbeer]

Cancel Cable. Save $50 a month and read a good book.

OK.

What's the ISBN number for The Daily Show?

Pay just as much... but to whom?

[LostCluster]

The economic types may be exactly right when they say in an a la carte TV world we'd be paying about the same total per month. However, would we end up getting better value in exchange for that same money?

Unbundling channels would be a death blow to to the mega companies. Who-asked-for-that-anyway channels such as VH1 Classics and Nicktoons would simply die because nobody's going to part with pennies just to get that one channel. They wouldn't be able to say "We're giving you 10% more channels, now give us 10% more money!" anymore, which would knock their pricing back into shape.

Furthermore, new players who don't have the resources to launch dozens channels can now just launch one and be on the same competitive playing field. That'd open up the door for "indie" TV companies to come back into play. Right now, a one-network operation such as TechTV really has the deck stacked against it, which was part of the reason why they are being sold to Comcast.

Right now, it's the content makers forcing the "basic cable" model. They're the ones insisting that in order to get their popular networks, you have to take their unpopular ones too, and put them all into the same level of service as they're perscribed for. Wait a second... isn't that the kind of thing anti-trust laws usually stop?

Re:No MTV

[dekashizl]

Really? I actually like it. But the way I watch it is I turn on MTV and *MUTE* the TV. Then I play my own music off of CDs. A little bootyshaking and cleavage in the background makes almost any kind of music just a little bit better. For example, try Gypsy Kings over a Jay-Z video. Nice!

Like A La Carte Phone Services

[towerdave]

I have a phone services package with SBC that includes a few things I need, and a few things I don't. I called about getting just the things I needed, and dropping the stuff I don't.

"That will be $10 more per month"

I'll stick with the package.

TowerDave

Profitable, a la restaurant a la carte.

[blcamp]

I can only see this as a way for Cable to profit:

"Buy Package A (25 channels) for $29.95"
"Buy Package B (35 channels) for $34.95"
"Buy Package C (50 channels) for $39.95"

(The cable company picks the channels)

or:

"Pick any 25 channels for $35.95"
"Pick any 35 channels for $42.95"
"Pick any 50 channels for $49.95" ...or something like that.

Just like in a Mickey D's, you can either get a combo meal for $3.99, or mix and match yourself for $7.00+.

My preference, frankly, is one channel: the one connected to my broadband router.

Re:Another Idea

[LostCluster]

Unfortunately, books are starting to get behind the times. To be fully current now, you need to be getting your information from a realtime delivery system like the Internet or TV.

Sure, the book industry is far from dead, but as a provider of news they certainly are. They're more a provider of opinions.

I want REAL a la carte.

[raygundan]

I want to pay only for SHOWS I want to watch. I don't want any more channels-- why should I pay for 24 hours a day of the Discovery channel? 8 of their daily hours are infomercials. And I only watch an hour or two of the remainder, anyway.

I want TV and movies released on DVD the SAME DAY they come out on TV or in the theatre. I'll just pick up what i want to watch at the store, or download it from iShows, or whatever Apple or somebody else comes up with to sell us video.

Re:Another Idea

[Wireless Joe]

OK.

What's the ISBN number for The Daily Show?

It's 0836253256 .

Application of a la carte

[D.A. Zollinger]

Imagine, if you will, that you are starting out with a small family, and you want to protect them by not allowing channels with questionable content into your home. This way you can get HBO Family without worry about your children flipping the channel and seeing an execution, Sopranos style, on regular HBO.

Hell, its a lot easier then programming your V-chip.

You can select, add, and remove channels from month to month depending on your wishes or desires, while allowing you to only pay for what you want to watch!

Like most people who have posted here, most current television shows do not interest me, but every once in a while something comes on that I do want to watch. As well, most movie channels still show content that I enjoy to watch. So to be able to only pay for what I want to watch, and not have to pay for crap that I will never watch, is a big win for the consumer.

Be careful what you wish for

[tverbeek]

As enticing as it would be to be able to pick any number of channels for $x/month each, a la carte pricing wouldn't work that way. Prices for each channel would vary dramatically, to the point that you may prefer buying a bundle to save money.

One of the things that makes the multitude of channels on cable possible is the fact that they're packaged together. Few people would ever subscribe to the Avocado Channel by itself, but they'll take it as part of a package... and once in a while they might watch something on it, like the Miss Avocado pageant. And over time they might find they like some of the other Avacado programming and become regular watchers. That would never happen with a la carte pricing.

So we could end up with a dozen or so least-common-denominator channels that a strong plurality subscribes to (ESPN, EmptyV, Cartoon, Spike, HBO) being successful, and the more specialised niche channels (some of which would be some people's personal favorites)unable to get a large enough casual subscriber base and withering on the vine.

Re:Goodbye

[Little Brother]

I find it intresting that you (and big business) think that the ability to buy "A La Carte" would be bad for the less wanted stations. I do not have several "niche" channels offered in my area because the majority of the people around me couldn't care less about them. Therefore, the producers of these channels get NO money from my area until enough Cable customers are intrested in the channel to make the cable company want to include it. Under "A La Carte" pricing, however, these niche channels would be receiving my money and the money of many people like me who like their special content.

Saying that cable TV A La Carte pricing would hurt the little stations is like saying breaking up ClearChannel would hurt the small bands and record producers, because they couldn't get national coverage. The problem is, the small people would be able to get more access to markets if the content provider didn't require something to be popular (or at least WANT it to become popular) to allow the content to reach the public.

Come on folks, the big cable companies' claim that they act as they do to protect the smaller channels is codswollop. The smaller companies would benifit from A La Carte Programming and the popular channels that are already on everybody's standard package (but could be eliminated under A La Carte programming) would loose out. THINK ABOUT IT!

I smell bullshit!

[Lord Kano]

EchoStar is game but says Viacom and others are refusing to go along.

I used to work for Echostar, they HAD a la carte programming once, it was called Dish Picks. They discontinued the service because of cheapskates who'd call in several times per day to add/remove channels as the shows that they liked came on.

I suspect that they are now getting in line with the idea knowing full well that it won't ever happen. I believe that they're trying to get some congressmen to think that they're good guys so there will be less opposition to them buying DirecTV. The last time they tried, the sale was blocked.

There was a rumor floating around the call center when I was there, it was a rumor and I can't vouch for the veracity of the claim so take this with a HUGE grain of salt; but the rumor was that before the last time they tried to buy DirecTV Charlie Ergan (the president of the company) had John McCain over to his house to "watch a football game", the game was blacked out in the area due to NFL restrictions, but Charlie had them override the NFL blackout and SHVIA restrictions and put the game on at his house. If this really happened and they got caught the company would have been subject to a $10k fine, I'm sure that Charlie would have paid it out of pocket but that's not the point. Once again, if this really happened, I think I have a good idea of what they talked about.

Finally as a CMA, I'd like to say again that this was just an office rumor and I can't personally vouch for its veracity. The fact that there was a rumor is 100% fact, but the contents of that rumor are not known to me as being factual.

I never looked, so I couldn't tell you if Charlie Ergan actually had a DishNetwork system at his house. If I did know about it, I would be prohibited from discussing it with anyone outside of EchoStar.

But, you'd be surprised at what porno certain celebrities order.(I can't be any more specific than that)

LK

Unfortunately

[dj245]

Unfortunately it isn't going to be all cookies and milk like people will hope. Maybe it will work for a while, but just like legal music purchases, the people in charge will eventually want to crank up the price. The parrallels are shocking.

Record industry: So, you don't want to buy the whole CD because 85% of the album is shit? Fine, we will sell you songs at $1 each online. You can get your 15% of good songs off the album for maybe $2.50. A year later, they want to jack the price to around $2.50 a song. Your $2.50 of good songs per album is now $8 or $9. Might as well buy the whole album at wal-mart and get the physical, non-DRM goods.

Sattelite guys: So, you don't want 500 channels of crap when you only watch 30 of them regularly? Fine we will sell you them at $1 each. A year later, though, maybe they want $1.50. Your cheap $30/month roll-your-own package is now $45, yikes!

It will happen. Big media companies are greedy hoarding bastards.

Actually, you can

[Nurlman]

Why can't I buy a bag of just the blue M&M's?

You can. In the future, all foods will be user-customizable.

Re:How will it be imlpemented?

[Life2Short]

As per the article, a-la-carte is already working for C-Band dish owners, and it has been for the last 20 years. Before the advent of the mini-dish and the digital signal, all dish owners had BUDs (Big Ugly Dish - C-Band analog signal). It's not like you call up every month and completely change your order. You know what you want and what you don't, and you tend to stick with those choices year round, only occassionally making adjustments. One other advantage of C-Band analog signals, it is relatively easy to descramble the video (much more difficult with the audio). Thus if there is any visually oriented programming where picture is more important to you than sound (use your imagination) it isn't too hard to pirate channels. Of course, HBO led the drive to digital signals on C-Band, and those are not so easy to pirate. I haven't had access to a BUD for a few years now, so I don't know if there are many channels still using the analog signal.

A La Carte == Bad Idea

[Dolohov]

First off, the economic argument, which has been made a million times. If people can get their popular channels alone, then most of the homes in America will get ESPN, Fox News and the Bass Fishing channel. Channels like Cartoon Network, Sci-Fi, etc. will just crash and burn.

It's a basic positive feedback loop. 100 people are given a la carte cable. Only 12 of them pick channel X, while 60 of them pick channel Y. Channel X is going to be more expensive. Of those 12, certain of them are going to decide that it's just not worth the extra expense -- after all, channels like Y are good enough, and less expensive. X gets more expensive. In fact, it gets too expensive for some people, who decide to forgo it in favor of watching it at a friend's house, or just renting the DVDs of their favorite shows. Furthermore, as X gets more expensive, fewer and fewer people will be willing to pick it up just to try it out, and parents aren't going to be willing to pick it up for their kids. It might spread by word of mouth, but with very few eyeballs watching, there will be very few mouths talking...

Which leads to the social point, which is more compelling with news channels, but applies elsewhere. There is something wrong with telling people that they can elect to not have the option of seeing information they don't think they'll be interested in, and save money in the deal. Right now, if my parents got this a la carte deal, they'd get Fox News and drop CNN. The trouble is, while they don't admit it, they do occasionally flip to CNN just out of idle curiosity, to see if maybe Fox isn't being so straight about things.

If you reward people for reducing their information diet, you're going to wind up with a whole lot of people who just don't understand why anyone thinks differently than they do. You'll wind up with a whole lot of people who never satiate a vague interest in history or science or cooking that might otherwise grow. You'll wind up with a bunch of people who think it's really odd that adults watch cartoons...

I'd prefer to stay with the bundling, thanks. People may not take advantage of the opportunity to broaden their horizons, but we sure as hell shouldn't be rewarding those who choose to keep theirs narrow.