Poll: How long do you think it will take till Cable offers Ala Cart channels like Canada does? :) - Page 3

Actually, a better example for restaurants would be something like this:

If you just want a single burger, you can pay for a burger and nothing else. It's cheaper on its own.

However, you can usually add a drink and a couple of side dishes for a small amount more.

If you can't decide on one thing, some restaurants have "sampler" platters, where you might pay more than the one burger, but you get to taste a bit of several different mini burgers, each for less than each whole one would cost individually.

The last example is the way most people consume TV - they take little bits from several different channels instead of sitting on on channel all day long. By getting the big platter of different ones, it lets you nibble from each one without paying the cost of one channel on its own.

Now, if you do sit on one channel all day long, then buying that one channel is the perfect solution for you. For those who want their local stations and a handful of cable channels, it starts costing close enough to a package that it's worth it to just have the option of watching those other channels.

I know myself, the channels I primarily watch tend to change season to season. At one point, it was all about SciFi (before it was syfy) TNT and FX. Then it was USA and TBS. Now it's AMC and FX. Who knows what it will be next.

I don't have favorite channels, I have favorite shows. I don't care that HBO makes Game of Thrones, or AMC makes Walking Dead. If both of those shows moved to Lifetime, I would be happy. I wouldn't care if I only had 1 channel. I want to watch the shows I like whenever I want. An on demand system, where you can just choose what show you want to watch, regardless of time slots I think should be how TV is done. A lot like a DVR, except I shouldn't have to DVR it. I could look through the list of shows and pick what I want to watch.

A lot like hulu and netflix, but through the cable/dish provider instead. Show/filmmakers wouldn't have to worry about time issues either. Like a lot of these shows skip the intro tunes now because the adverts are taking too much time up. Another thing is commercial breaks. Sometimes hulu will give you an option of watching a big commercial at the front of the show then no commercial breaks. That's another thing I would love to be default.

I agree with Network. I don't just sit on one channel all day. I like of like the buffet of channels that let's me sample a little of this and a little of that. I've found some great programming this way (well, great to me anyway!) and I probably would have never found it if I didn't have the choice.

I don't think that's unreasonable, but it won't happen right now. There are still far too many people that are willing to pay for the current system for anything to change.

Now, should the recession continue for another decade and more people start looking to save money by dumping those packages, then you might see some changes. Until then, the cable companies are content to not fight the media companies for the right to split things up and potentially not get the deals they currently do for those channel groupings. It will take getting a lot fewer subscriber fees to get the media companies to soften up to the idea. Then, the cable companies might have some amunition to offer alternative options.

It won't necessarily take another decade of recession -- instead, another decade of cost increases that run well above general inflation might do the trick. Especially when combined with the apparent tendency for younger households to be less interested in paying for cable or satellite than their older counterparts.

What's needed is some cost discipline in the industry...and absent a la carte, I don't really see that happening. Really, what's the incentive to keep ESPN from continuing to jack up its rates?

I agree. ESPN is the main cable channel contributing to this problem. They are a greedy monopoly. If they could they would put ex lax in the water supply and corner the market on toilet paper.

ESPN does not have a monopoly over sports programming, there's plenty of competition for the events out there. They just happen to have more money to throw around than most because of the subscriber cash cow base, which is why the MSOs should force them onto their own tier with all the other sports channels. Not that it's ever going to happen.

Yes, I hate it for me since I'm a big sports fan, but I hate it just as much that a lot of people are pissed and dropping pay TV because they don't want to subsidize sports for folks like me.

I remember when cable came to my Neighborhood a little over 30 years ago. ESPN was included in the "Basic" Package ($7.99 a Month). for $21.00 a month you got everything they offered, including the three "Premium" Channels (HBO, Showtime and The Movie Channel). At that time ESPN showed mostly Minor League Stuff such as NCAA Division II and III Football Games, Midget Car Racing and "Australian Rules Football", among other things. Today they have become a Titan, and have secured Big League Games. Of course to secure these big-league games they have had to spend the Gigabucks, and the costs are passed on to subscribers, who have to pay whether or not they watch them. Of course, those who don't watch sports aren't too happy with having to pay for them, and that's why so many of us want a-la-carte programming. People are only willing to spend so much, and if something gets too costly people will give it up and purchase something cheaper to replace it. There is a point where people will stop paying for something, Pay-TV may very well find themselves "Pricing themselves off the market".

One other thing to consider is that the leagues have started to monetize their product. 30 years ago, you could not watch every NCAA Division 1 football game, because not every game was even televised. There are many games from years past that will never be seen again because they don't exist on tape, unless the school itself was recording it for practice tape-sessions. But now the SEC, Big12, B1G, Pac12, ACC all have contracts with networks, be it ESPN, Fox Sports, whomever. They have a product and they've monetized it.

On the one hand, that's good for fans. On the other, it costs big money to produce and broadcast 60 different games a week.