The reason they do this is similar to the reason why airlines have Saturday night stayover restrictions. They are trying to get people who really love BBC America to pay a lot for it (by having to buy a full package). That said, I agree that they cold offer a custom package selection at a premium price (pick any 5 premium channels for $x/month) and I would sign up for it.

I had a similar idea, since the company I work at is related to this business space. However, if you and I and many others agree that a particular channel, particular a fledgling cable channel, is not worth paying for, they could never fund their ideas. The choices delivered would eventually narrow to only that which is popular. I think we can all agree that this is not the desired outcome.

However, I do like the idea of offering more basic "basic cable", then having package additions like the "home package", "discovery package", "history and news package", etc. on top of the basic channels.

Movie channels have offered package deals for a while now. Also, this would give the cable companies the option to adjust packages based on sales. For example, if the "History Channel, CNN, and BCC World" are not enough, one could add other BBC or International news chnnels, or various PBS channels.

I believe that the future of cable TV will be pay per view oriented. Your bill will resemble a phone bill with a basic access fee and you will pay per usage by units as small as 10 cents for local educational programs or high school sports.

The cost per event will be market driven some movies and programs will cost more than others. You will have the option of reducing your charges by accepting advertising.

I like the idea, but I wonder if it's not practical. I know that our satellite TV can do pay per view, so it's technically feasible to provide only those channels I want.

But the problem may be that smaller cable channels would never see the light of day because their subscriber base would be too small. We might just end up with a few channels that are very popular, and thus hurt democracy and the general spread of ideas unless you are well funded.

In fact, the media is already dangerously close to be controlled by too few corporations. The FCC is making rulings to allow for less competition in the info distribution businesses, and that's not good, lest our views are only shaped by those whom these corporations want us to hear about.

On the other hand, cable TV only has a finite set of channels anyway, so it's not really clear that such smaller channels are not shut out anyway. Technology limits how many channels can be sent down a wire, so we can't support every channel or idea.

In the end, I think cable TV can do this, it's just that we'd all want to pay less by removing the channels we don't watch, and that would mean less revenue, so it's unlikely ever going to happen.

This (not allowing individual channel subscriptions) is known in microeconomics as "bundling", and it's a way for monopolists to get more out of people than they'd be able to by just charging per channel. Ideally (for the monopolist), you'd be able to charge each consumer a different price for each channel, but since different people value different things differently and it's illegal to price discriminate in this manner, product bundling is another way for them to rape and pillage.

In addition to all the above, the cable companies don't WANT you to edit the selection. My TV allows me to select favorite channels and delete others, but the cable set top box does not. The result is that TV Guide Channel for example, claims that it is viewed twelve times an hour (!) by everyone (!), so it can charge more for ads. The truth, of course, is no one could watch the TV guide channel 12 times an hour, unless they were passing by while surfing. In which case they were only there a second. Maybe home networks will allow us to override cable set top boxes. The cable companies will not.

They do have a-la-carte style programming available. You can get individual channels if you wish BUT they are a lot more expensive. (Ive done some researching in my area-- for the 15 channels i usually watch plus one not included in my current package, i would have to shell out double what i would normally pay for the current package!)

Net result: You watch what they want you to watch or you pay up for the premium on individual channels.

As someone who hasn't bothered with cable TV since 1998 (or even local channels since last year), I think this is a great idea. I could see it being feasible if you paid for the main channels you wanted, and then some sort of general fee for limited or rotating access to others. New or smaller stations would still get exposure, but I wouldn't be paying as much for the stations I don't care about as I would for the preferred ones.

Perhaps it'd be a package plan sort of thing, where you could choose 10, 15, 20 channels etc, with price breaks for ordering more, so you'd be given incentive to buy channels you might not otherwise have paid for. If you let people go purely a la carte, you run into a lot of problems for diversity and cost efficiency, but if the pricing structure is given some forethought, it could work out.

Why not: Previously, technically it wasn't feasible to block/pass individual channels, in addition to providing support for smaller channels.

Now you could kinda fix it by including the weaker channels as part of the basic package, until they pick up an audience large enough to make them part of the a la carte choice options.

Why even have cable providers? With the wireless net work, couldn't television be transmitted like the internet is? That being the case, wouldn't we just pay for how many minutes ( hours ) we used.

The internet netowrk, especially near the ned user, does not have the bandwith to support TV, as a replacement of the current TV distribution system.

Now, what I might like to see, is that the broadcaster pays to have their signal on the network, and you pay the broadcaster or an agent for them, to subscribe to their channel, if they don't want to make it freely available.

it seems that many people have commented on the fact that if cable tv went to an a la carte system, then new channels wouldn't get off the ground. However, just as HBO and the other premium channels have free weekends when you can watch their channels without paying, new channels (or newly included channels to your provider) could be offered free of charge for one month, a test drive of the channel so that you could decide if you wanted to pay for it or not.

This idea is solid. The technology used to drive the idea is key. The trick would be to combine a cable box with the brain of a PC and the functionality of a cable modem. This way, your cable box would be able to accept or block the desired channels (much like the filter on current cable boxes) on your PS screen (your TV) via your cable modem to the internet. The user could then pick and choose the channels that they want on the fly. You could subscribe to 20 channels, and pick which channels fill that 20 whenever you wanted. Choosing a premium station would cost slightly more, but not by much. Pay stations cost less than an dollar a month under standard pricing when you add in all of the 'plexes' (6 different HBO's, etc). Divide that dollar by 30 days, and that means each pay station costs approx 3 cents a day. I would pay 3 cents to see a movie on HBO, wouldn't you? I have been kicking this around for a long time, have designs, and know this is feasible. The big roadblock here is hackers. People spend more time and money on stealing cable and Direct TV then it costs just to pay for it.

Yannick, you are missing the point, the issue isn't receiving the channels or not, it is paying for undesired channels. It is in no way really a technological issue (which technology cannot therefore solve), but one involving contracts andsuch.

BTW, a digital cable box does most of what you said.

Fair enough. This technology does not solve the problem of the current pay structure. How about using the technology as a vehicle that is moving toward gradual acceptance? Perhaps look at it as a step in the right direction. The idea that the cable companies will change to a pay per minute plan immediately is illogical. The corporations effected by this change would not allow it. Too drastic, and they have too much money for lawyers. But if the power slowly shifts in to the hands of the consumer, without it being too much of a threat to those corporations, the chance of a pay per minute cable succeeding becomes more probable. The technology becomes an agent for change, not the solution. If you had the technology to make pay-per-minute cable happen, what would your business plan be to get there? The PC in your cable box could easily accommodate it.

Why don't you while your at it call your local newspaper, and tell them you only want to pay for the sports section, or the classifieds. You don't want to buy the whole newspaper, just certain sections. Assuming they dont laugh at you till they pass out, why dont you write back and tell me how that goes for ya.

You won't be able to take $49.99 and devide it by the 60 channels or so your getting and expect to pay .83 a channel.Ala cart is always more expensive.

Lets take a low number of say, $5.00/mth per channel ala cart.You'd be able to get a whopping 10 channels before you just sunk $50.00 bucks into your television habits. $50.00 !!

I can almost guarantee you that your "basic" service does not cost you $50.00, and even if it did, your getting the "60 that we currently receive in our "basic" plan" compared to 10. To me that seems like quite a good deal. I pay 50.00 for 60 stations and you pay 50.00 for 10.

Why don't you take your money that you would spend on your television habits and take your grandkids out, instead of sitting them in front of their whopping 10 amazing 'I got what I paid for" channels.

Wow, Commonsense, what the heck was that?

First, you are using the newspaper as an analogy? It only takes a moment to negotiate through the newspaper and pick what you want. A TV with more than 100 stations is not so easy. This issue goes well beyond your basic 60 station cable. I do not have cable, or even watch TV, for that exact reason. I don't have time to sift through the horse puckey to get what I want, so I don't pay for it. You pay for a whole lot of channel surfing and TV Guide watching. This is an issue of efficency and crummy TV programming.

Second, where did you get the $5 per station figure? That is a low number? I am curious as to where you got that figure. Did you have a discussion with the major networks earlier today, or perhaps it comes from hours of research concerning the cable industry.

Third, do you often criticize with nothing to back up your words? This website is a forum for people to share ideas to advance their knowledge on those subjects and make life easier, not to take uninformed potshots at people. If you are happy with your cable, good for you, but the way it works now certainly is not the best way. Think of it as a consumer who demands quality, not as a consumer who just eats what the cable companies and networks spoon-feed them. Why don't you make a suggestion on how to make it better?

If you would like to have a sensible discussion on the matter, please feel free to contact me.

Good idea, but time is passing it by. There are already several websites that will let me download movies on demand. That includes Starz, which people may think of as a cable channel. CNN will let me subscribe to their content for $5/month. The national networks have various feeds on the web. I expect to be able to abandon my cable next year. Notice that video on demand also replaces Tivo or video recorders.

VOD will require broadband, but half the web users in the US already have that.

You do not have to mindlessly flip betweent the channels or wait through the scrolling guide channel. A digital tuner with an EPG, or a standalone box such as a Tivo will make your TV viewing easier. Besides, as you get used to a system for a while, you begin learning what channels are at what number.Many cable and satellite tuners allow you to lock out channels you don't like, or set up a favourites list (although that does nothing about paying for the channels you don't like).I have quite a few chanels available to me and get by nicely, even without Tivo.

$5.00 is high for a basic to mid level cable channel. In Canada, the providers offer Ala-carte channels mostly at around $1.99.

VOD won't necessarily require broadband. It can be done over digital cable and maybe satellite.

I never had cable television until I moved out of my parents house and into my own apartment as a young adult. Even then, it was only because it (basic cable) was included in the rent.

Later, after making a large salary, I started subscribing to the full digital cable package from Comcast. It was more than $110. The thing is, I found that I only watched a few stations and most of what was on those was still garbage. The few good shows that were ever on, I always missed. I never got around to watching a single episode of Sapranos, for example - because I kept forgetting it was even on.

Worse, the channels changed over time. The channels I once loved - Discovery, The Learning Channel, Sci-Fi, turned into a channel full of re-runs and infomercials, a channel full of women's programming (TLC should be The Ladies Channel) and a channel full of really cheap, uninteresting dumbed-down "science fiction".

After they took off Farscape, but increased my bill by 15% in one year, I called up and canceled my cable altogether. I have a large 60" widescreen HDTV in the living room and it isn't even plugged in anymore. I just stopped watching television all together. Best thing I've ever done.

I would be happy to buy a few channels, ala-carte, but they would surely make it unaffordable to do so. For example, if you have basic cable (usually around $40-$50), you can get *just* HBO... But it'll cost you about $17/mo just for that station!

I certainly don't need ten shopping channels, ten religious channels, ten sports channels, ten non-english channels, ten children's channels and a bunch of public access channels.

Anyway, instead of $110/mo on cable television, I now spend $30/mo on used books and have been reading more than any other point in my life, save for when I was a teen. I'm running through about a dozen books a month right now. I love it. :)

That is a very good idea. I've even submitted the same idea to my superiors at my job(satelite tv company)

However I don't think that subscribing to individual channels would work well for the mere fact that smaller natworks that have a small amount of customers watching their programs would eventually die out. Instead, offer certain types of shows in bundles of 5-10 different channels. Movie channels like HBO, Showtime, and Starz are doing a great job right now with this type of setup.

The only thing available right now, but doesn't save any money is the favorites list, where you can delete certain channels out of your guide so you don't have to scroll through all of the crap channels you don't want to watch. Also some receivers are coming out with interactive features that allows to watch a mix of news/sports/kids shows and more but it's very new.

The cable providers could offer ala cart system thru digital cable and with a video on demand or iptv system this could be easily done. The problem with it is that the cost the cable companies have to pay to the channel providers would be prohibitive. The cost of channels and upkeep on the cable equipment are where most of the cost of cable service comes from. It's not completely accurate to say that you pay for the popular channels and get the rest thrown in but the popular channels are costly while the others are cheap and part of the package. It is cheaper right now to offer a few packages of many channels than each customers choice channels. Your can't assume everyone will want the same channels, the problem is in lack of content and feedback to the channels that make that content.

Will we eventually get rid of "stations" altogether and instead buy our shows individually? Pilot episodes wouldn't be sold to the networks, they'd be sold to the public... if enough people like the freely-accessed pilot episode they'd subscribe to the rest of the series.

The recent problem that we Americans have is that we can't watch the BBC show Doctor Who because there hasn't been an American broadcaster willing to pay the BBC's price for it. If it was available directly to the consumer then all of the Doctor Who fans in the US would be happy little clams.

Read an article in USA today... sounds like downloadable tv show aren't too far off. I'm telling you the BBC would have made a lot of money selling Doctor Who online for $2.50 an episode. With HD becoming more prevalent it's probable that HD DVDs with high audio quality will still sell to the same audience that purchased a downloaded, not as high a quality version.

Great Idea,

I live in Germany and my local Digital Cable Provider allows you to do exactly what you describe. (Of course we don't have a huge range of choices) The drawback is that the individual channels a-la-carte are rather expensive. But this is exactly like other bundel vs. individual deals, e.g. Fast-Food Menus. This service should be standard for every cable provider. (And I am amazed that it is not...)

I have always wanted to be able to pick and choose what I want to watch. Here's a thought. What if I would agree to allow for more advertising on my tv in exchange for this type of set up? Maybe a company that offers 60 stations keeps that same number of channels coming into my home regardless of how many I choose to subscribe to (unless it is more, of course)? The company replaces the rest with either advertising channels or those that pay a premium to be part of their service. So, if I would subscribe to 30, then the remainder would be filled with any ones the company chooses. I would be willing to do that as a subscriber.

This idea is totally feasible, and i think the FCC is looking at some ruling exactly about this. Some interesting links:Hear Us NowMarginal Revolution

While on the idea of having choosing your own channels, I think another beneficial item on the idea. Would be to allow the person to watch the channel for a day, sort of like OnDemand tv. This way if there is a channel you are not currently available to the channels you usually watch. You can buy the channel for a day. This way it gives more commercial value to the cable company. But I really think its a grand idea to allow people to choose their own channels based on what they watch. It is a very good idea.

Diversity helps keep the costs down. A new station would not have a chance of becoming popular because they would never get a foot hold. Larger stations would use affiliates to keep the prices so low for the unpopular stations that they could never break even.

I would rather have a remote control that monitored my choice of channels and would allow me to jump from desired channel to desired channel by using a function button in association with my channel selector. Without the <shift> the channel selector goes through every channel. With the <shift> the channel selector would jump to the next station that I normally use near that day of the week and time.

I also had this idea and I talked to the cable company in my area. They said they are working on it but they said since you will be paying more for each individual channel because that station would want more money. This would work for me because I pay $100 and only watch 5 channels, what are you complaining about if you like 15 channels then you have it better than me I have to pay $40 extra just because I want mtv hits $40 for one freakin channel. I f you like 15 channels you would end up paying alot more than $60 for that unless those channels only want lss than $4 each so just keep dreaming they will charge at least $5 since they know out of all the other channels you have to have theirs. I basially pay $20 per channel I watch, so who do you think should be the one complaining $4 versus $20!!!!

I also believe it is because you are paying for infrastructure that is not used by everyone in a community unlike Satellite TV, which only provides infrastructure for users. In essence, you are compensating for your neighbor who decides to use an alternative to cable.

I've been begging for cafeteria-style cable for over ten years - I think we might be on the cusp of change as more and more competitors enter the cable industry.

It's not that far away just hold your horses

If we assume the cable companies make a fair profit (!) then the question comes down to how they can collect the right amount of money. If all customers paid half the money for half the channels, the company would still have to somehow take in the same amount of cash -- because their costs barely went down at all.

We cannot cut the revenue of a "fair" company unless their costs go down proportionally.

So, what would happen is... you'd pay a lot more for just your favorite channels, and wonder who fooled you into this mess: same fees and fewer channels.

(Now, about the "fair" thing... that was a bit of a reach, wasn't it?)

Cable operators have been able to do this since the advent of addressable converters, in the mid 80's. And before we diss our cable providers [or satellite providers for that matter as they are in the same boat on this issue], recognize that while the reason is economic, it is the economic interests of the programmers [of whom the cable operators and satellite providers are customers] not the retailers of the programming being served.In fact, many cable operators would like to provide every single channel they deliver a la carte. The public is often unaware that the operator pays for the channels they retail. Not providing, and thereby not paying for, channels some customers don't watch would lighten the the cable or satellite providers' programming bill considerably. Via copyright payments, operators pay for content delivered by carrying the broadcasters--and some broadcasters charge providers additional fees for what they broadcast over the air. Programmers and broadcasters make some or all of their money via the advertising revenues their ads deliver. Therefore, their revenues are driven by the number of viewers. Even programmers of limited appeal have millions of viewers nationwide and internationally, and being part of the channel lineups of these providers is essential to their revenues.While the FCC currently pushes the a la carte agenda, and the public generally misunderstands how this works, providing the most-watched, most value-delivering choice in channel lineups is the providers' goal. The reality is that many of these programmers beyond the top most-viewed would collapse without the revenues that viewership from being carried on various tiers of service provide them. For many of them, their audiences are so small that without the added viewership that being included provides them, their wholesale cost per channel to the cable or satellite retailers would be so high as to make their retail price silly. Many believe that if a la carte were the delivery standard that prices would go up, because the number of channels, priced at a la carte rates would add up to more than is being charged now, because of the loss of advertising to the programmers. Many believe that the net result would be the economic collapse of many of the second and third most viewed channels in many cases, and a dramatic decrease in the variety and number of choices offered to the public.That remains to be seen, but the technology to deliver individual channels has been place for years. There is economic incentive to deliver and charge for only viewed channels. Resistance to a la carte in many instances is a programmer issue, not a provider issue.

I have had the same thought numerous of times. I actually don't pay for any cabel because I would only get the limited, basic channels and it costs way too much to make it worth it, considering I would only watch about 2 of the 12 channels. However, if I got to choose some different channels, I would definatly be willing to consider getting cable.

This idea is obsolete in concept. The Comming Technology allows cable companys to provide JUST INTERNET.And with Internet you will suscribe to every channel IPTV or On Demand Programs.Or suscribe to Move Services (Like Netflix or directly to Universal/Buenavista distibutions)And with that JUST INTERNET you can have your VoIP Phones for every member of your family.

just git if the ohine wuth my cabke orivuder (Time Warner) and asked why U was beubg charged fir the 7+ non-english channels. The reply was as expected, "It's part of the package." I asked if they could afford to offer non-english channels if all english speaking subscribers were able to opt out and the reply was, "No."It's time to start a class action law suit against the cable providers. This is America and the official language is English. Why are we being forced to pay for non-english programming? Yes, I know I can block the channels but that is not the point.

I must agree! The so-called Basic Package is just a lot of worthless stuff. We need choices. A TV show is like a Book, one size does not fit all. We need cafeteria style TV.