said by B52GUNR :

No, really! I'm actually shocked the FCC even bothered to get up off their knees long enough to clean their chin and publish something.

said by mikeg826 :

LMAO

said by B52GUNR :

I'm actually shocked the FCC even bothered to get up off their knees long enough to clean their chin and publish something.

said by Some Random Dude:

...the US government represents "the people".

said by WarrenMan:

This is really a silly issue. If you cannot afford $50 - $60 per month for cable then you shouldn't have it. Most people enjoy flipping through all 90 channels or so on occasion just to see if anything is interesting on one of the channels -- even though they may end up usually watching a few stations regularly. Penny pinchers should not dictate pricing for the rest of us.

said by bistro777 :

If I buy an order of chicken wings, odds are I’m gonna eat all of ‘em. If I buy a six-pack, count on that being consumed, too.

So why force me to buy every chicken and brand of beer in the supermarket when I just walk by them to get what I really want?

said by SequimPC :

When did businesses get so damn cocky? I thought the Customer was always right, but the government agencies that dictate policy to us say otherwise.

said by MisterMarcus :

Well, for my own purposes, I can name the channels I watch.

•UPN
•SpikeTV
•Sci-Fi Channel
•FOX

That's it. 4 channels.

said by marigolds :


Here's the most likely scenario for each of those channels (those 4 happen to be good example choices).
UPN would most likely stay around, but would have to cut most of its original programming except WWE Smackdown and Enterprise. UPN would probably also drop down to two nights a week network programming (rest of the time would be infomercial, shopping networks, or local affiliate programming and syndication).
SpikeTV would severly cut back on original program and rely on its flagship programs (WWE Raw in particular); it would also probably become a shopping network during the day.
Sci-Fi has already declared that in an a la carte scenario they would drop absolutely all original program and rely solely on movies and syndicated shows, most likely splitting air time with another channel.
FOX would vary depending on which channels you are talking about. FoxNews would have no problem staying on the air. Broadcast fox as well. Fox Family would probably disappear alogether as well as many of the local FSN affiliates. FSN itself would cut back signficantly on its coverage, being limited to existing major pro sports rights that could be transfered over from the broadcast network.

said by MisterMarcus :

I seriously don't think that's the case. Not at the price I threw out there.

There IS something in common about all 4 of the channels I selected; they have shows that cater to male population. UPN is trying to be hybrid with Kevin Hill and that other show, and Fox doesn't know what it wants. By the way, when I say Fox, I mean XETV6.

WWE fans will pick UPN and Spike by default. MXC fans will pick Spike by default. Sci Fi is a given; it will make more money on a-la-carte than it does now, given that the price per channel would naturally be higher to make up for what's lost in separating the packages, but my point is I would be willing to pay more per channel to get those four, than to be overcharged for 117 I don't watch. It's only $20/month difference from the cable part now, but that's still $240 a year I could pocket.

Cox has other ways of making money too. It's called marketing. If you get more HD channels, people will buy it. Discovery HD, PBSHD, and INHD/2 are not enough to keep that product afloat. What about UPNHD? FoxHD (the GOOD shows, not the crap)? WBHD (and not just Smallville)? Those three channels alone will get people buying it.
Digital Telephone sells itself. Again, they're making $4/month over what Caller ID is really worth, per customer, and that adds up. QUICKLY. "Franchise Fee"? Trust me, I don't think Cox is so strapped that it cannot do the customer a favor by letting us pick and choose.

In my math, it's to their benefit. If you have a $40 package of 120 channels, that's about $.34/channel. I'm willing to pay $5 per channel, for the 4 that I choose. Some guy named Biff out in Colorado will want all the sports channels, for sure. Sell a package. Grandma in Louisiana will want any channel that has a soap on it. That's what...10-15 channels? $5/apiece? Tell her it's $50 if she wants just those channels, or get the whole suite of channels for just $40 and save money. Which do you think Grandma will take?

That's my point. I think if it actually DOES benefit the customer to go with the package based off of the number of channels they want, then the package should be marketed. But in my case, where I only want 4 channels, I think I should be allowed to pick 4 channels instead of being forced into a package where I'm actually overpaying and can't do anything about it.

EDIT: One other thing.
At the very least, AT THE VERY LEAST, the "Digital Cable" needs to be revisited. $13 for basic, $39.95 for "Expanded", $7 for "digital gateway" = way too much money. Especially since they KNOW the more popular channels are on the "Expanded" set. Why not make it fair? $10 for basic, +$10 for "Expanded", or $40 for all channels? Where the Basic is what it is now, "Expanded" is 20 channels above that, and all channels is a package deal? That way, instead of $60 I pay just to have my 4 channels, I pay $20? I'd do that, no problem, because it serves the same goal. Adding DVR is just another $13 - $33 is a LOT better looking than $60.

said by Skunko :

There is no way they would offer "A la Carte" programming. Imagine a cable tech having to go to every house to put on 50+ Cable filters. It wouldnt be feasible one bit.