Back in the days when I had one of those big satellite dishes, also known as a big ugly dish (BUD), I was allowed to select, on an a-la-carte basis, the channels that I wanted. I used an over-the-air antenna to receive my local channels, so I generally selected only the news and sports channels for my satellite subscription. These were the only channels I paid for. I wasn't required to pay for any channel that I wasn't interested in. That kept my TV viewing costs within a reasonable range.
With the demise of the BUD, we are now stuck with cable, the small dish (which I call "cable on a stick"), or telco TV if we want more TV channels than those available over the air. All three of these options have one thing in common: they demand that we select our basic channels in bundles or packages instead of allowing us to cherry-pick what we want.
Therefore, in order in get access to ESPN, for example, customers must both pay for and allow into their homes channels like MTV, VH1, Spike TV, FX, TNT, Bravo, and others that amount to nothing more than a cavalcade of eye-rolling and mind-numbing nonsense. And much of what these channels offer is stuff that many, including myself, find objectionable.
The cable companies, satellite operators, and telcos argue that allowing channel choice would be economically and technically unfeasible and that it would cause many basic channels to disappear. However, this argument seems disingenuous to me. After all, they do it with premium channels like HBO, Showtime, and Cinemax and I don't see any of them going out of business.
And if a TV channel can't survive on its own merits, too bad. That's the way capitalism is supposed to work. It's survival of the fittest. Business entities that can't generate enough interest from potential customers are supposed to fall by wayside. It seems to me like these pay-TV providers have set up some kind of social welfare system for TV channels, in which those that draw few viewers get rewarded along with those that draw many. Or perhaps it's a union mentality that long ago put its stamp on the world of pay-TV.
We have all come to expect cable rates that go up on a yearly basis and sometimes more often. Almost every rate increase is blamed on the rise in the costs of carrying all the popular channels. Unfortunately, much of it is for the rising costs of channels that I never watch. How fair is that? Then the greedy channel owners take the money I pay them for stuff I don't watch and use it to produce more programs that I have no interest in. It's a vicious cycle!
Some people are trying to get the FCC involved in forcing pay-TV providers to offer their basic channels on an a-la-carte basis. I disagree with them. This is not something the government needs to be intervening in. Consumers should force the issue by demanding cable choice, backed up with the threat of returning to over-the-air TV, an option the digital conversion has rendered much more intriguing than it used to be.
When their subscriber base begins to shrink to the point where their bottom line starts to suffer, the pay-TV providers will suddenly find the a-la-carte channel alternative a lot more doable.
With the demise of the BUD, we are now stuck with cable, the small dish (which I call "cable on a stick"), or telco TV if we want more TV channels than those available over the air. All three of these options have one thing in common: they demand that we select our basic channels in bundles or packages instead of allowing us to cherry-pick what we want.
Therefore, in order in get access to ESPN, for example, customers must both pay for and allow into their homes channels like MTV, VH1, Spike TV, FX, TNT, Bravo, and others that amount to nothing more than a cavalcade of eye-rolling and mind-numbing nonsense. And much of what these channels offer is stuff that many, including myself, find objectionable.
The cable companies, satellite operators, and telcos argue that allowing channel choice would be economically and technically unfeasible and that it would cause many basic channels to disappear. However, this argument seems disingenuous to me. After all, they do it with premium channels like HBO, Showtime, and Cinemax and I don't see any of them going out of business.
And if a TV channel can't survive on its own merits, too bad. That's the way capitalism is supposed to work. It's survival of the fittest. Business entities that can't generate enough interest from potential customers are supposed to fall by wayside. It seems to me like these pay-TV providers have set up some kind of social welfare system for TV channels, in which those that draw few viewers get rewarded along with those that draw many. Or perhaps it's a union mentality that long ago put its stamp on the world of pay-TV.
We have all come to expect cable rates that go up on a yearly basis and sometimes more often. Almost every rate increase is blamed on the rise in the costs of carrying all the popular channels. Unfortunately, much of it is for the rising costs of channels that I never watch. How fair is that? Then the greedy channel owners take the money I pay them for stuff I don't watch and use it to produce more programs that I have no interest in. It's a vicious cycle!
Some people are trying to get the FCC involved in forcing pay-TV providers to offer their basic channels on an a-la-carte basis. I disagree with them. This is not something the government needs to be intervening in. Consumers should force the issue by demanding cable choice, backed up with the threat of returning to over-the-air TV, an option the digital conversion has rendered much more intriguing than it used to be.
When their subscriber base begins to shrink to the point where their bottom line starts to suffer, the pay-TV providers will suddenly find the a-la-carte channel alternative a lot more doable.
SHARE
