Tech Broiler

Jason Perlow and Scott Raymond

We demand on-demand: A la carte cable TV

By | May 6, 2011, 3:27pm PDT

Summary: Why do we have to pay such high prices for cable TV? Customers deserve more choices from their cable service providers.

Recently while looking through the existing cable lineup for Comcast, I realized that a lot of non-premium channels were sidelined into a “preferred” lineup and not available on standard digital cable. Channels like BBC America, Current TV and Turner Classic Movies are placed into a separate lineup.

I did discover that Comcast had changed their package lineup, so for the same price I was paying I was able to upgrade my account to include the preferred lineup as well. But it brings up an interesting point; I didn’t really want all of those channels, I just wanted one of them. And herein lies the crux of the problem.

If you look at your existing cable lineup, you will probably see dozens–and in some cases, hundreds–of channels that you not only don’t watch, but would prefer if they weren’t there at all. Some people can configure their cable boxes or DVRs to skip over the channels you don’t watch. But you’re still paying for those cable channels, and that is one of the reasons cable prices are so high.

It’s really time for a change in the cable industry. Cable companies are perfectly capable of providing on-demand service to their customers. So why can’t they provide on-demand cable lineups as well? We need an a la carte system.

I could shave my current lineup down to maybe two dozen channels, tops. I personally have no need for non-English-speaking channels. We typically have no need for sports channels like ESPN in our house. We certainly don’t need Home Shopping Network or QVC. It would be great if you could go to your local cable provider with a shopping list of channels and pay for just those.

But let’s not stop there. Why not go even further and let us get on-demand TV programs. What if you just watch Big Bang Theory and Fringe? Sure, you can get those on Hulu Plus, or Apple TV or perhaps even Netflix, but not all of the shows people might want to watch are available through these services.

This isn’t to say that it would be appropriate to all channels. News channels, for instance, are usually live broadcasts and have up to date information. So you wouldn’t need on-demand service for programs on those channels. What we really need is the ability to filter just the channels we want, and have on-demand access to pre-recorded programs.

Cable companies wouldn’t even have to adjust their billing mechanics that much to accomodate. They already bill you in blocks based on what your channel lineup contains. Why not arrange it like pre-paid mobile phone service? Pay for a bundle of programming, watch what you want, and if you use up your allotment simply pay for more. If you watch less one month, you pay less.

Admittedly, there’s a flaw in this where the summer months are typically rerun season. But these days there are many programs that have new content during the summer months, and shift schedules, so that there is new programming all year round.

I’m just saying that it’s time for a change in the way cable TV is presented to us, and it would benefit every subscriber to have more choices in their cable access.

Final note: I did call Comcast today and discovered that due to their new pricing plans I was paying way more than I should have been. Not only that, as a long time customer they gave me a new rate and and additional channel lineup that I didn’t have access to before–and it contained a few channels I was definitely interested in.

Keep in mind that by calling up your cable company and talking to a service representative, you may find that they are a lot more flexible about providing you with better deals than you might find online.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Scott Raymond has been a technologist and system administrator for over 25 years.

Disclosure

Scott Raymond

I am the IT Manager for a high end audio and network systems integrator in northern Califronia. My wife works at Adobe Systems, Inc. Whenever I write an article that might involve Adobe or its products, I add a disclaimer at the top of the article to make sure she is not involved in any way. We have a small bit of stock with AT&T and no other major investments that would cause conflict.

Biography

Scott Raymond

Scott Raymond has been a technologist and system administrator for over 25 years. Starting as a hobbyist in his teens, Scott quickly learned that he could translate his passion and knowledge into a full-time career. He currently works as the IT Manager for a high end audio and network systems integrator in northern California. He has written technology articles for various publications in the past and began contributing to ZDnet as a guest blogger on Jason Perlow's Tech Broiler. Scott and Jason met in New York in the 1990s where they co-managed the New York City Palm Pilot Users' Group.

In his spare time, Scott is a trained chef and avid bicycling enthusiast, as well as a voracious reader of historical, science and horror fiction. He is a huge fan of pop culture, with a wide range of interest in TV shows, movies and games.

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?
76
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: We demand on-demand: A la carte cable TV
FAULKNE 13th Oct
Good day to confirm this comment I would appreciate T h e b e s t o f Z D N e t d e l i v e r e d your website very nice to everyone Yes, Oracle is the only one with shared-disk architecture, but that is there advantage. It means you can add or remove nodes and the database lives on. In a shared nothing architecture, if you lose a node, you lose the system. I'm sure Oracle appreciates EMC highlighting their advantage.I also desire to signal in your RSS feeds. Thank you as soon as once again and maintain up the great operate Awesome post! Thank you very much || thanks for nice content this is really benefit to me.
0 Votes
+ -
Cable companies cannot maintain their business model with a-la-carte. They need to bundle channels together to make it cost efficient to provide service. If a person chose 5 channels plus local stations for $25, Comcast would go out of business altogether. Also the content providers would negotiate their channels in blocks. Say Disney would require cable company to take Disney channel with 4 ESPN channels. That way, the lower rating Disney channel would be guaranteed a certain number of subscribers so that they can sell higher ad rates.

Under a-la-carte, a lot of channels would cost more per channel and many would disappear.
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
@mstrsfty If that's the case, then shouldn't those channels disappear anyway? By packaging unwanted channels with popular ones, all they're doing is subsidizing channels that no one wants to watch anyway. That's bad business, and it's throwing away money. There is no point in buying ad space on programs and channels that aren't being watched.
0 Votes
+ -
@Scott Raymond

Agreed about if those channels cannot stand on their own, they should disappear anyway.

We really need to stay that networks cannot try to sell cable companies 'packages' of channels.
0 Votes
+ -
The "unwanted" channels ....
Economister 7th May 2011
@Scott Raymond

can use streaming via the web. If they cannot survive with donations and advertising, it is time to rethink what they are doing. In that case the demand is just not there.

Come to think of it, ALL programming should be on the web. The last mile cable/fiber should be community owned and the cable companies can close shop and go home.
0 Votes
+ -
@Economister.
You have the choice to either use them, or not use them. Why should they be forced to change a business model, with the loss of profits, to accomondate the small minority?

The cable company is not stopping you from just purchasing Internet access, allowing you do do with it what you please.
0 Votes
+ -
Yes, they are
use_what_works_4_U 9th May 2011
@Mister Spock
The cable companies are very much limiting what you can do with their Internet service - by way of bandwidth caps. If all video consumption were to be over the 'Net, how many people do you think would run hard up against Comcast's 250GB/month cap? I would think that number to be very high indeed.

The only network service you can get from cable companies is video delivery, and that is only via the cable box - not the 'Net. The reason is obvious, too. It's much more profitable. They charge you for the line to your house, they charge the networks for access to the line to your house, and then on top of that they sell advertising space on the line to your house. Then of course there is all the pay as you go on demand content on top of that.

I know a very large majority of my friends and family would prefer ala carte cable channels, and/or Internet only video. It's never going to happen, though. It would be too beneficial to the customer over the profit motives of the cable company.
0 Votes
+ -
@Mister Spock


A. A choice between a monopoly and no service at all is not a choice. That's like saying, "Hey, you can pay the mob, or your store will burn down, it's totally up to you!"

B. Check the legal restrictions in your area. Maybe you live in an area that isn't locked down, but I doubt it. The ISPs are using the law to restrict your choices and impede competition. This is not capitalism or free market economics.
0 Votes
+ -
@Mister Spock said: "The only network service you can get from cable companies is video delivery, and that is only via the cable box - not the 'Net. "

Not true; cable companies are big into Internet. We have the packages of TV, Internet and telephone all from the cable company. Look at the bandwidth you get from most DSL and compare it to cable. There is a convergence going on between the three services. All you need to do is pick a provider or have it decided for you by where you live. Our cable company also provides TV programming over the Internet now. Just because now, you have a coaxial cable for your TV, doesn't mean that we are not going to see a full fiber network (like what FIOS has). It is not happening right now as many houses are still wired for coax, but it will eventually happen, unless something new comes out. There will always be a need for satellite and some places are just too far away from a box to run cables. So, I don't see cable companies not being around because they are only video as they now sell a lot of services.
0 Votes
+ -
@Scott Raymond - My wife and I certainly agree. We have stopped using cable and gone back to over-the-air free TV and a PVR. Anything else we want we can get via the internet. I refuse to pay for content that includes stuff I don't want (and shouldn't have to pay for) just because it is part of a bundle. A la carte is the only way I will ever go back to cable. Certainly many of those programs and a few channels should go away and are being supported unwittingly by people having to pay for bundles. A la carte would weed out a lot of the sleaze that is out there, or at least only those who are willing to pay for it will get it.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: We demand on-demand: A la carte cable TV
jordanhawk Updated - 21st Sep
That's bad business, and it's throwing away money. There is no point in buying ad space on programs and channels that aren't being watched. online masters degree | online associate degree | online doctorate degree | diploma high school
0 Votes
+ -
RE: We demand on-demand: A la carte cable TV
kris_stapley@... 9th May 2011
@mstrsfty
I'm not interested in paying extra because the big cable companies have a terrible business model. A la carte please.
0 Votes
+ -
@mstrsfty netflix does just fine with its$ 10 business model and no ads. Plenty of cable shows there to. Streams beautifully.
0 Votes
+ -
I want even more...
Mac Hosehead 6th May 2011
I would pay for a service that would be essentially a giant DVR on the cloud. I could pick any production that has been broadcast already, within a certain time period, and have it delivered over the net. I don't expect this or a-la-carte cable to happen anytime soon.
0 Votes
+ -
@Mac Hosehead

It will, if we stop allowing laws to be passed to protect old business models.
0 Votes
+ -
What laws are there stopping that idea?
Mister Spock 6th May 2011
@Lerianis10
I do not believe there is any law that states you cannot do that.
Instead it is most likely based on return on investment, not laws. If the number of people interested in a feature like that is too small to be profitable due to the cost to maintain it, then they will not offer that feature.
plain
0 Votes
+ -
@Mister Spock

Guess again..... the copyright laws and the 'you have to have authorization from the copyright owner to offer something in X form' even if you are already licensing the thing in question laws are leading to the fact that we don't have this yet.

Everytime someone tries to start a Netflix for TV, the TV companies whine and moan about it, saying that they cannot 'make any money' off it.
0 Votes
+ -
count me in
Linux Geek 6th May 2011
I LOVE the a la carte ideea!
0 Votes
+ -
A la carte? Dream On
betelgeuse68 6th May 2011
Cable isn't like buying milk, you can't go to some *other* supermarket to get what you want.

The only realistic alternate to cable TV is "cutting the cord" in lieu of all the robust streaming options (Netflix, Hulu+) and the bandwidth to handle them nowadays (unlike years ago). In my case I haven't had cable TV in over 2 years.

If you think for a second cable companies will yield power (move the average of what they charge DOWNWARD) without the pressure that is competition, dream on.

Some of the problems I've seen to cutting the cord are people's rituals. One of the biggest is treating their TV like "white noise" or a "fireplace" - it's something to be left on while the business of living at home happens. Others treat channel surfing like a sport. While still others have the challenge of a large family which means several individuals streaming simultaneously will kill bandwidth rendering everyone's experience subpar.

Thankfully I don't fall into any of these camps. Sayonara cable TV.

-M
0 Votes
+ -
@betelgeuse68
I'm in the same camp. Still with Comcast Internet, but took my picture boxes back to the center and dismissed CATV.
Things got quiet around the house. Too quiet. But I've discovered other things like talk radio or FM in general work for background noise. Even PBS on free HD OTA works.
The point is, I didn't realize until after the fact that TV was just something for me to sit sedentary in front of to while away the hours. A month later, I really don't miss it, especially with Netflix and the web at large.
0 Votes
+ -
@0375c0rp

Another option is reading. I recently got an iPad 2 and I've read more fiction in the last 2 days than I had in the last 10 years. Part of the problem for me was that with a series of moves in the mid 2000's, I became averse to accumulating items, books and CDs (physical medium) became poison in my mind's eye. The hassle of moving them several times became a big deal.

Anyway, reading more now that you don't have a noise box (cable TV) is something I might suggest.

The vehicle for me to returning back to reading has been the eBook and the iPad 2 (cheer; no physical crap required).

-M
0 Votes
+ -
@0375c0rp @betelgeuse68

I cut the cable cord (i.e. umbilical cord) over 10 years ago. It took a year or two to fully flush any nagging thoughts/emotions of going back. I've been calling for the "a la carte" model for years, and quickly realized that two things needed to happen to bring it to fruition; the online tech to mature, and for the majority of cable subscribers to dump the service. The former is about there, the latter will never happen IMO.
0 Votes
+ -
cable can compete
Professor8 9th May 2011
betelgeuse68 wrote: "Cable isn't like buying milk, you can't go to some *other* supermarket to get what you want."

And the reason you can't go to some other cable or high-speed telecomm carrier is the corrupt embrace of the utility firms and the regulators, who prevent competition. I know, I used to work at a state utility commission.

I also know that the regulated monopoly model is a fraud. Monopoly is unnatural, which is why governments at all levels are required to support and maintain it.

It's not that choice would cost too much to provide. It doesn't really cost all that much to string cable, maintain it, and run the satellite and microwave base-stations. The big operations in these firms are billing and collections and marketing. They don't want to do it because it would trim the dishonest profits, the executives' pay, and the kick-backs to the politicians. They like their monopolies, their restricted "markets", and want to hang onto them and milk them for everything they can.
0 Votes
+ -
@betelgeuse68 While it may not be exactly like buying milk, these days you have a wide range of choices. While you go to the store and buy milk, how many brands or types does one store offer? With cable, yes, you are stuck with one cable company, but you also have choices like FIOS, AT&T U-verse, a big satellite dish, Dish Networks, DirectTV or just "over-the-air". Where the money goes is to content. Your cable company (or any of the other type of TV providers) is only the middleman. While you may be able to pick and choose the provider, it really would not be probable that you would have one provider for each channel. Or maybe you can: Several HD channels from cable, other channels from a satellite provider. At least, if we had a la carte, we could pick and choose. The nice part would be someone having a sale on Channel 4 content so you could decide which provider you will use that is cheapest that week. With competition, prices should come down until the providers band together and start price-fixing, like they do for gasoline.
0 Votes
+ -
Never going to happen
MobileAdmin Updated - 7th May 2011
People think this would be a fantastic idea but reality is your price would likely be the same or likely more and you'd get less channels. I know it's crazy but the programmer owners (Disney, Time Warner etc) bundle for reasons. A very large one is advertising. Would anyone like to see more commerials as they would need to show more on fewer channels to maintain advertising dollars / production costs.

In studies for this ESPN alone would cost $15-20 a month. Fantastic you say as I don't watch sports so I'd save money, actually Disney would likely see the low uptake and move those fees to channels you do want. Having a lot of filler channels spreads this out. I guess someone should try it. Sell channels a la carte at a rate of $15 - 20 per channel month. I doubt you will have any kind of subscription rate. The main issue is people are cheap. They want everything for nothing / little. The whole concept of "cut the cord" is based on this due to streaming for now is very little cost / free. As soon as the cost to use these services increases or broadband costs increase their whole business model crumbles.

You want cheap options - install a OTA attennea and deal with whatever you can pick up or pirate the shows you wish to see.

I have used Comcast for years as Verizon cannot get FIOS extended beyond any major city and after trying DirectTV/DISH I found the service inconsistent. Comcast while increasing (due to noted programmer / broadband needs) provides a slew of options, decent channel selection and what many take for granted - it's always on. I have rarely had a service outage.
0 Votes
+ -
A paid cable industry Astroturfer!
0 Votes
+ -
RE: We demand on-demand: A la carte cable TV
kris_stapley@... 9th May 2011
@MobileAdmin
It's not about being cheap, it's about being gouged and forced to pay for things we don't want. I just want standard analog cable...guess what? Rogers doesn't offer that ability unless you subscribe to their VIP package. Basically, I want the same channels I've always received, but now I have to pay double. BS
0 Votes
+ -
You mention advertising...
michaellashinsky@... 13th May 2011
Advertising is probably the biggest reason I cut the cord and do not watch TV any more. I can't stand the number of commercials or the obnoxiousness of those commercials, and the fact that there are more on cable channels (which were originally commercial free because they were subscription,) was just too much. I live TV free and really don't miss it.

I was at my ex's house visiting my daughter the other day. I turned on the TV and 10 out of 13 channels were on commercial. I turned it right back off.
0 Votes
+ -
Ditch Cable TV.
cabdriverjim 7th May 2011
How about this: Ditch cable TV and buy a media player with a few different online services that do offer ala carte programming. The very instant this starts hurting production house cashflow they'll scramble to sign up to these distribution channels. What if a program you want to watch isn't on one of the services you have? OMG, its a TV show, go do something else. Seriously, there's a whole world out there. We're not talking about access to food here. Its variously mediocre amusement, at best.
0 Votes
+ -
@cabdriverjim

No, they won't. They will just try to kill these companies by suing them out of existence or insisting that they charge 30 dollars each per month.
0 Votes
+ -
What about the Supreme Court case
fairlane32 Updated - 7th May 2011
Back a few years ago that won in favor of Cable Companies? The justices voted that cable companies didn't have to break up their packages to provide services a la carte to consumers? That's why I don't think, from a legal standpoint, its going to occur. There is some validity to those who have commented about the a la carte model potentially costing about the same or more, in the end. I also think it depends on how much television you watch; if you are a big family, or just an individual that watches a lot of television, I don't think an a la carte system is that beneficial. I think, as of now (because more selection may change from it's current offerings), if you watch very little television, yes, an a la carte system makes sense, and thusly one should choose this route.

I also think, as has been pointed out, that the current business model of the cable companies wouldn't be sustainable in the end, costing the consumer even more. Why? The content providers, with Copyright on their side, the artists themselves, all have to get paid. The cable companies just provide a way to get it. That includes the Internet, which brings me to my next point: What is going to happen (to those going the a la carte route) when the cable companies decide that, after discovering that they are losing a lot of their TV subscribers, they are going to increase severely, everyone's Internet access bill, to that content, to make up for lost revenue from TV subscriptions? The a la carte folks will just wind up in the same boat again, no? Now, with that said, how does Net Neutrality play in all of this? If net neutrality settles into something that resembles tiered access, or packaged speed plans, doesn't that just look like exactly like TV is now? Paying for speed bumps to sites that I don't really need or go to? Or, denying me access to certain areas of the web (or specific sites) because I'm in a lower data plan? And then there is the mobile space don't forget, with increasingly smart and bigger pipes to mobile networks, what will happen then?

Philip
0 Votes
+ -
I agree with the probability that a la carte would cost as much as the present system. However, there are other options, for instance, breaking up just some bundles, such as Sports. Most people [including me] don't want ALL the games. I'd love tho have the tennis channel without having to pay for every hockey and soccer game. Or, even better, give us PPV for all tournaments and games. Also, I wish Comcast would eliminate duplicate channels and use that bandwidth to give us new ones. I get 3 [count 'em - 3] History channels, 2 of them in HD. Seems a waste...
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
Here's an interestng thought for everyone: If I pad 99 cents for every tv show episode I watched every month, it would still cost less than half of my current cable bill. Think about that.
0 Votes
+ -
@Scott Raymond

Again this model only works for the single user / show concept. It doesn't scale for a family with multiple people / multiple shows. You also have the issue of not every show being available.

The majority of TV viewers consume too much content for this to work and you lose any sampling of shows you do not watch.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: We demand on-demand: A la carte cable TV
mustangj36@... 7th May 2011
I love the A la carte idea and have for a long time but it will never happen. It is technically possible of course but the cable cos. wouldn't dream of doing it unless they could charge at least as much as they get now, if not more.
My package has 67 channels but I watch no more than 14 of them, and only 8 of those with any regularity. The rest are junk that wouldn't be missed by hardly anyone.
The frequent mention of Disney in the responses here reminds me of something they did with Comcast about 15 years ago. The Disney channel was then a premium channel that cost about $4.95 per month. Apparently, few subscribers wanted it, so Disney got Comcast to include the channel in all but their most basic package and Comcast raised their package rates $5 to reflect the "enhancement". I complained long and loud about this to Comcast but of course got nowhere.
0 Votes
+ -
The "unbundling" idea strikes me as trying to control the speed of a car by moving the speedometer needle. It's trying to reduce price by imagining a way to reduce cost that in fact does not reduce cost.

The cost structure of providing cable TV per se is mostly about the cables and amplifiers and so on that -- these days -- cost about the same whether there are 5 channels or 1,000, and do cost the same whether you watch 1 hour or 50 hours of TV per week.

Saying, "I only want to pay for the one show I watch once a month," is an appeal to Justice, not a reflection of technical reality. The reality is that the amount of cable infrastructure that needs to be in place to deliver one show per month to your house costs the same as the infrastructure needed to provide 500 channels 24x7.

If one show per month is really your issue, cable television is not the right technology.

Imagining that price should be a function of the number of "channels" you get is only partially true. Some channels -- the popular ones -- do cost the cable companies incremental money. But a lot of the others are advertising supported freebies. Since providing a "channel" within the cable bandwidth adds no incremental expense, taking the Stewed Tomatoes Channel off your lineup would in fact not save the cable company any money. Which means they couldn't reduce your price without raising somebody else's. Which means your appeal to Justice will fall on deaf ears.
0 Votes
+ -
If that were true...
michaellashinsky@... 13th May 2011
@Robert Hahn "Since providing a "channel" within the cable bandwidth adds no incremental expense, taking the Stewed Tomatoes Channel off your lineup would in fact not save the cable company any money."

If that were true, they could give us all the channels without any significant increase in cost. Since they charge us more money for more channels, they should be able to charge us less for less channels. If it all costs the same no matter what we get, then they are just gouging the consumers. (Personally, I believe the truth is in the last sentence.)

Don't blame the people crying for justice, we aren't the ones who designed the business model!
0 Votes
+ -
RE: We demand on-demand: A la carte cable TV
Grayson Peddie 8th May 2011
What if I just want to watch truTV HD, DIY HD, Planet Green HD, and Science Channel HD? Sorry, but it's not worth my money to get those channels. I'm also interested in Palladia HD (concerts), but that's about it.
0 Votes
+ -
HD ONLY
Hasam1991 9th May 2011
I just want HD only channels!! why do they still include SD channels??!
0 Votes
+ -
@Hasam1991 Because you're not the only person in the world.
0 Votes
+ -
I already have it.
ye 9th May 2011
Well, mostly. I've been without cable for so long I can't remember. I stream content directly to my TV through my Internet connection. With the various streaming services I see no reason for cable. Everything I want to watch is available online. And I suspect more content will be available as time passes making cable's bundling even less relevant.
0 Votes
+ -
I worked in the cable/sat business. A la carte won't happen until certain channels (aka the religious ones) let go of cable/sat company testicles. Those channels are paying out the nose to NOT offer a la carte since those channels would be the ones most dropped. They are only alive because they can pay companies to keep them in the line up. And religious channels have a ton of money to keep doing this.

That's your first road block. Even before we get into advertising and pricing for other, more watched channels.

We dropped cable/sat and just do an antenna and Hulu/Netflix. And we watch a hell of a lot of shows. No issues and we save around 1k a year with equipment and packages combined. Until more people stop using them, it won't change.
0 Votes
+ -
I dropped the satellite service that I had for ten years because of their pricing policies and constantly-increasing prices. I looked at your cable provider and I don't like anything about Comcast either. DTV with an antenna now.
0 Votes
+ -
Here is a simple formula to make this work.

1) Cable company charges a base fee, say $25/month
that grants its customers access to all of the "free"
channels.

2) Channels charge what they want on a per customer
basis. The cable company collects these fees and
charges the channel a fixed percentage. This
percentage to be the same for EVERY channel.

3) Cable companies are common carriers and may not
own or be owned by a channel/network.

4) Channels must charge the same rate per customer
regardless of what cable network is carrying them.

5) Rises in the rates charged by the channels must
be preceded by significant notice, at least 2 billing
cycles, so customers can cancel.

A channel that does not charge its customers is
available for "free" and would be likely supported by
advertising alone.

A cable company would be allowed to require a minimum number of customers to be required to carry these channels for non-local stations. Local stations MUST be
carried.

EVERY channel may be blocked by the customer.
This means that you don't need to have to be exposed
to the QVC channel or the various religious channels
if you don't want them in your house.
0 Votes
+ -
A Silly Request
UncaYimmy 9th May 2011
So the cable companies should invest millions in enhancing their technology infrastructure and totally revamping their billing procedures so that customers can pay less?
0 Votes
+ -
@UncaYimmy You're right - that's idiocy. Please, just take my wallet and allow me to thank you for siphoning my wealth.
0 Votes
+ -
I think the only way the a-la-carte model will become a reality is if we stop enabling those big cable companies. Take a stand and stop using cable. This is what my wife and i did about a year ago and we never looked back. Our setup now is basic cable (about 20 channels), internet TV (or blueray player) that has hulu plus and netflix (each one about $10/mth). This is not perfect but it's feasible. Our kids (8 and 5) still have most of their shows but sacrifice some, my wife loses the cooking channel and others that she likes and i lose the Science channel but all in all we make work instead of paying about $130/mth when you put together the tax, DVR renting, etc.
0 Votes
+ -
Switched Digital Video could be a solution
pranavmdesai@... 9th May 2011
Switched Digital Video was brought up as a standard to resolve this problem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switched_video

Remains to be seen if the companies deploy this and still keep the same programming and fee structure thereby increasing their profits. However it is a step in the right direction.

The problem with Cable companies is a lack of true competition. The day AT&T Uverse and FIOS get it right and are available everywhere you will see disruptive services emerge due to competition and hopefully the structure you write about. Utopia I know but one can dream happy
0 Votes
+ -
A person who doesn't need ESPN is probably not someone I want to heed.
they will all be forced into providing internet (under net neutrality) with very few people paying for 250 channels in order to watch 25 of them. Whether or not they change, a la carte services will be springing up and I'll be moving to them as fast as I can.
me
and embracing the pay per song model of iTunes, Napster, etc.? I for one am days away from getting rid of Verizon simply because the cost is incredible for what I get out of it. I can get up to the minute news online. I can stream sports to the point of knowing what the score/stats are, and with Netflix and Hulu can access well more than I have time to watch for movies and TV shows. Cable companies should at least consider a new business model before they have none at all.
Good day to confirm this comment I would appreciate T h e b e s t o f Z D N e t d e l i v e r e d your website very nice to everyone Yes, Oracle is the only one with shared-disk architecture, but that is there advantage. It means you can add or remove nodes and the database lives on. In a shared nothing architecture, if you lose a node, you lose the system. I'm sure Oracle appreciates EMC highlighting their advantage.I also desire to signal in your RSS feeds. Thank you as soon as once again and maintain up the great operate Awesome post! Thank you very much || thanks for nice content this is really benefit to me.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix