Nickname: Matt

Review: Sounds good, the first channels I want to get rid of are the religious station. I bet the proponents of this half-baked idea will love that.

Date reviewed: Feb 2, 2008 3:04 AM

Nickname: Gus

Review: I seriously doubt an a la carte system will make ESPN or other popular channels from jumping $3 to $12. It's just a scare tactic. If they really did that, even more people would cancel their subscriptions. No one should subsidize something they do not want or need so that the rest of us can get what we like cheaper.

Date reviewed: Dec 13, 2007 7:05 AM

Nickname: AJM

Review: The current system is like going into a grocery to purchase cereal. The grocer requires you to purchase milk whether you want it or not. I am uninterested in the vast majority of channels on my cable system. I would gladly pay for the 6 - 8 channels I actually watch.

Date reviewed: Nov 1, 2007 8:37 PM

Nickname: traceykasten

Review: For our family, it's not so much a matter of price for cable, but rather the principle of not wanting to subsidize the garbage that is offered on traditional cable. We subscribe to very basic cable only because we live in a rural area and have difficulty getting in our local TV broadcasts over the airwaves. Even as we contemplate the purchase of a 47" LCD TV, we would refuse to upgrade to the traditionally-bundled expanded cable TV packages. The fact is, I don't *want* to have to waste my time programming out all the channels I'd prefer that our girls not see. Since there are more channels that I'd prefer that they not see than those that I feel are appropriate, I won't even justify it by upgrading to the expanded "selection". Providing consumers a choice does not mean the end of the bundled packages - there's no reason they can't offer both, and I'm sure they'd find a way to continue to make the bundled packages more attractive to those who are budget-conscious.

Date reviewed: Jan 1, 2007 11:01 PM

Nickname: Greg Andrew

Review: Well, I hope the idiots in Washingston don't push this through because 90% will end up paying more. Right now, the cable companies effectively rebate customers for taking channels customers wouldn't pay for as part of their packages. If we end up with forced a la carte, we'd have to pay twice as much as we do for what we want, and we'd end up getting half the total channels. Only people who only subscribe to less than five channels will save.

Date reviewed: Dec 31, 2005 6:56 AM

Nickname: Jeff

Review: I think everyone is missing the real problem. The real problem is that folks want to pay about 50% of the current going rate. It's the same with the banks. Their fees should be about 50% of the going rate. It's the same with the IRS. Their fees should be 50% of the going rate. It's the same with utility companies. Their fees should be 50% of the going rate. Ditto for gas, natural gas, electricity, housing, etc. Or salaries and other compensation need to go up. We are all tired that our standard of living has declined since the dot-com bust, 9/11 and all the hurricanes. Here we sit shivering in our $500,000 homes or $50,000 homes and our more fortunate others can sit in their offices and jack up fees without us being able to do much about it. The voting booth? It does not matter! We need a third party to kick some butt.

Date reviewed: Dec 20, 2005 3:52 PM

Nickname: MattM

Review: Those of you thinking that you'll only be paying $2 to $3 dollars per channel are in for a seriously rude awakening. ESPN gets that kind of money now with guaranteed carrying in every cable home. ESPN will easily charge $10+. The other popular networks (CNN, TNT, Discovery, Weather, etc) will all easily charge more than $5 each. Plus, every single one of these channels will have to spend money not only marketing its programming, but marketing the channel to potential subscribers. Bottom line? You'll pay about the same for 20 channels as you currently pay for 80+.

Date reviewed: Dec 14, 2005 4:47 AM

Nickname: dano

Review: Let's see, I can get the lineup of trash channels or I can decide what comes into the house. This is real hard. MTV is dead if this becomes a reality. Name one parent that is chomping at the bit to pay for their children to have MTV.

Date reviewed: Dec 12, 2005 6:29 PM

Nickname: Trudy

Review: Our local cable company, Cox Communications, "justifies" its rate increases by the astronomical fees it pays for ESPN. I don't watch ESPN -- why should I pay for it? Soon everything I want to see will be available over the Internet anyway.

Date reviewed: Dec 9, 2005 9:46 AM

Nickname: Tee

Review: Let every channel stand on its own merit. Like most cable subscribers, I can count on two hands the number of channels that I actually watch on a regular basis (excluding local channels). I would glady pay say $10 for basic cable (just local channels) and $2 to $3 per month for the channels that I actually want. Or better still, why not subscribe to channels a la carte like an annual magazine subscription?

Date reviewed: Dec 9, 2005 5:10 AM