It pisses me off that I pay $60.00 a month for cable TV but don't have the

[Southsideirish]

ability to choose the channels I want.

For example, I DON'T want right wing Christian shows, home shopping, Fox News, classic boxing, cartoon network, Spanish shows, etc.

I'd like more classic movies, educational, history, spiritual and "left" political programs.

We should be able to design our own "package" - every channel.

[Clintmax]

1. I agree with ya THERE, SSI!

I never watch those channels either. I don't know why we can't choose for ourselves what we want.

[RoyGBiv]

2. I agree, but ...

Be careful what you wish for. This sort of thing may be coming, but your $60 may turn into $160 in the process.

[proud patriot]

3. I agree

At our house we wouldn't have any sports channels,
religous , or home shopping channels .

[Lars39]

4. Somebody told me once you can in other countries.

We should be able to here, darn it!

[BlueJazz]

5. Yep...When my European friends visit me, they ask me why I have...

..all the "Church Stuff" on my cable.....They are appalled that I have to have it as a "Package" (and have to pay for the crap)

[Lars39]

8. Not half as appalled as we are I bet.

That stuff is atrocious. :silly:

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

12. Not to be a bother, but perhaps your problem with religious channels

is based on the assumption that it's all huckster televangelists and right-wing moralists? Just wanted to let you know that that's not the true picture. It's not all Pat Robertson and Hal Lindsey.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

11. Religious programming doesn't go over well in Europe, does it?

Not trying to start a fight, just making an observation.

[u4ic]

21. This is the Canadian religious channel

http://www.visiontv.ca/

It's one I would want on my cable subscription. However, it is an odd duck - it's not only multifaith, but has Britcoms and some great movies/documentaries on it.

It's the channel on which I first saw "The Corporation".

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

6. Interesting concept. The closest thing to that I know of is satellite,

which gives you a whole lot of channels for a reasonable price.

[RoyGBiv]

7. But still in packages ...

Satellite television is based on the exact same business model as cable television when it comes to programming.

The industry has the "advantage" of lower infrastructure costs and no legal requirement to carry locally broadcast channels, which sometimes creates the impression of lower costs.

A lot of the religious programming is transmitted via local broadcast affiliates. Cable companies are required by law to include these stations in any package of programming they offer. Satellite companies are not, but will, for an extra charge which may actually be "invisible" if the local channels come as part of a total package price.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

10. I certainly have no problem with 99% of the religious channels,

but against you do raise an interesting point. I think it would be neat to be able to completely design your own package, but that might indeed be costly.

[RoyGBiv]

14. I would love it, personally ...

I've seen the cost breakdown of this, however, and it disturbs me.

The bottom line is that this will not lower costs to the consumer, regardless of whether you are a satellite or cable subscriber. Your bill may or may not be lower than it was, but if it is, you'll have fewer channels with fewer options.

Since we tend to know what we want to see, this may not seem like a big deal, but consider that many of the most popular channels today started out as channels that had to be force-fed into cable systems to get exposure. That will be gone. The reason you get a lot of channels you don't necessarily want is because they are "force fed." If a channel is not considered profitable, i.e. one with a potential subscriber base that makes it, by itself, immediately profitable, that channel will never appear. A lot of current channels that are not profitable by themselves in most systems -- think Sundance, IFM, etc -- will go away.

As I said, just be careful what you wish for.

[Mr. McD]

9. That's why I don't have cable

I wouldn't use more than 10 percent of what they offer.

[Dervill Crow]

13. Right on! And what is it with all that "paid programming"?

If they can't have quality shows, they should bring back the test pattern.

[RoyGBiv]

15. Paid programming ...

This is a result of an FCC ruling that increased the allowable length of a commercial. Why would a company broadcast nothing as opposed to something for which they get paid?

[AtomicKitten]

16. we pay $125 for ALL the channels and two DVRs

Okay, I know that's retarded, but when I can't get a channel that I want, and I inevitably want what I can't have, I just can't stand it. I hate feeling deprived.

[KitchenWitch]

17. hear hear!

[TK421]

18. This is why I miss satellite

I didn't get a third of these shitty televangelists or community channels. I was paying around fifty dollars a month for satellite and the selection was ten times better than this shitty cable. By the way, I never once experienced a loss of service when there was a thunderstorm or if the wind blew...thats just a bunch of shit

[Floogeldy]

19. I guess a "pay per channel" system is a good idea.

Never thought of that. :)

[philosophie_en_rose]

20. Program your television to skip the channels.

It should be on the menu screen. You can do the same on cable boxes.

[Zomby Woof]

22. We pay $42.00 a month for DirecTV

We can custimize the menu so we only see the channels we want, which means the channels you listed "don't exist". Still get around 100 channels that way.

[Demmygirl9888]

23. I Agree

I've been thinking this for awhile now.