http://www.physorg.com/news109573905.html
I totally agree with this. I have always resented being made to pay for package deals where I only watch a few channels in a given package, and am paying for upwards of a dozen or more channels I don"t watch. I"d much rather have a customizable package deal where I"m offered any dozen channels I"ll actually watch. That way I can pick a package deal based on how many channels I watch, instead of on which packages I order. It"s like going to a grocery store to buy a pound of butter, and having to buy twenty other items, of the store"s chosing, in order to get it. So, instead of just the pound of butter I want, I have to buy and deal with a dozen eggs, five pounds of ham, a gallon of milk and twenty pounds of cat food, just because that"s the package deal. I do not believe anyone should have to pay for items or serviced they don"t need, can"t use, and don"t want, just to get the few items they do want. This law suit has been a long time coming. And I"m glad it"s finally here. I am praying for a positive outcome on this one. I"d love to be able to put together my own package of TV programs. I wouldn"t need the "favorites" button on the controller then, because all the channels in my custom package would be my favorites.
As for the contention: "The cable TV industry has argued that such an a la carte system would lead to higher prices, less programming diversity and fewer channels in part because advertising revenue would fall. Such a system also would require more customer service representatives and raise the costs of billing and marketing, the industry has said."
First off, it I would not mind paying a little more as I would be getting what I pay for, instead of a bunch of channels that are useless to me.
Secondly, it would not take any more than simple programming to get thier systems to be selective in the channels provided to each customer. And it would be a one-time fee to have a competent programmer to write the software.
Thirdly, advertisers could not lose revenue from ads that people are not watching anyways. Current ads on any given channel are only seen by those who are actually watching them; and that would not change. People will still be exposed to the ads on the channels they watch now. And, because we could watch all the channels we want, not just the ones that happen to be in the 'package' we can afford, the ads would, in fact, get even more exposure than they do now. As to hiring more technicians, that will be more than offset by charging per channel, much as pay per view charges per movie. Pricing could be adjusted such that it would make sufficient cashflow to cover the nominal added expenses involved, and still make it ecconomically viable for all customers. Also, each channel could price it's offerings according to the value it offers the customer. Specialty niche programming that would appeal to a narrower audience could simply be priced a bit higher to compensate.
Finally, diversity would be increased with the new competition for customers wherein all channels would offer a wider range of programming to entice people to add their channel to their lineup. It would also allow for some providers to speciallize in a specific genre for a niche crowd, and simply charge a bit more for the specialized content.
In the long run, it's not a matter of can't; it's a matter of won't.