Another thing to keep in mind is that there are certain fixed cost associated with keeping and maintaining accounts. Customer service, billing, and whatnot don't change much from one account to the next. Add to that the cost of having to send or hold back a signal for each channel rather than package of channels, in all honesty I don't think the prices would go down much.

I compare it to a coke fountain at a fast food restaurant. People who refill their cup once pay the same as people that refill it ten times. That's not particularly fair, but if a law were passed requiring amount of drink consumed to be incorporated in the price, I have my doubts that the price for the one-cup people would go down considerably, if at all.

You know, I figured the cable companies would be making that argument, but they're not...at least not thus far. They already have to track subscription packages for individual customers, as well as tracking individual subscriptions to so-called premium channels (HBO, etc.) and pay-per-view programmming, so the capability is present in their systems. I've no doubt that there would be some upfront conversion costs to extend the system capabilities, but it should be only a few cents per customer and not a recurring fee.

But, I'm basing all of that on a logical approach. In reality, you're probably right in that the cable providers will attempt to hang onto their previous revenue base. To the extent they do so without justification, that's where the FCC should step in and call their hand.

Or you could just stop watching TV.

Who would I make fun of then?

There's a pretty big difference in my mind between handling select packages and handling each channel individually. A few weeks spent answering phones for DirecTV drilled this in to my head (prior to that I was in favor of a la carte). If they really could make money incrementally, DirecTV could probably charge a couple additional dollars for each of the Total Choice Plus package and make more money than they do bundling them (which is $3-4 more for 30 or so additional channels), but they choose not to because it's so much easier and cheaper to handle them as packages for various reasons.

It's not just having 30 lines on every bill instead of 5, it's call center handling and network negotiations and billing complaints. The PPV's and HBO make money because they're so expensive. People willing to pay that much for channels will find themselves paying as much for 10 or 15 a la carte channels as they currently pay for the 65 or so they get.

I go back to the coke example because what's important to these places isn't how much coke you drink, but that you're buying their coke. That's why they're willing to give you so much for such a standard price. The cable companies and satellite are giving people so many channels right now because that's how to get their business when you really can't lower prices too much.

I can't help but think people are going in to this thinking that if they can get 65 channels for $40 they will get 30 channels for $20. Instead, the model is more along the lines of "buy 15 channels, get 50 free" (for satellite, less for cable).

Looking above, some of my comments and views on the matter may be colored by my experience with satellite over cable. Such an a la carte plan may be more feasible with cable. Can't say for sure.

One alternative that I think I might be more supportive of: Allowing customers to pick *which* channels they get rather than how many. That way families can forego FX in favor of the Biography Channel or vice-versa. While I think that there would be more cost involved, I think it might be a fair compromise.

Mulling over a post...

You make some good arguments and you obviously have more experience than me to support them. I'll be interested in reading your post (if you don't mind pinging me to let me know when it's up...plus others may want to follow the link).

It's posted.

The ability to control inflow may be an area where my satellite experience colors my perspective. DirecTV offers many ways to keep the bad stuff out. You can block channels and even individual shows through their "locks and limits" features. I read every now and again that cable claims to be able to do the same, but I have no first-hand experience of that and the cable industry is not exactly renowned for its honesty and transparency.

Alex, there's a couple of issues at work here. First, there's the thought that the customer should not have to do something to prevent objectionable content from being accessible in his or her home. Even if that "something" is really simple (which it rarely is) that's an "opt out" approach that has been mostly deemed unacceptable everywhere else.

The second related issue is a bit fuzzier, but it's the thought that I don't want to support networks that create programs that are offensive to me. If, for example, MTV comes as a part of my cable package and I don't like MTV so I block it...a part of my subscription fee will still go to MTV. In theory, the a la carte approach eliminates that indirect support.

I actually understand the second concept moreso than the first. Another reason that I may not be opposed to picking which channels rather than how many. I think that ultimately all the money will go into the same pot regardless, but I can definitely sympathize with the principals at stake.

As far as the first goes, the way to keep out objectionable material in cable is not to get cable. From my perspective, once you buy something you are inherently responsible for customizing it to your liking. I'm okay with the sat boxes starting out with Lock & Limit set to a G-rated playground, but that's not exactly what I'm seeing discussed.

Beyond that, with satellite, if you ask the installer what to do, they can guide you through that until you leave.

I'm quite in favor giving parents more control when it comes to supervising household entertainment. That's why I'm much more conservative about what should be on broadcast television than I am about what I personally watch. I also strongly support the right of companies to clean-up-and-resell movies (several companies that do so are based a couple hours away in Utah).

But at some point, ownership has to be taken. Lock & Limits takes a five minute call to DirecTV and they'll be glad to walk you through it. I just don't agree that that's insufficient and that parents should have an even easier go of it.

From my perspective, once you buy something you are inherently responsible for customizing it to your liking.

But, Alex, that's precisely my argument, however inexpertly I'm presenting it. The cable companies are forcing some (many?) customers to buy something they don't want -- bundled cable channels that carry offensive material. Why, then, should those customers have to be responsible for ensuring that no one in their household is exposed to that content, when they didn't have a choice to reject it in the first place?

It would be different if the customers chose the makeup of their bundle, and then decided they didn't like some of the material contained therein. At that point, I agree it's the customer's problem to solve.

Interesting discussion...

This is where I am on uneven ground because I don't know how it can be done on cable. My experience with satellite, however, is that it's quite easy and possible to block stuff without having to reallign how services are delivered. I'm very much in favor of parents having those kinds of tools at their disposal.

Telling cable companies that they need to come up with ways to do that (or better ways, if they have some now - my local cable company makes no mention of it) strikes me as quite sensible. I like allowing for things that give parents supervisory tools, I'm just not on board with the notion of changing everything from the bottom up when there are more direct ways of doing it.

The fact that they're focusing on a la carte instead of other tools suggests to me that either parents have all the tools they need (ie cable already has a mechanism in place like satellite does) or, more likely, it's mostly about the economics of it that I addressed in my post.

Anyway, politics of the situation aside, parents that are really concerned about it ought to look in to satellite.