I should be able to choose which Uverse channels I pay for

[jaam1314]

Cable TV has gotten really expensive, mostly because of those million dollar licensing contracts with professional sports franchises.  But not all of us watch professional sports, so why should we pay for those channels? Or, any of the other many channels that are of no interest for that matter?  Given today's tough economy Uverse should offer the possibility of paying only for the channels one views - a "pay as you view" scheme.    I'm seriously considering dropping cable TV altogether.  

[skeeterintexas]

---

jaam1314 wrote:

Cable TV has gotten really expensive, mostly because of those million dollar licensing contracts with professional sports franchises.  But not all of us watch professional sports, so why should we pay for those channels? Or, any of the other many channels that are of no interest for that matter?  Given today's tough economy Uverse should offer the possibility of paying only for the channels one views - a "pay as you view" scheme.    I'm seriously considering dropping cable TV altogether.  

---

The cost of what you are suggesting would be cost prohibitive.  NO provider (cable/satellite/Uverse) offers a "pay as you view" option for that very reason.

Do you know how to hide unwanted channels?

[gregzoll_1]

What you are talking about is "Ala Carte", which is actually more expensive, then just accepting a package. Regardless if you watch sports or not, those extras, like tv shop at home channels, actually help to defer the cost, so what ever package you are paying for, is cheaper.

If you can not afford the cost of pay to watch closed circuit tv, such as CATV, etc, then it is possible that it is not in your budget, and you need to reassess your finances. Our household maybe watch 20 channels out of the the 200 channel package, and if we want to watch movies, we flip on the blu-ray to either watch a bD, or netflix.

[kryptonite]

Closed-circuit? I remember not being able to watch international sporting events due to them being on CCTV. Many times, there'd be a $10 or $15 fee PER game.

I digress. By charging me $1-$2 for MTV or Fox Movie Channel, the cost can stay low for those who do watch. If each channel only charged those who do watch, they'd charge much more than $1-$2 per channel. Imagine having to pay $20 per channel, or even $12. Which five channels do you want for about the same cost as the u-200?

[dinglesby]

All providers have a sports package.  Just chose a package that does not include the Sports package which on Uverse is U300 and below.  The only problem I ran into is that I wanted HBO and Cinemax.  And it was cheaper to take the U450 then the U300 and add Cinemax.

[chuckbuck]

I don't know of any TV providers that offer ala carte channels.  While i will admit that they are a lot of channels on the different packages that i dont watch, i am sure that i watch channels that other people are not interested in.  I think that in the long run that an ala carte system would end up costing you more.

[billmich]

just another 1-post complainer...............

[jbdet313]

Once again, I'll let you browse what "a la carte" is all about. Canada has had forms of this type of programming for years now. Let's go to the "Canadian U-verse": BELL FIBE TV.

For those of you not close to the border, the Canadian Dollar is basically equal to the US Dollar, within only a few pennies fluctuation, and has been for about the past 3 years now. So when you look at the prices, think $1 CDN = $1 USD.

Also keep in mind the number of channels available on FIBE vs. what you get with Uverse or other US providers. US programs from SyFy, for example, could be sold to more than one channel. Sports are split between TSN and SportsNet, for the most part. Premium-type movies and originals are usually only run on The Movie Network.

One additional thing about the prices: Those listed are ONLY the TV portion. One of Bell FIBE's service requirements is that for TV service you MUST have a DSL account with them. Those with "cap paranoia", brace yourself. Be sure to total your monthly costs with the appropriate internet speed you want for an accurate monthly TOTAL.

Those wanting "A LA CARTE" -- be sure to notice which channels in the packs are available to be purchased separately, and how much you would be spending just for those, versus what you'd pay if you added those "icky" channels you probably wouldn't watch in that package. It can get a little complicated, and you may end up seeing that you almost HAVE to get certain packages to get one or two of your favorite-types of channels.

Pricing at this link

PDF brochure of the packages and channels you can "a la carte"

[dwinth]

If one goes to a restaurant, and all of the items are a la carte, your cost is going to be a lot more than if  your salad, entree, and sides are included. The same goes for cable, digital, and satellite,

---

Owning a computer and not having the internet is like buying a refrigerator and not stocking it with food.

[gregzoll_1]

Unless you eat off the Appetizer menu at Chili's, and then it is all the same. People that think that they are saving a buck, by buying off the dollar menu at Mickey D's, do not realize, that everyone else is paying for their cheap greasy food. Then again, there are those out there that know that they are ripping everyone else off that is subsidizing their service. In the case of CATV, it is the other way around. Those that want cheap, actually are paying more in the long term.

With Comcast, they are trying Ala-Carte, and it actually costs more than just choosing a packing and watching what you want.

[spd2demun ACE - Master]

Maybe try that with UV, let people pick what they want and pay more, keeps costs down for the rest of us on packages.

[oufanindallas]

---

spd2demun wrote:

Maybe try that with UV, let people pick what they want and pay more, keeps costs down for the rest of us on packages.

---

As long as they leave my price alone.

[spd2demun ACE - Master]

That's what I mean.  The package people will still be paying less per channel, while the pay-per-channel folks can get what they want, but pay more.  It's a win-win! 

[oufanindallas]

---

spd2demun wrote:

That's what I mean.  The package people will still be paying less per channel, while the pay-per-channel folks can get what they want, but pay more.  It's a win-win! 

---

Then I'm all for it.  Of course, the complaints will start coming in about paying more than what they are paying now and they are only getting X amount of channels, and all we can do is sit back and because they didn't believe us.

[spd2demun ACE - Master]

Exactly!   

[skeeterintexas]

---

spd2demun wrote:

Maybe try that with UV, let people pick what they want and pay more, keeps costs down for the rest of us on packages.

---

I'm all for that one!

It's kinda like "Value Meals" at Mickey D's vs. ordering each item separately.

[kryptonite]

I LOVE that idea! If people want to pay $25 per month for 2-3 channels, let them. No shopping channels, but let them have the broadcast ones for minimal, or even free. And if they want those 2-3 channels in HD, it's $35.

[spd2demun ACE - Master]

This could be a real revenue-maker for ATT!  Give people what they want, and probably most won't mind paying for it.

Just DO NOT TOUCH OUR PACKAGE PRICES! 

[jbdet313]

I know how all of you are thinking it would be a great idea to "stick it" to the price complainers by this 2 or 3 channels for $25 a month, but all it would take is a bunch of new complainers (like the Consumerist brigade) to start squawking to some government busybody Gladys Kravitz like Chuck-U Schumer -- in the name of "Consumer Protection" -- and it's 1992 all over again. Question: Have you seen your TV prices in a downward slide since 1992?

The Congress’ passage of the Cable Television Protection and Competition Act of 1992 authorized broadcast stations to demand payment from cable systems that carry them. Nearing the monetary agreement deadline and retransmission effective date in October 6th, 1993,[11] there was an incremental conflict between broadcast stations and cable systems. If cable systems failed to meet certain consensus, it was to be dropped from the station’s lineups. In any case, the only victims were the innocent cable subscribers.[12]

[oufanindallas]

---

jbdet313 wrote:

I know how all of you are thinking it would be a great idea to "stick it" to the price complainers by this 2 or 3 channels for $25 a month, but all it would take is a bunch of new complainers (like the Consumerist brigade) to start squawking to some government busybody Gladys Kravitz like Chuck-U Schumer -- in the name of "Consumer Protection" -- and it's 1992 all over again. Question: Have you seen your TV prices in a downward slide since 1992?

The Congress’ passage of the Cable Television Protection and Competition Act of 1992 authorized broadcast stations to demand payment from cable systems that carry them. Nearing the monetary agreement deadline and retransmission effective date in October 6th, 1993,[11] there was an incremental conflict between broadcast stations and cable systems. If cable systems failed to meet certain consensus, it was to be dropped from the station’s lineups. In any case, the only victims were the innocent cable subscribers.[12]

---

If you give them the choice for ala carte or package and they choose ala carte then they are the fools and complaining should fall on deaf ears and blind eyes as it would be their choice. 

If I go to a Ruth Chris steak house I expect to pay for every thing including the sides as opposed to a Golden Corral where I can eat all I want for one price.

[spd2demun ACE - Master]

I agree, and it should still be an option.  The only way to make people happy and MAYBE see that what they're asking for isn't such a good idea!  Make it a Beta test in some market, like Dallas, who always gets everything first.

[dhascall ACE - Professor]

There are folks, all over TV land, who are doing a "sort of" Ala Carte, right now.  They have either a net enabled TV or a laptop hooked up to an HDTV and are watching shows via the Network websites, Hulu, Netflix and or Amazon.  They are paying for high speed internet and maybe a streaming service or two and watching shows on their time, just as i am with a DVR.  They may also be watching OTA, for live TV. 

That "net connected + OTA" percentage of viewers is bound to be growing.  I could go that route but the WAF would be dicey (WAF = Wifey Acceptance Factor).

[skeeterintexas]

Kudo for the WAF reference.

[spd2demun ACE - Master]

I'm just thinking that this could be a leg-up on the competition, try it as an option, see how it goes.

I have a feeling cost isn't always a factor for some people, they just want to have only the channels they like/watch.

[oufanindallas]

---

spd2demun wrote:

I'm just thinking that this could be a leg-up on the competition, try it as an option, see how it goes.

I have a feeling cost isn't always a factor for some people, they just want to have only the channels they like/watch.

---

I've always gotten the max package with any provider I've had. Do I watch all the channels all the time? No, but it's nice having options.  I've always been amazed at the lack of quality programming though during the day when I'm home sick or off work for some reason.  400 channels and not a darn thing to watch. 

[spd2demun ACE - Master]

That's why there's Netflix.

[oufanindallas]

---

spd2demun wrote:

That's why there's Netflix.

---

Yep.  Streaming through the wife's iPad connected to the big screen.