How about I cut my cable bill down by not being forced to carry all those relgious

I just tune in to one and that is the catholic channel to watch a mass now and then. Why can't they take away the rest of those religious channels I don't watch and give me some other choices or lessen my bill.

the sports section and pay less.

But I end up having to get them AND the religious channels, none of which I watch or want.

I may add them to Fox News and Fox Business to the list of blocked channels in the Parental Controls.

I believe the religious stations pay the cable company to carry them. Religion is big money business.

They are entitled by law to free carriage if they are local over-the-air stations. If its a religious-oriented non-broadcast cable network, such as TBN, or the Jewish Life Channel, or the Gospel Music Channel (among many), they generally charge the cable operator for carriage, although the fee may be nominal or may be simply based on providing ad avails for the cable operator to sell. The model of programmers paying for carriage is not economically viable.

If you have an HD TV, get rabbit ears for local channels (I get about 30 altogether, some HD). You'll still need an internet provider for Roku and through that I have Netflix, Hulu Plus, and a lot of other movie, music and offbeat channels (some free, some paid).

With this, I cut my cable bill down by 2/3rds and I'm not subjected to or pay for religious crap and inane reality shows (which is all there seems to be on cable TV these days). Well worth it!

You won't get the non-local channels, but on the rare occasions when something good is on them (and their quality has deteriorated to a disgusting degree--did you know that A&E, now a true crime and "reality" channel, was once touted as and pretty much functioned as a commercial alternative to PBS, with arts documentaries and performances and foreign-made dramas?), the content is on Hulu Plus, iTunes, or Netflix pretty quickly.

I have a Roku in addition to basic-basic cable, which gives me two PBS services and MHz Worldview on public access--and MHz Worldview has recently added a line-up of mysteries and movies from Europe at 9PM EST seven nights a week.

On my Roku, I can access my Netflix and Hulu Plus Instant queues (206 items in my Netflix queue, many of the Criterion Collection movies and other movies in my Hulu Plus queue). I could access Amazon Prime, too, but everything I want to see is already on Netflix or Hulu. In addition, there are several channels that show old movies and TV shows that are in public domain, foreign language channels, worldwide news, Democracy Now, Al Jazeera, channels devoted to hobbies, etc. at no additional cost. You can even get fundamentalist or right-wing channels, but not unless you specifically choose to put them in your line-up.

The Roku gives me more content than I have time to watch, and I chose all of it.

If the cable companies won't give us a la carte cable, by gum, we can make up our own. There was a posting about getting rid of cable on PBS's Facebook page, and it got 486 responses from people who had "cut the cord." Most cited the annoyance of paying for channels they never watched and would never watch.

By refusing to offer a la carte cable, the cable companies have cut their own throats.

My nephew swears allegiance to Netflics.

I remember when Bravo had high art such as opera, ballet and symphonic music. When the History Channel had real history not Hillbilly Hand Fishing and UFO shows, when Discovery had science and technology, when the Biography had great stuff about artists and historical figures instead of child actors gone bad.

The debasing of our culture continues.

That's how far IT has fallen.

especially for its news programming. Those of us who can't stand the usual TV fare would watch Current. Same for MSNBC.

I can get everything I watch on the net + streaming from Netflix for a grand total of $7 a month plus my net connection which I pay anyway.

/ corrected from Comcast to Dish

I'm so happy I did; so much content through Roku and I get to pick and choose, with limited or no commercials.

and I can't figure out how to get that for her. Netflix takes care of me just fine for everything I can't get on the net, which isn't much but movies and old brit/sitcoms I like.

Cable companies are supposed to offer a bare-bones plan like that, but they don't tell you about it unless you ask.

I do, I get lots. This includes 12 PBS channels, which is great.

Netflix for streaming movies, missed frontlines/american experience and Hulu for Daily show, Colbert and some TV.

Don't fell like I am missing a thing.

We can't afford cable, and we don't watch much anyway. We watch a movie in the evening several times a week -- no more than that although once or twice a year we may watch a movie in the afternoon.

Cable TV is such a waste of time.

.... of regulation to force "a la carte" cable and perhaps satellite programming service. This would allow the subscriber to choose and pay for EXACTLY the channels s/he wants to watch.

The "free market" bozos can't really argue against this, it is the ESSENCE of free markets. The providers can whine bu they have no real argument, it would be technically easy to implement. And MOST IMPORTANTLY, we can all stop subsidizing JUNK PROGRAMMING that adds no value to our lives, religious and otherwise.

not just the ones you don't like. Channels are bundled because they don't make enough money on their own to pay for themselves. It would most likely be the end of all channels which are somewhat educational as opposed to those that focus on gossip and celebrity. Bravo would survive, NatGeo, Animal Planet, History, BBCA and the like would be gone.Be careful what you wish for.

They could continue to broadcast over the wires just as they do now without a mafia cartel in the middle dictating who does or does not get through.

In the meantime,people are going to select a cable package based on how many channels are offered.

They don't have any inherent right to remain on those wires. Currently, they are paid by the cable (or satellite) companies based on the number of eyeballs that they reach. If they're sold a la carte, the audience that they reach will get smaller and the revenues they get from cable operators will decline; that will make it harder for them to purchase attractve programming and their advertising revenues and audience reach will decline further. They'll have to raise their "a la carte" price, but as the price goes up, the audience will shrink further. Some may survive, but a bunch of them won't.

...and we can't be the only ones.

But its highest rated show (Dr Who) only attracts around 1 million viewers. Currently, the cable company pays for BBC America based on the 74 million homes that can receive it. If the potential audience drops to a million or two, BBC America is going to still want the same amount of money it was getting when it was in 74 million homes, but the cable operator isn't going to be able to spread the cost among 74 million homes -- the entire cost will be borne by the million or so folks that choose to get and pay for it. So be prepared to pay a lot more. (And add to that cost the increased cost that the cable operator will face in tracking the billing of the channel on an a la carte basis).

and if the show is relatively old, you can get it from Amazon UK for surprisingly low prices. For example, Amazon UK sells the complete Inspector Morse for about $80, which is what you pay for a set of four episodes here in the States. The only disadvantage is that you have to find a region-free player or hack your own, but region-free players are available online for about $20 more than a comparable regular player.

The prices you are citing are for programming that already has had most of its cost offset through cable subscription fees and advertising.

The BBC mothership has affiliate channels all over the world (most of which have better programming than the endless reruns of Top Gear and Star Trek the Next Generation on BBCA).

BBCAmerica is pretty lame, a lot of the time & CNN is unwatchable

Most of us who view shows on the internet watch the ads for the shows and on top of that pay for high-speed internet. We pay less than for cable, but we still pay for the service.

And when you watch a TV show on the internet, you are far more likely to see the ad. When I used to watch TV, I got up and did things during the ads. And a lot of people record the shows so that they can fast forward past the ads. Advertisers get better exposure when they pay for internet programming.

That is far better than subscribing to who-knows-what-stupid programming on cable for an exorbitant monthly subscription fee.

Life is good.

influence them.

Its a tough case to win. For starters, cable operators are required by law to carry all of the broadcast signals on the entry level tier that every customer must receive before getting anything else. Since its required by law, a suit challenging it as an anticompetitive act is not going to get very far. As for the bundling of other services as part of a "package," there are efficiencies in that model which would cut against a successful antitrust claim, plus there are laws that prevent cable operators from "discriminating" against channels that they don't own -- so, for instance, the FCC recently ruled that Comcast can't carry the Tennis Channel on a separate "sports tier" if they carry NBCSports and/or the Golf Channel (both of which Comcast owns) on a more widely subscribed to tier.

instead of just looking at the price. Most of the ads I see are based on price and "gee, look how many channels you get!"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1128463

paying for all those those bloodsuckers on our TV.

I used to be able to hear the soothing tones of Fr. Mitch Pacwa late at night - lately, not so much.

We'd only need like 15 channels at that point, really.

I'm one that's long favored Ala Carte cable but there's no way Comcrap or any cable company will do it. Some of the religious channels pay to be on your system...quick, easy money for the cable company and the channel is usually brokered among many preachers who get cheap "airtime". The other channels are "must carry"...either over-the-air or low power channels in your community that are owned by religious groups that your local cable "provider" must give them a channel...Trinity Broadcasting and Daystar are best known for going this route.

Overall "religious" broadcasting is a scam...a big money making operation that profits from the non-commercial portions of the public airwaves...

DirecTV and Dish charge some programmers for transponder space. But most cable companies are already struggling to find space for all of the channels that they want to carry (particularly HD channels) and are not interested in "leasing" channel space to programmers. There are rules that require capacity to be made available for lease on cable systems, but generally speaking the concept of leased access has been a bust.

Why don't they have their own satellite service? There's more to life people...

Personally, I watch sports and don't watch religious programming. But to each his or her own.

Look up "Sky Angel" - I am not making this up.

It originally was a satellite service, but it couldn't make a go of it paying for transponder space. So it abandoned the satellite model and is now an Internet-based video provider. It doesn't want to limit itself to religious programming anymore either. It offers one package that is pretty much all religious networks and a separate "family" package that includes a lot of sports and other traditional cable network programming. It filed a complaint with the FCC a couple of years ago alleging that Discovery Networks had violated the law by refusing to license its programming for distribution by SkyAngel. The FCC issued a preliminary ruling that an Internet based provider doesn't have the same rights (or the same obligations) as a cable system or satellite carrier and thus Discovery did not have to agree to be distributed by SkyAngel.

I have Netflix and Hulu, and a lot of free content from ALL OVER the web, especially international sites (legal).

I have an aunt in Northern Ireland who I get to buy an extra BBC license on my behalf, then I stream BBC programming via a proxy server.

Three years and haven't missed a thing.

I am considering a Roku box.

It doesn't bother me. I just skip over them.

Why do we have to watch Fox News?

I don't subscribe to cable at all because of the fact that I have to pay a huge monthly sum for so many channels and get junk like Fox News and Pat Robertson but don't get, say, HBO.

Each person should be able to put together his or her own package and pay an appropriate subscription fee. TV is not a newspaper. You can only watch one channel at a time even if you are subscribed to 140 of them.

Fox News is included in your package. No one makes you watch it. No one prevents you from using the blocking features that are common on virtually all televisions made for the past 10 -15 years and on cable boxes to avoid even "surfing" past Fox News.

You no more have to "watch" Fox News than you have to "read" George Will if your newspaper happens to run his column. Yet, I don't see you or anyone else demanding that they be given the opportunity to purchase a copy of the newspaper (or view a version online) that doesn't include George Will's column.

As for your assertion that TV is not a newspaper, that's true. Its also not a refrigerator or a cloud or hatbox. But the fact is that just as one watches only one channel at a time (a point that further rebuts your claim that having Fox News on your package makes you watch it) you also only read one story or column at a time. And if you want to turn the page without reading a story you can. Just as you can change the channel without watching.

I object to. I realize that the amount I would pay would be very small. But Fox News is so bad that I refuse all cable because Fox News is in the cheap lineup that you cannot avoid.

Besides, I cannot afford cable that includes the channels I would watch. And I don't want the cable roster with the cheap channels.

I also object to having to have religious programming channeled into my home. Most of it is really objectionably stupid and dishonest.

Not just your little pre-digested list?

Diversity: it's what's for dinner...

No worries...

Free air plus Roku equals mega savings.