Sunday, May 25, 2008

Things They Should Invent: trade a channel that is in your cable package for a channel that's not in your cable package

I recently reduced the number of TV channels I get, to get closer to an optimal cost/viewing choices ratio. Just now I noticed that I no longer get BBC Canada. Now BBC Canada isn't important enough to me to pay any more for it, but I wouldn't mind watching it from time to time. However, while looking for BBC Canada, I noticed I get an all-NFL channel, which I am quite certain I am never going to watch. I also get three versions of SportsNet, which I am also never going to watch, and probably some other channels that I'm never going to watch.

What they should do is let you trade the channels you're never going to watch for channels that you might watch. Or if for some reason they'd lose money on doing this, let you trade two channels you're never going to watch for one channel you might watch. I just can't imagine why it would be to anyone's benefit to have me receiving channels I'm not going to watch.

7 comments:

laura k said...

I always say this. Or something just like it.

Why can't we just check off which channels we want? Like, these channels cost $1/month, these cost $2/month (or whatever), and so forth.

Why must the channels be grouped in packages? I usually want one from this package, another from that package. I don't watch 90% of what I pay for.

impudent strumpet said...

Yes, exactly! Pay per channel, or ideally per channel per month (and you can add and remove them easily on the website). If it was per channel per month, I would totally shrug my shoulders and say "Hey, it costs what it costs" and pay whatever it cost. But I can't justify paying six channels' worth of extra just so I can watch one show.

CQ said...

It was done 10 years ago!
Digital broadcasting Look Communications started with a sizable approx. $20 basic level, then $1 per choice starting at pick10, 11, 12... and requested changes in minutes. The only catch being that 50% of all choices needed to be Canadian.
About 3 years ago however, they eliminated that service model for a standardized 3-level service - still with no HD, no extra sports, no 'timeshifting' affiliates, and few added channels. They had been limping along after a bankruptcy and an earlier loss of their twin lines of credit with Bell & then-Telus?. As a company they continue to own a prized wireless spectrum licence.
It's all big business.

impudent strumpet said...

Yeah, I had Look in my previous apartment for that very reason, and was very cranky when they went to packages. But now I'm addicted to timeshifting, so they aren't an option any more.

laura k said...

"But I can't justify paying six channels' worth of extra just so I can watch one show."

Exactly! Should we send this post to Rogers, Cogeco et al?

impudent strumpet said...

I'm not entirely convinced they'd use this information for good, rather than to figure out how to piss us off even more.

laura k said...

Good point. I have a lot to catch up here. You've been prolific and I've been otherwise engaged. Here I go...