Glenn Beck has said that the future of cable television will be a la carte, where the consumer subscribes only to channels they want to watch instead of a bundle with hundreds of unwanted shows. New reports indicate Intel has been working on a set-top box that would do just that.
Kelly Clay for Forbes wrote such a device would “kill the cable industry as we know it.” Here’s more from Forbes’ report on the technology:
This set-top box, said by industry insiders to be available to a limited beta of customers in March, will offer cable channels delivered “over the top” to televisions anywhere there is an Internet connection regardless of provider. (Microsoft Mediaroom, for example, requires AT&T’s service, and Xbox has limited offerings for Comcast and FiOS customers). For the first time, consumers will be able to subscribe to content per channel, unlike bundled cable services, and you may also be able to subscribe per show as well. Intel’s set-top box will also have access to Intel’s already existing app marketplace for apps, casual games, and video on demand. Leveraging the speed of current broadband, and the vast shared resources of the cloud, Intel plans to give customers the ability to use “Cloud DVR”, a feature intended to allow users to watch any past TV show at any time, without the need to record it ahead of time, pause live tv, and rewind shows in progress.
Janko Roettgers for GigaOm wrote that the project is still top-secret but he’s learned from several sources that it’s being called “Intel Media.” Roettgers described the project as being “run like a startup in stealth mode.”
The box itself might sound similar to other products on the market, like Roku and Apple TV, but Roettgers wrote Intel might have an advantage over its competition by delivering services to more than just TVs. Tablets, PCs and other devices with a Wi-Fi connection could be included.
Clay for Forbes also stated that Intel’s inclusion of Hollywood in the project might give it an edge as well.
“As Intel has approached Hollywood with much more dedication (and dollars), this is likely the single reason that Intel, more than any company before it, has the potential to really bring to consumers the things we have never seen in online content before, such as live sports, release schedules that match broadcast, and first episode through current libraries for video on demand,” Clay wrote.
In terms of the unbundling of cable channels moving forward, Roettgers said he’s skeptical of that happening. Jeff Bercovici for Forbes spoke with Dish CEO Joseph Clayton in 2012 and wrote that straight up a la carte packages are not quite where the company is headed yet:
“I don’t think that’s practical,” [Clayton told Forbes.] “I think the consumers would like to see that. We could do it from a technical standpoint. There are some limitations. But the programmers are never going to do that. They’re going to bundle. Look at AMC. AMC has some good shows, original programming. But they force us to take We and IFC and Sundance, which nobody wants to watch. So I don’t think that’s about consumer choice. That’s a jam job.”
[...]
“I think we’re going to get to a point at some place in time where we have pushed to consumer to two, three hundred dollars a month for programming. They’re not going to accept that, nor can they afford it. Then the industry will say “Oh my gosh,” and we’ll have to pull back and look at the model. When that is, I do not know.”
These content agreements with media companies is setting back Intel’s project, the Wall Street Journal reported.
Still, as Bercovici pointed out, at an Oct. 2 debate about customer control of television choices Beck said ultimately “the days of the network dictating how you watch it, when you watch it, what you watch and exactly what order you watch it in are over.”
It was rumored that Intel would reveal details about the project and its box at the upcoming Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, but Clay reported a spokesperson saying that while it will be holding a press event, discussion of this product specifically would not be included.
(H/T: Business Insider)





















































































































Comments (138)
Brainmuffin
Jan. 2, 2013 at 11:56amHaven’t had cable or satellite for years. Just drop it all.
Report this comment
Americanius
Jan. 2, 2013 at 12:27pmRight there with you. Cut the cord years ago and only have OTA now. Don’t miss it. Love it when cable marketer calls trying to sell their cable TV and I tell them I have better use for my money than digital garbage.
Report this comment
Robert
Jan. 2, 2013 at 1:46pmI wish I could sometimes but the cost diff between phone, cable, and inet, and just phone, & inet are to close. Bundling of services makes them cheaper but kinda locks you into having all 3 services.
Thanks
Robert
Report this comment
greywolfrs
Jan. 2, 2013 at 3:00pmWell, I can’t watch the only thing I watch if I don’t, so that would not work. I only watch the 2012 Stanley Cup Champions Los Angeles Kings. This would actually be great for me, I would only ever pay for ONE channel…
Report this comment
Twisted Mind
Jan. 2, 2013 at 4:03pmOFF TOPIC but is it just me or is Glenn’s radio show going down the drain since he got on tv again. I listen to him about everyday but it seems to me the quality of info is not what it used to be, mostly just junk.
Report this comment
DeniseJ
Jan. 2, 2013 at 4:18pmAlready did, couple of years ago. I see the ala carte as the only option for a lot of us with little money, conservative tastes and beliefs, and no tolerance for cable “shovelware” that’s been foisted on us since the start of cable back in the 80s.
Report this comment
kadster01
Jan. 2, 2013 at 4:22pmBeen wishing for a long time that cable companies would do this…or at least that monkeys would fly outta my ****. It still remains to be seen if either will really happen. In the meantime, I stick to OTA. I don’t watch enough TV to justify paying for all the crap they pump into people’s homes anyway.
Report this comment
The_Cabrito_Goat
Jan. 2, 2013 at 4:54pmA la carté means this: the death of MTV, MSNBC and a restoration of true American culture.
Report this comment
Cause4Liberty
Jan. 2, 2013 at 5:31pmPass the loot!
Report this comment
1911a1
Jan. 2, 2013 at 5:55pmRight on , I dont even own a freakin TV !!! We threw the Damn Smut and propaganda box out years Ago !
Report this comment
desertspeaks
Jan. 2, 2013 at 8:07pmWell I for one and sick and tired of SUBSIDIZING spanish channels that I cannot watch. Why am I paying for something that is less than useless to me!?!? Why aren’t spanish channels subtitled in ENGLISH!?!? There is an sap button for spanish speakers to watch shows transmitted in english and they are subtitled in SPANISH!!!
Report this comment
sparkyrules
Jan. 2, 2013 at 9:15pmYou know who needs to put his heart where his mouth is and offer ala carte programming to basic Blaze TV members.Many of us can’t afford nor want the Plus.
Report this comment
SUNTZU
Jan. 2, 2013 at 11:40pmThe whole point of garbage on cable is that
our youth cant tell
Larry,Joe and mo. from Nancy,Joe and Obo.
Report this comment
jcldwl
Jan. 3, 2013 at 7:25amTo set the record straight a story about this was linked on Drudge yesterday before Glenn ever mentioned it. So he was not being prophetic. He read it or heard someone mention the story before he ever mentioned it himself. Nice try on giving him credit blaze but it won’t work. I read the article myself yesterday morning before Glenn was on the air.
Report this comment
jcldwl
Jan. 3, 2013 at 7:28amDropped direct TV after Glenn left fox. There is nothing on TV that is worth paying to watch. And the extra money has helped pay down the debt in my household. It’s called cutting spending on trivial useless things.
Report this comment
kchercmech
Jan. 10, 2013 at 6:31amI turned off TV service in 2007 and have not looked back. I will however be following this story further as this has been a dream of mine since I lived with my mom in her house as a kid in the 80′s and 90′s. I never could understand why the consumer could not choose what he wanted to watch instead of being force fed shows that enforce the destruction of society – such as every reality TV show I can think of. Yes, if I had to blame just one thing for my walk from TV in ’07, it would have to be reality TV.
Report this comment
searcher619
Jan. 2, 2013 at 11:54amThis will not happen as long as the content providers force cable companies to bundle. This may be news to many here but the cable company doesn’t own those channels you are paying for. They sign contracts with the channel owners to allow them to offer them to you. They can’t decide to break up those bundles w/o the OK of the channel owners and believe me they don’t want to. I’ve worked for 2 different cable TV companies and this is how it works.
Report this comment
ranepowel
Jan. 2, 2013 at 12:27pmHBO is already planning on offering their channel al la cart to people who want to use it, mainly due to the fact that they have some of the most highly pirated shows, including the number one pirated show, Game of Thrones.
HBO hasn’t announced a price plan for their service yet, but if it’s successful I can’t imagine any other station wanting to be far behind.
Personally, I’d rather pay per show rather than per channel, as long as the price came in at under $50 a month, which is what most people say is the maximum they are comfortable spending on non-bundled cable/satellite service.
Report this comment
searcher619
Jan. 2, 2013 at 1:33pmHow many other Time Warner channels will be broken free from the bundles? I’m betting not many. I dumped cable TV YEARS ago after getting disgusted by yet another rate increase w/o any added value. I only pay for internet service now and watch the few shows I like by other means. I buy the BluRay/DVD sets of the shows I like. That is how I support the programming I like.
Report this comment
VanceUppercut
Jan. 2, 2013 at 11:08pm@searcher619
Unfortunately, I think you’re right. I would love to get all the channels I like without having to subscribe to the freakin’ Home Gardening channel.
Report this comment
dangerbase
Jan. 2, 2013 at 11:48amgoto hulu dot com
Report this comment
JimMadsen
Jan. 2, 2013 at 1:16pmYeah but hulu does not have (or at least did not when I looked at it) the shows I watch on Discovery, History or those my wife watches on Food Network. Honestly, the only thing holding me back from just going OTA and roku is sports. ESPN may say that you can watch their broadcast game anytime anywhere over espn3, but it is blacked out from live on the east coast.
Report this comment
watashbuddyfriend
Jan. 2, 2013 at 9:11pmTried hulu with Rokut! NO! NO! NO!
Report this comment
theninthplanet
Jan. 2, 2013 at 11:38amIntel has been trying to get into the cable industry for years. They’re trying to find more uses for their atom processors.
The market is basically a monopoly. Motorola Mobility (now owned by Google), Cisco, Technicolor and others all produce OEM devices for cable providers. Supposedly you should be allowed to go buy a cable box at a retail store and the cable company needs to provide you with a CableCARD decryption device, but no one sells cable boxes to the consumer anymore.
Intel might be making waves with this, but I doubt that we’ll see any of their products for a long time.
Report this comment
searcher619
Jan. 2, 2013 at 11:55amThe device means nothing s long as the companies which own those channels demand their channels be bundled.
Report this comment
CobraBill
Jan. 4, 2013 at 3:22amCeton makes a internal and external that works with your computer.
It lets you record up to four channels at once. Watch one ,record three and so on.
Works with a cable-M card. You can stream over a network to other computers on the network.
Works with all cable and fios providers, and rent the card for 3.99 a month.
I love mine.
Report this comment
wingedwolf
Jan. 2, 2013 at 11:29amLoving this!
Report this comment
FoxholeAtheist
Jan. 2, 2013 at 1:41pmEveryone’s been saying this. Glenn is no prophet.
Report this comment
DAS_MOOCH
Jan. 2, 2013 at 4:53pmCORNHOLEATHIEST, may the Lord have mercy on your pathetic soul…..
Report this comment
Chuck Stein
Jan. 2, 2013 at 6:03pmHole: “Everyone”
LOL
Report this comment
GuruMeditation
Jan. 2, 2013 at 6:29pm@Chuck Stein: “Everyone”, except God I guess.
Report this comment
beesknow
Jan. 2, 2013 at 11:25amA LA Carte would be nice but impractical.. you will end up paying more for each channel with fewer channels available overall… Smaller networks that are wanted by fewer people will not be able to sustain costs and go out of business, even though they may have great programming. You will get larger corporations owning more of the earning stations then still increasing costs year after year. Example you will pay $50. 00 a month for ESPN, $10.00 a month for ESPN2 and each individual ESPN Channel. A channel like TLC may charge $5.00 a month but another channel that people watch but don’t want to pay an extra $2.00 a month for cannot keep up and goes out of business, now you no longer have that selection. That would be the result of half the stations out there.
Report this comment
mrteachersir
Jan. 2, 2013 at 12:31pmI disagree. A la carte would create a more free-market approach, thus providing the consumer with more choices. The situation you speak of is actually what we want: those channels that for whatever reason can’t efficiently provide appealing programming will be culled. If the program is any good, it will be picked up by a channel that can efficiently offer it.
Report this comment
MontyRay
Jan. 2, 2013 at 12:55pmI understand what you are saying, but I think you are forgetting that the programmer does not benefit by charging too much for their programming. They are motivated by the market to price their goods at maximum price/volume ratio to get the most money they can. So, while they might try to charge more at first, the market will drive pricing down. Hulu, iTunes, and others have already shown this. Because of their footprint in the market, this will all boil down to pay-per-view on series or individual shows backed by a subscription for syndicated content that profits more in that model vs. pay per view. (i.e., the crap we get on Netflix). Once all content has followed this model, there will also be a choice to go ad free or with ads–ad free being much more expensive.
This will happen. DVR is driving this already. Models like Hulu that insert forced advertising into their shows are more attractive to advertisers. Advertisers are overpaying now for commercial air time and they know it–all due to the fact that most of us DVR and fast forward right through their paid air time. As a result, program owners are being pushed to either drop their price or come up with a delivery method that gives the advertiser more exposure. A La Carte with ad discounted purchase availability offers that—AND it offers a more trackable metric for advertising that gives the advertiser a real view of their market exposure and saturation…its all a guess in today’s environment.
Report this comment
searcher619
Jan. 2, 2013 at 1:40pmI don’t think that would be the case. The only prices that would rise are those channels with very low numbers of viewers. The content owners would make more money if they made the prices low enough to make it seem reasonable to a larger number of households. It’s like in the sale of many popular items. More money is made by bulk sales than by individual sales.
Report this comment
kaydeebeau
Jan. 2, 2013 at 1:45pmSo you think you woudl pay more than the $100 plus you are currently paying for cable / sat programming?
I only watch a few channels as I think most viewers do – yet I still have to endure endless commercials and support deviant channels like LOGO, Current, MSNBC and the rest of the alphabet channels
I would be willing to pay a bit more to get only the channels that reflect my values (GMC, EWTN, Daystar, TBN, CTN, Hallmark, TCM and a few others) let the marjet work – lets see just how “charitable” the deviant leftists are
Report this comment
Crazycatlady
Jan. 2, 2013 at 3:08pmI admit to watching way too much TV, probably only 25 or less of the 250+ stations on my Direct TV package. If it could be made affordable, I’d want to select those I use. Current TV and MSNBC would quickly die off! I want to get The Blaze on my package. Will it ever be offered on Direct TV? I hated Dish TV my mom had, quickly had it changed to Direct when she passed. Now if I could only have the power to prevent erectile dysfunction medication commercials constantly in my face, I’d be willing to PAY to prevent their airing.
Report this comment
donkeykong
Jan. 2, 2013 at 3:57pmFor me, this is long-awaited – will have to see how
much is charged per-channel. After 20+ years of having
my cable or Satellite bills inflated by all the “leech”
channels I never wanted, I’m hoping this becomes
reality. Dish advertises “200 channels”….not mentioning
that 140 of them are absolute Cr@p. I’ve done without
either cable OR satellite for a while now – there are
other things to do. As for Nexflix, Hulu, etc – neither
one has an all-encompassing selection. If Intel comes
thru with the “any past tv show at any time”, I will be
very interested. Given Intels performance over the
past 40 years, if anyone can do it, they can. The CPU
you are using to read this is probably Intel as well.
The state of the computer industry would not be where
it is if it had not been for Intel……..
Report this comment
mindstruct
Jan. 2, 2013 at 5:52pmI swear Walmart or some other large company tried to do this about ten years ago. It was a huge flop because as beesknow said you had to pay for each individual channel that you wanted. I believe that each channel was about $2-$5, it only lasted about six months.
Report this comment
beesknow
Jan. 2, 2013 at 6:34pmI agree good shows may get picked up by another network, but many others will die and disappear. Not unlike shows do today. I also know cable is less concerned about video services. The driving market for Cable is internet and phone, video is third. Also residential service is less important than business customers. The future is in wireless services, because of Hulu and Netflix more people are watching over PC, tablet and phones. Cable will move to high speed wifi, even to many rural locations.
Report this comment
CulperGang
Jan. 2, 2013 at 7:03pmWhen one CEO makes 1Mill plus they can lower the prices on a la carte, don’t kid yourself. BUT this is ALL moot. Here is Obama and the Hills plan for the US by 2015. Trust me nobody is going to be watching TV. The majority of the wrold population/US is going to dead if this ghoul has his way.
here is the plan from an insider.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/52005 now you know why the gov., bought bullets my the millions stored at LOCAL PD stations………
Report this comment
Epic Fail
Jan. 2, 2013 at 11:21amGoodbye CNN, MSNBC, Current TV. etc They will go the way of Air America!
Report this comment
CatB
Jan. 2, 2013 at 11:51amAgree .. I can count on one hand the channels I would subscribe to. None of those you mentioned along with alphabet network stations.
Report this comment
Epic Fail
Jan. 2, 2013 at 11:20amI would no longer have that racist channel BET coming into my home!
Report this comment
Salamander
Jan. 2, 2013 at 11:18amNow, if we could just get the internet out of the hands of the cable companies! It’s obscene what we pay on a monthly basis for internet, cable TV and phone! If the electric power companies came into the fray with bare-bones internet access (no email, no service desk, just bare-bones internet at several data-rates and data-densities), the price would drop to maybe $10 to $30 a month! Instead of Obamaphones for the poor, why not go back to the POTS model (a black, rotary-dial, local service only phone for $5/month when basic service cost $12/month)? Anybody could subscribe–you didn’t have to be black or hispanic or o-my-gosh even ‘whites’ could subscribe! And, NOBODY got a free ride or a ride for a vote! Government HAS to get out of the ‘goods and services’ business! The ONLY service government should be selling is good government–NOT food, phones, healthcare, housing, etc. And, every effort out to be made all the time (a STANDING ORDER) to attempt to privatize anything that the government presently does–like the postal service! I’d go to 3-day a week mail delivery in a heartbeat, so long as billers increased their grace period by 4-6 days (a round trip). And if I wanted better service than that, I’d expect to pay for it. (5 or six day deliveries or twice a day deliveries, or Sunday deliveries) And, IF I thought I could trust it, I’d PAY for an email service that assured my privacy (no scanning) and was independent of my internet access provider.
Report this comment
forthepeople
Jan. 2, 2013 at 11:27amAmen on the cable companies pricing , cell phone is next . Anyway I have know for years being in the IEEE Industry that pay per minute Tv was coming , just like the way long distance was …. a base rate , box , provider and literally fractions of pennies per minute being billed only when & what one watches . Local channels will probably still give there time away ( standard cable ) and all over that will have time changed billing .
Report this comment
DeniseJ
Jan. 2, 2013 at 4:22pmGet a “Magic Jack” to replace the landline (unless your electricity fails on a regular basis)
Report this comment
jessieH
Jan. 2, 2013 at 11:18amGood news for us, bad news for liberal, socialist tv channels. This could be the complete demise of MSNBC.
Report this comment
donkeykong
Jan. 2, 2013 at 4:44pmI will pray for that before I go to bed tonight….
Report this comment
asybot12
Jan. 3, 2013 at 12:59amWhat’s MSNBC?
Report this comment
Epic Fail
Jan. 2, 2013 at 11:17amYah!! No more BET!
Report this comment
J3player
Jan. 2, 2013 at 11:15amNow I can finally get the three to four channels worth watching on cable.
Report this comment
ferggie
Jan. 2, 2013 at 11:08amThat would be one way to get rid of all the worthless POS liberal stations. Noboby subscribes to them they will fade away. What a great thought!
Report this comment
Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
Jan. 2, 2013 at 11:18amWhich is one reason Obama and the Fed’s will never allow it to happen, or if it does, not for long.
Report this comment
Lachoneous
Jan. 2, 2013 at 11:59amI’m with you, Snow. To the libs, cable is “too big to fail.” It is the Democrat election engine, forcing all their liberal ideas into our homes and down our throats. They will try to control it or destroy it. Look for legislation on this one!
Report this comment
searcher619
Jan. 2, 2013 at 1:44pmCable wouldn’t fail. Only those content providers which are creating content the viewing public doesn’t find any value in would fail. they’d be forced to either pull their heads out of their arses and create content than the viewers want to see or go out of business.
Report this comment
LukeAppling
Jan. 2, 2013 at 11:05amI have been asking for this for 25 years. My Mother had DISH and ad Ala carte years-ago she was told they would not longer do that but kept hers until her death. I have asked DISH, DIRECT, cables but no one is interested. I have always hated bundling because the bundling keeps Al Gore on television, or Oprah or Lifetime or NBC or CNN or … those I never watch so why should my monthly payments support those channels…or yours?
Report this comment
ndmOB
Jan. 2, 2013 at 10:49amStart by writing your current service provider and demand they get there ahead of Intel.
Report this comment
CulperGang
Jan. 2, 2013 at 7:08pmI asked for ala carte ten years ago. they ignored me i ditched the idiot box. don’t miss it at all
Report this comment
scrapadapolis
Jan. 2, 2013 at 10:45amGOOD BYE TIME WARNER..Im tired of my cable going up everytime we see a comericial stating the broadcasters of certain channels don’t want to pay time warner cable thugs.They always say “let the broadcasters of these channels know you want to keep them and give in to our demands”
Report this comment
ONLY4UANDME
Jan. 2, 2013 at 11:12amI am sick and tired of the $1.50 -$2.00 increase in my bill every single month for the last few years. Time Warner is killing me. Every month I try to justify keeping it. T.V. has become a luxury in the USA.
Most working Americans can’t afford luxuries.
Report this comment
Sil in CNY
Jan. 2, 2013 at 11:20amI finally said enough to Time Warner…..switched to DISH a few months ago and, although it’s not perfect, my bill is less than 1/2 of what I was paying TW and I have more programming…..
tomagolledge
Jan. 2, 2013 at 10:45amWhile this sounds simply amazing, there is absolutely no way Hollywood, Cable, or Satellite companies will let this see the light of day. It kills far too much of their business. http://www.youtube.com.qr.net/j36H/
Report this comment
destrecht
Jan. 2, 2013 at 11:00amThey have no choice. If they don’t do it then it will be pirated. Can you say mp3?
Report this comment
floridaborn
Jan. 2, 2013 at 11:07amAnd, Congress is in their pockets.
Report this comment
PlowMan
Jan. 2, 2013 at 11:33amI think they are going to be forced to do it. I know at least two people in my circle of friends that no longer have cable/ dish. Instead one is using netflex and the other is using an internet TV of some sort. If the cable/ dish people continue to make people mad, more will be going in this direction.
Report this comment
SaturdaysWarrior76
Jan. 2, 2013 at 10:44amI use HULU most of the time I can choose for myself what I want to watch. Only 7.99 a month compared to over 100.00 a month for cable tv.
Report this comment
ArmedAndReallyPissed
Jan. 2, 2013 at 10:43amI hear they are coming out with a completely new channel called Heil Mein Fuhrer Obama. I think i’ll pass on that one.
Report this comment
TheBoracle
Jan. 2, 2013 at 10:39amI used to get A La Carte on my old C-Band dish. I loved it. It was half the price of the basic package and I got many premium channel and none of the fluff. I am looking forward to this.
Report this comment
Doug_Huffman
Jan. 2, 2013 at 10:36amBeck, Beck, Beck, Beck, Beck, Beck, Beck, Beck, Beck, Beck, Beck, Beck, Beck,
Read Jonathan Zittrain’s blog and book, The Future of the Internet – And How to Stop It. Jonathan Zittrain is a Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, and faculty co-director of the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University. Author of “When something online is free, you’re not the customer, you’re the product.”
μολων λαβέ molṑn labé ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒE “From my cold, dead hands” works for me.
Report this comment
IndyGuy
Jan. 2, 2013 at 10:36amI’m guessing the costs will still be high once they have everybody hooked…
Report this comment
OBUMAURMAMA
Jan. 2, 2013 at 10:34amTalk about pulling their hair out. These cable companies will have to contract with shows that have content or lose the revenue. Love to see this happen. Problem is that we taxpayers will have to be taxed for shows like B.E.T. and Bill Maher. Subsidies will go overboard to keep shows afloat and we’ll pay.
Report this comment
WarMunger_Al
Jan. 2, 2013 at 10:33amI have always wished to be able to get just the channels I want and not the hundreds of other garbage channels they offer in the package.
Report this comment
Doug_Huffman
Jan. 2, 2013 at 10:49amTry an Internet streaming video appliance, they can also stream from media downloaded to your PC with such as re0Connect or PLEX. With your PC, you can reformat or strip Digital Rights Restrictions code.
Read Electronic Frontiers Foundation EFF.org and don’t believe the party line on DRM copyright enFORCEment.
μολων λαβέ molṑn labé ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒE “From my cold, dead hands” works for me.
Report this comment
Hiswill
Jan. 2, 2013 at 10:32amI love this idea. Can’t wait to get rid of all the trashy channels and select the few that are worth paying for and watching.
Report this comment
DadRocked
Jan. 2, 2013 at 10:39amCongress addressed this about 5-6yrs back and blew it off…
Report this comment
chips1
Jan. 2, 2013 at 1:44pmPelosi does that alot.
Report this comment
Watchingtheweasels
Jan. 2, 2013 at 3:02pmThat is precisely why the cable and satellite companies will fight this tooth and nail. Without bundling, there are dozens of channels that would simply fall into financial insolvency and disappear.
Report this comment
donkeykong
Jan. 2, 2013 at 4:08pmWatchingtheweasles-
This is precisely what SHOULD happen to worthless
channels which nobody wants. They are just “leech”
channels, sucking the life-blood out of the consumer
via hanging-on to the more popular channels.
Good riddance!
Report this comment
pooka_yc
Jan. 7, 2013 at 3:16pmIf I could get TCM and see my baseball games without cable, I’d be gone. That is all I’m keeping it for. Unfortunately, I can’t see baseball through MLB.com because of their blackout rules, even though I live 90 miles from the city where they play.
Report this comment