Should cable TV be required to be provided "a la carte"?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The FCC Chairman wants to. This system basically is where you order each channel separately, instead of the current bundle packages offered. Basically this is more stealthy nanny-stating, the idea is people can block out channels that have programming they find offensive (instead of, you know, just not watching them). Cal Thomas had a column today against this, which surprised me because he's such an extreme social conservative, but I completely agreed with him.

The flaws with this are numerous. It basically kills channel surfing, one of the advantages of having numerous channels, nothing else to do? There must be SOMETHING on. But people aren't going to pay for channels they hardly ever watch just for the ability to channel surf easier. What if you hear of some special you want to see on a channel you hardly ever watch? Odds you won't have it ordered. Same for some new show you want to see. Plus it's estimated that about 20 channels on this plan (a rather meager selection) would cost the same as your typical current 150 channel plan. The current system is fine, I'm not whining about Fox News and demanding it be removed from my cable plan, I just opt not to watch it. Problem solved.

God I hate the FCC.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

This is a good idea. Why the hell should I have to pay for the Spanish channels, I have no use for them, and I can't understand the language.

You aren't though. You're paying for a bundle that includes them. As I said above, 20 channels under this plan would cost the same as 150 channels under the current plan. Now wouldn't you rather have the larger number of channels for the same price even if you don't want most of them?

The FCC shouldn't have ay power over cable TV period.

YES! That's the core of the whole issue really.

Here's the Cal Thomas article: http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/daily/opinion/55909.php