Congress was looking into making the cable companies offer exactly that but they managed to squelch it. They said it would wind up costing consumers more money. Which, given the cable industry's track record, I'm sure it would have.

>Ah, so you want to pay only when you actually watch a channel? What would be a fair price then? Let's say you watch channel 200 (I have no idea what channel 200 is) for 30 minutes and then channel 500 for 30 on one day. What should you be charged?
>
>Actually, I agree that we should be able to pick and choose specific channels and not buy 'packages' of channels. That bugs me to no end.
>
>
>
>
>
>>>>Nobody's watching 200 channels.
>>>
>>>irrelevent. It's all about choice.
>>
>>It _is_ relevant. I'm not paying for choice, at least I won't be paying for choice of 200 channels as I can only watch one at a time. Why would music be more expensive in a shop which offers ten times more disks? In such a shop, do you have to pay extra to be allowed to pick among the disks from the other shelf?
>>
>>The system is nonsensical, ridiculous and no better than the small print you find in other similar scams (satellite TV and/or radio, cell phone contracts etc etc).
>>
>>I have no problem paying for what I watch, or paying one lump sum. But paying more because there's more in the shop doesn't make sense to me. The only analogy I find is when you're buying tomatoes on the green market, and it's more expensive if you can pick the ones you want - because then you can skip the ones you find rotten. Is this it?
>>
>>They should just show me all they have, and I'll pay for what I really take. They can keep the rest.