Audio Video News

Who Needs All These Useless Channels?

Mark Fleischmann  |  Sep 3, 2014

American cable subscribers get way more cable channels than we really want. In 2008, according to Nielsen’s Advertising & Audiences Report, U.S. households received an average of 129.3 channels and viewed 17.3 of them. In 2013, the number of channels jumped to 189.1, of which 17.5 were viewed. So the number of channels went up 46 percent, but the number viewed rose only 1 percent. Why are cable systems jamming so many channels down our throats? Their dilemma is that channels travel in packs—and a network that owns a popular channel will always insist that cable operators buy all of its channels. “However,” says the Los Angeles Times, “the rising cost of sports programming is starting to lead to louder calls that at least some content should be sold to consumers who want it and not forced on everyone.”

COMMENTS
dnoonie's picture
Submitted by dnoonie on September 3, 2014 - 5:44pm

It's been 8 months since I unplugged. So far I've saved about $640 AND enjoyed the shows I watch in higher quality by buying the BD-DVD or streaming on VUDU or renting BD-DVD from Netflix.

To get me back will take a lot more than a la carte programming and lower cost. Audio quality must improve substantially (5.1 DTS/Dolby/etc.), video quality must improve quit a bit as well, new 4k programming needs to at least match BD quality, HD programming never came close to BD quality.

Too little too late for me.

Traveler's picture
Submitted by Traveler on September 4, 2014 - 11:47am

The most useless channels are the legacy broadcasters.

X