I concur with Madeline Roberts, who WOULD pay for a family channel option -- so would I. Actually, I'd be fine with a simpler option -- I'll pay for the Cultural Cesspool Package (within limits), provided the cable company will block out individual channels I select. I'm not trying to deny anyone else the choices to watch whatever they want -- I'm just asking for the capabilities to make my own choices as an adult and parent with a little more granularity. The old "V-chip" is a joke, so don't suggest that. Let me block the content coming in to my house, and I'd be satisfied. And while "a la carte" may be the ideal solution, we're years away from that.

First; as appealing as an a la carte channel menu might be, I think the cable companies are, unfortunately, correct in asserting that it would not work. Each and every cable channel supports itself mainly by advertising, not cable subscription fees. If advertisers knew that any given channel had a finite number of viewers at any given time, they would pay the channels much less than what they're paying now, which would put the channels in an impossible position; the only way they could get more subscribers is to produce new shows (keep in mind that they're bringing in a lot less money now), but those potential subscribers won't see those new shows because their not paying to get the channel in the first place. An a la carte system would probably eliminate most of the interesting, quirky, and idiosyncratic progamming that cable has now (and that goes for the shows you like, too).

Second; people frustrated with the cable companies' local monopolies shouldn't rejoice at this type of debate. Cable TV's detractors, in this case, are not interested in some kind of reasonable reform. They simply hate cable because cable channels provide racy content, and they hate the fact that they can't leverage these channels like they do with the networks (mainly because these channels know uptight fundamentalists aren't watching, anyway). They don't care about people getting to see the shows they want to see; They're goal is to make cable TV as homogenous and tepid as network TV is, and to make sure you can't hear bad words and see nudity - even if you're paying for it. Of course, they can't come out and say that, so they shift the debate to the welfare of a hypothetical family that insists on paying for cable (in spite of all the filth), and allowing their children to watch it unsupervised, yet can't be bothered to figure out how to use a v-chip.

Third; If anyone still doubts it, this should prove how truly hypocritical the conservative wing of the Republican party is. They are champions of de-regulation in every instance, even in industries that directly affect the physical well being of workers and customers, but take the exact opposite position when it comes to TV, movies, and music. Imagine the whining and bleating we would have to endure from the right if a Democratic congress tried to regulate any industry as aggressively as the FCC is suggesting cable be regulated.

As much as I dislike the influence of corporate money on the political process, this is one case where I'd like to see Viacom create a war chest for Ted Stevens' opponent in 2006.

I love the idea suggested by someone in an earlier letter here that cable TV be metered, and you pay so much per hour to watch whatever channel you like.

At present I don't have a TV, or at least don't have one that is hooked up to anything, and don't watch TV. I would however watch a bit of BBC America and the occasional movie, but it really isn't worth my while right now as I can rent or buy DVDs of things I want to see for less than the cost of cable TV.

However, cable and satellite are not in business to please me, but to make money, so there is probably little chance of me getting what I want.

Are you reading this Comcast?

I also would have preferred pure a la carte,

for 2 reasons. First, as other people have noted,

I would like to pay for what I want, only. Second, a la carte would give me a chance to boycott and withhold my money from networks and

channels owned by Social Class Enemies of the People. Case in point: Sumner Redstone. He claims to be a "Democrat" but explained that he

donated money to, and voted for, Bush; because

Bush would be "better for Viacom." If we had

national forced a la carte, 50 million self-identified Blue People could boycott each and

every Viacom channel to punish Viacom and Redstone. Or in an ideal dreamworld, to drive

Viacom bankrupt in order to weaken a deadly enemy

of Blue People everywhere.

If everyone chooses their own channels, what incentive is left for any cable station to really invest in new programming? Before Queer Eye, how many viewers did Bravo realistically have? How would it have become a successful show if nobody would have even been able to watch it without specifically calling their cable provider to order Bravo, just to find out if they were interested?

Along the same lines, doesn't it virtually ensure that the current cable stations will have a huge advantage over any potential newcomers? How would any cable station be created in the future before anybody has started 'subscribing' to it?

That said, isn't there a pretty good chance that the a la carte option would result in the demise of many of the 'family friendly' channels? I'm certain Comedy Central has more than enough viewers to keep it going, but would enough people choose to subscribe to the Hallmark channel to keep them afloat? Maybe they're the ones being subsidized by the current system!

I read that the PTC is responsible for some extreme percentage of FCC complaints, like 99%, no lie. One extremist group. No one else cares.

We're all too busy watching the Sopranos!