Cable television (d)evolution

I'm far from an expert on cable TV, yet I'll render an opinion here.  I didn't own a TV for the better part of the last decade, and recently bought one to facilitate CompuTrainer time in the garage.  When I have had a television, it hasn't been "supplied" by a signal source from a cable provider.

Lately I've been looking for more ways to watch what I want, when I want it - the spring classics, including Paris Roubaix this weekend are a key driver.  They aren't a north American mass viewship sport - but the technology is supposed to bridge this.

One of the notable quotes I saw this week was as follows: "Bundling of services remains one of the most important tools to remain competitive" - Jean Brazeau of Shaw.

Let me explain why I believe that's head in the sand "poppycock" for lack of more impolite language.

I never had much satisfaction in ordering packages of channels to get the one that was desired - at home we did this in the past to get OLN or Speedvision.  It was packaged with crap that was divergent in theme, so one package couldn't likely satiate a consumers desires.

Let's look at the music industry for a minute.  Albums used to be sold, then music became feasibly delivered over the internet.  Sales on the internet were resisted, then forced to mimic physical package sales practices - buy a CD.  Nobody did, because for the most part they wanted one or two respectable songs, not an album.  See any parallels? 

I'm also suspicious enough that the music industry knew this all along, and were incentized to create bands and albums that had single hit wonders (worthy of investment and purchase), then filled them with crud on an album, to justify an album price.

The consuming public didn't agree to this, and now music can be bought by album, or by song.

TV may want to recognize this, and generate products people want, in a cost structure supported by actual demand levels rather than cross subsidization by nefarious packaging.

I want to pay for things I want, not things other people want.  I subsidize enough through taxation, I don't need to subsidize TV watchers everywhere, especially since I don't particularly like or condone the activity.  The real housewives or whatever crapola ville, the skanks on Jersey Shore, ridiculous overspending bridezilla shows, dufuses that have leaky basements in need of repair, etc. are not necessary to my existence by one iota.  They exist because they're cheap to produce, as lack of talent is generally known to be inexpensive.  Vapid crud.

The Spring Classics are the opposite - tradition laden feats of human strength and endurance that take a lifetime of cultivation to develop.  They are created from passions that last a lifetime, and further a true passion in viewers.  If that viewership is narrow, so be it.  I'd suggest that it's viewship that doesn't default to the lowest common denominator. 

Apple TV, cycling.tv, steephill, cyclingfans all offer degrees of what I want, some for pay, and some not.  It's nearing, but it's not here yet.  And Canadian cable co's might want to consider that they're not an island when bits and bytes flow relatively unencumbered. 

Banks aren't allowed to tied sell - but it's ok for the living rooms of the nation?  Not in my living room it's not...