I know, it's a minor irritant and there are bigger problems out there, but . . .

Whats Up with TV and Choice: What decade are they living in?
We now get to choose our energy provider, our phone and internet provider, our health care providers and insurers, etc. So what is up with cable and satellite TV, which offer the U.S. population little choice and then only as package deals (perhaps à la carte is just too French sounding)?
There was a bill to give viewers real choice (Canada has it, the argument here is that the lesser watched stations would have funding problems without the packages. So, isn’t there a problem there with the idea of an open market?) introduced in Congress in 2007 by Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.) and Jeff Fortenberry (R, Neb.) but it has never made it out of committee. Wikipedia states this:
There has been a recent push to create laws that force cable providers to allow consumers to purchase individual cable TV channels "a la carte," i.e. to allow them to pick and choose which channels they would like to have available in their homes. This is not likely to occur until digital cable television becomes popular (someone needs to update Wiki and let Congress know about the fact that it happened, that’s why all those people with analog TVs got the converter boxes that the government sold cheaply), although technically, analog cable television would be sufficient if all channels were scrambled, as it is very difficult to notch out individual channels from a cable TV line without scrambling. For example, many cable providers have a "basic plan" consisting of local channels and a few national cable networks; and an "economy basic" plan consisting of local channels only. Both plans are supplied on the same cable, but the cable company can filter out the expanded channels to the "economy basic" subscribers using a low-pass filter which filters out higher channels. Notch filters are available which can filter out a "notch" of channels (for example, channels 45-50 can be "notched" out yet the subscriber can receive channels below 45 and higher than 50). However, to do this individually for a single subscriber who wants many "notches," would be very difficult unless a scrambling system is used requiring a set-top box. These problems are alleviated with the use of digital cable, which requires a set-top converter box. This converter can be programmed remotely to allow or disallow access to channels on an individual basis. The use of IPTV (i.e., delivery of television over an internet or IP-based network) makes it even easier, since the provisioning of channels can be fully automated.
The current cable and satellite delivery systems provide an opportunity for networks that service niche and minority audiences to reach millions of households, and potentially, millions of viewers. Since a la carte could force each channel to be sold individually, many of these networks could face a significant reduction in subscription fees and advertising revenue, potentially driving them out of business. For these reasons, cable/satellite providers and programmers are reluctant to introduce an a la carte business model. Others however believe that by allowing a less expensive entry point into the cable marketplace the a la carte option would actually increase overall sales through the addition of new subscribers. Often when programming distributors would like to sell channels a la carte they are prevented by contract from the program who force an all-or-nothing approach.
Of course a recent article in Harpers on “Understanding Obamacare” by senior editor Luke Mitchell gives a general intro to competition and notes:
The idea that there is a competitive “private sector” in America is appealing, but generally false. No one hates competition more than the managers of corporations. Competition does not enhance shareholder value, and smart managers know they must forsake whatever personal beliefs they may hold about the redemptive power of creative destruction for the more immediate balm of government intervention. This wisdom is expressed most precisely in an underutilized phrase from economics: regulatory capture.
When Congress created the first U.S. regulatory agency, the Interstate Commerce Commission, in 1887, the railroad barons it was meant to subdue quickly recognized an opportunity. “It satisfies the popular clamor for a government supervision of railroads at the same time that that supervision is almost entirely nominal,” observed the railroad lawyer Richard Olney. “Further, the older such a commission gets to be, the more inclined it will be found to take the business and railroad view of things. It thus becomes a sort of barrier between the railroad corporations and the people and a sort of protection against hasty and crude legislation hostile to railroad interests.” As if to underscore this claim, Olney soon after got himself appointed to run the U.S. Justice Department, where he spent his days busting railroad unions.
The story of capture is repeated again and again, in industry after industry, whether it is the agricultural combinations creating an impenetrable system of subsidies, or television and radio broadcasters monopolizing public airwaves for private profit, or the entire financial sector conjuring perilous fortunes from the legislative void. The real battle in Washington is seldom between conservatives and liberals or the right and the left or “red America” and “blue America.” It is nearly always a more local contest, over which politicians will enjoy the privilege of representing the interests of the rich.
We are hosting an Oscar party in March, and since we have no cable/satellite connection, I have been researching them. Why do we still have to buy a package? Every package has something I know I will not watch (here is a Direct TV 200+channel choices called Choicextra sampling):
BTN: not gonna watch it
BET: not gonna watch it
Bloomberg: not gonna watch it unless it is work related
BYU: never gonna watch it, even if Romney runs
CBS College Sports: not gonna watch it
Centric: doubt if I will watch it
Christian Television Network:
Church Channel:
CMT: Country Music Television, maybe, but rarely. I did like “Don’t It Make Your Brown Eyes Blue,” when was that a country hit?
Current: Since I am a bit over the 34 year old top of their target audience range, probably won’t watch it
Daystar: Woo-hoo, another Christian station,
Discovery Kids: Since this target audience is 20 years younger than Current, probably won’t watch it
ESPN, ESPU, ESPN 2, ESPNews: 4 that I doubt will get airtime in our house
EWTN: Like I want to watch Papal events, etc.
Fox Business: I doubt it.
Fox News: Fair and balanced, I decided not so . . . not gonna watch it
Fox Reality: Reality tv, what a joke. I remember when it was reported Liza was postponing her reality show so they could rehearse.
Feul: Extreme sports? I watched it once with Hans & JD, when we were in a hotel, but doubt it will get air time at home unless they are visiting
GALA: Unless I decide to brush up on my Spanish, doubt it will be watched on our set
GEMS: Shopping channel? I thought we Americans were going into a frugal stage
God tv: Not on our tv
Golf Channel: Sorry Tiger, but even with the sexual scandal, not on our tv
Gospel Music Channel: Unless there is a Mahalia marathon, I doubt it
Great American Country: Hmmm, the Grand Old Opery. Nope, would rather rewatch Altman’s “Nashville.”
GSN: Unless I really get hooked into reality series, dating and casino games or video gaming, I doubt this Sony and liberty station will see the inside of our screen.
Hallmark: OK, maybe if they rerun the Anne of Green Gables series or another of those sentimental movies I fall for from time to time
HTN: Another chance to brush up on those high school and college Spanish courses
Home Shopping Network: see GEMS above
Hope: Just reading the description: Find peace, power, and purpose for your life. Hope Channel provides inspirational and educational programs for the entire family. Can they spell treacle?
Inspiration Channel: They add patriotic programming to faith oriented programs. No thanks, I think I would rather celebrate my country without the filter of what sounds like more syrupy coating.
Jewelry televisions: Hmmm, do I need a tiara? Nah.
Jewish life: Perhaps, after all I liked “For Your Consideration”
Lifetime: When I want to get in touch with my feminine side, maybe.
Military Channel: Maybe, but I need to know more about what they tell about battle, etc. and who wrote, advised or approved it.
MLB: Baseball 24/7/365, Does it ever offer a 7th Inning stretch?
NBA TV: Unless they go back to those shorter uniforms, read the next item.
NFL TV: Look even as newspapers are folding their business section into their news section (which at least might be considered an honest way of noting what really makes the decisions in this country) and their book reviews are no longer even a Sunday supplement but tucked into some other section, they still have a Sports section. Me not having to subscribe to these channels is not going to break them.
NHL TV: read the prior comment.
NRB: Historic Christian faith for inspiration and enlightenment. I thought there was a conflict between the church and the Enlightenment. I know there is a conflict between most churches and me.
Sprout: PBS pre-school channel, with JD entering the school-age years, unless my son and his fiancée decide on kids . . .
QVC: More chances to shop, not in our house
Shop NBC: see previous comment
Soap: I liked the movie with Sally Field
6 Sonic stations: OK, I sometimes like Latino music but not often enough to watch even 1 much
Speed: auto, boating and aviation enthusiasts. That leaves me out.
Spike: Why do I feel that this station aimed at modern man isn’t really all encompassing?
Style: Even with DC approving marriage equality, I don’t think this is for me, unless they run Wedding Wars (which was a really stupid movie, so bad that I loved it, and own it, so not even then)
TBS: Why am I wary when something calls itself family-oriented
TCT: “a worldwide television network bringing the bet in Christian educational, news and entertainment programming to your home daily.” (or not, in our case, not)
Tennis Channel: Rarely.
The Sportsman Channel: Again, rarely if ever.
The Word: Free and multi-denominational (as in different religious beliefs or Catholic and Baptist?). Even if so, probably never in our house.
Trinity Broadcasting Network: Uh, no. Never.
Tru: Real-life excitement? Doubt it will be clicked much if ever, we don’t want to get flustered.
TV One: African-American adult lifestyles. Again clicked rarely if at all.
Univision: Spanish practice again.
V-me: And again.
World Harvest Television: To preserve and promote the traditional American value system – sounds like a plot to me.
And the Listening Opportunities via XM:
Backspin: Hip hop. Not hoppening.
Cinemagic: Listen to movie soundtracks. Maybe if they have the movie music I like. Gosford Park anyone?
HipHop Nation: Does anyone still read “The Man Without a Country?”
Kids Place Live: I’m not a kid anymore.
Praise: While the one about Southern gospel might get me to listen for some early groups, this one probably will never get a click.
Strobe: More Hip Hop
The Message: Christian pop. Hate to burst that bubble, but nope.

So, 67 out of 200, and a lot under the XM that I left in the list but doubt will get air play in our house.
What about Congress giving the subscribers a break in cost, instead of welfare for stations that might have to face cutbacks or closing?