I will disagree. It certainly would, and could, work in the USA. If the FCC were to institute an ala-carte rule the very first thing that would happen is dozens of junk channels would disappear and networks that have bundled in those junk channels in order to demand more money from carriers would be in a buyer's market, a place they don't want to be. The idea that the remaining channels would cost $$ is the propoganda the industry is trying to sell and it doesn't fly. As mentioned above, back when programming was ala-carte it was very cost friendly. It wasn't until ESPN and others forced bundling on the industry that consumer costs sky-rocketed. Hurrah for Canada and come on FCC!
It seems strange now that you could buy a whole year of some channels for $1-$2 when ala-carte was common. Our entire budget was $50 a year and we usually didn't spend that much (family of 5) in the 90's. We usually really only watched 12 channels or less of pay TV. Even considering inflation most channels should probably cost $5-$10 for a whole year now. Current prices seem to be way out of line for the value received. But as long as people continue to pay for TV as if it is a necessity of life, I doubt things will change.
They have did that (spilled over the border) for 65 plus years, what is Bell's solution to stop the signal at the border?
Could see that coming when things went digital up here. Local TV stations (owned by BIG cable/satellite distributors) told the public they were going off the air and you HAD to sign up for cable/satellite in order to get your local channels. Most consumers followed like sheep and bought into the $1200/yr cable market. Now they are stuck watching what THEY want you to watch.
