Another argument for cable TV

my cable is no longer with me, not news to many of you, and not at all missed. i actually don't watch even the basic stuff that the antenna picks up. however, i do now wish i had one or two channels so i could watch the tour de france this month. one of the toughest sporting events out there also comes with great coverage on the premium channel versus. i was in lawrence at the 'rents' home this weekend and sat in front of the flat screen unable to let go of the remote. got to watch the prologue and much of the weekend recap, as well as one of my favorite shows, man v. wild. i need to make more friends who a) have DVR b) want to record things for me c) allow me to spend time on their couches. i'm good for some import/local brews and i'll even pick up after myself.

during my own mini-tour ride yesterday, a friend and i discussed the merits of pay-per-channel cable. for instance, this month, i may choose to buy versus and discovery channel. that's it. prices are set based on a similar model to advertising costs (reach, quality, subscribers) and wham - instant access to just the relevant channels. i'm sure someone's doing this...or there's probably some shady FTC regulation that requires cable packaging. but seriously, how many channels do you need? if I could choose five:
Discovery Channel
Versus
Comedy Central
History Channel
ESPN

and i'd be plenty content.

i know that many websites now offer similar functions, but there's something nicer about curling up on the couch and not have your leg hair singed from watching Mythbusters marathons on your laptop.