On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 9:07 AM, Joe Coughlin <[email protected]> wrote: > What would you have them do, though? Analog transmission is awfully > inefficient and in order to offer more channels, faster internet and such, > cable companies do have to look at going all digital as a solution.
It would be no problem if cable companies allowed us to choose which channels we actually wanted, and those channels were budgeted based on available audience/subscribers. Half the channels would vanish within months, freeing up as much bandwidth as anyone could need or want. I used to support the 500+ channel ideal, but, it turned out to be too idealistic. Little to no channels have a unique brand, and little to no channels cater to a specific audience. If the industry isn't willing to offer actual choices (as opposed to a dozen channels showing reruns of "Law & Order" and "Fresh Prince of Bel Air"), why should we (or our mothers) be denied the form of service we want? It is the opposite of capitalism, where viewers are either not allowed to choose, or must choose from options/services they do not want. -- Kevin M. (RPCV) --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
