On 10/30/10, PGage <[email protected]> wrote: > But wouldn't the same argument apply vis a vis the channel? I watch Mad Men > and Rubion, but the only other things I watch on AMC are a very occasional > movie. Why should I have to pay for all the crap I don't want to watch? I > watch Dexter on Showtime, and the NFL show, and almost nothing else. Your a > la carte argument logically means that cable companies should allow us to > pay for each program individually. > > I think it makes sense to have required clusters of channels (and programs > of course). I don't pay only for the parks I use (or the swings I sit on in > each park); I don't pay only for the streets I drive on. Bundling popular > channels with less popular ones allows the provider to make available a > variety of programming options that alone would not be able to pay for > themselves. I pay for programs I don't watch, but that maybe you do; you pay > for programs that you don't watch, but that maybe you do.
But television isn't a public service anymore, if it ever was. You use the park analogy. I tend to use the newsstand analogy filled with newspapers, magazines, and trade journals from all over the world. The newsstand owner doesn't force you to buy "The Economist" when all you want is "Sports Illustrated." The newsstand owner doesn't insist you buy seven newspapers when you have a preference for one. However, if all you want is a quick glance at the headlines in the business section, you usually have to buy a newspaper. Cablevision claims the cost of Fox channels is too high; maybe it is, but we'll never know because cable isn't structured as a capitalist venture where viewers can make that decision for themselves. If that is firmly what they believe, why don't they give subscribers the choice to pay to receive the channels or elect to refuse to pay? I genuinely want networks eliminated from television. Those who were placed in charge as stewards of legacies like NBC and CBS failed gloriously in doing so, and nearly every network has no identity, which is why they are compelled to splash the logo in the lower right hand corner of the screen -- it is the only way viewers know what they are watching. Networks fail to brand themselves and cable companies fail to give viewers a choice in networks anyway, so what is the point? What I wish for the industry is for a big name showrunner like JJ Abrams or Joss Whedon to produce long-form content exclusively for the internet (better still, a group of showrunners partnering up in a sort of Dreamworks arrangement), eliminating the network and cable middlemen. In the end, it would result in the creators of something seeing a bigger piece of the profit (even though the profit would not be as big to start with), and it would compel networks and cable companies to either improve or go away. -- 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
