|
• Mordred • Mark my words, with a la Carte, we'll be paying the same amount (or more) for less TV, with crappier programming on it. Ad-supported television and bundled cable packages are essential to fostering quality programming. das |
Originally Posted by das Monkey
Ad-supported television and bundled cable packages are essential to fostering quality programming.
Sure there's some shows I love like Lost, but I could learn to do without them and just watch more movies, especially since I think the best movies are miles above the best shows IMHO. |
I could probably get my list of channels down to 20 or so easily... it would cover 99% of what I watch. The only real impact of having so few channels would be the lack of "channel surfing" which (a) isn't really a bad thing and (b) I rarely do anyway, with so 100s of channels of crap and a ReplayTV handy.
Even if it only saved me $10/month, I'd gladly go down to 20 or so channels from my current 500 (or whatever). Nearly all of it goes unwatched. I would also welcome a system that allows me to get HD channels over cable without buying into an elaborate plan. Comcast makes me buy some huge digital package just to get the HD stuff. It's still cheaper than DirectTV, but I end up getting a package with a bunch of bells and whistles that I don't want -- I just want the HD. |
Originally Posted by bboisvert
I would also welcome a system that allows me to get HD channels over cable without buying into an elaborate plan. Comcast makes me buy some huge digital package just to get the HD stuff. It's still cheaper than DirectTV, but I end up getting a package with a bunch of bells and whistles that I don't want -- I just want the HD.
I'm kind of lucky there. My Comcast offers its HD channels in the clear. No need for a box. |
This is never going to pass. Do you know how many channels would go out of business because people wouldnt subscribe to them? All I would need are HD channels and a few news channels.
|
• Josh Hinkle • I guess where I'm more OK with it is that I really only care about sports. Sure there's some shows I love like Lost, but I could learn to do without them and just watch more movies, especially since I think the best movies are miles above the best shows IMHO. And the <i>best</i> TV shows cannot be compared to the <i>best</i> movies IMO. No movie is going to give you a 100-hour story arc that deeply develops 16 major characters across multiple epic plots. Average episodic TV may compare unfavorably with great movies, but when TV's unique qualities are properly utilized, it defies comparison. The reverse is also true. das |
Originally Posted by das Monkey
And the <i>best</i> TV shows cannot be compared to the <i>best</i> movies IMO. No movie is going to give you a 100-hour story arc that deeply develops 16 major characters across multiple epic plots. Average episodic TV may compare unfavorably with great movies, but when TV's unique qualities are properly utilized, it defies comparison. The reverse is also true.
das I agree. I just don't really like having to devote 100 hours to get a full story arc. I prefer getting it in 2 hours due to limited time and increased re-watchability due to the short length. Not to mention all the restraints on content for the non hbo/showtime/other pay channels. |
Originally Posted by Hubcap
This is never going to pass. Do you know how many channels would go out of business because people wouldnt subscribe to them?…
…networks appear to be increasing the number of shows designed to ‘push the envelope’ – and too often the bounds of decency … At the FCC, we used to receive complaints by the hundreds; now they come in by the hundreds of thousands. … Cable and satellite television offer some great family-oriented choices, but parents cannot subscribe to those channels alone. Rather, they are forced to buy the channels they do not want their families to view in order to obtain the family-friendly channels they desire. … I think the industry needs to do more to address parents’ legitimate concerns. I continue to believe something needs to be done to address this issue, and the industry’s lack of action is notable. I have urged the industry to voluntarily offer one of several solutions. First, cable and satellite could offer an exclusively family-friendly programming package as an alternative to the “expanded basic” tier on cable or the initial tier on DBS … alternatively, the programming that cable and DBS operators offer in the expanded basic package could be subject to the same indecency regulations that currently apply only to broadcast. This standard would apply only to channels that consumers are required to purchase as part of the expanded basic package, not premium channels. …Finally, another alternative is for cable and DBS operators to offer programming in a more a la carte manner, giving consumers more choice over which programs they want to purchase. Edited to add a link to the above statement: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...C-262484A1.pdf Also, what stations do you think would be considered too bad for a "family oriented" programming package? Comedy Central and MTV for sure, and possibly E! What others? Do you think ESPN would get the cut? |
First, cable and satellite could offer an exclusively family-friendly programming package as an alternative to the “expanded basic” tier on cable or the initial tier on DBS … alternatively, the programming that cable and DBS operators offer in the expanded basic package could be subject to the same indecency regulations that currently apply only to broadcast. This standard would apply only to channels that consumers are required to purchase as part of the expanded basic package, not premium channels. I've said this move was coming after nipplegate. |
Originally Posted by Red Dog
I've said this move was coming after nipplegate.
|
Originally Posted by Heat
Also, what stations do you think would be considered too bad for a "family oriented" programming package? Comedy Central and MTV for sure, and possibly E! What others? Do you think ESPN would get the cut?
My former wife and her current husband object to some of the Disney Channel programming (such as "That's So Raven") because they think it promotes witchcraft. |
What's funny is that if they do some kind of family tier, Cartoon Network would probably go in it. I wouldn't call Sealab 2021 and Harvey Birdman family programs. ;)
|
…networks appear to be increasing the number of shows designed to ‘push the envelope’ – and too often the bounds of decency … At the FCC, we used to receive complaints by the hundreds; now they come in by the hundreds of thousands. … Cable and satellite television offer some great family-oriented choices, but parents cannot subscribe to those channels alone. Rather, they are forced to buy the channels they do not want their families to view in order to obtain the family-friendly channels they desire. … I think the industry needs to do more to address parents’ legitimate concerns. I continue to believe something needs to be done to address this issue, and the industry’s lack of action is notable. I have urged the industry to voluntarily offer one of several solutions. First, cable and satellite could offer an exclusively family-friendly programming package as an alternative to the “expanded basic” tier on cable or the initial tier on DBS … alternatively, the programming that cable and DBS operators offer in the expanded basic package could be subject to the same indecency regulations that currently apply only to broadcast. This standard would apply only to channels that consumers are required to purchase as part of the expanded basic package, not premium channels. …Finally, another alternative is for cable and DBS operators to offer programming in a more a la carte manner, giving consumers more choice over which programs they want to purchase. |
Originally Posted by Red Dog
What's funny is that if they do some kind of family tier, Cartoon Network would probably go in it. I wouldn't call Sealab 2021 and Harvey Birdman family programs. ;)
|
Originally Posted by Hubcap
How many daily viewers watch tv? I mean Hundreds of Thousands? Isnt the population in the United States close to 300 million? Im not sure what percentage watch tv, but it has to be less then 5% that are actually complaining to the FCC.
When told to complain, members will even if they didn't themselves see the offending programming. That complainers are better organized is the only real news in regard to the increase in the number of complaints. |
""You can always turn the television off and, of course, block the channels you don't want[....] But why should you have to?"
- Kevin Martin Yes - that Kevin Martin, the idiot who heads the FCC. |
Originally Posted by Hubcap
Do you know how many channels would go out of business because people wouldnt subscribe to them?
Imagine in the 60's somebody said we are going to add $100 sticker price to every Ford, Chevy, Dodge, etc., etc., to subsidize Studebaker. If we don't do that it might go out of business. If you sell a quality product people will purchase it. Seems fair to me. |
Originally Posted by Red Dog
""You can always turn the television off and, of course, block the channels you don't want[....] But why should you have to?"
- Kevin Martin Yes - that Kevin Martin, the idiot who heads the FCC. |
It's not about "protecting the children" and never has been. It's about forcing their own "morality" on others.
das |
Originally Posted by leacha
Who cares if lame channels go out of business?
Imagine in the 60's somebody said we are going to add $100 sticker price to every Ford, Chevy, Dodge, etc., etc., to subsidize Studebaker. If we don't do that it might go out of business. If you sell a quality product people will purchase it. Seems fair to me. |
Originally Posted by leacha
Who cares if lame channels go out of business?
Imagine in the 60's somebody said we are going to add $100 sticker price to every Ford, Chevy, Dodge, etc., etc., to subsidize Studebaker. If we don't do that it might go out of business. If you sell a quality product people will purchase it. Seems fair to me. In this case, stations have a wide variety of programming. For instance, I enjoy some programs on FX, but probably not enough to subscribe to it individually. And your favorite show might be on a "lame" station that doesn't get as many subscribers as, say, ESPN, which means it's gonna be in less houselholds, which means less advertising dollars, which means a bigger subscription price for you. I agree with what someone above said... we complain when shows like Arrested Development are cancelled because the vast majority of peope just "don't get it." Why should we trust in what the majority watches in this case? |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:55 AM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.