imanogre
join:2005-11-29
Mcdonough, GA
| reply to Chuckles
Re: Really bad.
said by Chuckles  :I'm sorry you read "you" as consumers and not sharksfan3. Actually he said, "They could of course provide content worth watching." So even if you did mean sharksfan3, how in the world did you infer that sharskfan3 even suggested that should be the one whom decides what's worth watching. He's just simply suggesting that some stations have no consumers, or not enough to sustain their programming lineup.
No offense, and Perhaps I'm wrong, but I can't help but think that you are trying to put an anti Free Market spin on this. |
|
Cabletvanon
| reply to Chuckles
said by Chuckles :Are you the one to decide what's worth watching? No the people are. If they don't want to watch it because they hate the shows maybe they should make a better attempt at making programs that appeal to the consumer and we shouldn't be forced to pay for a channel we don't watch. |
|
Mospaw
New is good. Old owes me 7k
Hawaiian Jellyfish
join:2001-01-08
The Pacific
 ·Cox HSI
Host:
Road Warriors, Not..
All Things Macintosh
Automotive
| reply to Volcano Joe
Note: I'm pulling the numbers below out of the air, in order to make a point. They don't represent anything but hypotheticals.
Likewise, my interest in obscure programming shouldn't subsidize ESPN, in which I have zero interest.
ESPN might even be profitable on its own and be a freebie or very low cost in an a la carte lineup. Likewise, something a bit more obscure, call it the "Obscurity Channel" will have a smaller audience, and require maybe a dollar or two for each subscriber. I'm fine with that. I'd rather get rid of a bunch of crap channels I'll NEVER look that cost 10 cents a month and get one or two I do want that cost many times more.
Heck, you might even get some channels that pay you a tiny bit to have them, like QVC, HSN, etc.
I'm totally for this and hope it happens.
That way I can say goodbye to probably 30 channels for good AND not have to pay for them.  |
|
Chuckles
Premium
join:2006-03-04
Saint Paul, MN
1 edit | reply to BIGHUSKER
I'm sorry you read "you" as consumers and not sharksfan3.
Actually he said, "They could of course provide content worth watching." |
|
Chuckles
Premium
join:2006-03-04
Saint Paul, MN | reply to james
I believe channels are on the air because someone is watching them. Someone's horrible taste could be you.
--
kustomerservice.net |
|
Volcano Joe
@motive.com | reply to Chuckles
Are you kidding? My interest in ESPN shouldn't subsidize your wanting to watch super obscure programming. If those networks have a following, it will show up as subscribers in an a-la-carte model. Otherwise it will go away. |
|
chris231989
join:2006-02-12
Joplin, MO
clubs:
| reply to Chuckles
shouldn't we the consumers be the ones deciding whats worth watching anyways??? it's our money we're working hard for, handing over to the cable co's. if those channels aren't worth paying for individually why would they be any more worth buying in a bundle? |
|
BIGHUSKER
join:2002-01-20
Minneapolis, MN
1 edit | reply to james
I'd have to agree that Chuckles posted an amazingly stupid question. Yes, consumers *should* be the ones who decide what's worth watching. What is wrong with you? |
|
james
join:2001-02-26
antarctica
| reply to Chuckles
Your comment is really stupid if you take the time to think about it.
It isnt like he's saying "any channel I dont watch should go off the air" he's saying "any channel NO ONE watches should go off the air" and logically, if there is a channel that no one watches, it should change formats to appeal to more people or be replaced, otherwise millions of dollars are being wasted to appease 10 peoples horrible taste (as opposed to millions of peoples horrible taste i suppose, but still). |
|
Chuckles
Premium
join:2006-03-04
Saint Paul, MN | reply to sharksfan3
Are you the one to decide what's worth watching? |
|
