Ralph22
@comcast.net
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: Lawsuit at least names the content providers .....
Make no mistake - the purpose of this lawsuit is not for the common good, but for some money-hungry, overzealous barristers to get their names in the paper, and maybe make a few sheckels. And the AP, with their ultra-liberal anti-corporate attitude, gives them what amounts to little more than a slipshod press release. We don't know, for instance, what negotiations took place before this suit was filed, or what good faith efforts were made to reach some kind of accommodation or understanding.
Sue now, get publicity now, ask questions later.
What no one realizes is that price increases are largely due to sports coverage, and specifically ESPN. This, really, is what you are paying for.
An argument can also be made that by bundling these channels, you ensure these channels survival. Yeah, you may not watch Lifetime or Versus or HGTV. But, guess what, someone else does, and who knows, the Next Big Thing may come from one of these channels.
Bundling keeps these fringe channels available. But, just like in the supermarket where only products that move stay on the shelves, only the channels that enough people care about stay available. And like at the supermarket, competition is fierce for one of those very limited, rare slots.
I think it is always a good idea to keep the cable companies and providers on their toes and remind them of who pays the freight. This to me is not an effective or good-faith way to do that.
Now if you'll excuse me it's Saturday night and my boys are at the front door so I'm gonna wrap up here. |
