 en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | reply to Romney2012
Re: 3 Words Will Resolve This That's because they can't take that kind of gamble... all or nothing approach.
While I do agree that many channels should be 'sink or swim', or rely on external funding (ads), I'd suspect that TV would be down to ~20-25 channels if this occurred:
We would have:
News: FoxNews, CNN, possibly MSNBC (there's enough that would pay to keep this around)
Locals - but not-so-local: ABC/CBS/NBC/Fox, but only a handful of actual stations (LA/NYC/Chicago, etc)
Popular specialty channels: ESPN, WE, HBO, etc.
Everythiing else would be web content.
Realistically, MOST of the channels are fluff, and essentially 'free', ad driven. QVC, Weather.
FCC doesn't have a good case to 'force' them to sell a la carte.
Here's my version of what 'would be' A-LA-CARTE:
First channel (any channel) - $50/month
Second channel (any channel) - $25/month
Third channel (any channel) - $12/month
Until its essentially 'free'. PPV is a separate issue.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
