The reason we are stuck with the offerings today are a result of government interference, they call it mandates, to allow networks that would be on the fringe to operate. This allows a small percentage of viewers to see what they want to see while the majority have to pay for that channel as part of the package. There is a basic problem here, the government forcing us to buy something that we do not want. Does that sound strangely familiar to another government mandate that is being shoved down our throats now? This rule needs to be abolished and let the channels stand on their own. Ditto obamacare.
(Re-posted comment from another related thread)
The content providers will probably fight ala-carte programming pretty hard, and with good reason. There's a lot of excellent content from the Science Channel, History channel (some bad there too), NatGeo and others, but they're not the popular mind-numbing viewing choice for most people most of the time. Should those fall by the wayside for lack of revenue in favor of TBS reruns of "Everybody Loves Raymond" ?
There's a lot of programming I never would have seen (example: the Elegant Universe on PBS and America: The Story of Us on the History Channel ) if my family only paid for what they thought they wanted to see, simply because we didn't know what was out there.
It would be a shame if educational channels were forced into including sitcoms just to survive.
Comments
The reason we are stuck with the offerings today are a result of government interference, they call it mandates, to allow networks that would be on the fringe to operate. This allows a small percentage of viewers to see what they want to see while the majority have to pay for that channel as part of the package. There is a basic problem here, the government forcing us to buy something that we do not want. Does that sound strangely familiar to another government mandate that is being shoved down our throats now? This rule needs to be abolished and let the channels stand on their own. Ditto obamacare.
(Re-posted comment from another related thread)
The content providers will probably fight ala-carte programming pretty hard, and with good reason. There's a lot of excellent content from the Science Channel, History channel (some bad there too), NatGeo and others, but they're not the popular mind-numbing viewing choice for most people most of the time. Should those fall by the wayside for lack of revenue in favor of TBS reruns of "Everybody Loves Raymond" ?
There's a lot of programming I never would have seen (example: the Elegant Universe on PBS and America: The Story of Us on the History Channel ) if my family only paid for what they thought they wanted to see, simply because we didn't know what was out there.
It would be a shame if educational channels were forced into including sitcoms just to survive.