 New link in the top of page "IRC Chat". |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Last Posts
| IRC Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | XPW | Stats | Color Chart | Photo album |
|
| | ||
New link in the top of page "IRC Chat". |
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Last Posts
| IRC Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | XPW | Stats | Color Chart | Photo album |
|
| | ||
| 0 users currently in Debate Shrine. |
| User | Post |
| True Flight Posts: 5206/5245 |
The comments are all made by morons who didn't read the article.... sad our nation has turned into this. |
| Elara Posts: 8572/9736 |
Originally posted by Sorcha Rohan Oh my god, this is so spot on! |
| FX Posts: 3747/3775 |
Canadian gov't to push cable providers to unbundle channels. |
| True Flight Posts: 5203/5245 |
I'm all about this to be honest... Here's a video to prove my opinion of Cable Companies.
Just so you know it's educational too. Screw cable. I hate it. |
| Cteno Posts: 3169/3416 |
When I read the words a conservative parents group, I thought to myself, "oh boy, this ought to be rich!"... but I was rather surprised about the proposed solution. I actually support this, though like all of you, not via congress. Sure, some people that have every channel would get rid of a few, but if the pricing is right, people that have basic or lower would be more enticed to order a few extra channels. |
| Lord Vulkas Mormonus Posts: 4344/4541 |
Well, it really all depends on the rights that the cable company has to show the channel. I'm not sure if it simply has universal rights to show it to whoever it wants, or if it has to pay per channel per person. If the cable company has universal rights to show it to whoever it wants (ie, fixed costs), then yeah, giving customers this plan would really mean absolutely nothing, because the company has the same costs either way, regardless of what channels the viewers subscribe to.
But if the company is paying the studios per viewer (ie, a variable cost) then it could be a great improvement. Either way though, use congress to enforce it? No. |
| FX Posts: 3740/3775 |
I feel like, for this to not hurt the profit margins of the cable companies and channels -- which they would never allow -- the cost difference would end up coming out of the pockets of the consumers. In addition to being infinitely more complicated than just not watching the offending channels. |
| Lord Vulkas Mormonus Posts: 4343/4541 |
Well, first off then I think it's a good idea, just from any point of view. I mean, we have about a thousand channels offered on even the cheap cable plans, and I'll maybe watch three. If you don't want to watch one channel, it would be awesome if I could just not need to pay for it.
That said, what should be, and what should be enforced by congress are two very different things. I will absolutely disagree with congress trying to push a business into doing anything, outside of highly unethical or business concerns, that is. So is it a good idea? Yes. Would I celebrate if it happened? Yes. Should it be made to happen from the government? Heck no. |
| Rogue Posts: 9893/11918 |
Following Sons of Anarchy's season premiere last week (which featured prison rape, torture porn, someone getting forcibly drowned in a bathtub full of urine, and --worst of all for many people -- a school shooting), a conservative parents group came forward saying they were going to try to press Congress to push the cable companies into offering a-la-carte choices.
Source In other words, rather than fighting to get the show removed they'd rather not have a portion of their cable bill going to channels they deem inappropriate or disagree with. They want it to be so you can choose what channels you'd receive, avoiding the ones you don't like or don't watch. What are your thoughts on this? |
