Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: familyop

I agree.

Network broadcasts should have tighter limits. I thought the late 80s struck a pretty good balance as far as what should be on broadcast or not.



But these folks who want to mess with subscriber-only cable are nuts.

I'm not trying to be pedantic, and I don't think I AM being pedantic. There's a very big difference between the two. I also think Howard Stern should be thrown off the air, yet I have no problem with his new Sirius show. Listeners have to pay and go out of their way to get it...it's a private transaction. More power to him.


126 posted on 06/02/2005 8:45:08 PM PDT by Petronski (A champion of dance, my moves will put you in a trance, and I never leave the disco alone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies ]


To: Petronski

For all intents and purposes, Cable and Satellite are the new "public" broadcasts because there are no viable alternatives. That gives them a monopoly on what channels they can "package" together with little input from the consumer.

The only way this can be done fairly is to let the consumer choose their own channels from the lineups the cable companies offer (premium ones would still cost more of course). Otherwise people who object to the garbage but want access to broadcasts are still having to foot the bill for all of it.

This would be a wiser way of pursuing this than blanket restrictions IMHO.


130 posted on 06/02/2005 8:56:29 PM PDT by streetpreacher (God DOES exist; He's just not into you!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson