"When you pay your cable bill every month to get Fox, cSpan, History Ch. etc, you are also being forced to support MTV 1, MTV 2, Howard Stern, and the rest of the video sewage programs pumped into our homes. Each of these porn-shows receive xx number of cents from our payment each month, just for also being included in the basic package. If the cable companies were forced to UN-bundle these trashy shows, and make them each stand or fall on their own merit, many if not most, of the porn-trash shows catering to teens & twentysomthings, would FAIL within 6mos."
I think I should get to order cable channels, channel-by-channel. I hate putting money in the pockets of those who create programming I feel is trash. Why should I have to pay for it when I never watch it and don't want it on my television?
I agree about this "bundling" issue.
Then let the market decide.
Another aspect is that for example, ESPN gets a couple bux plus from the cables for each subscriber, plus they sell advertising. Either free or ad supported works as a new
regulation for me. Not both.
The deals between the cables and "channels" would need to be rewritten to be "per subscriber who opts for the channel" rather than for each subscriber.
No big deal, FCC should say "make it happen". Digital systems could easily do it, today. They are "addressible" so the cables will know what folks are watching, negating thier "increased theft potential" argument. Not to mention any of thier other excuses.
_____________________________
As far as this "gov'mint shuttin down free speech" talk, Clear channel is not the gov'mint.
Clear channel folded pretty quick, I suggest they were looking for an excuse.
Uggh, stay on topic.