[mythtv-users] All clear QAMs gone in Portland, OR
Michael T. Dean
mtdean at thirdcontact.com
Fri Nov 1 17:50:07 UTC 2013
On 11/01/2013 12:57 PM, Eric Sharkey wrote:
> By bundling, we forcibly amortize the production charge
... of channels/shows that may not be able to stand on their own ...
> over more
> people. It's very easy to set up some trivial models of this and show
> that we're really better off with bundling than without it.
if your goal is to keep high-quality programming such as "Watching Grass
Grow", "Paint-From Drying to Flecking", and "Learn to Hunt Blue Whales
with the Atlatl". Unfortunately, I had to make up some bad-sounding
show titles since I can't use low-quality rubbish as examples of shows
that should die--and would--under a purely "stand on its own merit"
system because I fear that "Here Comes Honey Boo Boo" or "Toddlers &
Tiaras" or "Jersey Shore" or ... might actually still survive. (OK,
I'll admit I watched Sharknado, and plan to watch the sequel, but at
least that's only a couple of "episodes".)
Basically, though, if content can't stand on its own, why must we
amortize its cost? Or, more importantly, once we make the decision to
do so--once we decide we're completely going against capitalistic
principles--why must we also remove all semblance of democracy from the
process, too. Instead the current system relies only on redistributors'
contracts to decide what survives. (OK, advertisers' contracts at least
bring things on the per-show level (though not so much the channel
level) a bit closer to having a democratic voice.)
That said, I can make arguments for either side of the debate, and I
unbundled successfully for at least a time, so I'm content that it is an
option for people willing/stubborn enough to take that approach, and
understand why the bundled approach is much better for the
cable/satellite services (and, therefore, why it's likely to persist).
Mike
More information about the mythtv-users
mailing list