DISQUS

eric · 2 years ago

"While the courts were trying to determine its constitutionality, the wonderful diversity of programming on television could be decimated if the rules remained in effect while legal challenges were pending."

My suspicion is that any specific programs you name that you think might disappear under an a la carte scheme are programs that I and 99% of the viewing public would not miss. Television is a mass medium. There is no reason to flood cable with endless niche networks/programs which few if any would pay specifically to see. The proper venue for niche programming might be some sort of subscriber based online content.

"Wonderful diversity" does not describe my feeling about the 150 channels I am forced to buy if I want a satellite TV package. Bruce Springsteen said it best in his song: "57 channels and there's nothin' on."

Tom Coseven · 2 years ago

Adam, I got to say I was shocked after reading your 2004 FCC comments. Repeating the argument that society needs to subsidize Lifetime? Really? This is definitely not my father's Cato!

I could care less about the moral arguments (turn the TV off, or spend TV time with the kids), but as long as this stuff is protected under Title VI, and with all the breaks we have been given the Cable industry since 1984, I hate seeing 70% of American families taxed $5 every month for ESPN (Disney just raised it again this year). You can keep your minority subsidies, and your violent content, if they would just make ESPN a premium service like HBO, both Kevin and I would be happy, because let's face it everyone knows that ESPN is the only real problem. (BTW we are both big sports fans, but would rather pay our own way... and maybe we cound get SAS to shut up!)

I'm dead serious, if the Cable companies would surrender ESPN, Kevin Martin would quit acting like they stole his lunch money. Multicast must carry would be history. They might even get a 629 waiver (temporary until 2009 or DCAS whichever came first).