The point about the camera quality is interesting. I've been experimenting with an independent film that was shot on a DV camcorder. It looks great on a projector or a computer, decent on a CRT-TV, but the moment you put it on a big LCD TV the quality drop is terrible.
The bigger HD gets, the more of a barrier expensive cameras will become for small, low budget operations, and the more web-based distribution will make sense.
Tom Coseven
· 2 years ago
Adam -- Every time I hear your argue so emotionally against a la carte I end up confused about why you think it matters so much. Would anyone's life really be any different if they had to pay a little more for ESPN?
Adam Thierer
· 2 years ago
Tom... My primary concern about a la carte regulation is not that anyone would have to pay a little more for any one channel, but whether (a) that channel would continue to be exist AT ALL under this regulatory regime, and (b) whether the OVERALL cost of programming would go up in the long run.
ESPN, of course, has a bright future regardless of what the regulatory regime looks like because people love sports and pay anything for it. But the same may not be true for niche-oriented programming that serves diverse communities.
Again, the only way many of those channels remain economically viable and get carried on cable and satellite systems today is because they are bundled alongside many other options. If our government forces the abrogation of those contracts and business arrangements in the name of "cleaning up cable" or "lowering bills," the results could be disasterous in terms of the diversity we see on pay TV today.
The reason that the proverbial "500-channel universe" is now a reality is because--whether by accident or intention design--we have stumbled onto a marketplace model of content delivery that promotes and maximizes programming diversity. We should consider that fact carefully before allowing our government to come in and take a regulatory sledgehammer to such a successful business model.
Moreover, speaking strictly from a the persepctive of a limited government-oriented libertarian, BY WHAT RIGHT DOES THE GOVERNMENT MANDATE ANY OF THIS? For God's sake, we're talking about television here! We don't have any inalienable right to cable or satellite TV on terms dictated by federal bureaucrats. And that's especially the case when those bureaucrats are seeking to regulate to "clean up" (i.e., CENSOR) pay TV.
Tom Coseven
· 2 years ago
The last paragraph is the only one that makes sense. "BY WHAT RIGHT DOES THE GOVERNMENT MANDATE ANY OF THIS?"
So which government should keep it's nose out. The federal government? Before they stepped in all the local governments were making their own (sometimes very unreasonable) demands. I had a neighbor that invested in cable systems back in the 70's and it wasn't pretty. The public clearly wants government control of television, and we are, after all, talking about public assets (ROW, broadcast and DBS spectrum, etc...). If you don't believe this, wait until we get closer to 02/09, and watch all the crazy commentary.
I either have to go with a complete private ownership model (property rights) and all government hands off, or democratic public regulation. The middle ground of some regulation is good and other is "morally" wrong seems impossible to defend without resorting to silly arguments about discriminating against special interest channels.
Jameel
· 2 years ago
Cook County Small Claims Court [url=http://gilmmer.ifrance.com/cook-county-small-claims-court.html]Cook County Small Claims Court[/url] Sabes A Chocolate By Kumbia Kings [url=http://gilmmer.ifrance.com/sabes-a-chocolate-by-kumbia-kings.html]Sabes A Chocolate By Kumbia Kings[/url] Mediaeval Baebes Lyrics [url=http://gilmmer.ifrance.com/mediaeval-baebes-lyrics.html]Mediaeval Baebes Lyrics[/url] Atv Pathfinder [url=http://gilmmer.ifrance.com/atv-pathfinder.html]Atv Pathfinder[/url] Art Supplies For Teachers [url=http://gilmmer.ifrance.com/art-supplies-for-teachers.html]Art Supplies For Teachers[/url]
Dominic
· 1 year ago
Pearl Harbor Survivor Association [url=http://fiierroo.iespana.es/pearl-harbor-survivor-association.html]Pearl Harbor Survivor Association[/url] Club Dating Online Jewish Single [url=http://fiierroo.iespana.es/club-dating-online-jewish-single.html]Club Dating Online Jewish Single[/url] Sterling Real Estate Austin Mn [url=http://fiierroo.iespana.es/sterling-real-estate-austin-mn.html]Sterling Real Estate Austin Mn[/url] Hip Hop Dance For Kids [url=http://fiierroo.iespana.es/hip-hop-dance-for-kids.html]Hip Hop Dance For Kids[/url] Jesse James Dupree Naked [url=http://fiierroo.iespana.es/jesse-james-dupree-naked.html]Jesse James Dupree Naked[/url]
All Comments
The bigger HD gets, the more of a barrier expensive cameras will become for small, low budget operations, and the more web-based distribution will make sense.
ESPN, of course, has a bright future regardless of what the regulatory regime looks like because people love sports and pay anything for it. But the same may not be true for niche-oriented programming that serves diverse communities.
Again, the only way many of those channels remain economically viable and get carried on cable and satellite systems today is because they are bundled alongside many other options. If our government forces the abrogation of those contracts and business arrangements in the name of "cleaning up cable" or "lowering bills," the results could be disasterous in terms of the diversity we see on pay TV today.
The reason that the proverbial "500-channel universe" is now a reality is because--whether by accident or intention design--we have stumbled onto a marketplace model of content delivery that promotes and maximizes programming diversity. We should consider that fact carefully before allowing our government to come in and take a regulatory sledgehammer to such a successful business model.
Moreover, speaking strictly from a the persepctive of a limited government-oriented libertarian, BY WHAT RIGHT DOES THE GOVERNMENT MANDATE ANY OF THIS? For God's sake, we're talking about television here! We don't have any inalienable right to cable or satellite TV on terms dictated by federal bureaucrats. And that's especially the case when those bureaucrats are seeking to regulate to "clean up" (i.e., CENSOR) pay TV.
So which government should keep it's nose out. The federal government? Before they stepped in all the local governments were making their own (sometimes very unreasonable) demands. I had a neighbor that invested in cable systems back in the 70's and it wasn't pretty. The public clearly wants government control of television, and we are, after all, talking about public assets (ROW, broadcast and DBS spectrum, etc...). If you don't believe this, wait until we get closer to 02/09, and watch all the crazy commentary.
I either have to go with a complete private ownership model (property rights) and all government hands off, or democratic public regulation. The middle ground of some regulation is good and other is "morally" wrong seems impossible to defend without resorting to silly arguments about discriminating against special interest channels.