On 06/05/2010 15:02, Doug Freyburger wrote:
> Duggy wrote:
>>   "Mac Breck"  wrote:
>>> Chris Adams wrote:
>>
>>>> As the Internet allows more people to find smaller and
smaller groups
>>>> with ever more specific like interests, TV is going the opposite
>>>> direction, turning more homogeneous.  We're going to have 150
>>>> channels, and the _same thing_ on all 150 of them.
>>
>>> ....and then there's no reason to *have* 150 channels.
>
> I used to make sure the Sci Fi channel was on whatever lineup I had with
> the cable company.  I would upgrade my package if it didn't include the
> it.  Now I don't care if it's on the list any more.
>
>> There's always people who will get them so they can say they have 150
>> channels.
>
> Or because the cable companies offer a discount for the package with
> that many channels.  I think that's part of the cause.  If I got to pick
> my channels cafeteria style I would have under 2 dozen and I would be
> happy to pay for them as such.  Then the cable company would know what
> channels are the profitable ones and what channels are not.  I figure
> they decided they might not like the answer if they offered that.
>
Until recently the cable channels did not have the technology to
give you a choice of 150 channels.  Internet digital (high speed
packet switching) makes this possible.  The cable companies can now
do pay per view on individual channels.  Already available for
porn.

Andrew Swallow
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32