I am sure of you feel the same. I believe it can be fixed, though. The other day I canned my congressman to state how I felt. Sorry for the length, I have been contemplating this for a lon time! This can be a guide if you decide to make a call to your leaders as I did,in a very respectful and positive fashion.
Cable and Satellite providers force me to pay for all or nothing on even basic programming. If I want any programming, I have to pay for all channels, many of which support causes and agendas I disagree with for religeous or philosophical reasons. I would rather get 20% of the channels and pay the same money than to support those causes and fake-news.
Also, I pay for "The Cable Box" each month so those companies can easily alter the the programming, provide on demand, and pay-per-view services. Having worked in the past for large cable companies, they are able to provide individual programming line ups via these addresssable converter boxes with very little expense added to their current technology.
There are several reasons the cable and satellite bundle these channels. Many of the channels are owned by the cable companies. For instance Comcast owns NBC Universal, who owns NBC, CNBC, MSNBC, Bravoo, SYFY, USA, E!, Oxygen, Telemundo, Golf Channel, NBC Sports Networks, and many others.
Turner owns CNN, HLN, TBS, TNT, TruTV, Turner Classic Movies, Cartoon Network, and many more.
Disney ons A&E, History, Lifetime, ABC, ABC Family, Obvivously Disney Channel, ESPN, and more.
Especially for the cable companies owning the channels, they are motivated to make everyone subscribe to all of their channels to maximize profits. While many of the channels above are ones we watch frequently, many are not. Many may promote agendas and messages we don't agree with, but yet, if we want any programming other than on-air programming, we MUST pay for all the above and more.
Many of these channels actually promote agendas of political parties, or preach messages of hatred and divisiveness to our kids and families. And we have no way to restrict their message. Some of these channels have incredibly low ratings and only survive because our monthly payments to them, payments from tens of millions of homes monthly, go to them. Advertising on these channels is currently done as a bundling process as well. Pay a fee get X number of commercials played. Pay more for primetime.
I asked that the FCC or other governing groups to require Cable and Satellite companies to provide single channel subscription, or elimination of channels from funding by my payment, so that I can ensure that my money does not go to channels with causes and agendas I don't want to support. That is my freedom of speech request; to be able to make my dollar heard. My goal is not to reduce my monthly bill. My goal is to reward channels that provide good programming, honest news, and no agendas. My goals is to make sure my word is heard. Imagine if CNN tells some lie and hundreds of thousands drop them in the next few days. What if and ESPN commentator goes on a lengthly anti-firearms rant during a sportscast and ESPN's only statement is "We support their right to speak out about social topics...", I just wanted the hockey scores!!! ESPN, gone for a couple months? I don't want to support those sorts of agendas!!!! (infinite exclamation points required!)
Now the cable companies would all laugh and say, "Well, ESPN would cost $30 per month for everyone hahahaha.". NO. It wouldn't. Who would pay $30 per month for ESPN? They would find a fair market pricing and attract advertisers or they would not be on the air.
Carry that concept to completion on the advertising side. If MSNBC suddenly only has one million subscribers, each paying a few $ per month, they must rely on advertising. However, do you think any major advertisers will sign up to reach 1% of the viewing population? Very quickly, programming and messaging becomes more fair an honest. MTV.... maybe they would show videos again one day?? In truth, we would probably still pay a similar monthly bill, but the populous would be able to have a voice in programming rather than just a few big companies that more or less extort the money from us by virtue of the bundleing process.
Now, why would the government be able to force private companies to perform in this fashion, many will ask. Remember that these are still regulated quasi-utilities. They use condemnation processes to lay cable. They use government airwaves in some cases, they use some government services and satellites, their phone services are part of the national security infrastructure. I feel the government does have the right to press this issue as a freedom of speech issue. MY freedom of speech, YOUR freedom of speech.
I encourage you to contact your lawmakers, both local and nations, to express your interest in this idea. This is a party and position nutural concept. The conversation can be tailored to suit more liberal mindsets (Substitute disconnect CNN with disconnect Fox News, for example, anti-gun message with pro-gun message, etc.,). Please also consider migrating this idea to other forums you may be a member of in the hopes this will "go viral". I don't even think it requires a law, perhaps and executive order, but certainly a bill would make it less simple to overturn.
Worst case is that there will be some very left and some very right channels with a larger number that are position and agenda neutral, and I am OK with that result. I am just so tired of everything being political and agenda driven and the wedge being driven in the heart of our country. News and position programming are a major cause of the divides in our amazing country.
Thanks to all of you who serve and who have served.
Cable and Satellite providers force me to pay for all or nothing on even basic programming. If I want any programming, I have to pay for all channels, many of which support causes and agendas I disagree with for religeous or philosophical reasons. I would rather get 20% of the channels and pay the same money than to support those causes and fake-news.
Also, I pay for "The Cable Box" each month so those companies can easily alter the the programming, provide on demand, and pay-per-view services. Having worked in the past for large cable companies, they are able to provide individual programming line ups via these addresssable converter boxes with very little expense added to their current technology.
There are several reasons the cable and satellite bundle these channels. Many of the channels are owned by the cable companies. For instance Comcast owns NBC Universal, who owns NBC, CNBC, MSNBC, Bravoo, SYFY, USA, E!, Oxygen, Telemundo, Golf Channel, NBC Sports Networks, and many others.
Turner owns CNN, HLN, TBS, TNT, TruTV, Turner Classic Movies, Cartoon Network, and many more.
Disney ons A&E, History, Lifetime, ABC, ABC Family, Obvivously Disney Channel, ESPN, and more.
Especially for the cable companies owning the channels, they are motivated to make everyone subscribe to all of their channels to maximize profits. While many of the channels above are ones we watch frequently, many are not. Many may promote agendas and messages we don't agree with, but yet, if we want any programming other than on-air programming, we MUST pay for all the above and more.
Many of these channels actually promote agendas of political parties, or preach messages of hatred and divisiveness to our kids and families. And we have no way to restrict their message. Some of these channels have incredibly low ratings and only survive because our monthly payments to them, payments from tens of millions of homes monthly, go to them. Advertising on these channels is currently done as a bundling process as well. Pay a fee get X number of commercials played. Pay more for primetime.
I asked that the FCC or other governing groups to require Cable and Satellite companies to provide single channel subscription, or elimination of channels from funding by my payment, so that I can ensure that my money does not go to channels with causes and agendas I don't want to support. That is my freedom of speech request; to be able to make my dollar heard. My goal is not to reduce my monthly bill. My goal is to reward channels that provide good programming, honest news, and no agendas. My goals is to make sure my word is heard. Imagine if CNN tells some lie and hundreds of thousands drop them in the next few days. What if and ESPN commentator goes on a lengthly anti-firearms rant during a sportscast and ESPN's only statement is "We support their right to speak out about social topics...", I just wanted the hockey scores!!! ESPN, gone for a couple months? I don't want to support those sorts of agendas!!!! (infinite exclamation points required!)
Now the cable companies would all laugh and say, "Well, ESPN would cost $30 per month for everyone hahahaha.". NO. It wouldn't. Who would pay $30 per month for ESPN? They would find a fair market pricing and attract advertisers or they would not be on the air.
Carry that concept to completion on the advertising side. If MSNBC suddenly only has one million subscribers, each paying a few $ per month, they must rely on advertising. However, do you think any major advertisers will sign up to reach 1% of the viewing population? Very quickly, programming and messaging becomes more fair an honest. MTV.... maybe they would show videos again one day?? In truth, we would probably still pay a similar monthly bill, but the populous would be able to have a voice in programming rather than just a few big companies that more or less extort the money from us by virtue of the bundleing process.
Now, why would the government be able to force private companies to perform in this fashion, many will ask. Remember that these are still regulated quasi-utilities. They use condemnation processes to lay cable. They use government airwaves in some cases, they use some government services and satellites, their phone services are part of the national security infrastructure. I feel the government does have the right to press this issue as a freedom of speech issue. MY freedom of speech, YOUR freedom of speech.
I encourage you to contact your lawmakers, both local and nations, to express your interest in this idea. This is a party and position nutural concept. The conversation can be tailored to suit more liberal mindsets (Substitute disconnect CNN with disconnect Fox News, for example, anti-gun message with pro-gun message, etc.,). Please also consider migrating this idea to other forums you may be a member of in the hopes this will "go viral". I don't even think it requires a law, perhaps and executive order, but certainly a bill would make it less simple to overturn.
Worst case is that there will be some very left and some very right channels with a larger number that are position and agenda neutral, and I am OK with that result. I am just so tired of everything being political and agenda driven and the wedge being driven in the heart of our country. News and position programming are a major cause of the divides in our amazing country.
Thanks to all of you who serve and who have served.
