sf wrote:

> Me too, and I wouldn't care one whit if they took all of those dumb
> sports and shopping channels off. What I don't understand is why they
> don't just say "pick xx channels from this list" as your premium
> package in this day and age of digital. Extra channels can be an
> extra monthly charge or viewed on demand. How hard is that? On
> demand is perfect when you only watch one show per channel or only
> follow one sports team.

My satellite company is always jerking around with bundles. I am
considering dropping all the bundles and paying only for the channels
that I actually watch. In order to get BBC news and the History
channels I have to get the package that includes Fox News and a bunch of
other stations that I never watch. I like the Comedy channel and get
east and west, but it comes with a bunch of childrens cartoon channels.
Food Network comes bundled with a bunch of shows geared toward the
female demographic. Most of the bundles only have one or two channels
that I ever watch.


There is a broadcasting network that is trying to get the government to
force the satellite and cable companies to pay them for their signal.
IMO, that is just plain nuts. We have to subscribe to the basic networks
before we can get any other programing. Considering that the real
product in network TV is not the programming but the audience that they
attract in order to justify their advertising fees, the networks should
be paying the satellite and cable companies to carry their signal.