On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 13:40:26 -0800, sf wrote:

> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 16:20:07 -0500, "Nancy Young"
> > wrote:
>
>>I'd be mad if I turned on my tv and Food Network and HGTV
>>disappeared.
>
> 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.

to a certain extent, you can blame the god-bothering networks and other
niche broadcasters for that:

(MAY 2, 2005)
A la carte is a backdoor attempt to influence content by forcing cable
operators to let consumers pick the channels that they want to buy. If
parents could choose their channels instead of having to select one of the
packages offered by the cable companies, the argument goes, then they could
get the kid-friendly Disney Channel, for example, without also signing up
for the more risqué MTV.

But such disparate parties as Disney, religious broadcasters Pat Robertson
and Jerry Falwell, and groups including the Leadership Conference on Civil
Rights helped the cable industry deep-six that proposal. Without cable's
broad programming packages, they argued, networks like Black Entertainment
Television and the Christian Broadcasting Network would have never
survived. One idea that is favored by Senator Stevens and Kevin J. Martin,
the new chairman of the FCC, would require cable operators to offer a
package of family-friendly channels.

<http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_18/c3931059_mz013.htm>

a .pdf, but a short one:

<http://www.faithandfamilytv.com/FFTV.AP.31106.pdf>

your pal,
blake