Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: 119 Reasons to Keep Listening

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    sinrise is offline
    Junior Member
    sinrise's Avatar
    Joined: Mar 2010 Location: Long Beach, CA Posts: 3

    119 Reasons to Keep Listening

    That's only 119 reasons...

    There's only 119 more Howard Stern shows left and then I'm probably done with satellite radio, at least for a while. Other than Howard, I don't spend enough time listening to justify the cost and aggravation.

    I just feel like all programming in general is constantly under the 'decency' threat or the watchful eye of the FCC, or the dangerous right-wing noodniks who can't seem to just mind their own damn business.

    Conservatives, the FCC and the NAB are still hard at work trying to destroy entertainment as we know it (among other things.) I believe in on-demand, uncensored entertainment across the board. It's the future. Subscription based scheduled programming would be a thing of the past if not for the mega-greedy douchebags who couldn't care less about the quality of programming or the access for customers. It seems they're only concerned with their bottom line and whether or not they'll be able to afford that new 5000' yacht Reagan told them to buy. It's all very sad and depressing.

    The TV business is no different. How long are we supposed to suffer under the heel of cable companies who continue to rip everyone off? How long should we put up with the ridiculous programming schedules? Don't the TV execs realize they could stream all programming to the internet and custom tailor advertising depending on the demographics? Don't they understand the unique advantage of having a very accurate market research program; one that includes all viewers instead just a small percentage? Have they heard of Google? They have some pretty amazing statistical analysis tools. Do away with programs coming on at different times depending on the time zone! Doesn't anyone realize an episode of Lost airs on the East coast 3 hours ahead of the West?

    Technically, broadcast network TV programming is free. You pay for the service itself; for the hookup. Well, I already pay for that in the form of internet service. I watch all the TV shows I want and I don't have a cable bill. This is the future. Things like Hulu, or watching a show on the network's website is really kinda of an insult, because it's something less that what should be available. It's a step in the right direction but it's stupid you have to wait sometimes as long as a week to watch something that's already aired! It's out there... why make internet users wait? If they claim it's a technical thing, it's an outright lie... we have the technology. If it's a legal or a business thing, that really means it's all about money. It's not even about making money! It's about maximizing profits. Usually, that means compromising quality. I'm against that idea in all forms. I'm not against making money, just maximizing profits. If it's not live, it should be on-demand. With the advent of things like iTunes, it's proven people will pay a small fee for specific programming. It also greatly reduces the cost of distribution, which would allow them to make more money.

    I'm an internet-only subscriber. My cable company treats me like they're doing me a favor letting me pay for their shitty service. I don't need TV service, or phone service and i have stated this, yet they continue to call me every couple of months, offering to give me a discount on a bundle (which is still more than what I pay now, and includes 2 services I would never use!) They can never understand why I don't want TV service. Do they have any promos or discounts for people like me? Hell no. I'm not an alien, I've just figured out a way to watch the shows I want without having to sit through nauseating commercials or plan my life around what time my favorite shows are on. Yes, I could get TiVo but that's not exactly cheap, and I still have to wait for the show to air in my time zone.

    There's money to be made. I'm not promoting communism. I'm just saying that we are settling for less that what we're paying for. As long as executives are in charge of programming decisions, we will all pay a higher price for less. And, that's not even the real problem. The real problem is we're all just ok with this and continue to spend our money on garbage.

    We've settled for a dirty bowl of clean-out-the-refrigerator soup when we could be eating steak, for the same price. The fact that not many of us seem at all pissed off about this is a mystery to me.

    I know, I make a lot of points. I would love to see arguments to them. I would love to have the flaws in my logic pointed out... but I'm not trying to start a fight so let's have a friendly debate, not a flame war.

  2. #2
    Atypical is offline

    The United Corporate States of America

    One of your points, and a valid one, is that the need for excessive profits drives many corporate decisions that may not be good for consumers.

    Free markets (which have never existed) and capitalism if not controlled will negatively impact our personal lives. This has already happened and the Supreme Court's recent decision just pushes it farther along.

    Good examples are the "regulatory" agencies of the government that allow some industries to write their own regulations. They essentally work for those that they are supposed to regulate. (Hey, it's unamerican to prevent businesses from doing whatever the hell they want. And don't tax them either!)

    There are hundreds of examples of how this obeisance to corporations over people hurts us. This subject accounts for many of my posts on the Politics forum.

    It will only get worse until the worship of capitalism disappears.

    Never happen!

    To wit:

    'TOO BIG TO NAIL'

    A report at CNN about a separate legal matter involving Pfizer states that the Department of Justice considered Pfizer to be "too big to nail" in an investigation of the company's illegal marketing of the painkiller drug Bextra.

    CNN reports that, if Pfizer had been prosecuted over the drug, the company would have been excluded from doing business with Medicaid and Medicare. But because federal officials considered the company too big to be exempted from working with the government health programs, a dummy corporation -- Pharmacia & Upjohn Inc. -- was set up, and that dummy corporation then pleaded guilty to the crime.

    "P&UCI sold no drugs and had no real employees, and its creation was simply a figleaf to allow a Pfizer entity to take the rap without harming Pfizer itself," explains Jim Edwards at the Bnet business blog.

    Pfizer is the world's largest drugmaker, with annual revenue around $44 billion.
    Last edited by Atypical; 04-02-2010 at 06:43 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •