home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky misc.consumers:17839 alt.politics.elections:16993
- Path: sparky!uunet!dtix!darwin.sura.net!gatech!psuvax1!vogon1!wa3wbu!frackit!dave
- From: dave@frackit.UUCP (Dave Ratcliffe)
- Newsgroups: misc.consumers,alt.politics.elections
- Subject: Re: Cable Bill Rip-off
- Summary: I don't think so...
- Message-ID: <1683@frackit.UUCP>
- Date: 14 Oct 92 20:02:04 GMT
- References: <1992Oct6.165315.13389@netcom.com> <Bvq7Dx.HAz@rice.edu> <1992Oct8.181916.7952@netcom.com>
- Followup-To: misc.consumers
- Organization: Data Factory Services, Harrisburg, Pa.
- Lines: 27
-
-
- In article <1992Oct8.181916.7952@netcom.com>, strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:
- >
- > Alan L. Peterman argues that the local broadcasters produce programming
- > which the cable companies should pay for.
- >
- > Fine. If the local braodcasters would provide the programming without
- > advertising attached, and the cable companies could optionally choose
- > such programming according to their judgement as to viewer interest,
- > and could add their own advertising, no problem.
-
- Wrong. BIG problem. If what you propose were to happen then the cable
- companies would need a HELLUVA lot of new equipment just to be able to
- play those commercials you mentioned. 1 machine for each commercial
- channel they carry, dedicated to inserting commercials at the appropriate
- place. Guess who'll pay for that equipment in the end. Add in the cost
- of preparing the commercials (production), scheduling (traffic),
- selling commercial time (Account Executives), suddenly it's not such a
- good idea is it.
-
- You think cable is expensive now? Hooooo boy!
-
-
- --
- ...uunet!wa3wbu!frackit!dave -or- | Dave Ratcliffe |
- frackit!dave@uunet.UU.NET -or- dave@frackit.uucp -or- | Sys. <*> Admin. |
- vogon1!compnect!frackit!dave@psuvax1.psu.edu | Harrisburg, Pa. |
-