Religious broadcasters foresee lost viewership

[rucky]

http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=100451&ran=79719

Religious broadcasters foresee lost viewership

By STEVEN G. VEGH, The Virginian-Pilot
© March 2, 2006

The idea of paying for only the cable channels they want might have strong appeal for consumers, but to religious programmers, the prospect seems just short of apocalyptic.

Pay-per-channel pricing “would have a devastating effect on the inspirational programming we currently provide” and “decimate both the audience and financial support for religious broadcasting,” according to the Faith and Family Broadcasting Coalition. The group includes Pat Robertson ’s Christian Broadcasting Network, which is based in Virginia Beach.

Last month, the Federal Communications Commission said that with per-channel pricing, consumers could save as much as 13 percent on their cable bills. Under the arrangement, consumers would no longer have to buy cable in packages or bundles that may include dozens of channels they do not want. The FCC said the average household watches only 17 channels. In South Hampton Roads, Cox Communications’ “standard” cable package has 70 channels, according to the company’s Web site.

Many evangelical broadcasters, and much of the cable industry, dispute the consumer savings claim and oppose per-channel pricing, also known as a la carte cable...

[mediaman007]

1. Well Pat, you don't want your money going for abortions, and I

don't want my money going to you. The customers would have the power to boycott. This is the best news to come out of Washington in a long time. My guess is that this could take the large corporations out of the broadcasting business.

[saigon68]

2. Pat is an evil man

Mining the pockets of the sheep

[Xipe Totec]

3. Yea, now that you mention it,

I'm amazed there has been no lawsuit against the cable networks on this point alone.

Good one!

[rpannier]

5. Unfortunately it could negatively affect a lot of good channels too

I don't live in the states but I have relatives who like Bravo, et al. In addition, it might make it harder for new networks to get started.
I can't stand marion, but I'm sort of concerned about other specialty networks.

[seaglass]

7. Yep. I'm wondering how many people actually watch the

Senate and/or the House in session. I am really concerned that either C-Span will go away or will be too expensive to purchase. I'm a geek, I love the panel discussions and Book TV on weekends.

I just don't see in the end that this is going to be a benefit.

I worked briefly for Comcast. I can just imagine the increased calls of people cancelling one channel and signing up for another - this is going to be a huge increase in costs and it will go back to the consumer. I don't know if those costs will be born by the individual consumer making the channel change or be spread across all of them - I would guess the costs would be spread out.

But I do want my cable bill to go down, I'm just not sure this is the way.

[Toots]

48. Maybe small blocks of similar networks

I agree that this could be a bad thing for some networks. There are many that have occasional programming I like but would not subscribe to the network for just one or two shows. If that network were bundled with a couple of others like it I probably would subscribe. One bundle could be Major broadcast Networks like CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX, PBS. Another could be CNN, FOXNEWS, MSNBC, CNBC, CSPAN, CSPAN2, CSPAN3 another could be the religion channels etc etc.

[JudyM]

32. Your money's going to Pat anyway, via Chimpie's practices. n/t

[trixie]

33. I only have 1 channel blocked

It is the channel for Pat Robertson - he actually scared our kids once with his hate filled dogma.

[saigon68]

40. He is a sub-human hate monger

[muttcats]

51. LOL

I only have the religious channels blocked myself.

[MADem]

39. I agree wholeheartedly!!!

It'll be "put up or shut up" time!

Of course, you know how these bastards will do it, at least at the outset...they will OVERCHARGE for each unit, find some sleazy way to profit-share by forming limited partnerships, and the poor consumer will end up, at least initially, paying MORE for less.

Then, after a few years of being raped for service, the public will get pissed off, and the prices will fall.

It'll be like handheld calculators--they used to cost a hundred bucks or more for one that could do square roots and was bigger than a pack of smokes, now the bank gives ya one for free that is the size of a credit card and can calculate the distance from here to the moon!

[tsuki]

4. As a viewer with a la carte options, I do save on my satellite

bill. So, I am here to testify.

[fasttense]

6. I like the idea. It really gets me to know I pay for FOX,, religious

shows and QVC. I bet Fox will lose viewers if they had to pay for the state run news and propaganda. Imagine paying good money to be lied to. Not to mention the QVC channels. Would someone really pay to see one long commercial?

[RebelOne]

8. I love QVC. It's not one long commercial.

It's a fun shopping channel.

[NashVegas]

9. Question About That Estimated 13%

Are they saying we'd save 13% on the same 50-150 channels most people receive, or 13% if we trimmed that down to the 5-15 channels most people actually watch?

If the latter, I'd expect a helluvalot more than 13% savings!

[Journeyman]

10. So let Prey TV pay for everyone's access. . .

If they're convinced I need to have their bilge on my box, let 'em pay the fee for me -- then, it's just free tv in the midst of my cable connection, and I can choose to watch or not. Same with the rest of the channels -- if they need to have me receive their broadcast, let 'em pay for it, same as commercial tv has for decades. I'll just program the clicker to skip over 'em -- no biggee. But give me the option of choosing what I want to pay for and what I don't. I have little problem with their programs being broadcast over the airwaves but I have a definite beef with having to pay for their pablum as part of my cable package.

We'll get into the merits of selective subscription and its impact on content later. But first, preachers, give me the option. Let me -- as you're all so wont to insist -- let me "choose God" . . . or let me choose the nudie channel, but let me choose.


"Pray TV looks like Pay TV to me -- it's just a curse on the human race." -- Pete Townshend

[liberal N proud]

11. I don't watch them now and I pay for them

Why should I pay for something I don't use?

They want to be able to force their form of religion down Americans throats

77% in the poll want Pay-per channel

[xchrom]

12. if i can get these christian bigots off my tv

i will hapily pay more to select my channels.

and btw -- can we get more than one cable provider per area?

i HATE comcast.

[Nomen Tuum]

16. And FOX NEWS Too!

Oh, just the thought of throwing the switch on America's PRAVDA, FAUX NEWS... :-)

[MADem]

41. Likely, your choice is limited to one cable provider in most markets

You have to go to a satellite dish otherwise...

We have ON DEMAND addicts in my house, otherwise I would consider a dish...

[Cobalt Violet]

13. Change is good.

I may some day get cable again.

[Tesha]

14. Golly, how tragic! (NT)

[zbdent]

15. BINGO!

This is why I support the "pay per channel" possibility . . . I mean, if you can get the technology for "on-demand" viewing, then you can parse up the channels and get rid of the stupid channels you've always had to fund against your will - Faux, MSRNC, EWTN, etc.

I mean, you really have to fight to get any nudity on non-broadcast channels . . .

(Hey, where can I get the "etc." channel?)

[bleedingheart]

17. I am really keen on this idea but I worry about PBS...

which has great programming like Frontline...I would sign up for PBS...but not for the 700 club

[Lydia Leftcoast]

26. PBS is a broadcast channel, and cable companies have to carry

your local broadcast channels.

[bleedingheart]

28. thanks for that info

I didn't know that...it makes me feel much better!!!

[KamaAina]

38. Which is why the fundies are snapping up UHF channels all over the place.

They even tried to buy out the PBS station in Orange County, CA! (but were rebuffed, thank goodness) In some cases they're even getting new channels assigned so they can saturate the airwaves with even more sickening theocratic propaganda. :puke:

[tanyev]

18. Wait a minute. I know I got a petition from one of these groups,

either AFA or Focus on the Family, to send a message to the FCC that they supported per channel pricing. They wanted it because they are apparently unable to stop themselves from watching "sexually offensive" programs that appear on their TV sets. Somebody must have done some extensive polling and figured out what would really happen if per channel subscription became available.

[Bridget Burke]

30. Many of "These Groups" support Cable Choice.

They do not wish to pay for liberal, lewd, lascivious programming. Concerned Women for America are among the Usual Suspects:

Give Us Cable Choice for Decency's Sake! 2/3/2004
By Martha Kleder

Beleaguered parents are often told that if they don't like a TV program to "just change the channel." To add insult to injury, these same consumers often have to pay for the trash they are trying to avoid.

Cable and satellite dish systems force customers to purchase channels that they don't watch and find offensive. And the excesses of these systems, which are exempt from Federal Communications Commission (FCC) content rules, drive regular broadcasting channels to air ever-more-coarse programming.

www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=5175&department=CFI&categoryid=papers

Cable Choice could go both ways. Some of MY favorites might lose viewership, too. Also--although I watch mostly watch a few channels, many others have occasional interesting shows.

[MADem]

42. The dimwits have no CLUE how to use V chip technology

Either that, or they can't bear not to know what they are missing!!!

If this ever came to pass, they'd pay for the "offensive" channels, and then WHINE about them!!!

[leesa]

19. Excellent news! Hope the sleazy bastards go out of business.

[Roland99]

20. Damn. I'm shedding crocodile tears over here.

NOT!

[stepnw1f]

21. Bernie Ward is Great

an authentic follower of Christ. A liberal in the religious sense which to me is very comforting.

[JerseygirlCT]

22. Anyone else enjoying the thought

that these guys may fall prey to the same social Darwinism that they've espoused themselves, ignoring their so-called religious values?

Let the people decide! Unless you're free, no one wants to hear from you, Pat.

[BiggJawn]

23. Isn't the Free Market a wunnerful thing sometimes?

It doesn't always line the pockets of the Rich, it would seem.

Good, that's just that much less programming on the Teee-Veeee I have to do at my GF's to block that shit out of the line-up.

I don't see what they're so upset about, since most of them have been successful in getting their crap included into the "Basic" tier of programming along with C-SPAN and their local off-air channels.

[joefree1]

24. A monopoly is a monopoly is a monopoly

The corporatist only believe in free market for corporations. I love this idea. Get that Faux News and Borg-again brain washing off my idiot box!

[onenote]

25. which monopoly?

[joefree1]

27. The monopoly Cable or Satelite TV has on it's customers

wikipedia
In economics, a monopoly (from the Greek monos, one + polein, to sell) is defined as a persistent market situation where there is only one provider of a kind of product or service. Monopolies are characterized by a lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide and a lack of viable substitute goods.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly

[onenote]

36. I have three choices

my cable company, DirecTV and EchoStar. Not sure I see a monopoly situation.

[joefree1]

37. LOL, well scuse my suffix

In my area we have a "duopoly" then. There are only two choices, cable and DirecTV. Whoopee

A true duopoly is a form of oligopoly where only two producers exist in a market. In reality, this definition is generally eased whereby two firms must only have dominant control over a market. In the field of industrial organization, it is the most commonly studied form of oligopoly due to its simplicity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duopoly

In your case you have a triopoly. Lucky you. I guess I'm just one of the whining Democrats. :evilfrown:

[onenote]

43. just curious -- why dont you have Echostar (DISHTV) available?

It has a nationwide footprint like DirecTV

[apnu]

29. I've been supporting this since the get go.

And if any religious-wacko or GOP jackass stands in the way then they're hypocritical shit bags, IMO. All this talk about free will from churches and independent, get-the-establishment-off-our-backs bullshit from the GOP dummies all a bunch of drivel. Which I know to be true, but none the less, I'd love to only pay for the channels I watch.

Hey Pat Robertson, want more cheese to go with that whine?!?! (pun intended)

[KansDem]

34. I gave up cable 10 years ago for that reason.

I'd love to only pay for the channels I watch

My wife and I concluded we were watching only 4 or 5 channels of the 60-plus we were paying for, and the cable provider kept raising our rates! At the time we discontinued cable, we were paying about $30-35 a month. I don't know what it is now, and I really don't care since not having cable turned out to be a blessing in disguise: our children are avid readers and the money we saved we poured into a classic-movie DVD collection that we select from for our entertainment.

However, if I were to pay only for the channels I wanted to watch, I might reconsider subscribing to cable but the advantages would have to be rather substantial.

[apnu]

35. Yeah, well we kept the cable for a few reasons

1) TV recieption in Chicago sucks a lot.

2) Most of the shows we do want to watch are on cable only channels (HBO shows like Deadwood and Carnival, TCM, and Encore movies)

3) We get a discount w/ cable Internet access

I wish it wasn't Comcast (horrible company, and even more lousy support), but my only other option is SBC and they are far worse than Comcast! In Chicago, everything is a choice of a monolopy or two very bad evils.

[Strong Atheist]

31. Giving customers a choice, what a concept!

:eyes:

All the preferred channels are against this, not just the religious ones, because they think they can't make it on their own. So much for the lip service to the "free market".:eyes:

If people were allowed to chose, sooner rather than later a new equilibrium would result; where the channels that people liked would thrive and the rest would wither...

Seems like a great idea to me ...

[Lydia Leftcoast]

44. The channels I like best are in the higher tiers:

IFC, Sundance, History International, BBCAmerica, Ovation, HBO.

The only "extended basic" channesl that are any good anymore are PBS, Comedy Central, Turner Classic Movies, sometimes MSNBC, and CSPAN.

I used to like A&E (once a PBS wannabe, now a true crime channel) and Bravo (once a specialist in foreign films, now a celebrity poker channel), but now I could easily give up either one without a tear.

So I could get by with about 10 channels plus my local broadcast outlets.

By the way, a la carte pricing is already available in other countries. Channels like IFC, Sundance, HI, BBCA, Ovation, and HBO are already "minority interest" channels, since they are available only to subscribers who can and want to pay for the higher tiers. Making them available a la carte would actually make available to more people who might have sophisticated tastes but low incomes (starving artists, graduate students, retired people).

[JNelson6563]

45. Thank God!

:toast:

[loudsue]

46. Here in Arkansas, cable does NOT carry Jon Stewart!!

We can watch South Park, but we cannot watch The Daily Show. This part of Arkansas is fundie Central as far as the local governments are concerned, but most of the people I've met are LIBERALS. It's just that the fundies have LOTS of money to get people elected. The politics affects what the local cable channels will cover.

If I had satellite (Dish Network or DirecTV) I could go around the cable issue, but in my apartment complex, I have to pay a whopping $500 to mount a satellite dish.

So...a great many of my cable channels are religious....things I have to pay for to be able to watch the mediocre stuff that sells for entertainment. If it wasn't for CSI and Alias and ACC/NCAA basketball on ESPN, I wouldn't even have purchased cable.... I'd get a VCR/DVD and rent movies.

:kick::kick::kick:

[triguy46]

47. Get a satellite dish...

but now that I post that, I wonder if this proposal would apply to satellites, since they are not cable. I'd love to get the 5 channels I watch and dump the rest.

[sakabatou]

49. I dunno, maybe it's because these guys are so full of it?

[daleo]

50. These guys should have more faith in God

And quit worrying about how cable channels are bundled.

[WhiteTara]

52. not to have their spew come through my tv

if I accidentally pause in channel surfing would be a present. I say, what a good way to get rid of rw bigot church spew, I doubt many people would pay to receive that nonsense, they just watch because it is there.