BRNout said:
Which is hardly evidence of…well, anything.
BRNout said:
What has developed is not a truly free market by any means. Not even close. We have a limited number of corporations which own cable channels and a limited distribution network (your cable system, Direct TV/Dish and maybe Fios/U-Verse).
No one said it was cheap. You need deep pockets to enter many a business successfully. You start small and build. Doesn’t change that there’s not a legal barrier in place since the rules now make it clear no municipality may enter into any new exclusive agreements with a particular provider. That makes it open.
Hmmm, sounds like one of the great conservative principles in action. Ah, but since you don’t happen to like the outcome, that somehow makes it different.
BRNout said:
Cable, which is franchised and without direct competition in the vast majority of areas, enjoys a more than 75% share of the audience.
That would be very compelling if only it had the advantage of being true. But why let that stop you now.
It’s franchised, as is FiOs and U-Verse—and, as noted above, the law no longer allows new exclusive franchises, period (as I learned from the last town I lived in when they were holding franchise hearings). But satellite isn’t and is available in…what’s that phrase…oh, yes, the vast majority of areas. (And no, just because someone’s Uncle Larry lives in a house without a view where they can pick up satellite doesn’t negate the fact). I did some fact checking because it interested me, and more than 30% of people—and growing—get paid TV service from one of those types of companies (and 20 years ago it was about five percent). A little google news shows that virtually every quarter, they’re getting more customers.
Sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending it’s not competition changes nothing.
BRNout said:
You're not getting independent start-ups on cable because they simply can't get carriage.
Um, yeah, business is hard. You don’t get shelf space at national retailers without hard work and a good product offering, and you don’t get a slot on a satellite or cable lineup without the same. But those that do offer something of value on good business terms do get it. Every schlub of the street can’t get their cable channel on DirecTV any more than they can get their “amazing” pasta sauce in the Piggly Wiggly just because they want to. But the pasta sauce entrepreneur and the guy with the great content idea can still grow their business the “new old-fashioned” way. Get it online, get people to pay attention, and if you come up with something compelling enough, use that as your way to convince the satellite or cable guys that you’re a good value, or the supermarket guys that they should devote some shelf space to you. You know, actually earn it.
A pesky little fact iss that there are something like 500+ total channels out there by one report I found. 500 compared to…what…a half dozen choices two generations back when there was zero---nada—chance of getting anything remotely resembling a niche channel, no matter how you define it, in front of a national audience. As always, though, you ignore that.
BRNout said:
Deals struck between the cable systems and the likes of CBS, Viacom, FOX, NBC-Universal, etc. tend to rule what is offered.
You mean perfectly legal business contracts?
BRNout said:
If it were truly a free market, you'd see other start-up channels popping up to replace those which have become homogenized.
About as soon as I’d see the sky turn pink.
For some reason this seems to pain you, which may be why you ignore this: people aren’t tuning away from most of those channels. There’s simply no significant money to be made from playing a linear stream of music videos anymore. I’m sorry, but the days of “The World Premiere Video from Duran Duran!!” are dead. No one is going to get carriage for such an animal because anyone with an ounce of business sense can figure that out. Likewise, they can figure out that a sustainable business needs to factor in both costs and expenditures, and that sometimes you trim the expenditures when they’re not generating the income to justify them. (Another item you fail to address.)
BRNout said:
But, in a marketplace with only 4 or so major players,
Which isn’t the case here, rendering the argument utterly irrelevant.
BRNout said:
there isn't room for that to happen and we get the same crap all over basic cable.
Has it entered your brain that what you like may be crap to someone else? Just wondering. But that aside, it’s demonstrably false. You select only certain examples and pretend they’re true across the board because that lie is the only way to make the argument work.
BRNout said:
Those 'new players' who want to take a shot at replacing the previous programming of TWC or CMT or the old A&E can't even start to get off the ground because they'll never get carriage.
Yeah, that CMT sure has zero competition. Wait..what’s that? Oh, yeah, a little thing called GAC. Ooops, sorry about blowing that argument with another fact.
BRNout said:
Dish Network was about to air a new weather channel (the "Weather Cast") and that was scotched when a new deal was struck with NBC-Universal for continued carriage of TWC. The new station didn't die for lack of viewership because it didn't even get far enough to be tested.
I coulda been a contendor, I tells ya.
I know this one strikes close to your heart, thinking that there must be enough weather nerds out there who would show the world that all meteorologists all the time will be a viable business now. It’s called a negotiating ploy. No more, no less. If it’s still a viable model, someone can prove it out. Go for it.
BRNout said:
As the established programming providers have a lot of leeway when it comes to exclusivity, they can readily change 'formats' as they see fit - once they're on most cable systems. In doing so, they often drop the niche and go for the easy mark. Again, programming for the very lowest common denominator.
You mean a business in this country is free to maximize its profits? How very, very non-socialist. What next, stores can choose what to put on their shelves to make more money? Restaurants being able to adjust menus in response to changing tastes? Where will it all end?!?
BRNout said:
Apparently, based on cable ratings, the collective IQ of the US population continues to plummet.
Everyone is stupid but BRNie. Check. Heard that refrain many times, glad we got it in again.
BRNout said:
And we get the complaints from those who actually know better. Amazing to me is your failure to recognize that there are a lot of people who are pissed about these changes. Your posts imply that you are tone deaf when it comes to this issue.
Not once did I say there weren’t people who aren’t pissed. But it’s a business, and businesses are there to take in more money than they put out. Realities change, and pretending they don’t is a recipe for bankruptcy court. Fondly recalling the past is all well and good, trying to live in it is a personal choice…but conducting businesses in it? Um, well, not so good if your job is actually to stay afloat.
If, in fact, there’s any tone deafness, it appears to come from the sector that can’t come to grips with simple facts about business.
