How about I cut my cable bill down by not being forced to carry all those relgious

[WCGreen]

stations now that these "religious" outfits, such as Pat Robertson's sham, require me to have their bigotry and hatred channeled into my home...

What if my child is exposed to these hate mongers while surfing through the channels. How am I going to explain that some people hide behind religion in order to support a political agenda that "we" don't agree with.

No parent should have to answer those awful questions such as why does that old man smile while he talks about hate and prejudice...

And what about me having to pay higher taxes to fund the government because all of these religious groups I don't agree with get tax write offs...



Never has a smilie been so appropriate

[southernyankeebelle]

1. I asked my direct TV station why do I need all of these religious channels. I asked them

I just tune in to one and that is the catholic channel to watch a mass now and then. Why can't they take away the rest of those religious channels I don't watch and give me some other choices or lessen my bill.

[onenote]

7. Probably for the same reason your newspaper won't let you take the paper without

the sports section and pay less.

[southernyankeebelle]

21. Well at least you can line the bird cage with it. LOL

[csziggy]

32. Well, I don't want the sports channels on my TV service, either

But I end up having to get them AND the religious channels, none of which I watch or want.

I may add them to Fox News and Fox Business to the list of blocked channels in the Parental Controls.

[RC]

2. Ain't a gonna happen.

I believe the religious stations pay the cable company to carry them. Religion is big money business.

[onenote]

11. Religious broadcasters do not pay for carriage.

They are entitled by law to free carriage if they are local over-the-air stations. If its a religious-oriented non-broadcast cable network, such as TBN, or the Jewish Life Channel, or the Gospel Music Channel (among many), they generally charge the cable operator for carriage, although the fee may be nominal or may be simply based on providing ad avails for the cable operator to sell. The model of programmers paying for carriage is not economically viable.

[Avalux]

3. I got rid of cable for a Roku box. You should do the same.

If you have an HD TV, get rabbit ears for local channels (I get about 30 altogether, some HD). You'll still need an internet provider for Roku and through that I have Netflix, Hulu Plus, and a lot of other movie, music and offbeat channels (some free, some paid).

With this, I cut my cable bill down by 2/3rds and I'm not subjected to or pay for religious crap and inane reality shows (which is all there seems to be on cable TV these days). Well worth it!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

5. Ask your cable company if they have "a local channels plus public access only" plan

You won't get the non-local channels, but on the rare occasions when something good is on them (and their quality has deteriorated to a disgusting degree--did you know that A&E, now a true crime and "reality" channel, was once touted as and pretty much functioned as a commercial alternative to PBS, with arts documentaries and performances and foreign-made dramas?), the content is on Hulu Plus, iTunes, or Netflix pretty quickly.

I have a Roku in addition to basic-basic cable, which gives me two PBS services and MHz Worldview on public access--and MHz Worldview has recently added a line-up of mysteries and movies from Europe at 9PM EST seven nights a week.

On my Roku, I can access my Netflix and Hulu Plus Instant queues (206 items in my Netflix queue, many of the Criterion Collection movies and other movies in my Hulu Plus queue). I could access Amazon Prime, too, but everything I want to see is already on Netflix or Hulu. In addition, there are several channels that show old movies and TV shows that are in public domain, foreign language channels, worldwide news, Democracy Now, Al Jazeera, channels devoted to hobbies, etc. at no additional cost. You can even get fundamentalist or right-wing channels, but not unless you specifically choose to put them in your line-up.

The Roku gives me more content than I have time to watch, and I chose all of it.

If the cable companies won't give us a la carte cable, by gum, we can make up our own. There was a posting about getting rid of cable on PBS's Facebook page, and it got 486 responses from people who had "cut the cord." Most cited the annoyance of paying for channels they never watched and would never watch.

By refusing to offer a la carte cable, the cable companies have cut their own throats.

[WCGreen]

8. I am using Hulu while in the hospital to catch up on stuff....

My nephew swears allegiance to Netflics.

I remember when Bravo had high art such as opera, ballet and symphonic music. When the History Channel had real history not Hillbilly Hand Fishing and UFO shows, when Discovery had science and technology, when the Biography had great stuff about artists and historical figures instead of child actors gone bad.

The debasing of our culture continues.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

55. Bravo used to be a premium channel that showed foreign films

That's how far IT has fallen.

[Puregonzo1188]

57. Wow. I had no idea. Wish we still had something like that.

[JDPriestly]

46. I think that if Current TV went to HULU, it would get a lot of viewers,

especially for its news programming. Those of us who can't stand the usual TV fare would watch Current. Same for MSNBC.

[WCGreen]

6. I'll check that out...

[Avalux]

14. Please do. I had apprehension at first, but it's so much better. n/t

[EFerrari]

10. I'm *this* close to being able to tell Dish to take a giant leap.

I can get everything I watch on the net + streaming from Netflix for a grand total of $7 a month plus my net connection which I pay anyway.

/ corrected from Comcast to Dish

[Avalux]

13. I encourage you to do it.

I'm so happy I did; so much content through Roku and I get to pick and choose, with limited or no commercials.

[EFerrari]

16. The only thing holding me back is that my mother watches CNN

and I can't figure out how to get that for her. Netflix takes care of me just fine for everything I can't get on the net, which isn't much but movies and old brit/sitcoms I like.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

35. My "local channels plus public access only" plan actually includes CNN, not that I ever watch it

Cable companies are supposed to offer a bare-bones plan like that, but they don't tell you about it unless you ask.

[cbayer]

24. Did the same. While I can't always get over the air channels (depending on location), when

I do, I get lots. This includes 12 PBS channels, which is great.

Netflix for streaming movies, missed frontlines/american experience and Hulu for Daily show, Colbert and some TV.

Don't fell like I am missing a thing.

[JDPriestly]

44. Yes, we have ROKU rather than TV.

We can't afford cable, and we don't watch much anyway. We watch a movie in the evening several times a week -- no more than that although once or twice a year we may watch a movie in the afternoon.

Cable TV is such a waste of time.

[tsuki]

62. Yeah! I did. nt

[sendero]

4. I am hearing more and more talk.

.... of regulation to force "a la carte" cable and perhaps satellite programming service. This would allow the subscriber to choose and pay for EXACTLY the channels s/he wants to watch.

The "free market" bozos can't really argue against this, it is the ESSENCE of free markets. The providers can whine bu they have no real argument, it would be technically easy to implement. And MOST IMPORTANTLY, we can all stop subsidizing JUNK PROGRAMMING that adds no value to our lives, religious and otherwise.

[sufrommich]

12. "ala carte" will take out most small channels,

not just the ones you don't like. Channels are bundled because they don't make enough money on their own to pay for themselves. It would most likely be the end of all channels which are somewhat educational as opposed to those that focus on gossip and celebrity. Bravo would survive, NatGeo, Animal Planet, History, BBCA and the like would be gone.Be careful what you wish for.

[MattBaggins]

15. No they wouldn't have to be gone

They could continue to broadcast over the wires just as they do now without a mafia cartel in the middle dictating who does or does not get through.

[sufrommich]

17. That's not going to happen anytime soon.

In the meantime,people are going to select a cable package based on how many channels are offered.

[onenote]

33. Huh?

They don't have any inherent right to remain on those wires. Currently, they are paid by the cable (or satellite) companies based on the number of eyeballs that they reach. If they're sold a la carte, the audience that they reach will get smaller and the revenues they get from cable operators will decline; that will make it harder for them to purchase attractve programming and their advertising revenues and audience reach will decline further. They'll have to raise their "a la carte" price, but as the price goes up, the audience will shrink further. Some may survive, but a bunch of them won't.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

26. BBCA, history, and the like are all we watch...

...and we can't be the only ones.

[onenote]

34. BBC America is available in 74 million homes

But its highest rated show (Dr Who) only attracts around 1 million viewers. Currently, the cable company pays for BBC America based on the 74 million homes that can receive it. If the potential audience drops to a million or two, BBC America is going to still want the same amount of money it was getting when it was in 74 million homes, but the cable operator isn't going to be able to spread the cost among 74 million homes -- the entire cost will be borne by the million or so folks that choose to get and pay for it. So be prepared to pay a lot more. (And add to that cost the increased cost that the cable operator will face in tracking the billing of the channel on an a la carte basis).

[Lydia Leftcoast]

36. Almost all the BBCA programs come out on DVD and/or Netflix/Amazon streaming pretty quickly

and if the show is relatively old, you can get it from Amazon UK for surprisingly low prices. For example, Amazon UK sells the complete Inspector Morse for about $80, which is what you pay for a set of four episodes here in the States. The only disadvantage is that you have to find a region-free player or hack your own, but region-free players are available online for about $20 more than a comparable regular player.

[onenote]

39. But where is the money going to come from to produce new shows?

The prices you are citing are for programming that already has had most of its cost offset through cable subscription fees and advertising.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

51. BBCA produces very little on its own

The BBC mothership has affiliate channels all over the world (most of which have better programming than the endless reruns of Top Gear and Star Trek the Next Generation on BBCA).

[SoCalDem]

52. I wish we could get the REAL BBC and CNN-I

BBCAmerica is pretty lame, a lot of the time & CNN is unwatchable

[JDPriestly]

48. C-Span is available for free on the internet.

Most of us who view shows on the internet watch the ads for the shows and on top of that pay for high-speed internet. We pay less than for cable, but we still pay for the service.

And when you watch a TV show on the internet, you are far more likely to see the ad. When I used to watch TV, I got up and did things during the ads. And a lot of people record the shows so that they can fast forward past the ads. Advertisers get better exposure when they pay for internet programming.

[JDPriestly]

47. I watch National Geographic, History, etc. programs on Netflix via ROKU.

That is far better than subscribing to who-knows-what-stupid programming on cable for an exorbitant monthly subscription fee.

[hunter]

9. No satellite, no cable.

Life is good.

[jwirr]

18. I would like to see someone that this to court. I seems the only way that we could even hope to

influence them.

[onenote]

23. Its been tried

Last edited Fri Feb 24, 2012, 07:34 PM - Edit history (1)

Its a tough case to win. For starters, cable operators are required by law to carry all of the broadcast signals on the entry level tier that every customer must receive before getting anything else. Since its required by law, a suit challenging it as an anticompetitive act is not going to get very far. As for the bundling of other services as part of a "package," there are efficiencies in that model which would cut against a successful antitrust claim, plus there are laws that prevent cable operators from "discriminating" against channels that they don't own -- so, for instance, the FCC recently ruled that Comcast can't carry the Tennis Channel on a separate "sports tier" if they carry NBCSports and/or the Golf Channel (both of which Comcast owns) on a more widely subscribed to tier.

[jwirr]

41. Maybe we need a ratings war to set one provider against anothe in trying to give us what we want

instead of just looking at the price. Most of the ads I see are based on price and "gee, look how many channels you get!"

[Fumesucker]

19. Here's a thread I put up a while back about saving on your cable bill..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1128463

[Cleita]

20. I'm all for that and I believe I should have a choice of not

paying for all those those bloodsuckers on our TV.

[Morning Dew]

22. How will I fall asleep it I can't listen to Arnold Murray on my DirecTV?

I used to be able to hear the soothing tones of Fr. Mitch Pacwa late at night - lately, not so much.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

25. Why can't we pay for ala carte TV?

We'd only need like 15 channels at that point, really.

[KharmaTrain]

27. Some Pay To Be On...

I'm one that's long favored Ala Carte cable but there's no way Comcrap or any cable company will do it. Some of the religious channels pay to be on your system...quick, easy money for the cable company and the channel is usually brokered among many preachers who get cheap "airtime". The other channels are "must carry"...either over-the-air or low power channels in your community that are owned by religious groups that your local cable "provider" must give them a channel...Trinity Broadcasting and Daystar are best known for going this route.

Overall "religious" broadcasting is a scam...a big money making operation that profits from the non-commercial portions of the public airwaves...

[onenote]

31. More likely to be the case on satellite than cable

DirecTV and Dish charge some programmers for transponder space. But most cable companies are already struggling to find space for all of the channels that they want to carry (particularly HD channels) and are not interested in "leasing" channel space to programmers. There are rules that require capacity to be made available for lease on cable systems, but generally speaking the concept of leased access has been a bust.

[Initech]

28. There are *12* church related channels on Dish Network. 12!!

Why don't they have their own satellite service? There's more to life people...

[onenote]

30. Couldn't you say the same thing about sports channels?

Personally, I watch sports and don't watch religious programming. But to each his or her own.

[Initech]

38. The funny thing is there actually is a Christian satellite TV service.

Look up "Sky Angel" - I am not making this up.

[onenote]

40. I know all about SkyAngel. And its not satellite any more and its not all religion either

It originally was a satellite service, but it couldn't make a go of it paying for transponder space. So it abandoned the satellite model and is now an Internet-based video provider. It doesn't want to limit itself to religious programming anymore either. It offers one package that is pretty much all religious networks and a separate "family" package that includes a lot of sports and other traditional cable network programming. It filed a complaint with the FCC a couple of years ago alleging that Discovery Networks had violated the law by refusing to license its programming for distribution by SkyAngel. The FCC issued a preliminary ruling that an Internet based provider doesn't have the same rights (or the same obligations) as a cable system or satellite carrier and thus Discovery did not have to agree to be distributed by SkyAngel.

[LiberalAndProud]

45. GOD TV ... and no, I'm not kidding.

Posted on July 5, 2011

GOD TV was founded in the UK in 1995 by Christian media pioneers Rory & Wendy Alec and in 14 short years has become a global phenomenon. Today it beams a broad cross section of cutting-edge programmes, including many life-changing LIVE broadcasts, into millions of homes worldwide. The only broadcaster to transmit globally from Jerusalem, GOD TV’s powerful signal is carried via multiple satellites providing free viewing to almost half a billion people. The 24-hour GOD Channel can be seen throughout this region via the Optus D2 satellite. GOD TV Australasia’s office is situated in Melbourne. GOD TV has other regional offices in North America (USA); Europe (UK, Germany and Scandinavia); Middle East & Asia (India and Hong Kong); and Africa (Kenya and South Africa). In addition to its vast media outreach, GOD TV also helps people in charitable ways by supporting feeding schemes, orphanages, water drilling projects and disaster relief funds.

Media Contact: Wayne Knapman, GOD TV Regional Director for Australasia, [e-mail] e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

http://christiansatellitetv.wordpress.com/2011/07/05/benny-hinn-live-from-london-on-god-tv/

[Initech]

50. Do they carry Swear To God, I wonder?

[Kelvin Mace]

29. I dropped cable except for internet in 2009

I have Netflix and Hulu, and a lot of free content from ALL OVER the web, especially international sites (legal).

I have an aunt in Northern Ireland who I get to buy an extra BBC license on my behalf, then I stream BBC programming via a proxy server.

Three years and haven't missed a thing.

I am considering a Roku box.

[RebelOne]

42. I have many religious channels on my cable TV.

It doesn't bother me. I just skip over them.

[JDPriestly]

43. Television subscriptions should give viewers a choice with regard to each station.

Why do we have to watch Fox News?

I don't subscribe to cable at all because of the fact that I have to pay a huge monthly sum for so many channels and get junk like Fox News and Pat Robertson but don't get, say, HBO.

Each person should be able to put together his or her own package and pay an appropriate subscription fee. TV is not a newspaper. You can only watch one channel at a time even if you are subscribed to 140 of them.

[onenote]

56. who says you have to "watch" Fox News?

Fox News is included in your package. No one makes you watch it. No one prevents you from using the blocking features that are common on virtually all televisions made for the past 10 -15 years and on cable boxes to avoid even "surfing" past Fox News.

You no more have to "watch" Fox News than you have to "read" George Will if your newspaper happens to run his column. Yet, I don't see you or anyone else demanding that they be given the opportunity to purchase a copy of the newspaper (or view a version online) that doesn't include George Will's column.

As for your assertion that TV is not a newspaper, that's true. Its also not a refrigerator or a cloud or hatbox. But the fact is that just as one watches only one channel at a time (a point that further rebuts your claim that having Fox News on your package makes you watch it) you also only read one story or column at a time. And if you want to turn the page without reading a story you can. Just as you can change the channel without watching.

[JDPriestly]

63. I don't have to watch Fox News, but I have to pay for the opportunity to watch it. That is what

I object to. I realize that the amount I would pay would be very small. But Fox News is so bad that I refuse all cable because Fox News is in the cheap lineup that you cannot avoid.

Besides, I cannot afford cable that includes the channels I would watch. And I don't want the cable roster with the cheap channels.

I also object to having to have religious programming channeled into my home. Most of it is really objectionably stupid and dishonest.

[cbdo2007]

53. Better yet just cut your cable bill down by cancelling cable. Then tell them that's the reason.

[Black and Gold]

54. I see what you did there..

[uranus is my home]

58. What if you allow your child to learn from everyone

Not just your little pre-digested list?

Diversity: it's what's for dinner...

[WCGreen]

60. no kids....

No worries...

[tsuki]

61. How about you cutting your cable down, and cancelling.

Free air plus Roku equals mega savings.