My Blog And I

« Home | Vatican forgives Lennon for 'more popular than Jes... » | Remote Control Egg Vibe - New At Lovers Emporium (... » | FDA Licenses Drug to Prevent Joint Damage in Child... »

Sunday, November 23, 2008

Techdirt

We've been among those who think that the government shouldn't be forcing cable providers to offer a la carte channels. While people always insist that if they got a la carte cable, it would be cheaper, the facts are quite different. The economics of providing a la carte through existing systems would greatly increase overhead, and make it difficult to make things work. Most people would end up paying the same or more -- but for fewer channels. Those who are complaining might be better off recognizing that when they pay for cable they're effectively just paying for what they want -- and the other channels are freebies.

Or, they can just realize that a la carte TV is coming without the need for government interference. Adam Thierer notes that there's a growing movement of folks realizing that you can get an awful lot of television programming (legally) online these days. It's reaching the point where we're finally moving towards a world that we predicted years ago that shows are independent of channels or TV providers, and you can just get them directly online. That's already leading some people to ditch TV service entirely, knowing they can get plenty of shows they want online -- and all of this is happening without the government getting involved at all. So, can anyone explain why it still makes sense for the government to get involved here?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Low Cost Finasteride (for hair loss)
Low Cost Anti-Depressant: Paxil
Stretch Mark Prevention
Skin Brightener Cream
Dual-action Colon Cleanse Formula
Low Cost Anti-Depressant: Celexa
Hoodia Chaser
Thyroid Health Supplement
Hoodia Chaser