[opendtv] Pro a la carte, Another Perspective

  • From: dan.grimes@xxxxxxxx
  • To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:35:53 -0800


There has been much discussion, for and against, cable a la carte.  One
argument for a la carte is the fact that costs might actually go down by
paying for what you want and not the whole.  Another argument is that it
could actually help curb violence by reduction of subscriptions to those
channels that offend.  The counter arguments is that prices will go up and
to use technology to block them or simply don't watch them.

But I have another reason why I am for a la carte.  I do want a la carte so
that I don't pay for the channels that I don't want to watch due to
content; but it is not because I want to lower the payment but rather I
don't want to pay producers to produce content that I find negative to our
society.  If someone wants to fund production of violent, offensive and
immoral media, that is their right.  But I think it should be my right not
to fund them.

I use the analogy of a mutual fund.  I don't like to buy mutual funds that
contain companies that I think are doing unethical business (either product
or in an unethical way.)  Yet, if I am to invest in the stock market, I may
be forced to if I only have the choice of buying mutual funds.  However, I
don't have to buy mutual funds and can buy stocks in companies that my
philosophy is in line with and can even buy mutual funds that own stocks in
line with (most of) my philosophies.

I know my analogy will be torn to pieces by folks on this discussion board,
so I ask that you apply my analogy only to the direct purchasing of media.

So even if I had to pay the same money for a package that only contained
the media I wanted to support, it would be better than having to fund media
that I do not want to support.  Unfortunately, with only eight major
production companies and each of them producing both moral and immoral
content, even if I do pay for a channel I consider consistent with my
philosophy, it doesn't stop a production company from using profits from
family entertainment towards production of other content.  This happens a
lot in the movie industry already.  But it at least gives the consumer some
power in funding better content.  And it allows the consumer to "vote" for
their content choices by showing what the consumer is willing to pay for.

At present, I do not subscribe to cable or satellite and this is one of the
reasons.  I do subscribe to a DVD delivery service that delivers much of
the TV programming available for a low monthly fee.  One might argue that
this is the same and they have a point.  So I look forward to the day when
I can buy the media I want and don't have to fund media I don't think
should be produced.

Now I could go into reasons why gratuitously violent and overtly immoral
media should not be produced, but that goes into philosophy and then I'd be
wandering into another realm.  And please don't take me as an overly
sensitive, censor-all viewer except where it is necessary for the mission
of a programming franchise, i.e. foul language on the Family Channel or
nudity at during a football game.

Dan Grimes

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. opendtv
  3. Archive
  4. 12-2007