>My point was simply the way broadcast licenses are done here there is a lot of marketing and packaging of programming with different commercial arrangements. ( though it could be argued what we actually have is 4 BBCs and then 400 channel 4s. ) In fact, of course, the major networks all own networks in the higher channel numbers where they get more mileage from products originally developed for the major network so the syndication game is very much in flux as well. So while it looks like there are a lot of channels there aren't a lot of owners of channels.
I'm quite amused with the fact that I have to pay to watch something with advertisements. If it's already paid for, i.e. time sold, why should I pay for it again?
I wouldn't mind paying a dolar or two per channel a month, or maybe $.50 an hour to watch whatever I want, without ads. I mean
without ads. That means not even self-advertising - I don't care what are you showing in the next five hours, you don't have to shout it at me, I can read the schedule from the web, thank you.
The recent claim that the TV series may be dead soon because people don't want to watch ads, so if people would please watch them so we can keep them alive - is anywhere between ridiculous, false, moronic and outright rude, IMO. When was the last time they tried
without ads? When was it they last tried to make money by collecting subscription only? I don't count HBO, because 1) they self-advertise a lot, 2) you can't take one channel, you always must buy the bundle.
Why bundle, afraid of the market?