Paul Hopper
Paul Hopper [link]
04 March 2005 @ 12:24:00
block offensive cable news channels
Hah!  I find this amusing... you know how you can buy one of those things for your cable to block out certain channels you may not want your kids to see?  Well, apparently, someone got the idea to block out other offensive material and came up with the FOXBlocker.  Of course, you could just, oh, I don't know... not turn it to the FOXNews channel, but whatever.
 
 
Current Mood: amused
 
 
( Post a new comment )
mars [link] on March 4th, 2005 - 06:33:43 ET
Save Your Brain!
Cut Your Cable!
(Reply) (Thread) (Link)
pixel [link] on March 4th, 2005 - 08:13:41 ET

I'd much rather just pay for the channels I might actually watch. I don't know what our monthly bill is, but I'll go overboard and call it $100/month. If we get 200 channels, that's 50¢ a channel. Assuming we watch twenty or thirty different channels (and I doubt it's that many), our bill should be closer to $10 or $15 per month.

I mean, seriously, like I'm ever going to watch the Golf channel or the Home Shopping Network, but I end up paying for them anyway.

Of course, all channels with commercials should be provided free of charge (I'm not paying 50¢ per channel per month for 26% of the content to be ads!), but even paying just for the commercials I watch would be a significant improvement.

I have the same gripe about magazines, actually. I'm not interested in spending $20+/year to look at advertisements, I want content! The more ads a magazine has, the less useful it becomes for me. Is our culture really so consumption-oriented that people find it acceptable to pay to be advertised to, or have people just not been able to create a large enough front to make it stop?

(I am apparently in a very ranty mood today. ^^;)

(Reply) (Thread) (Link)
Paul Hopper [link] on March 4th, 2005 - 08:47:06 ET
prohibitively costly
I read something earlier about that sort of piecemeal way of going about cable channels that said it'd somehow be too expensive to manage all the individual specific channels. I'm not buying that, but that's what I read.

That aside, some channels would be much more expensive than others. And I think some are given to you for free because they're just hoping you'll have insomnia one night and watch the Home Shopping Network and actually buy something because you're too tired to be thinking clearly. :)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)
pixel [link] on March 4th, 2005 - 10:40:31 ET
Re: prohibitively costly

Oh noes, consumer choice might actually cut into profit a little, and we can't have that!

some channels would be much more expensive than others

Shhhh! That point doesn't exist when you're trying to sell people on the idea of paying per channel, at least not if the person you're trying to convince watches a lot of esoteric programming.

Also, if it's included in a package I'm paying for, it isn't free. Didn't you pay attention in your high school's Propoganda 101 course? ;P

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)
Reyn [link] on March 4th, 2005 - 08:27:59 ET
corrected link
Of course, you could just, oh, I don't know... not turn it to the FOXNews channel, but whatever.

Likewise, you could just use the channel-blocking function already available through your cable provider. Parents hate when their children push buttons and block channels... can't figure out how to unblock the damned channels.

On a different note, "be cool and take Cindi's quiz. Unless you score lame, (which you have to like country music and believe that your milkshake brings all the boys to the yard to do) you should post your score.
(Reply) (Thread) (Link)
Paul Hopper [link] on March 4th, 2005 - 08:35:41 ET
Re: corrected link
I already did. Wanna guess what I got before I post it?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)
Reyn [link] on March 4th, 2005 - 08:53:27 ET
Re: corrected link
you probably got the pic of Amelie.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)
Paul Hopper [link] on March 4th, 2005 - 09:35:20 ET
Re: corrected link
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)