|
 |
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 12:19:28 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmail com> wrote:
>> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> > Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>> >> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> >>> (And that of course is the other undesirable thing about digital
>> >>> TV. There used to be, like, 5 channels, 4 of them containing high
>> >>> quality programming. Now there's 500 channels and they're *all*
>> >>> showing utter crap that nobody would ever want to watch...)
>> >>
>> >> That has nothing to do with digital TV. It's just the drop of
>> >> quality programming happened at the same time. Correlation !=
>> >> causation.
>> >
>> > The increase in available channels isn't related to the decrease in
>> > signal bandwidth per channel due to being digital?
>
>> I'm talking about *bad TV shows*, not bad image quality.
>
> I think that the point was that the increase in number of channels
> lowered
> the average TV program quality because the majority of it is just
> filler.
At least here in the US, the programmes are secondary - the whole point
of commercial television is the commercials - that's where the
broadcasters make their money.
The shows are what draws people to watch.
But of course with things like the "magic skippy button" (ie, DVR and the
ability to skip commercials), broadcasters are having problems justifying
the cost of ad slots since the number of views is lower because
technology allows people to skip commercials.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
