Tom Kovach
Cable TV: cut the cord!
Why should we pay for our own destruction?!
By Tom Kovach
Many columns simply bemoan a societal problem. I prefer to point to a proposed solution. (For example, I'm working behind the scenes right now on a PR campaign to stop a foolish government policy that abuses our wounded warriors. I'm looking for celebrities that will unashamedly support our troops by supporting HR-3793 via my PR campaign. Chuck Norris, Pat Boone, et al., check your messages.) Merely whining about a problem — without rallying citizens to apply public pressure toward a specific action — is not enough.
The "problem du jour" is that the cable-TV industry is using Socialist principles to foist Socialism upon our modern society. How? The technique is called "bundling," also known as "packaging." If you want to watch your favorite, clean, family-oriented TV program, then you must pay for a cable-TV package that includes channels that you would never watch. If you went into a restaurant, and did not want to eat pickled pig's feet, then you would put up a fuss if the server told you that you can only get the lemon grilled salmon by purchasing the package that includes pickled pig's feet.
So, what's the solution for the cable TV problem? Interestingly, it is a restaurant term: "a la carte."
what's the spark?
Although I've known about this problem for almost 15 years, the spark that ignited this column was CNN's shameless exclusion of Dr. Alan Keyes during their recent presidential primary debate. (That debate included questions from partisan 'plants'.) Cable News Network's purported "justification" for excluding Dr. Keyes was that he has not raised a million dollars in campaign funds. Thus, he is not a "viable" candidate. But, given that Keyes is an intellectual dynamo, the question becomes, "Viable to do what?" Answer: without a million dollars, Keyes cannot afford to buy an ad campaign from CNN. Thus, by equating money with "electability," CNN accomplishes a potential redistribution of both wealth and votes. Shame on them.
Viewers cannot pick which cable news channels come into their homes. They must purchase a "bundled" package of news channels. Thus, they cannot cancel their subscription to CNN, while keeping a subscription to another preferred channel. Thus, there is no way for viewers of the debate to express their dissatisfaction with CNN's bold-faced attempts to engineer the debate. The same is true with Hollywood movies and prime-time TV that attacks Christian values. Without a la carte cable service, we are not able to "cut the cord" without also cutting off our sources of other information that we might value. Producers know this fact, and use it to attack traditional American values (and promote Socialism) with impunity.
the background
One of the key tenets of Socialism is the "redistribution of wealth." When put into practice, Socialism (which, according to Lenin, is Communism) results in the oppression of the righteous. Why? Because, at its core, Socialism is built upon rebellion against moral authority. Example: the work of a doctor is more skilled, and thus more valuable, than the work of a janitor. During the Chinese Communist "cultural revolution," doctors were forced to do janitorial chores, as a way to punish them for earning more wealth than janitors.
One of the key behind-the-scenes promoters of Communist thought in American media and culture has been the Mattachine Society, which has used sympathy for homosexuals to promote both Communism and homosexuality. Jesus said, "Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." And, as we know, the entertainment industry pumps a lot of treasure into supporting Socialist causes — often by siphoning it away from unwitting conservatives.
Here is an example. The popular TV drama series "24" centers around the fictional character Jack Bauer — portrayed by Kiefer Sutherland, who is also the show's executive producer. Conservatives like the show, because Bauer takes a hard-nosed stand against Middle Eastern terrorists and the wimpy politicians that enable them. The show generates a lot of advertising money, some of which goes into the pocket of Kiefer Sutherland. But, did you know that Kiefer Sutherland's grandfather was the Canadian politician that is known as the father of Socialized medicine in that country? Kiefer and his father, actor Donald Sutherland, have been open supporters of Leftist politics. Yet, they get their money by portraying conservative (often military) characters on TV and in the movies. Wealth has been redistributed from Right-leaning viewers to Left-leaning activists, via the entertainment industry.
In like manner, the cable-TV industry takes huge amounts of money from Right-leaning family viewers, and redistributes it to Left-leaning producers and networks. This is done by "bundling" channel packages. If you want to watch a certain movie channel, for example, then you must also buy the package that includes the rock-video channel. Then, you must go to the extra trouble to get the blocking device (which originally required an extra fee), so that your children can't watch it. The question is, why must you pay to pipe it into your home in the first place?
strike fear into their hearts
When I worked as a CSR for a cable company, there was already talk of Congress requiring cable operators to provide a la carte channels. The technology has existed for many years. But, via lobbying, the cable companies are able to dodge the bullet of a la carte programming. (There does exist, however, some voice for supporters of a la carte cable.) Some of those avant garde channels that you would never watch actually lose money for the cable company. Were it not for the redistribution of wealth from the channels that normal people enjoy, those other channels would go out of business quickly. That is what would happen in a free market.
bring me a hatchet
The market is not free, because our government ignores in the cable industry what it has outlawed in other industries. For example, when Microsoft designed its computer operating system to exclude the Internet browsers of other companies, the result was the largest anti-monopoly lawsuit in history. Oil companies own the chains of quick-service oil-change locations, but they can't require customers to change their oil at the same place where they buy gasoline. So, why does the cable industry get a free pass?
As long as the cable industry can control the flow of news, and thus control the very format and content of a presidential debate, then they can influence (if not control) who gets into the elected offices that supposedly oversee them. The fox is not only guarding the henhouse, but is assigning chickens to specific coops! Only when voters rise up and stop electing rich people, who get into office to grant favors to even-richer friends, will there be a hope of standing up to the money-saturated lobbying practices of influential businesses. But, how can voters rise up to support a candidate if most of their political information comes via the cable that they hope to regulate? It becomes a case of fighting "the Hydra." We need to cut the cord. Somebody bring me a hatchet.
© Tom Kovach
Many columns simply bemoan a societal problem. I prefer to point to a proposed solution. (For example, I'm working behind the scenes right now on a PR campaign to stop a foolish government policy that abuses our wounded warriors. I'm looking for celebrities that will unashamedly support our troops by supporting HR-3793 via my PR campaign. Chuck Norris, Pat Boone, et al., check your messages.) Merely whining about a problem — without rallying citizens to apply public pressure toward a specific action — is not enough.
The "problem du jour" is that the cable-TV industry is using Socialist principles to foist Socialism upon our modern society. How? The technique is called "bundling," also known as "packaging." If you want to watch your favorite, clean, family-oriented TV program, then you must pay for a cable-TV package that includes channels that you would never watch. If you went into a restaurant, and did not want to eat pickled pig's feet, then you would put up a fuss if the server told you that you can only get the lemon grilled salmon by purchasing the package that includes pickled pig's feet.
So, what's the solution for the cable TV problem? Interestingly, it is a restaurant term: "a la carte."
what's the spark?
Although I've known about this problem for almost 15 years, the spark that ignited this column was CNN's shameless exclusion of Dr. Alan Keyes during their recent presidential primary debate. (That debate included questions from partisan 'plants'.) Cable News Network's purported "justification" for excluding Dr. Keyes was that he has not raised a million dollars in campaign funds. Thus, he is not a "viable" candidate. But, given that Keyes is an intellectual dynamo, the question becomes, "Viable to do what?" Answer: without a million dollars, Keyes cannot afford to buy an ad campaign from CNN. Thus, by equating money with "electability," CNN accomplishes a potential redistribution of both wealth and votes. Shame on them.
Viewers cannot pick which cable news channels come into their homes. They must purchase a "bundled" package of news channels. Thus, they cannot cancel their subscription to CNN, while keeping a subscription to another preferred channel. Thus, there is no way for viewers of the debate to express their dissatisfaction with CNN's bold-faced attempts to engineer the debate. The same is true with Hollywood movies and prime-time TV that attacks Christian values. Without a la carte cable service, we are not able to "cut the cord" without also cutting off our sources of other information that we might value. Producers know this fact, and use it to attack traditional American values (and promote Socialism) with impunity.
the background
One of the key tenets of Socialism is the "redistribution of wealth." When put into practice, Socialism (which, according to Lenin, is Communism) results in the oppression of the righteous. Why? Because, at its core, Socialism is built upon rebellion against moral authority. Example: the work of a doctor is more skilled, and thus more valuable, than the work of a janitor. During the Chinese Communist "cultural revolution," doctors were forced to do janitorial chores, as a way to punish them for earning more wealth than janitors.
One of the key behind-the-scenes promoters of Communist thought in American media and culture has been the Mattachine Society, which has used sympathy for homosexuals to promote both Communism and homosexuality. Jesus said, "Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." And, as we know, the entertainment industry pumps a lot of treasure into supporting Socialist causes — often by siphoning it away from unwitting conservatives.
Here is an example. The popular TV drama series "24" centers around the fictional character Jack Bauer — portrayed by Kiefer Sutherland, who is also the show's executive producer. Conservatives like the show, because Bauer takes a hard-nosed stand against Middle Eastern terrorists and the wimpy politicians that enable them. The show generates a lot of advertising money, some of which goes into the pocket of Kiefer Sutherland. But, did you know that Kiefer Sutherland's grandfather was the Canadian politician that is known as the father of Socialized medicine in that country? Kiefer and his father, actor Donald Sutherland, have been open supporters of Leftist politics. Yet, they get their money by portraying conservative (often military) characters on TV and in the movies. Wealth has been redistributed from Right-leaning viewers to Left-leaning activists, via the entertainment industry.
In like manner, the cable-TV industry takes huge amounts of money from Right-leaning family viewers, and redistributes it to Left-leaning producers and networks. This is done by "bundling" channel packages. If you want to watch a certain movie channel, for example, then you must also buy the package that includes the rock-video channel. Then, you must go to the extra trouble to get the blocking device (which originally required an extra fee), so that your children can't watch it. The question is, why must you pay to pipe it into your home in the first place?
strike fear into their hearts
When I worked as a CSR for a cable company, there was already talk of Congress requiring cable operators to provide a la carte channels. The technology has existed for many years. But, via lobbying, the cable companies are able to dodge the bullet of a la carte programming. (There does exist, however, some voice for supporters of a la carte cable.) Some of those avant garde channels that you would never watch actually lose money for the cable company. Were it not for the redistribution of wealth from the channels that normal people enjoy, those other channels would go out of business quickly. That is what would happen in a free market.
bring me a hatchet
The market is not free, because our government ignores in the cable industry what it has outlawed in other industries. For example, when Microsoft designed its computer operating system to exclude the Internet browsers of other companies, the result was the largest anti-monopoly lawsuit in history. Oil companies own the chains of quick-service oil-change locations, but they can't require customers to change their oil at the same place where they buy gasoline. So, why does the cable industry get a free pass?
As long as the cable industry can control the flow of news, and thus control the very format and content of a presidential debate, then they can influence (if not control) who gets into the elected offices that supposedly oversee them. The fox is not only guarding the henhouse, but is assigning chickens to specific coops! Only when voters rise up and stop electing rich people, who get into office to grant favors to even-richer friends, will there be a hope of standing up to the money-saturated lobbying practices of influential businesses. But, how can voters rise up to support a candidate if most of their political information comes via the cable that they hope to regulate? It becomes a case of fighting "the Hydra." We need to cut the cord. Somebody bring me a hatchet.
© Tom Kovach
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
