Television ratings re Prison Break vs Origin, as a example of the failings of a free market system (Attn Duggy, Fran)

[Ext User(Chock)]

"FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150853791.713661.17960@p79g2000cwp.googlegro ups.com...
>
> Chock wrote:
> > "FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1150804162.180440.233530@h76g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> > >
> > > Chock wrote:
> > > > "FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:1150783612.910924.179340@h76g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> > > > >
> > <snip>
> > > >
> > > > I once had an incident when the other dog was still alive, not long
> > after I
> > > > got my current dog - my sister came over and had bought two large
bones
> > for
> > > > them, so we gave them to them. They were both more concerned about
what
> > the
> > > > other one was doing and soon there was a fight, pretty nasty too - I
had
> > to
> > > > grab the new dog and hold him up above my shoulders because the
female
> > was
> > > > jumping up and trying to attack him! But apart from that they got
along
> > > > fine. Learnt the lesson though!
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > You have to be careful lifting one dog higher than another, especially
> > > when the lifted dog is lower in the pack. Height equals status in the
> > > dog world. Dogs tend to hate that stuff. The top dog gets narky and
the
> > > number 2 gets nervous and can lash out. You're better off issuing the
> > > stand down command "Leave it!", assuming your top dog is properly
> > > trained. Otherwise, a sharp no and a slap across the nose with the
open
> > > hand (without carrying on with it) is best.
> > >
> >
> > I only did it that once to save the new dog from being attacked, as the
old
> > dog was definately
>
> I''ve seen you type this at least twice now: "definitely".

Strange - I do know to spell it, and I suspect if I wrote it by hand I would
spell it correctly there ...

>
> > top dog. I put the new one in the garage for an hour so
>
> ten minutes would have done.
>
>
> > they would both calm down, and after the bones were taken away, they
were
> > fine.
> >
> > I've heard that it's not a good idea to hit a dog on the nose, as smell
is
> > one of its most important senses.
>
> Usually, the dog shrinks back and all that results is a cuff across the
> muzzle -- sometimes there's no contact at all, and even if there were,
> you couldn't damage their smell with a shapr slap with the open hand.
>

Okay I'll start whacking him on the nose from now on ;-) j/k


> > On the rare occasion I have to discipline
> > my dog I hit him on the back.
>
> That's not advisable with dogs as they tend to want to guard their
> rears. That's aggression to most dogs, whereas the slap is like the
> "puppy bite" given by the top dog to juniors. Some dogs also have weak
> knees when subjected to downward force and it's inadvisable on that
> score too, as a general rule. (I'm writing for all here who might read
> this at some point not just you)
>

Fair enough - he's still relatively young but I will remember this.

> > But he's quite well behaved, despite not being
> > formally trained, and so I haven't needed to for a long while now.
> >
> > And for dogs, they consider their owners (and the family) as part of the
> > pack - and pack order is mostly determined by eating order in the
household.
>
> True. That's a rule to remember with kids at the crawling stage, who
> may seem to be competition to a dog and who may stick their faces in
> thos of a dog -- which is also seen as challenging, especially to alpha
> dogs.
>
> > So be sure to feed your dogs after you've had your own dinner! I'm top
dog
> > in my house LOL
>
> Most wise.
>
> Fran
>


--
- Chock

Current killfile population:
1. Suxxie (and all of his aliases)
2. Temuchin
3. Anyone who claims to be a Group Moderator

Google is the Chinese government's friend

[Ext User(Duggy)]

Chock wrote:
> And that's exactly what I've been arguing all along - that whilst a
> particular scheduling decision may be good business sense, it can still be
> comtemptuous to viewers. (Not so much in the Prison Break example, as I have
> conceded was more of a personal threshold decision on my part and would
> probably not affect most other people in the same way. But definately on the
> Enterprise example.)

Following a senssible business practisse is neutral.

I can perfectly accept how certain practisses can leave the viewer
feeling disrespected.

However, that does not mean that the network is showing deliberately
showing disrespect.

And I think it needs to be deliberate to be contempt.

If, for example, Enterprise is rating better than Farscape (which I
assume it is) and Nine decides it doesn't like Star Trek fans and
replaces Enterprise/Farscape with a double Farscape... THAT is
contempt.

If Enterprise isn't rating, and Farscape is, and they replace
Enterprise with a Farscape double... that's just a sensible decision.

===
= DUG.
===

[Ext User(Chock)]

"Duggy" <Paul.Duggan@jcu.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1150856943.168872.179580@b68g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> Chock wrote:
> > And that's exactly what I've been arguing all along - that whilst a
> > particular scheduling decision may be good business sense, it can still
be
> > comtemptuous to viewers. (Not so much in the Prison Break example, as I
have
> > conceded was more of a personal threshold decision on my part and would
> > probably not affect most other people in the same way. But definately on
the
> > Enterprise example.)
>
> Following a senssible business practisse is neutral.
>
> I can perfectly accept how certain practisses can leave the viewer
> feeling disrespected.
>
> However, that does not mean that the network is showing deliberately
> showing disrespect.
>
> And I think it needs to be deliberate to be contempt.
>
> If, for example, Enterprise is rating better than Farscape (which I
> assume it is) and Nine decides it doesn't like Star Trek fans and
> replaces Enterprise/Farscape with a double Farscape... THAT is
> contempt.
>
> If Enterprise isn't rating, and Farscape is, and they replace
> Enterprise with a Farscape double... that's just a sensible decision.
>

Again, I don't disagree that it's a sensible business decision behind nearly
all of these scheduling.

My point is that there is an ever-widening gulf between what is good for the
business and what is good for the consumer. The free market system is not
the perfect answer it is in theory.


--
- Chock

Current killfile population:
1. Suxxie (and all of his aliases)
2. Temuchin
3. Anyone who claims to be a Group Moderator

Google is the Chinese government's friend

[Ext User(FRAN)]

Chock wrote:
>
>
> Again, I don't disagree that it's a sensible business decision behind nearly
> all of these scheduling.
>
> My point is that there is an ever-widening gulf between what is good for the
> business and what is good for the consumer. The free market system is not
> the perfect answer it is in theory.
>


Ah, well that's a different claim. The "free market" is working exactly
as well as it can, given the constraints that inevitably apply, which
we've now discussed at some length.

There is a major gap between how its proponents believe it works *in
theory* and the expecations of those living with the system in
practice.

People often offer the view that the free market gives people what they
want, when it's less often inaccurate to say that it encourages them to
want what they are offered, which is a somewhat different thing. And of
course, the very concept of the free market is itself an abstraction
the meaning of which is at best vague and has never really existed
anywhere or in any industry. All markets are subject to regulation,
cartelisation, and barriers to market entry and exit that have nothing,
or very little, to do with free consumer choice. We'll never know how a
truly free market would work because it's simply impossible for one to
exist to let us find out.

This maxim goes with knobs on for the broadcasters, who broadcast
copyrighted product subject to regulation on government-licenced and
protected air waves. One suspects that if there were absolutely no
restrictions on what could be broadcast, or by whom the bandwidth would
rapidly be taken up by pirates rebroadcasting something like the
internet. All signals would be extremely dirty (since interference
would be the norm) and some people would be trying to censor others,
deliberately running interference.

Attempting a free market in broadcasting would thus make broadcasting
(as we currently know it) impossible.

Once you accept that regulation is unavoidable, those who want
broadcasting have to answer a basic question -- how can people get the
content that they want efficiently and in a timely way? Perhaps
broadcasting isn't the best way to do it. Maybe the whole bittorrent
thing or similar is ultimately better.

Fran

[Ext User(Chock)]

"FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150868833.976247.109970@m73g2000cwd.googlegr oups.com...
>
> Chock wrote:
> >
> >
> > Again, I don't disagree that it's a sensible business decision behind
nearly
> > all of these scheduling.
> >
> > My point is that there is an ever-widening gulf between what is good for
the
> > business and what is good for the consumer. The free market system is
not
> > the perfect answer it is in theory.
> >
>
>
> Ah, well that's a different claim. The "free market" is working exactly
> as well as it can, given the constraints that inevitably apply, which
> we've now discussed at some length.
>
> There is a major gap between how its proponents believe it works *in
> theory* and the expecations of those living with the system in
> practice.
>
> People often offer the view that the free market gives people what they
> want, when it's less often inaccurate to say that it encourages them to
> want what they are offered, which is a somewhat different thing. And of
> course, the very concept of the free market is itself an abstraction
> the meaning of which is at best vague and has never really existed
> anywhere or in any industry. All markets are subject to regulation,
> cartelisation, and barriers to market entry and exit that have nothing,
> or very little, to do with free consumer choice. We'll never know how a
> truly free market would work because it's simply impossible for one to
> exist to let us find out.
>
> This maxim goes with knobs on for the broadcasters, who broadcast
> copyrighted product subject to regulation on government-licenced and
> protected air waves. One suspects that if there were absolutely no
> restrictions on what could be broadcast, or by whom the bandwidth would
> rapidly be taken up by pirates rebroadcasting something like the
> internet. All signals would be extremely dirty (since interference
> would be the norm) and some people would be trying to censor others,
> deliberately running interference.
>
> Attempting a free market in broadcasting would thus make broadcasting
> (as we currently know it) impossible.
>
> Once you accept that regulation is unavoidable, those who want
> broadcasting have to answer a basic question -- how can people get the
> content that they want efficiently and in a timely way? Perhaps
> broadcasting isn't the best way to do it. Maybe the whole bittorrent
> thing or similar is ultimately better.
>

There was a (tele-?)movie called Max Headroom (not the TV series) made back
in the 80s that had a scenario where lots of people were basically their own
one-person TV station and had all of the gear in their vans that was
necessary to broadcast. I can't recall if they were broadcasting illegally
(if licences were required) or it was just a free-for-all. Needless to say
the content wasn't of a high standard :-)


--
- Chock

Current killfile population:
1. Suxxie (and all of his aliases)
2. Temuchin
3. Anyone who claims to be a Group Moderator

Google is the Chinese government's friend

[Ext User(thelittlefamily@gmail.com)]

FRAN wrote:
> Chock wrote:
> >
> >
> > Again, I don't disagree that it's a sensible business decision behind nearly
> > all of these scheduling.
> >
> > My point is that there is an ever-widening gulf between what is good for the
> > business and what is good for the consumer. The free market system is not
> > the perfect answer it is in theory.
> >
>
>
> Ah, well that's a different claim. The "free market" is working exactly
> as well as it can, given the constraints that inevitably apply, which
> we've now discussed at some length.
>
> There is a major gap between how its proponents believe it works *in
> theory* and the expecations of those living with the system in
> practice.
>
> People often offer the view that the free market gives people what they
> want, when it's less often inaccurate to say that it encourages them to
> want what they are offered, which is a somewhat different thing. And of
> course, the very concept of the free market is itself an abstraction
> the meaning of which is at best vague and has never really existed
> anywhere or in any industry. All markets are subject to regulation,
> cartelisation, and barriers to market entry and exit that have nothing,
> or very little, to do with free consumer choice. We'll never know how a
> truly free market would work because it's simply impossible for one to
> exist to let us find out.
>
> This maxim goes with knobs on for the broadcasters, who broadcast
> copyrighted product subject to regulation on government-licenced and
> protected air waves. One suspects that if there were absolutely no
> restrictions on what could be broadcast, or by whom the bandwidth would
> rapidly be taken up by pirates rebroadcasting something like the
> internet. All signals would be extremely dirty (since interference
> would be the norm) and some people would be trying to censor others,
> deliberately running interference.
>
> Attempting a free market in broadcasting would thus make broadcasting
> (as we currently know it) impossible.
>
> Once you accept that regulation is unavoidable, those who want
> broadcasting have to answer a basic question -- how can people get the
> content that they want efficiently and in a timely way? Perhaps
> broadcasting isn't the best way to do it. Maybe the whole bittorrent
> thing or similar is ultimately better.
>
> Fran

Maybe people should read this post by Fran before mouthing off so much.
I think we are pretty lucky in Australia with what we get on FTA. A lot
of shows that we get on FTA like HBO shows (the sopranos, sex and the
city, six feet under, the wire etc etc) are only shown on cable in the
states. another example is stargate and battlestar galatica. If you
were in america you would have to pay to see these shows.

Our TV is far from perfect, but is a lot better then what some people
think it is.

Jase :)

[Ext User(Ian Galbraith)]

On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 14:44:59 +1000, Chock wrote:

> "Duggy" <Paul.Duggan@jcu.edu.au> wrote in message
> news:1150856943.168872.179580@b68g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
[snip]

> Again, I don't disagree that it's a sensible business decision behind nearly
> all of these scheduling.

I wouldn't say sensible, I would say there are business reasons for the
decisions they make but these reasons tend to be based on short term
concerns.

> My point is that there is an ever-widening gulf between what is good for the
> business and what is good for the consumer. The free market system is not
> the perfect answer it is in theory.

Unchecked capitalism is as evil as any other system which gets out of
control with no checks and balances. There needs to be some sort of
regulation.

--
"Read less, more TV" - House

[Ext User(Ian Galbraith)]

On 20 Jun 2006 19:29:03 -0700, Duggy wrote:

[snip]

> However, that does not mean that the network is showing deliberately
> showing disrespect.

> And I think it needs to be deliberate to be contempt.

Contempt is a feeling not an action so it doesn't have to be deliberate.

[snip]

--
"Read less, more TV" - House

[Ext User(FRAN)]

Ian Galbraith wrote:
> On 20 Jun 2006 19:29:03 -0700, Duggy wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > However, that does not mean that the network is showing deliberately
> > showing disrespect.
>
> > And I think it needs to be deliberate to be contempt.
>
> Contempt is a feeling not an action so it doesn't have to be deliberate.


Sometimes it's the *absence* of feeling. Treating your viewers with
contempt might entail utterly disregarding their sentiments and wishes.

Fran

[Ext User(Duggy)]

Chock wrote:
> > And I think it needs to be deliberate to be contempt.
> Again, I don't disagree that it's a sensible business decision behind nearly
> all of these scheduling.

And I'm saying that no matter how much disrespect the viewer feels, the
networks aren't showing contempt unless they are deliberately
disrespecting the viewers.

===
= DUG.
===

[Ext User(Duggy)]

Ian Galbraith wrote:
> On 20 Jun 2006 19:29:03 -0700, Duggy wrote:
> > However, that does not mean that the network is showing deliberately
> > showing disrespect.
> > And I think it needs to be deliberate to be contempt.
> Contempt is a feeling not an action so it doesn't have to be deliberate.

Fair call.

However, "treating the viewer with contempt" *is* an action, not a
feeling.

===
= DUG.
===

[Ext User(Chock)]

"Duggy" <Paul.Duggan@jcu.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1150881082.762248.42060@b68g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
> Chock wrote:
>> > And I think it needs to be deliberate to be contempt.
>> Again, I don't disagree that it's a sensible business decision behind
>> nearly
>> all of these scheduling.
>
> And I'm saying that no matter how much disrespect the viewer feels, the
> networks aren't showing contempt unless they are deliberately
> disrespecting the viewers.
>

Are we back here again? I understand your position clearly - there's no need
to repeat it, because you're not convincing me through repetition.

All of the programming decisions a network makes are deliberate. So any
resulting feelings from the viewers, including feeling as if they are being
treated with contempt, are the result of a deliberate act by the networks.

The basic difference between our points of view is that we each have
different points at which we think a network's decision is
disrespectful/contemptuous. I've said that the Enterprise case is for me,
but have conceded that the Prison Break case wasn't so much as contemptuous
as inconvenient, but I still acted accordingly. The Survivor case is also
contempt as far as I'm concerned.

I don't know why you snipped my post to exclude the entire crux of my
position, re that networks' business decisions are increasingly shafting the
viewers. I may be at one end of the Bell curve for measuring the threshold
of what viewers are willing to be subjected to, and you seem to be at the
opposite, but the population is clustered somewhere in between and I believe
is moving more towards my end, as evidenced in the take-up of downloading
for example.

--
- Chock

Current killfile population:
1. Suxxie (and all of his aliases)
2. Temuchin
3. Anyone who claims to be a Group Moderator

Google is the Chinese government's friend

[Ext User(Chock)]

"Duggy" <Paul.Duggan@jcu.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1150881082.762248.42060@b68g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
> Chock wrote:
>> > And I think it needs to be deliberate to be contempt.
>> Again, I don't disagree that it's a sensible business decision behind
>> nearly
>> all of these scheduling.
>
> And I'm saying that no matter how much disrespect the viewer feels, the
> networks aren't showing contempt unless they are deliberately
> disrespecting the viewers.
>

Are we back here again? I understand your position clearly - there's no need
to repeat it, because you're not convincing me through repetition.

All of the programming decisions a network makes are deliberate. So any
resulting feelings from the viewers, including feeling as if they are being
treated with contempt, are the result of a deliberate act by the networks.

The basic difference between our points of view is that we each have
different points at which we think a network's decision is
disrespectful/contemptuous. I've said that the Enterprise case is for me,
but have conceded that the Prison Break case wasn't so much as contemptuous
as inconvenient, but I still acted accordingly. The Survivor case is also
contempt as far as I'm concerned.

I don't know why you snipped my post to exclude the entire crux of my
position, re that networks' business decisions are increasingly shafting the
viewers. I may be at one end of the Bell curve for measuring the threshold
of what viewers are willing to be subjected to, and you seem to be at the
opposite, but the population is clustered somewhere in between and I believe
is moving more towards my end, as evidenced in the take-up of downloading
for example.

--
- Chock

Current killfile population:
1. Suxxie (and all of his aliases)
2. Temuchin
3. Anyone who claims to be a Group Moderator

Google is the Chinese government's friend

[Ext User(Chock)]

"Ian Galbraith" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:13c4qfcmykbnj$.q6pcle5ur84h$.dlg@40tude.net.. .
> On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 14:44:59 +1000, Chock wrote:
>
>> "Duggy" <Paul.Duggan@jcu.edu.au> wrote in message
>> news:1150856943.168872.179580@b68g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> [snip]
>
>> Again, I don't disagree that it's a sensible business decision behind
>> nearly
>> all of these scheduling.
>
> I wouldn't say sensible, I would say there are business reasons for the
> decisions they make but these reasons tend to be based on short term
> concerns.
>

Yes of course - I didn't qualify my comment with the "short-term" bit, but I
think my previous posts make it clear that's my opinion :-)

<snip>


--
- Chock

Current killfile population:
1. Suxxie (and all of his aliases)
2. Temuchin
3. Anyone who claims to be a Group Moderator

Google is the Chinese government's friend

[Ext User(Anthony Horan)]

On 20 Jun 2006 23:29:50 -0700, thelittlefamily@gmail.com wrote:

> I think we are pretty lucky in Australia with what we get on FTA. A lot
> of shows that we get on FTA like HBO shows (the sopranos, sex and the
> city, six feet under, the wire etc etc) are only shown on cable in the
> states. another example is stargate and battlestar galatica. If you
> were in america you would have to pay to see these shows.

Yes, you would. But you'd get to subscribe to those channels individually,
at a reasonable price, with a reasonable base subscription fee and with
seriously good picture quality. You'd also get a lot more original
programming than the above for your money. And the shows are not
interrupted by ads.

Foxtel is amateur hour, and those who subscribe to it deserve everything
they get. Until HBO or the like starts up here, I'll cheerfully just
"illegally" (ha!) download what the FTA networks decide to drop.

[Ext User(David Barnett)]

"Duggy" <Paul.Duggan@jcu.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1150881082.762248.42060@b68g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
> Chock wrote:
>> > And I think it needs to be deliberate to be contempt.
>> Again, I don't disagree that it's a sensible business decision behind
>> nearly
>> all of these scheduling.
>
> And I'm saying that no matter how much disrespect the viewer feels, the
> networks aren't showing contempt unless they are deliberately
> disrespecting the viewers.

And they are deliberately disrespecting the viewers by making such so-called
sensible decisions.
--
David Barnett

[Ext User(David Barnett)]

<thelittlefamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150871390.780905.260290@c74g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...

> I think we are pretty lucky in Australia with what we get on FTA. A lot
> of shows that we get on FTA like HBO shows (the sopranos, sex and the
> city, six feet under, the wire etc etc) are only shown on cable in the
> states. another example is stargate and battlestar galatica. If you
> were in america you would have to pay to see these shows.
>
> Our TV is far from perfect, but is a lot better then what some people
> think it is.

I've said similar things several times in the past, that I am grateful for
what the channels do show.
However, some people are complaining about how they air some shows; & IMVHO
often legitimately.
--
David Barnett

[Ext User(David Barnett)]

"Duggy" <Paul.Duggan@jcu.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1150856943.168872.179580@b68g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...

> Following a senssible business practisse is neutral.
>
> I can perfectly accept how certain practisses can leave the viewer
> feeling disrespected.
>
> However, that does not mean that the network is showing deliberately
> showing disrespect.
>
> And I think it needs to be deliberate to be contempt.

Some people feel that the channel is being contemptuous, even when not
"deliberate" sic.
--
David Barnett

[Ext User(thelittlefamily@gmail.com)]

Anthony Horan wrote:
> On 20 Jun 2006 23:29:50 -0700, thelittlefamily@gmail.com wrote:

>
> Yes, you would. But you'd get to subscribe to those channels individually,
> at a reasonable price, with a reasonable base subscription fee and with
> seriously good picture quality. You'd also get a lot more original
> programming than the above for your money. And the shows are not
> interrupted by ads.
>
> Foxtel is amateur hour, and those who subscribe to it deserve everything
> they get. Until HBO or the like starts up here, I'll cheerfully just
> "illegally" (ha!) download what the FTA networks decide to drop.

Some points on this, yes you can subscribe to SOME premium channels
(for example HBO, Showtime, starzz etc) they cost approx $20 each per
month. Ans you really only get 10 hours at the most of original
programming per week. The rest of the time are movies.

And america only recently went over to HD picture quality (widescreen
as well) While i do agree that their prices over there are WAY more
competitive then here, that is easy to answer, they have 280 million
people and we only have 21 million. Foxtel is not the best no i
subscribe to it, but i love sport and fox sports has the only decent
all round sport coverage in Australia.

Jase :)

[Ext User(thelittlefamily@gmail.com)]

David Barnett wrote:
> <thelittlefamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1150871390.780905.260290@c74g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
>
> > I think we are pretty lucky in Australia with what we get on FTA. A lot
> > of shows that we get on FTA like HBO shows (the sopranos, sex and the
> > city, six feet under, the wire etc etc) are only shown on cable in the
> > states. another example is stargate and battlestar galatica. If you
> > were in america you would have to pay to see these shows.
> >
> > Our TV is far from perfect, but is a lot better then what some people
> > think it is.
>
> I've said similar things several times in the past, that I am grateful for
> what the channels do show.
> However, some people are complaining about how they air some shows; & IMVHO
> often legitimately.
> --
> David Barnett

I agree with that, but hey they have to make a dollar

Jase :)