Fuck FOX. Call your cable company - lower the monthly rate by $1 and drop FOX.

[HopeHoops]

Who needs it? Why pay for it? The cable companies have an easy out here - make FOX an add-on for $1/month. The idiots who want it can pay the extra dollar. They've already got a menu-based rate system so it should be easy to implement.

[TransitJohn]

1. Everybody who enjoys the NFL

the Simpsons, or Family Guy needs it.

[abelenkpe]

6. You do know

that you can watch the simpsons and family guy on the internet or on dvd. You don't need FOX for that.

[TransitJohn]

8. Right, and everybody has computers and the internet.

thanks for telling me how stupid I am. I love the DU.

[abelenkpe]

22. Sorry

I didn't realize you were so insecure that you would think I was calling you stupid. I merely pointed out that you don't need to be coerced into paying more for cable when there other alternatives to viewing the few shows you said you would miss.

[TransitJohn]

24. Cool! I'm insecure too!

Stay classy. :sarcasm:

[Political Heretic]

28. They aren't alternatives everyone has access to, and doesn't cover NFL

[Bluenorthwest]

29. Like it or not, you need Fox to make those shows

or nothing comes out your intertubes. If everyone took it for nothing, there would be nothing to take, at some point or another. It works the same as looting the grocery store, cheap the first day, no food the next.

[Robb]

9. LOL

The DVD sales of course do not benefit Fox. :rofl:

[abelenkpe]

23. That wasn't my point.

But I'm glad you got a laugh out of it.

[lies and propaganda]

25. sports bashing on DU is trite as hell

you can see it coming light years ahead. lame.

[TransitJohn]

26. Uh....what?

Did I bash the NFL? No. Or did you mean to reply to someone else's post?

[PeaceNikki]

2. The only Fox Networks in this are: FX, Speed, Fuel and Fox Soccer Channel

NOT your local Fox affiliate and NOT Fox News.

[tridim]

4. Fuel is Fox? That's too bad.

I REALLY enjoy that channel, and I'm not even a skater. I just like watching skaters skate.

[PeaceNikki]

5. I am only concerned about FX. It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia is one of the greatest shows

ever

[karynnj]

14. I think the local Fox affiliates are in it - though Fox News isn't

Reading several articles, the idea that they want a high fee for an OTA (over the air) station is one of the concerns.

There is a reason to be concerned about this long term if FOX wins. ABC/Disney has sided with them and it is clear that the reason is they will ask more for the ABC signal. I think the FCC or the appropriate Senate committees may need to get involved. The cable companies have local monopolies and are regulated because of that. Long term they may need to look at alternative ways to charge for content. Here you have two companies both of which have power in defining the rates. The only constraint on TWC is that they will lose people as they increase the basic package. Fox has no down side in demanding this - though I assume if they go through with this threat they will lose some of the advertising revenue for the games and other programming which will have have smaller viewership.

[PeaceNikki]

16. There are different networks depending on your market

You can go here: http://www.rolloverorgettough.com/?IID=D53A82BB-76C1-48FD-AFD6-8264EE19D4D8 and on the right, you type in your zip code to see what channels are or might be affected in your market.

In my market it's:
Food Network
Fox Soccer Channel
Fox Sports World Espanol
Fuel
FX
Great American Country
Speed Channel

[karynnj]

17. True, but in some areas - like NYC and LA it is the OTA stations

I get Cablevision here, so am not affected. If you put in a NYC zipcode, you do get that it affects WWOR and WNYW. They are OTA stations. (One NYC zip I know is 10003)

That is a very nice site. I never knew Fox bought (or started) the Food Network.

[KamaAina]

38. Food and HGTV are Scripps networks

they're in a separate pissing match with the cable co's. :eyes:

[SoCalDem]

20. i could not find a box for my zipcode..is there another link?

It just took me to the page with the mock ransom note & a listing of comments other people made..and the roll over-not roll over tabs which asked for name etc.

I have Dish, so it doesn't really affect me though.. I have Fox blocked from my remote already :)

[PeaceNikki]

21. It's just to the right of the mock ransom note

near the center of the picture...

[NightWatcher]

3. too bad they are not dropping faux news

[iamjoy]

7. That's Not What Fox Wants

This is how cable channels operate. When they negotiate with the cable companies, they want a certain amount per cable company customer or household, not those who may choose to subscribe to their channel as an extra. The networks know they make more money that way. So the channel is saying, "no, we don't only want to be paid for people who choose to watch our channel - you have to pay us a fee for all of your customers, whether they want our channel or not."

And people who watch Fox are not all idiots - it's not the same as Fox "News." Fox Network has the Simpsons, House, Fringe, NFL, College Bowl Games, etc.

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

10. Too bad they won't offer $1.00 per channel across the board

I think my cable bill would be around $15.00 per month. Since I don't watch Fox noise, any sports, shopping, Spanish, or religion channels.

[Statistical]

18. +1

I got so tired of cable rates (paying $60 for 5 or 6 channels) that I put up an OTA antenna.

Now I got Tivo and HDTV for all the networks.

Only way I would ever go back to cable is if I could pay per channel.
I would gladly pickup a handful of channels at ala cart prices.

Of course it likely will never happen but one can dream.

With analog TV it would be difficult and expensive to try and offer single channel pricing.
With digital TV it is trivially easy.

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

11. ooops dupe

[City Lights]

12. I could live quite happily without FUX on my teevee.

I hope dropping them to save a buck becomes an option for me.

[geckosfeet]

13. Dump cable and free yourself.

[Political Heretic]

31. Such a blind generalization.

I watch, I would estimate, a maximum of 5 hours of TV a week. That translates into less than 1 hour a day. I don't need "freed" from anything just because I have cable.

[geckosfeet]

32. An hour a day. 30 hours a month. How much per hour does that come to?

Rupert Murdoch thanks you.

My generalization still stands.

[Political Heretic]

33. So let me get this straight: you're saying anyone who watches tv for any reason is wrong

and a slave that needs freed, correct?

[geckosfeet]

34. No. You said that.

Have a nice hour.

[Political Heretic]

35. That's why I was asking, because I was unsure. So what do you mean exactly by needed to be "freed?"

For two years, I had no television by choice. I didn't need it, and things were quite fine without it. Now I'm in a situation where I do have access to television. And guess what, life is still fine and I'm just as "free" as was then, when I choose to watch Bill Moyers, or Dan Rather's special investigations on cable network, or the Science channel's features on quantum mechanics, of the history channel's special on the presidency of Woodrow Wilson.

I'm just as free when I sit down and participate with my friends in watching a football game, a great social activity and excellent community, and so on.

What bugs the hell out of me is people so arrogantly narrow in their sweeping generalizations.... if you watch even an hour of cable you're a slave that needs "freed" from something, join me in my smugly superior world. What a joke.

Context matters. And individual context means that not everyone why has access to cable, for whatever reason, needs freed from anything.

By the way, in my old apartment many years ago, cable was included in the rent. Wasn't even something I could turn off if I wanted to. People in that situation factor into your stupid generalization? No, I didn't think so.

[geckosfeet]

36. Financial, social and psychological bonds to MSM.

I never used the word slave. My comment was meant more for the person who habitually watches with little or no regard to what they are watching as long as they are entertained. In that sense I suppose you could use the word slave.

I have personal feelings about paying, through a cable bill, the salaries of the fox news staff, Rupert Murdoch and other RW ilk. This is complicated by the fact that people such as Rachel Madow and John Stewart also depend on that revenue stream. Consider also the financial aspects of the hardware required to watch the MSM these days.

Ultimately 'we' let the corporatist MSM into our homes and lives. My feeling is that this benefits them more than it benefits us, the 'consumers' of their products.

In closing I would say that in my mind the essence to 'being freed' is simply being aware that when engaging with the media it is a conscious choice. That the engagement is done with a critical mind as regards the overall financial and sociological relationshps, and the context of the information being presented.

[Political Heretic]

37. Thanks for the clarification.

[Gold Metal Flake]

15. Move it to the premium package like they did MSNBC.

[madrchsod]

19. nothing from dish network

i`d pay another buck cause i watch all of fox entertainment channels

[Cleita]

27. I wish my provider didn't do it for free because I would drop it in a heart beat.

All I can do is deselect what shows up on my list, but it's still there as part of the package I pay for lurking in the background.

[Political Heretic]

30. I like FOX. NFL, House, Family Guy, Baseball.....