It has been strange that as the number of channels available has constantly increased, the unique content and content of substance has declined. It appears that with the expansion of the number of channels held by any one media outlet, the same amount of content -- and often identical re-run content -- has been distributed across multiple channels, spreading content so thinly that it barely seems worth the effort. Perhaps it is akin to the expansion of professional sports leagues, which served only to ensure that more games were played leaving owners wealthier and fans paying hiked prices to watch. It seems that sports leagues and cable companies choose to defy the law of supply and demand -- as supply increases generally people are willing to pay less per unit cost due to the glut of available product. So why does their revised model of high cost for more of the same product continue? Marketing plays a role -- they tell us the service delivery is costly and the product is valuable -- and we buy it -- literally and figuratively. After a full Sunday of nothing worth watching on live TV or on-demand or dvr, I really question why cable is so expensive -- hundreds of channels and nothing that would keep my attention to be found.
A couple of songs came to mind for today's selection. I chose one that clearly notes the frustration I felt today. The relentless back beat adds to the tedium and lack of unique programming one can find on the screen. Enjoy1
57 Channels (and nothin' on) -- Bruce Springsteen