<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/1.5.1-alpha" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Most misleading headline of the day&#8230;</title>
	<link>http://insidecable.blogsome.com/2008/02/04/most-misleading-headline-of-the-day/</link>
	<description>Unvarnished news &#038; opinion on cable news</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 03 Dec 2009 05:58:28 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1-alpha</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: WHAT?????????</title>
		<link>http://insidecable.blogsome.com/2008/02/04/most-misleading-headline-of-the-day/#comment-66466</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Feb 2008 09:22:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://insidecable.blogsome.com/2008/02/04/most-misleading-headline-of-the-day/#comment-66466</guid>
					<description>NEWS CORP......Does that meant anything to Henry????? Come on FBN  Fox Business News will have more tenacles than an octopus for NEWS and especially Business.  Wake up.....you sound like a Ron Paul supporter....asleep.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>NEWS CORP&#8230;&#8230;Does that meant anything to Henry????? Come on FBN  Fox Business News will have more tenacles than an octopus for NEWS and especially Business.  Wake up&#8230;..you sound like a Ron Paul supporter&#8230;.asleep.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: ira</title>
		<link>http://insidecable.blogsome.com/2008/02/04/most-misleading-headline-of-the-day/#comment-66448</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Feb 2008 23:12:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://insidecable.blogsome.com/2008/02/04/most-misleading-headline-of-the-day/#comment-66448</guid>
					<description>Jim:  Cable, which wants the additional bandwidth that anlaog channels consume, is also commited to digital.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Jim:  Cable, which wants the additional bandwidth that anlaog channels consume, is also commited to digital.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Jim</title>
		<link>http://insidecable.blogsome.com/2008/02/04/most-misleading-headline-of-the-day/#comment-66442</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Feb 2008 21:21:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://insidecable.blogsome.com/2008/02/04/most-misleading-headline-of-the-day/#comment-66442</guid>
					<description>Broadcast has to go digital. Cable is privately owned and can work on their own timetable.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Broadcast has to go digital. Cable is privately owned and can work on their own timetable.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Terance</title>
		<link>http://insidecable.blogsome.com/2008/02/04/most-misleading-headline-of-the-day/#comment-66439</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Feb 2008 20:49:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://insidecable.blogsome.com/2008/02/04/most-misleading-headline-of-the-day/#comment-66439</guid>
					<description>Sure Ira, most likely they'll continue to have a basic, standard, and extended package for different price ranges. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Sure Ira, most likely they&#8217;ll continue to have a basic, standard, and extended package for different price ranges.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: ira</title>
		<link>http://insidecable.blogsome.com/2008/02/04/most-misleading-headline-of-the-day/#comment-66437</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Feb 2008 20:41:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://insidecable.blogsome.com/2008/02/04/most-misleading-headline-of-the-day/#comment-66437</guid>
					<description>Terance: We still don't know how the cable systems are going to shuffle their packages come 2/17/09 when they have to be all digital.  A good guess is that the channels that are now analog will still be offered as a basic package separately from what is now available on digital tiers for extra cost.  

Make any sense?
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Terance: We still don&#8217;t know how the cable systems are going to shuffle their packages come 2/17/09 when they have to be all digital.  A good guess is that the channels that are now analog will still be offered as a basic package separately from what is now available on digital tiers for extra cost.  </p>
	<p>Make any sense?
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Henry</title>
		<link>http://insidecable.blogsome.com/2008/02/04/most-misleading-headline-of-the-day/#comment-66434</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Feb 2008 20:26:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://insidecable.blogsome.com/2008/02/04/most-misleading-headline-of-the-day/#comment-66434</guid>
					<description>I've been watching FBN since it started. I have to admit it is entertaining to watch, with useful information. They do tend to mix politcs more often than CNBC. It resembles FNC in many of their delivery methods of 'news.' 

But it is difficult for me to beleive that trading firms have this channel on instead of CNBC for 'hard' business news. I read a review on FNC's sat. morning business block as 

&quot;Politics mixed with business news masked in a suit and tie.&quot; 

FBN will probably beat CNBC in ratings in the long run, but there will be very little substance to their 'business news' aspect compared to CNBC. It will blend politics and business. Actually, it is already doing that.

Bottomline, I like watching FBN, but I hope I don't walk into my broker's office and he is watching it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>I&#8217;ve been watching FBN since it started. I have to admit it is entertaining to watch, with useful information. They do tend to mix politcs more often than CNBC. It resembles FNC in many of their delivery methods of &#8216;news.&#8217; </p>
	<p>But it is difficult for me to beleive that trading firms have this channel on instead of CNBC for &#8216;hard&#8217; business news. I read a review on FNC&#8217;s sat. morning business block as </p>
	<p>&#8220;Politics mixed with business news masked in a suit and tie.&#8221; </p>
	<p>FBN will probably beat CNBC in ratings in the long run, but there will be very little substance to their &#8216;business news&#8217; aspect compared to CNBC. It will blend politics and business. Actually, it is already doing that.</p>
	<p>Bottomline, I like watching FBN, but I hope I don&#8217;t walk into my broker&#8217;s office and he is watching it.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Terance</title>
		<link>http://insidecable.blogsome.com/2008/02/04/most-misleading-headline-of-the-day/#comment-66429</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Feb 2008 19:22:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://insidecable.blogsome.com/2008/02/04/most-misleading-headline-of-the-day/#comment-66429</guid>
					<description>^ Yes, and I fully agree its much better to get launched on an analog tier than digital at this point in time. But, my point remains, TWC didn't carry FNC for a while on any tier.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>^ Yes, and I fully agree its much better to get launched on an analog tier than digital at this point in time. But, my point remains, TWC didn&#8217;t carry FNC for a while on any tier.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Bill G</title>
		<link>http://insidecable.blogsome.com/2008/02/04/most-misleading-headline-of-the-day/#comment-66426</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Feb 2008 19:13:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://insidecable.blogsome.com/2008/02/04/most-misleading-headline-of-the-day/#comment-66426</guid>
					<description>That's what I meant, that analog channels are available to pretty much all cable customers, digital channels are not.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>That&#8217;s what I meant, that analog channels are available to pretty much all cable customers, digital channels are not.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Bill G</title>
		<link>http://insidecable.blogsome.com/2008/02/04/most-misleading-headline-of-the-day/#comment-66425</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Feb 2008 19:12:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://insidecable.blogsome.com/2008/02/04/most-misleading-headline-of-the-day/#comment-66425</guid>
					<description>Terance, Is FNC not on an analog tier for you?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Terance, Is FNC not on an analog tier for you?
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Terance</title>
		<link>http://insidecable.blogsome.com/2008/02/04/most-misleading-headline-of-the-day/#comment-66424</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Feb 2008 19:10:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://insidecable.blogsome.com/2008/02/04/most-misleading-headline-of-the-day/#comment-66424</guid>
					<description>&quot;available to basically every cable customer&quot;

Not on Time Warner. I have no idea when FNC showed up but my guess is in between 1998-1999.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>&#8220;available to basically every cable customer&#8221;</p>
	<p>Not on Time Warner. I have no idea when FNC showed up but my guess is in between 1998-1999.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Bill G</title>
		<link>http://insidecable.blogsome.com/2008/02/04/most-misleading-headline-of-the-day/#comment-66421</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Feb 2008 19:04:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://insidecable.blogsome.com/2008/02/04/most-misleading-headline-of-the-day/#comment-66421</guid>
					<description>One difference I see in the CNBC vs. FBN battle that's different than the FNC vs. CNN fight is that even starting out, FNC was on the analog cable tier, available to basically every cable customer. FBN is mostly on the lower digital tier and is unavailable to 10s of millions of folks without cable boxes. That's a significant disadvantage.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>One difference I see in the CNBC vs. FBN battle that&#8217;s different than the FNC vs. CNN fight is that even starting out, FNC was on the analog cable tier, available to basically every cable customer. FBN is mostly on the lower digital tier and is unavailable to 10s of millions of folks without cable boxes. That&#8217;s a significant disadvantage.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
