But HBO needs shows that can pull numbers like the Sopranos and Sex and the City in order to grow its subscriber base. It has NO shows like that now, and so I look at the ratings performance for its shows, and especially its specials with that in mind. If it has powerhouse shows, we’ll still get some good stuff like Rome and The Wire that doesn’t attract as many viewers, but without those powerhouse shows, I doubt we will continue to get as much quality out of HBO.

But HBO needs shows that can pull numbers like the Sopranos and Sex and the City in order to grow its subscriber base. It has NO shows like that now, and so I look at the ratings performance for its shows, and especially its specials with that in mind. If it has powerhouse shows, we'll still get some good stuff like Rome and The Wire that doesn't attract as many viewers, but without those powerhouse shows, I doubt we will continue to get as much quality out of HBO.

If HBO was PBS, I would applaud it. But HBO is in the business of getting as many paying subscribers as it can. Rome was great, but if you want that kind of programming you’re better off lobbying your local PBS affiliate. PBS is not in the business of making money. HBO is. Perhaps Rome would have gotten a 3rd season on PBS. It didn’t on HBO.

If HBO was PBS, I would applaud it. But HBO is in the business of getting as many paying subscribers as it can. Rome was great, but if you want that kind of programming you're better off lobbying your local PBS affiliate. PBS is not in the business of making money. HBO is. Perhaps Rome would have gotten a 3rd season on PBS. It didn't on HBO.

Of course the head of programming for HBO already lost her job, so what is done is done.

Of course the head of programming for HBO already lost her job, so what is done is done.

Family Jewels didn’t make the cable top 40, which is all we see.

Re: #2. If the NY Times can create a new bestseller list to exclude Harry Potter we can create a list and exclude children’s programming. However, we only see the top 40 cable shows, so we may not be revealing much more that interests you. [see the answer to #1]

Family Jewels didn't make the cable top 40, which is all we see.

Re: #2. If the NY Times can create a new bestseller list to exclude Harry Potter we can create a list and exclude children's programming. However, we only see the top 40 cable shows, so we may not be revealing much more that interests you. [see the answer to #1]

1) What were the numbers for both new episodes of Gene Simmons Family Jewels, on March 11 (10 & 10:30pm)

2) Is there a way to have a sperate list that is non-kids channel programming, or non-animated, cable shows? With multiple airings of SpongeBob and Fairly Odd Parents usually taking 50-80% of the list, at times, its hard to see what other cable favorites do each week.

Keep up the great work guys!

1) What were the numbers for both new episodes of Gene Simmons Family Jewels, on March 11 (10 & 10:30pm)

2) Is there a way to have a sperate list that is non-kids channel programming, or non-animated, cable shows? With multiple airings of SpongeBob and Fairly Odd Parents usually taking 50-80% of the list, at times, its hard to see what other cable favorites do each week.

Keep up the great work guys!

JOHN ADAMS is not a through the roof performance, but it is very, very good for the kind of program it was and low HUTS/PUTS. Anything on HBO or basic cable that does over 2 million viewers is considered a success.

JOHN ADAMS is not a through the roof performance, but it is very, very good for the kind of program it was and low HUTS/PUTS. Anything on HBO or basic cable that does over 2 million viewers is considered a success.

Disney needs to shape up at this point in time. Wizards of Waverly Place has not been doing well.

Go Nick

Disney needs to shape up at this point in time. Wizards of Waverly Place has not been doing well.

Go Nick