Cable TV A La Carte Part 2

Yes, HBO by HyperColor+Underware · 2002-12-25 14:09 · Score: 3, Funny

But... Perhaps I would personally be interested in getting a CowboyNeal Channel.

Our legal system by Huogo · 2002-12-25 14:11 · Score: 4, Insightful

This is, IMO, one of the problems with our legal system. Ok, HBO is a channel. Well, we can't make someone buy more hardware and still call it a channel, so we'll just call it a tier. Same thing, different name. Whatever happened to spirit of the law?

Re:Our legal system by LostCluster · 2002-12-25 16:06 · Score: 3, Informative

The law is a good law. The problem is, the cable companies are dragging their feet a tech standard that once in place will end this racket.

Here's the rule: The only tier everybody has to buy is the "basic" tier, and the local regulators get to set the price of that tier. By law, that tier must contain the local broadcasters and local access stations, and usually that's all it contains.

Every other tier has to be sold one-by-one. Multi-tier discounts are illegal. They can't make you get the "digital basic" tier in order to get HBO... they can't even make you get the analog standard tier.

But in order to get anything digital off the system, you need a digital decoder. And right now, the digital decoders are a closed spec, so the only place you can get it is to rent it from the cable company. This is why it seems like you have to buy a $10.99 "digital basic" package in order to keep your HBO subscription. Really, you're paying $10/mo to rent the reciever, and 99 cents for the useless channels. You can drop the useless channels and keep your 99 cents, but there's not much you can do about the equipment rental...

However, the FCC is requiring the cable companies to come up with a standard for digital cable boxes, so that you can buy the hardware at your local electronics store, and then they hit it with the authorization codes telling it what it can and can't decode. This'll mean you can buy your way out of that decoder rental fee, and only pay for the content tiers you want.

Of course, technical problems are very easy to find when you want to roadblock a project, so the cable companies have an interest in keeping the decoder setup the way it is now. Hopefully lawmakers will put an end to this feet dragging soon.
Re:Our legal system by Loki_1929 · 2002-12-25 16:07 · Score: 2

"Whatever happened to spirit of the law?"

The spirit of the law died when Lincoln invaded the southern, soverign states following their cecession from the union. It was during this time that more laws were violated than in any other time in history, including the suspension of Habeas Corpus by the President. Even though this particular action was later ruled unconstitutional, it proved that when it comes to breaking the law, it's easy to get forgiveness than it is to get permission. Once our leaders began to set aside the law when and where they saw fit, the "spirit" of the law was dead.

"Spirit of the Law"
R . I . P . 1861

--
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
Re:Our legal system by shepd · 2002-12-25 16:11 · Score: 1

>The only tier everybody has to buy is the "basic" tier, and the local regulators get to set the price of that tier. By law, that tier must contain the local broadcasters and local access stations, and usually that's all it contains.

No thanks! Why should I buy something I can get for free? Seems silly to me...

--
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
Re:Our legal system by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · 2002-12-25 16:27 · Score: 2

Not any more. Behold the wonder of digital television. Over-the-air TV now looks substantially better than digital cable because your local stations are throwing more bits out over the air than your cable provider is down the wire for the same program. If you have a new TV, you can see true high definition, but even if you don't you can still get a crystal-clear widescreen picture and Dolby Digital 5.1 sound. Even in an apartment, even off of a pair of rabbit ears.

Your local TV stations are probably already broadcasting digital TV; most people in the country are within range of at least one digital station, and for something like 40% of the country all of your local stations have already migrated.

Welcome to the 21st century.

--

I write in my journal
Re:Our legal system by KaiKaitheKai · 2002-12-25 16:40 · Score: 1

The writ of habeas corpus, or the idea that an individual cannot be held in custody without a charge, was suspended by Lincoln in a time of need. Even if it was unconstitutional, it was vital to the survival of America. But this action was completely Constitutional. Actually, the constitution reads: "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it"

Also, you say that Lincoln "invaded" the south. This makes it sound like the Confederacy was perfectly legal and just, and Lincoln himself ordered the pillaging of the south. This, however, was not the case. In Rousseau's opinion of the social contract, the Union was not being unjust or tyriannical, therefore had no need to be overthrown.

Finally, when you say the spirit of the law is dead, you are obviously forgetting the Supreme Court, who has the job of interpreting the spirit of the law.

Now, I don't want to get into a debate over SOL vs. LOL, or over the Civil War/War of the States/War of Northern Agression, or whatever you want to call it. I just want to get a few facts straight, and not have them misrepersented.

P.S. SOL vs. LOL was last years L/D debate topic :)
Re:Our legal system by shepd · 2002-12-25 16:42 · Score: 2, Interesting

>Because it is better quality?

No it isn't. Analog cable (which is what most basic channels are on) is, in fact, much poorer quality than a good OTA broadcast.

The Cable Co. takes the same signal you would receive, then shifts it to another channel, puts it through an ungodly amount of amplification, and runs it 30 miles to your house through all sorts of crapped out cable (it was good cable until a dozen of your neighbours built pools without calling the before-you-dig number).

When you put up a decent, highly directional, antenna (heck, even Radio Shack has ones good enough) you can rotate it to perfection, and end up with a near perfect signal. Of course, for far away signals, reception sucks. Interestingly enough, though, I've found all those far away signals that are snowy aren't available as part of the basics. With my TV tower I get signals from almost 100 miles away (although they are not clear) which my local Cable Co doesn't even offer. Everything on their basics I get as clear, if not more, on my TV antenna. Of course, that was on Cable a decade and a half ago, since I haven't subscribed to it since then (they didn't bother running it to the "new" house).

>Over the air sucks ass for apartment dwellers.

Cable TV is just one of the many extra costs incurred for living in a restricted area. C'est la vie!

--
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
Re:Our legal system by Loki_1929 · 2002-12-25 18:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

"I just want to get a few facts straight, and not have them misrepersented."

Very well; let's have at it then.

"Even if it was unconstitutional, it was vital to the survival of America."

Ahh, so then our priciples and our laws must be cast aside whenever it suites our needs. This relies on the most basic animal instinct; survival. A truly civil society stands true to its convictions even in the face of total annihilation. Lest you forget that in the War of 1812, our forefathers stuck to their convictions even as Washington DC and even the White House itself was burned to the ground. During the War of 1812, we weren't just invaded; we were on the verge of being beaten back into submission by England and having all those who signed the US Constitution killed for treason. Those were true men, men who put everything they ever knew in life on the line because of what they believed in. Those were true men, and we need more like them today.

"But this action was completely Constitutional."

Aww, I'm afraid not. The US Supreme Court ruled in Ex Parte Milligan that the only time Habeas Corpus may be suspended is when the courts cease to function. At this point, one could argue that the civilian government has already been annihilated, and therefore civilian laws have no value. However, the courts remained open throughout Lincoln's little empire; thus making his suspension of Habeas Corpus illegal, unconstitutional, and unforgivable. Many see Lincoln as a hero, yet I see him as little more than a tyrannical emperor and a coward. Rather than lead the union on without the southern states as he ought have done, he took the easier way out; declaring war.

"This makes it sound like the Confederacy was perfectly legal and just, and Lincoln himself ordered the pillaging of the south."

Actually, this is exactly what happened. Each state within the union was supposedly just that; a sovereign state. The union was created to mediate disputes between the states and to allow all states to act as a single entity for such things as national defense, where it would benefit all to act as one (ie. strength in numbers). Ergo, when any one or more states had a major dispute with a ruling or policy of the federal government, they had three options. They could sit there and take it, they could continue fighting it within the union itself, or they could cecede from the union. If Maryland, Virginia, and Delaware decided in 1800 to cecede, do you honestly believe there would have been a massive war costing thousands and thousands of lives over it? Chances are, it would have been a peaceful transition after a bitter diplomatic struggle. In all of this, one fact remains: Each state is a seperate and whole entity entitled to act on its own accord. Any member state of the UN or the EU could cecede at will, and I seriously doubt we'd see that state attacked over it. Lincoln was a coward for not having the courage to lead his country through a difficult time without resorting to massacring farmers when they didn't lay down and roll over upon command.

" Finally, when you say the spirit of the law is dead, you are obviously forgetting the Supreme Court, who has the job of interpreting the spirit of the law."

This is the job of all courts; not just the Supreme Court. The problem is that laws are written poorly, the judicial system is completely overloaded, and we've become such a litigous society that common law is impossible to aptly interpret within the context of thousands of conflicting rulings on the same subject. As a Virginia school student, I was always taught that it was called the "War of Northern Agression". When I went to high school in another state, it was taught as the "Civil War". I thought little of it at the time, but since I've become more politically active and have become much more interested in the past of our great nation, I've come to the conclusion that "The War of Northern Agression" best describes the circumstances of what happened. Don't forget that the Union army was the first to attack, and never forget Sherman's march to the sea in which he went from town to town burning everything in sight to the ground and slaughtering unarmed civilians. To call it barbaric does not do it justice.

--
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
Re:Our legal system by LostCluster · 2002-12-25 18:45 · Score: 3, Informative

The crazy thing is, broadcasters can demand payment for being retransmitted by cable companies... their "free signal" isn't so free when you get it over cable even at the wholesale level. What's more, if a a cable company deems a station that pumps out religous programming that hardly anybody watches as having negative value, the broadcast can then demand that the cable company take the channel for free with no way to turn it down.
Re:Our legal system by plague3106 · 2002-12-26 03:05 · Score: 1

Over-the-air TV now looks substantially better than digital cable because your local stations are throwing more bits out over the air than your cable provider is down the wire for the same program.

Funny, isn't the spec they chose MORE susceptable to interference. That is, people with analog once got a snowy picture, but when they switched to digital, they got no picture at all. Hardly sounds like a solution to me.
Re:Our legal system by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · 2002-12-26 04:14 · Score: 2

Funny, isn't the spec they chose MORE susceptable to interference.

Than what? Than a wire in the ground? Sure. But your statement about people who get no picture at all is generally not true. I have friends in apartments (two of them, actually) who get perfect HD reception using nothing more than an indoor antenna. And I have one friend who lives way the heck out in the sticks who gets perfect reception with an inexpensive rooftop antenna.

When a thunderstorm blows through, you will occasionally get a few drop-outs in your picture because of atmospheric interference. But these are few and far between, and you never lose the signal entirely like you can with buried cable.

--

I write in my journal
Re:Our legal system by plague3106 · 2002-12-26 04:17 · Score: 1

Not buried cable; compared to analog broadcasts. I'll try to find the article about it, it was mentioned here a while ago.
Re:Our legal system by Reziac · 2002-12-26 04:42 · Score: 4, Interesting

What about billing by the minute for whatever channels you watched last month? Could be variable on a per-channel basis.

The concept is doubtless rife with problems (such as, the cable company can't bill you in advance and make money from the interest on your advance payment) but anyone here care to take a stab at making it a workable concept?

--
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Re:Our legal system by jlanthripp · 2002-12-26 05:56 · Score: 1

In my apartment, if I put up an antenna on the patio that stands about 40' tall (15' taller than the building I live in, and thus something that I would be told to take down or be evicted), then on a clear day I might actually be able to get one channel on which I can identify what's playing after several minutes of looking for patterns in the on-screen snow and listening to the snippets of conversation that come through.
For me, television means cable television.
And no, I'm not in the boonies - I'm in one of the larger suburbs of Atlanta.

--
"Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
Re:Our legal system by andrew_0812 · 2002-12-26 07:35 · Score: 1

First of all, I totaly disagree with everything that you said, but I don't want to get into this argument.

Have you ever stopped to think about what our history would look like if the South had been allowed to leave the union, or if they had won the war? One point in particular is WWII, there is no way that the United States / Confederacy could have helped to bring Hitler down the way we did as a United Nation.
Sure this is speculation, but most likely Hitler would have won that little war, and the face of the world would be very different today.

Be glad that the South was reclaimed.
Re:Our legal system by shepd · 2002-12-26 08:31 · Score: 1

>Please, tell me an apartment building in NYC that allows tenants to mount directional antennas. (Where? Out the window? On the roof, and run it down the outside of the building 20 stories?)

Like I said, when you live in an apartment, you give up some things...

Well, maybe I wasn't that clear, I actually said:

Cable TV is just one of the many extra costs incurred for living in a restricted area. C'est la vie!

Some apartment buildings already have antennas on top. Talk with your landlord -- they're probably still there in a city as old as NY.

>Cable in NYC offers crystal-clear copies of CHannel 25, 31, 40-something (spanish), etc. All these are very snowy at best with an antennas.

Then these aren't locals, are they? In a city as big as NY, NY I can see the Cable Co getting a "locals" deal together A decent antenna will pull in stations crystal clear that are 50 or more miles away, assuming no major obstacles. I can see that in a city like NY you'd have buildings in the way. Again, that's what happens in a big city. You have to give up some things in exchange for certain conveneinces. Sorry. Some of us chose to live with the inconveniences of a small city to be able to do certain things.

--
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
Re:Our legal system by shepd · 2002-12-26 08:48 · Score: 1

>(15' taller than the building I live in, and thus something that I would be told to take down or be evicted)

Get your ham radio license today! In Canada, at least, they can't stop you from putting up any tower, as long as it is safe, should you be fully licensed. ;-) I'm sure the USA has similar laws (heck, you guys are allowed to put up satellite dishes 1m in diameter anywhere, unlike us!).

I'm going to get mine, someday, but since my 40 ft. TV tower is actually one of the smaller ones in my town, I'd be getting it for the fun of it, not any TV tower benefits.

>And no, I'm not in the boonies - I'm in one of the larger suburbs of Atlanta.

Bummer.

I am in the boonies (no DSL, and cable TV co didn't run any cable to the houses here + 15 km of Telco cable to my phones), and here's my list of channels (some smart slashdotter will be able to guess where I live, oh well). I've forgotten the call signs on some of them, sorry; I do have satellite TV, and since it carries the locals which I have to buy by law (bummer) this is coming from memory:

- Channel 2, 3, 4 -- Snowy, from the US.
- Channel 5 (CBC) normally clear.
- Channel 6 (Global) always clear.
- Channel 7 (ABC?) usually snowy, occasionally clear.
- Channel 9 usually clear, IIRC.
- Channel 11 mostly clear.
- Channel 13 (CKCO) so crystal clear it hurts (sometimes there's ghosting, since the broadcast tower is nearby)
- Channel 17 (PBS Buffalo) very snowy.
- Channel 19 (TVOntario) clear.
- Channel 25 (SRC or CBC french) clear.
- Channel 28 (TVOntario 2) clear.
- Channel 29 (WKBW or Fox or whatever they are now) very snowy, US
- Channel 31 (CityTV) a little snowy.
- Channel 35 a little snowy.
- Channel 41 (Ethnic channel, CFMT, IIRC) very clear.
- Channel 45 (religous network) snowy.
- Channel 47 (CityTV 2, I think...) clear.
- Channel 49 (can't remember).
- Channel 56 (SRC / CBC french 2) clear.

Maybe I'm just lucky, but I certainly don't live in a big city. Radio reception on a TV antenna is pretty sweet still, though.

--
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
Re:Our legal system by Emmettfish · 2002-12-26 12:51 · Score: 2

Get your ham radio license today! In Canada, at least, they can't stop you from putting up any tower, as long as it is safe, should you be fully licensed. ;-) I'm sure the USA has similar laws (heck, you guys are allowed to put up satellite dishes 1m in diameter anywhere, unlike us!).
Well, no. Since we're talking about apartments, it's all about who owns that building. Sure, you can mount a dish on the outside of your window. You'll be able to see it from the street, which is where you'll be sleeping when your landlord kicks you out.
The United States has all sorts of goofy local statutes regarding things like this. Here in Philadelphia, there are certain things you cannot put on certain buildings even if you own them, because they're part of a 'historical area' or something like that. In many housing developments, you need to have changes to your house that you own including (but not limited to) building a deck, painting the front a different color, etc checked by a local or county zoning commission.
Some places are a little less nuts, but they're becoming more and more rare. Two people are neighbors, three people are a zoning commission.
Emmett Plant
CEO, Xiph.org Foundation
Re:Our legal system by Loki_1929 · 2002-12-26 16:56 · Score: 2

First of all, I'm not the anonymous coward who posted the other response to this comment, however I agree with what that person had to say.

Have I ever stopped to think what our history would look like? There's not much need, as there are pro's and con's any which way you look at it, and the speculation for the past, the present, and the future is absolutely endless. We may have been much better off as two seperate unions. Certainly those hundreds of thousands of people who died during the US Civil War (stated as such to avoid semantecal arguments) would have been better off; they'd have not been killed in that war.

As for WWII, I shall assess the situation based on your own logic and assumptions. Let's assume that the two unions created by the cecession of the southern states were not strong enough to defeat Germany in 1945. First of all, without the help of the US (single nation) in WWI, it's possible the Germans would have signed a very beneficial peace accord with the rest of the allies, thereby heading off the economic desparity that lead to the rise of Hitler and the Nazis. Assuming the Nazis did come to power anyway, we could also speculate that after 50 years, changes in internal politics within the united, conquered Nazis Europe would have had a massive and unparalleled good effect on the rest of the world. To be clear, I am absolutely not defending any of the horrific atrocities commited by the Nazi party in and around WWII; only speculating that 50 years could potentially bring about major changes in policies. A united Europe could have potentially devoted itself to helping people all over the world. Instead of small member states in the EU and the UN, we could have a world governing body that actually gets things done. Low pollution, advances in science, elimination of most wars and diseases; the possibilities are endless. On the other side, we could also have possibly seen the most horrible nightmares imagined come to life under the rule of the Nazi party. Then again, it's possible that with the collapse of the eastern front in WWII, the Allies could have possibly won with no help at all from the US.

In the end, the only thing we can say for certain is what is in the history books. What I see in them is a tail of unforgivable treachery from a government devised solely to better implement the will of the states and the will of the people. There is a reason the Civil War is said to have pitted brother against brother: it was wrong. The South was not "reclaimed", it was destroyed; hence the period of time post-dating the Civil War called "Reconstruction". From murderous barbarity, much good has come to be sure, but at what price? Do you sacrifice every moral fiber in your body because what comes next seems good? Lincoln had a choice to make: to follow the spirit of the law and allow the southern states to go their own way as it was always intended they ought to be able to do, or to start a massive, bloody war that would tear apart families and costs hundreds of thousands of lives and millions in damages. To allow the southern states to leave would put the economy of the North in jeopardy. It was a financial decision; it was the easy decision; it was the wrong decision. Unfortunately, the North won the war, and to the victors go the spoils. Thus, history spins the Civil War as a good thing and teaches the youth to believe that it was a hard and morally sound decision.

War is rarely a hard decision, and for damn sure is almost never a morally sound decision.

As for totally disagreeing with everything I said, I invite you to teach me about Ex Parte Milligan, in which the Supreme Court of the United States of America directly stated in no uncertain terms that the suspension of Habeas Corpus by the President was unconstitutional. Perhaps what you mean is that you disagree with the Supreme Court. That's fine; you have a right to do so, and I encourage you to petition the court to review that decision. Somehow, I doubt you'll find their response encouraging.

from the ruling in Ex Parte Milligan:
"it could be well said that a country, preserved at the sacrifice of all the cardinal principles of liberty, is not worth the cost of preservation."

And:
"Martial rule can never exist where the courts are open, and in the proper and unobstructed exercise of their jurisdiction. It is also confined to the locality of actual war."

Martial law is, of course, required for the suspension of Habeas Corpus. (Unless you ask the Bush Administration, which can come up with justification for anything the resident President does, even if it doesn't make any sense or have any relevence)

--
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."

If i had the choice by anonymous+coword · 2002-12-25 14:12 · Score: 1, Insightful

I would get rid of screenshop, qvc, best direct and all the other stupid shopping channels that nobody watches anyway.

--
Nero-burning ROM for Linux!

Re:If i had the choice by LostCluster · 2002-12-25 15:50 · Score: 4, Insightful

Unfortately... those channels are actually keeping youy cable rates down.

The shopping channels are paying the cable companies to be there by giving them a cut of the sales in exchange for the cable space. The cable companies could use the help. (Before you think they're making out like bandits, where'd all Adelphia and AT&T Broadband's money go... yep, the content owners.)

Where this all colapses is where the shopping channels get their hands on a broadcast station. Then they cable company has to carry the "local broadcaster" for free, and gets no cut of the money. That's a loophole in the law that needs to be closed.
Re:If i had the choice by theMightyE · 2002-12-25 18:28 · Score: 3, Interesting

Unfortately... those channels are actually keeping youy cable rates down.The shopping channels are paying the cable companies to be there by giving them a cut of the sales in exchange for the cable space.
So why not make these channels optional too, but with a negative price, i.e. get QVC and take $0.50 a month off your bill? I expect most people would just program their TVs to skip over these channels anyway, just like we do now, but with a bit of a savings.
Re:If i had the choice by LostCluster · 2002-12-25 18:41 · Score: 2

The payment isn't per viewer, it's per dollar in sales. Buy something from QVC, get $5 off your bill. (Of course, QVC's prices are usually higher than what you find in stores for the same thing, which is why they jump over the chance to get "exclusive" label things that aren't in stores.)

Right now, you're just lucky that there's some dolt elsewhere in your town who is buing more than her fair share of QVC products, so that the pennies are getting averaged into everybody's bill.

AOL's New strategy by Hi_2k · 2002-12-25 14:16 · Score: 1

I can just see this Basic Service- $24.95 per month .AOL.COM tier - $29.95 per month .COM tier - $39.95 per month "High Level" tier - $59.95 per month Gotta love the "Tiers"!

--
When life gives you crap, Make Crapade.
Sluggy Freelance.

Big Fat DUH! by andyring · 2002-12-25 14:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

It's only common knowledge that people want choice. I would subscribe to cable myself if I didn't have to order a bunch of crap I don't want just to get one or two channels. It's certainly technologically feasable, but it's all about money and control. Cable companies obviously realize they have monopolies all over the place, and that opens the door wide to bending over and getting screwed by the cable companies (or any other monopoly). I don't give a damn about anything sports-related, but forcing me to order sports channels to see one non-sports one I want is outrageous.

It would be like going to the store for a bag of Doritos and being forced to buy 1/3 of the entire aisle to get the bag of chips you want. Consumers would never stand for that, and I'm surprised they've put up with this for so long.

Re:Big Fat DUH! by MoTec · 2002-12-25 14:26 · Score: 1

Insightfull AND a goatse link? It's true - what is the world comming to?!?
Re:Big Fat DUH! by ActiveSX · 2002-12-25 14:27 · Score: 2

Wow, this is the first time I've seen a post with a goatse link modded up as "Insightful". These are strange times, indeed.
Re:Big Fat DUH! by Dachannien · 2002-12-25 15:31 · Score: 2

Well, Microsoft has been forcing people to make that "choice" for years, now. And the problem is that people (in general) are unknowledgeable enough that they don't realize there's something wrong.

The fact that, for most people, the only communication they get on issues like this federal rule are from the relevant service provider (some real honesty there), rather than from the feds, ensures that the profit loss from service cancellation from a few slashdotters won't even scratch the surface of the piles they're raking in from the mooing masses.
Re:Big Fat DUH! by Rambo,+John+J. · 2002-12-25 16:31 · Score: 1

Tell this to networks, not the cable companies you idiot.

YES, it is technically possible. Cable companies are FORCED by some networks to not let the customer pick and choose regular basic tv channels.

Don't fucking believe me? Read the telecommunications act of 1992 that SCREWED the consumer and took away choice.

Write your congressman and not your cable company if you want a la carte basic tv channels.
Re:Big Fat DUH! by Coke+in+a+Can · 2002-12-26 05:56 · Score: 1

It could very well be. I don't have the URL anymore though, so unfortunately, the kiddies won't be able to wear goatse shirts when they go back to school. Also available is a goatse frisbee. yay!
Re:Big Fat DUH! by Coke+in+a+Can · 2002-12-26 08:02 · Score: 1

It might be that bobgoatse one. Could have been censored, who knows.

As always... by jasno · 2002-12-25 14:20 · Score: 5, Insightful

The solution lies in new technology, not new legislation. If there were more content delivery methods(yes, theres satellite, but we need more), the cable companies would lose their monopoly and would have to compete for our business.

Wireless cable, telco delivered video on demand, cable blimps, and streaming video over IP come to mind. Better yet, lets come up with a system where we simply buy bandwidth from a carrier and use that as a 'universal content delivery mechanism' for cable, phone service, etc.

I know this has been tried before (by cable co's and telcos at least), so why did it fail?

Its always amazed me how the government can work for years trying to solve a problem and a new technological innovation will come along and make the entire debate irrelevant.

--

http://www.masturbateforpeace.com/

Re:As always... by LostCluster · 2002-12-25 15:28 · Score: 3, Interesting

Nope. Nope. Nope.

The problem is not the distributors, but the content makers in the first place. In order to carry the popular broadcast stations and cable networks, you must bundle in that company's less popular cable networks, some of which are upstart no-names nobody would pay for if they didn't have to.

There has to be a law unbundling networks at the wholesale layer before content distributors can have packages that reflect what you want to get and nothing more and nothing less.
Re:As always... by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · 2002-12-25 16:39 · Score: 3, Interesting

Wireless cable

Uh... you mean like broadcast TV?

telco delivered video on demand

I predict that this won't happen until we come up with a DRM system that actually works. Content providers want to protect their media, and the law says they have that right. We as a society would be better off-- in the purely lazy, couch potato sense, of course-- with a good DRM infrastructure than without one. I will, of course, get senselessly flamed for this by people who wouldn't recognize a good DRM system if it bit them on the DVD player. Here's a hint: a good DRM system will protect consumers' rights just as much as it protects licensors' rights.

streaming video over IP

How do we fix the fact that this simply doesn't work very well? I've been of the opinion for some time that the best video-on-demand system would be a store-and-watch one. You request a movie or show and your STB/TV/player/whatever starts downloading it. Depending on your bandwidth, the program might take a minute to download or it might take a day. When it's downloaded, you can watch it.

Those of us who own TiVos kind of have this system already. I look at the list of programming that's available over the next several days and decide what I'd like to see. When it comes along, my TiVo records and caches it for me. I can then watch it at my leisure, as many times as I like until I decide to delete it. Couple this mode of operation-- particularly the "season pass" feature that lets you specify repeating program events-- with IP-based content delivery and we might have a winner.

Ultimately this loops back to DRM, though. I don't think content providers would be too excited about this idea unless they knew their rights would be protected, and obviously consumers won't be happy unless they know that their rights are also protected. Ergo, we require good DRM.

--

I write in my journal
Re:As always... by Flambergius · 2002-12-25 16:50 · Score: 1

The solution lies in new technology, not new legislation

and later

Its always amazed me how the government can work for years trying to solve a problem and a new technological innovation will come along and make the entire debate irrelevant.

Well, yes and no.

There's going to be legislation and regulations. Otherwise we have anarchy. Not that I would really mind that much. I'm big, mean, smart, healthy and not very particular when it comes to my morals and I have many friends like me, so I would probably do pretty well in a (temporal) anarchy. But I digress.

The assertion that new technology, not new legislation, will solve The Problem is false.

Edwards' Law: You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem.

Current technology is sufficient to solve most problems we have, certainly it's sufficient to bring cable TV to your own home by more than one operator and/or allow you choose channels "a la carte". New technology isn't going to change costs and barriers of entry involved in that drasticly anytime soon.

Any new technology developed will have owner and controller. It will be regulated in some form. Any content this new technology will deliver to your home will have author, owner and controller, who all will be regulated in some form. Each and everyone involved will try to make as much money as they can.

How does your situation as a consumer improve or even change as the the technology improves? Sorry, but it doesn't. You will get the new 3D-holographic-all-senses experience when it's invented because you finance that upgrade by buying a new TV set. That's nice, but not the point here. Do you think you will have more choice in terms of channel packages in that brave new cable TV than you have now? Of course, it might not be channel packages that their business model uses to squeeze you with.

The answer, regretably, is regulation. Unlike technology, which for most part is either good or better, regulations can be good or bad. Tricky part is that what is good for one is bad for another. Regulators should try to strike a working balance, which they usually do when presented with all sides and views. It is very dangerous ignore regulators. Guess what, regulations usually favor the sides trying to influence the regulator and not the ones that were absent from the process.

I don't have the faintest idea what the cable TV industry is like over there (or anywhere else), so I won't comment on what those regulations should be, beyond this: "Free market rules, so bewere or it will rule you too."

Oh, and the part I agreed with is that goverments can really take their time making regulations. In business management that would be called excessive overhead and it's, like, a bad thing.

--Flam
this space for rent

--
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers - Pablo Picasso
Re:As always... by lpontiac · 2002-12-25 23:42 · Score: 2

Wireless cable

Late contender for oxymoron of the year...
Re:As always... by Eponymous+Mallard · 2002-12-26 10:49 · Score: 1

telco delivered video on demand

I swear, when I first read that I thought it said, "tacos delivered on demand"!

The Eponymous Mallard

No thanks by kungfuBreaks · 2002-12-25 14:22 · Score: 5, Interesting

I own both a VCR and a DVD player, but I don't have cable. It's just not worth it to me; all the global news coverage I could possibly want is available online (in fact, I rank many blogs far higher than most mainstream media outlets), and I can rent tapes and DVD's when I'm in the mood for a movie. If and when cable (or satellite) companies decide to offer true per-channel subscription, I might be interested in getting HBO or an independent movie channel say. Until then, I think I'll hold on to my money.

Re:No thanks by Pig+Hogger · 2002-12-25 15:35 · Score: 2

all the global news coverage I could possibly want is available online (in fact, I rank many blogs far higher than most mainstream media outlets)
Does this includes Slashdot?
Re:No thanks by Flounder · 2002-12-25 15:36 · Score: 3, Interesting

I find the $30 a month I spend on Netflix to be a far better deal than anything I could ever watch on broadcast TV.

Between Netflix and internet access, I've got on-demand 24 hour news. Coverage of any sporting event I could ever have interest in. No commercials (except banner ads and pop ups, and there's software to eliminate those). A much bigger variety of movies than I could ever hope to see on cable (especially in older movies).

I do miss The Simpsons and Babylon 5 reruns. But now that both shows are coming out on DVD, I'm set. I do miss vegging out in front of the tube at 4am, but I do get alot more reading, writing and coding done now.

--
No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's always a boom tomorrow. - Cmdr. Susan Ivanova
Re:No thanks by rmohr02 · 2002-12-25 15:47 · Score: 2

I had heard of netflix before, but I hadn't realized exactly how it worked. I like it much more than Blockbuster already. But it's website says it's only 19.95/month + taxes. Are your taxes that much?
Re:No thanks by damiangerous · 2002-12-25 16:20 · Score: 2

There are various levels depending on how many movies you want to have out at a time. The standard level is your $19.95, allowing 3 out at a time with no monthly limit. There is a lower level $13.95 plan which allows 2 out at a time, and only 4 rentals per month total. The poster you replied to has the $29.95 plan which allows 5 out at a time. There's one level above that as well, $39.95, which allows 8 out.
Re:No thanks by dnoyeb · 2002-12-25 17:05 · Score: 2

I enjoy the discovery channel
My wife likes BET/MTV/etc.
I watch ESPN for RedWings Hockey
I like the clarity of the reception

$40/month is a little extreme for these few things so if I could get it al la carte, you know I would be paying like $20 as originally it cost...

if the local stations begin to transmit in digital, I will likely drop the cable, but Ill miss my discovery channel...
Re:No thanks by DrCode · 2002-12-25 20:10 · Score: 2

Don't know about your area, but when we switched from Extended to Basic service ($42 -> $12) here in Oregon, we still got the Discovery Channel, AMC, and a couple other stations along with the local networks.
Re:No thanks by rmohr02 · 2002-12-26 02:04 · Score: 2

Ahh. That makes sense, but wasn't obvious from the netflix page.
Re:No thanks by dnoyeb · 2002-12-27 05:51 · Score: 2

What I have is basic Plus.

The plus is BET/Discovery/ESPN2/Comedy Channel and a few others.

Bizarre that the "blackest" city in the Nation population wise (Detroit) has to pay extra for BET, not that I even watch it. I call that extortion.

its like another $5 and they don't offer it to you, they give it to you without asking or telling. You have to tell them to take it off. My mom didnt even know she was paying extra...

It ain't so great anyway by FireBreathingDog · 2002-12-25 14:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

I don't see what the big deal about a la carte is; every time I order sushi that way, I end up ordering too much, spending an assload of money and getting stuck with a bunch of uneaten raw fish.

--
Shame on Google.

Re:It ain't so great anyway by Lord+Bitman · 2002-12-25 14:45 · Score: 4, Funny

Extend the metaphore. Think of each channel as one sushi.. thing.. whatever the individual unit of sushi is (wrap? I dont know.. whatever)
The way it's currently set up, the only way to get any sushi at all is if you order [this is based on my cable company] 69 sushi things. To me, that's too much sushi, and some of it I wouldnt even want by itself. The resteraunt won't even let me share what I get with others(as illogical as this sounds. Even if it seems unenforceable, there are federal laws stating that you CAN'T share your sushi with someone else. The resteraunt doesnt have to enforce it because they got the government to) Some of the sushi has weird spanish spices on it, some of it is prepared Kosher, some of it is prepared with alchohol and served on the same big plate even though I ordered with my family. The only way to get the house special is to get another 10 peices of shrimp. Well, not really. They serve the house special on the same big plate, but they'll only let you eat it with their special silverware, and if you try to get at it with the chopsticks you had to bring yourself, they arrest you. The silverware costs more money, and comes with an e-mail account, but also comes with a menu that will tell you which of the sushi has alchohol in it- something you can get to otherwise only by waiting for somebody to walk by with a menu, all the while talking about how to get cheap patents, and of course calling out information about other sushis which if you'd have been able to eat you wouldnt be paying attention to the menu guy anyway. ... did I have a point? :)

--
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
Re:It ain't so great anyway by Reziac · 2002-12-26 04:45 · Score: 2

[plaintively] Can't I just be allowed to go hungry??!

--
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?

I hate cable companies by mrscorpio · 2002-12-25 14:25 · Score: 3, Insightful

The area I live in is served by Mediacom. I get basic cable service for $14.95/month, and that's only because I would have to pay a "you're going to steal cable anyway" fee of $10.00 per month if I don't take it along with my cable internet (DSL is too slow, expensive, or both here). The only "extra" channel I get is the Food Network (which rules), but I would love to get The History Channel, Comedy Central, and MTV2, but can't unless I go for digital cable, which starts at like $60/month and gives me a bazillion channels I don't want. Sorry, but I'd rather do without than to overpay for things I'm not going to even use. I hope this legislation will bring about some positive change in the near future.

Chris

Re:I hate cable companies by LostCluster · 2002-12-25 16:22 · Score: 2

That $10 penalty fee was created because the FCC fell alseep at the wheel.

They have ruled cable modems as an "information service" rather than a "cable service". This difference means that all of the regulations that apply to cable TV do not apply to cable modem services, so they can can charge people who refuse to accept their other services more than people who don't. If there were regulations that required them not to charge punative fees to those who refuse to buy their cable service, they'd actually have to do the work to install traps so that cable modem lines didn't have to have the low-tier cable service on them... that's simple equipment, but it costs money to get it and install it, and they're just lazy.

If the FCC would classify cable modems as a "cable service", then that would mean local regulators would also have the ability to regulate the quality of the service... speeds, which ports are blocked and which aren't, etc. That'd be a good thing.

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2002-12-25 14:26 · Score: 2

Comment removed based on user account deletion

I wish my ISP had a la carte by D+iz+a+n+k+Meister · 2002-12-25 14:26 · Score: 1

Then I would only have to pay for /.

--

He painted a unicorn in outer space. I'm askin' ya, what's it breathin'?

Re:I wish my ISP had a la carte by dirkdidit · 2002-12-25 16:29 · Score: 2

You'd be a poor bastard then. ;-)
Re:I wish my ISP had a la carte by roady · 2002-12-25 21:58 · Score: 1

That means that you do not read the articles do you ?

Read about my attempts to get cable ala carte... by NoMoreNicksLeft · 2002-12-25 14:33 · Score: 2

Digital Cable Recievers

And don't forget to do everyone a favor, and help add to the compatibility database...
*grin*

I didn't know.... by marshac · 2002-12-25 14:37 · Score: 1

I am probably one of the many consumers out there who don't read Business Week, but now I know.... and as this article says, am kinda mad.

I know where I live, my cable rates have gone up a lot. I pay almost $100 a month for basic digital cable and my cable modem. There are so many channels that I don't even want, but I pay for them anyways. Even so, and even if the rules have changed...... I doubt there is anything I can do about it. They would laugh at me if I called and said "take of ESPN... I don't want to pay for it"

I'm sure many slashdotters have cable service at home too... what choices do you think you have?

Re:I didn't know.... by Esion+Modnar · 2002-12-26 10:53 · Score: 1

I doubt there is anything I can do about it.
You can drop cable. Just like banks will charge ATM fees as long as people pay them, cable companies will play their monopoly as long as people pay them.

--

They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...

Showtime DVD and more! by secondsun · 2002-12-25 14:41 · Score: 3, Interesting

Thankfully many stations (like showtime) are putting their more popular series out on DVD after each season (Queer as Folk season one has been out a year and season two is set to come out in a month or so just in time for season three to start up). This is competition to the cable industry, and it is only going to increase. DVD's are cheap to stamp, mpeg-2 is cheap to make (esp since 99% of all editing now is done digitally on nonllinear systems, mpeg-2 is just an option!). And the internet means that it is cheap to ship, sell only 10,000? Stamp 10k, ship and then forget about it. The only thing that I think would be better would be if I could download everything (say pay 50 for a season and download eps after they are aired). But the cable paradigm is beginning to fade in the wake of new and more diverse, more specific techs.

Secondsun

--
There is nothing wrong with being gay. It's getting caught where the trouble lies.

Re:Showtime DVD and more! by stoops · 2002-12-25 20:55 · Score: 1

The only thing that I think would be better would be if I could download everything (say pay 50 for a season and download eps after they are aired). you can already do that. it's just that the $50 is optional. (it's called kazaa)

cable sucks, well sometimes by jlechem · 2002-12-25 14:43 · Score: 1

Man do i hate cable sometimes. I have battled this thing out several times. I used to have the 'gold' package from ATT cable. This included every premium chanel they offered. I soon got tired of the 80 bucks a month and I wanted to drop some of the premium channels me and my wife didn't watch. I soon found out I couldn't just get rid off cinemax and keep HBO I had to loose them both and go down to the silver package which cost about 10 dollars less. Well after a few months of downgrading packages I was left with just basic digital cable. I would love to be able to keep my basic digital cable and just order HBO, I don't want starz or any of that other shit that comes with the gold package. Because of this I have really thought about switching to satellite, but I don't know if they're any better and I have heard your reception gets fuzzy in the rain. In this case legislation might be needed since it appears all the major cable companies are following the same price guidelines which leaves the consumer out in the cold.

PS. My cable box says dolby digital on it but i have yet to find a digital output on the back of any kind.

--
Hold up, wait a minute, let me put some pimpin in it

Re:cable sucks, well sometimes by marshac · 2002-12-25 15:10 · Score: 2, Interesting

Sounds like you and I have the same cable box. There is a nice little port that says SPDIF, but it's blank.... nothing there. What about Y/Pb/Pr outputs for video? It's a digital signal coming in right? Why must I have an interlaced signal coming out? And the best part: I called and asked for a better box... something that had REAL digital output. They laughed. Unfortunately, it's not like I can just got to bestbuy or costco and get a better box either.

I also asked about HDTV via cable... they said that it's technically not possible.... on their website however, it's an option in several markets. Don't feed me bull, just tell me that my market isn't big enough to bother with... and that we have no competition.
Re:cable sucks, well sometimes by D+iz+a+n+k+Meister · 2002-12-25 15:36 · Score: 1

Yeah, I had that annoyance when I had "digital" cable.

Coax goes in, with "digital" signal, only coax comes out. No red, white, yellow, optical, etc, just an RF plug. How the hell can you call that "digital"???? Because it displays the time and channel on a "digital" read out??? Thank god DSL is cheap here.

Bye, Bye cable, and commercials. Hello P2P Simpson's episodes. I would watch the commercials to "pay" for the episodes, but they aren't shown frequently enough to meet my needs. "Digitally" or otherwise on cable.

--

He painted a unicorn in outer space. I'm askin' ya, what's it breathin'?
Re:cable sucks, well sometimes by DragonPup · 2002-12-25 16:09 · Score: 2

Meister, the signal that travels from the headend over to the Hardlines up to the tap(that is where your house drop is connected) is infact a digital signal.

--
"Useless organic meatbag" -HK-47
Re:cable sucks, well sometimes by LostCluster · 2002-12-25 16:26 · Score: 2

In the places where they've actually upgraded the system. Here, my city's system is analog all the way, using equipment that was installed in the 1970s.

They say they're gonna upgrade, but they're about to blow right through a contractual committment to have it done by the end of Winter.
Re:cable sucks, well sometimes by multiplexo · 2002-12-25 16:37 · Score: 1

but I don't know if they're any better and I have heard your reception gets fuzzy in the rain. In this case legislation might be needed since it appears all the major cable companies are following the same price guidelines which leaves the consumer out in the cold.

I live in Burien, Washington, south of Seattle and I've only had rain fade once, and that was when it was raining like the proverbial cow pissing on the proverbial flat rock and there was a 40 mile an hour wind coming off of the sound. The rest of the time my DirecTivo works great, I had to clear snow off of it one day, but other than that it rocks.

--
cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
Re:cable sucks, well sometimes by Dudio · 2002-12-26 07:51 · Score: 1

Yeah; that bugs me too. When I called Comcast about it last year, they told me "there are boxes with digital outs, but they cost more so we don't offer them". So tell me again why HBO presents most new content in Dolby Digital 5.1? Is anybody on the planet actually getting 5.1 sound from their "Presented in Dolby Digital 5.1" cable programming?
Re:cable sucks, well sometimes by D+iz+a+n+k+Meister · 2002-12-26 08:22 · Score: 1

I dig that.

The problem I have is that, for all the digital, telcom, beauty that sends that signal to my house, I can't do anything interesting with it once it gets there. No S/PDIF out. No component video out. No S-Video out. Just plug it into the TV and, OOOOhhh look, menus with ads on them. Fantastic. And I can set reminders, in case I'm watching TV and not my favorite show, or in case I want to spend 4-6 hours scouring the listings for something, anything, I might want to watch later. For the price, the features that weren't available on regular cable were very disappointing.

--

He painted a unicorn in outer space. I'm askin' ya, what's it breathin'?

Re:How is this flamebait? by B3ryllium · 2002-12-25 14:56 · Score: 1

Did you CLICK the link? heheh :) (You should. You really should.)

Conglomerates by Detritus · 2002-12-25 15:00 · Score: 2

The problem is that there are large companies that do content creation and distribution. They may own a movie studio, broadcast network, radio and television stations, cable channels and cable systems. This creates many reasons for not selling content to third parties. The DBS people ran into this problem when they wanted to distribute "cable channels" via satellite. The cable operators had ownership interests in, and strong influence over many cable channels.

--
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat

Commercialization syncronization by SparkyMartin · 2002-12-25 15:03 · Score: 1

Ever notice now it seems when there is a commercial on the channel you're watching and you go to surf, all the other channels you watch are showing commercials too? I don't remember this happening five years ago.

Re:Commercialization syncronization by yamcha666 · 2002-12-25 16:01 · Score: 1

I've noticed that too. And its starting to piss me off... Doesn't happen to often during the daytime but during prime time (6pm-10pm roughly) it gets really bad especially on channels like MTV, Comedy Central, USA, and FX.
I don't remember this 5 years ago either...
Re:Commercialization syncronization by GargoyleTS · 2002-12-25 16:47 · Score: 1

Well, it only makes sense. The Cable Co downloads their programming and decides where to put commecial breaks (timewise (and edit wise too if they want)) well ahead of air-time, and it makes profitable sense to run commercials synchronously across channels so you can sell spots on popular shows for more cause people stopped changing channels after they realised that all that's on is commercials! ALL YOUR MIND ARE BELONG TO US! (and soon your money too!)
Re:Commercialization syncronization by TheAntiCrust · 2002-12-25 17:16 · Score: 1

It isnt some grand scheme like you think it is... Its really simple in fact. Shows are all aired on the same schedule right (in half hour intervals). Yes, maybe one show takes half an hour, and one may take an hour, but they all start on the hour or half an hour. Shows dont start at 7:13 or 8:46 for the most part. Numerous studies have been done on exactly how much advertising during what kind of show can be displayed. They also know how much time a show needs to be shown to hook the watcher before a commercial can be shown. Now, if all the shows all know the same amount of time between content and commercial, and they all start at the same time... it can reasonably inferred that the commercials would be shown at roughly the same time. Ta-da! Simple solution without the paranoia!
Re:Commercialization syncronization by daoist · 2002-12-26 01:18 · Score: 1

But TBS's programming always starts 5 minutes after the hour.

That is because Ted Turner decided to take advantage of all those channel surfers at the commercial break, and start the program right when they were looking for something other than a commercial.

When I had a TV set, I had a remote, and continually switched between three or four channels.

--

That which is, is not.
That which is not, is.
Re:Commercialization syncronization by SparkyMartin · 2002-12-26 03:26 · Score: 1

True, that makes sense and I was aware that networks know how often ppl are willing to put up with commercials, but networks also realize by now that ppl surf in droves when commercials are on (I don't think it's just me.) If they all show commercials at the same time then another channel may just happen to show something of interest and snag a guy who's flipping thru the channels. I don't think it's a big conspiracy but it's something that all marketing departments realize.

If NBC shows commercials every 8 minutes, and ABC shows commercials every 7 minutes, NBC is gonna realize that ABC viewers are flipping to NBC, watching their show for a minute, then flipping back to ABC all without viewing any commercials on NBC. If NBC moves to showing commercials to every 7 minutes, as the viewers flips though the channels he may stop at NBC and watch one of their commercials if something catches his eye.

Remember, these are companies that said not too long ago that if viewers don't watch commercials then they are thiefs.

Of course it could just be perception too. Five years ago I had 40 channels, nowadays I have 200 plus. If 20% of all stations show commercials at the same time then in 1997 8 channels had commercials at the same time. Today, it would be 40 channels, so it may just appear that the proportion is higher.

Um, WOW by Coke+in+a+Can · 2002-12-25 15:09 · Score: 1

This amazes me. The individual channels thing, I've been doing for a long, long time, with my (canadian) Starchoice dish and TechTV, and for PPV events? I'm pretty sure us Canadians, even the basic cable users, can just order a single pay per view event.

Is it actually true that you can't order a single PPV event? I'm baffled. Flabbergasted. Snamboozled.

Re:Um, WOW by shepd · 2002-12-25 16:29 · Score: 1

>Is it actually true that you can't order a single PPV event?

No, it's this problem:

You have to buy this before you can buy this. In Canada, you're forced by the CRTC gestapo to buy the basics before you can get anything else (well, that is AFAIK -- they're usually the fault for anything that makes TV suck that little bit more in Canada), and you can't buy the basics without channels that only 0.00001% of Canadians watch, such as the Inuit Channel (I hear it's the Aboriginal Channel now). In the US there's no laws like this (that I know of) but the Cable Co does it anyways (although there they aren't forced to carry stuff that is of NO interest to anyone in that town).

All those "technical" reasons are BS, excepting analog cable, _especially_ when it comes to the satellite receivers. There was once a time when they could only authorize things by the channel...

There's that and the fact that they make you buy packages instead of single channels. (In Canada individual channels are usually possible but at a premium that makes it totally not worth it if you want more than 2 or 3 stations).

Then again, Canadians are used to being screwed over. How many times did they play "Call for Help" on TechTV for you today? They didn't on American TechTV. In Canada we basically get 1/4 the TV for 2/3 the price. And WTF is ShiftTV, Americans would ask -- ShitTV if you ask me... [Thank God for C-Band]

--
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
Re:Um, WOW by Coke+in+a+Can · 2002-12-26 05:59 · Score: 1

OK, that makes a bit of sense. I was really wondering, since I was seeing all this stuff about PPV events.

I like - and use - cable by slasher999 · 2002-12-25 15:10 · Score: 2, Interesting

I spend roughly $100 per month on cable TV services. My cable modem adds another $40 to the monthly total. If I get a pay-per-view movie or two, that adds a few bucks more. I wouldn't be without cable since I rely on it for entertainment and news (especially financial). With about 130 channels, plus another 50+ music only channels, it's a pretty decent service. Granted, I'd like to have all of this for around $60 a month (plus the cable modem).

I don't mind HBO being considered a part of a tier. While HBO consists of about 12 channels here (HBOHD/HBO/HBO+ East, HBO/HBO+ West, HBO Family, HBO Comedy, HBO Signature, etc.), it offers a whole lot of choices. Throw in the Showtime and Cinamax packages (probably 30 channels in all) and I'll call it a tier.

I don't want ala carte cable. It would be expensive (to manage and therefore to buy) and it would mean I would have to spend much more time picking and choosing between channels. Even at $1 per channel per month, my bill would quickly double if I picked everything I now get. I don't know how I'd pick which channels to get rid of - BBC America? VH1 Classic Rock? CNBC? No thanks, I'll take what they offer until it doesn't meet my needs any longer.

Re:I like - and use - cable by jkeyes · 2002-12-25 17:19 · Score: 1

And this folks is why ala carte will never happen, .

and also

In soviet russia cable chooses channels for you! oh wait somehow this sounds correct

(yes I refuse to check spelling or correct grammatical errors because I'm practicing to be a slashdot editor!)
Re:I like - and use - cable by TheAntiCrust · 2002-12-25 17:21 · Score: 1

I dont think they are trying to get rid of the package idea.. I think that the 'a la carte' is an additional option. Buisness has always given discounts to people willing to order 'packages' of thier products. Im sure this new adition wont hurt your precious. (Lucky %^&!ard with your damn 100$ a month to blow on cable while I beg for an upgrade to basic)
Re:I like - and use - cable by sjlutz · 2002-12-26 03:26 · Score: 1

So what cable company do you work for?

Other Excuse by jhunsake · 2002-12-25 15:16 · Score: 2, Informative

I just received a letter about this today. However they (Mediacom) don't mention the federal law at all, they blame it on the local authority. That's the first three sentences. Then the rest (a full page) is advertisement for their digital stuff, of course.

Previous story by CoolQ · 2002-12-25 15:24 · Score: 3, Informative

For those of you who are sick of using the search "feature", here is the previous story, "Cable TV A La Carte?":

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/11/07/138248

It's only Television by pneuma_66 · 2002-12-25 15:27 · Score: 2

I know rates are high, and there is little or no competition in the area, however, its only television. It is not like you need television to live, it's entertainment. So what if you cannot afford HBO or Animal Planet.

It's like a car, if you want a certain feature, you most likely have to buy it in a package. Yes, I know it is a bad analogy, due to the fact that there is a lot of competition in the car arena, however it was the best I was able to think of.

I am not saying what the cable companies do is right, I am trying to put it into perspective. I am a cable customer, and I do pay around $100 per month for it, so I know how much they can screw you. But, I choose to pay it because I get pretty much what I want, and it doesn't put too big a hole in my pocket.

Like I said before, it is only television, you do not need it.

Re:It's only Television by LostCluster · 2002-12-25 15:40 · Score: 2

The problem is, there is a tendancy now to do exactly what we complain about Microsoft doing all the time, stuffing in stuff you don't really want in order to lock out other competitors. The New York Yankees took their broadcast rights away from the MSG Network in order to put their live games on their own YES Network. YES demands about $1.75 per subscriber per month, and insists it gets placed on the Standard Analog tier. Not only did this result in a nearly-direct passing through of the cost to everybody (even Mets fans and those who don't watch Yankee games) in areas where the cable system added YES, but it also meant that TechTV, a network that lacks connections to the major media empires was selected for deletion on several systems. The only system that refused to inflict that rate increase on its subscribers is Cablevision, who is now facing the PR headache of Yankee fans deprived of their baseball. Moral: It's easier to force-feed your customers what the content owners want, than to try to play hardball and risk losing the "valuable" content in order to keep out the overpriced content. The reason why the price of cable TV is rising is because the cost of content is rising. The cable companies are not pocketing the increases (think about Aldelphia and AT&T Broadband's finanacial shape) while the cost of wholesale cable channels is going crazy. There needs to be copyright reform. Right now, the content owners have too much of an advantage in when striking deals, so the cable companies are forced to pay higher prices and pass them on to the consumers.
Re:It's only Television by WCLPeter · 2002-12-25 20:56 · Score: 1

You're right. It is only Television. You don't need it to live. Even still, unless you get your jollies off staring at the wall, /* See http://www.oddtodd.com for a good laugh about that. ;-) */ you do need some form of Entertainment. Unless you are in the position to be making a large sum of money, you will be hard pressed to purchase books, go to concerts, or take out the small bank loan needed to go to your local movie-plex.

Yes, I could go to a Library and borrow books, CD's, and movies. That doesn't change the fact most Libraries won't loan you more than 3-4 items at a time; and unless the Library is within walking distance of your house you're still going to have to take a bus or drive. Either way it's going to cost you money.

So for most people TV is the cheap option. For $15 - $25 a month you get access to a number of TV shows, some movies, and a few music programs. The thing is though, for some people /* Like me. */ they don't want all the channels. Or you're forced to buy others you don't want in order to get to the ones you do want. Even when I'd rather just pick the few I want.

When I'm forced to pay for something I don't want in order to get the things I do want, it kind of pisses me off.

Using your car analogy...

Suppose I want a simple plain Jane car. Something that gets me from point A to point B, has really amazing gas mileage and doesn't cost a whole lot to maintain. Suppose I commute to work each day, and it's 3 hours round trip. Since I'm going to be sitting in traffic for so long, I want comfy leather seats. If that's the way I want it, I can actually buy it that way.

Sure I'll pay extra for the comfy seats. But if that's all I want, I have the option of doing that.

Yet if that same auto-maker was being run by a cable company, I would have to purchase Air-Conditioning, Power Windows and an in dash CD Player before I could get the comfy seats. I don't know about you, but I'd be mighty upset if I had to go to that kind of trouble just to get some comfy seats.

It's counter intuitive to the way it should work. I, as the customer, should only have to purchase what I want.

They could even make it easy, charge me $15.00 a month for basic cable. My local channels, a network affiliate from each of the networks. /* ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, UPN, WB, CTV, CBC, Global */

From there they could go on to a simple pay scale like this:

01-05 Channels / $2.00 each.

06-10 Channels / $1.50 each.

11-20 Channels / $1.00 each.

21+ Channels / $0.75 each.

All non-premium/ non-movie channels / $30.00 - $35.00

This way I could get my basic cable, Much Music, Much More Music, Discovery, TLC, Space: The Imagination Station, and Family Channel. It would only cost me $24.00/month instead of the $45.00/month that I'm paying now for the same 6 channels.

You could even pick the premium channles without getting any regular channels if you want. Of course it would cost more, but if you picked some of the lower channels you could get percentage discounts.

Perhaps like this:

01-05 Channels / 15% off premium/movie

06-10 Channels / 20% off premium/movie

11-20 Channels / 25% off premium/movie

21+ Channels / 35% off premium/movie

All non-premium/non-movie channels / 50% off premium/movie

Now I could get the Movie Network and assuming it cost $20.00, on top of my six choices above it would be $40.00/month, which is still cheaper than what I currently pay.

Computers would make tracking all this stuff VERY easy so it shouldn't be very hard to implement.

The sad thing is though, they'd rather make us pay $50.00 - $100.00/month for the 100-200 channels we don't watch rather than allow us to pay $24.00 for the six channels we do.
Re:It's only Television by mosch · 2002-12-26 02:57 · Score: 1

Yet if that same auto-maker was being run by a cable company, I would have to purchase Air-Conditioning, Power Windows and an in dash CD Player before I could get the comfy seats.
You haven't ever bought a new car, have you? That 's exactly how buying a car works. As an example, let's look at an extremely average car, the Honda Accord Coupe. So you're happy with the plain jane car, the Accord LX. Now let's say you want to add comfy seats... they're not an option on the LX, to get them you must buy the EX, which starts at $2400 more than the LX, and comes with a 6-disc in-dash cd changer, 16" alloy wheels, and a power moonroof that you may or may not want.
So umm... what was your point again?
Re:It's only Television by sjlutz · 2002-12-26 03:29 · Score: 1

So what if you cannot afford HBO or Animal

You pinned the nail on the head.. That's the entire POINT of this. I can afford $9.95 for HBO, but I have to spend $15.95 to get it because of all the other crap I have to buy. In you're analogy, it's not that you have to buy a car to get the leather seats. It's that you have to buy the heated glove box (ok, I made that up I hope) to get the leather seats.
Re:It's only Television by Flavius+Stilicho · 2002-12-26 07:22 · Score: 1

Yes, I could go to a Library and borrow books, CD's, and movies. That doesn't change the fact most Libraries won't loan you more than 3-4 items at a time; and unless the Library is within walking distance of your house you're still going to have to take a bus or drive. Either way it's going to cost you money.

Ever hear of an antenna? That combined with all of the other entertainment options you listed should satisfy your needs. If it doesn't, why not try riding a bike or something like that instead of sitting inside all the time?

It sounds like laziness to me. Entertainment options are abundant -- quit whining about it, get off your ass and go find some of them.

Re:Goatse Ban by Jeff+DeMaagd · 2002-12-25 15:41 · Score: 1, Offtopic

That's one I've forgotten to put in.

I have a page or two of items in that index. The servers that try serve up pop-ups are one, I can still read the site but now there's less risk of pop-ups, regardless of what browser I am using. I also block sites that use Flash banner ads.

The goatse site isn't really a problem for me, because there are a lot of slashdot shiteheads I _always_ check the URL before clicking the link. I really don't know what makes those posters that try to pass the link think they are so cool.

Easy fix- custom tiers by geogeek6_7 · 2002-12-25 15:42 · Score: 2

All the cable companies really need to do is offer a custom-tier option. You pick 10 channels, they sell it to you for +13.95 a month, and the problem is both legally and economically solved.

Not bad, eh?

~geogeek

true, just don't get cable by Kunta+Kinte · 2002-12-25 15:44 · Score: 2

I was amazed how much free time I had after I cancelled my cable ( when Directv anyway ). I didn't think I watched much tv a day, but I guess a show here, and a movie there adds up.

Now I'm getting much more done, including coding projects I'd been dragging for a while.

I'll be honest, I miss it now and then ( especially the sundance channel ), when I get really bored, but I always seem to find something slightly more productive or entertaining to do.

--
Based on upvotes, Ageism is the only "-ism" Slashdotters care about and think isn't SJW

Re:true, just don't get cable by anagama · 2002-12-26 04:14 · Score: 1

Hang in there, I gave up TV 12 years ago. At first it was hard. As you already know though, when you give up TV, you fill your days with real activities that are actually stimulating. You will know that you are completely free when you end up at a friend's house, the TV is on, and you can hardly sit through one show because it is so boring and stupid and interrupted every 7 minutes by the downright annoying. At this point, I couldn't go back even if I had a desire to.

The only thing I ever missed was Star Trek. But Star Trek without commercials is exceptionally good - I'm up to 1991 in the TNG DVDs (and DS9 starts coming out soon). ;-)

--
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good

Why cable companies do this by Phasedshift · 2002-12-25 15:48 · Score: 1

Cable companies have to pay for programming. They pay Time Warner, etc on a per subscriber basis, and they get discounts if they offer certain combinations of channels from the same programmers to their subscribers.

For cable companies its frequently cheaper to have a channel lineup that includes say, 4 time warner owned channels to a subscriber, instead of just one or two (i.e. they have to pay less for the programming).

Remember, a large percentage of what you pay for cable goes for programming fees, then they have tons of other costs, etc... They probably are being greedy to an extent, but, its not exactly as cost effective for them to provide programming on a per channel basis (due to programming charges, and other things).

right on! by Triv · 2002-12-25 15:53 · Score: 2

I can't get TV reception in my part of New York City (who'd figure?) and there's little worth watching anyway. But I've got a DVD player and a VCR too - I see no need whatsoever to pay Time-Warner WAY too much money to bombard me with ads - I get enough of that in Manhattan (I work by Times Square - ick).

However. If I could get just The History Channel, Comedy Central, AMC, Bravo and SciFi I'd do it.

Sidebar - I kinda like the fact that TV shows are being released on DVD. I just picked up the first Season of Law & Order cheap and LOVED it: no commercials and no scheduling. Easily worth 40 bucks. :)

Triv

Re:right on! by Dudio · 2002-12-26 07:30 · Score: 1

I kinda like the fact that TV shows are being released on DVD. I just picked up the first Season of Law & Order cheap and LOVED it: no commercials and no scheduling.

Don't forget the third sweet feature: no syndication edits. It's not as big of a problem with recent shows (yet), but older shows get mangled horribly before they're let out on the airwaves these days. It's not at all uncommon for shows originally shot in the days of 4 commercial breaks/hour, each 2 minutes long, to be crammed into a schedule consisting of 6 breaks/hour, 3 minutes/break.

What planet are you from? by benjamindees · 2002-12-25 15:55 · Score: 2

Not everyone is as independently wealthy as you are. No one has enough time to watch 130 channels of cable tv, either. If you have as much income and free time as you indicate, you can afford a-la-carte. If you're too stupid to "pick and choose between channels", then you can't have that much income and free time after all. I'm calling bullshit on this post.

--
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"

Re:What planet are you from? by slasher999 · 2002-12-26 09:12 · Score: 1

I certainly didn't mean to come off as wealthy by any stretch - I'm not. TV is the form of entertainment my wife and I choose, for the most part. Movies are too expensive at almost $9 a seat around here. Add in snacks and drinks and it's closer to $15! Besides, my living room is more comfortable and I don't have to deal with idiots talking, throwing stuff, yelling, or shooting during the picture. I can also pause a DVD or tape for a quick "bathroom break".

The post isn't BS, I just wanted to show that I didn't think ala carte would be cheaper for anyone - especially not for the higher end cable consumer.

Legislation isn't needed! by dada21 · 2002-12-25 16:02 · Score: 4, Interesting

What we need is COMPLETE de-regulation of a terribly over-regulated industry. It's regulated for the industry and it's regulated for the consumers -- regulations that often baffle the mind and battle each other!

If we could completely deregulate the industry, including the LOCAL regulations that decree that a cable company shall be a monopoly ("common carrier") and that satellite dishes could be placed on anyone's private property without regulations, I think you'd see many more providers popping up. Why should a town only have ONE cable company?

In a truly unregulated market, competition WOULD provide for what the MARKET wants. No, you can't just get HBO for $2.99 a month and EPSON for $1.99 a month because there are many fixed costs for cable. The premium packages are the best value because they subsidize the costs of smaller packages. Just like airplane companies make all their money off of first class full fare passengers, with coach passengers only giving them tiny incentives when the plane is full, cable carriers make their money off of the people who get the whole ball and chain.

Honestly, all these regulations "for the consumer" only end up making government have to offer incentives "for the provider." They don't work. The Austrian School of Economics shows time and again that there are no consumers and no providers -- we're both just trading items of value for what we think is more valuable. If you completely deregulate the markets (COMPLETELY) you'll allow competition in, and competition will ALWAYS offer what will make both sides happy at the lowest level.

If you think you can offer better service to people who want it, in a deregulated economy you can! But today, how can I offer cable to you a la carte, at a price you want, if the cable provider in your area is a government imposed monopoly?

Study the realities of further legislation -- you'll only see that more government introduced "rights" for the consumer will hurt us in the end.

dada

Re:Legislation isn't needed! by Huogo · 2002-12-25 17:05 · Score: 1

"No, you can't just get HBO for $2.99 a month and EPSON for $1.99 a month because there are many fixed costs for cable." (emphasis added) Not usually a grammer nazi, but thasts a funny typo :p
Re:Legislation isn't needed! by thogard · 2002-12-25 17:12 · Score: 1

This is why any wire placed on a public right of way should become the propery of the city with a low "lease back" to company that put the wire there. This is already done in some areas with water lines and if you build a new subdivion in most places, the roads become propery of the city at some stage.
Re:Legislation isn't needed! by Flambergius · 2002-12-25 17:55 · Score: 1

What we need is COMPLETE de-regulation of a terribly over-regulated industry.

COMPLETE! Like, all rules gone! Yes, I like that. Guess I will set up my own cable operator and start broadcasting over my competors wires. Or maybe I even go and take over the competor at gunpoint. Oh, you didn't mean those rules would be gone and I can't still do anything illegal. What kind of a COMPLETE is that?

The Austrian School of Economics shows time and again that there are no consumers and no providers -- we're both just trading items of value for what we think is more valuable. If you completely deregulate the markets (COMPLETELY) you'll allow competition in, and competition will ALWAYS offer what will make both sides happy at the lowest level.

and

Study the realities of further legislation -- you'll only see that more government introduced "rights" for the consumer will hurt us in the end.

You probably belive that too.

In a market that has naturally high barriers to entry, like cable TV and its wires, unregulated competition heavily favors the established local monopolies. Or were you thinking of communizing the last mile?

In areas where there aren't natural barriers to entry established players would build artificial ones via contracts and licenses. How long would it take Microsoft to crush or buy-out Red Hat and Sun in totally unregulated marketplace? How high would your software tithes be after that?

Or aren't monopolies and cartels part of your totally free market? A law banning them? Some bogus use of an economics theory claiming that they wouldn't form?

In a free-market, perfect or near it, you can't make meaningful profits by trading items of value in a competative situation. But if you can gain leverage in something then by exploiting that advantage you can make profits. Bigger the advantage, bigger the profits. And keep in mind that the most efficient way to play any game is to cheat.

To me Free-market just like Communism, an socio-economic theory that takes view good ideas out of their proper place and context and tries to build a complete system out of them. It's like trying to build a house with just nails and hammer with out the timber and saw.

-- Flam
My favorites, in decending order of importance: transparent goverment, democracy, capitalism

--
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers - Pablo Picasso
Re:Legislation isn't needed! by PeePeeSee · 2002-12-25 19:45 · Score: 1

Gee ......Sounds like DSL doesn't it!!
Re:Legislation isn't needed! by runderwo · 2002-12-25 21:36 · Score: 2

Yah buddy.. let's deregulate everything so we can have MORE ENRONS!
Excuse me? Where did he say to "deregulate everything"? What I gathered from the post was that business in the cable service industry, from both the cable operators' and the consumers' perspective, would benefit from deregulation more than it would from Even More Regulation(TM). You didn't exactly refute his points.
Deregulation means one thing: Free-for-all for large corporations to trample consumer rights.
Wow, he may be right-wing, but you're pretty left of center. First of all, what are "consumer rights"? Second of all, how does allowing more competition in an industry "trample" on these "consumer rights"?

--
LRC, the best-read libertarian site on the web
Re:Legislation isn't needed! by runderwo · 2002-12-25 21:39 · Score: 2

History has shown that completely deregulated markets lead to either a monopoly or a cartel.
Um, in case you haven't noticed, the cable companies are _already_ monopolies, granted by the government. This is the problem we are trying to solve!
The parent poster was not advocating repealing antitrust law, as you seem to have convinced yourself. He was simply saying that getting rid of regulation that grants the monopolies in the first place would foster competition in the cable access space, which would be beneficial to the consumer and to the progress of the industry as a whole.

--
LRC, the best-read libertarian site on the web
Re:Legislation isn't needed! by nolife · 2002-12-26 02:16 · Score: 2

Just like airplane companies make all their money off of first class full fare passengers, with coach passengers only giving them tiny incentives when the plane is full, cable carriers make their money off of the people who get the whole ball and chain.

Two wrongs don't make a right!

The old dog major airlines run this way. These are also the same major airlines that are now losing millions of dollars a day and going bankrupt fast, United being the biggest loser when last minute business travel declined, one of their goals during reorganization is to get a more rounded profit from all passengers and not have to rely on the top 10% to pay the bills. Wether they can change fast enough is to be determined.
Southwest, Jetblue, Airtran (formally ValueJet), Frontier, and small regional feeder carriers do not have they same subsidizing fare system and all are making money and experiencing double digit growth rates, these guys are running lean and mean and built from the ground up with that in mind. They are giving the consumers what they want and efficent enough to provide it. If the airlines were running as near monoplies or under a back scratching business plan like the cable industry, the smaller upcoming airlines would not have adapted and would have been gone long ago.

--
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
Re:Legislation isn't needed! by arkanes · 2002-12-26 03:15 · Score: 4, Informative

Except, of course, it wouldn't. As with any industry with a high barrier to entry, the current providers can lock out newcomers. The whole reason we decided to have local monopolies in the first place was so that there'd be some benefit in actually rolling out the wire - how many cable providers do you think there'll be when each and every one needs to run it's own cable network? A regulated monopoly is much better than an unregulated one.
Sure, we could have a "regulated breakup", like with the baby bells, where people who own the cable are required to allow others to provide service over that wire. We saw how well that worked out with DSL, right?
Re:Legislation isn't needed! by echo8 · 2002-12-26 03:52 · Score: 1

If you repeal the laws that create the local monopolies, what do you plan to do about the existing monopolies? What's going to moderate the behavior of those monopolists in the absence of competition OR regulation?

How are you going to promote competition in your newly-deregulated cable industry? Building all that infrastructure costs a lot of money. How can you compel existing infrastructure owners to allow others to lease time on their networks at sane rates without regulation? How are you going to encourage startups to build infrastructure knowing that the existing monopolists can buy them out or otherwise crush them at whim?

Even if you don't believe in the idea of a natural monopoly (and thus the need to regulate those monopolies), how would you prevent outright collusion in your deregulated cable industry? Wouldn't it be better business for a bunch of little cable startups to band together to protect themselves instead of competing openly?
Re:Legislation isn't needed! by Sloppy · 2002-12-26 04:31 · Score: 2

Why should a town only have ONE cable company?
No real good reason, but you can't get there from here. If your local government is already used to having this revenue, how can you take it out of the budget without everyone screaming?

--
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Re:Legislation isn't needed! by blamanj · 2002-12-26 04:48 · Score: 2

The idea of "regulated" monopolies tends to work much better in theory than in practise. As the article said, 95% of viewers have no choice in their cable viewing. This leads to cable companies having the old AT&T attitude, "We don't care, we don't have to."

If there were bodies regulating these companies with the consumer interests in mind, they might "have to care," but they don't. They have the bucks to buy access to governmnet officials that the average consumer does not. And of course, no one in government would dare do anything so anti-capitalist as threaten to take away the cable companies wire and turn it over to the public, which is about the only kind of threat that could make them sit up and listen.
Re:Legislation isn't needed! by arkanes · 2002-12-26 06:54 · Score: 2

That's very true, but just de-regulating them won't exactly help either. All you'll get is fewer channels and higher prices.
Re:Legislation isn't needed! by nolife · 2002-12-26 09:45 · Score: 1

I had the same point but obviously did not word it correctly.

My point was that the entrenched cable companies that are trying to justify the the cost increases and poor service are because of their old ways of doing business. They are not very efficent at doing what they do and their business plan relies on the expensive premium services to make money, just as United. Cable being a harder business to start in only makes it better for the old dogs and harder for new guys.

I don't know if the article you read covered it or not but most smaller airlines do a number of things to cut costs, the cost of labor per working person is just one of the factors and not one that is wholly responsible for bunkrupting United and some others.

They use similar aircraft across their fleets and their aircraft are much newer. This is three fold, they need less maintence and training time, allows for massive reduction in costs because all of the planes are the same and use the same parts and maintence schedules, any of the companies flight deck personel can fly them, and allows the baggage loaders to load the planes much quicker because the cargo areas are all the same. I belive Southwest shoots for a 27-30 minute turn around on a 737.

They fly out of smaller less crowded but still well placed airports like Oakland, Chicago Midway, Long Beach, Baltimore etc.. This reduces the fees, reduces the crowds, and often reduces the delays. The use regular airports where the demand can support it.

No seat preferences, you get your seat when you get your boarding pass, this cuts down on the gate time by reducing last minute seat changes and simplifes the reservation process.

No hot food or meals at all, maybe a snack. Another direct cost savings and also reduces the clean up and people load time.

Many have no or very little international operations, greatly reduces the complexity of management and operation costs, plus they don't need planes that are certified for extended overwater flights.

The regionals have the added advantage of smaller jets (~50 passenger) which are faster and cheaper to operate. Many still use puddle jumper prop jobs that carry between 19 (no flight attendant required) and 29 (one flight attendent required)passengers.

I USED to work for United, I am not there now because of all of the above!

--
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
Re:Legislation isn't needed! by runderwo · 2002-12-27 02:12 · Score: 2

No, you need to keep your DirecTV service, and assist DirecTV in lobbying local governments to allow them to provide you cable service at lower prices than the monopolies.
How would you like me to discard the burnt remains of your straw man?

--
LRC, the best-read libertarian site on the web
Re:Legislation isn't needed! by runderwo · 2002-12-27 02:19 · Score: 2

That's very true, but just de-regulating them won't exactly help either. All you'll get is fewer channels and higher prices.
Care to back this up? As it is now, we get more channels, and still higher prices. I couldn't care less about the number of channels; I want the prices to go down, and to pay for no more than the channels that I watch and/or desire to have in my house.

--
LRC, the best-read libertarian site on the web

Re:Read about my attempts to get cable ala carte.. by marshac · 2002-12-25 16:05 · Score: 1

Well, if you didn't love your cable, i'm sure you do now....looks like we slashdotted your cable modem. Gotta love that 128k up AT&T gives you.

Re:Wait.......cable isn't FREE? by DragonPup · 2002-12-25 16:11 · Score: 1

Actually it is possible. Cable companies have audit teams who check the taps for illegal hookups. There's no easy press a button at the office solution, but they can catch you.

--
"Useless organic meatbag" -HK-47

not-so-Easy fix- custom tiers by LostCluster · 2002-12-25 16:17 · Score: 2

That'd be beautiful, yet the content owners won't go for that.

See, the content owners get paid by the cable companies for each subscriber who could watch their channels, not for those who actually do. Most people already only really watch 10-15 cable networks and wouldn't miss the others, however that means marginal cable networks would see their number of households slashed dramatically.

For example, I know there's an audience for ESPN Classic, but it's certainly nowhere close to the number of people who'd put ESPN itself in their top 10 list. However, why is ESPN Classic on all of our cable systems now? Because Disney insists that cable systems that want ESPN must accept paying for and give a good channel position to ESPN Classic. Don't want ESPN Classic, you lose ESPN too... no cable operator can get away with that.

Sure, providers would love to offer a "Pick 10 for $15/mo, Pick 20 for $25/mo." type package, but the channel owners simply will not allow that to exist because some of the marginal networks will find themselves without the critcal mass needed to survive. The money consumers would save would come from them, so they're not budging. They don't want to see that kind of package offered, so they won't let it be offered.

Until an a la carte pricing scheme is required at the wholesale level, you'll never be able to get one at the retail level.

Re:not-so-Easy fix- custom tiers by geogeek6_7 · 2002-12-25 16:39 · Score: 2

I hadn't thought of the point you made-- quite interesting.

That issue could be solved, I think. Take my idea again, but lets say the package is more like this:

You chose 7, we choose 5, +11.99/mo. I bet that would still me an immensely popular program. The cable companies choose 5 channels based on the initial 7 chosen by the user. Or, the cable company provides sets of 5 channels to choose from with your a la carte order.

The wholesaler is now part of the picture, and the customer is given a great precieved choice (its very marketable to both parties). The provider only stands to profit.

~geogeek
Re:not-so-Easy fix- custom tiers by LostCluster · 2002-12-25 17:58 · Score: 2

Unfortuately, the system is closer to 1 you want gets you 4 you don't.
Re:not-so-Easy fix- custom tiers by donutello · 2002-12-25 19:41 · Score: 2

Umm.. no. AT&T Broadband, here in Seattle offers ESPN and ESPN2 in the standard package but ESPN Classic is digital-only. I know because I have standard cable.

--
Mmmm.. Donuts
Re:not-so-Easy fix- custom tiers by Reziac · 2002-12-26 04:52 · Score: 2

Actually, it is done, but the scheme I've seen is on the order of "buy this package, and pick any 3 of these other 10 channels for $nn more!"

More choice than none, but not by much.

--
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2002-12-25 16:26 · Score: 3, Insightful

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Wait.......cable isn't FREE? by shepd · 2002-12-25 16:31 · Score: 1

>I think ive been in college too long.....I say we all just get analog cable and steal it......no way they can really catch you anywayz

My $5 Multimeter says that you're very wrong. And so does that $1500 Fluke super-duper measures everything meter I lust after...

--
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC

Options. by meruru · 2002-12-25 16:33 · Score: 1

Since the cable cos are being forced to sell instead of rent boxes this would be an ideal outlet for them to start offering a la carte. When a box is sold it comes with your choice of channels hard wired into it. When you want to change/add/remove channels you just buy a new box (trade-in). You get charged monthly based on the channels your box is wired for.

Have the boxes require an active phone line by forcing a dialtone check every 24 hours to keep services running and to call in ppv orders. More or less secure, and it opens new revenue streams for the cable companies (hardware sales).

Re:Options. by daoist · 2002-12-26 01:27 · Score: 1

Have the boxes require an active phone line by forcing a dialtone check every 24 hours to keep services running and to call in ppv orders.

Why should I have to have a phone to watch cable TV?

FWIW, I ditched my landline years ago in favor of cellular service. Internet connection is thru cable modem.

--

That which is, is not.
That which is not, is.

Why is cable unique? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-25 16:33 · Score: 1, Interesting

I would like to subscribe to just section one of my local newspaper. I don't want the sports or other sections. It shouldn't be terribly hard for the newspaper company to print some smaller editions with popular subsets of the total. It would save trees and other resources. I'd actually even be willing to pay the same amount for it. Is this any different than factoring cable service? I don't like cable companies and I never watch TV so I'm not defending them. Just don't think their situation is unique. When I buy a concert ticket I'm forced to pay for a lead in act. I'd like to buy individual songs rather than a whole CD. Maybe I want to buy a cook book without the pages covering fish dishes because I don't like fish. In general lots of content is bundled in ways that make us pay for parts we don't need.

Re:Why is cable unique? by rockwood · 2002-12-26 04:15 · Score: 1

If my cable COMPLETE 'digital' cable service and broadband only cost me $15.00 I won't care. Actually my newpaper is $13.00/mo - my cable on the other hand runs me $99 for digital plus and broadband. NO premium channels (HBO, Starz, Max, etc...). Therefore when the local newpaper increases their fee to $99 /mo.. then YES. I will request and expect to get only the sections that I desire in order to lower my cost.

--
Never try to beat a professional at his own game!

Default Service for Cable Modem Users by SecretAsianMan · 2002-12-25 16:36 · Score: 5, Interesting

One interesting solution, and I've heard this before somewhere: I previously had 'digital' cable (which isn't all digital, but that's another story), cable modem service, and even 'digital' phone service (didn't notice any difference, but it was cheaper than [company2]) through [company]. Then I got unemployed for a while, and those things became tough to afford. The first thing to go was the phone service. I have a cell phone and use it almost exclusively, and my cell service is a good plan with free nights and weekends. Cable TV service was tougher to let go of, but I eventually realized that all I ever watched was the History Channel. Most of the shows there are okay but IMHO aren't nearly as enjoyable as an honest-to-[deity] academic text. So I got rid of the cable TV service. I still had cable modem service; its priority was somewhere around the food-and-water level.

A few days ago a wage-monkey came out to uninstall my telephone interface. After he let himself into my backyard, I politely went out and asked him what the hell he was doing. He explained and then asked me which of the three cable jacks in the house my modem was plugged into. My first reaction was that I didn't have time to trace which line terminated at the appropriate wall jack. Then I realized that he aimed to disconnect two of my three jacks, since I 'obviously' didn't need them. I regarded this idea with disdain, since I wanted the freedom to move my cable modem to a different jack if I were to rearrange my house (and such an activity *is* planned). I told the monkey as much, and he finished his work without disconnecting any jacks.

A few days after that, I accidentally turned on a TV that was still connected to a cable outlet. I saw a picture! I scanned through the channels, and behold, I now had more active channels than I did with the 'digital' service. I wasn't looking to break the law; I simply stepped on the damn remote control.

My suggestion: lose the cable service, keep the cable modem service. Watch TV. Oh, and one more phrase: at your own risk.

--

Washington, DC: It's like Hollywood for ugly people.

Re:Default Service for Cable Modem Users by WillRobinson · 2002-12-25 16:52 · Score: 2, Informative

Most cable co's will let you have your cable modem and also basic cable for 10$ per month more. So just call them up, and cough up 10$ a month, and dont feel guilty.
Re:Default Service for Cable Modem Users by Enteebee · 2002-12-25 19:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

Wage-Monkey is an interesting term to be throwing around when you've just finished telling us that the tech was there because you "got unemployed".

The "wage-monkey" has every right to disconnect additional outlets that you aren't paying for.

You could also "accidentally" remove the trap on your line (depending on where you live and who provides your cable service) and get a la carte HBO. And by a la carte I mean free.

What you can do, and what is legal, are often two different things.
Re:Default Service for Cable Modem Users by CySurflex · 2002-12-25 20:23 · Score: 3, Insightful

My parents did this with Time Warner, until Time Warner got wise to the situation, and installed a filter of sorts at all the homes that had cable modes without cable TV service. This filter prevents viewing cable TV but leaves the cable modem operational.
Re:Default Service for Cable Modem Users by SecretAsianMan · 2002-12-26 00:10 · Score: 1

Wage-Monkey is an interesting term to be throwing around when you've just finished telling us that the tech was there because you "got unemployed"
It's not all that interesting. He was a wage monkey, and I was unemployed. Hey, I didn't say which was better! :-)
The "wage-monkey" has every right to disconnect additional outlets that you aren't paying for.
Maybe, maybe not. It doesn't matter because I did pay to have those additional outlets installed, and this cable co doesn't charge anything per month for extra outlets. So I did pay for those outlets, which removes the monkey's right to disco them. If he did disco them and, and then later someone reconned them, they'd probably charge me the install fee again. Bastards.

--
Washington, DC: It's like Hollywood for ugly people.
Re:Default Service for Cable Modem Users by HamNRye · 2002-12-26 04:34 · Score: 2

No, they remove the RF filter and this is what renders th cable TV inoperative. The real trick is to see what the part number is for the RF filter they left on the cable modem jack and get a duplicate.

In many areas, they cannot turn on Cable Modem service without turning on Basic cable. That's why many times the cable companies act like you can only get broadband if you have basic cable.

I personally made the switch to DirecTV last year... I wish there was a third option. The no local channel B.S. with DirecTV is the major drawback to the service. I ended up getting a smart card programmer and hacking the system so I could get ABC. Total BS.

Cable TV should be regulated like a utility. In many cities they will not even allow for another cable carrier to run wire. This strikes me as the very essence of a utility. In saner times, the Cable companies would be acting as a utility. Only in our corrupt age we deregulate and give them more freedom.

Sad.

~Hammy
Re:Default Service for Cable Modem Users by DavidTC · 2002-12-26 11:45 · Score: 2

Don't know what country you live in, but the cable company, in America, cannot, by law, charge more for additional outlets and/or TVs. (Though it can obviously charge you to install them.)

--
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?

Yes but nobody is willing to buy the boxes by systemaster · 2002-12-25 16:52 · Score: 2, Interesting

The big full function cable boxes here(Time Warner in WI) are able to be programmed over the wire...which is what happens to rented boxes. If you wanted to buy the box you get an auth. card from TWC. Cable company doesn't care if you buy or rent the box, there profit is about the same either way. But the problem is nobody wants to buy the boxes at 500 a pop, many people have more than one and that gets expensive quick. And how long before the tech changes and you need a new box anyway. (OH and if you want an HD box that costs a lot more to buy, but the rental price is the SAME!!!)

On the main topic. TWC in WI does allow you do get just the basic package and a box with whatever premium channels or packages you want.

--
LinuxWorx
Spelling errors are intentional as are gramatical error

Re:Yes but nobody is willing to buy the boxes by LostCluster · 2002-12-25 18:08 · Score: 2

The problem is, you can't get a Digital-cable ready TV, or a box from anybody other than the cable system because it's a closed standard right now. It's the $500 box or nothing.

Think of how much a telephone costed when AT&T was the only place you could buy one. On episodes of Press Your Luck from 1984 that are now running on Game Show Network, contestants win $750 phones!

Not possible for true a la carte programming. by Lord+Kano · 2002-12-25 17:17 · Score: 4, Interesting

I used to think that it was a way for content providors to extort money out of their customers, until I worked at an unnamed Satellite TV company's call center.

Now I see why there is no a la carte.

It would raise rates all over the place. People who think that they'll get a better deal by only paying for one channel will quintuple call volume at call centers. By calling in several times per day to change programming.

HBO in the morning, ABC in the afternoon, NBC at night, HBO again the next morning. Rinse, repeat.

In order to keep the call center staffed, companies will need to increase the number of operators on the line at any given time. People don't work for free. And the effect of a la carte will be instant. Meaning overtime for countless employees. That is a higher cost. Higher operational costs equal higher consumer costs. Those cheap bastards who are trying to get over on the system will cause everyone else's prices to skyrocket.

LK

--
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano

Re:Not possible for true a la carte programming. by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-25 18:25 · Score: 1, Insightful

That's easy to fix.

You just allow channels based on current billable period.

You want HBO? That's one month's fee, please.

Want to switch it to something else? Another month's fee. And it's *ADDED*. Channels get removed at the end of the billing period, too.
Re:Not possible for true a la carte programming. by uspsguy · 2002-12-26 02:45 · Score: 1

TOS: A $20 fee will be charged each time the subscriber makes a change to their package ....
I think that would solve that problem quite nicely.

--
Profanity - The sign of a small mind trying to express itself.
Re:Not possible for true a la carte programming. by NullProg · 2002-12-26 04:54 · Score: 1

It would raise rates all over the place. People who think that they'll get a better deal by only paying for one channel will quintuple call volume at call centers. By calling in several times per day to change programming.

This would not happen at all. Intelligent cable boxes are already on the market with the ability to meter on a per view basis. Treat the cable boxes the same way the power company treats your meter. With resonable pricing your cable bill should come down about two thirds. Ten cents an hour for HBO, two cents an hour for ABC etc.

Of course the cable monopolies won't want to see this happen. This would force them from thier fixed income model into a variable rate model. It may even work against people like me who flip channels during commercials.

Enjoy,

--
It's just the normal noises in here.
Re:Not possible for true a la carte programming. by Dudio · 2002-12-26 09:38 · Score: 1

Metering brings a host of other problems to the table. Consider my setup. My cable comes out of the wall and goes into a 3-way splitter. One out goes to the modem, one goes straight to the TV, and one goes through the digital converter and then the VCR before going to the TV's second input. I'll assume that the cable modem fees remain a flat monthly rate.

Now then. I only use my cable box when I'm watching a channel that requires me to go through it (premium and digital-only channels). The rest of the time, I just use my TV's tuner. I also sometimes will record from the cable box's feed while watching a different channel on the straight-to-TV feed. How does the cable company meter this without pulling an RIAA-esque scheme requiring me to use only Comcast-approved tuners to watch their content? Does the cable industry get right of refusal over new video hardware so that they can protect their metering scheme?

On the flip side, what happens if the cable box is left on while the TV is off? Does Comcast get to charge me hourly HBO fees because I leave my box turned on while I'm at work?
Re:Not possible for true a la carte programming. by Lord+Kano · 2002-12-28 21:12 · Score: 1

Want to switch it to something else? Another month's fee. And it's *ADDED*. Channels get removed at the end of the billing period, too.

So in order to serve a few skinflints, everyone else who wants to remove a channel will have to pay extra?

LK

--
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano

Tivo will evolve into VOD by alexhmit01 · 2002-12-25 17:20 · Score: 4, Interesting

The notion of streaming VOD is retarded, which is why we've been promised it for 7 or 8 years... Tivo gets close. Right now, PPV movies tend to cycle so each movie is on four channels, starting every 30 minutes. If your STB recorded the first 30 minutes of each PPV movie (sent on a separate, hidden channel, so you would have it before the movies started showing), then you could VOD them for free. Think about it, at any point I am no more than 30 minutes away from the beginning.

And, to make it proper VOD, it should grab from all 4 channels (feasible even on DBS, as long as they are on the right transponders so that it can all come off one LNB), so 4 minutes fill in each minute. You have the first 30 minutes queued up (so you can rewind fast foward, etc), and within 30 minutes, the entire 2 hours block is recorded.

I would expect an HD Tivo (DirecTivo model, maybe an HD Tivo cable version when the open cable really happen) in about 6 months, gauging us early adopters. Once that happens, we start moving into Tivos w/ really big hard drives. The HD channels may always be limited, but the 480p spec allows streaming DVD quality films, which is probably "good enough" for PPV, etc.

Give it 2 years, and DirecTV and Dish release a killer VOD system on top of their time-shifting PVR boxes.

TV tech is finally getting good. :)

But yeah, DRM is necessary. However, the studios need to realize that the stuff will get out, but they can keep it out of mainstream. Downloading TV/Movies won't occur unless convergence happened, and its a dying fad. People don't want interactive television, most people don't want PVRs. People watch TV to vege, and that's the reality that all us gadget freaks miss when we wonder why something isn't there yet.

However, at least w/ the tech, hopefully they will make new and exciting toys for those of us willing to pay a premium. VHS took off, S-VHS and Laserdisc never hit mainstream, but DVD got HUGE fast. PVRs didn't take off, VOD isn't taking off, maybe whatever comes next will.

Personally, I think that DTV + PVR could do it. I have the Sunday Ticket demo package (4 months w/ everything free), and I was planning to keep all the channels. Currently, I barely take advantage of them, because the ReplayTV doesn't have enough space to store movies. Give me an 80 hour PVR that will find movies for me, and I'm willing to pay for all the movie channels.

If you could find movies for me and I could have 30 movies (plus all my weekly shows), constantly rotating, of which 5 could interest me... Good bye Blockbuster, and I'm happy to send ~$100 to DirecTV each month.

Alex

In India... by TheHorror!TheHorror! · 2002-12-25 17:24 · Score: 2, Interesting

In India, the information and broadcasting ministry recently passed an order requiring all cable operators to install equipment which would allow users to select their own channels. Although it is similar to what is seen in the US, the main differenciating feature is that there are no "bouquets" by the cable operator. A look at the minisculine costs invovled would surprise you.You pay around 20 rupees (thats around 35 cents)a month for HBO, another 20 for Star movies (the competing movie channel) and so on and so forth. However, The @!#ing TV companies however, might well take advantage of the habitualy lax enforcement by indian authorities and form a cabal of sorts, driving up costs and making artificial bouquets of channels (with the better ones and not so good ones bundled together) so that the channels get bunched together by the TV companies rather than the cable operator. I think there is some provision in the law against this happening to, but im not sure. HBO sucks. You wont believe it, but they show ads every 10 minutes in india. 10min-ad(2min)-10min-ad(2min) . Heck.. i know which movie channel I am going to suscribe to..

Cable stupidity (was: Re:I hate cable companies) by MikeVx · 2002-12-25 17:36 · Score: 1

In my area (Southeast Michigan), Comcast came up with an interesting wrinkle on Internet/TV cable service. They raised the rates on internet-only service by $10/month, but if you subscribe to a skeleton-basic service (minimal channels) they let you keep your original rate (plus franchise fees and other nonsense that does not apply to internet service.)

The upshot of this is your rate goes up $10/month on internet-only, or $3.50/month (the aforementioned fees) if you get the minimal basic+internet. The level of competence having not changed, I have not been billed for the stray fees even though they did trap my cable with filters to block all but the lower 27 or so channels. And even that took two passes, the first time the filter blocked the internet frequency.

Before that, I could get the whole channel space if I wired my TV in, but the logos on the channels bugged me so much that I took the TV out of the circuit. I keep the TV in the circuit now to check if the wire is connected when the internet service goes out.

One of my current hobbies is annoying the cable salesdroids with requests for a-la-carte subscription models, with the caution that only logo-free channels will even be considered. I expect that it will be a very long time before I have TV of any broadcast nature again. (My crrent service doesn't really count, I'm only in to keep the internet service priced less.)

--
Sigmentation fault - core dumped

HBO is expensive as hell by salientpoints · 2002-12-25 17:41 · Score: 1

I didn't read the article but last time I looked at the monthly prices for the HBO package it was about $50. That's pretty damn expensive.

On the other hand, excluding your local PBS station (though Seattle's PBS HAS TO BE THE WORST IN THE NATION), HBO has the best programming for television perhaps with the exception of Sunday night Fox.

HBO has
-The Sopranos = greatest show ever, uncompromising drama
-Curb Your Enthusiasm = one of if not the funniest show on tv
-America Undercover = interesting and erotic "documentaries"
-Sex in the City = for us women
-concerts (eg the Stones), standup comedy (eg Carlin)
-boxing

Re:HBO is expensive as hell by uspsguy · 2002-12-26 02:43 · Score: 1

Different srtrokes I guess. I've no desire to see any of those programs. I'd love a-la-carte, my satellite bill would be 1/2 or less for the ten or so channels I actually watch.

--
Profanity - The sign of a small mind trying to express itself.

Re:Wait.......cable isn't FREE? by Rick_T · 2002-12-25 17:53 · Score: 3, Informative

> Cable companies have audit teams who check the
> taps for illegal hookups. There's no easy press
> a button at the office solution, but they can
> catch you.

I'm not convinced that the threatening letters they send out aren't random mailings. I got a "we think you're stealing cable" letter addressed to "Occupant" once from a cable company in a town I used to live in. While it's true that I was at the time receiving Showtime and the "basic" channels, it was over a satellite dish. In fact, I'd been using the satellite dish for about FOUR YEARS at that point, and anyone who cared to look into the back yard could have seen it.

I also had an attic-mounted antenna for the local channels. That, I'd only had about a year or two (as an upgrade over the rabbit ears) when the cable company's letter came.

--
-- Rick

Re:Cable stupidity (was: Re:I hate cable companies by LostCluster · 2002-12-25 18:12 · Score: 2

Funny... I'm now to the point that whenever I walk into a room with a logo-free channel on, the first thing I ask is what channel it is so I can later find the show on my own TV if I'm interested.

Why watch TV? by Animats · 2002-12-25 19:00 · Score: 3, Interesting

I've never had a television. I only see TV in the gym where I work out. It seems to be mostly commercials. What's the point?

I have a DVD player, and don't mind buying movies. I have walls of books. But broadcast TV? Why?

Screw 'em by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-25 19:13 · Score: 1, Insightful

I just download what I want.

Ads, Ads, Ads by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-25 19:29 · Score: 1, Interesting

Remember when cable use to be advertisement free???
Now they have a many commericals as network tv use to or more. It sucks that you have to pay for the cable and be subjected to all the advertisement. And they are pretty good about synchronizing the channels so you change the channel to skip the commercial and there are commericals on that channel.

They should be making money hand over fist with all the commericals and all the subscribers paying outragous prices. So cable should be a lot cheaper, but they say they aren't making any money. Somebody is cooking the books.

Tech TV by tetro · 2002-12-25 20:12 · Score: 2, Funny

Imagine getting Tech TV without having to sign up for the Oxygen Network and those other retarded channels.

--
.smell my feet.

the answer is simple... get rid of tiers. by jonwil · 2002-12-25 20:35 · Score: 1

You would have basic cable then a bunch of packages that you could get on top of that.
For example, Sports (would have all the sports on it) or Movies or Music or whatever.
If the content provider says that e.g. you cant have ESPN without ESPN classic, fair enough, just put the both channels in the sports package.

no more "why do I have to pay for ESPN just to get Discovery" (if you want Discovery, buy the Documentaries package)

Advertising could be sold based on package (for example you could advertize on the "Sports package" and get on all channels in that package).

Its a win-win situation. Customers win since they dont have to pay for channels they have no interest in (its a good bet that if someone likes ESPN they will also have some sort of interest in Fox Sports, for example). Advertisers win since they can pay based on who their target audience is.
It doesnt hurt the cable companies since under the "packages" system either since it would probobly cost more in total to get every channel in the network. It would also result in more people paying extra on top of basic cable (which is better for the cableco).

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2002-12-26 02:43 · Score: 2

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Other Monopoly Service Providers by Gimpin · 2002-12-26 03:43 · Score: 1

This scenario reminds much of what other monopoly "service" providers are trying to move to...packages of a product with other shit I don't need. My local phone company, offers a "package" that gives you every possible feature under the sun: callerID, waiting, forwarding, blah, blah, blah, all for $35.95 a month.

I don't need a landline phone but for peace of mind emergency 911 service, plus I don't want a listed number. That is all I need. No long-distance, on local-toll, no callerID, no insurance crap...total cost $32.95

A difference of 3 dollars...yet if I were to just order a feature, say caller ID, it would cost me $42.99 a month.

Even the customer no-service guy on the other end laughed. De-regulation, aint it grand.

--
"Simon Says, Fuck You" - George Carlin

To what extent does this go? by rockwood · 2002-12-26 04:02 · Score: 1

After all the reading, both current and previous articles... to what extent does this A LA Carte go? Is it possible to order just four channels from them? Or must I get the minimum package and then A LA Carte only the premium channels?

After everything I read I haven't really found a concrete answer, and I know the Cable company sure in hell won't enlighten me :)

--
Never try to beat a professional at his own game!

Wrong by ccarter · 2002-12-26 04:50 · Score: 1

"(Before you think they're making out like bandits, where'd all Adelphia and AT&T Broadband's money go... yep, the content owners.)"

Wrong. Adelphia's money was stolen in fradulant transactions. AT&T Broadband's money was basically squandered in a series of pathetically managed aquisitions. Both Adelphia and AT&T Broadband are broke because they were mismanaged not because they were fleeced by thier content providers.

Some of these are already available by stygar · 2002-12-26 06:07 · Score: 1

I've often wondered why it takes so long for some technologies to roll out in the US. Up here in Canada, direct payment at stores (using your atm card) was common almost a decade before it became available in the USA. Similarly, the city I live in has only 200k people, yet we have 5 different vendors for TV service: the two national satellite systems, regular cable, wireless cable, and the telephone company. If these companies can make a profit here, why aren't all of these technologies available in large US centres?

Wireless Cable
Image Wireless

Telco Delivered TV/Internet (not VoD, though)
SaskTel Max

Regular Cable TV/Internet
Shaw Cablesystems

Satellite TV
StarChoice
ExpressVu

I tried this with Comcast... doesn't work... by illumin8 · 2002-12-26 07:43 · Score: 1

This law is a token offering at best, and was probably written by the Cable monopolies and pushed through congress with heavy greasing of the palms of various legislators... Here is the relevant section:

"8) Buy-through of other tiers prohibited

(A) Prohibition

A cable operator may not require the subscription to any tier other than the basic service tier required by paragraph (7) as a condition of access to video programming offered on a per channel or per program basis. A cable operator may not discriminate between subscribers to the basic service tier and other subscribers with regard to the rates charged for video programming offered on a per channel or per program basis."

The reason why it doesn't work is because every single channel on their digital lineup is only offered in a tier! They've effectively blocked the intent of the law by only offering channel groups in tiers and not offering any single channel ala-carte. I suggest everyone reading this please contact your local Public Utilities Commision (PUC) and voice your protest to this. Cable rates are getting ridiculous and I am frankly fed up with having to pay for 20 different QVC shopping channels just to get a few Discovery channels, TLC, and the History channel that I watch... The PUC is about the only organization in your community that has a chance to enforce this law.

--
"When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon

Re:Wait.......cable isn't FREE? by Dudio · 2002-12-26 08:11 · Score: 1

It wouldn't surprise me if they were doing just that. Just like with the Business Software Alliance's radio spots, if the language is vaguely threatening enough (Did you know stealing cable is ILLEGAL? If convicted, YOU could be IMPRISONED for a period of 10 YEARS!) some percentage of recipients are going to beg Comcast/Cox/AT&T to take their money if it will make the threatening mailings stop. Considering the cost of bulk mailing, it probably isn't hard to write up a business justification for such a campaign.

Here's one for ya... by Flavius+Stilicho · 2002-12-26 10:12 · Score: 1

I helped my neighbor hookup his new TV a couple months ago. The house next to me is a divided into three apartments. The guy I helped is illiterate, which is why he needed help with the TV.

Anyway, I go over to hook him up and he's got a set of Radio Shack rabbit ears and wants to know if they're what he needed since he didn't have cable. I said yes and proceded to hook him up. When I was done and started programming the channels in I found, to my amazment, that he had the full extended cable package (Discovery, History, SciFi, CNN, etc.) coming through clear as a bell over his rabbit ears. I did the eye rub thing, checked the antenna hookup about 30 times and there was no explaining it. There wasn't even a CATV jack near the thing. Just plain old rabbit ears and this guy's signal was as good as my digital cable. He was also picking up the local broadcast stations on the freqs that he should have. To the best of my knowledge, he's still getting it.

I can't say that he's getting it illegally. I just want to know HOW he's getting it at all.

Monopoly: well, DUH... by Esion+Modnar · 2002-12-26 10:49 · Score: 1

And if you owned one, wouldn't you run it that way?

--

They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...

Landlords + CATV companies? by horatio · 2002-12-26 10:53 · Score: 1

Not sure how widespread this is, but our landlord, who manages hundreds (thousands?) of properties in the Columbus, OH area informed us when we were signing our lease that we did not have permission to sign up with any other cable providers except TimeWarner Columbus, something about a contract they had with TW/Cols.

It might be just me, but that seems like a backdoor way for the CATV companies to get a monopoly on properties that should be open to competition. If landlords telling renters, why not home-owners associations too?

--
There is very little future in being right when your boss is wrong.

Re:Cable stupidity (was: Re:I hate cable companies by MikeVx · 2002-12-26 11:03 · Score: 1

Funny... I'm now to the point that whenever I walk into a room with a logo-free channel on, the first thing I ask is what channel it is so I can later find the show on my own TV if I'm interested.

You know of stations that don't do logos? I was not aware that there were any left. Which channels actually know how to behave in a civilized manner?

(I know it's drifted off-topic in this thread, but for me, this would be useful to know.)

--
Sigmentation fault - core dumped

Real time cypher signal by Felinoid · 2002-12-28 21:36 · Score: 1

Wireless cable might be more like WIFI with the streaming video starting at the wifi host not down stream.
To protect against 'piracy' you'd have to have a number of incryption technologys.
Encrypt the network signal then encrypt the video signal being sent over the network.

Unless the imdustry wakes up and recognises that any protection byond a broudcast tv signal is unrealistic.
What I mean is that if ms lu had a tv antana ms lain next door can't use it.
Cable and other delivery systems can attempt to prevent recording but it'll never work. VCR, PRV, recording via tv card, etc.
If somebody sets up an array of anntanas offering cable service they first must licces as such and pay all appropreat fees.
But it's all doable. Legally anyway. It's the technology. Video streaming over the net is failing becouse it's low quality. A number of Internet TV networks went up and have long sence vanished due to a lack of standards and a lack of quality.

--
I don't actually exist.

Last Post! by alpg · 2003-01-08 17:20 · Score: 1

The computer industry is journalists in their 20's standing in awe of
entrepreneurs in their 30's who are hiring salesmen in their 40's and
50's and paying them in the 60's and 70's to bring their marketing into
the 80's.
-- Marty Winston

- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...

170 of 245 comments (clear)