Slashdot Mirror
Congress To Force Cable a la Carte Plans
unassimilatible writes "Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John McCain seems to be leaning towards sponsoring legislation mandating something I have wanted for a long time: Forcing cable companies to offer "a la carte" programming packages. No U.S. cable or satellite currently offers such a plan. However, as the Washington Post reports, "That may change, if some lawmakers and consumer groups get their way, as the cable industry finds itself under increasing scrutiny. Lawmakers report that their constituents are angry about cable bills that have risen at three times the rate of inflation since the industry was largely deregulated in 1996." McCain money quote: "I go down to buy a loaf of bread. I don't have to buy broccoli and milk to go with it." Bottom line is, cable companies have a government-authorized monopoly, so maybe they need to recieve government-mandated "innovation." Why should I pay for 15 non-English channels?"
unbundle everything except the local channels now! McCain is right.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Why should the governemnt force this? Let the market decide. If you don't like how cable or satelite TV does its pricing then DON'T BUY THE SERVICE!
Why should I pay for 15 non-English channels?
Dude Xuxa, ilLvatello, those chicks are all so hot and slutty.
This
If this goes through it might be enough to bring me back to cable from DirecTV. Then again, maybe it would be applied to satellite too, in which case I'd be deliriously happy.
Good Idea. My parents, despite being the first people I knew with an Internet connection, have never gotten cable TV installed, for this exact reason. Maybe now they will
While I am completely against government regulation of things like cable, the Cable Companies have made their own bed on this one. They scammed themselves a legal monopoly, now they have to dance to the government's tune. Of course, they'll just pass the 'costs' of this on to the consumer. But they can't claim some kind of moral high ground against 'government interference', when they've been sucking off the government tit for the last 20 years.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
why can't I have access to ALL the tv channels in the world?
global village my arse.
but raise cable prices for all.
Bundling is how the cable companies can get away with charging what they do for basic cable, but I'll bet that the cost per channel will be higher if this were to happen.
A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
I've been wanting this for so long. I hate paying for things I don't need.
"Besides adding to the cost, cable companies say, selling channels individually might make it difficult for lesser-watched, niche channels to survive."
This is bad how?
"...angry about cable bills that have risen at three times the rate of inflation..."
Don't forget that quality has also dropped noticeably. We're paying more for more channels, not more good programs.
G
The problem is the government-sponsored cable monopolies. My local government shouldn't be serving up an unwilling populace to a single cable company. I doubt McCain's more big government will solve the problems of big government. After McCain-Fienberg I'm beginning to believe McCain is becoming synonymous with bad legislation.
My cable company (Comcast) which I hate, does offer me a variarity of packages. If the government would ever allow more than one cable company to serve an area I bet they would offer me even more choice and for less cost. This is a solution looking for a problem. Better would be to lift the current regulations on TV.
So when did a-la-carte mean cheaper? Go to a mexican restaurant and order a 3 enchilada meal, and order 1 crispy taco on side. Unless you are going to Taco Bell... that damn crispy taco is going to cost you just about as much as 1.5 enchilada!
The cable company is going lobby against this big time. If someone just wants TechTV only at their office, it's going to cost them big time. The cable company would at least like to make some profit off of everyone of their subscribers.
Thats my $0.02... oh yeah forget... since I'm only making one comment today, I'm charging more... that'll be $3.50.
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)... oops
Now I can get rid of everything besides 4 or 5 channels. This may put a dent in their little monopolistic position.
Does this not apply to satellite providers though?
Get paid to code OSS
However, less-watched channels that serve distinct but smaller audiences, such as TechTV and BET, may not survive, because not enough viewers would pay for them.
Which is fine. TechTV and BET are both complete garbage. What better way to improve the quality of programming than to mandate it through public dollar votes?
(Just give me Sci-Fi, Cartoon Network, Comedy Central, and the Playbo--er, Discovery, and I'll be good to go. Heck, maybe NBC as well, if for no other reason than this year's feisty presidential election.)
The coolest voice ever.
It's ridiculous for me to have to spend over $50/month for cable just to watch Comedy Central. I'd much rather pay just $5 a month for Comedy Central instead of the $30 extra or whatever I have to pay to get the "package" that includes it. Comcast sucks.
... is a right-wing, right-to-life militarist. But if he runs for President again I might have to vote for him!
Good idea if this helps to get us off channel surfing?
On the other hand, maybe all we need is just one channel - Slashdot.org editors reporting live on site...
Hey, that's my password you are typing
I'd like to see it set up so I can pick and choose each and every channel, preferably via an onscreen check list at the set top box. And if there's something I want to see on a channel I don't normally have, I can order it just for that program right at the box.
--- Ban humanity.
In fact, mine just upped my limit on my cable modem. I went from 1Mbs/1Mbps to 5Mbps/1Mbps - without asking, or having to pay any more. Downladed some ISOs at combined speed of over 450K/sec :)
force local cable channels that are owned by cable companies (eg - Comcast SportsNet and CN8) to be available on satellite TV in the same sense that my local broadcast channels (eg, my local ABC/NBC/CBS/Fox/WB/UPN/etc channels) are now.
I think TechTV should be "a la carte".
you don't understand!!
i need my five hundred channels so i can toggle through the girls-gone-wild infomercials when that annoying white guy pops up!
the government is forcing me to pay more for my pseudo-pr0n!!
I would love it if they changed to that type of plan.
The first channels to go would be the far-out religion abusing channels.
But the Hispanic/Spanish channels, hell I would order more of those if I could. They have the most beautiful women on them, and it's interesting to try and figure out whats being talking about.
But see, bottom line is we all have different tastes, and shouldn't have to pay for some over-priced package. Where your paying $75 a month, and only watch 8-10 of the channels on a regular basis.
Josh
... but are you sure you want big government interfering in private business like this? Sure, your bills will decrease, but once the government has latched onto this industry it'll never let go. We could soon see channels with an anti-war bias get censored off the air 'for our own good', and copy protection built right into the cable system (protected by the DMCA, naturally).
A big problem for cable companies is that they now have no real excuse to not have plans like this. Before digital cable they could at least claim some technological difficulties in setting up such a system. Now I would guess that it would involve minor changes to their infrastructure and users should easily be able to add or remove channels directly through their cable box.
Casual Games/Downloads
But cable companies don't work in free markets, they are given a monopoly over their customers.
Sometimes it's hard to remember that John McCain is a Republican, and a damn good one at that.
For every annoying gentoo user, are three even more annoying anti-gentoo crybabies. Take Yosh from #Gimp for example.
CNN: "Bush wants cheap high-speed Internet access for all by 2007"
b roadband.dc.reut/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/03/26/bush.
Wish I had a bottomless checkbook...
Personally, I would relish an a la carte cable system, if only for the few pennies I would save dropping channels I do not watch; and if the bonus was available to add other channels which aren't currently available in exchange I would be on board in a second.
Keep:
Food Network
Cartoon Network
Comedy Central
Music Channels (MTV, VH1)
Bravo
Drop:
Lifetime
ESPN, ESPN2, ESPN^2, ESPN(X+1/2)
CMT
PAX
Disney
Add:
TechTV
Boomerang
MTV2
Fine Living
DIY
"Defenestration" is to throw out of a window; what's a word for throwing 'Windows' out of something?
Don't get me wrong - I have NO problem with access to any of those channels, but what *I* have wanted for *years* is for cable (and satellite) companies to provide me with the content *I* want at a reasonable price. Not charge me for a 120 channels because that's the only way I can see the 20 that I actually *want*.
I wouldn't mind so much IF cable wasn't so expensive. I looked from switching back from Dish Network to my local cable co.. The price I pay for *everything* that's available on my line-up is US$89/mo. via Dish Network. I wanted to get the local channels in HDTV. But to do that I'd have to switch back to cable. To switch back to cable, and keep my current channel lineup would have been US$170/mo!!! And that's not including the HDTV support...! To add insult - my local cable co (Comcast) doesn't *have* as many channels as Dish Network does.
The Dish Network ads are right - cable cos. *are* pigs...
Polymorphism -- It's what you make of it.
There is about 8 or so good channels, each in its own package along with pretty ordinary offerings.
Many people here like the comprimise idea of a base price for the service + choose for the channels.
I currently pay around $70/month US to get 2 recent movie channels, Two reasonable entertainment channels (Fox8/TV1), three or four other reasonable channels (Comedy, History, Biography). The rest of the 130 channel (advertised) line up is US$4/each 18 month old movies (50 channels), 50 year old classic movies, time shifted channels, 30 audio channels. Add way too many sports channels and I'm paying for around 110 channels I will never watch.
Grrr Arrrgh!! I say.
EMail: 0110001101100010010000000110001101110010 0110000101111010011011100110000101110010 0010111001100011011011110110
Why do i feel that could easily become much more expensive than getting their packages. If you pay $1.00/channel, if you currently get 70 channels, and you wanted to pay the same rate, you might only get 40 channels.
If you have more than one person in the household, each one is going to want to watch different channels, and you might end up paying close to the same amount you are now, except when your friend calls and says "check out the show on channel 'etc'!!" and you dont have it, you might wish you did.
I'm sure it'll be good for some people though, especially elderly. But buying things individually is usually more expensive per item than getting a package.
http://github.com/gbook/nidb
My second idea is a variety channel cable companies could offer showing programming from the channels you don't get. That way even though you pick your own channel list, the provider can show you what you're missing.
All innovative ideas, but all pipe dreams unless there is some sort of legislation involved. The cable indistry is not really into innovation these days.
"a la carte" actually does exist but only if you have basic or standard already and you want to add a single premium channel like HBO.
"...today consumers have been conditioned to think of beer when they see a bullfrog..."
Because now I can get rid of about 90% of the channels I have since I don't want/need/like/or watch them. My price should go down since I only watch like 5 channels. The rest is garbage.
This will be great for all those folks who want 5 channels, and horrible for all of those who watch more than that.
Sigs? We don't need no stinking sigs!
I for one, welcome our new 985-channel Cable-a-la-carte Overlords!!
Never mind, there's nothing good on.
And when TechTV survives and Sci-Fi goes away, what tune will you be singing then?
--- Ban humanity.
This might actually make cable and satellite more expensive. We may end up paying the same price we are now for less channels because bundling actually keeps costs down.
I'm having directv installed today, and of my 125 channels I'll be getting I'll probably only watch 40 or so of them. But currently I have to pay for WE and lifetime even though I won't watch them, just like someone else has to pay for espn and fox sports, even though they don't watch them. It's a trade off, that keeps costs down.
The only way this is good for the consumer, is if they also put some sort of regulation on the content providers. Situations like the viacom / dish dispute should not happen. If a content distributor doesn't want to carry a channel, they should not be forced to, period. However dish caved and added Nick Toons. This is extortion, and hopefully it will also be addressed by Congress. That is where the real trouble lies, it's usually not the cable / sat providers forcing new unwanted channels on you, its the content producers.
Yeah, it's a free market as long as the big corps get to control it. Everyone else gets the door slammed in their face.
The free market is a MYTH, and the corps control not only the market, but government too.
This could be a bad thing. Analog cable is an open standard that lots of hardware can use. We might lose effective access to the signal if it is not used.
It is very hard for the cable company to do access control on Analog channels --- basically some person has to drive to your house and install a filter on the line. There are only so many filters that you can stack up there. Denying access to analog channels is so expensive, that often times they just forget to do it if you are downgrading from extended basic to basic service and the like.
Meanwhile, digital channels can be individually decoded and decryped. Sounds great, but the problem is that it is proprietary. No TV tuner cards support it and neither does TiVo and the like.
Be careful what you ask for....
Slashdot Articles from here and here.
I was going to yell dupe, but it has been 2 years since the originals and it's a development in the issue, i decided not to.
Sometimes I wish I was a plumber, then I'd know how to deal with other people's shit.
consumers shouldn't pay for unwatched channels
We should only be paying for the channels we watch!
I don't watch commercials, do I have to pay for those too?
The statement in the article about "No U.S. cable or satellite currently offers such a plan" referring to "a la carte" plans is not totally correct. There is a cable company operating an the part of VA that I live in called Charter that offers "a la carte" plans for high speed internet. Now whether Charter is a US held company or Canadian company---that I haven't determined yet...
Cable Internet from Comcast here is about $50 a month. Unless you ONLY want Internet, and aren't interested in cable channels. Then It's $70 a month. I wish they'd do something about that too.
However of the 70 channels I'll only watch 8 or 9 - so at $10 I'm still $60 ahead.
EMail: 0110001101100010010000000110001101110010 0110000101111010011011100110000101110010 0010111001100011011011110110
I've been hoping for this for years. Two years ago our cable company (rhymes with Bombast) forced YES, the NY Yankees network on us as part of our basic package. And they were so nice too! They only raised our bill three simoleans a month to cover it.
Unbundle now. That way my hard-earned money can go towards supporting things like the Mythbusters instead of helping to pay off ludicrously high sports salaries.
Unfortunately, the big-biddness folks will never let something that could cut into their bottom line get past 1600 Pennsylvania.
My cable company (Cox) just notified me that they are no longer supporting premium channels over analog, and that instead I need to upgrade to the significantly more expensive digital cable to keep getting HBO. This is after I had to drive to the central office to get the analog box in the first place, as the installer "didn't have any in the truck" when he came to install it (why didn't he read the work order?).. I support their efforts to build a better network but since I don't particularly need to spend more than $100 a month on television, good luck getting me to pay for it.
The point is, it's not a free market economy. One cable provider ahs a monopoly in your area, so its his cable service, or nothing. A free market economy would have multiple cable providers in an area.
But then the concrete on your roads would nver set for cable companies laying down cable. And the investment is too high for too many competitors. So the market has to be as free as possible. And freedom to choose what to buy is the best answer in the circumstances.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
(Shows you once again the lag time between usenet and slashdot ;)
Moderate this comment
Negative: Offtopic Flamebait Troll Redundant
Positive: Insightful Interesting Informative Funny
Nothing to see here
I assume McCain's legislation will also include provisions rendering the contract provisions from content providers that require bundling of their offerings null and void. Otherwise, the point is somewhat moot. It's not just the cable/satellite service providers that are the problem.
What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.-Ecclesiastes 1:9
nb: I cancelled my cable entirely but kept the cable modem access in 2003
This was one of my major complaints about television. I had to pay for sports/golf/etc channels to get
Pick up a book and read instead or download what you really want to see.
[/curmudgeon]
Trolling is a art,
-- Note: These Comments are Generated by ME! Not You! ME!
I wish the Belgian government would regulate similar principles (we have a cable monopoly too here). There are about 10 dutch speaking channels available, only 1 of which is worth watching. But the only way to get that one is by taking the whole shebang of crap with it. And since we don't want our kids to grow up with commercials, we decided to dump the TV and rent a movie every other day.
When will I end this grieving ? When will my future begin ?
If companies sell shit you don't want -- don't buy it.
Yes, this means you have to give up the something you want, because it's bundled with a bunch of shit you don't want. Hang in there -- if enough consumers stop consuming the shit, companies will desperately try to save themselves from bankruptcy by selling you what you really wanted in the first place.
-kgj
-kgj
DISH Network used to do this. They had a package called DISH Pix, where you chose 10 channels for $15, or something like that, possibly more channels than that.
IMHO, this is a Good Thing, since many programmers try to force cable and satellite companies to carry their less popular channels in exchange for the rights to their more popular channels. I certainly hope Congress addresses this as well. If this passes, I'd expect to see quite a few channels bite the dust, since very few people will want them. And I'll certainly be in line to take advantage of this.
Of course, expect programmers and cable and satellite companies to raise rates for a la carte packages, but I'll pay a lot less, since I'll weed out the crap I don't watch anyway.
We're paying more for more channels, not more good programs.
Exactly. Out of the 60+ channels available to me, I'm only interested in a few (Sci-Fi, CC, CN). But I don't get them, because I refuse to pay ~$45/month and watch only those. I guess I could force myself to watch equal amounts of all the other channels, but that would be ten gallons of crazy.
One way to improve the quality of programming is to let the public dictate it by voting for channels with their dollars. I won't go so far as to say it's the best way (we've seen what the unwashed masses like, Joe Millionaire etc.) but it's definitely an option.
The coolest voice ever.
you just may get it. I am concerned that we are likely to see less choice under "A la Carte" cable. The popular offerings (s.a. ESPN) will continue on. But less popular offerings are likely (s.a. TechTV) to be removed.
(a) not really life-threatening, and
(b) the result of the aggregate free choices of "the people".
Have we no bigger problems in the world than ensuring that people can get access to cable channels without having to buy entire packages, or keeping the world safe from telemarketers. These do not seem like Earth-shattering issues.
I wonder, do people actually write letters to their congress-critter begging them to tell those nasty cable companies to let them buy the channels they want without having to buy a package? Or is it simply the case that McCain wanted to get HBO without paying for Discovery, got annoyed that he couldn't, and decided that this was "an important issue" to legislate on.
I use time warner, and to even GET HBO, they require a set top box (I'm using analog). So I don't get it. I bet to get ala cart, you'll need a set top box, digital service, etc, which will add on to the costs...
They suck.
If there was only one supermarket, then they probably would demand you buy everything in chunks of standard sizes. The thing is, we have competition, so since the customers don't want it, they could go somewhere else that does offer what they want.
.
Cable companies don't have such competition. There's typically a choice between the local cable provider and a couple of satellite providers. They can get away with this sort of thing by a sort of unspoken agreement. If one of them offered a la carte, so would the others.
Essentially this is the prisoner's dilemma. They both know that they will both get the best results by cooperating
that's the way it COULD be (theoretically). over the way it SHOULD be can be argued.
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
While we'd all like a la carte pricing of cable, it's a nightmare from a technical point of view. The only possible way to do it would be to require everyone to have a digital box - trying to do this in analog simply wouldn't be feasible (i.e. try filtering 100-106Mhz out, allowing 106-112Mhz, filtering out 112-124Mhz, allowing 124-130Mhz, etc. - each cable tap would have dozens of filters, and each would push the limits of what passive filters can actually do).
Therefore, we're talking requiring a digital box for each customer, and every single TV set - that alone will tack $5+ per TV onto everyone's monthly cable bill (digital boxes are ~$150-200 and up.
You'd probably also end up with a lot of marginal channels going off the air (outside of Slashdot, how many folks will actually _pay_ for TechTV on an a la carte basis?).
Lawmakers report that their constituents are angry about cable bills that have risen at three times the rate of inflation since the industry was largely deregulated in 1996.
I thought the theory was that unregulated markets drove down prices and were good for consumers...
lol, tech tv survive? don't get me wrong, cat schwartz is a hottie, but if I need tech info I have waaaay better sources than what tech tv shows.
sci-fi go away? heh. sci-fi will NEVER go away. there are too many geeks out there with questionable taste for cheese like Lexx for that channel to ever die. which is good, because decent programming can then still survive on that channel.
That the cable situation was so bad outside the UK. Here (on Sky Satellite or NTL cable) you sign up for a basic package (digital equivalents of the terrestrial channels plus a few extras), then add any extra channels you want on top of that. Some of them come in packages, like "Music", but the packages are not that expensive on their own so you don't mind the odd MTV Base or some other crap sneaking in there.
Of course, the sports channels are extortionate, but you get gems like Film Four for 6GBP (no pound symbol on Slashdot, grrr...) a month which is just about the best film channel going (no blockbusters or filler crap that the studios force the broadcasters to show if they want to show LOTR).
Bob
Listen to my latest album here
While everyone will be in favor of this, I am going to go against the grain and voice my opinion.
Just like with Microsoft, forcing X company to offer Y product is rediculous on the most fundamental level. Imagine your dream of opening up a donut shop, dedicated to cream filled donuts. This is a dream you have had forever, because no one appreciates the wonderfulness of these juicy delights, so no donut shop has any REAL selection. Your whole point of being in business is to realize your dream, and, as an added bonus, make a living from it.
NOW imagine that none of the cops like cream filled donuts, but you have the only donut shop in town. Imagine the city passing law that all donut shops HAD to serve X% of their donuts to be regular glazed, holed, donuts. What then? This KILLS the purpose of YOU being in business.
While that scenario is far fetched, it's obvious the connection to these sorts of ideas.
Rather then forcing cable companies, etc to change what they sell, give incentive, help out, whatever the little guys to compete. In the end, if the customer wants A la carte, then in a proper capatilist environment, it WILL happen. We just need to make it not so painful to fight against the big guy.
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
Don't whine to me because you willingly help finance a system that "forces" all these channels on you. Getting rid of the government controls would be a good thing too, but of course removing government from the lives of people is unpatriotic.
So, to solve this, we are to piss and moan to our benificent Congressweebles? They will swoop down and magically [poof] insure free-market principles?
Just don't buy cable. Last time I checked, you could just not watch TV. [shock and dismay!]
Or has cable TV become another right?
TV is worthless. You get better news on the web; better sports if you attend in person; and anything else that's worthwhile will be on DVD in a year anyway.
org.slashdot.post.SignatureNotFoundException: ewg
Could it lead to content middle men (cable pimps?) that can by channels "in bulk" and then put together finer grained programming options?
:)
Possible packages:
--./ reader package: scifi, techtv, all pr0n channels
--sports package: espn, espn2, espn(n+1), all pr0n channels
--stay at home mom package: qvc, hsn, tlc, all pr0n channels
--stay at home dad package: all pr0n channels
Well we see what' in common don't we, stay at home dads don't watch sports
All kidding aside, it would be nice to have finer grained options, but as a previous poster mentioned, we will probably just end up paying more per channel.
What I would also love is for the NAB to allow us to very "locals" from other markets....it would enable me to get 24/7 Simpsons coverage
"Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a fat white guy who is threatened by change."
Pls mod informative AND insightful!
IF I got rid of my comcast cable modem, I would have no choice left besides phone modems.
Even if they bundle or unbundle it makes no difference, since I'll be begging at comcast's door either way.
but you TV-addicts are the ones fueling the market
I am really sorry I enjoy watching movies, TLC, TechTV, etc. I wish I could be cool and liberated like you, Anonymous Coward. Sorry if I get a flamebait outa that. I just couldn't get through Sunday without my Simpsons/Sopranos fix.
Great ideas often receive violent opposition from mediocre minds. - Albert Einstein
I also would argue that at this point, the government should disallow each and very monopoly as the contracts expire (or ten years; which ever is shorter). At that point, you allow for real competition and a real market.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I know quite a few languages... but I live in America... So what does that make me? =(
Pay per play. With a Tivo, you could charge me by the individual program. Subscriptions would be commonplace - just like magazines. Then there is no more need for networks at all. And there is no need for commercial sponsorship. Though you could let people watch targeted commercials voulentarily in exchange for free programs. Government exists to promote the common welfare vs. the monopolistic desires or corporations. This would be a positive thing for the masses. If it makes some business models obsolete - tough shit buggy whip makers...
Cable companies have no right to decide which channel has to survive. If Cable companies worry about the social welfare, they can even out their subscribe payment for the channels on their own instead of bundling everything together.
^(oo)^pig~
...mostly for January. We don't even have cable hooked up now, because 99.99% of what's on isn't worth my time, let alone my hard-earned money. But there are two times during the year I wish I had it -- New Year's and the Super Bowl. Yes, they're on broadcast channels, but I'd rather not have to worry about signal quality or anything like that. I'd be so willing to call the cable company in mid-December to have my cable turned on for 12-31 to 01-01, and bill me five bucks or whatever. Ditto for the Super Bowl. As it is, they don't have me as a customer at all.
Actually, what I really think is...
Too bad someone couldn't devise a legal video on demand over IP style broadcast or a reflector style broadcast like cu-see-me (reflectors use one pipe to stream to multiple ip addresses thus reducing the stream width of the server). Then you could just pay for one bigger internet (IP) pipe instead of 3 different services like your phone, video and internet.
This would make both the Phone Company and Cable Company quiver. Yet ATT have already started selling voice over IP. Comcast has video on demand so these technologies are converging. Time will tell if reason can overcome big corporate profits.
At about $2 a subscriber per month, its one of the most expensive channel groups. And it will only get more expensive as sports leagues have been upping license fees. The cost of sports programming on cable rose 59% between 1999 and 2002.
Now if I could only opt-out of those sales taxes and tourist taxes that are squandered on sports stadiums, I'd be a happy camper.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
Funny I just got fed up with this last month, I'm paying $100 and I only watch cartoon network and speed. I just couldn't justify it anymore. I'm switching to ultra basic for 10 a month. I encourage anyone who is fed up to do the same. For the other 90 I can rent / buy almost anything I want to see (a netflix acct. helps!). You need to make them feel the pain or they won't change. -Ed
-Ed I don't eat meat, but I'd go hunting with a paintball gun.
"I go down to buy a loaf of bread. I don't have to buy broccoli and milk to go with it." Bottom line is, cable companies have a government-authorized monopoly, so maybe they need to recieve government-mandated "innovation." Why should I pay for 15 non-English channels?"
As a Canadian, we're used to this sort of socialism (NB: Socialism != Fascism != Communism). Many french and other non-english channels cannot survive in the market without being subsidized. Take our music industry for example. If you want to run a radio station here, you must play a certain percentage of Canadian artists so that US artists do not swamp out our industryt altogether.
All in all, I think forcing people to pay for a small percentage is a good thing, but then again what do I know? I'm just a brain-washed Canadian.
Ruby on Rails Screencast
face certain facts: If you don't like the way the cable or satelite stuff is served to you in the market, then drop the subscription. Do you really think that having the government force the few corps to go ala carte is going to help much? They're just going to ream you with that model anyways.
I just delete HSN style channels from my listing, but no doubt these channels pay the satellite company X dollars to carry them. If any of this is passed on to the consumers then I will lose the bite that I take from people that actually buy stuff from those channels in the form of jacked up prices. Will this mean more or less Ron Popiel in the morning? I could cancel a channel that feeds me too much Prolong-lets-you-drive-without-oil, but then price may come into play.
Eat at Joe's.
Nobody has mentioned the other side, where the cable companies can charge more because things are packaged. On the backend companies can go to their addvertising accounts and say something like "pay us more for our awesumly bad commercials because you have a market base of millions. If you were just a nuche market you would only have a fraction of that and we couldn't justify carrying your signal."
They get you both ways.
OTOH, I find myself going out and to the movies more often, using the money I saved from not paying $70/month for DISH or cable :)
Besides, I can now get Sopranos and Sex & the City on DVD anyway... a season late, but hey, it's much cheaper that way...
I, for one, can't wait for the day I can buy SciFi and Comedy Central without paying the ESPN tax. Or the MTV tax. Or the Fox News tax.
there with electricity or gas? This is how out of whack American's priorities are if they feel the need to bitch to the government about their precious TV price models.
In most places the cable company is given the monolpy by the local city government just like other utilities; so in most cases they are actualy public monopolies.
Check with you city officials and see when the current contract expires and lobby to get them provide this type of service on the next contract.
And in most areas there is no market. There is one cable company and that is it.
Usually this cable company got there by making arrangements with the local town/city and local utilities to install its cable on utility poles (or whatever) and agreed to a contract with the city that effectively granted it a monopoly (in return for their investment in the cable). Then a few years go by and they decide they're being repressed ("help, help, I'm being repressed") and seek deregulation.
But with or without deregulation they're still a monopoly as they have the cable installation, and installing all that anew is a very tough barrier to entry to new companies.
But again, in most places, there is no "market" to "decide". The decisions have (effectively) been made but the companies, having benefited nicely from government intervention in their favor now want government intervention against them to go away.
Yeah, but it's balanced out by the hours and hours of utterly inane stand-up comedy.
No, they are not. In southeast michigan, most homes can choose between Comcast and Wide Open West. I realize this is rare, but it's great. We can pit them against each other on our bills. Instead of $35 for basic cable, you can haggle them down to $20. Another cool thing is that Wide Open West has speed tiers for their cable modems - $50 / month gets you a slow cablem modem and full basic cable. Not bad really.
However, it would be nice to get HD service from either of them with a cable modem at a decent speed for under $100 / month. Ugh - slave to electronics.
Finally, if Congress is going to require that the cable operators unbundle channels, then they better be sure that they require the media companies to unbundle as well. That is, if Comcast is required to sell ESPN without a dozen other Disney-owned channels, then Disney should also be required to make ESPN available to Comcast at a lower price than the bundle of ESPN plus other channels that they require Comcast to buy today. It would be interesting to see, should the cable and satellite providers sell those channels on a cost-plus-markup basis, how loud the end-users scream at ESPN's 20% annual price hikes :^)
This is a tough one. While it bothers the hell out of me to pay for the n Spanish-language channels we get (why isn't there a separate package just for that?), it was sure nice to be able to switch to the NASA channel on Saturday to watch the X-43 launch. I don't think I would have had that otherwise--my cheapness would have overridden my geekiness....
From what I understand, a lot of the bundling is because the content providers want all their channels packaged together. Viacom owns a shitload of channels, Disney owns a shitload more. It's possible that this legislation will hurt the content providers, and help the cable providers (since the cable providers won't be forced into packaging deals they don't like).
AccountKiller
The ILECs have stuck all kinds of charges and fees on our phone bills to cover the 'costs' of government compliance.
Low-end stations that are being subsidized right now already ARE losers. Economic darwinism is circling over them, ready to strike the minute that the government wind blows the other way. Their mandate for existence is tenuous at best.
Non mainstream programming will have to revert to unrestricted media, like radio or over-the-air TV, or the Internet. In the Warsaw ghetto it was underground newspapers. It will always survive. The problem is that you can't both claim a right to protection, and then demand a blank check on what you produce.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
I was thinking- how can they get you to start buying a channel if you can't see it? Then it hit me, they'll have to do it the same way premium used to, with free trial weekends, etc.. I've got to say, this model has a lot to offer, if they can keep it cheap.
G
For me this is a funny sittuation. Here in saskatchewan our telephone company has been offering digital cable over dsl for about two years now. While the cable company still acts like all able companies with it's bundling, the telco offers bundles in 5-7 themed channels units. This solution seems to be a bit better than what the cable companies are doing while still supporting lower prices and the obscure channels.
How exactly is this going to solve the problem of companies like Viacom charging for their own package deals? You all realize of course that this is how it works for cablecos as well?
I'm all for choice, but this will in no way affect the PROVIDERS of the entertainment. The American public has already shown a willingness to basically pay whatever they have to for their entertainment (look at ticket prices to any event nowadays for proof!) The program providers know this and so no matter what the cablecos do to split up channel selections, THEY will still pay out the ass.
Now THAT'S 'reality television' for you...
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
And he got lots of Troll Pellets, too!
Danke tres mucho, tovarishch.
our current "Republican" government is quite leftist. The government is bigger now than it was under Clinton (and can you say 'deficit'?). Most modern repub's don't have the balls to return to their small government roots.
This is good for the cable companies also. With this legislation they can argue w/ the viacom's and espn's that we don't want ALL their channels or get none. Much of the pricing problem comes from this. As the dish network was backed into a corner not long ago. I don't want an MTV that rarely plays music and when it does not anything I like. I can see great innovation from channels that might otherwise be kept off the air. "Sorry. Yes, we understand you have oustanding programmming, but you're just not popular enough for us to force you on our subscribers. We decide to go w/ ESPN 9".
As much as I personally want ala carte Cable channels, I'm not so blinded by my desires that I don't see the consequences of this action. Channels and shows will become even less diversified than they are now. People aren't going to want to order a channel that they rarely watch, even if that channel occassionally has a show that they view. Only the extremely popular channels will survive, turning cable options from a fairly diversified cornucopia of channels to another victim of pop culture where only the channels that have a show on Nielson's top 40 TV shows will make it.
This will also make it extremely difficult to start new channels. Since consumer won't just get a channel added to their lineup as now, a new channel will have to fight extremely hard to gain viewers. Since channels won't be able to do this without lots of pre-launch media buzz (and subsequently a "killer app" show to go along with it), only those channels with an extreme amount of money to pay for the new channel infrastructure, new shows, and a blitz media campaign are going to get to air.
Channel surfing as we know it, across all bands of channels, will disappear.
TV will not be forced to innovate or die just because some people who probably don't watch tv much anyway cancel their tv subscriptions. Face it, not many people who actually watch are going to want to do that.
We can however force them to change and innovate by telling them what we want! Look at it this way... You think MTV has become a pile of trash, but you like what's on [random channel]? You tell your cable company you don't want it. Enough people do that and MTV realizes they have to innovate, yet you still get to watch your shows on [random channel]. Actually, not only do you get to watch them, but the owners of that network realize they have a good thing going and are less apt to change their shows.
As things are now, the networks don't give a care about what you think. They can pretty much put up whatever they want and still get paid. The ratings systems in place now don't cut it... What's wrong with giving the consumer more control over what's on?
"Lawmakers report that their constituents are angry about cable bills that have risen at three times the rate of inflation..."
I get so sick of hearing complaints about the cost of X rising than more than the rate of inflation. Guess what, the inflation rate is an overall value, some things will grow at a higher rate, some lower. Given the fact that the value provided by cable has grown*, I really think people don't have much to complain about here. Think also of how much time people really spend watching cable - it is basically the main form of entertainment in most homes.
This is like the constant whining over the price of gas. If you actually consider the value that consumers get out of it, the price itself isn't so bad.
* While it is fashionable to constantly bemoan the lack of good content on TV, look at the diversity of offerings that cable provides, and the opportunity for shows to reach major success from small beginnings that never would have occured on network TV (like Trading Spaces or Queer Eye).
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
While I agree that all this is going to do is cost consumers more I'd like to see this happen, too, in the hopes that it won't cost us consumers more.
Until that time, I've learned how to program my TV to step-over the channels I don't like. Whereas my tuners goes from 2 through 98 or so, I only actually *see* 20 or so of them while I only actually watch 4 or 5 actively.
Newer TV's (within the last 10 years) have the ability to filter, by your command, which channels to actually show.
Here's to wishing the prices will drop on us though.
Think of it. Content providers charge based on total subscribers. This is why your satellite providers can offer cheaper service. they operate on a wholesale business model.
Cable companies are stuck with an exponentially smaller subscriber base, so prices will be higher than dish.
Now, if you begin to divy up on a per channel basis, where you had 300k of subscribers to charge equally for the Discovery channel, you now have to charge more for Discovery channel for the subs that want it. So ostensibly, you could be paying a ton more for your service.
plus, on the feasibility end of things, you would force 1 of 2 methods of channel blocking; either putting traps on the line outside, and attenuating the total signal getting into the house, or setting up an addressable cable converter for each set in the house, and scrambling all the cable channels on the service.
So, it sounds good, until you actually look into what you would have to do to get it. I wonder if the government would subsidize cable companies to convert to this new system. Oh, but if you get into gov't subsidies, then you're beholden to the government to transmit their party line.
from land that's owned by the taxpayers then I'll stop calling for my representatives to represent my interest when it comes to said equipment.
DISH and DTV offer "a la cart" service. They just don't advertise it, and make it rather hard to obtain. Oh, and it's f'ing expensive... 4$/channel last time I checked into it. I don't think they can sell you just the local channels (FCC rules.)
Not that I watch the shit but a lot more people than you and I do. If the people want it, then the people want it, end of story. The government has to step in to protect people from getting ripped off. It is a utility just like electricity, in fact, I don't really see how it's any different. You don't NEED electricity either, but it's still regulated, because cost of entry is enormous. It's a market that really can't have diverse competition becuase there are only so many rich folks and then existing line deals, etc etc just get in the way.
Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
So if a service exists, you're entitled to get that service from at least two different providers? One could easily argue that I shouldn't be able to setup a car service shop in an area where there are none because there would be no competition.
when paying for cable meant there were no commercials? or was that just a figment of my imagination. Wasn't the "Big Idea" supposed to be that subscribers payed for the cost of the programming... not advertisers? If stations really want people to watch the crap that they call commercials, they need to remember its about quality not quantity. Since its a monopoly anyways, they can artificially restrict supply, raise advertiser prices, hopefully raise the quality and increase actual program time... All at once! What an idea!
Then TechTV will live on, as will the spanish channels (hot soap opera babes) and those channels we only see in passing.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
The story blurb states that "No U.S. cable or satellite currently offers such a plan."
This is not technically true since big dish C-Band programming providers offer al a carte service, or at least the one my dad uses did as recently as two years ago.
Sure, the number of c-band users is miniscule, but it is a satellite dish.
http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
A lot of people seem to be assuming that if you are paying $30/month for 30 channels, then in an ala carte system, each channel will cost $1/month. Not so!!
Channels like ESPN might wind up being as high as $5 each. History, Discover, et. al. - the stuff you'd expect Geeks to watch, probably average over $1 a month a piece.
Right now, your favorite channels are in effect subsidized by the Home Shopping Channel. You wouldn't pay for it, but they are willing to give you, say, $.50 credit toward any other channels if you accept Home Shopping as well. This is how those channels make it into your bundle.
The cable company knows very well that they can't sell as many $5/month ESPN singletons as $3/month ESPN + 4 or 5 trashy worthless channel packages... They are simply optimizing their sales.
For that matter, nothing's stopping the cable companies from providing a la carte selection at some outrageous price and package-deals at the prices they've been charging all along, on the grounds that if people want a service, they'll have to pay for it at a price the market will bear.
The lament that "oh, we'll be paying $45/month for 6 channels" makes sense only if a-la-carte-only is mandated.
Dance like nobody's watching. Sing like you're in the shower. Fuck like you're being filmed.
My parents were going to discontinue their cable service but are litterally in a 'rock in a hard place' as far as picking up any local stations on rabbit ears.
Nonetheless, my dad made the call and was informed that there was an unadvertised package for $15/month that would give them basic local and a few other channels. They called it the 'basic-basic' plan or some such garbage. I guess it was a way to keep people like my parents for leaving completely.
The cablecos know their pricing is out of hand, but the fact is, the PROVIDERS of the channels are equally blameworthy, if not more so.
Viacom: "Tell ya what. We'll give you VH2, MTV2 and 3, and the Munchkin Channel as part of our package deal!"
Comcast Exec: "Yeah, but all we really want is VH2 and MTV 2 and 3..."
Viacom: "Ah, so sorry. These channels only come as a package... Say! Would you like some Food Channel to go along with that?"
Frustrating indeed!
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
The cable companies are only part of the problem. Yes, they screw people over to turn a larger profit, but the major media outlets (Viacom, etc) charge insane rates for their channels, and force cable companies to accept channels they don't want in exchange for a slightly cheaper rate overall. ESPN is over $2.50 per subscriber nowadays. That would be fine, but cable companies can't just get ESPN alone. They usually have to take a package of several channels, and the total cost is more like $10 just to get ESPN to a person's home.
I'm using ESPN as an example here, and I don't know what contracts are signed behind closed doors, but you get the general idea.
2 different companies, both trying to make some extra (alot extra) cash, and the consumer gets screwed not once, but twice...
I'm on a chair.
Years ago, we looked towards the future of television as having a 100 channels and this would be a good thing. In reality, we have a hundred channels, but about 92 of them are shit. I only watch hbo, discovery, history, foodtv, comedy central and maybe a few others depending if there is one or two decent shows once a week on that channel.
This is bad because my cable bill is over a hundred a month (mind you hbo and internet are also on there). I never watch those other channels but I'm paying for them. It'd be nice to go a la carte, but comcast is going to find another way to get my dollar from me. Any company that can say they want to buy disney world and keep a straight face knows what they're doing and does it right.
if they have enough money to ponder buying Disney, they can bankroll TechTV/G4 (theya re merging)..... it's not like Comcast wastes money on taxes or anything.
Of course, the problem with this is the cable companies' tendency to price gouge. However, maybe something as simple as mandating that the cable box always display an accurate real-time running count of the day's viewing charges might counteract this. Since most people are basically cheap, they'll shut off the service if they see the day's total go over a couple of bucks. This would put pressure on the cable providers to keep the charges reasonable.
Another approach might be to give billing control over the various channels directly to the upstream provider. The current cable company would only handle the physical infrastructure, with their costs covered by the base rate. The content providers would compete against each other on price for the individual channels that people watch. This could work kind of like the current arrangement for competition in long-distance phone service, where you choose among long-distance services that are brought to you via your local phone company.
I live in a county that has two cable providers - I was with one for quite a while gradually reducing what I paid by threatening to leave, finally a service quality issue convinced me it was time to switch. I called the rival hoping for a match of what I was getting, they did better without my even asking beating my previous provider by $10/mo.
I get ALL non-PPV channels (HBO/SHO/TMC/MAX/Stars/etc), Digital, Internet and cable modem rental for $60/mo plus taxes.
Free maket? In my area there is only one cable provider (Bright House Networks (formerly Time Warner),) and they are c*cky as hell. A few months ago, I switched to satellite for lower monthly costs, and a low cost TiVO. Right before I canceled my cable TV service, I received a letter stating that the rates were again going up. The justification? They were going to add some channels aboutr which I couldn't have cared less. I wonder if they will lower rates when they remove channels (e.g. when the TechTV/G4 merger is complete. I'm willing to bet that they won't. For the most part my cable modem service worked fine, but when it did, and I was a direct customer, they had no tech support outside of business hours. Near the end, I switched to Earthlink cable modem through the same cable company, $5 cheaper per month ($25 cheaper for the first 3 months,) and tech support was available 24/7 via Earthlink. When I made the switch, all of my hardware stayed the same but the cable company charged me $9 to switch the billing record. What a bunch of crap. The cable companies know they have people by the balls, and they take advantage of it.
-- Charles A. Plater
Uhmm.. No. Just that there should be no restriction to someone else opeining up a car service shop.
Before bundling, there were actually a lot more channels aiming at a limited audience. It isn't terribly expensive or difficult to create a cable TV channel. You need content of some kind (public domain movies, tapes of local pastors on their pulpits, interviews with local "celebrities"), an uplink disk, and enough money to rent satellite time (a few hundred an hour, I think). The hard part is getting cable companies to carry you. But that didn't used to be a problem, because local companies were all too happy to find cheap programming.
A few years ago, the cable company in Santa Cruz ditched all its independent channels in favor of "more popular" channels. Meaning new channels they'd been forced to carry after contract renegotiation. Many of these channels were just placeholders, showing old TV shows that nobody else wanted -- the providers' lawyers had been ahead of their programmers! There were complaints from people who missed the Eternal Word channel, but the cable company didn't really have a choice.
Can you believe that the cable company has to pay for the Home Shopping Network? I thought for sure that they could distribute that one for free - IT'S AN ADVERTISEMENT!
You listed 12 shows, two of which are over, if memory serves. So, you've got 10 shows on I'm guessing well over 70 channels (but I'll stay conservative and say 50). That's one show for every 5 channels. I remember the days when most channels had more than one good show (and we're talking about a decade ago, when we had about 30 channels). 10 decent shows is nothing to toot your horn at.
G
Perhaps "Are local monopolies" would be better.
So the more complicated filter will cost more.
People will probaly end up paying MORE to get less.
Analog cable is simple, they put a filter and block or release "blocks" of channels.
This is simple, and cheap.
To individually select channels needs more expensive technology, guess who will pay for it?
Amen,
McCain is actually comeing out with a law that I can back and get behind. There is no reason that I need the hispanic channel, since I don't speak spanish, or the plethera of other channels that don't do me any good. I am not being a bigot, I just don't think I should have to support a channel with my money that I cannot even understand. Why do I need to support a local Philly channel that broadcasts local news in spannish, this is a channel that wouldn't survive with out it being forced onto the public.
Anyways back to my original point, there is no need for a ton of the channels out there. I would rather have the ability to pick the channels I want. I want Sci-Fi, Commedy Central, History, TLC, Discovery, USA, TBS, TNN, and the local channels. I don't want two channels of NBC, Travel, Animal Planet, the 5 non-english channels, and the religious channel.
I think this is a great thing. It is about time this happened. This bill from McCain would start to make up for the limiting of Free speach that was passed by the McCain - Finegold Bill last year.
It really torques me to read these kinds of stories. The government LOVES to step in and play the hero when they solve a "problem" THEY created.
Hmm...
Authorizing a monopoly = Problem
Legislating a 'solution' != Praise
There is no other institution on this earth better at taking credit for fixing something it shouldn't have broken.
Citizen---"Ow! You just broke my leg"
US Govt.---"Here is a federally authorized and provided crutch"
Citizen---"Thanks for nothing!"
US Govt.---"You're welcome."
Populace---*Cheers for the benevolent government who is sensitive to the needs of its citizens*
Boooooooooo!
The greatest hindrance to success is a well-rationalized excuse
No way dude. Didn't they teach you in University that networks are divided in several layers? The cost of cable companies are governed by this as well. Basically their costs are split in three: 1. Cost for general overhead (huge CEO fee and a bit for the cleaning lady), 2. Cost for the maintenance/write off and investment in physical layer and active components 3. Programming.
;-)
Well, the cost for overhead and the physical layer (the cable) is payed by all and on an equal basis. You shouldn't pay less for that part if you want to see less tv. All the channels you get over it each require a fee as well. That fee is paid for you by your cable company to the holders of the rights (RIAA MPAA etc). That fee grows higher once you put more channels over the cable and lower if you want less. Problem is ofcourse that over all those fees a margin is leveraged by your cable company, so they will not be too happy with this idea. But 6 channels should never cost you more than 50. It could however be very little since 30 channels here in the Europe cost about 3 euros in fees.
BTW I pay 12 euros a month for 30 channel cable tv here in The Netherlands
Use Adsense for Charity
For how many years have we screamed we want a la carte? There's inherent problems with this though, the big one being reduced choice. YES, reduced choice.
By forcing cable companies to offer single channel selections, people won't be choosing and paying for "new" channels or even "old" channels they never have watched before. As a result, these tv networks would go out of business. TechTV might never have been if it hadn't first been forced upon us in channel packages.
One thing I find ridiculous though is how some cable companies will group channel styles into packages. For example, I subscribe to Bell Expressvu (canada) and I don't have a single music video channel. Why? Because I can't just pick one (at a reasonable price), instead they grouped like 8 music video channels into one whole package. That's over-kill. How many music video channels does one need?
an exception?
Even if the channels are forcing bundling, requiring everyone ( cable, sattelite, and whatever may come along ) to offer a la carte channels means that no company will be legally able to cave into the channels. This will leave the channels with no customers that can be bullied and so they will have to offer THEIR channels a la carte to the cable companies.
Eat at Joe's.
But then the concrete on your roads would nver set for cable companies laying down cable. And the investment is too high for too many competitors.
Surely this could be solved easily enough by forcing the cable company to allow other people - including rival cable providers - to buy some bandwidth on the cables.
You do NOT have to buy cable TV for the high speed internet, you just lose the 'bundle' discount so it costs $10 a month more.
Instead of a pick-channels-one-by-one approach there just need to be smaller bundles, and you can pick 3 or 4 of these bundles with basic service and then maybe add an extra bundle for an added charge. Put sports channels together, put women's tv channels together, non-english channels, tech, entertainment, etc. Each bundle could be 10 or so related channels and, sure, you might not be getting 100% just what you want but now you've reduced the cost increases due to a la carte pricing, and buffered the loss of channels due to market demands. I would much rather pay $40/mo and only get 8 channels I don't want to see than (currently) pay $80/mo for something like 50 channels I don't want.
-- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
cost drivers. I don't watch the sports that get dished up, and teh things i would watch are often buried late at night, and only shown superficially. I get better soccer coverage through the spanish cannels, and better motorcycle coverage through the internet. Cox has argued that the cost of cable would go up fi we didnt all pay for sports... According to their numbers, however i can only see the cost of sports channels going up drastically up if thsoe of us who don't want to watch sports don't pay for it. If they set up packages that could be chosen a la carte, then i think some minor channels would still stay around. I can see offerings like sci-fi packages, sports packages, movie viewers packages, tech packages, automotivce packages along with a la carte singel channel options. If the costs stay reasonable that way i would not mind paying a little extra for channels i don't watch that come as part of a package. lets say a news package includes CNN, FOX, MSNBC, and C-Span. While i hardly wpould wathc C-span or fox, I wouldn't mind paying for those if the cost of the package is still cheaper than paying for all 4 separately. While
I only want the HD channels but Brighthouse required me to subscribe to the full digital package at $99/mo so I can get their 6 HD channels(ABC, CBS, FOX, PBS, NBC, Disc). It's another $4/mo a la carte for HDNet (2) and INHD(2), which show sports and cool concerts. Plus for me to get HBO in HD (Sopranos), I have to subscribe to the whole HBO/Showtime package which is like 15 more channels for another $20, and I watch only one of them. Give me those 12 HD channels for $3 each per mo ($36)and I'll gladly pay it. It would save me $100/mo. If people could get only the HD channels a la carte, I think they would.
government-mandated "innovation."
Was that meant as a joke?
"Never tell me the odds"
Para que aprendas ESPANOL y te ligues a las
GUEROTAS del programa SABADO GIGANTE CON
DON FRANCISCO!!
That's what Dish Network/DirecTV is for.
I better make this quick before the Mod-sharks bork my opinions again.
You bring up a valid issue, one that most of the leftists here are incapable of listening to. It is possible, however difficult, to keep things on the local level. Cable companies deal with the local goverments, and this is how they keep their monopolies. Take the fight to the city council, and you can see real change.
Take the fight to Washington, and you get Federalization, more hegemony, more collusion. Do you actually think that John McCain gives a flying crap about your cable bills? The man probably hasn't paid a cable bill in 20 years (if ever). He's interested in maintaining the relationship he has with the Time-Warners and Comcasts of the world. Do you really think he'd knowingly sabotage that relationship, just so you can watch Dick Van Dyke re-runs for $10 less a month?
Please. You want Uncle Sam to stop playing with the Big Boys of Wall Street? Then, YOU stop playing with them. I haven't watched cable TV in 7 years. I find my news and entertainment elsewhere. What would happen if most Americans did that, hmm? The Big Boys wouldn't be quite so Big, would they?
It kills me that people in Canada can get NFL's sunday ticket through their regular cable, but do to agreements and such the only way to get NFL sunday ticket in the US is to buy a satellite/directTV. =(
It's not like the technology isn't there to support it, they are just afraid of screwing up the big Network TV money (ABC/ESPN/CBS/FOX)...
*shrug*
E.
Build Your Own PVR/HTPC news, reviews, &
YHL
HAND
It seems that there are lots of smaller channels that I get as part of my package that I like quite a bit. It is possible that on group package you will receive unexpectedlty good material that you would not have know to select. The benefits to ala cart programing would assume that all the channels would cost the same amount and you would select the ones you want. In practive it would likely be that channels with high ratings (and therefore, hig ad revenue) would be cheaper. Channels with low ratings (ie. the good ones) like OLN would then cost a fortune. Personally I like the idea of large revenue channels carrying the load for the low ratings channels.
El programa mas grande de la television es siempre Caliente!
Aside from the number of channels used or carried, I believe there are other factors that should be taken into account to force rate REDUCTION.
1) Digital transmission allows carrying the content of many channels in the bandwidth of a single analog channel. These added channels cost less to carry and maintain since their addition does not tax the power output capacity of the distribution amplifiers. Also the demands for signal amplitude and freedom from cross-modulation (amplifier distortion causing noise and spill-over between channels) are lessened since the digital signal is less vulnerable than analog. Analog tv signals use vestigal-sideband amplitude modulation which is vulnerable to noise in the same way that A.M. radio brodcasts are. We've all seen the cost savings of digital transmission in long-distance telephone service. The same principles apply to some degree.
2) Cable companies actually get kickbacks from sales on shopping channels, and often give those more desirable channel placement than things we want. They should pay US for carrying these!
3) Cost of the systems are subsidized by locally inserted advertising in many cases. And while this competition for ad revenue is damaging to local radio and tv broadcasters, the cable company isn't faced with the high-cost of producing news programming, or the burden of complying with public inspection files.
4) The cost for basic service users should be lower now that digital technology has virtually eliminated piracy of premium services.
5) Although it should be fair use to watch and record cable programs on anything in a household (much like we're now free to have extension phones without added fees), digital transmission requires a decoder for each location, and we're stuck with added fees for this.
6) We're stuck with paying perhaps $1 a month per decoder box for electricity to power the decoder boxes which are party of the cable company infrastructure. These boxes use power even when we're not watching which is not only costly, but environmentally unfriendly.
7) In my area, there is an anti-competitive "cable access fee" of about $10/month tacked on for internet service of those that are not cable tv subscribers. This is unreasonable considering that the connection is simply a tap into an existing feed, NOT a dedicated cable all the way back to a central office (as it is with a phone company). To the extent that using the cable system for internet use covers a portion of the infrastructure costs, the cost for basic cable users should fall.
Cable rates are held artificially high because we're dealing with monopoly. With lack of competition relief must come through regulation.
Is it me, or did this guy just cite the holocaust in a discussion about cable TV pricing?
There they were, sitting in the van with all those dials, and the cat was dead. -V. Marchetti, CIA
This is a very good thing. Most if not all cable companies offer a basic setup, which they don't advertise, which is usually channels 0-(~25). Usually that includes the network channels, a couple special channels, (UPN, USA, Travel, Animal Planet, about 3-4 Non-English). Stuff people don't usually watch. Usually for a fraction of the price for about 15.00 a month.
Did anybody listen to the news a couple of weeks ago when channels dropped off Dish Network? The dispute centered around the bundling the content provider was demanding of Dish. It's the big media companies forcing the cable company to sell the bundle.
Cable is a sort-of monopoly. They do have competition from satellite, though it's a different delivery mechanism. Anyway, with these three (and other alternatives trying) fighting amongst themselves don't you think the market would have already driven a la carte if it was possible? Heck, I'll switch to WHOEVER can get me the Speed Channel for less than $50 / month. Nobody can.
I think congress needs to step in here, but they need to be beating the media companies, not cable.
Thanks for answering your own question. Makes life easier for me.
Don't bet on it.
I just went the rounds with a Comcast over the fee increases and specifically asked what I could do to get my bill back down to the $50 a month range it was orignally at - my last Comcast bill was $72 (for basic plus Showtime/Starz). The second person's response (the first one hung up as soon as I asked to escalate the call) was that I could just go back to basic cable. And nothing else.
It became readily apparent that Comcast did not care about customer satisfaction in the least.
Long story short: I cancelled cable and switched to DirectTV where I got the same channels as before (plus a couple of surprising extras) for nearly $20 less per month. The quality is better, there's no banner-ad marketing on the info screens, the channel list is customizable, and customer service is stellar (three separate calls to check up on the installation and activation!).
As for Comcast: they asked how I planned to return my cable box. I told them to come get it. They said they couldn't do that until April 15th, and that I'd need to sit at home all day to wait for the pickup guy. I told 'em I wasn't about to take any time off and if they want it, it'll be out front.
I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.
I used to think that it was some grand scheme to rip off the public, but when I started to work for Echostar I quickly came to understand why there is no a la carte programming choice available.
No U.S. cable or satellite currently offers such a plan.
DishNetwork used to offer something called Dish Picks, the problem was that the cheapskates who wanted it were constantly calling in and dropping/adding channels; sometimes several times per day. They caused so much additional expense for the company that they had to put an end to it.
To force a la carte cable WILL raise the overhead for the cable companies and they WILL pass that expense on to us.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
This will undoubtedly get lost in the sea of comments already posted, but I just had to say something. For those of us who grew up with Schoolhouse Rock, we know that "leaning towards supporting legislation" is a LONG way from anything substantial happening. Congress is not forcing a la carte!! One senator is THINKING about trying to see if he can get Congress to do that.
I think it would be cool if you paid for cable usage like you do for electricity...for how much you use. Give me access to every channel, and charge me by the minute. If I really like a certain show, I'll be willing to pay for it. If I go on vacation for a couple weeks, I pay nothing.
It might also cut down on the mindless hours people spend in front of their TVs.
I don't know if I would want to pay for C-SPAN, If watch it once a week, that's a lot. And probably more than most. Yet. I really like the idea that it's there shining a light on what goes on in congress. And I'm willing to pay for it as a part of my cable bill, If there's not enough like me, then it'll go away. That would be bad.
Also the cable companies need to make it easy and CHEAP to switch channels. Now you have to call them up, and it's a minimum of $5 for any changes. They should give me a package that I can choose 15 channels, and let me pick which, and change them at will.
I would be reasonable to have then force you to make only one or two changes a month. Otherwise you could effectively rig the system to let you watch all of it. Especially if there was a web interface to the selections.
People decry the loss of marginal/niche channels if cable co's go to a la carte pricing. My retort: who cares? This is the beauty of the markets. If people really want Animal Planet, they'll pay for it. Otherwise, the market will vote with its collective wallet and give a thumbs-down. Why should I subsidise some beer-swilling redneck's desire to watch Speedvision when I could care less about this? If he cares so much, he should be willing to pay $10/mo for Speedvision a la carte. Plus, a la carte pricing opens up all kinds of innovations. You could have a pay-per-view option. Let's say you don't feel like paying $10/mo for Univision month in and month out, but there's one movie with some hot busty Latina that you want to view. No problem -- you pay $2-3 for that one movie and then have no further commitments beyond that.
'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman
Cable companies 'cafeteria pricing ' already.. you can get what you want, as long as it falls under one of their 'special packages'.
So what if you only wanted ONE channel, you still have to go to digital and get 15 movie channels too..
This will be their excuse that they already comply.
If they are forced to sell channels on an individual basis, watch for pricing that makes it obscenely expensive to buy just the one or 2 channels you actually want, so you opt for the 'package' and get more then you need... Much as automakers do when you purchase a new car..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Where I live (State College, PA) there isn't a monopoly. We have 2 cable companies to choose from: Adelphia and CEI. They actively try and market to each other's customers. It hasn't affected prices at all ('cept for those "introductory" rates for new customers), but it has forced them to pick up more channels. Adelphiua was here for years before CEI came in. After CEI was there for a little more than a year, Adelphia added several cable channels that it's customers had been begging for for years (like Sci-Fi, History, and H&G).
-Ab
Nothing fails quite like prayer.
Hmm.. That's pretty sweet. Even though most of my friends can speak at least 2 languages pretty fluently, despite being raised in public education.
Anyway, can exceptions run for office and stuff? I want to be the first Exception President.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Sure, if the Cable Companies are required to offere services a la carte they might just gouge their customers by charging $5 a channel, but I doubt they'd get away with that. The cable companies have gone a long way to make sure that they aren't seen as villians, and that might break the image they've maintained so far. One thing they will almost CERTAINLY do, however, is link cable Internet packages exclusively to the more expensive all-inclusive packages. "Oh, you want cable Internet? Ok, that's either $50/month without a package, or $25/month when you sign up for one of our 4 premium packages (that will all, of course, include those channels you don't want, and perhaps some premiums like HBO, etc that you can't afford). We don't support a la carte channel selection with our cable combo plans."
As for me, I'd welcome a la carte programming. I don't watch anything other than ABC, NBC, CBS, and FOX, all for football (and I get those for free over the airwaves), History, TechTV, and CNN. I don't need the Fishing, Golf, Telemundo, CSPAN, TVGuide, FOXNews, etc channels. The only time I watch them is scrolling through to get to one of the 7 channels I do watch.
And instead of trying to offer ala-cart, they will just decrease the cost of cable across the board. They have to realize that installing selective filters on millions of homes for JUST what that person whats to watch would be FAR more expensive than just lowering monthly costs by 1/2 or more. Get with it Comcast!
No I didnt spell check this post...
We already know how willing they are to lie and fabricate numbers to get the legislation they want. In Tennessee, they've fabricated ridiculous statistics they claim are "losses from theft of service" in order to push through the MPAA's SDMCA bill. It's in the legislative committees right now and Tennessee Digital Freedom is working hard to stop them.
There's an e-mail campaign going on right now at Tennessee Digital Freedom to try to let legislators know that the SDMCA is wrong for Tennessee and that monopolies like the cable companies do not need additional protection from government. If anything, CONSUMERS need protection from the monopolists (and their lobbyists).
I encourage everyone to visit the TNDF website, check out the e-mail campaign and let politicians know what you think!!!
I admit it, I'm the bitch when it comes to stuff I like also. Yes, if the ticket price to ROTK was $15.00, I probably would've done it. And YES, I'll be getting the special handcarved edition of ROTK in November - the one with the cut scene of Gimli's tobacco chewing accident.
:)
Seriously though, Slashdot is probably one of the last places to talk about entertainment on TV since I suspect most of us consider our cable modems, ADSL lines, and T3's to be our main source of fun.
Think about this for a moment: How much would you pay for broadband - if you had to? Can you live without it once you've had it? Given no choice would you be a provider's bitch yourself and pay double - TRIPLE? I'll bet you would. Hey! Why not get Discovery HD thrown in as a package deal, hmmmmm?
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
So do the cable companies in Japan, clearly an enlightned place (if we ignore things like, oh, the treatment of the burakumin and sangokujin) require people to pay for channels in Korean, French, or Swahili, even if they only speak Japanese, Chinese, and Swedish?
Cable is not a monopoly - they provide a television signal, just like satellite providers and broadcasters do. It's ridiculous to have government regulation of a business just because some consumers want it. The top of the slippery slope was electricity price regulation. This is far worse. Looks like we're headed towards the bottom - full fleged Communism. Thomas Jefferson must be turning in his grave.
About once ever few months my cable provider calls me up to offer digital cable to go with my cable modem. I tell them thank you no.
All the points you made are there and the overall good things that you get from digital cable are so limited I'm suprised it sells at all right now. (Goes to show how you can sell a pretty poor product when you are granted a monopoly I think.)
I would sooner go back to broadcast TV before I switched to digital at this point. Lets hope that if some sort of mandate forcing digital cable on us that they improve all of these. However, due to the monopolistic nature of this beast I'm not too optimistic.
Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
I'll get satellite or cable if I ala cart means buying five, ten or 15 hours per month of ANY channel at $1 per hour. Even $5-10 an hour would be Ok with me. I'd even get a Tivo!
Charging $1 per channel for the big guys: comedy central, spike tv, mtv, etc and then have the smaller channels in packages? History, Discovery, Nickelodeon, BET, for like 3-4 a package. Make em big packages too. Group unwatched channels with unwatched channels. And group semi watched channels with more of the same i.e. Techtv with cartoon network. I dunno. I have 100 channels and i watch maybe 4. Not counting the movie channels.
Well, except that this would require that the new cable companies build infrastructure to support this, or force the old company to allow new ones to use existing infrastructure.
I think it should be encouraged, mind you.
"I go down to buy a loaf of bread."
You just can't make stuff like that up. I say he has bigger problems than the cost of cable, but who's to say? Maybe if his cable bill was lower he could afford bread on the salary we provide for him.
In the Boston area, Comcast has to compete with RCN, who has some of the fastest internet access available to the home, tiered priced, and local phone/cable service.
I miss RCN; my roomie had comcast and didn't want to change. Boo on that; RCN 4 life!
Reason, free market capitalism, and individualism
Yes, but its not a true free market. Cable companies have physical advantages of use of a land-line system that they other systems are not physically capable of competing with. Its like saying that, if there was only one car company, that they did not have a monopoly because you can still buy a motorcycle or take the bus.
Lets say there was only MS (sick sad world) on PC. DOn't like it? Oh, just get a Palm. Or a tablet. Or something else that's not a PC. Wait, you want a PC, but not MS?
How about pay-per program?
Let's see - I got about 2 hours per day that I can spend on viewing TV. 3 hours on the weekends.
100+ channels. Do the math.
I'd like 15 mins of news, 1 hour of entertainment, and 45 mins of Science / Tech programs.
News sources are easy to pick.
Tech - Discovery, National Geographic, maybe TechTV.
Entertainment - Cartoons, Anime, few things like Star Trek, Dark Angel etc.
A bit of porn (obvious).
So, would I miss those 90+ channels? Absolutely not. You can keep your Oprah Winfrey show, figureskating championships and Superbowl out of my TV, thank you very much. I won't mind paying the same amount for this because that's what I have time to watch.
Discovering new content? Sure, what are previews and reviews for? Try before you buy is easy to implement.
Technology? We already have pretty advanced set top boxes.
Infrastructure? It's ready.
Bring it on.
Sure if you got the same number of channels it would be the same price, but if you only picked up the channels you want, it may make the cost go down for the consumer. I'm sure someone else really wants all of the religious/CSPAN/Oxygen network choices, but I don't. It might also force some networks to reevaluate. MTV, for instance, might take note if 50% of their viewers dropped MTV and MTV2 picked up.
Honestly, out of the 100 channels you get, how many do you spend more than a fraction of a second surfing past? I probably only watch 20% of the channels I get. If the rates were to double for all of basic cable, but I only paid for the 20% I wanted, I'm still saving.
One downside I see is that networks could become like TV shows. If it doesn't perform well in the first year, it'll get pulled for something else.
"Why should I pay for 15 non-English channels?"
lets see now,
Better Education ? Better TV ? Seeing the world through others eyes ? Learning foreign languages ?
"I go down to buy a loaf of bread. I don't have to buy broccoli and milk to go with it."
Oh, does he mean like "I go down to buy a computer. I don't have to buy Windows to go with it." ?
Pfft...
This reminds me of the old saying: "Democracy is four wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner."
With our current system, less popular channels are subsidized. That makes it possible for channels like TechTV, The Biography Channel, and Discovery Wings to survive.
With a la carte cable plans, we run the risk of sinking to a least-common-denominator selection of cable programming, where the consumer is given viewing choices of pro wresting, Fear Factor, Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?, and soap operas. Small, special-interest channels may go under due to a lack of people willing to pay for them individually. Sure, mom & dad my get the kids to watch a National Geographic Channel show once every month or two, but will they be willing to pay for the channel every month? I bet that most of them won't.
On the other hand, I don't like paying for non-English channels, either, nor do I have any great interest in women's channels like Oxygen. I don't really want the Home Shopping Club or QVC. But I recognize that people who do want those channels may not like paying for The Discovery Channel, The Science Channel, or Speed Channel, either, all of which I do watch.
I'd rather see us go back to the old system where cable rates were regulated. This would prevent content providers from raising the rates too high, because they would know that the cable companies could not pass the costs on to consumers. Now they raise rates and the cable companies pass the costs on to us.
My city councilors and mayor should be talking about this -- not US senators.
No?
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
The correct term is "regional monopoly". It applies to phone companies, Department stores (i.e., target/Wal-Mart & home depot/Lowe's) and cable companies.
Look at a map. Companies know that 95% of people live and die within 10 miles of their home so it's easy to carve out territories.
Buyers like competition but sellers do not. If everyone agrees to keep their distance, everybody makes money. In the South where development is basically new (~30 years) this is a rock solid law of nature. Major corporations stay close enough to carry the banner of free markets but far enough away to make money.
Laws are for people with no friends.
It's the 15 religious and home shopping channels I want to get rid of.
But they'll take away my science channels when they pry the remote from my cold, dead fingers.
Hopelessly pedantic since 1963.
Isn't it racist to refuse to pay for non-english channels ?
Next thing you will want a White Entertainment Channel or Nazi music tv.
...is about the only republican out there that acts like he has any sense!! I could have even voted for him had the republicans nominated him instead of that ape Bush.
Can you imagine how Bin Laden's ass would be pulp by now had he been president instead of Bush?
You guys really don't know much... I'm not saying in "concept" that alacarte channels isn't a good idea, but, in practice, I don't think you would like the results. The reason why you are able to get 80 channels for $35-45/month is exactly because they know that EVERYONE is getting all the channels. So, even though most of the time people might not watch channel "X", if there is some "event" programming, or something more interesting on than usual, they can draw in the "extra" people that don't usually watch that channel. The potential viewership is still there. Outside of the "top" drawing networks (ESPN, CNN, Fox News, Nickelodeon, etc), the other cable networks don't draw really a "large" amount of viewers for most of their programming. For example, lets say you really like Comedy Central. I'd venture to guess if they went to a truly "alacarte" system, Comedy Central would be $3-5 by itself to "add" to your system, because, they still need to bring in so much money. The cable companies pay "X" dollars per customer that receives the channels to the networks. ESPN is around the most expensive, and they get $2 per customer. I'm guessing Comedy Central is like .50-$1 per customer, if that. Now, if they "force" the cable/satellite companies to offer "full" alacarte services, it's not changing the "costs" for the Comedy Central network - they still need the same income from the cable companies they had before. But, now instead of 50 million "subscribers" that had CC before, lets say only 20% of them "subscribe" to the ala carte version. Now its only 10 million viewers, but they still need to have the money coming in when they were getting 50 million times 60 cents. Something like "Tech TV", even more "narrowcast" of a network, would have to charge you $7-8 a month probably to stay profitable.
So, now once you've gotten your 7-10 channels you really want, you would probably paying fairly close to what you would have paid for all 80 channels anyway, and not be able to turn on one of those other 70 channels if something happened to come on that you did want to see. The big "fallacy" people think is that "Since my cable bill is $40/month for 80 channels, if they went ala carte, I would simply be paying .50 per channel". That is truly NOT the case.
Allow cable companies to offer packages AND a la carte programming. For some subscribers, buying just one or two channels out of a package will be more economical (because they know they won't watch the other 6 in the package), but for others buying the whole package will be better (because buying 6 channels a la carte is more expensive than buying 8 via package). This allows those no-too-popular or cult channels to survive while allowing those of us who simply want the Sci-Fi channel (and only the Sci-Fi channel) to pay less.
I don't know if this is feasable technically or economically, but I think it would be the best solution for everybody involved (short of somehow encouraging cable companies to start competing with each other).
http://www.lstar.com/alacarte.htm and http://www.amersatt.com/Pick-a-Pak.htm are two of the companies that google turned up. I have dish network and it looks like my current plan is cheaper than if I got the same stations that I watch via ala carte. Of course, with kids I get a slew of childrens stations that add up, plus we get local channels.
My city has been taking it to the city council about our cable company for TWENTY-SEVEN YEARS. They were fighting Cox before I was born - hell, back when having cable was a social status symbol and most people around here didn't even know what the local cable company was, the city council was listening to people fighting the cable companies almost every week.
What's it gotten us? Not damn shit. Bresnan bought Cox, Charater bought Bresnan, and each one proceedes to screw us harder than the last one, and more people went to the city council to complain.
So, we ran a referrendum. It passed overwhelmingly, and we kicked Bresnan out in favor of Nova (who, at the time, offered 50 channels for $25 a month, compared to Bresnan's 30 channels for $35)
Guess what happened? Bresnan bought Nova, and we got fucked again - as did everybody up in Gladwin county who already had Nova for their cable. We got our 20 extra channels, but we also got another fifteen bucks a month on our bill instead of ten off.
Last year, Charter cut seven channels and increased the price by $8. This year, they're planning to cut two channels and add one that will soon be merging with a channel we already get anyway, and they've already tacked $5 on the bill, with $10 more comming this summer.
Isn't part of the problem with the companies that distribute the channels to the cable co's?? Don't they say "if you want the golf channel you have to take the home shopping network and the watch paint dry channel aswell" or something like that?
That was my understanding at least.
-LR
--Hired Net Grunt
Disclaimer: I don't know how to make this idea workable.
Instead of only paying for the channels I want, I want to only pay for the TV I watch. Essentially make everything pay-per-view. HBO would be more expensive than Comedy Central than broadcast. Now if only there was a good way to decide whether the TV was on or not at a given time. Everything comes to my house and I decide whether to watch it or not based on today's programming.
If you have a DTivo, those channels will be reactivated everyday. If I didn't know better, I'd say it was intentional -- and may be, but not on the part of the tivo (if DTV turns off the channel, the tivo will enable it when DTV turns it back on.)
It's only TV. And you can just get TV for free if you want.
Congress should be worrying about more important things, like the $1Tr deficit they created, or food safety, or.... TV is just TV.
Discovery and the like are more popular than you may think, so I don't see that type of programming going away, either.
Amy
I haven't watched cable TV in 7 years. I find my news and entertainment elsewhere.
Yeah but for some of us there are some damn good programming that we don't want to just drop (Discovery Channel, History Channel, Speedvision).
I wish I could send my money directly to the channels I like with the idea being that I subscribe to only the channels I like. I hate paying $50/mo for the 6 non-local channels I watch. It's friggin stupid.
Then the Big Boys wouldn't be so big and I could support the channels I like.
I am considering dropping my cable though. Those 6 channels are not worth $50/mo to me. Maybe if I could find high quality recordings on the few shows I watch. I haven't had any luck with that so far.
I personally dislike having the foreign channels. I dont want to pay for channels that ill never watch or understand. I will never learn cantonese or korean like some of the channels i get.. I speak spanish partially, but all the spanish channels here ever have on are lame soaps and spanish news or american movies redubbed in spanish...
I think maybe if the english speaking population quits paying for the spanish only channels maybe some of the immigrants (some illegal) who only speak spanish will learn english. The first time i went into a radio shack and everything was in spanish i decided that we've gotten way to liberal about our national language. I think we need to actually go out and say that english is our national language and not go so far out of our way to accomodate those who don't wish to speak it. If we went to any other country the signs would be in their language more than likely, with the exception of some tourist towns/stores.
Anyway.. without going on a huge rant and saying things that i dont feel like having to explain, Ill keep it short. I think we need the ala carte idea, ill dump the foreign channels, and maybe i wont be paying for someone else to dislike america/english/etc. We make a lot of exceptions and a lot of effort to accomodate people who live off of our society but contribute very little back. I think to a degree that if you want to live in america, you had better make some effort to learn some level of english within a couple years or you had better move on.
If your are going to require cable companies to provide any channel ala carte then you need to require any competing company to do the same (Dish systems). It's the content providers that force the MSO's to bundle channels that 95% of the subscribers will never watch. On top of all this I would expect it to be pricey to get an indivdual channel, ~7$. The entire cable network would be forced to upgrade to digital which would cost millions, and all your tv's would require a digital box. And if your wondering, I'm a net admin for a major cable company.
I watch almost no tv - but, there are about three channels that I will watch. The only show that I watch religiously is stargate. This puts my cost per episode @ about $15 a pop. Kind of rediculous. It'd be nice to get local channels and one or two cable stations.
No, they are not.
It varies. There was a cable monopoly in the section of Houston where I used to live. I believe there is a cable monopoly in the section of Indiana where I live now, though as I don't get cable TV ATM I could be wrong there. And in the former case, this wasn't just a natural, "there was only one provider" monopoly. It was an honest-to-goodness local-government mandated monopoly. At some point before I moved there Warner came in and said "We'll come in and run cable TV to people's houses if you agree to never again let anyone else do the same thing." and the local city council said "OK".
I believe what the grandparent post should have said was "Cable companies are often given a local monopoly over consumers."
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Personally I think that TV is the root of much that is wrong with our culture today, and as a result of that I don't really watch TV. The only reason there is a TV set even in the house besides movies is that my roommate watches it a little bit. Despite this fact, in St. Mary's County Maryland we have been blessed with GMP Cable TV who has "Expanded Basic Service" as a prerequisite to internet access. You can get basic service without a cable modem, which is the local channel and some broadcast networks I can get with an antenna. In order to use a cable modem however I need to buy a $26.20/month service THAT I WILL NEVER USE. I get charged $40.95/month just to get the line to my house, and then the internet access fees on top of that. I hope I can turn off all the channels with this.
E pluribus unum
...until I can get real a la carte selection of what I want (i.e., the shows themselves) then we haven't really gotten where we need to be.
Why should I pay for TechTV when all I want is Screen Savers? Why should I pay for SciFi when all I want is ST:DS9? You get the idea.
This is a great move, but the whole industry needs to change to support subscription to individual shows if we are to see real a la carte selection of what we want.
-Tom
I haven't watched cable TV in 7 years.
Area Man, is that you?
TODO: Insert witty sig
Use all the extra bandwidth to serve all programs on demand. The industry is heading this way anyway. Then, the cable provider is just an ISP.
Synergies are basically awesome, and they're even better when you leverage them. -PA
Better alert all of my leftist freaks!
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
I have a couple of ideas on how this could be handled.
1. Have the government pass regulation that cable providers, can't own the lines. Then have all the lines operated by the government. The cable companies could then lease line time. This seems a little bit Communistic, but it would solve the problems of cable startups not being able to afford running their own lines. Although it is not very technically feasible either.
2. Screw the Cable TV industry, have all cable companies just offer internet access, then let the networks stream all of their stuff over the web. Then the consumer can decide what to subscribe to and the network can screw us directly.
And the Federal Government is going to make it better?
Come on. That we have to pay more and more each year for this privilege sucks and all, but hey, at least your opinion means more on Slashdot! :-)))))))
They deregulated the phone companies having ILECs (The big companies who own the lines) let the CLECs (the little guy who wants to get into the home) use their lines. It has worked so far for phones (with of course some implementation problems but its still working)
Evolution or ID?
That still implies that cable companies must offer channels a-la-carte. After that, they can offer whatever packages they see fit, and users can opt to buy into any of those packages, assuming they see the value of doing so.
In my area there are two cable companies, as well as at least 2 satellite companies.
For great justice.
Holy #(@&*@ !!!!! I never knew that. Doesn't seem likely to me. /.ers seem to dis all sides.
Help end the use of Sigs. Tomorrow
I think it's interesting that rates have gone up astronomically SINCE deregulation. Why is it that companies go before Congress and say "If we didn't have all this government oversight and regulations to deal with, we would be able to make more money and charge the consumers less." Well, guess what? The airlines, the savings & loan crisis, the energy companies all started either going bankrupt or ripping everyone off. Then, of course, they go back before Congress and say "It's not our fault, you didn't regulate us!"
$3 a month per channel eh? That's about 1.80 - certainly a nice price for a channel that you watch.
... no more fees in addition either as they are all on the terrestrial digital FreeView system, and you get another 15 channels or so with advertising for free in addition. Shame that FreeView isn't available everywhere yet, and might require a new aerial. ... maybe for $3 per month per channel in the US you should start to ask for advert free programming too, at least on the popular channels.
In the UK, 10 a month (forced, license fee) gets you ADVERTISEMENT FREE BBC1, BBC2, BBC3, BBC4, BBC News 24, 2 BBC Kids Channels (CBeebies and CBBC) and upteen radio stations and local radio stations. That's about the same price per channel
Yeah, it is a package still in concept, the 'BBC Channels package', but it isn't a "Kids Package" or an "Entertainment Package", "Music Package", "Sports Package", etc. It does encompass these all. The issue I have with packages (such as Satellite and Cable in the UK) is that they group by genre. How bloody useless! I want a nice range of channels, I wouldn't mind being able to pick 20 channels to watch that I would watch for the 18 a month I pay for cable with 30 channels that I don't pick and don't watch at the moment.
Which is why Microsoft offers an excellent, low-priced OS, with lots of innovation. Oh yeah, nevermind.
It's called "competition." And there is none, unless you count satellite.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
It's cheap and higher quality than any digitally compressed service. It's a shame many of the services are going digital now..
The holocaust is no big deal. Cable TV on the other hand, that matters.
Game... blouses.
It stands to reason that if cable companies need to unbundle, so do dish companies. And I agree with that -- it will level the playing field, force the two to compete for customers and almost definitely lower prices for the majority of cable customers.
$7 per channel sounds exorbitant to me -- why so pricey? And why the required upgrade to digital?
Maybe where you live it's different, but here the cable company *already* charges a fee every time I change my selection of channel packages. So they can just continue to charge the same fee.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
Nope. This is me.
I agree with your point.
But people who whine about being "borked" by "leftists" should keep in mind that when you lay down with dogs you get up with fleas.
If you speak nothing but French, listeners will assume you are French, or at least from some French-speaking culture. That's how the world works, regardless of whether that's good or bad.
If you rave about "completed Jews" and "family values" or "American heritage" or "western values" you will be assumed to be a neo-Nazi, or at least sympathetic to racist demagogues.
The majority of people who rant about "leftists" and "borking" are rabid ideologues incapable of independent thought. That's who you are self-identifying with in your post. If that's what you want, great. If not, consider choosing your language more carefully.
Is this going to rehash the discussion about a TiVo thinking the user is gay? How accurately could the cable company stereotype me based on my selections?
Example:
(TechTV but not ESPN) + (CNN but not Fox News) + (VH1 but not MTV) = liberal middle-aged dork
How reactionary everyone in this country is, your hear a-la carte cable and right away you think then worst (watch less fox news please). No one is trying to take away the "Train Channel" from you. This will not eliminate cable packaging, it is meant to eliminate the "all or nothing" $150 cable package that we have no choice about. Imagine being able to get an "Educational Package", "Christian Package" or "Sports package" and only having to pay for that content. Or just ordering the channels from each of those packaages that you want to watch and creating your own personalized package. My guess, nothing on tv will change. And hella yea, I would pay for C-SPAN, more than I would pay for FOX, CNN or MSNBC. Maybe we could finally get a C-SPAN news channel with the same ideals of the parent channels (not a ratings whore like the rest of them).
Wow. I might get Fox, because they tend to go out there and show something interesting (this year, Wonderfalls. Last year, Firefly)...but kill it mid season. But that's more than the other 3 are doing.
I suspect _that_ would really shake things up. And if a large percentage didn't get the big three, the advertising consequences would probably bump up the viability of some of the smaller networks.
"Sometimes a woman is a kind of religion, she can save your soul & set you free from all your sins" - Bad Examples
MTV, for instance, might take note if 50% of their viewers dropped MTV and MTV2 picked up.
Except, MTV is mostly viewed by the people in a household who are not the ones paying the cable bill. A sudden drop in subscribers could just as easily be explained by parents angrily dropping the channel, giving MTV back its "rebel" status and making it even more appealing to the younger crowd... you know, the ones with the disposable income.
If you don't believe me, look at VH1, a channel that plays much more music, appeals to an older crowd, lives under the same umbrella... and doesn't come close in ratings or revenue.
Things are (a little) better here. I have a Star Choice satellite dish (http://www.starchoice.com) and while it is true that I still have to buy some packaged channels (a minimum of $22 CAD/mo) I at least have the option of choosing some of the available channels seperately. Thus if I happen to be interested in Discovery, which I am, I can just pay my $1.99 for just that channel and not have to shell out ~$7 for the whole bundle.
It's a lot more per channel, but if you're not going to watch the others anyway...
the best tv on the planet is spanish....they are always so animated and the chicks are hot!!!!
if you don't know the joy of spanish tv you haven't really watched tv
Advertising revenue is based on Nielsen ratings, an inexact measure. Now that we have a list of all those people who watch this low-midrange channel, that changes the equation for small-market channels' advertising prices (for the worse I imagine).
Death to Argument by Slogan!! (This post twice-encrypted with ROT-13. Replies not using same will be ignored)
Do we pay for Internet service by website?
Try to read almost anything on fortune.com and you'll see that in many cases, the answer is "yes". You can even pay for Slashdot and get a little * by your name.
Here in S.W. Michigan, Comcast won't allow me to have broadband without also paying for basic cable. I really don't want the damned cable TV, and _don't_ want to pay for it, but I'm held hostage since there isn't a DSL service or another cable service offered in this area. Besides, even to have DSL, I'd have to have a standard phone line installed. (I only have cell phone service..much cheaper than a standard telco phone here.)
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
This would work about as well as "competitive" DSL, where the phone company monopoly ensures that nobody else can compete (and stay in business, that is).
All kinds of industries use these types of packaging plans to make consumers pay for things they don't want. When you buy a car, you can't just get leather seats. You have to buy the "luxury package" to get leather seats, which also includes expensive upgraded rims, etc.
The recording industry works this way too, "encouraging" the consumer to buy an entire album to get one song that they want.
It happens on the web too. Some sites put ads all through their content, and if you want to consume the content, you are forced to accept the whole package they are offering and consume the ads too. At least on the web and with any digital product, techology can be used as a tool to break these packages apart, so that the consumer can be free to make his own choices.
Will be all the religious channels, foreign language channels and if possible all the public access channels.
Hopefully if this ever happens they don't just make them blank forcing you to still surf by them. I want to completely removed from my lineup so they aren't there. I want it to go from channel 12 to 23 automatically skipping all inbetween.
It's better than no competition at all, and if regulated properly can actually allow decent competition.
Earthlink and simular isp's are basicaly rebranding timewarners roadrunner in my area and i was able to get a business account for the same price as a user/private acount for broad band from them.
The exact same tech that installed my home internet thru road runner came to install the Earthlink cable hook up.
Some items to note though. In the middle of a town with buildings all the way arond having digital cable access and some even with internet, time warner still claimed the needed to waist what ended up becoming 1.5 months doing a site compatability survey before they would commit to an instalation date that came another 2 months later. Around 9 months after the instalation happend we had some problems when Earthlink sent time warner out to fix it, time warner started having a fit about using residential service in a comercial building and threatend to turn the service off of charge us the $300 for access instead of the $43 we have been paying. It took a $500 letter from my attorny explaining our survice was purchased from earthlink and not time warner so they had no right and a threat to file complaints to the ohio public utilities and the state atourney genrals office before they let iit drop.
i would welcome such law only if it had a stipulation that they had to do it without raising cost to the consumer durring the process.
After the recent Viacom/Dish dust-up, we were reminded of the bundling forced on cable operators by content providers -- want ESPN? Then you need ESPN2, ESPN classic, ESPN gardening, ESPN chess, the Menstruation Network, and the Colonoscopy Channel *or* you don't get ESPN. Oh, and because we're providing so many channels, the cost is high, too.
Cable operators have said that forced bundling by the content providers forces them to bundle channels as well, since they could easily sell ESPN ala cart but the 27 shit channels they have to pay for as well to get ESPN wouldn't sell, making it a huge money loser.
I'm generally in favor of unbundled channels, but only if they're vertically unbundled and the cable company only pays the content providers based on the subscriptions they have for those channels. Anything else should be considered a restraint of trade.
...because deregulation was meant to introduce more competition, not fewer choices and higher prices.
This is bunk. You don't need cable, it isn't an essential service. It's probably better for people if they can't afford cable in the first place, that way they don't waste all their time sitting around watching mid-numbing worthless TV shows.
Government-approved monopoly my eye! What about wireless, satellite, or perhaps maybe even broadcast TV, it's free. I can't believe people think the government should be involved in regulating something like this. It'd just be a waste of our tax-payer dollars and a waste of our government's time.
I used to have some respect for McCain, but I'm starting to have some doubts.
That's why I suggest we all grab shovels and start digging up the cable companies lines that run through any property that's owned by the taxpayers.
One of the big pushes for CATV (Community Antenna Television) was signal reception. With the development and deployment of HDTV the signal issue isn't quite a factor. There is better quality programming over the air versus our local cable television network. If someone sought permission to put some of the "cable" channels over the air (maintaining the ability to run their own ad insertion), who would need Cable for anything outside of broadband? In our area (Norfolk, VA), you can get MTV2 on UHF bunny ears, but can't get it on cable without paying $75 for digital. It seems to run a bunch of DirecTV ads, and runs at 19kw or so.
Southeastern Virginia REPRESENT!
"APTN? The Aboriginal Peoples Television Network? I'm sorry that there is not enough people to support such a station, but If I don't wanna watch it, why should I have to pay for it."
Yah, damn native people. They gave (you took?) you all of their land and then they have the nerve to want you to subsidize their channel.
I'll repeat myself: I should have added: When you cancel your account, be sure to write -- or better yet, write and call -- to let the company know why you are dropping their service: make clear what they must do to win back your business.
Better to do without, than to settle for second-best.
-kgj
-kgj
-truth
I had a steady B+ in my AI class until I failed the Turing test...
Cable does not have a monopoly on content delivery. Cable has about 70 million subscribers, compared to 20 million for the two major satellite providers. Nearly all consumers, even apartment dwellers, have a choice between cable and satellite television.
If you look at how the market has changed in the last five years, cable rates have gone up, but quality and quantity of channels have also improved. Cable improved their product to meet competition from the satellite guys, which traditionally have offered better quality and more channels - appearantly what most consumers want.
The satellite guys experimented with a la carte a few years ago, but it didn't sell. People wanted the 150 channel package. "Super size it. I want the best value."
The government should stay out of this particular fight. Market forces are working. The thing regulators need to watch is the mega-mergers between the content providers (News Corp, Time Warner, Disney, etc). It's these guys who have the power now. The cable and satellite guys are nearing a commodity status for delivery.
That is, if Comcast is required to sell ESPN without a dozen other Disney-owned channels
Comcast isn't required to sell Disney-owned channels at all. Under the current oligopoly situation, the cable incumbent and the satellite overbuilders have every right to go all Losing Nemo on their customers, as Dish Network threatened to do with Viacom's channels. Only pressure from the cable and satellite providers, brought on by the FCC's a la carte mandates, will force the networks to unbundle their channels.
I primarily watch "geeky" channels, so this would definitely be a good idea for me. I couldn't care less about the popular channels (except for Comedy Central); I watch the following: Comedy Central (for The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and South Park), National Geographic, TechTV (rarely, it's so newbish), the Travel Channel (if I can't go somewhere, at least I can pretend to be there), TV5 (French), the History Channel, and History International. I used to watch the Discovery Channel and The Learning Channel (TLC) before they were taken over by home-repair, interior decorating, and gardening shows.
On vit, on code et puis on meurt.
in the same way that cigarettes are a nicotine delivery system. Everyone keeps talking like this thing is about Content and Quality Programming and Comedy Central. The truth is that they are marketing to us: "24 is presented without commercial interruption" (remember the next part?) "by Ford."
So this flap is not really about USA/TNT/TBS subsidizing poor TechTV or the Golf Channel. It is about cable companies and content providers selling us things. They gain a lot by packaging channels together: commercials on ABC that refer you to programming on TNT; covering a broader spectrum of demographics (read: target audiences) in the event that you get a girlfriend, a new roommate, or a kid; cable companies contracting for several channels of content at volume discounts... You can probably think of other reasons they would do this.
A la carte programming is a threat to their best practices of marketing: selling White-Male-Age-15-to-40-everyone-listens-to-me 50 channels, Asian-Woman-Age-55+ 5 channels. When we complain that we don't want the Nuts and Gum (together at last!) they listen politely, then laugh all the way to the bank.
No wonder they are so frightened by the substantial overhaul that a la carte would be. Follow the money! There are a lot of connections to sniff out here.
Q: What did the comedian say to the crowd?
A: If I knew, this joke would be funny.
Seriously, if you're a gearhead and you have the real estate for it, get a big dish. There's a ton of excellent free content, all non-free channels are available for subscription a la carte, you get the closest possible thing to a first-gen signal, HDTV broadcasts are available at no extra charge, there are analog and digital bands, packages are available for those who want them, you can modify and upgrade your own hardware, and the net access options are better than any internet offerings a DSS package has ever boasted. Big dishes are a geek dream come true.
Funny, the Japanese are the most racist people on the planet. The only reason they don't look down on Americans is becasue we kicked their ass and they respect our economic system.
Not that I think that's a bad thing, I have endless respect for a country that can effectivly kick the Chritsians out.
You can't legislate efficiency and innovation. The only way is to introduce competition. Sometimes, as we see with Linux, the best competition is a free offering. I think the US government should put up a Broadcast TV satellite and hand out transmission rights to it the way they do VHF and UHF channels (or maybe even a better, more democratic system.) Make it capable of delivering 500 channels (or 100 high quality and 300 regular quality channels) and make access to it free, forever.
A big problem with cable is that the content providers are wanting money simply to allow the cable companies to carry their content. The best (most watched) content is still on the networks that broadcast over the airwaves for free. This is the way TV has worked for years and this is the way it still should work. Let the cable companies scramble over Internet, Phone and Pay-per-view/premium services but make your standard basic cable free.
If widely adopted this could be a huge boost to the economy since many people's monthly bills would go down $30-$50.
set softtabstop=4 shiftwidth=4 expandtab nocp worlddomination
Oh boy, I think I'm being trolled but I have to bite...just in case this AC really is that dumb.
ahem...
No I am not suggesting any such thing. In response to the previous posters assertion that we should keep the government out and let the market decide, I was merely pointing out at least 3 areas where you cannot simply "not buy" and force the price down. In our modern society we cannot survive without electicity for our homes, gasoline for our cars or (for us Canadians anyway) natural gas for our heat. Go on try it. You can't "not buy" these commodoties and survive. Even the poorest person must have at least electricity and heat (either gas or electric). They can't "not" pay for it. If they do, they become homeless, or have to live a feral existance in the woods, thus removing themselves from society. There is not choice but to buy these commodoties.
You know what, the oil companies could double the price of gas tomorrow morning. There would be outrage and probably violence, but in the end, after a few days of riots, we will have to buy gasoline to continue to function. And then you'd be paying $1.50/litre whether you liked it or not. But you know why that won't happen? Because if it did the government (ANY government - my middle of the road Liberal government or the reactionary US Republicans) would step in and force the price back down to reasonable levels. In some places this might mean "nationalization", so the oil companies won't risk it (but they will jack the price up on the Thursday night before a long weekend though, because they can get away with it).
I beleive this is called in-elsastic demand.
My whole point was that with in-elastic demand, the whole "don't buy" bit of the "invisible hand" doesn't work. And with cable, a government legislated monopoly even in my country, it won't work either.
Sometimes the government needs to step in (even if it's this kind of further legislation or to remove the monopoly).
Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
Actually, I happen to be one of Senator McCain's constituants. And yes, this is something he has been fighting for for quite a while.
Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
The only thing I miss is Bravo, a couple movie channels (AMC and TCM) and an occasional C-Span interview.
I'm much happier overall.
I have felt for quite a while now that the god-awful programming on some of these channels has been artificially propped up by the fact that we have been forced to purchase them, if channels become ordered on an a la carte basis every channel with have to stand on it's own and hopefully the awful ones will get better or get shut down.
I don't have cable, and don't plan on getting it unless an a la carte plan is offered. The channels I want are indeed those that appeal to the "intellectual minority", and the cable company won't get anything from me until I can get exactly what I want.
Same thing for my parents, but for a different reason. They don't want my younger brother wasting his time watching crap TV, but they would be interested in more educational programming than is available via RF broadcast.
This already exists
Self-referential sigs are rarely entertaining.
Yes, Nielson rating aren't exact. They are based of statical data sampling. This method is not 100% accurate but it is close enough to base a business around. Just like the election polls there is a margin of error of like +/- 5%. If I was someone that was going to pay for advertising time based on 100,000 people seeing it I would be that upset if only 95,000 saw it. Especially if I knew the risk up front. Second the low-midrange channel would be the one to choose weather to change cable companies for their station or give it away for free and relay on advertising. If that channel believe that their rating will go down it likely not a go move for them to make.
As a fellow michigander, I have a few words for you:
Dish Network
DirecTV
(either, just take your pick. I'm on Dish myself but they're basically equivalent).
We have Charter at our house, for the broadband only. The cable quality (even digital cable) doesn't meet the quality of Dish, so we had it disconnected the day after they put it in and never cancelled our Dish subscription.
Dish and DirecTV are also way cheaper than cable. DirecTV right now has a guaranteed infinite price lockin. That's what they told me on the phone yesterday, anyway; they guarantee no price increases, ever.
I'm not sure why people are still subscribing to cable. The systems and the install are free, it's not legal (per the FCC, fed trumps local) for ordinances to disallow your mounting the antenna, the picture is better and the packages are cheaper.
OK, a few people have no clear view of the satellite due to buildings or trees. But not that many.
Much of the increase in cable rates can be attributed to sports programming. The players certainly aren't improving at 3x the rate of inflation. Sports are a huge sinkhole for money. The players and owners want more money every year, with no limit in sight.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
why cannot the cable company offer selection at the head end and not place the burden at the CPE end? when should we start sending email to our senators and congressional representitives in support of this bill ammendment?
I don't think that the exorbitant ticket prices charged at the ball park cover the mega-salaries of the athletes involved. Television revenues are probably the bulk of the ball clubs income. They are probably the CATV providers biggest expense and the bulk of your cable bill.
this should go into effect! (and i thought i read something on ./ a couple years back how it was supposed to by law, but somehow *all* of the cable companies just forgot)
honestly, the only channles i would be remotely interested in having are cartoon network, history channel, maybe a couple news channles, fox, and probably discovery channel. maybe food channel too.
if this gets implemented, imo they should HAVE to charge equally for EVERY channel. that sounds fair to me, since we right now, HAVE to pay equally for ALL of the channles yet, we only want ONE.
Troll, Troll, go away and flame again some other day
And the whole point of this is to make it cheaper by doing so. If it somehow raised the prices for cable, then we'd start seeing price limits enforced on channels until the cable companys can either deal with playing nice, or look for another means of revune that they have been stuck with since the beginning of time. It's a lot like the music industry right now - No one wants to pay for entire CDs when there is only a SINGLE song worth listening to. They've already adapted somewhat, you can download those single songs alone. Granted, they have a ways to go still, and are still coping with the fact that sueing anyone who downloads them because its not available yet actually makes them lose money in the long run...
To be prefectly blunt: Evolve or die.
That's a great idea, it would kill Tivo and Replay, and they couldn;t market prime time ad slots anymore , since anyone could watch their shows at any time, but I personally would appriciate that.
It'll happen one day, but by that time, all we'll want to watch is "Wheel of Fortune" anyway.
"I remember the day when..." is a fallacy. Yeah, yeah, "back in the good, old days" everything was better... uh huh.
Are you suggesting that reference to the anecdotal values of propositions in an earlier time period is never a valid antecedent in an argument? Either you put exceptional faith in "official" history, you don't understand the word "fallacy", or you're a dumbass.
--Having a cable connection is like having a meth pusher on speed dial. If you've used it once, you'll want more. If you have easy access to it, you'll access it frequently, and spend many hours staring glassy-eyed across your living room, happy as a potted plant, losing your mind synapse by synapse.
We truly live in a nation of living dead.
I can't believe they're legislating this nonsense. "We the people legally demand the correct dosage and we want it affordable!" (Twitch.)
Goebbels would be tearing up with pride.
-FL
So yeah, that'd be great.
Al Qaeda has ninjas!
Longer version of article is online here.
"Why should I pay for 15 non-English channels?"
Because they're more interesting/entertaining than most American TV even if you don't speak the other language.
You can have my cynical agnosticism when you pry it from my cold, dead logic.
get your facts straight.
Why? Because cable is an easier way for most people to get HD, with more channels than are available OTA, and you don't even need to buy a DTV tuner to take advantage of it, unlike OTA. All you need is the box, which is required anyway for more than just basic analog. Run the component outs to the HD set and voila!
HDTV, if anything, will only solidify the current positions of both cable and satellite.
Apparently you've never tried to watch Telemundo!
They'll just have to come up with a regulatory structure that encourages compliance, not avoidance. SBC regularly gets fined for anticompetitive behavior regarding local competition and DSL providers, but continues to do it and thinks of the fines as just another business expense. If they were bigger, I doubt that would be the case.
Maybe we can keep Grandma from watching QVC and the 5 other "home shopping channels" we have. If she doesn't have those channels, maybe she'll quit ordering crap like "The Clapper!"
Damn it.
I'd love a la carte programming. I never watch the 6 Spanish channels we get. Tivo likes to record crap in Chinese for me, too.
I used to want a choice in cable channels. I'm not a big sports fan, so I'd rather not have ESPN, nor QVC, etc. But after I thought about it for a while, it would probably be more expensive to have it ala carte, since the cable networks set the prices for their channels.
Think about it for a second. We have, what, 108 million cable subscribers in the US? Round that to 100 million for simplicity. If each cable channel (ESPN, CNN, Discovery, etc.) gets $0.25 per subscriber, they get $25 million to cover the costs of production. But if all of a sudden, we have all but 1 million of those people no longer paying, the channel only gets $250,000. So if it actually takes $25 million to produce the shows, then they're going to have raise their costs to $25.00 to make up the difference. Do you want to spend $25.00 a month to pay for SciFi?
Whether or not it costs $25 million to run the channel is open for debate.
Well something has to be done. Yes cable has to buy in packages, however they never even pass that option to us. It not like I can say, give me the Viacom and Time Warner, no Disney, etc. (With cable at least, and who wants a 12ft dish in the backyard that has to rotated to recieve C-Band (how the cable companies recieve it, yes you can still get it this way)) You also have to have the full basic package to get HBO which is offered seperately*. Why can't I just say give me HBO, showtime, cinemax, starz and thats it, nothing more - screw the basic stations, if I am going to pay I will have no commercials or CENSORSHIP.
True.
But then the concrete on your roads would nver set for cable companies laying down cable.
Not true. If the first cable company lays a fat enough conduit, the follow-on companies only need pull cable, not tear up the street. Wet concrete is not the problem.
The problem is, the cities get a kickback from the cable company in exchange for the monopoly license. The city is loathe to give up the revenue source and so grants the monopoly. You, the cable consumer, pay the tax in the form of higher cable fees. Sometimes, the city screws you both ways - both by collecting the hidden tax in the form of the kickback and being up front and tacking on a cable tax.
It's the city's fault that the cable fees are so high - not the FCC's. Let two or more cable companies do business in your area and watch your cable fees drop.
but what happens to the cable companies which regardless are being strong armed into taking channels regardless
Unlike PC's vs. Palm vs. Tablets is not the same as Cable vs. Satellite. The only advantage of a land-line system vs. Satellite I know of in my area is cost effective Internet Access and local cable access channels.
My Satellite TV is cheaper, higher quality signal, and I get at least as many channels as the cable company offers - with the exception of the local channels showing the city council meetings and elementary school plays.
I don't think you can call anything a monopoly if there are competitive choices. Every car has strengths and weaknesses, so do cable providers vs. satellite providers. It doesn't mean they aren't competitive, comperable services.
Find coupons in Greeley
This bill would mark the beginning of a new age in entertainment. They'll have to start focusing on filming stuff people are willing to pay for, not just willing to tolerate.
When Ma Bell got broken up and several operators were allowed to sell long distance services prices plummetted. I think they have low price calling plans now that include not only the US but Western Europe. It's only a matter of time before you can call anywhere in the world without having to sell your firstborn to pay for it.
The problem with cable in most areas is that there is one cable operator and satellite, and that's it. What if you bought your basic cable service from an Regional Cable Operator (like a RBOC) and then purchased your cable package separately from one of several competing content providers? They could then compete on price and selection.
The cable companies may complain about the loss of less popular channels, but that's a smokescreen. Some people will want huge packages like we have today. And some media conglomerates will buy multiple niche channels and sell them as a package to content providers. Most of the premium channels work this way anyway; when you buy HBO you get multiple channels that can serve different niches.
The cable operators would hate this, and now that they are parts of huge media conglomerates they have lots of resources to fight it. that's why we need government intervention to make it happen.
You almost can. First, you buy a C-Band satellite dish. Next, you buy yourself a copy of OnSat. Now go to your local satellite dealer and provide them with a list. You may in some cases have to buy certain channels in small packages (Comcast's channels come to mind, e.g. Comedy Central), but at least you won't be paying $50 a month for 150 channels, 100 of which are home shopping. :-)
That having been said, while I know people who did this many years ago, your mileage may vary these days.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Does any one else here get the idea that we as a country are WAY too pampered. I mean, seriously, how can you complain about being "forced" into cable television. No one needs cable, and there are a lot of alternatives regardless. This isn't a bunch of "Evil Corporations" making you pay through the nose for life-giving services. In fact, the services they offer aren't particularly spectacular or useful at all. We have no right to complain about an entertainment company failing to entertain us cheaply and effectively. Why can't people just go do something that's actually fun for a change? Or is it just that everyone's forgotten how?
cable companies aren't allowed to offer the same packages they do now.
I'd imagine it'll be more like pay your current rate for all the channels OR $5 per channel plus a base rate.
For people who only want a few channels, the $5 per plus base will be a better deal. For those who want a lots of channels, it's better to just stick with the current plan.
Nothing really changes for people who like having hundreds of channels (most subscribers) and the cable companies pick up parents who would otherwise not pay for cable because they're forced to have access to channels they deem inappropriate. When you have to block more channels than you watch it's better to just not have cable for many parents. If they could not have those channels come to their home, that's much better.
I'm sure lots of parents would be happy to pay for a few channels like Disney, Nickelodean, and Discovery if they didn't have to have all the other crap comming in with it that they have to worry about their kids stumbling onto.
But as it is, they just don't buy cable. If cable companies aren't retarded about this it's very easy for them to not lose their current base of subscribers and also pick up people like the above.
Ben
Work Safe Porn
Give up television totally. - You will not have any cable bill. - If you have kids you will not spend money on junk advertisements aimed at children programmed your kids to nag you into buying. - You will gain several hours a week to devote to other things. - Many studies have shown that people who watch less TV weigh less
heh, there is no chance in hell I would pay to add one of the bible channels, but I have to admit that sometimes I am shocked by how over the top it is and watch for fun.
I don't get cable any more, but half the fun is monitoring culture. There is some pretty crazy shit going on out there. Is getting a bunch of random channels for one price really such a bad thing? What happens if this is mandated but nobody buys it, are they allowed to drop it?
I can't believe people are saying things like this honestly and frankly. How can you say that you are forced into buying things you don't want? Do you need leather seats? Pop music? MTV? CNN? If you have the money to throw away on this crap, you shouldn't complain that some corporation managed to squeeze a little extra out of you, obviously you don't need it anyway. It's your own fault for being so greedy that you think you need all that crap in the first place.
Now if we could only get the FCC to open up telephone lines for "raw DSL" (DSL service without telephone service), I'd really be happy....
-- Sean Chittenden
Either less channels will be available under the a la carte model, or the price per channel will be increased. Cable companies or companies creating content will need to take in the same amount of revenue, so if less people buy it they will just have to charge more per person or go out of business. In the long run this will either lead to higher per channel prices or less channels. You could also just cancel your cable entirely and do more useful things with your time than watch TV.
Since when was cable in any way a necessary service? Can't you see how absurd it is to complain that someone you pay to entertain you charges too much money for it and doesn't do a good enough job. Why don't you entertain yourself for god sake? This is nothing the government should be concerned with. Regulating the entertainment industry more would just be more wasted tax dollars with absolutely, positively no benefit to society what so ever. Complaining that someone making you buy a luxury you don't want is absurd, because you don't need to buy it, period. Cable companies bundle like this because they know they can squeeze a bit of extra money out of people who are willing to pay for cable. You know what, there is nothing wring with that. If you're spending this much money on something you don't need, it's obvious you have the extra money. This doesn't hurt anybody.
"I'm not sure why people are still subscribing to cable."
One of the main disadvantages of satellite TV is you need a decoder box for each room you have a TV in. I think they charge extra for more than 3. We have 5 TV's in this house. Plus you would have to pay more for the cable internet connection if it wasnt bundled with the TV.
Although the price of cable is ridiculous, it's really the endless scrolling through all these unwanted channels that irritates me. I'd be happy (sort of) paying the same price, but would like the option of removing from my menu these channels I never, ever watch.
For instance, I could start by removing Fox, MTV and all the religious channels from my menu. I'd still be paying for them, so the poor things wouldn't go belly up, but at least there'd be fewer channels of crap for me to scroll past on my way to something better!
Only hald the bandwidth in an ANALOG cable system is ever used. That gets you about 120 channels. That means that 2 cable companies can compete on the same network. Digital cable allows about 6 standard deffinition cable channels in the space of 1 analog channel (hence the push for DTV). This would mean a cable network could support 720 channels, or 6 competing companies with 120 channels each (i don't think we need 6 to make this work). The cable companies digitize the cable networks anyway. You just pay extra to have it digital to the home instead of having the D/A converter in a green box down the road.
Once the cable is laid, you wouldn't need to add anymore for there to be sufficient competition. And FYI, in my area we have COX cable, and they laid 2 wires for Cable TV when they installed cable in the area. With that, we have way more than enough bandwidth to supply competition.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
-Maskirovka
I thought I remembered this story (or a similar one) here and here from 2002.
It seems that the FCC was enforcing regulations that forced cable companies to unbundle PPV and premium channels such as HBO. Reading through the second article it seems that this current call for change is what people were asking for all along. Both the calls for changes and reasons for not going al a carte are given.
I would say that said enforcement hasn't made much of a difference in the last two years.
I subscribe to DirecTV, receive over 200 channels, and am sick and tired of nothing (practically) but infomercials from 11:00 or so at night until 5:00-6:00 in the morning. It used to be that infomercials were restricted to the extreme wee hours of the morning, now you can see them any time of day or night. I'm sure these are very profitable for the networks that air them, since it's pure advertising revenue, but enough is enough! Put them on the free airwaves, but if you're paying for television content, cable or dish, you shouldn't have to be subjected to this midless crap. I have never bought anything from an infomercial or shopping network, for that matter. Nor will I ever!
Excessive drinking is fine...in moderation.
Infact, I believe ala-carte has been required outside of Maine for some time as well. Most cable-co's just don't advertise the fact.
(or why regulation is a bad thing)
1. This is a demigog issue. Appeals to people's emotions well. Who WOULDN'T want cheaper cable or anything else for that matter? This is as bad as saying Republicans want to starve children. McCain, like most politicians, serves one thing, and one thing only - himself. He likes being in front of cameras, what better way than to spout crap like this?
2. Going back to an old saying, "if you don't like it, don't pay for it". If 1/4 of all cable subscribers stopped paying for the service, the cable companies would change their tune in a hurry. I'll admit I hate paying a high price for cable (my current bill tips in at $155.46/month). Why do I pay? Because I want to. I want the service, it is NOT a necessity. Let the market do its job. Money dictates what happens. If you don't spend the money on the bad service, you don't reward the "evil" companies, robbing them of what they want. Once denied, they'll come back to you like a drunken whore offering everything for practicaly nothing. Look what has happened since true number portability was forced on the phone companies? MASSIVE price competition. But instead of using regulation to force cable companies, use your money to force the change instead.
3. *CRAZY IDEA WARNING* - Want some real competition everywhere (cable and phone companies?) Take away all their wires, and build a group of wire/fiber companies who charge everyone for installation/maintenance of wires, colocation etc. In my crazy world you could then have real competition with companies if they got charged for the same wires they are "forced" to sell to ILEC's. If the so called "evil" content and service providers (phone, cable, whoever else), didn't own their infrastructure (and thus bitch about having to sell it to their competition and losing money on it etc, it's horse squeeze), I think some real change might be brought about. I'm generally not in favor of excessive use of government authority, but I'd be in favor of this sort of deregulation. Given that the technology we have today permits the Internet to find my computer behind a cable modem, I would think universal access for everything can't be far behind - if we demonstrate with our money that we want it.
Here is my idea for a better model for Cable TV. If Congress is going to mandate things, this is what they should mandate.
Make Cable TV simply be a high speed internet where every program provider can make themselves available without having to contract with every individual Cable TV company. The program providers then choose whether to make their programming available free and unencrypted, or encrypted with different payment schemes such as pay per program or pay per month.
The whole idea is to separate the infrastructure provider from the content provider (or as in the case of electricity and gas, the energy provider). With the exception of requirements to carry the basic market over-the air TV stations, Cable TV service should be entirely ala-carte. With digital transmission and encryption like we have now, and computers to interface directly with users and control the access to programming, it should be a very cheap and easy thing to do in the long run.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Somebody has to maintain that Cable Plant, so who the fuck is gonna pay for repairs if 3 parasites leach off an expensive city wide setup a company has invested millions in? Little Ma & Pa Leach will offer to replace the $75,000 Booster Amp (And pay for labor and have it done right and not purchase sub standard equipment with their Ma & Pa budget.) with no legal action...pffffttt pull your head out of your ass. It's a perceived monopoly by those too ignorant to do a little REASEARCH to learn the facts behind things. If you want to compete, find the money a cable company has to build a cable plant that brings you what you want, and while your at it design a coax switch so whining bitches like you with nothing better to do can have a company come out and swap you month to month as you decide who to spend your panhandled money on. Then you can patent your coax switch and pay your bills and not get pissed at others because you no future in fast food.
Cable TV was built off of the community anntenae idea, literally a big ass antennae on top of a high point selling the better reception it gets. When greedy channels like ESPN showed up it was no longer a matter of selling access to your better ability to receive signals. Now that company has to pay greedy ESPN for their programming, and in turn resell it to the masses since after all it is a business not a charity. Cable Companies don't EVER want to raise their rates on their customers. But when the industry changed towards reselling programming, and then providing it to all their customers with different options such as analog, digital, HD, internet, and PVR now you are talking about millions more having to be invested into extremely specilized hardware/software, setups, engineers, maintenance, upgrades/updates. It also leaves the Cable Company at the mercy of those greedy channels, just like they get caught in the middle of the DMCA with their broadband customers.
Here are the facts:
1.) If you want just the middle of one slice of bread, you still have to buy the whole loaf. You cant just pull out one slice, trim the crusts and expect to pay for just that at the register. Can you buy smaller or different loaves however, yes! Get serious, this is exactly what McCain is talking about with "Ala Carte." If you are gonna get that picky, use an appropiate analogy.
2.) Should the Government ignore Adam Smith yet again with *their* shining examples of great decisions and money management, consumers will pay up anyway. Additional *everything* needed to make this happen will be financed by somebody. Not to mention maintence and updates.
3.) Cable Companies don't want to raise rates and piss off those who keep them in business. Being in the industry is not the only thing that tells me this.
4.) I find it a little unsettling that with all the other serious problems America has they have to make this any sort of a focal point. I personally think that making sure every American child be able to see a doctor regardless of income a bit more pressing that Billy Ray Joe Bob being able to only tune in ESPN. Maybe even trying to fix the social decay that produces some of this planets most aggressive and violent creatures. (How many serial killers can Canada sport, or mass murders, or wars/"police actions" ?)
-1 Overrated (Too many big words for me to comprehend)
Even in an analog system, you wouldn't need filters, just a cable box. For years, COX has offered for-pay channels right next to (and in between) the regular cable channels. The way they did this was by having them SCRAMBLED. You can scamble an analog TV signal easily. Just give each channel its own cypher, and give the boxes the de-cypers for only the channels the require. For years, whenever the power went off we would have to call up COX (automated phone system), type in our telephone number (so they knew which residence we were) and the cable box would get updated overthe network in about 30 seconds or less. So, it wouldn't be a technicall nightmare. They have been doing this for YEARS.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
I would only buy commercial free movie channels and Fox(for the simpsons,king of the hill etc.) if I could choose what to buy.
I'd buy HBO and/or a couple of channels that run
old or independent movies commercial free and Fox.
As it stands now, I pay nothing for TV because I'd have to spend over $50 a month to get those few commercial free channels that I want, because I would be forced to also buy about 1 million other commercial clutter, garbage channels that I don't want.
I have endless respect for a country that can expell illiterate, ignorant fools. You probably hate Christians because you think they are intolerant, but how can you not choke on the irony of your own intolerant position?
On the other hand, this could help some smaller, non-mainstream channels. For example, a friend of an acquaintance has been starting up a new TV channel. I get email messages from their publicity person all the time reminding me to write my cable company and ask them to include their channel. Small chance of my local cable monopoly capitulating, even though the channel is one I'd probably watch.
I imagine it would be much easier for their small channel, with its spread-out network of devoted fans, to be seen if people are willing to pay the cable companies to show it.
Your fantasies contain the seeds of important concepts.
Worse than that. The local town gets some small sales tax on all items sold via home shopping channels in that town (at least, this is the case in my local town where I used to be on the Cable Advisory Committee). So the board of selectmen are more than happy to see 5 or 6 QVC, HSN ... channels, and actually supported removing the NASA channel and something else (I forget what right now) from the local line-up to make room for another shopping channel.
Cthulhu Barata Nikto
Well, I guess I should mention that I was lucky in being able to switch. Most of the houses in my neighborhood do not have good enough South Westerly exposure to be able to switch. I may have to do some major tree trimming in a few weeks, but we'll wait and see what happens. While I was able to switch, many in my area don't have the choice.
-- Charles A. Plater
Here's the problem with these blanket "If enough consumers blah, blah, blah" statements that I always hear on /. and from my friends. Enough people never do.
You're quite right -- there's virtually no way I can "make a difference" with my ideas, not on the big scale of really changing thing about which I'm complaining.
But that's the nature of SlashDot: it's a forum for the exchange of ideas, nothing more. Use it for what it is, then let it go.
Of course I won't be checking back to see if anyone actually did anything with my suggestion. All I get is my karma-whore points (more, I suspect, for the saucy title of my post, than for the actual contents); and the slim, unknowable possibility that someone found the post interesting.
But real social change? Naw, that ain't gonna happen.
-kgj
-kgj
And you bring up the question of whether you were born that stupid, or did you need education to become that opinionated misinformed clod. I know it's popular on non-leftist circles to claim everything should be dealt at with lowest possible level. Preferably at individuals hamp rope & white hoods level. But that doesn't make it factually correct, or informed... it's still just an opinion based on idealism, not facts.
The main problem is that your precious city council has precious little power over anything related to (big) companies. They can close done Joe's Porn Shack, sure, but the second they try to fight with a Cable Co, they'll be ass-whopped so bad they forget which city they were counciling over. Or outright purchased. Or both, in whichever order it happens to be this time.
Same applies -- but even more so -- to little f(l|r)ies like you and me. While I do agree in that customers should try to change things, I disagree in that they are only allowed to use their purchasing power. My opinion is that rights that we, the people, have granted for entities called companies, we, the very same people, can also take away. And we most definitely need and should NOT feel bad about doing it. Hell, we should be PROUD about using powers we have, seriously and responsibly. But I guess you'd rather grab your ankles, at the Holy Temple of Free Markets without Evil Selfish People; decline to use your REAL powers to get decent treatment from corporations. Sort of like econo-pacifist; will not raise your hand against corporations, as a matter of principle.
I agree with these concerns completely. It is the governments involvment that has things as screwed up as they are now. The government catered to the cable companies in their fight against satellite which gave the cable companies an unfair advantage. There were years when the sat companies could not carry local networks. There are still cable channels that the cable companies keep to themselves to maintain unfair advantages. Comcast for example has Comcast Sports Net in Philly that then proceeds to carry every Sixers, Phillies and Flyers game but it can never be viewed on sat. Then to make it worse, because they have TV rights, they force a black-out on the sports packages on Satellite so even if I buy the NBA season pass I can't see the game. Before you create even more regulation that I agree will most likely make things more expensive to most people (not to mention our tax money spent to fund it), we should be focusing on making competition easier. Sure, they deregulated cable but for the most part the majority of people still only have one option available to them.
Steve Hendrie www.stevehendrie.com
ESPN has raised the rates it charges Cable providers as well as Sat. providers far more than the cost of inflation - that is the number one reason that your bill is higher - they are the most expensive channel for any provider to deliver, yet - everyone seems to want them (I for one would kill for a cable company that says "Hey you don't watch fucking overpaid athletes play a game for money instead being productive members of society - sure thing here is our sans-ESPN/FOX SPORTS/SPORTS-O-RAMA/ETC, ETC, ETC package!" but that just ain't gonna happen.)
I have probably spent about 1 or 2 hours in my life watching ESPN, and I watch a hell of a lot of TV - and I would be damn glad to not pay for the rest of the subscriber base to be able to watch it - you want your damn sports - pay for 'em, I'm sick of it!
Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence in society - M. Twain
It is not their land.
nt
If you fallen into thinking that the Sci-Fi channel generates the bulk of its revenue with cable tv licensing I suspect you've forgotten about tv advertising. Advertisers pay for the overhead.
Quack, quack.
If we were in charge of the channels we picked, would this mean that stations like Comedy central wouldn't be bleeped out when people swear, and stations like usa wouldn't be forced to edit the movies they show?
This is something I'm very happy about. I've followed Andy Dufresne's example in The Shawshank Redemption. Persistence can payoff. He got his books for the Library, and with all the letters I've sent to my Congressmen/Congresswomen it looks like it might just payoff.
I'm tired of paying for 6 spanish channels, 12 infomercial channels (ugh), The women's channel, among others. Give me Discovery, History, Weather, TNT, TBS, ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, WB, all the news channels, and all the sports channels, and I'm good to go. I even find Tech TV a waste of time, but thats only my opinion. If I had the choice; I wouldn't pay for it.
If they knew what was good for them, they'd vote for Bush!
" Lawmakers report that their constituents are angry about cable bills that have risen at three times the rate of inflation since the industry was largely deregulated in 1996."
Not that I represent the average person, but I haven't complained about the bills slowly creeping up. During that time, more channels have appeared, then cable modems, then digital cable, etc. So yeah, now I'm paying more than I used to, but I also have video on demand. If that's what it takes to get these services going...
I can imagine others not feeling the same. But I personally don't have an issue with it. Besides, cable hasta compete with satellite and now TV shows going to DVD. I've already decided I'm not watching the Kingdom Hospital show anymore until it comes out on DVD. I swear they only have 20 minutes of content and the rest is all commercials.
"Derp de derp."
That, and not everyone can get a clear look at the portion of their house to 'see' the satellites. And, if you're renting a house....hard sometimes to talk the landlord into letting you drill and install things on the outside of their buildings...
Still working on it tho...
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Comcast already has a limited version of this; went home to visit my parents and (they have HBO) caught up on the last few episodes of various HBO shows on my own time. Watched a couple movies, too.
Not everything is available through Comcast's on-demand system, but a surprisingly large amount of content is. HBO and Showtime both seemed to have simply added *all* of their content for the previous month to the on-demand listings; wouldn't we all like to be free of trying to catch the 2AM showing of some movie?
As to losing prime-time ad slots; instead of pricing ads by timeslot, price them by show; an ad on "Friends" is expensive, an ad on "Joe-Bob's House of Fishing" is not.
---
Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
(I read with sigs off.)
They make me pay for all sorts of SHIT that I will not ever, not in one million lifetimes, ever watch.
Like the sewer channels of MTV, BET and other related filth.
Or 30 fscking shop at home channels. No.
Or all the womens channels. No again.
There are about 10 channels that I ever watch out of a possible 225 channels. I won't pay for all the other bullshit that I won't watch and don't allow in my home.
Until they go a la carte they can kiss my ass because they won't get a red cent out of me.
Change your offerings and you can sign me up, if not, then get screwed..
Comcast markets services for Time Warner cable here. Which is funny because Comcast has an exclusive contract with my city (St Paul, MN). Its like they're taunting us...
-- sed s/liberty/profit/g US.Constitution
Perhaps this is off-topic, but I have a question about digital and analog cable: why is it that analog channels still exist? What's stopping the cablecos from forcing everyone into having digital service?
Is it a money thing? Read: financing digital cable boxes for one (or more) telvision(s) in every subscriber's home
Is it an uncertainty thing? Read: why move everyone to new cable hardware now when the move to HDTV will soon need to be addressed at a cable level
Are the cable companies waiting to see what'll happen in regards to television manufacturers incorporating digital cable tuners and access card technology directly into TV sets?
Is it due to a combination of everything I've mentioned...?
Just as this post described... if analog service was eliminated, there would be more room for better picture bitrates and even faster upstream bandwidth... so what's the hold-up? Or did I already answer the question on my own...?
I average less than a dollar per channel now, why would anyone figure it to be $5 or more if this went through?
Corporations are evil - they will simply charge extortionate fees to discourage uptake of things they don't like.
You mean like when Comcast decided that *not* providing me with cable TV suddenly costs an extra 15.00 a month?!? Sons of bitches - I'll never spend another dime on any of their products. I've got DSL now, and I'm happy.
Amusing. Frankly, I have a lot more use for the spanish channel than I do for some of the other crap they make me pay for. Oxygen? Lifetime? MTV? Fox News? To hell with that. And my fricking cable company has this mistaken belief that TechTV is too good even for the premium subscribers, so I'd have to upgrade to super ultra premium at 150 dollars a month just to watch it.
If I had the choice I'd have about 20 channels; it pisses me off that I'm contributing to the continued existence of channels like the Home Shopping Network and TNN.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Several years ago, Bryan / College Station, Texas had two cable companies that competed directly against each other. In many areas of town, you could could call one cable company up up, cancel his service, call up the other, and subscribe.
The result was fabulous cable service at a low price.
When they merged, the price went up and the quality went down.
What I'd like is an ala carte service on Dish network. There is only a few channels I'd like to watch, primarily the Western Channel and Fox News. Why should I pay for all those other channels I don't want?
"Bottom line is, cable companies have a government-authorized monopoly, so maybe they need to recieve government-mandated "innovation." "
Government authorized monopoly? If you knew economics, you'd know that that was redundant.
The answers are IPV6 and Socialism.
Intellectual Property
Intellectual: of the mind
Property: that over which one has control
If you are paying the cable bill you obviously think the product is worth the price. If you don't think it is worth it why pay for it? thane
If there were no God, there would be no atheists. -- G.K. Chesterton
People are addicted to TV worse than crack, and if you're the only dealer in town there is nothing to motivate you to improve.
... I gotta sit facing away from it, or my attention span will get sucked into that tube-induced alpha-wave glow ....
That's for fucking sure. I managed to kick the habit -- but man, if it happens to be on in the corner, like when I'm visiting friends or out at a bar
-kgj
-kgj
The real issue with high cable cost is this:
Cable companies screwed themselves over when they tried to consolidate to compete with satellite. They bought smaller companies during the dot com days, and paid huge premiums for customers, thinking that HSD would help recover all of that money. Well, guess what. It didn't. So most of them are left with a huge debt and they are being beat up by satellite.
I believe that you will see the current cable giants collapse, and a whole slew of smaller, nimbler multi-service companies (tv, voice, data) will buy up their infrastructure for pennies on the dollar.
Disclaimer: I am affiliated with a cable company of the latter type (the smaller, nimbler company buying up bankrupt cable companies :)
There are two main reasons that you currently pay for channels you don't want.
2 001-90.htm
The first reason is because the government says so (in Canada anyway). The CRTC has "linkage" rules that demand that the cable company include certain channels in their basic lineup. See here: http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/INFO_SHT/b303.htm and here: http://www.crtc.gc.ca/archive/ENG/Notices/2001/PB
So, your government is forcing the cable company to carry channels that you don't want. If you don't like it, complain to them about it.
The second reason that you pay for channels that you don't want is because with a standard analog system, it's not feasible to deliver individual channels. Filters exist to block out ranges of channels (the different packages available to you), but it's not feasible to create filters to block individual channels, and then go to each house and block out huge numbers of channels.
You would end up paying far more per month for the 4 channels you want than you currently pay for the 60+ channels you don't want.
With digital service it's very easy to allow subscribes to pick and chose individual channels. And, in fact, many cable companies do allow you to pick individual digital channels. There are often discounts if order a package, but you're not required to.
The disadvantage of digital is that you need a set top box to watch it. So, no longer can you have a couple of splitters in the basement to feed your 6 televisions. You need a set top box at each one. Which, you pay monthly rental fees for, or purchase outright for upwards of $400.
The industry is moving towards more and more digital all the time. But it will be a long time yet before analog disappears because there are still many many people out there who don't want to upgrade.
This could promote true competition. If I found ESPN was too expensive, I could shop around for another sports feed. Even better, I may be able to watch individual shows. Often times the History Channel shows a lot of crap. I'd love to be able to watch the documentary I want--not commercials disguised as information.
The technological hurdles to such a future are rapidly being cleared. Video codecs are improving. Electronics prices continue to fall. Until we can support the producers of content directly, rather than blindly subscribing to channels who may or may not program what the individual wants, we're no better off.
Oh, and forget CSPAN. ALL open government proceedings should be taped and/or streamed for ALL citizens to view. Taxes should pay for it too. All we need to do is buy ONE less bomber this year . . .
harmonious design
... Bottom line is, cable companies have a government-authorized monopoly, so maybe they need to recieve government-mandated "innovation."...
I'm surprised no one has jumped on this before. I have spoken with the public utilities commission directly about this subject. The above statement is not true.
C//
People like to have an alternative to go to. However, if it is not something they feel strongly about they do not want to spend their limited time and energy on alternatives. That is one thing many of the more vocal yokels in the linux community do not get when they ROTFM, "GOOGLE", or scold someone for asking a question without digging through a bunch of web pages. If you are not an enthusiast, you may not have the time or want to spend the time to make that alternative work. To make many alternatives work involves searching, reading specialized docs ( howtos, man pages etc ), futzing, and getting use to overdone interfaces. Too much information
Why should someone who only watches 2 hours of television a week pay the same for a couch potato who watches 15 hours?
Just a thought
The "best" shows are already on cable.
How many recent network tv shows make money by being sold on DVDs in bookstores?
That said there is a lot of crap on cable.
If people paid by channel.......or even by show it would further reward the good stuff and it would suffocate out the trash.
Maybe the sci-fi channel would finally get the message(s) their alienated former fan base tried to give to them.
Maybe the cable companies would get the message about excessive commericals if less people bought shows with too many.
Vive La Choice!
Steve
How many serial killers can Canada sport, or mass murders, or wars/"police actions" ?)
A few. Robert Clifford Olsen and Robert Pickton come to mind, just for B.C. I'm not sure about points East. That said, we have much fewer murders per capita generally.
One valid reason might be if you speak 15 non-English languages. (Now I feel like that C compiler that, upon certain syntax errors, would output snippets of the ANSI standard, followed by, "I know you don't care. I just want to annoy you.")
Wooo Hoo... now we get to see 14 hours of MXC on Spike TV - April Fool's Day!
MXC is awesome. I wonder how many Japs actually know we are making fun of them! ha ha ha ha
Libertas in infinitum
So why can't I get *just* that from my CableCo? Just the stuff they pull off their big antenna that they don't have to charge me for (local stations plus whatever else they can get at no cost). For whatever reason, I can't. They are insisting on adding all this other junk that I'm paying for but don't want. Now whether its broken government regulation, or the CableCo lying about it, it seems pretty clear to me its not the fault of the consumer, who is simply being denied the service he/she wants, the *very* service that the CableCo's were created to provide.
I'd like to be able to get cable internet without having to pay for TV at all.
Retired from software... maybe. Sort of.
This is not "innovation", I dislike that word immensely, it is overused. I could forgive the use of it if they made a piece of hardware or software better, or reinvented the wheel, but offering a la carte cable is hardly innovation in my book. That lumps it in the same category as like cancer drugs and artificial hearts.
I hate sigs.
This is a very tricky issue. I think if the bill passes, people will ditch channels that could potentially broaden their horizons. On the other hand, I don't like golf, so I can choose to not get the channel of the same name. I think that John and Jane Q. Public will drop channels that are "boring", like Discovery, A&E, TLC, etc. While I do believe there is an awful lot of tripe on television (how many reality shows can there possibly be?), occasionally, there is something I want to watch on a channel I normally do not. What if you think you don't like Anime, then it is 3 A.M. and the only channel with anything on is the Cartoon Network? Hmm...this Anime stuff is pretty cool. Never would have happened if mommy and daddy decided they did not want the channel. What I hope is that if this passes, the regular package with all the channels will cost less per month. I do agree with the basic principles, showing that we have a voice, and using that voice to get things done, even if they are largely symbolic. When these companies think they have us in check, it takes something like this to make them stop and think about pleasing the consumer, rather than doing the bare minimum for a captive audience.
I hate sigs.
I haven't had cable at home in about 6 years now, and since moving to DSL last summer, I haven't turned my TV on for anything but DVDs. Trust me people... if you stop watching TV for a few weeks, you won't miss it. Save yourself $50 alacarte or otherwise, and just stop watching. :)
That being said, if there was a $20 package for Comedy Central and my local channels, I'd buy.
Your sig: "Me fail English?" is actually a partial Ralph Wiggum quote: "Me fail English? That's unpossible" from episode 2F05 - Lisa on Ice.
Credit where credit is due.
Well, here in San Diego Cox offers it's digital subscribers different groupings of channels. The minimum you can pay is $9 and that gets you the "standard" Discovery * channels (Wings, Times, Health...) plus one extra group. You can pick from stuff like the Sports & Info (Tech TV, G4, Fox Sports World... - what I got), Movies (Encore *), Lifestyle (History International, Food, etc), International, and 3 others. Each group is $3 (1 for $9 (rip), 3 for $12, 4 for $15), has about ~10 channels in it, mostly in the same theme (although some seem to be where they are for monetary reasons - how is History International not in the Info group?).
And you don't even have to get "standard" cable, I pay $12 for basic (local channels), which gets me $10 off on broadband, then $9 for digital, and $3 for the box... that's a ton of channels that I actually watch for $24. Granted, I think they expect that you pay $30 for the "standard" cable, but considering I (would) watch about 5 of those channels, I'm much happier only paying $12 for 5 channels which I watch - I can always go over to my friend's house if I need to see something on one of those channels.
Yeah, it's not true a-la-carte, but I think the grouping of channels is sort of necessary - both for convenience and costs. And I also don't advocate totally breaking up the "standard" channels - certainly your local channels should always be available, and some stuff like the Weather Channel that you'd never go out of your way to pick. But there are plenty of households where the interest in sports is limited to the major events (Superbowl, World Series, etc) and would never watch the sports channels (ESPN, Fox Sports) - which I hear are some of the most expensive for cable to carry. I like the general interest (USA, WGN, Spike, COM) and informational (DISC, HIST, SciFi) type of channels, and barely watch anything else. I think it would be a great service to break apart "standard" cable into chunks that are $3- $5, and I can say it's defnitely nice the way it's working right now.
Kurdt
I'm not anti-social. Just pro-technology.
You greedy whining little crybaby...
Just up and GIVE things you to, what you are you 3 years old and need your diapy changed??? This is a BUSINESS we are talking about you crybaby not a *CHARITY*! If all you want is local stations, put your own fuckin antennae up and wait for your diaper to be changed.
Moron...still can't read to even try to research or do it your damn lazy whining self.
I hope you have not bred...
I wasn't talking about charity or asking for things for free, you made all that up just as an excuse to start the name-calling. Another AC with nothing left to say but insults. Good-day.
Well, the real origin of the problem we've got now is Washington. Many years ago, the cable companies had to make agreements with local governments that specified such things as the maximum price they could charge. The Reagan and Bush I administrations pushed through deregulation that voided most of the provisions of those contracts, but kept the monopoly status awarded by them.
There were also provisions that required the cable companies to carry local programming in their basic lineup, and prohibited local television stations from charging them to do so. Those went away.
So, in order to fix the problem they created, Washington is going to have to be involved.