Slashdot Mirror
John McCain Working On Legislation For 'a La Carte' TV Channel Packages
An anonymous reader writes "John McCain, Republican Senator for Arizona and former U.S. presidential candidate, is drafting a new bill that would pressure TV providers to allow customers to select and pay for only the channels they want to watch. The bill will also 'bar TV networks from bundling their broadcast stations with cable channels they own during negotiations with the cable companies, according to industry sources. So for example, the Disney Company, which owns both ABC and ESPN, could not force a cable provider to pay for ESPN in order to carry ABC.' Perhaps most importantly, the bill could 'end the sports blackout rule, which prohibits cable companies from carrying a sports event if the game is blacked out on local broadcast television stations.' This would hamstring the ludicrous practice of blacking out TV broadcasts in order to drive fans to buy actual tickets to a game. The cable and satellite TV industry is expected to push back very strongly against the bill."
Wont pass though.
I can have my dream package of just home shopping networks, pay-per-view previews and c-span!
I have a feeling this will all be moot soon. Youtube are about to unveil subscription channels, and we already have Hulu, Netflix, etc. All we need is an idiot-proof box for the living room so that grandma can surf all these channels with her "clicker" and we'll forget there ever was such a thing as cable tv.
Is this man not president?!
inb4 trolls
It's called internet streaming and no cable
the bill could 'end the sports blackout rule, which prohibits cable companies from carrying a sports event if the game is blacked out on local broadcast television stations.'
Why not just end all blackouts, whether on cable or broadcast TV?
There is added value in buying a ticket to a sporting event over watching it from home. I've never heard anyone say they bought the ticket because of a TV blackout.
Go John go
I gotta admit, I just took a Nelson rating diary survey, and all its done is made me realize how much I'd like to cancel my increasingly expensive cable service. I watched maybe 8 hours of broadcast TV during the week I kept the diary.
"Give someone a program, frustrate them for a day... Teach someone to program, frustrate them for a lifetime."
Well, these are things I wish the companies would do, but making a federal case about it? I don't see the justification. These are terms negotiated in contracts for cable TV - I don't see a compelling reason for the government to step in. Is there some right of the people to get the TV channels they want at the price they want that I don't know about? Am I missing something?
my, your, his/her/its, our, your, their
I'm, you're, he's/she's/it's, we're, you're, they're
Finally someone goes to bat for the consumer of these shows rather than the big cable companies. My fear is it will never pass because too many of his Republican friends don't want the cable companies to lose profits.
And expect the per-channel price to be sky-high. Having said that, though, I hope it passes.
The idea of a la carte pricing for cable tv is probably nearly as old as cable tv. They've been talking about it forever and never getting shit done.
About 3 years ago I gave up and became a cord-cutter - internet only for everything. I don't give a damn about pro sports (bread and circuses) so it has worked out great for me. Now if only I didn't have to buy my internet access from a company that is also a cable-tv provider...
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
What's the catch? What odious crap is hidden in this bill?
tv and politicians need each other. neither can afford to make the other *too* mad.
You tube is coming with specialized channels at $ 1 per month (hopefully i'll get all the sports i'm interested like world-football/ MLS etc) along with netflix/amazon-prime for series/movies (i don't care if i am a few season behind) ...i'm good.
Writing laws to protect the entertainment industry? What kind of crap is this? Just take away their monopoly protections, and problem solved.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
The answer to too much government is more government.
Ala cart channel bundling? Great idea! No moronic sports blackouts? Another great idea. Making law to FORCE companies to do this? Horrible, horrible idea.
We like to pretend we believe in capitalism around here, then the "small government" party ( ahahahaha ) goes off and pulls something like this.
If the market hasn't provided for this capability yet, it's because people don't want it bad enough. Simple as that. And while many will point out how difficult it is for your average person to fight against this, I would point out that the barrier is lowering, and has been since the advent of the internet in everyday lives.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Only watching internet streaming (mostly Netflix) and OTA broadcasts. On demand streaming is the future. Got tired of paying nearly $100/month for 200 channels, of which I would only watch 10 at most. Wanna bet if they sell a la carte, each channel would cost $5-10 month plus a $25/month "maintenance" fee?
This is too little too late. Forget saving these dinosaurs, I want to see them crash and burn.
I have about a 50-50 chance of strongly liking or strongly disliking legislation he proposes.
I'm sort of assuming that he's going to eventually turn this in a proposal to require unbundling of both cable packages and Constitutional rights.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
I've always been mildly surprised that no one has argued that channel bundling violates Section 3 of the Clayton Antitrust Act. Basically the networks and cable companies are engaged in tying which can in some circumstances be illegal. While it may be legal in this case it seems to exist right on the edge of legality. I've never been convinced of the argument that channel bundling is in the best interest of the consumers and it certainly is only possible due to the market power of the companies involved.
TV volume and a la carte TV channel selection. These are the things their constituents really care about. It's about time they did something.
I haven't ever in my life subscribed to cable, but what the heck. Why is a politician, in particular a Republican, telling cable companies how they have to conduct their business?
Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
One thing I'm interested in seeing is the consumers getting to see the details between networks and the content providers when they go to renew. As one of the people who is ultimately going to pay for it, the details of the current contracts and the new contracts should be fully disclosed to the end consumers. That way we can decide whether the increase in our bill is actually worth it in the end or not.
THey also need to forbid the cities's from entering into exclusive contracts to allow only one Cable/Internet provider for an area.
No wonder we are a country of ignorant fat ass's and the rest of the world hates us.
Ignoring the merits or lack thereof of the proposal, isn't this sort of thing exactly the opposite of what "conservatives" claim to be about? And doesn't McCain claim to be a conservative?
There's another reason McCain is behind this: A la carte cable is a very popular idea with the social conservative faction that holds a lot of influence within the republican party. The FRC has frequently put out a public call for something like this. Their motivation is in obscenity and indecency: They really don't like the idea that good christian conservatives have to pay for the raunchy entertainment and liberal media channels because they happen to be in the same bundle as the Disney channel and Fox news.
There is another issue with providers that needs to be addressed.
I was looking at Verizon FIOS packages yesterday and notices something really bad.
For 50\25 Internet it was $90\month
For 50\25 Internet + Prime HD(210 channels) it was $90\month
Whats wrong with that picture?
Oh my, the Cable/TV lobby must be falling short in their campaign contributions. This is sure to alleviate the shortfall.
The execs will get their money no matter what.
He's been talking about this for a LONG time now.
Excellent. Just in time for nobody to give a rat's ass any more.
sig: sauer
John McCain is taking a stand against a practice that has been going on for decades, he must really care about what channels he falls asleep in front of.
What does it say about a candidate if he thinks that one of the most important issues facing the nation is which selection of cable TV channels people can subscribe to. What's he going to do next? Highway speed limits for horse-and-buggy carts? Food safety regulations for roadkill? Video game ratings for Pong? Bad as Obama has turned out to be, McCain would have been even worse.
This really had me scratching my head because the legislation is about 20 years too late. Then I realized that it's John McCain, and his constituency are probably seniors who still watch a lot of cable. I'm not exactly young, but even I just download or stream something if I really want to watch it.
Proverbs 21:19
MLB team zones are to big and not all RSN's have full coverage. A la carte can help may makeing rsn's your choice to buy or not and let the high cost ones be on more systems looking at CSN NW, CSN Philly / TCN Philly, CSN Huston, up coming dodgers channel, ect.
The common theory is that the republicans want smaller (less) government and the democrats want bigger (more) government. But this is a myth -- they both want bigger (more) government, and it's easy to see why.
1. Over the past century, the US government has been dominated by the republicans and democrats. Neither party has dominated alone; they have dominated this period together, with roughly equal standing.
2. If the objective of one party was more government, and the objective of the other party was less government, then logically, one would expect their efforts to more or less cancel out over this period.
3. They have not cancelled each other out at all. Instead, the US government has grown by orders of magnitude. The US government has expanded nearly exponentially, in both revenue and power over the people, over the past century. We are talking about the largest and most expensive government AND world empire (with military bases in some 150 countries) in human history.
4. The only rational conclusion is that both parties want bigger (more) government, and will continue to want more government indefinitely.
Cable has become a joke! It's Springsteen's 57 channels times TEN today. The major content providers are extorting the service providers because they know it's an all-or-nothing deal. Even though maybe only 1/3 of customers watch ESPN, no service provider can reject the entire ESPN suite because they know that's a deal-breaker. And the major content providers use that as an excuse to package 3-4 satellite channels that show the same content and charge more.
It's insane that I can surf through dozens of channels and see nothing but crap on. With a la carte, content providers will HAVE to produce quality and not rely on being a filler dial number. I could care less if 1/2 of the stations go away. And, the bullies like ESPN (I think averaging about $8/mo of your cable bill) won't have service providers by the nuts any more.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
some Blackouts are not based on selling out. Also some teams have games on OTA channels that do not cover the teams full zones but you get lock out of those games even when you get the RSN games on your local RSN's.
lot's of other stuff.
to go dbstalk for and search blackouts for a lot more info.
the cable companies hate their customers but love their money.
Although the post suggests this bill will get a lot of resistance from the media, one of the biggest contributers to John McCain's Campaign was Newmax. Go ahead and look it up on www.opensecrets.org. You can find there who donates and how much to any national politician. My question, if this is so bad to TV and such, then why would a News Media organization be one of the top contributers to his campaign? It doesn't make sense. Politics doesn't work that way. What is REALLY in this bill?
The cable and satellite TV industry is expected to push back very strongly against the bill.
This is nonsense. Cable/satellite industry execs have have been saying for years that they'd love to sell customers fifteen channels for ~$20 month instead of 100 channels for ~$50. I'd expect Comcast and Time Warner to fight this legislation simply because they own channels that are often bundled, but Verizon/CenturyLink/DirecTV/Dish are going to be all for being able to draw in customers who don't want to pay outrageous prices for channels they don't watch.
...in North America. I'll let you in on a secret. We would LOVE if every one in America canceled their video service tomorrow. Video is one of the lowest profit/highest cost services we offer. We don't force you to pay high cable bills for shitty channels no one wants. The broadcasters do by forcing us into bundles. "Whats that? You say your a cable company who wants to carry local channels or some other must have to survive in the market channel? Well you have to pay for all these other channels you don't want, that your customers don't want either AND we're gonna tell you what tier of service to put it on! AND make you pay a ridiculous cost per subscriber whether they use it or not! How do you like that? Whats that? No, no lube for you." Cancel your video services. When no one wants it we can quit maintaining it and paying for it and broadcasters will be forced into changing their business model into something more pay-for-what-you-want, on-demand and streaming like the market has been screaming for for years.
These are my opinions and not necessarily the opinions my company, managers, or coworkers.
While having local sports events blocked from their local cable may upset some viewers (the few that are left who actually watch TV), the real commercial problem with a la carte delivery of cable service is the money-making channels that no one will select. How many people will sign up for the Home Shopping Network or the many other shopping channels if they must pay to receive them? The religious channels also have a problem. Some number of people will pay for them, but the channels rely on people wandering in by accident or impulse for their outreach goals. They will wither and die if only the choir shows up for the service. Both the shopping and the religious channels provide a lot of income for the cable providers. If they are not there (because subscribers are forced to pay for them), then the price of everything else will go up to maintain the cable company's income stream. This should nicely accelerate the decline of cable/satellite broadcast media and move everyone to Internet services even more quickly.
This is my rant. On Verizon and Time Warner if you want the FuelTV channel which is where the MMA fights are covered live, you can only get it by buying the most expensive package. It's their Super duper deluxe with a bazillion channels I don't care about. But it's the only one where you can get Fuel.
I tried to think, but nothin' happened!
What the devil is the federal government (or, indeed, any government) doing, telling companies how they need to package their sales offerings?
In the best case, this is micromanagement. In the worst case, follow the money, just who is paying for the legislation, and how are they going to use it to screw consumers?
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
.... sounds like a good Bill title
I thought the GOP stood for smaller government?
The govt should stay the fuck out of the cable TV biz and let the free market operate.
John McCain, thank you for your military service to our country, but please kindly go fuck off and retire. You've turned into a rino socialist libtard in your old age. You've now become as big of an embarrassment to Arizona as Janet Napolitano.
I don't think we need legislation to unbundle cable channels, if consumer demand is strong enough it will happen. The problem is too many people just pay their ever-increasing cable bills and perpetuate the problem.
How would you like it if Congress decided to come unbundle your products or services?
Same old John McCain serving himself and getting ready for his years watching tv in the senior home.
...not holding my breath though.
Verizon FiOS currently has me over a barrel. My family watch shows on only a handful of the 200+ (probably 300 or 400 by now) channels that I'm paying for. Of the three channels we watch most, say A, B, and C to protect the innocent, the lowest tier of FiOS has none. The second tier has A but not B or C. The next tier has B and C but not A. The third tier has A, B and C. So I have to pay for next to the top most expensive tier to get the three channels. Add to that the fact that to watch it I have to rent a couple of "set top boxes" (quotes because it's under the set because you can't balance it on top of a flat screen) despite both TVs having perfectly good digital tuners sitting unused. Why do I need a decoder box when they have a huge box bolted to the side of the house? Can't they decode it in that and let me use my own TV tuner?
I don't think most people have thought through the what would actually happen if TV went a la carte. The only stations that would survive are the ones that get the most subscriptions (money), not necessarily the same as those with the best content. It would be a major shakeup far more reaching then just content providers and broadcasters.
I took the dive and cancelled my TV subscription years ago. The one thing that I miss is live sports, particularly my hometown NHL team. Im quite certain that those sports teams in my hometown that rely on TV funding would fold with a la carte TV funding as they can't even sell out the seats.
So they pass a law saying cable companies have to let you get your channels a-la-carte. So what? Cable companies will offer customers the "package" for, say, $100, or individual channels for $25 each. Who would go for that kind of-la-carte price?
Finally, a reason to love the conservative vilification of Hollywood! (Brought to you by... Hollywood! but I digress.)
The business model for cable television relies on bundling, where a portion of your monthly cable bill goes to all those channels that you have access to but don't watch. If this bill passes (FAT CHANCE) it will utterly change what cable looks like.
Fictional example: The Dogfood Channel gets 1 cent per month for every subscriber. But because Dogfood's parent company Viacom requires any cable operator that carries MTV to also carry Dogfood, the 200 million cable subscribers with access to MTV mean a revenue stream of $2,000,000 *monthly* for Dogfood. Most of which is shared back to Viacom, which spends maybe $10,000,000 *annually* to produce the warmed-over reality advertorials on the channel. That's $14 million in profit for Viacom on just one channel.
The big TV producers have a huge incentive to invent new channels full of cheap fluff, and force cable operators to carry them.
Cable companies, by the way, will likely be in favor of this legislation, because if subscribers only pay for what they want, and the operators charge overhead on each selection, then they stand to make more money then they currently do. At any rate, a larger percentage of what subscribers pay will stay with the cable company, rather than going to access fees on all those channels they didn't want to carry in the first place because nobody watches them.
It will also make the local advertising that they sell worth more because there will be way less inventory, and the ads will reach a much more targeted demographic.
On the other hand, if I can get a la carte channel service via the cable company, why not just skip the middleman and order my channels directly from the producer, via internet streaming?
This bill will never pass, but only because it destroys the business model of a handful of big, powerful TV production companies. Consumers and cable companies would both benefit, at least in the short run.
I have had my issues with John McCain and his politics in the past, but this is just GENIUS!
Do you think it is in the purview or expertise of the Federal government to tell private business what products they must offer?
"The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
What's next though? Will they force companies to allow you to buy your shows ala cart as well?
Cable isn't vital, government has no business in it.
If people don't like the current pricing/business plan, they should stop paying like so many have done.
This AC has worked in the cable industry for almost 10 years. Consider a property with 1200 apartment units that an MDU PCO (Multiple Dwelling Unit Private Cable Operator) has a contract to provide cable, Internet, and VoIP service to. This is a very common situation in the US. To do this, there's a headend room with a bunch of receiver boxes in it, each set to a channel, with their outputs fed into a modulator with a single coax cable output. That coax cable output is run throughout the complex, feeding all 1200 units. When someone signs up for service, a cable guy is dispatched to go remove the frequency attenuator (the "trap") to let whatever block of channels through that they're paying for. The frequency bands aren't that tight though; you cant stack dozens of them up to allow channels 6, 8, 19, 22, 35, 56, 63, and 68 through and disallow all the rest. Even if you could, the profit margins are such that the PCO, who is at the mercy of both Dish and whatever payday-loan bank that owns them and siphons all of their profits off in the form of interest, won't stay in business long. Cable companies that are nothing more than resellers of TV and that maintain the last mile and bill the customers are not even break-even. They are slowly-die-until-investors-pull-the-plug, and aren't going to implement ala-carte. It'll take a complete disruption - new infrastructure, fiber, new business model - to make ala-carte to the majority of US residences happen.
The reality is that it's not going to happen. Ala-carte viewing will come, and is already coming, in the form of what people watch on the Internet. Everybody but cable company executives seem to understand this.
While I applaud an old, white Republican for not being stuck in the past and trying to push forward, it's a touch too late for TV.
But, better late than never. Maybe I'll buy a few channels if this finally happens.
I don't subscribe to cable TV or even watch broadcast TV anymore. And I don't even watch shows in the internet.
The effort of finding a show worth watching - and the suffering I would experience watching the advertisements that accompany these shows have discouraged me completely. Finding new shows on my own isn't worth the reward of some novel entertainment (discounted for the horrible, soul-crunching advertisements.)
Broadcast/Cable TV have lost to the internet - and the piss-poor internet service in the states make spending your time doing just about anything else more worthwhile.
You recognize the hypocrisy.
The people spewing the vitriol know themselves as pillars of virtue, the true keepers of the light and the one ring.
No brain, no pain.
The cable company doesn't buy a bunch of channels and then sell them at a fixed markup. They charge what they think you'll pay.
Look at it like this - the cable channel offers "The Entertainment Channel" and "The Knitting Channel" as a package for $10 a month. Everyone wants the entertainment channel. Only a handful want the knitting channel.
They're forced to offer a la carte. Since 90% of their subscribers have no interest in knitting, we can assume that we can charge them $10 for the Entertainment channel on its own.
The reason they bundle the knitting channel is that a few subscribers don't think it's worth $10 for that alone. But for the bundle they'll pay the extra. The Knitting channel gets a trivial amount of the subscription fee.
Under the a la carte plan, you pay the same amount but get less, unless you're also a fan of knitting, in which case you pay $11.
How is this better?
Good to see our tax dollars at work, focusing on the real issues.
I thought the Republican party was about getting government out of people lives? Maybe it's for everything but cable television. And women's rights. And marijuana. And indecency. And religion in school.
OTHERWISE, they're totally Live Free or Die.
And, by the way, no one should care about cable anymore. Seriously.
Yeah, if TV was perfect I could just pay for a couple channels. But, do we need legislation to ensure I get the kind of TV package I want? This isn't a life or death situation. This isn't an inalienable human right. It's TV channels! It's one of the ultimate luxuries in the history of the world. Has tv ever really enriched anyone's life THAT MUCH?
Right now i have the option, as a consumer, to not pay for any tv channels. I exercise that option. You know what? I'm actually really happy with my decision. I get more than enough entertainment through netflix and online games. Yes. TV packages are a bad deal, but it's not like we, as consumers, don't have options.
When i think about it, subscribing to a channel isn't even what i really want. What I want is just a' la carte shows. Even with a channel you are locked into that channel's schedule. It's archaic and backwards if you ask me. Oh look, those options like netflix and hulu (and pirating) are already giving a superior option in my opinion.
The real reason it won't be liked by the content providers (dish, direct tv, cox, comcast, etc), and the channel providers (espn, tnt, discovery, etc.) are all tied to how they currently have their systems. The content providers won't like it much as they have to upgrade their network. They have this aging dinosaur of legacy cable in the ground, and have oil can type filters on their channels. This will require every TV to have a digital box on it to work. Yes they can amortize the cost by charging you $10 a month (or more), but that is not what the customers really want. They want to pay as least amount they can. Imagine a house that has 4 TVs (as many do), and now you are paying $20 a month for service (what is going to be required, just so you can be billed), and $40 just to watch shows on your 4 TVs. That is $60 a month before you pay for the content ... Now you are going to pay for each channel you want. Lets say you are a professional sports enthusiast, and want your channels. You need ESPN, TNT, TBS, NFL, MLBtv, plus the locals just to watch all the games and playoffs. That is probably $20 a month right there (according to cost (before markup) that is paid to each channel by the content providers). We have not even gotten into the costs that are there to watch "shows".
Channel providers have tied their contracts to "cost per seat" style licensing. This means if a content provider has 1.2 million subscribers, they have to pay 1.2 million times the going rate monthly to the channel provider to "carry" that channel, regardless of number of people who actually subscribe to that channel. They love this model as if they can get a critical mass of people (look at AMC and when it was not carried on a cable network, and they almost had a revolt when "walking dead" came back on), they can force more money from the content providers. This is exactly what they want, and don't want to have to deal with real world market forces. In fact, many channels would go away for good if people had to pay to get them. Look at things like FX, which does not have original programming (to my knowledge, it might now, I don't have cable, and use appropriate channel for my point), but only shows re-runs. Who is going to pay for that? Not many people. But since they are now bundled, and at little cost to the content provider, they ride on the coat tails of another company. If they had to compete directly, they would be ruined in months, and disappear.
This is what they have to address with this bill, should it be good for Americans. They need to provide a way for the content providers to have a service, and they pay for as you go, and pay for the services you use, and not screw the customers for the costs of the upgrades that have so long been needed to their decaying systems. Secondly the channel providers need to realize that they have to fight for time and eye balls now. They have to provide content and actually have decent programming. I don't know how they are going to pull this one off, as these two markets are already established, and the massive changes needed will not be in the final bill passed and we will get some bastardization which wont help anyone (like the health care bill).
Of my 1000 channel choices, I have, 24/7, 10 devoted to Dog the Bounty Hunter, 20 to new-age religion, 20 to old-age religion, 20 to new-age vampires, 20 to clairvoyant detectives, 200 to shopping and infomercials, 50 to soft- and medium-core porn (when I can get the hard stuff free on the net), 20 to fishing competitions, 20 to trash food (cooked on top of your car engine while you drive), 99 to trash sports, 300 to foreign language programming in languages I don't speak, 2 to high-school girls' volleyball, 5 to News for Voles (no, wait, that's Monty Python) et cetera ad infinitum. I would in fact pay extra to DELETE these channels, leaving the 100 or so choices I might actually watch.
Quick - define "moderate" without using your own ideology as a guide, and be intellectually honest when you try.
Being willing to consider all ideas regardless of whose "side" those ideas are associated with, and being willing to move incrementally forward and make improvements to the country (i.e. progressive, not reactionary), but unwilling to rush big changes and break what already works without a secure alternative already in place (i.e. conservative, not radical).
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Speaking as someone who has only voted for Libertarian presidential candidates, you're crazy if you think both sides are balanced in their craziness.
I realize there's plenty of derp on both sides -- as evidenced by your example, but it's generally not divided equally. I'd say the division was much more equal a decade ago, but it simply isn't that way any more.
I don't think listing examples is an effective way to argue about the absolute magnitude of derp. Listing examples of delta derp might be more efficient.
McCain's are the best.
He is about as far from one as possible. This is blatant interference in private commerce. Nobody is compelled to have cable fiber or sat TV. If the providers dont want to do a la carte, that is their business in every sense of the word. And if content producers want to bundle their offerings, that is their right as well. And please don't think for a minute that McCain is doing this for the people.
You need to be RINO if you want a bill to pass the the Senate. Plenty of "real" Republicans can get bills passed in the House that go nowhere in the Senate.
You also got to wonder it the bill would outlaw Netflix and Hulu. Those are subscription based TV where everything is bundled together. If people wanted A-La-Cart they would use Amazon or Itunes.
al-la-cart on on the Internet is not doing to well. I am pretty sure Netflix uses more bandwidth than Amazon and Itunes combined.
Hope this passes so I don't have to pay for 200 channels of crap just to get the five channels I watch.
A Republican pushing for something I potentially agree with.
(An open letter to John McCain.)
Thank you for wasting the tax payers' money and the oxygen you consumed while things that mattered and needed your attention were ignored. I'm sure you see it as critically important to make sure people can get E! without MTV if they want it, but the vestiges of slavery that remain in the form of our nation's fucked up immigration policies that treat people as criminals by falling out of a vagina on the wrong side of an imaginary line, and the fact that your cronies keep running away to the bank (or from it!) with everyone else's money in their pockets and manage to avoid the jail time they so richly deserve continue to be the order of the day in this country.
We make people jump through hoops to drive a fucking car, or to buy one, but we can't manage to enact legislation to stop psychopaths from buying limitless quantities of guns and ammunition, largely thanks to people like John McCain who pretend they're earning their enormous paychecks while doing none of the things that so desperately need doing in this country.
While you're at it, Johnny, why not introduce legislation requiring horses and their riders to yield to them thar fancy, new-fangled auto-mo-beel contraptions?
News flash, you decrepit animated corpse... you're trying to lock the barn door 100 years after the last horse died and people are flying around with jet-packs on. Why are you still in the Senate? You have no credibility left, no one takes you seriously anymore, and all you and your hench-coworkers do is conspire to prevent anything useful or good coming out of your house of the legislature. You lost what was left of my respect when you chose Dan Quayle In Drag as a running-mate in '08. Every sad, pathetic thing you did after that was just icing on the cake.
In short, you stopped mattering a long time ago, but someone forgot to tell the morons who keep electing you to office. You are the poster-child for TERM LIMITS! I'm no fan of BHO, but thank God Almighty we were spared having YOU as President.
/. would be up in arms if the government mandated that ISPs had different prices for access to different websites. Want the xxx domain? Better get the premium package.
all the niche programming will go away, and you'll be left with just a few popular channels.
Disney does not sell access to ABC and does not get subscriber fees for it either. Broadcast stations are split up into local affiliates. These are generally owned by companies like Sinclair. Sinclair might chose to require subscription fees instead of listing as a "must carry", but this is completely up to the affiliate and not the broadcast network like ABC.
A better explanation would be subscribing to ESPN without being required to buy ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPN News, ESPN Classic, etc.
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
You all whine and complain Republicans this, Democrats that... Anyone want some cheese with that whine? Guess what? As long as you keep electing the same useless old parties, which are actually just the same, all they are is a bunch of politicians taking liberties with our rights because you keep re-electing them and big business keeps buying them off, "Nothing Will Ever Change", unless you change. There are other political parties out there, learn to educate yourselves and children, and make a change and difference. We have The Constitution Party, The Libertarian Party and at least 3 or 4 more political parties to check out. Now I am getting off my soap box and bidding all you complainers a goodnight, and hope you learn to educate yourselves, out country is struggling enough.
I hadn't thought of how useful it would be to parse hat data. Illegals, liberals, stolid people... There is no end.
We've seen this before. I think there are probably too many corporate interests that would prevent it from happening. But, Comcast smells a rat -- they are now sending out these promotions for contract-based services (Internet now, but later who knows), in an attempt to lure folks into that business model. I imagine partly due to the threat of a la carte being forced upon the industry.
This remains to be seen, but I would really appreciate not having to unfairly pay for bundles of garbage I don't want.
All I have to say... if this happens, there must be a Santa Claus. The cable companies have a great racket going on..... charging more and more money, while broadcasting more and more infomercials!
This is pathetic.
Ah, my dream from the late 80's surfaces again. I proposed this exact model a long time ago using ATM. With bandwidth, jitter, and latency guarantees ATM is the perfect protocol for audio and video (and the ultimate setup for low-latency gaming!). I said then (and still believe) that I'd rather have 5 ATM channels that I can connect to any video source I choose than 500 of what the cable company wants me to see. Why shouldn't I be able to see Portland Oregon's evening news? Why shouldn't I be able to take a peek at the local stations in George Town, Grand Cayman?
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
Ala carte channels would be governed by the law of supply and demand; so if you and five of your friends are the only ones who want to watch "The Channel That Shows Video from Alt.Plan9.OS.Demos" the price is going to be pretty high. None of the ala carte proposals I've ever seen say that the channel provider has to make those channels cheap.