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.
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."
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.
Palin.
Everything is better with chainsaws.
Partly, bad timing: his party's brand was tarnished by George W. Bush. Partly, bad choice of running mate.
Blame the party leadership, not McCain himself.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
This is too little too late. Forget saving these dinosaurs, I want to see them crash and burn.
I think the man's entirely responsible for his choice of running mates, TYVM.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
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.
Yes you're missing something... the government is supposed to be representing the greater good, not pure corporate interest.
I know they've pretty much only been doing the latter since 1980 and its easy for people these days to not see what the purpose of government even IS... but come on. If people are being scammed they are supposed to care. That's the government interest.
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.
Why would you be wasting your time on Slashdot talking to nerdy idiots? Hmm? I'm sure the NASCAR crowd things about YOU like that.
It's taste.
TV? Important? Nonsense! What we urgently need is the next round of hearings about performance enhancing drugs in professional sports!
You mean the one that chanted "drill baby drill"?
She sold out to big oil and the Good olde boys network for her endorsement. She flip flopped and was called on it.
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!
Me neither. I'm hardly a libertarian, except in the sense that everyone is*, but this seems to me to be government overreach.
Cable TV is not a vital public service, in any shape or form. It's not important infrastructure you must have access to or else be significantly disadvantaged. Nobody is any the worse for not having it. In fact, it's actually just awful.
Given that, let the market take care of it.
I will assume you mean the mythical "free market". There is no such thing, of course, and this is especially true where market choice is limited by natural monopolies, as is the case in cable and satellite television service. So your solution fails. It's less than ideal, but only regulation will see to it that the consumers are not getting the short end of the stick, as they are now.
you do know there are many good reasons to not like obama other than his skin color right? The only people I hear talking about his skin color is those on the left trying to attribute it to those on the right. other than a few loons I dont see anyone on the right talking about obamas skin color. We are all more worried about his policies.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Which are?
Let's name some of these racists they chase after. I really can't see the Klan or the neoNazis voting for Obama.
The democrats are center right. There are no where near far left. Nor are they chasing after racists.
Here's the difference between Joe Biden and Sarah Palin:
Joe Biden sometimes says stupid things. He also says smart and effective things. He also corrects himself when he realizes that what he said was stupid. Generally speaking, the smart things outweigh the stupid things, so he is viewed as a basically smart guy who sometimes goofs up and says something stupid.
Sarah Palin, on the other hand, says many many things that aren't only stupid, but indicative of an underlying idiocy well beyond just making mistakes. For instance, the question that really did her in back in 2008 was Katie Couric asking "And when it comes to establishing your world view, I was curious, what newspapers and magazines did you regularly read before you were tapped for this [the vice-presidency] - to stay informed and to understand the world?" Sarah Palin couldn't come up with a straight answer, while Biden would probably have cited Foreign Policy, the New York Times, or the Delaware News Journal.
I am officially gone from
I meant what I said, and gave an example of how the market can react. This is not a required product. You are not going to be denied a job, prevented from socializing, or lack important information needed to live your daily life if you eschew cable TV. The market is perfectly capable of handling "abuses" because people can, and do, walk away from the stall if the price is too high or the product is not what they want.
Cable TV is:
1. Not a monopoly, not that it matters.
2. Not required.
3. Not important.
4. Dependent upon delivering value to paying customers to be successful
Quite honestly though, even if it were a monopoly, with Dish Network and DirecTV going bust tomorrow, cable TV is still not required, is still not important, and is still dependent upon delivering value to paying customers to be successful. Beyond basic protections against fraud, what the hell regulation does it need?
It doesn't.
I meant what I said, and gave an example of how the market can react. This is not a required product. You are not going to be denied a job, prevented from socializing, or lack important information needed to live your daily life if you eschew Cable TV. The market is perfectly capable of handling "abuses" because people can, and do, walk away from the stall if the price is too high or the product is not what they want. The market can take care of this one.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Cable TV is: ...
1. Not a monopoly, not that it matters.
Beyond basic protections against fraud, what the hell regulation does it need?
They sure had no issue invoking powers usually reserved for utilities/public works/government though... to use utility easements and real-estate right-of-way exemptions and so on to dig up private property to lay their cables.
If they want to hide behind "we're not a monopoly" then fine, however every time property is bought/sold they can re-negotiate access rights as a NON government/utility entity. Or do you think every private corporation, non-utility, gets to dig up private property for their business model?
They ride in on the same access rights and exemptions electricity, water, gas, sewer lines do. So if they act like a monopoly, get legal exemptions that are reserved for government/utilities, I don't care if they technically aren't one, they get to behave like one including somebody higher up in government placing some limits on their behavior.