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."

40 of 614 comments (clear)

  1. Sounds good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wont pass though.

    1. Re:Sounds good. by Kenja · · Score: 5, Funny

      Depends on how it's framed. If they write the bill so it's all about finding out who orders Telemundo so they can be deported I think it would get a lot of support.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    2. Re:Sounds good. by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      oh, B.S.

      Figure out a way to make some fatass executive rich off of it.. THEN it will pass.

    3. Re:Sounds good. by i+kan+reed · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't care if it passes. The fact is that it would be too-little too-late for me to care about television anymore. The advertisements you pay for, the terrible reality television, the death of educational programming, and the underlying vacuousness, even if they were partially caused by "free money" streams from package deals, aren't going to be reversed by suddenly making them fight for the percentage of their audience who will take advantage of this.

      TV is dead, and the small pieces of legitimately good television can be gotten through the internet. It's too late to save cable.

    4. Re:Sounds good. by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Informative

      Bullshit.

      He lost by the time he correct the old bat that claimed obama was a muslim. Even his correct was pandering to the nutbars, the correct correction would have been "No ma'am I don't believe so, nor would that matter in the slightest".

    5. Re:Sounds good. by Penguinisto · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not likely.

      Chatter amongst the conservative set paints McCain as a RINO (Republican in Name Only) these days, and he's not getting much love from the rank-and-file either.

      Of course he could try, but I doubt he'd get past the primaries, especially with far stronger candidates (e.g. (Rand) Paul, Cruz, Rubio) already both emerging and getting their political 'street cred' going.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    6. Re:Sounds good. by h4rr4r · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What is really funny is that the only GOPers that could make it to the whitehouse can't make it through the primary.

      This is what the GOP gets for doubling down on the derp.

    7. Re:Sounds good. by rickb928 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Some fatass executive will figure out a way to get rich off of it.. THEN it won't matter if it passed."

      There, fixed that for ya.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    8. Re:Sounds good. by rickb928 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Right on. JM is a lame duck, though he probably doesn't yet know it.

      He's taking to avoiding the true conservative constituents, however, which is a good plan. He may as well spend the next 3 years in peace and solitude. No point in getting all riled up.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    9. Re: Sounds good. by Gilmoure · · Score: 4, Funny

      If McCain had run on a platform of A-La-Carte cable, posted hospital prices and cheap free range waygu beef he'd be president now.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    10. Re:Sounds good. by Penguinisto · · Score: 5, Interesting

      ...and if Hillary Clinton won against Obama in the 2008 primaries instead, would you have said the same thing? After all, that one was fairly close for the longest time, and she would have been Clinton II administration-wise if she had won the job (and if it weren't for her husband's by-then-tarnished reputation, I daresay she would have won the primaries hands-down.)

      Fact is, both parties do the derp factor - big-time. It's even a mainstream formula - you pander to the hard portion of your party during the primaries, then swing back and do your best to pander to everyone else after you get the nomination. If you don't do that, you don't win the primaries.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    11. Re:Sounds good. by Penguinisto · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Quick - define "moderate" without using your own ideology as a guide, and be intellectually honest when you try.

      Fact is, you cannot do so, and neither can I.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    12. Re:Sounds good. by fustakrakich · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Rand Paul? Please... the guy's a complete fruitcake. Right now the numbers say it will be Jeb vs. Hillary. Both have the 'creds' where they are needed most. But as usual, it's best to see who can move the most money. That will decide who wins.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    13. Re:Sounds good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What you're doing is sometimes known as the "Magical Balance Fairy."

      There's one major party that's locked into deranged derp because they brainwashed their base so badly with superstition and hatred of anyone who isn't a lock-step far-right idiot, that they become enraged when confronted with reality outside the bubble.

      The Republicans need to drive the wackos out if they ever want to win the presidency, but they can't because their brand has been destroyed by the pandering to racists, creationists, global warming deniers, and other lunatics.

      We need a new second party to counterbalance the Democrats, because the Republicans can't while living in a fake-outrage driven bubble.

    14. Re:Sounds good. by 1000101 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Really? I just renewed my DirecTV 2 year contract. I tried really, really hard to 'cut the cord' (or in this case 'ditch the dish') but after careful study, I found with a family of four, including two children, this just won't work. I thought some combination of XBox, Hulu, Netflix, and OTA HDTV would suffice but there is one glaring flaw with this: Ease of Use. See, my wife isn't a techie. She wants to turn on the TV from a remote with one button (which then turns on the stereo, selects the proper input, etc.) and then have a GUIDE for everything she might want to watch right now or record in the future. We have 2 DirecTV HD-DVR's that are on the network, so we can record 4 shows at once (we never do) and watch these shows from any of the other non-DVR's in our house. It is simple. It works. And there isn't a solution available (that I could find) that would aggregate all of the available shows into one, easy to use guide for selections. I do watch sports, and losing those would be the only reason I would potentially not switch if I were single because I wouldn't mind using different systems for different things.

    15. Re:Sounds good. by Qzukk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hell, I'll settle for a party that has an internally consistent platform, instead of one demanding small government while paying billions of dollars to track down and house people for "feeling good". Moderation be damned, I want non-hypocrites so at least I know where I really stand.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    16. Re:Sounds good. by jamstar7 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I am amused at how RINO is a commonly-expressed acronym in American politics, yet DINO is not. Not only does it reinforce the stereotype of the strictly-regulated lockstep political machine the Republicans have become, wherein any dissenting thought is quickly labeled so it can be shamed with the "RINO" name, but it also helps demolish any lingering illusion of the "big tent" theory the party thinks it's fooling anyone into believing.

      Hell, if you're a Republican (I am) and believe that hurricanes are caused by high barometric pressure (I do) and not gay marriage (I don't), then you, too, are a RINO. If you are a Republican and don't believe that angels counsel Republican candidates for high office (I don't), you are a RINO. If you are a Republican and don't believe that English as spoken in the US can be reduced down to the phrase 'America! FUCK YEAH!!" (I don't), you are a RINO. If you are a Republican who believes that ONLY the Republican Party should hold office now and forever (I don't), then you are a good rank and file member and not a RINO like me.

      Our elected officials have the duty to govern in the interests of the people who elected them, not claim a mandate to neuter the opposition and obstruct anything the Opposition comes up with. Funny how both parties seem to forget that these days.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    17. Re:Sounds good. by Penguinisto · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There's one major party that's locked into deranged derp because they brainwashed their base so badly with superstition and hatred of anyone...

      This portion holds perfectly true of both parties. Let me complete your sentence and see for yourself: ...who differs with them on a given issue.

      I have seen this first-hand - I live in Portland, and have seen this on both sides. I'll explain:

      Side the first: I have personally watched drivers giving the middle finger, and occasionally hurtling trash and bile-filled shouts as they drove past pro-life protesters quietly praying with signs at a parking lot next to the Planned Parenthood clinic on MLK blvd.

      Side the second: My wife was nearly struck with a bottle hurled at the Occupy protest last year as she quietly marched along, and she reported having passed numerous small groups of guys in suits downtown giving the one-finger salute, calling her and the other protesters all kinds of insults along the way.

      Long story short - your "side" is just as duped and hate-filled as the other side. As evidence, I present the fact that you use name-calling and buzzwords as a means to mark folks who differ from you on given issues.

      It's not your fault really... the blame is tow-fold, and keys off of human nature: Television loves nothing more than to stoke petty hatreds, fears, and jealousies which in turn drives advertising sales for them; the more outrageous the better. Political parties do it because stirring up passion (even by using lowest-common-denominator means) is the best known method to get votes, thus power.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    18. Re:Sounds good. by fustakrakich · · Score: 5, Funny

      Ah, see? I can tell you're a republican. Hurricanes are a result of low barometric pressure...

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    19. Re:Sounds good. by MachineShedFred · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Once upon a time (and by that, I mean 15 years ago), after the elections ended, the winners did a little thing called "governing." To the layman, this looked like compromise. Bills passed, budgets were created (and even balanced sometimes), everyone got a little of what they wanted, and nobody got everything they wanted. They system worked.

      Now, compromise isn't viewed as a goal, but a flaw. And then everyone wonders why nothing gets done, and nothing gets fixed. The herd of assholes taking up residence in the Capitol are too busy using the issues to generate campaign funds through direct mailers and fundraiser web sites; which, by the way, is incentive to not fix the problems, because then you can't beat the opposition over the head with it for donated dollars.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    20. Re:Sounds good. by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why a Republican Bill. This seems to go against the core Republican Ideals of less government and regulation.

      By saying to a Company you must offer goods and services this way, where the old way has no effect of health safety, for a product that is almost purely entertainment. Looks like big Government getting involved with the Corporations again.

      Granted I would love the ability to have this, but I don't see this as needing a federal mandate. I figure competition from Online streaming would force the companies to change.

      My guess TV Producers such as Fox has been in his ear, Because for the big producers will get all the stations while the newer smaller stations may not become popular enough to get noticed.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    21. Re:Sounds good. by LordLimecat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      brainwashed... superstition.... derp... deranged... wackos... racists....lunatics...

      What was that about hatred?

    22. Re:Sounds good. by LordLimecat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The hillarious thing is this is the third post Ive responded to, and the third which has called GOP folks various names (bigots, hatefful, derps, tards, wackos, lunatics). And the claim is that we're hateful.

      Am I crazy, or is this what we call hypocrisy?

    23. Re:Sounds good. by Zordak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hell, I'll settle for a party that has an internally consistent platform, instead of one demanding small government while paying billions of dollars to track down and house people for "feeling good". Moderation be damned, I want non-hypocrites so at least I know where I really stand.

      Then there is no major American political party for you.

      --

      Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
    24. Re:Sounds good. by mcsnee · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I can't speak for anybody else, but I watched a bunch of educational programming when I was a kid. Yes, Sesame Street--but also Mr. Rogers, the Electric Company, and Square One spring immediately to mind. Oh, and I bet I could still whistle the theme to "Voyage of the Mimi." Maybe I'm not typical, but I think all of those shows were pretty valuable. Given the choice, I would probably STILL watch half an hour of Square One over half an hour of Survivor's Next Top Idol.

    25. Re:Sounds good. by MMC+Monster · · Score: 3, Informative

      Screw all that. Do what I did:

      1. Download XBMC and install it on your desktop computer. Play around with the plugins and add the repository for the repository installer plugin.

      2. Download via XBMC the plugins for Free Cable, Hulu, You Tube, and whatever other video plugins look good. From the previous step you shouldn't have to add any repositories on via their websites, you can do it via the repository installer plugin.

      3. Once you get things working fine on the previous step, get a nettop PC to put by your TV and use a remote control to control (this one: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0041ULKW2/ref=oh_details_o04_s00_i01?ie=UTF8&psc=1 is great as it comes with a remote and built in IR receiver and can turn itself on via the remote as well.)

      4. Cut out the Video part of your cable bill and just get a reasonable download speed on your internet (the cheapest level is probably enough).

      Hopefully at this point you'll be able to control XBMC via the remote control and never have to touch the nettop computer again.

      --
      Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
    26. Re:Sounds good. by vux984 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Here at the Church of the FSM, we do posthumorous baptisms!

      In Ragu sauce?

  2. Isn't that called "the internet"? by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Isn't that called "the internet"? by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'd like to believe that, but what I've seen over the last bunch of years says that the copyright and media groups are winning the battle, and lawmakers are all too willing to give them what they want.

      Between the DMCA, seemingly indefinite copyrights, and everything else, I don't see how we're going to make this inevitable.

      It's beginning to look more like a world where the media companies control everything is inevitable.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  3. Re:WHY!? by Antipater · · Score: 5, Informative

    Palin.

    --
    Everything is better with chainsaws.
  4. Re:WHY!? by SirGarlon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  5. Who cares? by h4rr4r · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is too little too late. Forget saving these dinosaurs, I want to see them crash and burn.

  6. Re:WHY!? by Nimey · · Score: 3, Informative

    I think the man's entirely responsible for his choice of running mates, TYVM.

    --
    Hail Eris, full of mischief...

    E pluribus sanguinem
  7. This guy continues to mystify me... by seebs · · Score: 3

    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/
  8. Clayton Antitrust Act by sjbe · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  9. Missing a supporter. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  10. Please let this gain momentum! by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!
  11. Re:Federal law? by Jawnn · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  12. Re:WHY!? by ganjadude · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  13. Re:WHY!? by dkleinsc · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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 /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/