or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › US Sen. McCain working on 'a la carte' cable TV bill
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

US Sen. McCain working on 'a la carte' cable TV bill

post #1 of 138
Thread Starter 
Senator John McCain is working on a legislative proposal that would, if enacted, significantly reshape the landscape of the broadcast and cable television markets by pressuring cable providers to allow their subscribers to choose which channels they want to pay for.

gyeah


McCain (R-Ariz.) will reportedly introduce his legislation in the next few days, according to The Hill. The Arizona senator was formerly the chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee and has pushed similar legislation in the past to little effect.

McCain's bill would, in addition to urging cable providers toward a la carte pricing, ban the bundling of broadcast stations with cable channels owned by the same entities. This would, for example, keep Disney from requiring that cable providers pay for ESPN in order to carry ABC. The bill also puts an end to the sports blackout rule, which keeps companies from carrying a sports event if the game is blocked out locally.

Notably, McCain's bill also includes a provision that would punish broadcasters who pull high-value content from over-the-air television in order to put it on cable channels. This section of the bill is aimed at broadcast television networks that have said they would do just that if U.S. courts do not stop Aereo, a service that rebroadcasts their channels to subscribers' iPads and iPhones over the Internet.

While the future of the bill is uncertain, it highlights the increasingly complex situation broadcasters and cable providers find themselves in. Consumers are less willing to pay for steadily rising cable costs, and a number have turned to services like Netflix, Hulu, and Apple's iTunes in order to get the content they want without paying for scores of other channels.

Netflix CEO Reed Hastings recently noted this trend toward piecemeal content consumption, saying that he believes such is the way of the future. Hastings predicted a world where "apps replace channels."

"Existing networks, such as ESPN and HBO, that offer amazing apps will get more viewing than in the past, and be more valuable," Hastings wrote. "Existing networks that fail to develop first-class apps will lose viewing and revenue."

Hastings' Netflix, along with the streaming service's rival HBO, are at the forefront of the television-as-app movement. Both companies have released rich app content on Apple's iOS and other platforms, allowing users to mirror their content on other screens and to interact with content using mobile devices as a second screen.
post #2 of 138
Let the free market determine what people want to watch or if Cable is too expensive. I just assume shut the damn thing off.
post #3 of 138
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post
McCain's bill would, in addition to urging cable providers toward a la carte pricing, ban the bundling of broadcast stations with cable channels owned by the same entities. This would, for example, keep Disney from requiring that cable providers pay for ESPN in order to carry ABC. The bill also puts an end to the sports blackout rule, which keeps companies from carrying a sports event if the game is blocked out locally.

 

I like this because:

 

1. It says 'urging', not 'forcing'. The latter would be insane.

2. It's exactly the same thing Microsoft was forced to do, and that worked out for the best.

 

It's a shame we need a law for these idiots to get their act together and offer what would actually be best for consumers, but that's how the telecoms have always worked.

 

In the face of this, though, they just might be a LOT more amicable to Apple's plan than being forced to come up with their own. Non-hobby Apple TV (box), here we come!

 

Of course, this thing needs moved to PO right now…

post #4 of 138

The cable industry needs to be more consumer friendly. We should be able to choose which channels we watch and want to pay for.......It makes no sense to have 300 channels if you only watch say 15 on any kind of regular basis.

Kinda off topic but the same could be said for AT&T and Verizon. I  pay for 6GB of data every month. Sometimes I use the full ammount. Sometimes only 3 or 4GBs of data. But then i should get a rollover of that data. I was charged for it.....if I don't use it then roll it over to the next billing cycle. 

Tallest Skil:


"Eventually Google will have their Afghanistan with Oracle and collapse"

"The future is Apple, Google, and a third company that hasn't yet been created."


 


 

Reply

Tallest Skil:


"Eventually Google will have their Afghanistan with Oracle and collapse"

"The future is Apple, Google, and a third company that hasn't yet been created."


 


 

Reply
post #5 of 138
McCain is an asshole and an idiot but even guys like that get things right sometimes.

This will almost certainly fail however. It's the same thing the consumer has been asking for since the very dawn of cable television and the one thing they've been denied all these years. If it happens now, it will primarily be an indicator that cable TV is on the way out, as it would tell us that the folks involved in it no longer have the power to block this long-running consumer desire.
post #6 of 138
And if this does not work he will push to invade France
post #7 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

I like this because:

 

1. It says 'urging', not 'forcing'. The latter would be insane.

2. It's exactly the same thing Microsoft was forced to do, and that worked out for the best.

 

It's a shame we need a law for these idiots to get their act together and offer what would actually be best for consumers, but that's how the telecoms have always worked.

 

In the face of this, though, they just might be a LOT more amicable to Apple's plan than being forced to come up with their own. Non-hobby Apple TV (box), here we come!

 

Of course, this thing needs moved to PO right now…

 

I'ts not the same thing at all. And, as someone who despises all major cable companies with a passion, I can tell you that ala carte channels will simply not work--at least not anytime soon. The reason is that the first channels to fail will be the small, but popular ones...such as Animal Planet. They get revenue, in part, based on monthly fees paid by the cable companies (who in turn charge consumers as part of a package). Brian Roberts, CEO of Comcast, has discussed this at length. He says the number one request of consumers is to have ala carte pricing. However, he also states that if it happens, a lot of the channels people love will fail. His argument makes perfect sense (he went into the numbers specifically during several interviews). I suppose it could work with major changes to the content delivery model, but that would require a absolute revolution. What are the odds of that? The cable companies are like the new RIAA--completely outmoded regional monopolies and duopolies fighting innovation every step of the way, all while crying about how consumers are cheating them. Unreal.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #8 of 138
Quote:
McCain's bill would, in addition to urging cable providers toward a la carte pricing, ban the bundling of broadcast stations with cable channels owned by the same entities. This would, for example, keep Disney from requiring that cable providers pay for ESPN in order to carry ABC. The bill also puts an end to the sports blackout rule, which keeps companies from carrying a sports event if the game is blocked out locally.

 

 Urging will do nothing, without force of law the cable companies will continue to hold us hostage to either take it all or get nothing.  The ban on bunding, however, would be useful and could drive costs down because networks could no longer force the cable company to pay for channels that the cable company does not want just to have access to the ones it is willing to pay for.

21.5" iMac i7 2012, iPod Touch 5, AppleTV 3, iPad 2, iPod nano 7, Mac Mini G4 2000
Reply
21.5" iMac i7 2012, iPod Touch 5, AppleTV 3, iPad 2, iPod nano 7, Mac Mini G4 2000
Reply
post #9 of 138

Again, this is not a job for Congress and I'll just leave it at that.

post #10 of 138

Broadcast will retaliate John!

The broadcast networks will smear you John. They should all be converted to cable only and the Broadcast spectrum dedicated to something more valuable than Jerry Springer.

post #11 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Carpenter View Post

Let the free market determine what people want to watch or if Cable is too expensive. I just assume shut the damn thing off.

I second you.

post #12 of 138
I agree with the overall sentiment against bundling but his strikes me as odd that McCain would be against the free market and using "big government" to want to take care of something that should have been dealt with decades ago if it was to be dealt with at all, not when the internet is already breaking it down. This is like the EU going after MS just a few years ago for bundling IE with Windows.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #13 of 138
It's a nice try, but doesn't matter. The cable mafia will find a way
to adjust pricing so we are paying the same we currently are. It's
all an illusion.
post #14 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

McCain is an asshole and an idiot but even guys like that get things right sometimes.

 

We will be sure to let you know when that happens to you.

 

In any event, as a service to AI readers, I would like to provide everyone with a rule that accurately predicts if a bill will pass...

 

If it truly helps consumers, it won't. That is all.

 

-kpluck

Do you use MagicJack?

The default settings will automatically charge your credit card each year for service renewal. You will not be notified or warned in anyway. You can turn auto renewal off.

Reply

Do you use MagicJack?

The default settings will automatically charge your credit card each year for service renewal. You will not be notified or warned in anyway. You can turn auto renewal off.

Reply
post #15 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by memorydump View Post

It's a nice try, but doesn't matter. The cable mafia will find a way
to adjust pricing so we are paying the same we currently are. It's
all an illusion.

It really is. If the networks lose their ability to bundle they'll have to charge a lot more for the popular stations and much less for the unpopular ones. The cable companies will also do the same. If that results in the loss of too many cable TV customers they'll raise the prices on the cost of internet or well see more cable companies with caps and caps that are more restrictive, which will work because people ditching cable TV aren't likely to be ditching "TV" just changing the location of the source feed.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #16 of 138

Yeah, this is what I want Congress working on since there are no higher priority issues to deal with.

post #17 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I agree with the overall sentiment against bundling but his strikes me as odd that McCain would be against the free market and using "big government" to want to take care of something that should have been dealt with decades ago if it was to be dealt with at all, not when the internet is already breaking it down. This is like the EU going after MS just a few years ago for bundling IE with Windows.

Yes, it should have been done from the get go, but it wasn't. If this bill goes through it will dramatically change the landscape (or speed the change up). It will pave the way for someone like Apple to create a fully fledged real time TV service. 

 

But I do wonder why McCain is onto this. It doesn't seem like a Republican move. Government (Big or small) should have been onto this forever. The Free Market can do it's thing (be opportunistic, provide services and obviously make money), but government's job is to regulate on behalf of everyman and this actually (on the surface) seems to  do that. 

 

Will we end up paying less for our content? That is a different story and personally I doubt it, but for now I'll settle for more control over how and where I purchase my content.

post #18 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Bonner View Post

Yeah, this is what I want Congress working on since there are no higher priority issues to deal with.

Well while not disagreeing with the sentiment nor taking a stand on McCain's bill either way, I have to say if all Congress did was consider high priority laws then we'd be missing out on a lot of smaller not so important bills which are quite often important in their own way ... if that makes any sense at all ... 1biggrin.gif I think I am trying to say little stuff matters too. If the people we send to Washington actually tried to work things out and not be intransigent so much they'd have time for both you'd thing!

That's me not being political 1smile.gif
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
post #19 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


It really is. If the networks lose their ability to bundle they'll have to charge a lot more for the popular stations and much less for the unpopular ones. The cable companies will also do the same. If that results in the loss of too many cable TV customers they'll raise the prices on the cost of internet or well see more cable companies with caps and caps that are more restrictive, which will work because people ditching cable TV aren't likely to be ditching "TV" just changing the location of the source feed.

It will be interesting to see how this unfolds. Cable companies will struggle to be anything but connection providers unless they own stakes in content. That is why these companies have been investing in rights to content for the last few years - typically sports.  

post #20 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman View Post

Yes, it should have been done from the get go, but it wasn't. If this bill goes through it will dramatically change the landscape (or speed the change up). It will pave the way for someone like Apple to create a fully fledged real time TV service. 

 

 

Can't believe it took 16 posts for this to get called out. 

I'm not a pessimist. I'm an optimist, with experience.
Reply
I'm not a pessimist. I'm an optimist, with experience.
Reply
post #21 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I agree with the overall sentiment against bundling but his strikes me as odd that McCain would be against the free market and using "big government" to want to take care of something that should have been dealt with decades ago if it was to be dealt with at all, not when the internet is already breaking it down. This is like the EU going after MS just a few years ago for bundling IE with Windows.

McCain is viewed as a liberal by the ultra conservative Republican leaders. He occasionally comes up with a reasonable idea or two but he always caves in and rolls on his back when his handlers disapprove of his consumer advocacy tendencies.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #22 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

The reason is that the first channels to fail will be the small, but popular ones...such as Animal Planet. They get revenue, in part, based on monthly fees paid by the cable companies (who in turn charge consumers as part of a package). Brian Roberts, CEO of Comcast, has discussed this at length. He says the number one request of consumers is to have ala carte pricing. However, he also states that if it happens, a lot of the channels people love will fail. His argument makes perfect sense (he went into the numbers specifically during several interviews).

Sounds like bullshit to me. If they are amortizing the cost of small channels now, can continue to do this by making the popular ones cost more to subsidize the cost of the cheaper and less popular ones. Creative pricing can solve this, but big business hates change.
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #23 of 138
Originally Posted by thataveragejoe View Post
Can't believe it took 16 posts for this to get called out. 

 

I mentioned it in post 3.

post #24 of 138
I have a feeling they'll just make the individual channels more expensive.
post #25 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by jakeb View Post

I have a feeling they'll just make the individual channels more expensive.

They'll probably turn it into a subscription model....oh wait

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #26 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman View Post

Yes, it should have been done from the get go, but it wasn't. If this bill goes through it will dramatically change the landscape (or speed the change up). It will pave the way for someone like Apple to create a fully fledged real time TV service. 

But I do wonder why McCain is onto this. It doesn't seem like a Republican move. Government (Big or small) should have been onto this forever. The Free Market can do it's thing (be opportunistic, provide services and obviously make money), but government's job is to regulate on behalf of everyman and this actually (on the surface) seems to  do that. 

Will we end up paying less for our content? That is a different story and personally I doubt it, but for now I'll settle for more control over how and where I purchase my content.

All good points and I agree. By the way isn't this him just being Mavericky? 1wink.gif
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
post #27 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by crees! View Post

Again, this is not a job for Congress and I'll just leave it at that.
Not a job for congress?! That cannot be the case. Give me one good reason that congress shouldn't have it's fingers in this pie. They pass wonderful, functional, productive, transparent, and well intentioned legislation all the time. McCain knows what's best for you. He is smart and knows what it takes to be a pioneer, a leader, a man of principal and convicti--- never mind, I can't do this. McCain is a spineless schmuck and has no clue what should or shouldn't EVER be legislated. Congress definitely has no business screwing with the free market. The government has been screwing with it for years and look how marvelous that has turned out.
post #28 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

I like this because:

1. It says 'urging', not 'forcing'. The latter would be insane.
2. It's exactly the same thing Microsoft was forced to do, and that worked out for the best.

It's a shame we need a law for these idiots to get their act together and offer what would actually be best for consumers, but that's how the telecoms have always worked.

In the face of this, though, they just might be a LOT more amicable to Apple's plan than being forced to come up with their own. Non-hobby Apple TV (box), here we come!

Of course, this thing needs moved to PO right now…

New Apple board member in the making? 1wink.gif
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
post #29 of 138
If A la Carte Cable TV is forced on the Cable Companies, then the cost of Cable TV will simply go up.

Currently, Cable TV is offered in packages because the stronger channels are SUBSIDIZING the weaker ones.

To make up for the loss of income for carrying the weaker channels, Cable Companies can simply RAISE the prices of the more desirable channels.

For example, a cable company can say you can pick one channel and pay $200 a month for it.

It will give you a discount for every further channel you choose. The second channel can cost $190, the third $180, etc.

Pretty soon, you can choose the channel you want. But the cost will be tremendously high - higher than what you pay for now.
post #30 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post


Well while not disagreeing with the sentiment nor taking a stand on McCain's bill either way, I have to say if all Congress did was consider high priority laws then we'd be missing out on a lot of smaller not so important bills which are quite often important in their own way ... if that makes any sense at all ... 1biggrin.gif I think I am trying to say little stuff matters too. If the people we send to Washington actually tried to work things out and not be intransigent so much they'd have time for both you'd thing!

That's me not being political 1smile.gif

I don't consider this small stuff. It's obvious the free market is not working when you consider the high cost of cable. Therefore, something needs to be done at the appropriate level. Cable crosses state borders so it enters federal jurisdiction. Congress refuses to work on the high priority stuff (medical care, unequal taxation, corruption in the stock market, invasion of foreign countries, etc.) so why not have them work on something that directly affects the livelihood of a majority of the US population. I would like to choose the stations I pay for but I also understand paying a la carte is never the least expensive way to buy anything. 

post #31 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by mudman2 View Post

And if this does not work he will push to invade France

 

 

No problem ! we are already among you, you see ....

 

 

 

 

post #32 of 138
The REAL problem, IMO, is that cable companies make exclusive deals with municipalities and cities so that only one company supplies an entire area. That's like having only one airline coming into your airport. If you don't like their service or their price...too bad. You have no choice. There is no actual competition.

Until exclusive deals are ended there will be no competition. The cable companies will scream, "It's what the people want. Let the market decide!" but they will fight tooth and nail against any real competition.

Where are the free market defenders? Why aren't they complaining about this obvious monopolistic and unfair marketing? Until there is true competition we will pay more and get less than any other industrialized country in the world.
post #33 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

McCain is viewed as a liberal by the ultra conservative Republican leaders. He occasionally comes up with a reasonable idea or two but he always caves in and rolls on his back when his handlers disapprove of his consumer advocacy tendencies.

Perhaps, but what will really kill this bill is the cable industry's lobbyists.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #34 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I agree with the overall sentiment against bundling but his strikes me as odd that McCain would be against the free market and using "big government" to want to take care of something that should have been dealt with decades ago if it was to be dealt with at all, not when the internet is already breaking it down. This is like the EU going after MS just a few years ago for bundling IE with Windows.

Why does it strike you as odd? He is a Republican. What strikes me odd is that he's for the consumer and not big business.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #35 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by crees! View Post

Again, this is not a job for Congress and I'll just leave it at that.

 

Couldn't have said it any better.

 

We reward (aka "subscribe to") all these companies that we despise and then whine when we don't get our way. I hate cable companies too... so I bought a $10 antenna and AirPlay things I can’t get with my antenna. That way, I don’t have to cry to my senators about those bully cable companies. I've got nothing to complain about when my cable bill is $0 a month.

post #36 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

I'ts not the same thing at all. And, as someone who despises all major cable companies with a passion, I can tell you that ala carte channels will simply not work--at least not anytime soon. The reason is that the first channels to fail will be the small, but popular ones...such as Animal Planet. They get revenue, in part, based on monthly fees paid by the cable companies (who in turn charge consumers as part of a package). Brian Roberts, CEO of Comcast, has discussed this at length. He says the number one request of consumers is to have ala carte pricing. However, he also states that if it happens, a lot of the channels people love will fail. His argument makes perfect sense (he went into the numbers specifically during several interviews). I suppose it could work with major changes to the content delivery model, but that would require a absolute revolution. What are the odds of that? The cable companies are like the new RIAA--completely outmoded regional monopolies and duopolies fighting innovation every step of the way, all while crying about how consumers are cheating them. Unreal.

 

Animal Planet? Really? If channels are popular enough, they'll survive and if they're not, they'll die. I don't see any problem with that.

post #37 of 138
It would be nice to have an A La Carte Cable bill. Hotels pay per room per channel they get. It would be nice to be able to do the same thing. The only problem is the Cable companies will probably end up charging a lot more per channel for the A La Carte route than the bundled route.


Oh, I just noticed, this has nothing to do with Apple, Macs, iPhones, iPods, or iPads.
post #38 of 138
If any of you honestly think the cable and broadband industry even vaguely resemble open and free competition, you need to have your heads examined. Insanely high costs of entry would be enough to distort free market economics even before you get into the oligopolies that dominate modern media production and distribution, or the sanctioned MONOPOLIES that are regional cable companies.

There's nothing about the current situation that suggest that the "free market" is operating optimally in this area.
post #39 of 138
All of these things are simply band-aids until cable companies are forced to split data off from 'cable'. Any other fixes are pointless if Comcast can simply punish you for streaming by throttling you, or by withholding their content (as e.g. owners of all NBC properties.)

It speaks to their ability to buy legislators that such monopolistic, vertical integration is even allowed.
post #40 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don108 View Post

The REAL problem, IMO, is that cable companies make exclusive deals with municipalities and cities so that only one company supplies an entire area. That's like having only one airline coming into your airport. If you don't like their service or their price...too bad. You have no choice. There is no actual competition.

Until exclusive deals are ended there will be no competition. The cable companies will scream, "It's what the people want. Let the market decide!" but they will fight tooth and nail against any real competition.

Where are the free market defenders? Why aren't they complaining about this obvious monopolistic and unfair marketing? Until there is true competition we will pay more and get less than any other industrialized country in the world.

They'll tell you that DirecTV and Dish Network are competitors but that's only for the TV part. Verizon has stopped the expansion of FiOS and only concentrating on the areas it already started and had gotten agreements with.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › US Sen. McCain working on 'a la carte' cable TV bill