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 - Page 4

post #121 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexmarrero View Post

[...] the concept of free market would allow for competitors, but where I live I have no other option than subscribing to TWC.

 

I have the incredible good fortune to live in an area where I have choice of TV provider -- a cable company, a telephone company and a satellite provider. All three bundle channels. Different bundles on each, but the same model across the board. Not surprising then that putting together a package that fits what we want costs about the same from any of 'em.

post #122 of 138
Back in the day, with big satellite dishes, one could choose which channels to subscribe to. As I recall, HBO and Cinemax was $5 per month for 16 channels. IFC was $10 per year, and so on. There were even network channels available to those who could not get local reception. Then the silly little dishes came along with their convenient packages for ten times the cost and no choice of individual channels. The same subscription plan could work with small satellite dishes, but Dish and DirectTV would not be in favor of it, due to the bundling by the creators of the content.

It will take someone with the clout of Apple to make it happen. Cable companies exist mainly for their internet cabling, and when that ceases, they will have to move to another mode of business. With LTE becoming dominant throughout the country, it will be very possible for home internet to be connected to the wireless providers, at a higher speed than is currently offered by DSL or cable companies. It is not uncommon to get 30Mbps down in my area, which is twice the cable speed.

Eph

Reply

Eph

Reply
post #123 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fithian View Post

Back in the day, with big satellite dishes, one could choose which channels to subscribe to. As I recall, HBO and Cinemax was $5 per month for 16 channels. IFC was $10 per year, and so on. There were even network channels available to those who could not get local reception. Then the silly little dishes came along with their convenient packages for ten times the cost and no choice of individual channels. The same subscription plan could work with small satellite dishes, but Dish and DirectTV would not be in favor of it, due to the bundling by the creators of the content.

It will take someone with the clout of Apple to make it happen. Cable companies exist mainly for their internet cabling, and when that ceases, they will have to move to another mode of business. With LTE becoming dominant throughout the country, it will be very possible for home internet to be connected to the wireless providers, at a higher speed than is currently offered by DSL or cable companies. It is not uncommon to get 30Mbps down in my area, which is twice the cable speed.

No they could not offer the same. You're not constantly tuning into an array of satellites but one (multiple 'ones' throughout the world) that they put up there (which last I checked is a very expensive thing to do) and then had to buy the rights to transmit content.

There will always be the need for hardwire internet. There's just not enough bandwidth for everyone to go solely wireless.
Edited by dasanman69 - 5/10/13 at 5:43am
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #124 of 138

The minute Obama agrees with him...Republicans will claim Obama is commie socialist who is trying to kill capitalism.

post #125 of 138

...

post #126 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.

 

I am a liberal and I agree with you. Consumers can talk with their money. 

post #127 of 138

Government inadvertently causes problem, public demands "someone" solve the problem, government penalizes companies taking advantage of poorly crafted laws and writes new laws causing more unforeseen problems... repeat ad infinitum.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #128 of 138
****checks self in mirror**** Damnit! I kinda like this bill!! I want to hate it so friggin bad, especially coming from the dunderhead McCain, but I can't help myself:-)
post #129 of 138
Are the people in the 18-35 bracket even paying for cable anymore? Every time I go over to my parent's house, it's a disaster just trying to find something to watch. I never realized just how bad cables live t.v. and on demand selection is until I saw what Netflix and Hulu had to offer. I can watch almost any series from start to finish with Netflix and Hulu, and if I'm really desperate iTunes has everything else. Compare that to cable which doesn't even offer half the content On Demand that Netflix/Hulu does, and even if you do find a show you want to watch, you can only watch one season anyway.

$16 a month for Netflix and Hulu's far bigger and more complete catalog, plus pay as you go just about any Movie or TV Show you can think of on iTunes.

-or-

$90 a month for a much smaller on demand catalog, incomplete seasons of every show you want to watch, and at least 250 channels you'll probably never watch.

Tough choice.
post #130 of 138
I find it odd that McCain is working on a cable bill. Seems more likely that he's still trying to figure out how to program the clock on his VCR.

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply
post #131 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mundty View Post

Are the people in the 18-35 bracket even paying for cable anymore?

Paying for cable (which may include internet service or paying for cable TV? It's clear you mean the latter in this instance but I think the distinction will be increasingly important as more people pull away from the the traditional cabe TV model to access their content via their cable internet service.

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply
post #132 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I find it odd that McCain is working on a cable bill. Seems more likely that he's still trying to figure out how to program the clock on his VCR.

VCR? What's a VCR? ;-)
post #133 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 don't believe it. I think it's a scare tactic.

If a lot of people really do love a channel, the channel will survive. Channels that can't survive based on their actual audience are just a waste of money, and people that don't watch your favorite channel should have to subsidize your favorite channel. It's not that hard.
Edited by JeffDM - 5/22/13 at 5:04am
post #134 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Built in how? My Panasonic has Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, etc. built in. I don't need a media streaming box like a Apple TV or Roku.

My 2012 Panasonic TV has that too. It's sluggish, I don't know why anyone puts up with it. I still use external boxes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mytdave View Post

Why?  Leave it alone.  This is not the role of Govt.  Let the free market take care of the problem, all this bill will do is muck up the works.  We're already heading in a a-la-cart direction - it's called the internet.  How about this - kill the bill that's seeking to tax the internet.

As people noted before, there isn't really a free market. Have you ever noticed that you get the choice of at most one cable provider, at most one DSL provider, and at most one fiber provider, assuming you're lucky to have a choice of two different types of connections (cable and DSL, for example)? It used to be that you could choose different phone service providers, but a court ruling or two ended that. There's a reasonable argument for having only one provider over a given type of cord, but regardless, that's part of the problem. Even worse, at least some Verizon FIOS installers had been removing people's copper by ripping out their copper to the road, so it's more expensive to switch back.
Edited by JeffDM - 5/22/13 at 5:07am
post #135 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Conrail View Post

Irrelevant.  I can call a duck a horse, but that doesn't make it one.

As for a'la carte, most cable channels today are part a larger network of channels.  Animal Planet mentioned above is one of the Discovery channels.  Selling channels by network would probably be a workable compromise.  This would allow people who don't want sports programming to jettison ESPN (the most expensive component of your cable bill, BTW), people with diabetes to get rid of the Disney channels, or people with function brain cells to say adios to the shambling remains of the "History" channel.

I think bundling by networks is part of the problem though, because of bundling of channels by the networks themselves. To get one Viacom channel, you have to pay for all Viacom channels. It solves a little bit of the problem while does nothing to the rest of the problem.
post #136 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

My 2012 Panasonic TV has that too. It's sluggish, I don't know why anyone puts up with it. I still use external boxes.

Really? I have a 2012 Panasonic TV as well and it runs fine.
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #137 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Really? I have a 2012 Panasonic TV as well and it runs fine.

If you're used to cable box user interfaces, then yes, it does run fine.
post #138 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post

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.

The point is not that Comcast won't make enough money. The problem is the channels themselves will fail because they won't bring in enough revenue unless they are automatically part of the package. HBO and Showtime types will be fine. Animal Planet and Food Network won't. No one is going to specifically subscribe to those stations...well not "no one," but not enough to keep them afloat. Usually I'd be with you on calling BS, but Roberts' statement seemed legit. He was asked point blank and he flat out admitted it was the most frequently asked question wherever he went. His explanation was quite detailed. Don't get me wrong, I hate them all. I'm getting ready to send a huge "F YOU" letter to Verizon as we speak.
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
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