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

123468

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 148
    herbapouherbapou Posts: 2,228member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by j1h15233 View Post


    1. ABC


    2. NBC


    3. Fox


    4. CBS


    5. ESPN


    6. AMC


    7. TBS


    8. TNT


    9. FX


    10. ESPN 2


    11. A&E


    12. ABC Family


    13. NFL Network


    14. HBO


    15. CW


     


    I'm pretty sure my wife and I could survive just fine with only these 15 channels. 95% of our tv watching comes from these stations. 



     


    From the experience I have with "a la carte", they will never included premium movie channels has "one choice" in the line up.  Those channels are bundle seperatly here. For example, I pay 24$ for the basic mandatory package and 18$ for 15 channels of my choice. But since I want HBO and The movie network, I took that package which is an additionnal $12. 


     


    But, with all that I have exactly all the channels I want from there line-up and most of the channels come with "on demand" so my TV packages is really good.  All its missing is an iOS TV with itunes rentals, games and apps I would be satisfied.


     


    If Apple could make a deal with Bell and integrated everything in iOS with either a box or a full TV panel it would be perfect.

  • Reply 102 of 148
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    herbapou wrote: »
    You're are assuming Apple goes without the ISP's.   I am not so sure of that. I personnally thinks Apple is or at least was trying to go with Cable partnership.

    I cant see how they truly get the Apple TV as the primary communication device in the HEC without some sort of synergy with your local content and internet provider(s).
  • Reply 103 of 148


    I see so many comments saying this should not pass because it interferes with the free market... what free market? In the free market we would not be forced to pay for channels we don't want just to watch one that we like. I shouldn't have to pay $10 for Lifetime and ABC Family when all I just want is to get Disney Channel for my kids, and once they grow up I'd like to watch ABC alone and not need to pay for Disney Channel. THAT is free market. Additionally, the concept of free market would allow for competitors, but where I live I have no other option than subscribing to TWC.


     


    If I only want to watch HBO, I should pay just for HBO, not a cable package too. Free market means a la carte. I mean, I'd be happy paying just for BBC America, USA, HBO and ESPN. Just four channels... supposing a max cost of $5 (which is ridiculous) a month for the basic ones and $20 for HBO, I'd be paying $35 plus fees. Not $60 or $80.


     


    Sometimes legislation is needed to ensure there is a free market. There cannot be a free market when a company holds a monopoly, and basically thats what cable providers are, monopolies.



    Just in case, I am happy with my bunny ears and my subscription to MLB.tv, Hulu, Netflix plus a Season Pass for Doctor Who and Game of Thrones, but a season pass is not the same thing as watching it live. I want to watch it the minute it comes out, not a while after....

  • Reply 104 of 148
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,773member
    paxman wrote: »
    No No - you misunderstood. No offence taken. I was probably being political. Hard not to. ;)

    Ok we're good :)
  • Reply 105 of 148
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    j1h15233 wrote: »
    What does a smaller city have to do with it? 

    Smaller revenue pool. How often do the Kansas City Royals sell out their stadiuml? Yet Yankee Stadium is sold out every weekend the Yankees are home.
  • Reply 106 of 148
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    pt123 wrote: »

    Why blame just the cable companies? Disney, HBO, etc. are the ones charging cable companies. And how about the shows themselves? Must the NFL charge Disney/ESPN billions for Monday Night Football for one fame a week?

    If ESPN is willing to pay that then why not? I wouldn't be surprised if they make double what it costs them.
  • Reply 107 of 148

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post





    Again, that's how small city pro teams survive.


    Small City pro teams have revenue sharing because they are part of a league. If one team fails to generate enough money and dies the whole order of the league is disturbed. For example, if you're going to a Yankees game you are supporting the MLB, the Yankees are part of this organization, and since it is in the best interest of the association to mantain the same amount of teams, then there is revenue sharing. But I shouldnt be made to pay MTV when all I want to do is watch Animal Planet.

  • Reply 108 of 148
    haggarhaggar Posts: 1,568member


    For all the people calling for the death of broadcast and cable TV and switching to internet only viewing, the advantage of watching shows online will be for the TV studios, not the viewers.  More forced ads.  No DVR to skip past commercials. If their web page crashes or decides to spontaneously reload the page, you will have to start watching the video all over from the beginning, including all the forced ads.  I'm suprised the TV studios didn't make a bigger push to internet viewing sooner.

  • Reply 109 of 148
    k2directork2director Posts: 194member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by alexmarrero View Post


    I see so many comments saying this should not pass because it interferes with the free market... what free market? In the free market we would not be forced to pay for channels we don't want just to watch one that we like. I shouldn't have to pay $10 for Lifetime and ABC Family when all I just want is to get Disney Channel for my kids, and once they grow up I'd like to watch ABC alone and not need to pay for Disney Channel. THAT is free market. Additionally, the concept of free market would allow for competitors, but where I live I have no other option than subscribing to TWC.


     



     


    That's not what "free market" means. Free market means that people/businesses are free to offer whatever products/services they want, and sell them for what they want, and consumers are free to buy those products or services if they want. It generally results in the best products at the best prices...more so than in any other system.


     


    A free market allows a cable company to require you to buy bundles instead of ala carte channels. A free market lets you decline to pay for them, and seek entertainment elsewhere. A free market lets someone else come up with new technology and business models that make the cable company obsolete, and run it out of business, unless it responds to the competitive pressure by dropping prices, increasing consumer choice, etc. 


     


    Of course, there are many anti-free-market forces operating in the cable business. For instance, the fact that the government seems to grant "territories" to cable operators, where one neighborhood is served by one company, and another neighborhood is served by another company, effectively killing competition in any one neighborhood. Cable companies should be protected from government meddling in their products/services, but should have no government-sactioned benefits either...

  • Reply 110 of 148
    robin huberrobin huber Posts: 3,975member
    j1h15233 wrote: »
    If they're not offering anything that people are willing to pay for, then what's the point of them existing? It's like saying the Zune should get to survive because it has to share revenue with the iPod.

    Two things to ponder: 1) all use of the public airways is governed by the public interest doctrine (if not there'd be no news and only cartoons and reality TV), 2) by your reasoning Shakespeare should not be given any space on library and bookstore shelves because it doesn't get read by enough people
  • Reply 111 of 148
    cornchipcornchip Posts: 1,953member
    This will happen eventually by organic market occurrences. Politicians stay away!
  • Reply 112 of 148
    cornchipcornchip Posts: 1,953member


    Slowly but surely it is happening. Two of my hometowns in Tennessee already have their own fiber-optic networks online. It's coming, don't worry. 


     


    --- EDIT: Quotes didn't carry for some reason...

  • Reply 113 of 148
    robin huberrobin huber Posts: 3,975member
    cornchip wrote: »
    This will happen eventually by organic market occurrences. Politicians stay away!
    That might be true if the market were organic, but the cable market is filled with preservatives. Politicians paid to preserve the status quo.
  • Reply 114 of 148
    michael scripmichael scrip Posts: 1,916member
    I think the concept of "channels" is becoming obsolete anyway.

    Let's say someday you are able to subscribe a la carte and choose the 10 or 15 channels you actually want.

    1. Your cable bill may not become cheaper... since the cable company will likely be charging more per channel.

    2. You are still paying for those channels even when you're asleep or at work.

    Even if you only have 15 channels... those channels are still pumping out 360 hours of programming every single day. How much of that will you actually watch?

    [B]Why not just pay for individual [I]shows[/I] and forget the entire concept of [I]channels[/I]?[/B]
  • Reply 115 of 148
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,217member
    Now if we can also get him to add that studios/nets can't withhold legal downloading for more than say 90 days or when the home video comes out whichever is sooner. So we can stop having places like Warner's not allowing TV shows on iTunes etc. and for streaming where they do it by season it has to be up by the time the home video disks are out.
  • Reply 116 of 148
    conrailconrail Posts: 489member

    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.



    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 wonder if there have been any polls conducted to find out which channels people are most anxious get get rid of?

  • Reply 117 of 148
    j1h15233j1h15233 Posts: 274member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post





    Two things to ponder: 1) all use of the public airways is governed by the public interest doctrine (if not there'd be no news and only cartoons and reality TV), 2) by your reasoning Shakespeare should not be given any space on library and bookstore shelves because it doesn't get read by enough people


    News and Shakespeare can disappear for all I care. Seriously though, how many other businesses survive without making a product people want or having some type of profit? Should a channel like QVC survive because everyone wants to pay for ESPN or ABC? Quality programming won't go away because people will pay for it but the filler channels will produce something worthwhile or die.

  • Reply 118 of 148
    j1h15233j1h15233 Posts: 274member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post





    Smaller revenue pool. How often do the Kansas City Royals sell out their stadiuml? Yet Yankee Stadium is sold out every weekend the Yankees are home.


    That's not how this works. If 10 people in podunk, Kansas pay for a channel and another 1 million pay for that channel in New York, then the channel is successful.

  • Reply 119 of 148
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,217member
    don108 wrote: »
    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.

    There is that too. We need an end to this and/or Hulu, iTunes etc being deemed as cable companies themselves so they can play with in the rules or something
  • Reply 120 of 148
    pt123pt123 Posts: 696member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post





    If ESPN is willing to pay that then why not? I wouldn't be surprised if they make double what it costs them.




    I agree. Unfortunately, some people complain about cable cost and want ala carte pricing without factoring in this part of the cost.

Sign In or Register to comment.