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.
Why stop there at just one channel? Wouldn't true free market be the ability to pay for just the show I want to watch? If I just want Sopranos, why should I pay for the rest of the HBO shows that I do not watch?
And why would there be a max cost? Free market means free to charge the amount to make a profit, don't buy it if you do not like the price or product. The studio will charge whatever they need to make a profit.
Why stop there at just one channel? Wouldn't true free market be the ability to pay for just the show I want to watch? If I just want Sopranos, why should I pay for the rest of the HBO shows that I do not watch?
And why would there be a max cost? Free market means free to charge the amount to make a profit, don't buy it if you do not like the price or product. The studio will charge whatever they need to make a profit.
That pretty much itunes business model. Problem is if I would have to buy each show I watch on itunes it would cost my a lot more than my cable bill.
All of this dialogue and debate has me thinking of a new idea for TVs or cable boxes. If this goes through, someone needs to develop the Nest thermostat for channels. After a month of viewing, it would automatically pick the top 25 and send that info to the cable company to subscribe. If you view another channel out of the top 25, the system would automatically adjust your subscription if viewed enough.
I also like the idea pitched by another of paying for shows that channels.
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.
I don't consider this small stuff. It's obvious the free market is not working when you consider the high cost of cable.
That's not obvious at all. It's not even obvious that Cable TV systems, companies and markets are really a free market at all. For one thing, cable companies benefit from any number of special benefits and competitive protections and monopoly powers granted by local municipalities. However, at the end of the day, cable TV is small stuff.
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.
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.
You don't get it. This is about getting some "free market" back into the equation, and not more "big government". Governments are what gave the cable companies near monopoly positions in most markets. This is an attempt to force cable providers to provide consumers choice.
Quit trying to draw lines and just lumping people into categories based on what the mainstream media tells you they should be. Think deeper and understand the real issues.
You should think deeper as well. This is not about getting some "free market" (appropriately quoted by you) into the equation. It is about less free market. More free market would be banning the local (government granted) monopolies that most cable companies enjoy. You don't solve the restriction of the free market by government action by using more restriction of free market by still more government action. Well, you can...but that's not "getting some 'free market' back into the equation."
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.
I'd bet money that he's for some other big business that you're just not seeing.
As an unrelated example, I'll bet that Mr. McCain is not going to be introducing legislation anytime soon that would allow alcohol producers and retailers to deal directly with one another.
The "invisible hand" (a lovely fairy tale we like to tell our children) was amputated at the shoulder at birth.
I wouldn't say that the proverbial invisible hand is a "lovely fairy tale" but, indeed it has been amputated. Indeed, if it were a fairly tale, the latter part of your extension of the analogy is nonsensical.
[...] 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.
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.
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.
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.
****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:-)
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.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexmarrero
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.
Why stop there at just one channel? Wouldn't true free market be the ability to pay for just the show I want to watch? If I just want Sopranos, why should I pay for the rest of the HBO shows that I do not watch?
And why would there be a max cost? Free market means free to charge the amount to make a profit, don't buy it if you do not like the price or product. The studio will charge whatever they need to make a profit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pt123
Why stop there at just one channel? Wouldn't true free market be the ability to pay for just the show I want to watch? If I just want Sopranos, why should I pay for the rest of the HBO shows that I do not watch?
And why would there be a max cost? Free market means free to charge the amount to make a profit, don't buy it if you do not like the price or product. The studio will charge whatever they need to make a profit.
That pretty much itunes business model. Problem is if I would have to buy each show I watch on itunes it would cost my a lot more than my cable bill.
All of this dialogue and debate has me thinking of a new idea for TVs or cable boxes. If this goes through, someone needs to develop the Nest thermostat for channels. After a month of viewing, it would automatically pick the top 25 and send that info to the cable company to subscribe. If you view another channel out of the top 25, the system would automatically adjust your subscription if viewed enough.
I also like the idea pitched by another of paying for shows that channels.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rob53
I don't consider this small stuff. It's obvious the free market is not working when you consider the high cost of cable.
That's not obvious at all. It's not even obvious that Cable TV systems, companies and markets are really a free market at all. For one thing, cable companies benefit from any number of special benefits and competitive protections and monopoly powers granted by local municipalities. However, at the end of the day, cable TV is small stuff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don108
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.
+1 this
Quote:
Originally Posted by sessamoid
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.
+1 this
Quote:
Originally Posted by msimpson
You don't get it. This is about getting some "free market" back into the equation, and not more "big government". Governments are what gave the cable companies near monopoly positions in most markets. This is an attempt to force cable providers to provide consumers choice.
Quit trying to draw lines and just lumping people into categories based on what the mainstream media tells you they should be. Think deeper and understand the real issues.
You should think deeper as well. This is not about getting some "free market" (appropriately quoted by you) into the equation. It is about less free market. More free market would be banning the local (government granted) monopolies that most cable companies enjoy. You don't solve the restriction of the free market by government action by using more restriction of free market by still more government action. Well, you can...but that's not "getting some 'free market' back into the equation."
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
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.
I'd bet money that he's for some other big business that you're just not seeing.
As an unrelated example, I'll bet that Mr. McCain is not going to be introducing legislation anytime soon that would allow alcohol producers and retailers to deal directly with one another.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
The "invisible hand" (a lovely fairy tale we like to tell our children) was amputated at the shoulder at birth.
I wouldn't say that the proverbial invisible hand is a "lovely fairy tale" but, indeed it has been amputated. Indeed, if it were a fairly tale, the latter part of your extension of the analogy is nonsensical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexmarrero
[...] 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.
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.
The minute Obama agrees with him...Republicans will claim Obama is commie socialist who is trying to kill capitalism.
...
Quote:
Originally Posted by crees!
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.
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.
$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.