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

1234568»

Comments

  • Reply 141 of 148
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    mundty wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 142 of 148
    ericblrericblr Posts: 172member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    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? ;-)
  • Reply 143 of 148
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,953member
    sdw2001 wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 144 of 148
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,953member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    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.

    mytdave wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 145 of 148
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,953member
    conrail wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 146 of 148
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    jeffdm wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 147 of 148
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,953member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 148 of 148
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 18,020member
    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.