Then ESPN could be a special channel like HBO that cannot be pick-up with a la carte bundles... the way it works here is we have a list of channels we can choose a la carte. The list does not include special channels like premium movies or sports.
Example of mandatory package: Local feeds of PBS, CBS, ABC, FOX, NBC, CW, ... ($10)
Example of a la carte list: CNN, FoxNews, Animal planet, Discovery, Disney, HGTV, Food, ... (a la carte bundles or $2 / channel)
Example of premium channels with special prices: HBO, ESPN, ... (special price)
for some reason Quebec is the only province in Canada with that kind of TV packages
I thought the whole complaint was that bundling was bad.
Especially if you get to pick and choose from different teirs. Something like... 4 teir 1, 2 teir 2 and 1 premium.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismY
That's why packages do make sense.
Packages is what we have now. It is highly unlikely that someone can construct a "package" that would actually meet the desires of the majority of customers. And what is the point from the providers needs? Packaging gives the illusion of getting value for your money. So a "Basic TV" package costs, let's say $39 and it gets you 50 channels. A slick salesman will present that as less than a $1 per channel. The critical thinking person who realizes that they only will watch 7 of the 50, knows that it is really $5.57 per channel. Now $5.57 is not bad for a channel, but there is that one other channel that I want and it comes in another package and that package costs $20. Now my cost per channel has risen to $7.37. Now consider that on one of the original 7 channels I only watch one show. It really does not make any sense to have packages, except for the providers. I am afraid that Apple may have become too attached to the idea of reinventing TV to the point that just to get in, they don't reinvent and have to hire that slick salesman. So I will I buy it, not because it is what I want, but because if I can give less money to Comcast it works for me.
All about profit margins, or at least unbundling the profit margins. Whether the sky high profit margins cable and telecoms have luxuriated in will lower is likely a nifty piece of wishful thinking. This latest Apple corporate move is another "disrupter" of an existing video media delivery market - not necessarily of Comcast and ATT, Charter, Time Warner, etc … but of their *profit margins* that users over the last 15+ years have blindly allowed these giant media companies to turn around and cudgel customers with. As it is, this latest Apple foray into video delivery is a move intended to siphon off existing profit margins the WSJ report range from 50% that Comcast makes off every customer and up to 60% for Charter and Cablevision.
Here's to the last 8 years of cord cutters and streaming device early adopters. That is who sent a warning shot over the bow of the multinational media corporations that users with just a bit of tech sense had options to paying $80 - $150/month for crap no one actually wants (along with the mind numbing masochistic waste of time that is every cable company's "customer service").
It's a shame Apple didn't do more with the Apple TV from 2006+ and then move rapidly along to content delivery of just this sort of trimmed down selective bundling. Geez, what a great disrupter device the ATV 1 still is, 160 gb drive, take out the AE card and drop in a broadcom crystal chip for 1080, hardwired for wifi … and you're off to the races with no need for cable. Apple has long understood content is king. That's what iTunes is. Apple is in the business of making money by tweaking and taking over a segment of an existing market - not philanthropy. An Apple TV service is not intended to diminish those profit margins, only to now shift them Apple's way. It will likely be successful, as there are simply not enough motivated users since 2006 to DIY the basics of custom designing their own content delivery with OTA, smart tvs, consoles, Hulu and Netflix, jailbroken ATVs with XBMC/Kodi from which users already have unlimited a la carte choices. I've never understood why Apple didn't just buy Hulu.
It is highly unlikely that someone can construct a "package" that would actually meet the desires of the majority of customers.
The point of packages is to meet the needs of the majority of customers. The smaller the package the less likely you're going to meet the viewing desires of any given audience and when you get down to à la carte channels you only get those that would ever watch that channel.
The point of packages is to meet the needs of the majority of customers. The smaller the package the less likely you're going to meet the viewing desires of any given audience and when you get down to à la carte channels you only get those that would ever watch that channel.
No wonder TV hasn't changed much in the last 40 years. You make my point but yet we disagree.
Apple seems to have figured out that they just need the infrastructure for the service and enough consumers, with a core set of network TV channels, and the rest will follow: the other content providers, and the customers.
Look at the potential: Apple has sold 26,000,000 iOS-based Apple TV boxes that could deliver the service. The largest US cable company, Comcast, has just 22,000,000 subscribers. Even assuming some homes have more than one Apple TV box, content providers are still looking at another Comcast-scale opportunity. They'll all join, including NBC Universal.
Hopefully this will cause the major cable and satellite provider to become more competitive now that Apple is offering people other choices, much like Sprint and T-Mobile did with AT&T and Verizon. Now my AT&T phone bill is about the same as it was 8 years ago, but I now have 2 phones, unlimited talk, text and much more data along with being able to create a Wi-Fi Hotspot with my phones. I'm hoping for the same competition with my cable/internet providers.
Its the Google generation that thinks everything should be free as long as you whore your information out.
Sorry, but Apple dont play that game. You need to PAY to PLAY.
And since when is $30 a month alot of cash?
My guess is you're from my generation. I suspect you, along with countless others have lost site of the fact that when cable was first introduced, it was the monthly fee that paid for the programming. That was the draw with cable, no commercials because the viewer was paying to watch. Corporate greed, as it always has, soon took over and now paid viewership was not enough. They soon introduced commercials into the mix and now they make billions in profits instead of millions. It's NEVER enough with these people. So, to answer your question, "since when is $30 a month a lot of cash?"...the day they introduced commercials ALONG with paying a fee to watch. The very reason I don't go to the movies anymore, too many damn commercials (25 min worth) before the movie even starts. And paid radio, don't even get me started on that.
My guess is you're from my generation. I suspect you, along with countless others have lost site of the fact that when cable was first introduced, it was the monthly fee that paid for the programming. That was the draw with cable, no commercials because the viewer was paying to watch. Corporate greed, as it always has, soon took over and now paid viewership was not enough. They soon introduced commercials into the mix and now they make billions in profits instead of millions. It's NEVER enough with these people. So, to answer your question, "since when is $30 a month a lot of cash?"...the day they introduced commercials ALONG with paying a fee to watch. The very reason I don't go to the movies anymore, too many damn commercials (25 min worth) before the movie even starts. And paid radio, don't even get me started on that.
What market was cable ever ad free. In the US, in multiple markets around the country there were ads all throughout cable. The only ones that didn't have ads interrupting programmes were semi-premium and premium channels, but most did.
What market was cable ever ad free. In the US, in multiple markets around the country there were ads all throughout cable. The only ones that didn't have ads interrupting programmes were semi-premium and premium channels, but most did.
It was initially promoted as "commercial free tv". We've been watching TV with commercials for so long, it's hard to remember the day it started without them.
ISP's can't throttle your internet if you choose a different TV provider such as AppleTV
Here’s the best take I’ve seen on it. Tell me where it’s wrong if it’s wrong.
The Federal Communications Commission today voted, 3-2, that the Internet will be subject to many of the Title II regulatory provisions of the 1934 Communications Act. Applying Title II laws to broadband means regulating the Internet as a common carrier, akin to the telephone network, and gives significant control of the Internet to the FCC, lobbyists, and industry players.
The Title II order and new net neutrality rules have not been released yet, but the thrust of the regulations is clear from commissioners’ statements and media reports. In short, the FCC’s rules represent a giant step backwards to the days of command-and-control of markets.
The FCC’s actions derive in part from the myth that the Internet is neutral. In the evolving online world, the Internet gets less neutral—and better for consumers—every day. Through a hands-off approach from policymakers, the U.S. communications and technology sector has thrived as a supplier of innovation, but Title II rules effectively throw sand in the gears.
If the FCC’s rules are not overturned by the courts, the days of permissionless innovation online come to a close. The application of Title II means new broadband services must receive approval from this federal agency. Companies in Silicon Valley will therefore rely increasingly on their regulatory compliance officers, not their engineers and designers.
If courts do strike down the FCC’s net neutrality rules for a third time, the FCC should abandon its campaign to regulate the Internet. Instead the Commission should focus on increasing broadband competition across the nation, thereby reducing prices and increasing the availability of new broadband services. There is plenty of work to be done on this front, but pursuing Title II net neutrality rules distract the Commission and Congress from spearheading a pro-consumer innovation agenda.
In view of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) vote on February 26 to regulate the Internet under Title II of the New Deal–era Communications Act, it is critical to understand what these “net neutrality” rules will and will not do.
Columbia Business School professor Eli Noam says net neutrality has “at least seven different related but distinctive meanings….” The consensus is, however, that net neutrality is a principle for how an Internet Service Provider (ISP) or wireless carrier treats Internet traffic on “last mile” access?—?the connection between an ISP and its customer. Purists believe net neutrality requires ISPs to treat all last-mile Internet traffic the same. The FCC will not enforce that radical notion because networks are becoming more “intelligent” every year and, as a Cisco network engineer recently put it, equal treatment for all data packets “would be setting the industry back 20 years.”
Nevertheless, because similar rules were twice struck down in federal court, the FCC is crafting new net neutrality rules for ISPs and technology companies. Many of these Title II provisions reined in the old Bell telephone monopoly and are the most intrusive rules available to the FCC. The net neutrality rules are garnering increased public scrutiny because they will apply to one of the few bright spots in the US economy?—?the technology and communications sector.
As with many complex concepts, there are many myths about net neutrality. Five of the most widespread ones are dispelled below.
Myth #1: The Internet Has Always Been Neutral
Reality: Prioritization has been built into Internet protocols for years. MIT computer scientist and early Internet developer David Clark colorfully dismissed this first myth as “happy little bunny rabbit dreams,” and pointed out that “[t]he network is not neutral and never has been.” Experts such as tech entrepreneur and investor Mark Cuban and President Obama’s former chief technology officer Aneesh Chopra have observed that the need for prioritization of some traffic increases as Internet services grow more diverse. People speaking face-to-face online with doctors through new telemedicine video applications, for instance, should not be disrupted by once-a-day data backups. ISPs and tech companies should be free to experiment with new broadband services without time-consuming regulatory approval from the FCC. John Oliver, The Oatmeal, and net neutrality activists, therefore, are simply wrong about the nature of the Internet.
Myth #2: Net Neutrality Regulations Are the Only Way to Promote an Open Internet
Reality: Even while lightly regulated, the Internet will remain open because consumers demand an open Internet. Recent Rasmussen polling indicates the vast majority of Americans enjoy the open Internet they currently receive and rate their Internet service as good or excellent. (Only a small fraction, 5 percent, says their Internet quality is “poor.”) It is in ISPs’ interest to provide high-quality Internet just as it is in smartphone companies’ interest to provide great phones and automakers’ interest to build reliable cars. Additionally, it is false when high-profile scholars and activists say there is no “cop on the beat” overseeing Internet companies. As Federal Trade Commissioner Joshua Wright testified to Congress, existing federal competition laws and consumer protection laws?—?and strict penalties?—?protect Americans from harmful ISP behavior.
Myth #3: Net Neutrality Regulations Improve Broadband Competition
Reality: The FCC’s net neutrality rules are not an effective way to improve broadband competition. Net neutrality is a principle for ISP treatment of Internet traffic on the “last mile”?—?the connection between an ISP and a consumer. The principle says nothing about broadband competition and will not increase the number of broadband choices for consumers. On the contrary, net neutrality as a policy goal was created because many scholars did not believe more broadband choices could ensure a “neutral” Internet. Further, Supreme Court decisions lead scholars to conclude that “as prescriptive regulation of a field waxes, antitrust enforcement must wane.” Therefore, the FCC’s net neutrality rules would actually impede antitrust agencies from protecting consumers.
Myth #4: All Prioritized Internet Services Are Harmful to Users
Reality: Intelligent management of Internet traffic and prioritization provide useful services to consumers. Net neutrality proponents call zero-rating?—?which is when carriers allow Internet services that don’t subtract from a monthly data allotment?—?and similar practices “dangerous,” “malignant,” and rights violations. This hyperbole arises from dogma, not facts. The real-world use of prioritization and zero-rating is encouraging and pro-consumer. Studies show that zero-rated applications are used by millions of people around the globe, including in the United States, and they are popular. In one instance, poor South African high school students petitioned their carriers for free?—?zero-rated?—?Wikipedia access because accessing Wikipedia frequently for homework was expensive. Upon hearing the students’ plight, Wikipedia and South African carriers happily obliged. Net neutrality rules like Title II would prohibit popular services like zero-rating and intelligent network management that makes more services available.
Myth #5: Net Neutrality Rules Will Make Broadband Cheaper and Internet Services like Netflix Faster
Reality: First, the FCC’s rules will make broadband more expensive, not cheaper. The rules regulate Internet companies much like telephone companies and therefore federal and state telephone fees will eventually apply to Internet bills. According to preliminary estimates, millions of Americans will drop or never subscribe to an Internet connection because of these price hikes. Second, the FCC’s rules will not make Netflix and webpages faster. The FCC rules do not require ISPs to increase the capacity or speed of customers’ connections. Capacity upgrades require competition and ISP investment, which may be harmed by the FCC’s onerous new rules.
It was initially promoted as "commercial free tv". We've been watching TV with commercials for so long, it's hard to remember the day it started without them.
1) What day didn't have commercials on TV? The first 4 days of broadcasting in the 1940s?
2) Certain channels had no ads, and some of those channels eventually ad to adopt ads because getting paid well by local networks was no longer an option because the viewer interest wasn't there, but cable ALWAYS had ads. You know this because cable ALWAYS included the local affiliate channels, and then likely major ad-supported networks in other markets, like Chicago's WGN, Atlanta's TBS, and whatever NYC network that was included where I lived. There were certainly some (essentially*) ad-free premium networks like Showtime and HBO, as well a few others like AMC (American Movie Classic) that were originally commercial-free, and I didn't have to pay extra for, but I know that wasn't the case in all markets.
If you show me a cable provider that offered zero ad-supported channels I will show you a cable that didn't include most channels available, had sub-par content, and charged a lot of money for access.
* I say essentially because each channel would advertise their own shows between their content, they just wouldn't interrupt content to advertise.
Comments
It's certainly my thought. I can't say I've read other such comments besides yours but I also can't imagine we're the only one that had that thought.
I thought the whole complaint was that bundling was bad.
Especially if you get to pick and choose from different teirs. Something like... 4 teir 1, 2 teir 2 and 1 premium.
That's why packages do make sense.
Packages is what we have now. It is highly unlikely that someone can construct a "package" that would actually meet the desires of the majority of customers. And what is the point from the providers needs? Packaging gives the illusion of getting value for your money. So a "Basic TV" package costs, let's say $39 and it gets you 50 channels. A slick salesman will present that as less than a $1 per channel. The critical thinking person who realizes that they only will watch 7 of the 50, knows that it is really $5.57 per channel. Now $5.57 is not bad for a channel, but there is that one other channel that I want and it comes in another package and that package costs $20. Now my cost per channel has risen to $7.37. Now consider that on one of the original 7 channels I only watch one show. It really does not make any sense to have packages, except for the providers. I am afraid that Apple may have become too attached to the idea of reinventing TV to the point that just to get in, they don't reinvent and have to hire that slick salesman. So I will I buy it, not because it is what I want, but because if I can give less money to Comcast it works for me.
All about profit margins, or at least unbundling the profit margins. Whether the sky high profit margins cable and telecoms have luxuriated in will lower is likely a nifty piece of wishful thinking. This latest Apple corporate move is another "disrupter" of an existing video media delivery market - not necessarily of Comcast and ATT, Charter, Time Warner, etc … but of their *profit margins* that users over the last 15+ years have blindly allowed these giant media companies to turn around and cudgel customers with. As it is, this latest Apple foray into video delivery is a move intended to siphon off existing profit margins the WSJ report range from 50% that Comcast makes off every customer and up to 60% for Charter and Cablevision.
Here's to the last 8 years of cord cutters and streaming device early adopters. That is who sent a warning shot over the bow of the multinational media corporations that users with just a bit of tech sense had options to paying $80 - $150/month for crap no one actually wants (along with the mind numbing masochistic waste of time that is every cable company's "customer service").
It's a shame Apple didn't do more with the Apple TV from 2006+ and then move rapidly along to content delivery of just this sort of trimmed down selective bundling. Geez, what a great disrupter device the ATV 1 still is, 160 gb drive, take out the AE card and drop in a broadcom crystal chip for 1080, hardwired for wifi … and you're off to the races with no need for cable. Apple has long understood content is king. That's what iTunes is. Apple is in the business of making money by tweaking and taking over a segment of an existing market - not philanthropy. An Apple TV service is not intended to diminish those profit margins, only to now shift them Apple's way. It will likely be successful, as there are simply not enough motivated users since 2006 to DIY the basics of custom designing their own content delivery with OTA, smart tvs, consoles, Hulu and Netflix, jailbroken ATVs with XBMC/Kodi from which users already have unlimited a la carte choices. I've never understood why Apple didn't just buy Hulu.
The point of packages is to meet the needs of the majority of customers. The smaller the package the less likely you're going to meet the viewing desires of any given audience and when you get down to à la carte channels you only get those that would ever watch that channel.
The point of packages is to meet the needs of the majority of customers. The smaller the package the less likely you're going to meet the viewing desires of any given audience and when you get down to à la carte channels you only get those that would ever watch that channel.
No wonder TV hasn't changed much in the last 40 years. You make my point but yet we disagree.
Look at the potential: Apple has sold 26,000,000 iOS-based Apple TV boxes that could deliver the service. The largest US cable company, Comcast, has just 22,000,000 subscribers. Even assuming some homes have more than one Apple TV box, content providers are still looking at another Comcast-scale opportunity. They'll all join, including NBC Universal.
Well played, Apple.
My thoughts exactly. I'm thinking we will see a new one with 4K and app support at WWDC for $129
What's to disagree with?
You Milineials think everything should be free.
Its the Google generation that thinks everything should be free as long as you whore your information out.
Sorry, but Apple dont play that game. You need to PAY to PLAY.
And since when is $30 a month alot of cash?
My guess is you're from my generation. I suspect you, along with countless others have lost site of the fact that when cable was first introduced, it was the monthly fee that paid for the programming. That was the draw with cable, no commercials because the viewer was paying to watch. Corporate greed, as it always has, soon took over and now paid viewership was not enough. They soon introduced commercials into the mix and now they make billions in profits instead of millions. It's NEVER enough with these people. So, to answer your question, "since when is $30 a month a lot of cash?"...the day they introduced commercials ALONG with paying a fee to watch. The very reason I don't go to the movies anymore, too many damn commercials (25 min worth) before the movie even starts. And paid radio, don't even get me started on that.
What market was cable ever ad free. In the US, in multiple markets around the country there were ads all throughout cable. The only ones that didn't have ads interrupting programmes were semi-premium and premium channels, but most did.
Planet Earth circa 1970s
It was awful.
And they’ll still be doing that.
Yes.
Cable was approx. $14.99 in the mid-1970s, and that was with HBO.
What market was cable ever ad free. In the US, in multiple markets around the country there were ads all throughout cable. The only ones that didn't have ads interrupting programmes were semi-premium and premium channels, but most did.
It was initially promoted as "commercial free tv". We've been watching TV with commercials for so long, it's hard to remember the day it started without them.
ISP's can't throttle your internet if you choose a different TV provider such as AppleTV
Here’s the best take I’ve seen on it. Tell me where it’s wrong if it’s wrong.
The Federal Communications Commission today voted, 3-2, that the Internet will be subject to many of the Title II regulatory provisions of the 1934 Communications Act. Applying Title II laws to broadband means regulating the Internet as a common carrier, akin to the telephone network, and gives significant control of the Internet to the FCC, lobbyists, and industry players.
The Title II order and new net neutrality rules have not been released yet, but the thrust of the regulations is clear from commissioners’ statements and media reports. In short, the FCC’s rules represent a giant step backwards to the days of command-and-control of markets.
The FCC’s actions derive in part from the myth that the Internet is neutral. In the evolving online world, the Internet gets less neutral—and better for consumers—every day. Through a hands-off approach from policymakers, the U.S. communications and technology sector has thrived as a supplier of innovation, but Title II rules effectively throw sand in the gears.
If the FCC’s rules are not overturned by the courts, the days of permissionless innovation online come to a close. The application of Title II means new broadband services must receive approval from this federal agency. Companies in Silicon Valley will therefore rely increasingly on their regulatory compliance officers, not their engineers and designers.
If courts do strike down the FCC’s net neutrality rules for a third time, the FCC should abandon its campaign to regulate the Internet. Instead the Commission should focus on increasing broadband competition across the nation, thereby reducing prices and increasing the availability of new broadband services. There is plenty of work to be done on this front, but pursuing Title II net neutrality rules distract the Commission and Congress from spearheading a pro-consumer innovation agenda.
In view of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) vote on February 26 to regulate the Internet under Title II of the New Deal–era Communications Act, it is critical to understand what these “net neutrality” rules will and will not do.
Columbia Business School professor Eli Noam says net neutrality has “at least seven different related but distinctive meanings….” The consensus is, however, that net neutrality is a principle for how an Internet Service Provider (ISP) or wireless carrier treats Internet traffic on “last mile” access?—?the connection between an ISP and its customer. Purists believe net neutrality requires ISPs to treat all last-mile Internet traffic the same. The FCC will not enforce that radical notion because networks are becoming more “intelligent” every year and, as a Cisco network engineer recently put it, equal treatment for all data packets “would be setting the industry back 20 years.”
Nevertheless, because similar rules were twice struck down in federal court, the FCC is crafting new net neutrality rules for ISPs and technology companies. Many of these Title II provisions reined in the old Bell telephone monopoly and are the most intrusive rules available to the FCC. The net neutrality rules are garnering increased public scrutiny because they will apply to one of the few bright spots in the US economy?—?the technology and communications sector.
As with many complex concepts, there are many myths about net neutrality. Five of the most widespread ones are dispelled below.
Myth #1: The Internet Has Always Been Neutral
Reality: Prioritization has been built into Internet protocols for years. MIT computer scientist and early Internet developer David Clark colorfully dismissed this first myth as “happy little bunny rabbit dreams,” and pointed out that “[t]he network is not neutral and never has been.” Experts such as tech entrepreneur and investor Mark Cuban and President Obama’s former chief technology officer Aneesh Chopra have observed that the need for prioritization of some traffic increases as Internet services grow more diverse. People speaking face-to-face online with doctors through new telemedicine video applications, for instance, should not be disrupted by once-a-day data backups. ISPs and tech companies should be free to experiment with new broadband services without time-consuming regulatory approval from the FCC. John Oliver, The Oatmeal, and net neutrality activists, therefore, are simply wrong about the nature of the Internet.
Myth #2: Net Neutrality Regulations Are the Only Way to Promote an Open Internet
Reality: Even while lightly regulated, the Internet will remain open because consumers demand an open Internet. Recent Rasmussen polling indicates the vast majority of Americans enjoy the open Internet they currently receive and rate their Internet service as good or excellent. (Only a small fraction, 5 percent, says their Internet quality is “poor.”) It is in ISPs’ interest to provide high-quality Internet just as it is in smartphone companies’ interest to provide great phones and automakers’ interest to build reliable cars. Additionally, it is false when high-profile scholars and activists say there is no “cop on the beat” overseeing Internet companies. As Federal Trade Commissioner Joshua Wright testified to Congress, existing federal competition laws and consumer protection laws?—?and strict penalties?—?protect Americans from harmful ISP behavior.
Myth #3: Net Neutrality Regulations Improve Broadband Competition
Reality: The FCC’s net neutrality rules are not an effective way to improve broadband competition. Net neutrality is a principle for ISP treatment of Internet traffic on the “last mile”?—?the connection between an ISP and a consumer. The principle says nothing about broadband competition and will not increase the number of broadband choices for consumers. On the contrary, net neutrality as a policy goal was created because many scholars did not believe more broadband choices could ensure a “neutral” Internet. Further, Supreme Court decisions lead scholars to conclude that “as prescriptive regulation of a field waxes, antitrust enforcement must wane.” Therefore, the FCC’s net neutrality rules would actually impede antitrust agencies from protecting consumers.
Myth #4: All Prioritized Internet Services Are Harmful to Users
Reality: Intelligent management of Internet traffic and prioritization provide useful services to consumers. Net neutrality proponents call zero-rating?—?which is when carriers allow Internet services that don’t subtract from a monthly data allotment?—?and similar practices “dangerous,” “malignant,” and rights violations. This hyperbole arises from dogma, not facts. The real-world use of prioritization and zero-rating is encouraging and pro-consumer. Studies show that zero-rated applications are used by millions of people around the globe, including in the United States, and they are popular. In one instance, poor South African high school students petitioned their carriers for free?—?zero-rated?—?Wikipedia access because accessing Wikipedia frequently for homework was expensive. Upon hearing the students’ plight, Wikipedia and South African carriers happily obliged. Net neutrality rules like Title II would prohibit popular services like zero-rating and intelligent network management that makes more services available.
Myth #5: Net Neutrality Rules Will Make Broadband Cheaper and Internet Services like Netflix Faster
Reality: First, the FCC’s rules will make broadband more expensive, not cheaper. The rules regulate Internet companies much like telephone companies and therefore federal and state telephone fees will eventually apply to Internet bills. According to preliminary estimates, millions of Americans will drop or never subscribe to an Internet connection because of these price hikes. Second, the FCC’s rules will not make Netflix and webpages faster. The FCC rules do not require ISPs to increase the capacity or speed of customers’ connections. Capacity upgrades require competition and ISP investment, which may be harmed by the FCC’s onerous new rules.
nope. ISP's can't throttle your internet if you choose a different TV provider such as AppleTV
except for reasonable network management necessary to optimize network performance
1) What day didn't have commercials on TV? The first 4 days of broadcasting in the 1940s?
2) Certain channels had no ads, and some of those channels eventually ad to adopt ads because getting paid well by local networks was no longer an option because the viewer interest wasn't there, but cable ALWAYS had ads. You know this because cable ALWAYS included the local affiliate channels, and then likely major ad-supported networks in other markets, like Chicago's WGN, Atlanta's TBS, and whatever NYC network that was included where I lived. There were certainly some (essentially*) ad-free premium networks like Showtime and HBO, as well a few others like AMC (American Movie Classic) that were originally commercial-free, and I didn't have to pay extra for, but I know that wasn't the case in all markets.
If you show me a cable provider that offered zero ad-supported channels I will show you a cable that didn't include most channels available, had sub-par content, and charged a lot of money for access.
* I say essentially because each channel would advertise their own shows between their content, they just wouldn't interrupt content to advertise.