I have the latest boxtop Motorola that Charter offers, and the last time I asked a tech about a la carte, he said (might be bsing) that the box is not capable of technically doing a la carte. I find that hard to believe when it can do On Demand.
The REAL problem, IMO, is that cable companies make exclusive deals with municipalities and cities so that only one company supplies an entire area.
The city probably granted the permit to a particular cable company to trench every street and lay the fiber/cable. The city paid nothing and the citizens get cable. Win,Win. On the other hand had the city dug the trenches, laid the cable and paid for all the re-paving, sidewalk replacements and re-landscaping to complete the job at a cost of millions of dollars, they could have leased out the conduits to as many cable companies as were willing to provide service in that area. But...most cities don't have the budget or the long term foresight to undertake such a project. They are all busy changing the name of the city to Googleville in hopes that Google will choose them as the next ultra-high-speed infrastructure location.
Sorry to be the voice of reason here but it's policy that got us into this mess and policy will have a big hand in getting us out. Spectrum, competition, etc.
Yup, patch a bad policy over a bad policy over another bad policy and what do you get? Our government and legal system.
If what you say is true that "policy got us into this mess", then you can either: (a) fix it with policy or (2) get rid of the policies altogether. Do you want to put new shingles over a rotting roof?
I don't consider this small stuff. It's obvious the free market is not working when you consider the high cost of cable. Therefore, something needs to be done at the appropriate level. Cable crosses state borders so it enters federal jurisdiction. Congress refuses to work on the high priority stuff (medical care, unequal taxation, corruption in the stock market, invasion of foreign countries, etc.) so why not have them work on something that directly affects the livelihood of a majority of the US population. I would like to choose the stations I pay for but I also understand paying a la carte is never the least expensive way to buy anything.
Taking what i said out of context is the problem. I was responding to Rob Bonner who seemed to be referring to world shatteringly important issues being more relevant to Congress than this. I am really agreeing with your sentiment ... that was my point.
Cable TV is the crack of 1st world problems. They load up the programming with paid commercials and then get paid again from the consumer. And there's an article on CNN today about the 4K TVs. I'll never buy another TV until Apple or somebody can deliver built in Netflix, Hula, etc.
All good points and I agree. By the way isn't this him just being Mavericky?
We still don't know the details and that is where the devil resides, as we all know. But it does take being Mavericky to stand up and make policy that benefits the average Joe (no, not just you AJ). For the most part politicians these days seem to be utterly spineless creatures living in the pocket of big business. If this really is the common sense move that it appears to be, I take my hat off to the Mavericky one.
Cable TV is the crack of 1st world problems. They load up the programming with paid commercials and then get paid again from the consumer. And there's an article on CNN today about the 4K TVs. I'll never buy another TV until Apple or somebody can deliver built in Netflix, Hula, etc.
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.
There are pro's and con's to any government proposal, just as there are positives and negatives to the existing cabe bundling model. This one thing appears to be certain, no subscribers ares content with the existing program channel bundling arrangement and thus some change is needed. Neither the cable providers or network providers seems to have the stomach to propose any new or different solution either. Everyone with whom I have spoken with on this matter, only desire pay for the content that they watch and not to subsidize those marginal or fringe channels that they are forced to pay for within the bundle. 'Yes', a pay per content will change or eliminate some programing, yet this is the reality of the marketplace, all three major three networks in he 1970s objected to the rise of cable TV, however, the content provided on cable TV provided a spring full of novel and new channels and today no one dares to suggest that we should go back to the stovepipe 3 network TV model. Today the threat to cable is their lack of insight and innovation. Unless they change to the demands of the market, especially the population in their 20's, then cable is going to go the way of broadcast TV. Young viewers are not tied to the cable, they like Netflix and mobile viewing, this is something that cable does not do well. Pay-per-program may in fact liberate cable TV companies and allow them to create new and better programming. Today, we are being super-saturated with 'Reality' and 'Food' shows, lets open up the programming so that the content providers and creators make better programming, lets bring democracy to media broadcasting! I sick of junk being piped down my throat by the cable providers.
I agree with the overall sentiment against bundling but his strikes me as odd that McCain would be against the free market and using "big government" to want to take care of something that should have been dealt with decades ago if it was to be dealt with at all, not when the internet is already breaking it down. This is like the EU going after MS just a few years ago for bundling IE with Windows.
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.
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 suppose it could work with major changes to the content delivery model, but that would require a absolute revolution. What are the odds of that? The cable companies are like the new RIAA--completely outmoded regional monopolies and duopolies fighting innovation every step of the way, all while crying about how consumers are cheating them. Unreal.
We still don't know the details and that is where the devil resides, as we all know. But it does take being Mavericky to stand up and make policy that benefits the average Joe (no, not just you AJ). For the most part politicians these days seem to be utterly spineless creatures living in the pocket of big business. If this really is the common sense move that it appears to be, I take my hat off to the Mavericky one.
Sorry my attempt at humor without being political. No offense intended.
Government has no business getting involved, McCain is just another interventionist.
I love learning American politics I just wish it wasn't on AI. I have to ask as part of my education though, would a sheriff in the wild west protecting a damsel in distress from a bunch of thugs be 'interventionist'? The people voted and appointed them didn't they? How do you rank Liberty for all between damsel's and thugs' rights?
Comments
I have the latest boxtop Motorola that Charter offers, and the last time I asked a tech about a la carte, he said (might be bsing) that the box is not capable of technically doing a la carte. I find that hard to believe when it can do On Demand.
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.
The city probably granted the permit to a particular cable company to trench every street and lay the fiber/cable. The city paid nothing and the citizens get cable. Win,Win. On the other hand had the city dug the trenches, laid the cable and paid for all the re-paving, sidewalk replacements and re-landscaping to complete the job at a cost of millions of dollars, they could have leased out the conduits to as many cable companies as were willing to provide service in that area. But...most cities don't have the budget or the long term foresight to undertake such a project. They are all busy changing the name of the city to Googleville in hopes that Google will choose them as the next ultra-high-speed infrastructure location.
Quote:
Originally Posted by j1h15233
Animal Planet? Really? If channels are popular enough, they'll survive and if they're not, they'll die. I don't see any problem with that.
Then welcome to the world of only:
1) brain dead sitcoms
2) reality shows
3) major sports
That's what you'd have without bundling to allow studios to be able to provide content for more niche markets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddawson100
Sorry to be the voice of reason here but it's policy that got us into this mess and policy will have a big hand in getting us out. Spectrum, competition, etc.
Yup, patch a bad policy over a bad policy over another bad policy and what do you get? Our government and legal system.
If what you say is true that "policy got us into this mess", then you can either: (a) fix it with policy or (2) get rid of the policies altogether. Do you want to put new shingles over a rotting roof?
Do you know how many small city professional teams survive only because of revenue sharing? More choices is always better than less.
Taking what i said out of context is the problem. I was responding to Rob Bonner who seemed to be referring to world shatteringly important issues being more relevant to Congress than this. I am really agreeing with your sentiment ... that was my point.
Perhaps McCain is starting his 2016 reelection campaign early.
Cable TV is the crack of 1st world problems. They load up the programming with paid commercials and then get paid again from the consumer. And there's an article on CNN today about the 4K TVs. I'll never buy another TV until Apple or somebody can deliver built in Netflix, Hula, etc.
What's cable TV?
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
All good points and I agree. By the way isn't this him just being Mavericky?
We still don't know the details and that is where the devil resides, as we all know. But it does take being Mavericky to stand up and make policy that benefits the average Joe (no, not just you AJ). For the most part politicians these days seem to be utterly spineless creatures living in the pocket of big business. If this really is the common sense move that it appears to be, I take my hat off to the Mavericky one.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by auxio
What's cable TV?
Damn Canucks... should have launched a few nukes at you 30 years ago and claim the oil rights. :-)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I agree with the overall sentiment against bundling but his strikes me as odd that McCain would be against the free market and using "big government" to want to take care of something that should have been dealt with decades ago if it was to be dealt with at all, not when the internet is already breaking it down. This is like the EU going after MS just a few years ago for bundling IE with Windows.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
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 suppose it could work with major changes to the content delivery model, but that would require a absolute revolution. What are the odds of that? The cable companies are like the new RIAA--completely outmoded regional monopolies and duopolies fighting innovation every step of the way, all while crying about how consumers are cheating them. Unreal.Supply and demand still works. That won't change.
Sorry my attempt at humor without being political. No offense intended.
I love learning American politics I just wish it wasn't on AI. I have to ask as part of my education though, would a sheriff in the wild west protecting a damsel in distress from a bunch of thugs be 'interventionist'? The people voted and appointed them didn't they? How do you rank Liberty for all between damsel's and thugs' rights?