John McCain Working On Legislation For 'a La Carte' TV Channel Packages 614
An anonymous reader writes "John McCain, Republican Senator for Arizona and former U.S. presidential candidate, is drafting a new bill that would pressure TV providers to allow customers to select and pay for only the channels they want to watch. The bill will also 'bar TV networks from bundling their broadcast stations with cable channels they own during negotiations with the cable companies, according to industry sources. So for example, the Disney Company, which owns both ABC and ESPN, could not force a cable provider to pay for ESPN in order to carry ABC.' Perhaps most importantly, the bill could 'end the sports blackout rule, which prohibits cable companies from carrying a sports event if the game is blacked out on local broadcast television stations.' This would hamstring the ludicrous practice of blacking out TV broadcasts in order to drive fans to buy actual tickets to a game. The cable and satellite TV industry is expected to push back very strongly against the bill."
Sounds good. (Score:4, Insightful)
Wont pass though.
Isn't that called "the internet"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sounds good. (Score:4, Insightful)
oh, B.S.
Figure out a way to make some fatass executive rich off of it.. THEN it will pass.
Re:WHY!? (Score:5, Insightful)
Partly, bad timing: his party's brand was tarnished by George W. Bush. Partly, bad choice of running mate.
Blame the party leadership, not McCain himself.
Re:Isn't that called "the internet"? (Score:2, Insightful)
Whats TV?
Oh I know, it's that thing old people talk about.
What is this, Korea?
Who cares? (Score:4, Insightful)
This is too little too late. Forget saving these dinosaurs, I want to see them crash and burn.
Re:Sounds good. (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't care if it passes. The fact is that it would be too-little too-late for me to care about television anymore. The advertisements you pay for, the terrible reality television, the death of educational programming, and the underlying vacuousness, even if they were partially caused by "free money" streams from package deals, aren't going to be reversed by suddenly making them fight for the percentage of their audience who will take advantage of this.
TV is dead, and the small pieces of legitimately good television can be gotten through the internet. It's too late to save cable.
Re:WHY!? (Score:1, Insightful)
You mean Palin the sweatheart of Busting the Oil Companies Balls in Alaska and the Crusader against the "Good Olde Politcal Boys" Club in Alaska who had many positive Articles written about her BEFORE August 2008, but then who after the 2008 RNC convention was worse than Ming the Merciless accroding to the same people who wrote the glowing articles about her not one month ago....
The same Palin that had quotes miss-attrributed to her that were spoken by a half rate SNL actress...
Yeah, that Palin....
Re:Isn't that called "the internet"? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd like to believe that, but what I've seen over the last bunch of years says that the copyright and media groups are winning the battle, and lawmakers are all too willing to give them what they want.
Between the DMCA, seemingly indefinite copyrights, and everything else, I don't see how we're going to make this inevitable.
It's beginning to look more like a world where the media companies control everything is inevitable.
Re:Sounds good. (Score:5, Insightful)
What is really funny is that the only GOPers that could make it to the whitehouse can't make it through the primary.
This is what the GOP gets for doubling down on the derp.
Re:Sounds good. (Score:5, Insightful)
"Some fatass executive will figure out a way to get rich off of it.. THEN it won't matter if it passed."
There, fixed that for ya.
Please let this gain momentum! (Score:5, Insightful)
Cable has become a joke! It's Springsteen's 57 channels times TEN today. The major content providers are extorting the service providers because they know it's an all-or-nothing deal. Even though maybe only 1/3 of customers watch ESPN, no service provider can reject the entire ESPN suite because they know that's a deal-breaker. And the major content providers use that as an excuse to package 3-4 satellite channels that show the same content and charge more.
It's insane that I can surf through dozens of channels and see nothing but crap on. With a la carte, content providers will HAVE to produce quality and not rely on being a filler dial number. I could care less if 1/2 of the stations go away. And, the bullies like ESPN (I think averaging about $8/mo of your cable bill) won't have service providers by the nuts any more.
Re:WHY!? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sounds good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Quick - define "moderate" without using your own ideology as a guide, and be intellectually honest when you try.
Fact is, you cannot do so, and neither can I.
Re:Sounds good. (Score:3, Insightful)
Rand Paul? Please... the guy's a complete fruitcake. Right now the numbers say it will be Jeb vs. Hillary. Both have the 'creds' where they are needed most. But as usual, it's best to see who can move the most money. That will decide who wins.
Re:Sounds good. (Score:4, Insightful)
What you're doing is sometimes known as the "Magical Balance Fairy."
There's one major party that's locked into deranged derp because they brainwashed their base so badly with superstition and hatred of anyone who isn't a lock-step far-right idiot, that they become enraged when confronted with reality outside the bubble.
The Republicans need to drive the wackos out if they ever want to win the presidency, but they can't because their brand has been destroyed by the pandering to racists, creationists, global warming deniers, and other lunatics.
We need a new second party to counterbalance the Democrats, because the Republicans can't while living in a fake-outrage driven bubble.
Re:Sounds good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sounds good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Hell, I'll settle for a party that has an internally consistent platform, instead of one demanding small government while paying billions of dollars to track down and house people for "feeling good". Moderation be damned, I want non-hypocrites so at least I know where I really stand.
Re:Sounds good. (Score:5, Insightful)
I am amused at how RINO is a commonly-expressed acronym in American politics, yet DINO is not. Not only does it reinforce the stereotype of the strictly-regulated lockstep political machine the Republicans have become, wherein any dissenting thought is quickly labeled so it can be shamed with the "RINO" name, but it also helps demolish any lingering illusion of the "big tent" theory the party thinks it's fooling anyone into believing.
Hell, if you're a Republican (I am) and believe that hurricanes are caused by high barometric pressure (I do) and not gay marriage (I don't), then you, too, are a RINO. If you are a Republican and don't believe that angels counsel Republican candidates for high office (I don't), you are a RINO. If you are a Republican and don't believe that English as spoken in the US can be reduced down to the phrase 'America! FUCK YEAH!!" (I don't), you are a RINO. If you are a Republican who believes that ONLY the Republican Party should hold office now and forever (I don't), then you are a good rank and file member and not a RINO like me.
Our elected officials have the duty to govern in the interests of the people who elected them, not claim a mandate to neuter the opposition and obstruct anything the Opposition comes up with. Funny how both parties seem to forget that these days.
Re:Sounds good. (Score:5, Insightful)
There's one major party that's locked into deranged derp because they brainwashed their base so badly with superstition and hatred of anyone...
This portion holds perfectly true of both parties. Let me complete your sentence and see for yourself: ...who differs with them on a given issue.
I have seen this first-hand - I live in Portland, and have seen this on both sides. I'll explain:
Side the first: I have personally watched drivers giving the middle finger, and occasionally hurtling trash and bile-filled shouts as they drove past pro-life protesters quietly praying with signs at a parking lot next to the Planned Parenthood clinic on MLK blvd.
Side the second: My wife was nearly struck with a bottle hurled at the Occupy protest last year as she quietly marched along, and she reported having passed numerous small groups of guys in suits downtown giving the one-finger salute, calling her and the other protesters all kinds of insults along the way.
Long story short - your "side" is just as duped and hate-filled as the other side. As evidence, I present the fact that you use name-calling and buzzwords as a means to mark folks who differ from you on given issues.
It's not your fault really... the blame is tow-fold, and keys off of human nature: Television loves nothing more than to stoke petty hatreds, fears, and jealousies which in turn drives advertising sales for them; the more outrageous the better. Political parties do it because stirring up passion (even by using lowest-common-denominator means) is the best known method to get votes, thus power.
Re:Sounds good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Once upon a time (and by that, I mean 15 years ago), after the elections ended, the winners did a little thing called "governing." To the layman, this looked like compromise. Bills passed, budgets were created (and even balanced sometimes), everyone got a little of what they wanted, and nobody got everything they wanted. They system worked.
Now, compromise isn't viewed as a goal, but a flaw. And then everyone wonders why nothing gets done, and nothing gets fixed. The herd of assholes taking up residence in the Capitol are too busy using the issues to generate campaign funds through direct mailers and fundraiser web sites; which, by the way, is incentive to not fix the problems, because then you can't beat the opposition over the head with it for donated dollars.
Re:Sounds good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why a Republican Bill. This seems to go against the core Republican Ideals of less government and regulation.
By saying to a Company you must offer goods and services this way, where the old way has no effect of health safety, for a product that is almost purely entertainment. Looks like big Government getting involved with the Corporations again.
Granted I would love the ability to have this, but I don't see this as needing a federal mandate. I figure competition from Online streaming would force the companies to change.
My guess TV Producers such as Fox has been in his ear, Because for the big producers will get all the stations while the newer smaller stations may not become popular enough to get noticed.
Re:Sounds good. (Score:4, Insightful)
brainwashed... superstition.... derp... deranged... wackos... racists....lunatics...
What was that about hatred?
Re:Sounds good. (Score:4, Insightful)
The hillarious thing is this is the third post Ive responded to, and the third which has called GOP folks various names (bigots, hatefful, derps, tards, wackos, lunatics). And the claim is that we're hateful.
Am I crazy, or is this what we call hypocrisy?
Re:Sounds good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Hell, I'll settle for a party that has an internally consistent platform, instead of one demanding small government while paying billions of dollars to track down and house people for "feeling good". Moderation be damned, I want non-hypocrites so at least I know where I really stand.
Then there is no major American political party for you.
Re:Sounds good. (Score:3, Insightful)
You're not trying to be precise, you're shit disturbing.
Since only people who accept their Muslim identity by choice give a shit about what "Islam considers" (and not even all of these, if Muslims are anything like Catholics), by this criteria Obama would only be Muslim in the eyes of a hard-line Muslim, despite not taking it on board himself (or his parents taking it on board, either).
You're operating from the "taint" school of categorization, where Tiger Woods is "black" despite being twice as Asian and just as white. Secularists such as myself consider Obama to be whatever the hell he professes himself to be, which isn't to say he's immune to what's bred in the bone.
But what is bred in the bone in his case, if we're being precise about anything that actually matters?