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.
Re:Sounds good. (Score:5, Funny)
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: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.
Re:Sounds good. (Score:5, Informative)
Not likely.
Chatter amongst the conservative set paints McCain as a RINO (Republican in Name Only) these days, and he's not getting much love from the rank-and-file either.
Of course he could try, but I doubt he'd get past the primaries, especially with far stronger candidates (e.g. (Rand) Paul, Cruz, Rubio) already both emerging and getting their political 'street cred' going.
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, Funny)
If McCain had run on a platform of A-La-Carte cable, posted hospital prices and cheap free range waygu beef he'd be president now.
Re:Sounds good. (Score:5, Interesting)
...and if Hillary Clinton won against Obama in the 2008 primaries instead, would you have said the same thing? After all, that one was fairly close for the longest time, and she would have been Clinton II administration-wise if she had won the job (and if it weren't for her husband's by-then-tarnished reputation, I daresay she would have won the primaries hands-down.)
Fact is, both parties do the derp factor - big-time. It's even a mainstream formula - you pander to the hard portion of your party during the primaries, then swing back and do your best to pander to everyone else after you get the nomination. If you don't do that, you don't win the primaries.
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)
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: (Score:3)
Ummm... I think you just perfectly illustrated his point about the "magical balance fairy". One party has become so divorced from reality, most of the people they elect refuse to believe in basic truths like evolution and global warming, for which the evidence is absolutely overwhelming. On the other hand, you saw some drivers who you assumed were Democrats (though you had no way of actually knowing) insulting some protesters. Therefore, both sides are equally bad.
It appears to me that one of these is n
Re: (Score:3)
I don't like MSNBC, but what study says it's "worse" than fox news?? The MSNBC talking heads at least stick to facts when presenting their point of view. Fox news will literally change or ignore the facts. I'm not being partisan, just trying to keep it real.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Yep. It took a while, but Rupert Murdoch has been a boon to the Democrats in the long run. The lefties are no longer outraged at Fox News. Instead they now get a chuckle from every sham news story they broadcast.
Re:Sounds good. (Score:4, Insightful)
brainwashed... superstition.... derp... deranged... wackos... racists....lunatics...
What was that about hatred?
Re: (Score:3)
That last part made no sense.
Especially since I did not vote for him. The GOP goes out of its way to court racists. Heck the old lady at the town hall meeting proves it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Ok, because some "old bitty" (apparently thats not hateful at all) had bizarre ideas about Obama's nationality, Im a racist.
Sounds legit.
Re:Sounds good. (Score:4, Interesting)
Right on. JM is a lame duck, though he probably doesn't yet know it.
He's taking to avoiding the true conservative constituents, however, which is a good plan. He may as well spend the next 3 years in peace and solitude. No point in getting all riled up.
Re: (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: (Score:3)
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: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)
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: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)
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, Funny)
Ah, see? I can tell you're a republican. Hurricanes are a result of low barometric pressure...
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, Informative)
Bullshit.
He lost by the time he correct the old bat that claimed obama was a muslim. Even his correct was pandering to the nutbars, the correct correction would have been "No ma'am I don't believe so, nor would that matter in the slightest".
Re: (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" schoo
Re: (Score:3)
In the United States of America we have this thing called Freedom of Religion [wikipedia.org], which means Mr. Obama can be whatever religion he chooses to be. Nobody gets to choose it for him.
Re:Sounds good. (Score:5, Funny)
Here at the Church of the FSM, we do posthumorous baptisms!
In Ragu sauce?
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:Sounds good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
And there isn't a solution available (that I could find) that would aggregate all of the available shows into one, easy to use guide for selections. I do watch sports, and losing those would be the only reason I would potentially not switch if I were single because I wouldn't mind using different systems for different things.
Depending on how agressive DirecTV pushes the channels to allow more content on its "DirecTV Everywhere" service, that will also make people more resistant to cord cutting.
Right now, the selection on DirecTV Everywhere is limited for both live and "on demand", but if it expands so that you could have a decent percentage of live programs (for sports, news, etc.) and still have the ability to copy to a device for offline viewing, that would make it quite a deal, since it doesn't have any addtional fees (at l
Re:Sounds good. (Score:4, Informative)
Screw all that. Do what I did:
1. Download XBMC and install it on your desktop computer. Play around with the plugins and add the repository for the repository installer plugin.
2. Download via XBMC the plugins for Free Cable, Hulu, You Tube, and whatever other video plugins look good. From the previous step you shouldn't have to add any repositories on via their websites, you can do it via the repository installer plugin.
3. Once you get things working fine on the previous step, get a nettop PC to put by your TV and use a remote control to control (this one: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0041ULKW2/ref=oh_details_o04_s00_i01?ie=UTF8&psc=1 [amazon.com] is great as it comes with a remote and built in IR receiver and can turn itself on via the remote as well.)
4. Cut out the Video part of your cable bill and just get a reasonable download speed on your internet (the cheapest level is probably enough).
Hopefully at this point you'll be able to control XBMC via the remote control and never have to touch the nettop computer again.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I can't speak for anybody else, but I watched a bunch of educational programming when I was a kid. Yes, Sesame Street--but also Mr. Rogers, the Electric Company, and Square One spring immediately to mind. Oh, and I bet I could still whistle the theme to "Voyage of the Mimi." Maybe I'm not typical, but I think all of those shows were pretty valuable. Given the choice, I would probably STILL watch half an hour of Square One over half an hour of Survivor's Next Top Idol.
Re: (Score:3)
you can't watch live sporting events over the internet jackass
Last weekend I was watching the final of the World Championships over the internet. It was on tv too.
Tomorrow I'll be watching live football over the Internet.
In a few weeks time I'll be both watching live cricket over the internet, and listening to a live commentary over the internet from a different source to the video.
Live sport over the Internet? Of course you fucking can.
Re: (Score:3)
When it does pass, it'll be too little too late. A few years ago, I really wished my cable company would let me subscribe to only the channels I wanted. I thought, "Why should I have to pay for all these channels? Why can't I just pay for the channels I want?"
Now I think, "Why should I have to pay for a whole channel? Why can't I just pay for the shows I want?"
But they're already on the verge of missing that boat, too. I'm starting to think, "Why should I have to pay for all these shows? Why can't t
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: (Score:3)
Why a Republican Bill. This seems to go against the core Republican Ideals of less government and regulation.
Shocked! I'm SHOCKED, I say. To think that McCain would do something against the core Republican ideas. But, just remember the other name on the Feingold campaign finance legislation that puts ridiculous limits on free speech, then you won't be so shocked.
There is nothing ludicrous about a network bundling. It's a contract between two companies that are free to agree or not. The government should stick its nose out.
Even if this law passes, it will be just as effective as all the other cable regulation. F
Re: (Score:3)
In all fairness John McCain has been pretty good on stopping torture. And he'd have an excellent record for a Republican, were it not for having to win a nomination in 2008. I like to give Republicans credit when it is possible, because it is sure rare that it is possible.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes there is. The countries have to agree to take them back. They haven't. That's why most of them are still in US custody.
The right introduced this system. The left multiple times put bills forward to end it. The presi
Finally!! (Score:2, Funny)
I can have my dream package of just home shopping networks, pay-per-view previews and c-span!
Re: (Score:2)
Get the basic basic cable package, the one you don't need a box for. I do and I get all that plus local broadcasts, WGN, and Discovery (I have no idea why they show me Pay-Per-View previews, I can't order them). That's it. WGN might be a little too stimulating for you though...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Passing a regulation is not automatically a "Big Government heavy-handed move". There is no equivalency there. Certain propaganda that is constantly being drummed into our heads only makes some of us THINK it's there. Yes, Virginia, some things deserve to be regulated.
Isn't that called "the internet"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Whats TV?
Oh I know, it's that thing old people talk about.
What is this, Korea?
Re: (Score:2)
Do you think the cable companies (who are largely owned by the major players in the copyright lobby) are ever going to allow that to happen?
They'll fight that tooth and nail, and pay off enough lawmakers to get what they want.
If ever such a magic box exists, it will be locked down and entirely controlled by the media industry, and set up to guarantee them ad revenue and deny you any rights. Then we'll be right back where we are now.
Re: (Score:2)
You'd think so, and they'll certainly try, but in the end, they won't be able to stop it forever. It will just delay the inevitable.
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: (Score:2)
I came here to post exactly this. Conventional TV channels need to appreciate that technology has created a viable alternative and, like it or not, they have to compete with it. Most of our terrestrial channels know this and have launched catch-up and/or live TV apps on a decent range of platforms, that carry advertising to pay the bills. I'm quite pleased to see that even Sky, that bastion of awfulness, has come to terms with the fact that its business model may be ending and has launched a streaming (live
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit, if sky or any of your networks had smartend up I would be able to get their apps here in North America.
I will pay the TV tax today if you let me access iPlayer. Here that BBC? Here that Populace of the UK? You could let us foreigners pay your TV tax and have that much more funding or lower the tax on yourselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Hear, not here. WTF, did I just do there?
Re: (Score:3)
Roku doesn't do YouTube anymore.
TFTFY. My Roku device has a YouTube channel, but AIUI YouTube and Roku conspired to remove it from the private channels list for new installs. And they want me to upgrade to a newer device... ha! My kids absolutely love it, if that's any indication of what the future holds.
Nelson Rating (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Fiber is coming to my city in the next year or so and I am waiting on pins and needles to sign up. I'll be the first in line because cable cost has increased around 100% in the last few years. I only watch less than 5 channels but because of tiering I have to get 3 or so different packages.
That's how they make their money and this is why this bill will probably not even get to a committee hearing.
Too Little Too Late (Score:3)
The idea of a la carte pricing for cable tv is probably nearly as old as cable tv. They've been talking about it forever and never getting shit done.
About 3 years ago I gave up and became a cord-cutter - internet only for everything. I don't give a damn about pro sports (bread and circuses) so it has worked out great for me. Now if only I didn't have to buy my internet access from a company that is also a cable-tv provider...
Re: (Score:2)
I've found it's a very slight advantage to have the cable TV company (TWC) as my ISP. I get free basic cable with my Internet access, which is on par with all of the other ISPs around here for price, reliability, support, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
If you live in the USA and have access to more than one high-speed internet provider you are exceptionally lucky. Most people have to choose between catv or dsl and dsl doesn't qualify as high-speed anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Almost everybody has the choice between Comcast & AT&T at the very least, not to mention smaller local services and satellite.
ATT is DSL except for a handful of towns. DSL, Satellite, and all the fixed wireless ISPs are not high-speed. Maybe a decade ago, but not nowadays.
Re: (Score:2)
The underlying issue is that you have a plurality of monopolies handling your TV services. If US TV companies had to compete with each other in the same region, it would generally encourage competitive action like this, but more specifically, it would offer one provider an incentive to offer its exclusive channels a la carte to subscribers of the other service (via streaming, for example) as a way of scooping up at least some revenue from those customers.
too late ! (Score:2)
You tube is coming with specialized channels at $ 1 per month (hopefully i'll get all the sports i'm interested like world-football/ MLS etc) along with netflix/amazon-prime for series/movies (i don't care if i am a few season behind) ...i'm good.
Because (Score:2)
The answer to too much government is more government.
Who cares? (Score:4, Insightful)
This is too little too late. Forget saving these dinosaurs, I want to see them crash and burn.
This guy continues to mystify me... (Score:4)
I have about a 50-50 chance of strongly liking or strongly disliking legislation he proposes.
I'm sort of assuming that he's going to eventually turn this in a proposal to require unbundling of both cable packages and Constitutional rights.
Clayton Antitrust Act (Score:5, Interesting)
I've always been mildly surprised that no one has argued that channel bundling violates Section 3 of the Clayton Antitrust Act [wikipedia.org]. Basically the networks and cable companies are engaged in tying [wikipedia.org] which can in some circumstances be illegal. While it may be legal in this case it seems to exist right on the edge of legality. I've never been convinced of the argument that channel bundling is in the best interest of the consumers and it certainly is only possible due to the market power of the companies involved.
Important things (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
TV? Important? Nonsense! What we urgently need is the next round of hearings about performance enhancing drugs in professional sports!
OMFG......this is what our leaders are doing? (Score:2)
No wonder we are a country of ignorant fat ass's and the rest of the world hates us.
Re: (Score:2)
Missing a supporter. (Score:5, Interesting)
There's another reason McCain is behind this: A la carte cable is a very popular idea with the social conservative faction that holds a lot of influence within the republican party. The FRC has frequently put out a public call for something like this. Their motivation is in obscenity and indecency: They really don't like the idea that good christian conservatives have to pay for the raunchy entertainment and liberal media channels because they happen to be in the same bundle as the Disney channel and Fox news.
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, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
You mean the one that chanted "drill baby drill"?
She sold out to big oil and the Good olde boys network for her endorsement. She flip flopped and was called on it.
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:WHY!? (Score:4, Informative)
I think the man's entirely responsible for his choice of running mates, TYVM.
Re: (Score:2)
Why?
He had to ok the choice of the running mate. He failed to distance himself from GWB, nor speak ill of him in anyway.
McCain sold out and lost because of it.
Re: (Score:2)
You need to give up on the conspiracies.
The GOP did this all by themselves. They decided to chase the racist and far right wing votes, there are not enough of those to get the whitehouse. No conspiracy needed.
Him being a mormon, only mattered to folks who would never vote for a black president anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
Which are?
Let's name some of these racists they chase after. I really can't see the Klan or the neoNazis voting for Obama.
The democrats are center right. There are no where near far left. Nor are they chasing after racists.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, and there was McCain swinging around to support a lot of the republicans' worst ideas to win the primary. Say what you want about Obama, his bad ideas are pretty much entirely his own, and don't represent the extreme left in even the slightest.
Re: (Score:2)
He had lost by the time he had to correct that old lady claiming obama was a muslim. It was crystal clear then that all he had was the nutbags and racists.
Re:WHY!? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Instead the New & Improved John McCain embraced all the things that even Republicans hated about Bush, refusing to address the massive spending spree or the vast expansion of government size and authority overseen by Bush and the Republican Congress from 2000 to 2006.
And then he chose a moron as a running mate.
Re: (Score:2)
Palin was an issue, but the real reason was all George W. Bush. Biden is no less colorful in his own way than Palin is. The reason he didn't torpedo Obama? Because he is the Vice President and no one really gives a shit. He might have been more tame than Palin this last election, but if dumbass comments are all you need to get your election chances torpedoed, Uncle Joe has a much, much longer history of "foot in mouth" disease that could have been trundled out.
Re:WHY!? (Score:4, Interesting)
Here's the difference between Joe Biden and Sarah Palin:
Joe Biden sometimes says stupid things. He also says smart and effective things. He also corrects himself when he realizes that what he said was stupid. Generally speaking, the smart things outweigh the stupid things, so he is viewed as a basically smart guy who sometimes goofs up and says something stupid.
Sarah Palin, on the other hand, says many many things that aren't only stupid, but indicative of an underlying idiocy well beyond just making mistakes. For instance, the question that really did her in back in 2008 was Katie Couric asking "And when it comes to establishing your world view, I was curious, what newspapers and magazines did you regularly read before you were tapped for this [the vice-presidency] - to stay informed and to understand the world?" Sarah Palin couldn't come up with a straight answer, while Biden would probably have cited Foreign Policy, the New York Times, or the Delaware News Journal.
Re: (Score:2)
I can see mandating a couple of basic channels for news and weather... which they already provide for free over the air or dirt cheap (my grandfather pays $5/mo for basic cable with ~12 channels, mostly local). I get free basic cable from TWC for subscribing to Internet (about the only perk keeping me with them). But to mandate it for every channel is overstepping boundaries.
Re: (Score:2)
The only reason is they are given a monopoly it near one to avoid cluttering telephone polls with competitors. If we had an all comers pure fiber network from our municipalities it would be a different story.
Re: (Score:2)
You could make the argument that the big media companies are using monopoly powers to force people to buy products that they don't want. That should probably fall under current legislation, though.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Federal law? (Score:5, Informative)
Me neither. I'm hardly a libertarian, except in the sense that everyone is*, but this seems to me to be government overreach.
Cable TV is not a vital public service, in any shape or form. It's not important infrastructure you must have access to or else be significantly disadvantaged. Nobody is any the worse for not having it. In fact, it's actually just awful.
Given that, let the market take care of it.
I will assume you mean the mythical "free market". There is no such thing, of course, and this is especially true where market choice is limited by natural monopolies, as is the case in cable and satellite television service. So your solution fails. It's less than ideal, but only regulation will see to it that the consumers are not getting the short end of the stick, as they are now.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Cable TV is: ...
1. Not a monopoly, not that it matters.
Beyond basic protections against fraud, what the hell regulation does it need?
They sure had no issue invoking powers usually reserved for utilities/public works/government though... to use utility easements and real-estate right-of-way exemptions and so on to dig up private property to lay their cables.
If they want to hide behind "we're not a monopoly" then fine, however every time property is bought/sold they can re-negotiate access rights as a NON government/utility entity. Or do you think every private corporation, non-utility, gets to dig up private property for their business mo
Re: (Score:3)
Yes you're missing something... the government is supposed to be representing the greater good, not pure corporate interest.
I know they've pretty much only been doing the latter since 1980 and its easy for people these days to not see what the purpose of government even IS... but come on. If people are being scammed they are supposed to care. That's the government interest.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The solution is trivial: End cable monopolies. In the '80s there were 3 cable companies in my area, competition was fierce, and prices and service were great. Today there is a single cable company, and they are a disaster.
Re: (Score:2)
The Indianapolis 500 still blacks out it's coverage to the Indianapolis area market because their Board of Fossils, I mean Directors, are scared to death about getting people to buy tickets. This is even though they sell out the stands every year and they can barely fit people into the infield anymore.
It's fear and corporate idiots thinking they know something they don't.
On top of it, the NFL says their stats say blackouts don't make any difference in ticket sales. You're just limiting the market for your
Re: (Score:3)
Why would you be wasting your time on Slashdot talking to nerdy idiots? Hmm? I'm sure the NASCAR crowd things about YOU like that.
It's taste.
Re: (Score:2)
It's the content providers (Viacom et al.) that are the real targets here. The cable companies are being pushed around almost as much at the consumer.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but I could probably still get the 5 channels I want for less than I spend on the 300 I never watch.
Re: (Score:2)