Remember How 'Franchise Reform' Was Going To Lower Cable Rates? - FCC laments higher TV prices, fails to mention own failed policies....
Links: home · search · speed test · login · more ·
Remember How 'Franchise Reform' Was Going To Lower Cable Rates?
FCC laments higher TV prices, fails to mention own failed policies....
(old news - 02:24PM Friday Oct 31 2008)
tags: prices · Video · competition · business · Op/Ed · cable
With cable rate hike season festivities in full gear, the FCC issued their obligatory half-hearted complaint this week about skyrocketing cable rates. Usually such complaints are fielded, met with a few weeks worth of debate over whether cable TV channels should be sold "a la carte," and then quickly ignored. But the message is a little more resilient this year given the struggling economy, or at least so sayeth FCC spokesperson Mary Diamond, who's very concerned about you: "Over the last decade, average cable rates have more than doubled. And now cable companies are charging consumers more but consumers are receiving less," said spokeswoman Mary Diamond, referring to cable moving some analog channels to more expensive digital-only tiers. "This is an unfortunate trend for families facing increasingly difficult economic times," Diamond said. Of course FCC boss Kevin Martin spent much of the last few years working with phone company lobbyists to revamp the video franchise system, so AT&T and Verizon would have an easier time getting into the TV business. Unlike cable, the baby bells didn't want towns and cities to have the power to forced them to deploy services into rural America, or deliver the occasional municipal demand -- like free TV in the high school teacher's lounge. But if you remember, the primary selling point for these franchise reform bills by both the FCC and telco lobbyists was that they would be the gateway to lower TV prices. So how's that coming along, anyway? Well, in the scattered few instances where States or the FCC were supposed to go back and investigate whether franchise reform actually did anything for consumers or their monthly bills, there's an unsurprising lack of followup. In instances where someone actually bothered to track franchise reform's impact on cable TV prices, data shows franchise reform simply resulted in higher rates, the death of public access TV (sorry Wayne, Garth), fewer community improvements, and spotty next-generation infrastructure upgrades Despite the fact these bills have often resulted in phone companies raising rates too, phone company lobbying front groups like TV4US are still using higher-cable rates to push franchise reform laws in additional states. In reality, most of these bills are really aimed at stripping away State consumer protection laws, legalizing cherry picking and eroding eminent domain rights. They also provide the baby bells with one stop lobbying, by stripping authority from the nation's towns and cities and transferring it to the State. But lower TV prices? Nowhere in sight. Cable providers are raising TV rates anywhere from 3-11%. Verizon raised the price of FiOSTV 12% earlier this year and will implement new hikes in early 2009. Hikes are not only being seen on programming packages, but across DVR and assorted other hardware and service fees. So while the FCC is busy lamenting higher cable prices, they might want to remember one of their primary policy pushes of the last five years repeatedly promised the exact opposite.
Related:- Cable Tries To Stuff The Internet Video Genie Back In The Bottle
- Time Warner Cable: Let's Not Talk About Net Neutrality
- Time Warner Cable Protests Planned
- The Metered Billing Fight Is About To Get Ugly
- Cable Industry: Our Awesomeness Cannot Be Denied
- Real Consumer Group Takes Aim At Fake Ones
- What Network Neutrality Is REALLY About
- Cable Industry: Shucks, Guess Nobody Wants CableCARDs
|
Links: New Topic
Forums »
en102 @ 31st Oct 02:32PM:
TWC is supposedly killing PEG
»www.the-signal.com/news/article/5253/
Since franchise reform doesn't require it.. it will disappear.
--
Canada = Hollywood North
reply
Kearnstd @ 31st Oct 02:34PM:
hit the content owners then
if you notice that even in areas where cable fights fios its strictly the TV rates that see constant climbs while data and digital phone hold steady. part of this is things like Disney wanting even more money per customer to carry ESPN(one of the most costly basic cable channels). the the providers certainly are not innocent in this matter, but the fact TV goes up and internet doesnt says something. comcast is doubling speed from 6 to 12 and it stays 42.95. so some blame does lay with the content conglomerates.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports
reply
needforspeed59 @ 31st Oct 02:39PM:
Leave to Beaver (the Government)
Or, Government Knows Best. It is like a retarded old sitcom when the government meddles and fixed things. It usually results in untended consequences. Just wait until they get a hold of your health care!
--
Great success! High five!
reply
morbo @ 31st Oct 02:41PM:
"franchise reform" lies
"franchise reform brings lower prices" lies brought to you by telco.
FUD on how a la carte will destroy tv brought to you by cableco.
reply
hottboiinnc @ 31st Oct 02:42PM:
Re: hit the content owners then
and the government has what say so to the media companies that own the channels? NONE. You are free to go else where for your TV needs and so are the cableTV providers. But lets face it, the government has no control over Disney ABC, Comcast Media, The Big Ten Network, ViaCom, Fox (except for local channels like Lin TV).
So what is going after Disney going to do? Not a damn thing except cost more money going to court when they're sued and the tax payers pay more.
reply
morbo @ 31st Oct 02:43PM:
Re: Leave to Beaver (the Government)
said by needforspeed59 :
Just wait until they get a hold of your health care!
let's review why your comment is misguided:
the "industry is more 'efficient' than government" folk have brought us the destruction of the U.S. economy, stock market, and a deep recession.
but apparently government will REALLY mess things up. :huh:
reply
majortom1029 @ 31st Oct 02:46PM:
hmm
What these bills that helped verizon do fios did was just raise rates.
Evrizon sees it as if customers will pay that much for service why should we be left out of the profits. So they raise their rates also.
reply
Nick @ 31st Oct 02:53PM:
Re: Leave to Beaver (the Government)
Umm, you can already see this in healthcare...
I just renewed my benefits for next year and I have to pay 100$ more for the "same" coverage where the only thing remaining "the same" is the name. They reduced coverage for things like emergency room from 100% to 90%. And I get to pay more for this privilege.
--
Stupidity, like hydrogen, is one of the basic building blocks of the Universe.
Misc
reply
TKJunkMail @ 31st Oct 02:57PM:
Re: hit the content owners then
said by Kearnstd :
if you notice that even in areas where cable fights fios its strictly the TV rates that see constant climbs while data and digital phone hold steady. part of this is things like Disney wanting even more money per customer to carry ESPN(one of the most costly basic cable channels). the the providers certainly are not innocent in this matter, but the fact TV goes up and internet doesnt says something. comcast is doubling speed from 6 to 12 and it stays 42.95. so some blame does lay with the content conglomerates.
It is the iron control that the few major entertainment companies have on all forms of TV & Movies that keep these rates high. If the FCC wants to do something to bring down cable TV rates, that is where they should start.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk?
reply
ninjatutle @ 31st Oct 03:05PM:
Re: "franchise reform" lies
Just imagin how higher the Comcast cable bills would be without FiosTV or Uverse :(
Their greed will catch up with them.
reply
beaups @ 31st Oct 03:09PM:
Re: hit the content owners then
Agree. The content owners are the one's raping us and raising rates and dictating what tiers their channels fall on. BigTen and NFL networks come to mind. It'll get worse before it gets better.
I think the big problem in some of these cases IS the competition. hear me out....for example here in Columbus, Big10 network comes to town and wants ~$1.00/mo from EVERY subscriber on Time Warner's network. TW says no way (thankfully)...then WideOpenWest and other small guys see this as an opportunity and jump all over it advertising "Switch to us to get the Big10 network". TW is forced to cave in and ultimately those costs are passed on to us. The whole thing is a shame.
reply
en102 @ 31st Oct 03:11PM:
Re: Leave to Beaver (the Government)
As a Canadian living in Los Angeles... I actually prefer Govt managed paid for through taxes health care. Its a much more efficient system. You also don't have to sell everything to have the privilege to be pumped up with over priced prescription drugs.
--
Canada = Hollywood North
reply
BF69 @ 31st Oct 03:14PM:
Re: hit the content owners then
said by beaups :
Agree. The content owners are the one's raping us and raising rates and dictating what tiers their channels fall on. BigTen and NFL networks come to mind. It'll get worse before it gets better.
I think the big problem in some of these cases IS the competition. hear me out....for example here in Columbus, Big10 network comes to town and wants ~$1.00/mo from EVERY subscriber on Time Warner's network. TW says no way (thankfully)...then WideOpenWest and other small guys see this as an opportunity and jump all over it advertising "Switch to us to get the Big10 network". TW is forced to cave in and ultimately those costs are passed on to us. The whole thing is a shame.
You do realize that Disney is charging nearly $5 for ESPN and ESPN2 yet you complain about 70 cents NFL Network wants.
reply
cornelius785 @ 31st Oct 03:15PM:
cherry picking
will you people stop complaing about cherry picking? i bet you people would still be complaining if the picking of towns was completely random. companies that don't make sound decisions could be in a lot of hurt. does it really make sense to deploy fiber in a sparsely populated town? how about a town where the utilities are underground or behind houses (like where i live)? does it make sense to spend a lot of effort deploying fiber in a town where there are lots of apartment buildings knowing full well that it isn't known what the easiest/cheapest/fastest way to wire such a building is? sometimes i wonder if people have any concept of reality, basic concepts in running a business, or don't hate everything that isn't their way on this site.
reply
BF69 @ 31st Oct 03:17PM:
Re: hmm
said by majortom1029 :
What these bills that helped verizon do fios did was just raise rates.
Evrizon sees it as if customers will pay that much for service why should we be left out of the profits. So they raise their rates also.
If you think that rates would have stayed the same or gone down had u-verse or Fios not been allowed in those areas you are smoking some wild crack. Odds are rates would have gone up even MORE.
reply
nasadude @ 31st Oct 03:17PM:
Re: hit the content owners then
said by TKJunkMail :
It is the iron control that the few major entertainment companies have on all forms of TV & Movies that keep these rates high. If the FCC wants to do something to bring down cable TV rates, that is where they should start.
absolutely agree. but I would also like them to look at why an HD DVR rental would increase $2/mo. - I have the same box I had last year and there is absolutely no reason I can think of to justify an increase except comcast wants more money.
reply
beaups @ 31st Oct 03:31PM:
Re: hit the content owners then
It was just an example. I don't know what ESPN USED to charge...so I can't claim it has anything to do with a rate-hike. But the Big10 ransom is NEW...
That said, if Big10 was WORTH $1.00 then Espn is worth $50 ;-)
reply
anon @ 31st Oct 03:37PM:
Re: hit the content owners then
BS competition does not lower prices never has,everything goes up in price.The only thing that will lower prices is regulation from the government to keep all these jackassses from wasting money on failed projects such as BPL.wimax,and whitespace will be the latest failed projects.stop wasting money on this shit and spend it on tech that works,and wire the whole country.there prob. has been enough money wasted to already have that,and then work on higher speed for all
reply
DaveNJ @ 31st Oct 04:17PM:
Re: Leave to Beaver (the Government)
Hint: When you are healthy government health care sounds great, when you are sick, its the worse then ever created. Oh look how that social security is doing. Remember if its you money you can take the risk, when its the government they wouldnt let you take that risk.
reply
DaveNJ @ 31st Oct 04:22PM:
remenber those people who said this would cure all
I remember being attacked because i was pro-franchise, saying that Verizon or any other company would not deliver. The answer is shared central office.
reply
MadMANN @ 31st Oct 04:33PM:
Re: hit the content owners then
said by nasadude :
absolutely agree. but I would also like them to look at why an HD DVR rental would increase $2/mo. - I have the same box I had last year and there is absolutely no reason I can think of to justify an increase except comcast wants more money.
Ok here's two:
1. The content providers citing the increased use of DVRs taking away ad revenue since customers can record their shows and fast forward through commercials.
2. Comcast not wanting to implement the content provider-suggested technology that prevents the FF feature from working on certain channels in exchange for lower rates for their content.
Does Comcast want more money? Sure. Don't we all? They also do not want to make less money providing the same content the majority scream about if taken away.
Do you remember Viacom vs. Dish Network? Guess who won?
reply
itguy05 @ 31st Oct 04:48PM:
For the last time, competition does not work...
Say it with me - "COMPETITION DOES NOT WORK."
Think about it. I want to get into XYZ industry. I look around and the going rate for my service is $100 by the established player. I poke around at their financials and find out that gives them decent returns.
As a businessperson, why would I price myself at $75, make 3/4 as much on my return as my competitor? Why would I do that?
If nothing else, I'm going to start at $75 and raise my rates to what the other guy is charging. That way I can make those profits and be a good businessperson.
If you truly think competition brings about lower rates, you're crazy. Basic economic theory states that in order to maximize profit (the goal of EVERY FOR PROFIT BUSINESS) you charge as much as the market will bear.
reply
itguy05 @ 31st Oct 04:49PM:
Re: Leave to Beaver (the Government)
said by needforspeed59 :
Or, Government Knows Best. It is like a retarded old sitcom when the government meddles and fixed things. It usually results in untended consequences. Just wait until they get a hold of your health care!
You ain't seen nothing until the Grand Socialist, err, Obama gets elected. Kiss your wallet, freedoms, and anything else good bye.
reply
itguy05 @ 31st Oct 04:51PM:
Re: Leave to Beaver (the Government)
said by morbo :said by needforspeed59 :
Just wait until they get a hold of your health care!
let's review why your comment is misguided:
the "industry is more 'efficient' than government" folk have brought us the destruction of the U.S. economy, stock market, and a deep recession.
but apparently government will REALLY mess things up. :huh:
If you consider the CRA (Democratic idea) FORCED banks to loan $$ to people that had no way to afford it and that SOx (another government reg) has messed many businesses up, etc. Yeah, I'd say the government F's plenty up.
Do you really trust the government - the butt of most jokes (and true) to really look out for your best interest?
reply
elray @ 31st Oct 05:20PM:
Re: For the last time, competition does not work...
Competition works. But one or two sellers is not competition. You need to have at least 4, before you can see any results.
In our building, we have a choice of TWC, or TWC. Some day, we might have the choice of FIOS-TV. But again, that's two. Not four. Not six.
Cable-TV is a natural monopoly, and should be regulated locally.
reply
Sammer @ 31st Oct 05:25PM:
Re: hit the content owners then
said by hottboiinnc :
and the government has what say so to the media companies that own the channels? NONE.
Untrue, the government has complete control over copyright law that all of the media companies depend on and the government can represent the people rather than corporations for a change and make bundling illegal anytime it wants to.
reply
cwh @ 31st Oct 05:51PM:
Re: For the last time, competition does not work...
Competition is working, it just takes time. There are much better deals to be had now that u-verse is in town.
reply
morbo @ 31st Oct 06:20PM:
Re: Leave to Beaver (the Government)
i trust myself to look out for my best interests. i think people that blame government for all our problems are selectively blind. the example i gave shows that private enterprise has fucked up plenty good. sure, government makes mistakes too, but credit default swaps, etc. were private enterprise dream that is imploding our economy. our financial entities are a complete joke and basically insolvent. the system is being held together with kite string. to blame this crisis (the bubble and implosion) on the tiny percentage of folk that received loans that were "forced" by government is ignorant. don't look at the scape goat (the poor people). follow the money trail to find the answers.
reply
Nick @ 31st Oct 06:42PM:
Re: Leave to Beaver (the Government)
Short sighted greed got us where were are now.
Greed is good, it makes companies try to out-do one another. The issue we run into is that "management" no longer wants to steer private industry for long term benefits, they just want the quick buck because if they don't produce something huge every 3 months the "street" drops them.
--
Stupidity, like hydrogen, is one of the basic building blocks of the Universe.
Misc
reply
anengineer @ 31st Oct 06:47PM:
Re: For the last time, competition does not work...
"But one or two sellers is not competition"
Many many gas stations, blocks apart, prices
neraly the same.
reply
BF69 @ 31st Oct 06:55PM:
Re: hit the content owners then
said by beaups :
It was just an example. I don't know what ESPN USED to charge...so I can't claim it has anything to do with a rate-hike. But the Big10 ransom is NEW...
That said, if Big10 was WORTH $1.00 then Espn is worth $50 ;-)
If ESPN and ESPN were moved to sports tier all you non sports customers would see a 10% rate reduction.
reply
NetLarry @ 31st Oct 08:27PM:
Re: For the last time, competition does not work...
said by anengineer :
"But one or two sellers is not competition"
Many many gas stations, blocks apart, prices
neraly the same.
Where does oil for gas come from?
OPEC & Hugo Chavez (mainly) - two sellers
reply
KrK @ 31st Oct 09:02PM:
Re: Leave to Beaver (the Government)
said by itguy05 :
If you consider the CRA (Democratic idea) FORCED banks to loan $$ to people that had no way to afford it
That's not accurate at all. The policy encouraged banks to be more flexible in the "sub-prime" market... It didn't require them to make bad loans, nor did it require them to push and market products based on the belief that real estate would just keep going up and up. That was fallacy, and people did speak out against it, but the profits short term looked so good... screw the after-effects. Until it collapsed, of course...
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
reply
KrK @ 31st Oct 09:05PM:
Re: Leave to Beaver (the Government)
said by DaveNJ :
Hint: When you are healthy government health care sounds great, when you are sick, its the worse then ever created. Oh look how that social security is doing. Remember if its you money you can take the risk, when its the government they wouldnt let you take that risk.
And the private health care sounds great until the cost bankrupts you, and the health situation costs you your job and then your health insurance is terminated.
Then that "Govt. Plan" starts to look pretty damn good.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
reply
dvd536 @ 31st Oct 09:29PM:
Re: hit the content owners then
said by Kearnstd :
the fact TV goes up and internet doesnt says something.
Because VIDEO subs subsidize HSI via higher rates.
--
When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee
reply
kpfx @ 31st Oct 09:48PM:
Re: hit the content owners then
To be honest.... with the NFL channel being so specialized its only worth that $0.70 for 3 months out of the year when they run the (very few) exclusive games that have been pulled from the other networks that previously did.
So for the remaining 9 months of the year you're paying for a totally useless channel that does nothing but replay old games from 4 years ago and regurgitates the same sports stats that I can get online from a million other sources... the cost we pay for the time the channel is actually relevant is closer to $2.80/mo for the 3 months.
That's way too expensive for one football channel... and not worth passing on to all cable customers regardless if they're football fans or not.
reply
ArgMeMatey @ 31st Oct 10:01PM:
Re: For the last time, competition does not work...
This is not "real" competition. There is no real competition when there are vertical monopolies and the monopolies have only small changes in the balance of the customer base.
The networking effect creates a natural monopoly. For example all the sports fans want ESPN. They may also want Fox Sports, the Big Ten Network and Joe & Mary's Sports, but everybody wants ESPN. There is really no equal to ESPN. It's not like Ford, Chevy, Chrysler, Honda, where all the cars get you from here to there.
Voila. ESPN has a monopoly. They have a number of exclusive contracts making the barriers to entry very high. So they say to cable providers "You want ESPN? OK, great, but we only sell that as a package with all of our other channels and you have to offer them as part of your standard package."
Meanwhile, these same media conglomerates own interests in cable systems, right? So which titan can afford to break into that market and compete on those systems?
First stop the bundling. I know this is going to eliminate some channels with small followings. Boo Frickin' Hoo. Welcome to capitalism.
Second stop the vertical monopolies. Programming providers cannot own interests in the distribution systems. They provide a downlink only and negotiate prices with brokers or distributors.
Third itemize the bills. Show the cost of each channel, the set top box, the remote, the DVR, distribution overhead. Bundling is nothing but a sales tool that helps keep consumers stupid (and since they are watching TV all the time to get their money's worth, they just keep getting stupider).
Not as profitable? Too bad. Go find another way to fleece the public. It's a free country. These guys are in business for one reason: To make a profit. Nothing wrong with that, but that means they only serve the public to the extent that people are not running away. The government's job is to serve the public interest. In this case, they are not doing that.
We all know the real reason for throttling and bandwidth caps is to preserve profitable subscription television offerings. But if {Google} ever gets their hands on enough capacity to put in a 1 Gbps link to your house at a good price, are you going to tell me you wouldn't want to use it for A La Carte video? That's the way to think about this issue: Sooner or later, it's not going to matter anymore. The question is who will be smart enough to find an appealing model so they can televise everyone else going belly up.
--
USNG:
16TDN2870
Find your Lat-Long:
Geocoder
reply
VegasMan @ 31st Oct 10:01PM:
Re: hit the content owners then
said by anon14 :
BS competition does not lower prices never has,everything goes up in price.The only thing that will lower prices is regulation from the government to keep all these jackassses from wasting money on failed projects such as BPL.wimax,and whitespace will be the latest failed projects.stop wasting money on this shit and spend it on tech that works,and wire the whole country.there prob. has been enough money wasted to already have that,and then work on higher speed for all
Good thing Verizon didn't listen to you there would be a hell of a lot of people without FIOS.
Hell most of the country would still be on Dial-up. :uhh:
If the companies don't try these new technologies then how are they to know if they are bad or not? I remember when there was bitching about the cost of Fiber years ago. It's too brittle it will break easy stay with copper it's proven reliable.
--
In need of a Vegas vacation.
reply
VegasMan @ 31st Oct 10:03PM:
Re: Leave to Beaver (the Government)
said by needforspeed59 :
Just wait until they get a hold of your health care!
Uh they did that already. Does HMO ring a bell.
--
In need of a Vegas vacation.
reply
mrvid @ 1st Nov 12:10AM:
Verizon's big chance to prove competition really works
It's going to be interesting to see if Verizon will join the TV rates raising bandwagon. I wouldn't mind but they already charge enough, I feel,for many of the channels & packages they have added.
With the 100 HD channels, they basically packaged them as the Extreme HD package so their making more for that.
With the NHL Center Ice package, they rightfully charge separately for the package as not everyone wants to see all those hockey games.
In a case where the raised price is justified, I can see raising rates, whether its TV, internet or phone but it seems, to me anyway, that they are charging a fair price for all the services they currently offer. Consider too, that if they are fair with their pricing, not only may they win over the FCC & the government, but customers as well. Like the FCC & the government, we just want a fair and reasonable deal for services.
reply
HiDesert @ 1st Nov 12:19AM:
Content providers and channel bundling
The issue is companies like Disney bundling channels. For example, they will increase the cost of lifetime channel or threaten to pull an ABC affiliate (many owned by Disney) or pull ESPN if a cable or Satelite does not want to pay the increased carriage of lifetime. So many channels that may not be that great are tied by other channels through bundling. Yes this could be called extortion. Disney has been known to even pull a ABC network from markets from cable companies not wanting to pay high increases in carriages. Bundling channels and carriage extortion should be regulated and not allowed.. period. Each channel should float or die on its own merit. And sports channels, viewed by a minority should be allowed to be dropped. Channels like ESPN have some of the highest's carriages and for the most part are subsidized by many who never watch them. Its almost impossible to sub to a tier without them.. unless you opt for the most basic tier which has almost nothing.
reply
hottboiinnc @ 1st Nov 12:40AM:
Re: hit the content owners then
just because the own the copy right doesnt mean the can just take the copyright away.
if the Feds ever took away copyrighting they would be sued beyond what the gov't could ever pay.
And just by taking the copyright away wouldn't make the bundling illegal.
reply
cwh @ 1st Nov 01:24AM:
Re: For the last time, competition does not work...
You may not consider it real competition, but it has lowered prices for the consumers. The consumer is very much benefiting from competition.
While bundling is an imperfect system, it is a far better system than itemizing the cost of 500 channels.
reply
PhonePower @ 1st Nov 02:48AM:
Re: hit the content owners then
I'm a football fan, but you can't even compare ESPN to the NFL network. You can sell ads on ESPN, NFL network... not so much.
reply
elray @ 1st Nov 04:21AM:
Re: For the last time, competition does not work...
said by anengineer :
"But one or two sellers is not competition"
Many many gas stations, blocks apart, prices
neraly the same.
That's competition - the prices have settled out as low as they can go, within the constraints that each station owner operates. (We can sidetrack and talk about anti-competitive behaviors at the refinery level, but you were citing stations, not oil companies.)
But it not a legit comparison to cable tv content.
reply
anon @ 1st Nov 05:20AM:
Show them where the money is
Cancel cable.
Cancel fios.
Cancel sattelite.
Put the antenna back on your house. Digital has shown me the light!
Free HD TV over the air. No I'm not a luddite. Just tired of paying to watch commercials. I'm done with it! Don't miss it at all.
reply
Blackened @ 1st Nov 07:20AM:
Force them to compete
People like competition, so why bother with franchising laws? Do a la carte and make channels compete with one another.
Then again, that requires the FCC to also own up to it's part to play in the current situation, as well as Congress. Then again, they're also in the back pockets of the satellite and cable industry so really it's all just rhetoric anyways until some real changes are made to better the consumer's choices.
--
Moore/Alexander 2008
Conservatives love religious-like aphorisms so here's one: "Freedom isn't free. It's Made in China."
reply
FXWG @ 1st Nov 09:12AM:
Re: TWC is supposedly killing PEG
The article says that TWC will not have to support production of the channel. It does not say that TWC is going to get rid of the channel.
reply
DaveNJ @ 1st Nov 10:54AM:
Re: Leave to Beaver (the Government)
said by KrK :said by DaveNJ :
Hint: When you are healthy government health care sounds great, when you are sick, its the worse then ever created. Oh look how that social security is doing. Remember if its you money you can take the risk, when its the government they wouldnt let you take that risk.
And the private health care sounds great until the cost bankrupts you, and the health situation costs you your job and then your health insurance is terminated.
Then that "Govt. Plan" starts to look pretty damn good.
There is already charity care, and medicare. So if your bankrupt there is always something.
--
“Say no to fear. Don’t let anxiety crush your life. Live life free and unfettered.”
reply
ArgMeMatey @ 1st Nov 11:47AM:
Re: For the last time, competition does not work...
said by cwh :
While bundling is an imperfect system, it is a far better system than itemizing the cost of 500 channels.
That's a good point. In consideration of the practical effects, I would say that bundles should not be prohibited, but that each channel should be available as a standalone item with its own price. I would probably even sign up for a bundle with just the basics, even if I never watch EWTN and BET.
Also you're right concerning consumer benefit. A duopoly or triopoly is much better than a monopoly, but again, the barriers to entry and vertical ownership ensure that there is not true competition.
--
USNG:
16TDN2870
Find your Lat-Long:
Geocoder
reply
Sammer @ 1st Nov 02:19PM:
Re: hit the content owners then
said by hottboiinnc :
if the Feds ever took away copyrighting they would be sued beyond what the gov't could ever pay.
The government doesn't have to take copyright away, they just have to make it a condition of copyright that bundling is illegal. The Constitution gives Congress the power to make laws that promote the arts ands sciences (such as copyright) but it doesn't preclude Congress from making bundling cable channels illegal. BTW the government can even make it impossible to win a lawsuit against the government.
reply
tmc8080 @ 1st Nov 03:04PM:
screw franchise reform...
the internet will reform those rates... down to $0
reply
elray @ 2nd Nov 02:47PM:
Re: For the last time, competition does not work...
said by cwh :
You may not consider it real competition, but it has lowered prices for the consumers. The consumer is very much benefiting from competition.
While bundling is an imperfect system, it is a far better system than itemizing the cost of 500 channels.
Nonsense. C-Band resellers were able to offer ala carte channels a decade ago, for very low prices. With today's STB's and online billing technology, there is no obstacle to itemization, other than the MBA school desire to force us to buy things we don't want.
It ain't competition if there is only one seller.
reply
Thank you for using lo-fi dslreports.com - report bugs
© 99-2009 silver matrix LLC