Only way Ala carte will work is if programmers allow their channels to be sold ala carte. And they won't do that.
As much as I despise government interference in the marketplace, we cannot have unfettered market based economy. Therefore there must be regulation. That can either be self regulation by business entities or in the absence of that, by government.
With that said, it is incumbent upon the federal government to roll up its sleeves and settle any and all of these issues which lead to these disputes. I say this because at the end of the day the one group that is NEVER represented is the consumer.
We keep paying escalating bills for service while services are interrupted and each side plays the blame game.
The issues at hand?
Retransmission .....Should not exist. Why on earth should we as pay tv subscribers pay for something that OTA station owners give away( by law) free of charge?.....The notion of retrans was developed by broadcasters and then passed intop law at the behest of the NAB which has a very powerful lobby ion DC...The broadcasters do NOTHING. They do not pay for the equipment that send their signals to pay tv providers who in turn distribute those signals so that more people can watch the broadcasts....Broadcasts that many viewers may not watch at all but for the availability of the signal through their provider. The way I see it is pay tv provides a method by which MORE viewers can see the local affiliates...The affiliates should be paying the provider for the favor....
Sports black outs....Based on advertising....Advertisers literally do not want those living outside the market of a particular team to see their commercials without paying a fee. And even then, the blackouts prevent viewing...
OTA Network affiliates....These should not exist. Technology exists today so that local advertising can be inserted so that they can be viewed locally. happens all the time. Eliminating local affiliates would drive the cost of broadcasting downward. If one wants news, they can find it on line. Which is what most of us do now anyway. If one does not have internet, there is radio.
The NAB along with other entities work diligently to protect an industry that exists in the 1950's.....
A La Carte. The meat and potatoes of pay tv....These bundles of channels forced upon consumers are as a result of providers and producers merging or programmers which through financial clout and intense lobbying have been able to effect changes in laws that kept providers and programmers separate. Again, never was the effect on consumers considered. They are expensive, unnecessary and infuriating....LET ME CHOOSE....
I think it is time for the FCC or the Congress to step in and make pay tv consumer friendly.
The first thing I'd like to see is the removal of barriers which limit competition. By the way...those barriers do not exist prevent competition. They exist to created protected markets for providers and programmers.
Think of the settlement in 1985 when the US Government deemed the Bell System to be an illegal monopoly. One of the provisions was that customers would be able to choose both their long distance and LOCAL carriers.
To date, there is very little in the way of direct competition among local POTS carriers. For example....I reside in an area served exclusively by Windstream...meaning I have no access to Frontier or AT&T. It also means I cannot subscribe to any other ISP except from the local cable provider or via satellite. And the telcos and cable companies would like to keep those barriers in place...
Here's another infuriating issue. Entrenched providers use their influence on local politicians and back room agreements with other entities to keep other providers out...
Google Fiber is having to battle cable companies like Time Warner which there is no doubt is influencing utility companies to keep pole access difficult if not impossible for Google. That kind of politicking and back room deal making MUST end...
End of rant.....
Seems Comcast forgot about that clause.
