As it stands now their model SUX!They refuse to change anything,they accumulate more money,then buy more networks.Giving us customers less and less choice,and certainly no competition.I'm not saying McCain has the right answers,but something definitely needs to change.If it takes action from the government,then so be it.When you have 500 channels,and still can't find anything decent to watch,paying upwards of $100 a month,something needs changing imo.
John McCain Wants Pay Channels Sold Individually, Not In Bundles
- Thread starter dfergie
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 205
- Views 22K
As it stands now their model SUX!They refuse to change anything,they accumulate more money,then buy more networks.Giving us customers less and less choice,and certainly no competition.I'm not saying McCain has the right answers,but something definitely needs to change.If it takes action from the government,then so be it.When you have 500 channels,and still can't find anything decent to watch,paying upwards of $100 a month,something needs changing imo.
Something is starting to happen now. Program providers are scrambling as more and more people are cutting the cord. It wont be long before all the programming on the internet is bundled up, but for now this is probably the most likely way to circumvent the cable/sat channel oligopoly. But it wont be long before the content providers try to cash in and prices go up as everyone has their own internet service for their own programs and block all other legal ways to get it. MGM and TW just pulled their older content from Netflix so they could start their own services to try to cash in.
so we are paying less for phone services and gas than 20 years ago ?
have never ever everYes, we all know you have never ever ever told any kind of lie or said anything intentionally misleading to make a point or have something work to your advantage in your life as an adult.
covers along time here. but the truth is harder for people to take. and lying is to much work and why i gave it up most people are not worth lying to,my motto on it. not that hard.
The problem is that it is a quasi monopoly. The cable networks do not really compete against each other. Yes they try to lure viewers, but when it comes around to pricing their products there is no competition. USA network is not trying to undercut TNT's pricing for your viewing business. No, USA is trying to collect more per subscriber than TNT from the cable company, even if that means they have to hold hostage other networks owned by the same company.
A la carte could force USA to try to lure subs by being cheaper than TNT (and vice versa). They could like HBO be trying to produce original programming to make you want to pay more to view them.
This would not work for satellite, well it could like the Pegasus and USSB days, but I'm mainly reffering to teresterial wired/optical services.
I think all of the wired/HFC/coax/fiber owners/providers should provide only ONE service, broadband internet access. Then everyone should pick from 3rd party providers for VOIP phone and IPTV TV services. This would increase competition and work very much like where electricity has been deregulated (http://www.powertochoose.org) .
I do realize there is one problem that needs to be overcome with this, the fact that without a centralized broadcast of channels and switching that there is a lot greater bandwidth requirement as every viewer will need a 10-15mbps stream vs one stream of each channel serving a whole town/system. Maybe something has been invented to overcome this that I have not heard about.
As for satellite, deregulate it like electricity is in some areas and let 3rd party's compete and sell it (much like analog C-Band and 4DTV was done). I remember once having to get DirecTV though "Pegasus" because of living in a certain area.
I think all of the wired/HFC/coax/fiber owners/providers should provide only ONE service, broadband internet access. Then everyone should pick from 3rd party providers for VOIP phone and IPTV TV services. This would increase competition and work very much like where electricity has been deregulated (http://www.powertochoose.org) .
I do realize there is one problem that needs to be overcome with this, the fact that without a centralized broadcast of channels and switching that there is a lot greater bandwidth requirement as every viewer will need a 10-15mbps stream vs one stream of each channel serving a whole town/system. Maybe something has been invented to overcome this that I have not heard about.
As for satellite, deregulate it like electricity is in some areas and let 3rd party's compete and sell it (much like analog C-Band and 4DTV was done). I remember once having to get DirecTV though "Pegasus" because of living in a certain area.
When adjusted for inflation, we are paying less than 30%-50% for basic phone service now, than we were 40 years ago. Long distance is now mostly included, but when its not, it is about half in real dollars or near 80% less when adjusted for inflation than 40 years ago.
A bill from my parent's house for standard phone service in 1978 was more in real dollars than what I paid for my landline 4 years ago. Of course I had to buy my phone which my parents could not do in 1978 since you had to rent them from Ma Bell back then.
Since the break-up of Standard Oil happened 100 years ago, the difference now is not as easy to point out. However, the price of gasoline then held steady or dropped. It also allowed for dozens of new companies to compete. Just like now we have dozens of telephone companies we can do business with that did not exist before the break-up of ma-bell.att.
40 + years ago was a "hippy"
"we had a saying watch out for the man" he will sex you over and he does/will
gas was $.30 and we did not like phones much but TV was free. thats my math on it.
"we had a saying watch out for the man" he will sex you over and he does/will
gas was $.30 and we did not like phones much but TV was free. thats my math on it.
God, let's hope so! For every hour of original programming, there must be 100-hours of old broadcast reruns and 200-hours of informercials. The FCC has been busy reclaiming 6Mhz chunks of UHF for commercial uses...now is the time to free up an equal amount of wasted cable and satellite spectrum by getting rid of all the subsidized garbage channels My Three Sons, Three's Company and informercials like Buns of Steel, Shake Weight and Give Me an Inflamation Pill to Cure all my Health Woes. These $#%^heads should pay us to have their channels included in our lineup. Good programming (and plenty of really bad programming) will survive...we don't need a 250-channel lineup in which nobody watches nor wanted more than 200 of these channels.
I said it many times before:
- If you show commercials (be it cable or broadcast) it's free to anyone who wants it in their lineup.
- Commercial free channels are paid for by the consumers and not distributors (law of supply and demand) so it's the same price for everyone on every provider.
- Cable/Satellite makes money by value-added service and by how efficient they are in the delivery of the customers programming.
Why my granny is pay the Sports companies more than $10 per month when she doesn't even watch Sports...doesn't make sense and is anti-consumer/anti-American. Let her pay to watch Basket Weaving and, if there are not enough people to support this channels then let it go bankrupt like it should in this Country. I would just as soon pay the same dollar amount for the 20-25 channels of programming we watch than pay one red cent for programming I don't watch.
Finally, we don't need more government regulation...but what we do need is government to break up the Cable Oligopoly and enforcing a free-market. Don't like it? Move to Russia you commie bastard.
go ask your granny if she is willing to take that risk for $10 a month. myself don't mind paying a few bucks so she can watch Basket Weaving. it provides diversity for others.
not the the ME first/only generation mentality we see today too much. be nice to granny it's Mothers Day.
Mine said get rid of it, she would rather save the $10 (actually closer to $60). She dropped subscription tv and is OTA only with Hulu and Netflix and she finds everything she wants. I'm very close to doing it to, until football season. Over 250 channels and I end up just scrolling through seeing the same crap listed over and over, day after day. Then I turn it off and turn the radio on or watch something online or overseas, through my vpn.
So what? If the channels of which you post are too weak to stand on their own( not enough viewers vs cost to operate) then they go away. That's life in the world of business.
I think addressing these insidious sports blackouts is long overdue.
The TV industry is operating in a 1950's mentality. And sports franchises are in the mindset that they are "protecting ticket buyers"..That's BS..
For example...I reside in the territories of 4 major league teams. None closer than a 4 hour drive. The farthest, Cincinnati, is 8 hours distant.
Now, according to the MLB, I am going to say to myself "hey, let me head over to the stadium after work and take in a ballgame"...8 HOURS AWAY!!!! Oh sure. Stupid.
The closest NHL franchise is 3 hours drive..
My favorite MLB team is in NY City. Why is THAT team blacked out?...Am i going to make a ticket buyer suffer by watching the game on TV?
Now, as far as so called niche channels are concerned, the point is I am unconcerned. Why should I have to pay for channels I will never watch? I don't care if it's 5 cents per month. The amount is not the issue. It is the principle.
I ma the last person in support of government meddling. However, this pattern is typical. A business unable to police itself opens itself up to government scrutiny.
McCain's bill seems to be that opening.
HBO is HBO...
The issue here is for companies such as NBC. That programmer demands that in order for subscribers to have access to CNBC, they must pay for other NBC owned services(MSBNC, shopping channels, Bravo, Scifi, MUN, etc) which it pays for to produce. Of those, I watch CNBC and occasionally Bravo. Otherwise, not a one. Part of my subscription goes to produce those.
For a moment I will stipulate your point is correct.
So my desire for ESPN programming rises to $10 per month. Ok. All of the channels I NEVER watch would easily eat up the additional cost to sub to ESPN.
Therefore my monthly cost would be reduced.
My in laws had C-Band until the early part of the last decade. They had a wide variety of channels to which they subbed. And did that on a fixed income. I used to read the magazine they received( Orbit..I think) and saw the ads for programming. On a number of occasions I would jot down all of the channels I wanted and never would have spent more than 50 or 60 dollars per month.
Of course it's ten years later.
Look, the price to watch tv is out of control. The typical TV only bill is over $100. The published averages are BS because the cable companies report the prices including discounts for promotions and bundling of services.
Something has got to change before the pay tv industry implodes.
if that is true don't be wishy washy on this issue either. look at what you are saying for a few dollars YOU are selling out your principles. hoping for a few $ really
the BO issues are stupid but i would not sell out my principles to lift them.
I read most but not all posts, not sure it was pointed out, the title is wrong. I can't find where Mccain or anyone said programs can't be sold in bundles as the title suggests. There is just no way the Government is going to regulate the cost of the individual channels. Therefore, if you want to pay alot for a few channels, but still pay less than a full package, I can see that coming. Anyone who thinks you will get channels at a few bucks each is not looking at reality.
Beyond that, while I certainly agree Sports is a big culprit in all this, and those who want it will absolutely pay more under an A La carte plan, so too will most all of us for your channels if there were no packages. Even the popular ones that a majority would get, say USA, will cost much more because there are still thousands and thousands that will not get it. Right now you and they are currently paying a relatively reasonable amount. Your hope will be - most ironically, that most will stick with packages so that the few who want to pay more per channels but get only a few, won't have to pay alot more per channel. A La carte only works for those that truly want a very few channels. One possible solution would be if the carriers allowed you to add and delete easily and cheaply (not going to happen) when your favorite series is running.
My feeling is the topic is the wrong solution, the wrong bundling to be dismantled. A better solution would be to not allow the providers to mandate bundling of their own channels. Let the marketplace decide that. In addition, the RSN's do have to be in a separate tier, if the carrier wants it that way. That solves a whole host of problems. The RSN's then can charge as much as their little hearts desire. The carrier will pass that cost along, with their added amount, and let the chips fall where they may. I strongly feel the RSN's are the equivalent of the premium channels, partly because they have priced themselves to be that way. I do like sports, and I do watch my RSN's especially baseball, so it isn't about not liking sports.
In addition this next one may sound good, but rarely is a Government proposal good. Not allowing providers to determine where to show their product, OTA or Cable is meddling and big mistake. If sports are mandated to stay on OTA, do you really think that will remain free? At the least it will give the networks a foot in the door to say they must not make more money because they have to keep expensive programming. If I were a Network I would support that legislation. In fact, very likely it came from them.
Beyond that, while I certainly agree Sports is a big culprit in all this, and those who want it will absolutely pay more under an A La carte plan, so too will most all of us for your channels if there were no packages. Even the popular ones that a majority would get, say USA, will cost much more because there are still thousands and thousands that will not get it. Right now you and they are currently paying a relatively reasonable amount. Your hope will be - most ironically, that most will stick with packages so that the few who want to pay more per channels but get only a few, won't have to pay alot more per channel. A La carte only works for those that truly want a very few channels. One possible solution would be if the carriers allowed you to add and delete easily and cheaply (not going to happen) when your favorite series is running.
My feeling is the topic is the wrong solution, the wrong bundling to be dismantled. A better solution would be to not allow the providers to mandate bundling of their own channels. Let the marketplace decide that. In addition, the RSN's do have to be in a separate tier, if the carrier wants it that way. That solves a whole host of problems. The RSN's then can charge as much as their little hearts desire. The carrier will pass that cost along, with their added amount, and let the chips fall where they may. I strongly feel the RSN's are the equivalent of the premium channels, partly because they have priced themselves to be that way. I do like sports, and I do watch my RSN's especially baseball, so it isn't about not liking sports.
In addition this next one may sound good, but rarely is a Government proposal good. Not allowing providers to determine where to show their product, OTA or Cable is meddling and big mistake. If sports are mandated to stay on OTA, do you really think that will remain free? At the least it will give the networks a foot in the door to say they must not make more money because they have to keep expensive programming. If I were a Network I would support that legislation. In fact, very likely it came from them.
What difference does it make?
The notion of "no government regulation" is impractical.
If wringing your hands over government regulations (that will ultimately help the consumer) is your only issue, then that's fine.
A la carte will offer choice and price competition in the pay tv business.
