Cable TV A La Carte Part 2 245
Ravi Swamy writes "Here's a followup article in Business Week to the Cable TV A La Carte story from last month. For those who actually read the story it was only A La Carte if you wanted to add HBO. Apparently cable companies don't know about the law or are going to reclassify HBO as a 'tier' instead of as a channel to get around the law."
Our legal system (Score:4, Insightful)
If i had the choice (Score:1, Insightful)
Big Fat DUH! (Score:4, Insightful)
It would be like going to the store for a bag of Doritos and being forced to buy 1/3 of the entire aisle to get the bag of chips you want. Consumers would never stand for that, and I'm surprised they've put up with this for so long.
As always... (Score:5, Insightful)
Wireless cable, telco delivered video on demand, cable blimps, and streaming video over IP come to mind. Better yet, lets come up with a system where we simply buy bandwidth from a carrier and use that as a 'universal content delivery mechanism' for cable, phone service, etc.
I know this has been tried before (by cable co's and telcos at least), so why did it fail?
Its always amazed me how the government can work for years trying to solve a problem and a new technological innovation will come along and make the entire debate irrelevant.
It ain't so great anyway (Score:4, Insightful)
I hate cable companies (Score:3, Insightful)
Chris
Re:If i had the choice (Score:4, Insightful)
The shopping channels are paying the cable companies to be there by giving them a cut of the sales in exchange for the cable space. The cable companies could use the help. (Before you think they're making out like bandits, where'd all Adelphia and AT&T Broadband's money go... yep, the content owners.)
Where this all colapses is where the shopping channels get their hands on a broadcast station. Then they cable company has to carry the "local broadcaster" for free, and gets no cut of the money. That's a loophole in the law that needs to be closed.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Our legal system (Score:4, Insightful)
Very well; let's have at it then.
"Even if it was unconstitutional, it was vital to the survival of America."
Ahh, so then our priciples and our laws must be cast aside whenever it suites our needs. This relies on the most basic animal instinct; survival. A truly civil society stands true to its convictions even in the face of total annihilation. Lest you forget that in the War of 1812, our forefathers stuck to their convictions even as Washington DC and even the White House itself was burned to the ground. During the War of 1812, we weren't just invaded; we were on the verge of being beaten back into submission by England and having all those who signed the US Constitution killed for treason. Those were true men, men who put everything they ever knew in life on the line because of what they believed in. Those were true men, and we need more like them today.
"But this action was completely Constitutional."
Aww, I'm afraid not. The US Supreme Court ruled in Ex Parte Milligan that the only time Habeas Corpus may be suspended is when the courts cease to function. At this point, one could argue that the civilian government has already been annihilated, and therefore civilian laws have no value. However, the courts remained open throughout Lincoln's little empire; thus making his suspension of Habeas Corpus illegal, unconstitutional, and unforgivable. Many see Lincoln as a hero, yet I see him as little more than a tyrannical emperor and a coward. Rather than lead the union on without the southern states as he ought have done, he took the easier way out; declaring war.
"This makes it sound like the Confederacy was perfectly legal and just, and Lincoln himself ordered the pillaging of the south."
Actually, this is exactly what happened. Each state within the union was supposedly just that; a sovereign state. The union was created to mediate disputes between the states and to allow all states to act as a single entity for such things as national defense, where it would benefit all to act as one (ie. strength in numbers). Ergo, when any one or more states had a major dispute with a ruling or policy of the federal government, they had three options. They could sit there and take it, they could continue fighting it within the union itself, or they could cecede from the union. If Maryland, Virginia, and Delaware decided in 1800 to cecede, do you honestly believe there would have been a massive war costing thousands and thousands of lives over it? Chances are, it would have been a peaceful transition after a bitter diplomatic struggle. In all of this, one fact remains: Each state is a seperate and whole entity entitled to act on its own accord. Any member state of the UN or the EU could cecede at will, and I seriously doubt we'd see that state attacked over it. Lincoln was a coward for not having the courage to lead his country through a difficult time without resorting to massacring farmers when they didn't lay down and roll over upon command.
" Finally, when you say the spirit of the law is dead, you are obviously forgetting the Supreme Court, who has the job of interpreting the spirit of the law."
This is the job of all courts; not just the Supreme Court. The problem is that laws are written poorly, the judicial system is completely overloaded, and we've become such a litigous society that common law is impossible to aptly interpret within the context of thousands of conflicting rulings on the same subject. As a Virginia school student, I was always taught that it was called the "War of Northern Agression". When I went to high school in another state, it was taught as the "Civil War". I thought little of it at the time, but since I've become more politically active and have become much more interested in the past of our great nation, I've come to the conclusion that "The War of Northern Agression" best describes the circumstances of what happened. Don't forget that the Union army was the first to attack, and never forget Sherman's march to the sea in which he went from town to town burning everything in sight to the ground and slaughtering unarmed civilians. To call it barbaric does not do it justice.
Re:Not possible for true a la carte programming. (Score:1, Insightful)
That's easy to fix.
You just allow channels based on current billable period.
You want HBO? That's one month's fee, please.
Want to switch it to something else? Another month's fee. And it's *ADDED*. Channels get removed at the end of the billing period, too.
Screw 'em (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Default Service for Cable Modem Users (Score:2, Insightful)
Wage-Monkey is an interesting term to be throwing around when you've just finished telling us that the tech was there because you "got unemployed".
The "wage-monkey" has every right to disconnect additional outlets that you aren't paying for.
You could also "accidentally" remove the trap on your line (depending on where you live and who provides your cable service) and get a la carte HBO. And by a la carte I mean free.
What you can do, and what is legal, are often two different things.
Re:Default Service for Cable Modem Users (Score:3, Insightful)