Congress To Force Cable a la Carte Plans 864
unassimilatible writes "Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John McCain seems to be leaning towards sponsoring legislation mandating something I have wanted for a long time: Forcing cable companies to offer "a la carte" programming packages. No U.S. cable or satellite currently offers such a plan. However, as the Washington Post reports, "That may change, if some lawmakers and consumer groups get their way, as the cable industry finds itself under increasing scrutiny. Lawmakers report that their constituents are angry about cable bills that have risen at three times the rate of inflation since the industry was largely deregulated in 1996." McCain money quote: "I go down to buy a loaf of bread. I don't have to buy broccoli and milk to go with it." Bottom line is, cable companies have a government-authorized monopoly, so maybe they need to recieve government-mandated "innovation." Why should I pay for 15 non-English channels?"
He who pays the Piper calls the tune (Score:5, Insightful)
on the other hand (Score:2, Insightful)
global village my arse.
My thumb thanks you (Score:4, Insightful)
"Besides adding to the cost, cable companies say, selling channels individually might make it difficult for lesser-watched, niche channels to survive."
This is bad how?
Quality (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't forget that quality has also dropped noticeably. We're paying more for more channels, not more good programs.
Why a big government solution? (Score:2, Insightful)
Yay! Now everything will be more expensive! (Score:4, Insightful)
The cable company is going lobby against this big time. If someone just wants TechTV only at their office, it's going to cost them big time. The cable company would at least like to make some profit off of everyone of their subscribers.
Thats my $0.02... oh yeah forget... since I'm only making one comment today, I'm charging more... that'll be $3.50.
Channels of choice... (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is fine. TechTV and BET are both complete garbage. What better way to improve the quality of programming than to mandate it through public dollar votes?
(Just give me Sci-Fi, Cartoon Network, Comedy Central, and the Playbo--er, Discovery, and I'll be good to go. Heck, maybe NBC as well, if for no other reason than this year's feisty presidential election.)
It's about time (Score:4, Insightful)
English channels (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: Evil Government Intrusion (Score:-1, Insightful)
It might sound good on the surface ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: Evil Government Intrusion (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This will do nothing (Score:4, Insightful)
They would have to raise their prices quite a bit for most people's bills to go up and not down. Considering I watch about 10 channels of the hundreds I receive.
Re:And here Slashdot shows its leftist bent (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem is not the pricing, it is the concept that because they force you to pay for channels that have no appeal to you, you pay more.
The way to let the market decide is to force the service to exist first, and then let the market decide if it wants it.
Re:And here Slashdot shows its leftist bent (Score:1, Insightful)
There are no "market forces" for a government-mandated monopoly.
The cable companies have charters which GUARANTEE that they cannot lose money on cable; and which GUARANTEE that they will NEVER face competition except from other forms of media.
Re: Evil Government Intrusion (Score:1, Insightful)
Something missing... (Score:3, Insightful)
Not a good thing.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Invisible Hand Bitch-Slaps Cable Companies (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, this means you have to give up the something you want, because it's bundled with a bunch of shit you don't want. Hang in there -- if enough consumers stop consuming the shit, companies will desperately try to save themselves from bankruptcy by selling you what you really wanted in the first place.
-kgj
Re:And here Slashdot shows its leftist bent (Score:5, Insightful)
Bottom line is, cable companies have a government-authorized monopoly
monopoly = monopoly is a situation where for technical or social reasons there cannot be more than one efficient provider of a good
Unlike Microsoft, there is no alternative to the 2 or 3 services, one of them being the Cable Monopoly, because they ALL bundle their channels.
I have to buy 100 extra channels just to watch TechTV and Cartoon Network, and then spend an hour Removing all the shopping and religious channels, as well as Fox News and A&E.
Re:My thumb thanks you (Score:5, Insightful)
And what about the niche channel you like (TechTV maybe?) that the general populace couldn't care less about? Will you be happy when they go under because only a select few people want to pay for it?
I'd love to see a la carte television myself, but only if it's a reasonable price and the selection doesn't decrease. In reality, I just don't see that happening.
Re:And here Slashdot shows its leftist bent (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh wait....
Dude, sometimes the market can't or won't decide. Then the government, who are supposed to have the interest of the electorate not the cable company executives and shareholders, will decide.
Sometimes governement interference is bad, sometimes its not.
Re:My thumb thanks you (Score:3, Insightful)
This is bad because it further encourages the homogenization of the entertainment industry.
Re:It's about time (Score:2, Insightful)
We need more competition (Score:4, Insightful)
Cable companies don't have such competition. There's typically a choice between the local cable provider and a couple of satellite providers. They can get away with this sort of thing by a sort of unspoken agreement. If one of them offered a la carte, so would the others.
Essentially this is the prisoner's dilemma. They both know that they will both get the best results by cooperating
Re:Why a big government solution? (Score:5, Insightful)
I know this because I worked for a satellite TV provider. It was like pulling teeth to be able to offer ESPN to our customers. Finally one of our managers had to call Eisner personally to straighten things out. As much as I'd like to make the cable companies out to be the bad guys, it's really the networks.
Jim
Re:My thumb thanks you (Score:2, Insightful)
Just don't bitch when all there is on the carte are the most profitable, vanilla, mainstream channels.
Re:on the other hand (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:He who pays the Piper calls the tune (Score:5, Insightful)
The losers may not be the consumers, but the low-end stations that are being subsidized right now. If the cable company drops 78 of those 395 channels because nobody's watching, there aren't any costs to pass on to the consumer (but I'm sure they won't be dropping prices, either). It sure sucks if you work for one of those 78 channels, and they pay the costs, but we can save money by exporting those jobs to India...wait, wrong discussion.
The consumer will also lose out on those 78 channels of original programming, but such is life in a free-market economy: if not enough people want it, you can't get it.
Re:Unbelievable (Score:4, Insightful)
cable companies have a monopoly just like the phone companies used to. What happens when the cable companies start tacking on service fees for maintenance of their own network? They get regulated just like the phone companies did. If I buy cable, why do I also have to pay for 100 channels that I didn't want?
Re:My thumb thanks you (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do you have cable TV in the first place, then?
Re:This will do nothing (Score:5, Insightful)
Didn't Viacom and EchoStar have a fight over this issue just a few weeks ago?
Canadians are used to this (Score:5, Insightful)
As a Canadian, we're used to this sort of socialism (NB: Socialism != Fascism != Communism). Many french and other non-english channels cannot survive in the market without being subsidized. Take our music industry for example. If you want to run a radio station here, you must play a certain percentage of Canadian artists so that US artists do not swamp out our industryt altogether.
All in all, I think forcing people to pay for a small percentage is a good thing, but then again what do I know? I'm just a brain-washed Canadian.
Re:Home Shopping Network (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:My thumb thanks you (Score:5, Insightful)
Market forces? TV is a luxury, and they have competitors via satellite TV and the internet.
And what about the niche channel you like (TechTV maybe?) that the general populace couldn't care less about? Will you be happy when they go under because only a select few people want to pay for it?
If there is no market for it, why is it on the air? Why should people who don't like it subsidize it? I may lose a channel or two that I care to watch, but that is capitalism baby!
Re:And here Slashdot shows its leftist bent (Score:4, Insightful)
Now, if the story had said that McCain wanted this and a pony... You might have something to your theory of the leftist bent... But of course, no silly obvious bias would be allowed to be put in story here... No.. Of course not!
Re:Super idea. (Score:2, Insightful)
Costs? Check your phone bill (Score:5, Insightful)
Low-end stations that are being subsidized right now already ARE losers. Economic darwinism is circling over them, ready to strike the minute that the government wind blows the other way. Their mandate for existence is tenuous at best.
Non mainstream programming will have to revert to unrestricted media, like radio or over-the-air TV, or the Internet. In the Warsaw ghetto it was underground newspapers. It will always survive. The problem is that you can't both claim a right to protection, and then demand a blank check on what you produce.
Re:Yay! Now everything will be more expensive! (Score:3, Insightful)
True, but ultimately it won't work this way.
With a-la-carte services they'll start out, pricing each particular program higher, like you say.
But people will buy less. People will only buy 10 or 15 channels when formerly their package had 160 channels. And at the high individual program price, consumers will be even more discerning, cutting out ones they really don't want. To get the per/household revenue back to what it was, the cables companies will ultimately have to lower the individual prices to stay competitive.
Right now it costs the same for pay per view to watch the same movies we can get at Blockbuster. But if they raised the price a doller per rental, I'd go right back to Blockbuster.
Re:Of course there is a "market" for this (Score:3, Insightful)
We can however force them to change and innovate by telling them what we want! Look at it this way... You think MTV has become a pile of trash, but you like what's on [random channel]? You tell your cable company you don't want it. Enough people do that and MTV realizes they have to innovate, yet you still get to watch your shows on [random channel]. Actually, not only do you get to watch them, but the owners of that network realize they have a good thing going and are less apt to change their shows.
As things are now, the networks don't give a care about what you think. They can pretty much put up whatever they want and still get paid. The ratings systems in place now don't cut it... What's wrong with giving the consumer more control over what's on?
Most idiotic complaint (Score:5, Insightful)
I get so sick of hearing complaints about the cost of X rising than more than the rate of inflation. Guess what, the inflation rate is an overall value, some things will grow at a higher rate, some lower. Given the fact that the value provided by cable has grown*, I really think people don't have much to complain about here. Think also of how much time people really spend watching cable - it is basically the main form of entertainment in most homes.
This is like the constant whining over the price of gas. If you actually consider the value that consumers get out of it, the price itself isn't so bad.
* While it is fashionable to constantly bemoan the lack of good content on TV, look at the diversity of offerings that cable provides, and the opportunity for shows to reach major success from small beginnings that never would have occured on network TV (like Trading Spaces or Queer Eye).
Re:evil cable companies (Score:5, Insightful)
Cable rates will go up even more.
Cable companies will charge even more for the individual channels in order to recoup the costs of administering the additional choices. Popular channels will go sky high such as CNN, ESPN, HGTV, etc. The channels nobody want's (QVC, HSC) will be free anyway. I wouldn't doubt if channels like QVC actually pay cable companies to carry them. Without those "support" dollars, they will pass on the full true cost (and then some) of those good channels.
If you look at the technical issues, the only way to really do this is with digital TV. Considering the $5 or so / TV cost of the stupid box (plus even more for a remote in many places) that raises prices for households with a bunch of TV's. With old-analog, you could tivo multiple different channels at the same time while watching a third or fourth all on different channels. With digital, I'd need a box for each tivo plus one for each TV. It's easy to pay an additional $25 / month for stupid boxes.
Thanks but no thanks.
Re:This will do nothing (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's face it, most of the cable channels are now making most of their money on advertising, just like broadcast media do. And that income is already based (roughly) on viewership.
And the big "premium" channels, which aren't largely advertising-income-based, are already purchased separately, 'cause they charge by the viewer, 'cause that's how they pay for their content (i.e. movies).
So moving all of their income to a viewership-based model will actually be a minor change for them.
No, what it means is the cable companies will have to stop using the addition of channels you don't want as an excuse to charge you more money. Plain and simple.
It's too darn bad that McCain didn't get the Republican nomination a few years back; he's one of the few Republicans I would actually vote for.
content providers driving pricing. (Score:3, Insightful)
Cable companies are stuck with an exponentially smaller subscriber base, so prices will be higher than dish.
Now, if you begin to divy up on a per channel basis, where you had 300k of subscribers to charge equally for the Discovery channel, you now have to charge more for Discovery channel for the subs that want it. So ostensibly, you could be paying a ton more for your service.
plus, on the feasibility end of things, you would force 1 of 2 methods of channel blocking; either putting traps on the line outside, and attenuating the total signal getting into the house, or setting up an addressable cable converter for each set in the house, and scrambling all the cable channels on the service.
So, it sounds good, until you actually look into what you would have to do to get it. I wonder if the government would subsidize cable companies to convert to this new system. Oh, but if you get into gov't subsidies, then you're beholden to the government to transmit their party line.
As soon as they remove their equipment (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Awesome! (Score:3, Insightful)
The power of inertia (Score:4, Insightful)
For that matter, nothing's stopping the cable companies from providing a la carte selection at some outrageous price and package-deals at the prices they've been charging all along, on the grounds that if people want a service, they'll have to pay for it at a price the market will bear.
The lament that "oh, we'll be paying $45/month for 6 channels" makes sense only if a-la-carte-only is mandated.
Re: Evil Government Intrusion (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why a big government solution? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yay! Now everything will be more expensive! (Score:5, Insightful)
No food
One Taco
15 Enchiladas
Free reign of the kitchen
There's a big space between one taco and 15 enchiladas.
Right now I get about 60 channels, and I watch ~maybe~ 5 of them. I would happily drop the rest.
If I drop 92% of my cable service, and the price doesn't go down, then something's fucked up.
~D
I'll bite (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:There is a bad side to this... (Score:3, Insightful)
Depends on the price. Besides, undoubtedly, cable companies would offer "bulk" discounts -- "Buy ten channels and get the eleventh free", or "Buy _all_ the channels for the low, low price..." If it costs five extra bucks to get some rarely watched channel, sure, people aren't going to do it a lot. If it costs fifty cents...that's much more likely.
This will also make it extremely difficult to start new channels. Since consumer won't just get a channel added to their lineup as now, a new channel will have to fight extremely hard to gain viewers.
And this'll be different from today...how? The new channel has to have enough startup cash in order to get shows, and to get the cable company to broadcast them -- which usually involves paying the cable company, not the other way around. And once that's happened, the new cable channel is now one of a few hundred channels available to the viewer. Even today, without some sort of new killer show, that channel's going to get buried in the noise.
Striking a balance... (Score:2, Insightful)
Instead of a pick-channels-one-by-one approach there just need to be smaller bundles, and you can pick 3 or 4 of these bundles with basic service and then maybe add an extra bundle for an added charge. Put sports channels together, put women's tv channels together, non-english channels, tech, entertainment, etc. Each bundle could be 10 or so related channels and, sure, you might not be getting 100% just what you want but now you've reduced the cost increases due to a la carte pricing, and buffered the loss of channels due to market demands. I would much rather pay $40/mo and only get 8 channels I don't want to see than (currently) pay $80/mo for something like 50 channels I don't want.
Re:Yay! Now everything will be more expensive! (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know how this would work though. My cable company offers probably around 100 channels but they're arranged in tiers. Up to 14 or something is basic, up to 70 is expanded basic and above that there are the various movie channels.
So with a handful of analog filters they can cut out what isn't purchased on a per customer basis.
If ala carte is forced then they'll have to have bandpass filters that are only 1 channel wide and a mixer so that a few of these filters can be run in parallel and then combined for delivery to the customer.It'd be easier for digital cable though.
Your example is busted. If I go into a Mexican restaurant I can order a special which has 3 items. It's a bit cheaper than ordering each item individually but it's not one third the price. If I know I'm not going to eat three enchilada's I can order 1. Yes, it will be a bit more expensive per enchilada than if I order the special. It'll be less expensive per enchilada I actually eat though.
In some ways, this may be a bad idea (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: Evil Government Intrusion (Score:4, Insightful)
Thanks for answering your own question. Makes life easier for me.
Re:Canadians are used to this (Score:4, Insightful)
However, I'd still take a-la-carte programming within those restrictions.
Canadian content must be 1/3 of the total availible programming. Ok, I want 14 foreign channels, I'll take 7 Canadian ones. (7/21) That to me seems fair.
Instead, I'm forced to take shit by the tier, and in order to get two fucking channels I want I need to take somewhere near 60. And none of which I care about.
APTN? The Aboriginal Peoples Television Network? I'm sorry that there is not enough people to support such a station, but If I don't wanna watch it, why should I have to pay for it.
No fucking wonder there are a million households in Canada pirating US satellite service.
Feh;
Re:He who pays the Piper calls the tune (Score:3, Insightful)
Then all those shows people want to see they can. Just get a few hundred thousand people willing to fork over like $10 an episode and there you go.
Best of all, no commercials needed.
Let's take it a step further! (Score:5, Insightful)
It might also cut down on the mindless hours people spend in front of their TVs.
Would you pay for C-SPAN? (Score:4, Insightful)
Also the cable companies need to make it easy and CHEAP to switch channels. Now you have to call them up, and it's a minimum of $5 for any changes. They should give me a package that I can choose 15 channels, and let me pick which, and change them at will.
I would be reasonable to have then force you to make only one or two changes a month. Otherwise you could effectively rig the system to let you watch all of it. Especially if there was a web interface to the selections.
Re:$1.00/channel (Score:3, Insightful)
Cable/Sattelite providers could then get a percentage of whatever is charged (say 20% of the channel fee). This would end up creating incentives all over the place.
First, cable/sattelite providers would have a vested interest in ensuring a readily available volume of channels. The more valuable the services they provide and the more people want them, the more money they make. Content providers would have the option of investing to create high-subscription rate programming, or to try for high-volume lower investment channels. Niche providers would have the barrier for entry lowered since cable/sattelite providers would want to offer the largest menu possible.
It's really hard for content providers to get quality data about how consumers value their programming right now. Nielsen is far from a great provider of information to the industry, but it's the only game out there now. If this actually became a marketplace, the consumer feedback would be undeniable and of absolutely perfect quality. With better information about what consumers want, the chance of actually having it provided increases dramatically.
And best of all, those crapola channels that you don't want would either have to lower their subscription price to the floor to keep you as a customer, or fold, thus uncluttering the lineup. We could use a few less home shopping channels, eh?
I am not a fan of regulation, and have seen far too much of it develop unintended consequences that poison the expected benefits. Looking at this though, all I see is a win everywhere, even for the cable companies. I can't see a downside if this is done properly.
Cable Company Reaction (Score:1, Insightful)
As for me, I'd welcome a la carte programming. I don't watch anything other than ABC, NBC, CBS, and FOX, all for football (and I get those for free over the airwaves), History, TechTV, and CNN. I don't need the Fishing, Golf, Telemundo, CSPAN, TVGuide, FOXNews, etc channels. The only time I watch them is scrolling through to get to one of the 7 channels I do watch.
Re: Evil Government Intrusion (Score:4, Insightful)
We already know how willing they are to lie and fabricate numbers to get the legislation they want. In Tennessee, they've fabricated ridiculous statistics they claim are "losses from theft of service" in order to push through the MPAA's SDMCA bill. It's in the legislative committees right now and Tennessee Digital Freedom is working hard to stop them.
There's an e-mail campaign [tndf.net] going on right now at Tennessee Digital Freedom [tndf.net] to try to let legislators know that the SDMCA is wrong for Tennessee and that monopolies like the cable companies do not need additional protection from government. If anything, CONSUMERS need protection from the monopolists (and their lobbyists).
I encourage everyone to visit the TNDF website, check out the e-mail campaign [tndf.net] and let politicians know what you think!!!
Re:He who pays the Piper calls the tune (Score:2, Insightful)
That's not how a free-market economy works. If not enough people want it, you can get it, it's just more expensive. It's why an 8" LCD panel costs more than a 15" one.
There are a lot of channels that maybe NOBODY cares about, but I think that certain niche channels (like TechTV) probably have viewers that are interested enough to pay more for it. I don't think the proposed legislation says anything about all of the channels having to be the same price.
For example, on cable here, there is a Hindi channel, but it costs $20/month for ONE CHANNEL. But, apparently people pay it anyway, because it's still being offered.
Re: Evil Government Intrusion (Score:4, Insightful)
Lets say there was only MS (sick sad world) on PC. DOn't like it? Oh, just get a Palm. Or a tablet. Or something else that's not a PC. Wait, you want a PC, but not MS?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yay! Now everything will be more expensive! (Score:3, Insightful)
Bottom line, if I only want a chicken enchilada, I shouldn't HAVE to buy the cheese and beef enchiladas too in order to get it. If I DO want all three, the restaurant can bring them to me all on one plate and charge me less for it.
Fine, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I'll bite (Score:3, Insightful)
1. I wasn't listing ALL quality shows, just the ones I watch most often. I don't spend much time watching TV (thank you PVR gods). There are plenty more quality shows available across the spectrum. Programming on PBS, Discovery Channel, History channel, and A&E comes to mind.
2. "I remember the day when..." is a fallacy. Yeah, yeah, "back in the good, old days" everything was better... uh huh.
3. If the number of quality programs has increased, regardless of whether the number of channels has increased, than the amount of quality programming has increased. I don't care if the vast percentage of overall programming is lousy, as long as my choices for quality programming have INCREASED.
Re:evil cable companies (Score:1, Insightful)
While your at it, get rid of "Channels" completely (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: Evil Government Intrusion (Score:2, Insightful)
And the Federal Government is going to make it better?
Come on. That we have to pay more and more each year for this privilege sucks and all, but hey, at least your opinion means more on Slashdot! :-)))))))
Deregulation (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:evil cable companies (Score:3, Insightful)
That is always a given.
Popular channels will go sky high such as CNN, ESPN, HGTV, etc. The channels nobody want's (QVC, HSC) will be free anyway.
I think you have this wrong. Since the costs of producing and distributing programming are largely fixed, the huge sponsorship of popular channels will allow those costs to be spread over a larger group. Even at a lower per unit cost total profits will be high. Less popular channels will have a harder time reaching wide enough distribution to be proffitable. Therefore they will require a higher per unit cost.
Re:evil cable companies (Score:4, Insightful)
I remember back when the cable companies could charge based on how many TVs you had hooked up in the house.
But then that got dropped (lawsuits?). So now, you pay the same rate for service to the house, and you can run it to any number of TV sets that the signal will support.
With cable boxes, they bring back a way to charge you per TV again. That is by choice. With digital TV and standards, the basic channels don't need to be scrambled and you wouldn't need separate boxes for each TV. The only ones that would need a box are the ones that get premium channels. But even technology could take care of this.
There are ways to deliver ala carte, that would not require a separate box per TV with a per box fee, but that is not what the cable/sat providers would want.
What gets me is... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:He who pays the Piper calls the tune (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:evil cable companies (Score:2, Insightful)
Wait wait wait a second. Don't these channels also have 'commercials' to offset the cost of programming. Didn't corporations pay $1 Million+ for 30 second spots during the superbowl and the final episode of Friends?
Then how on earth can ESPN, CNN, and HGTV pass on that cost to me if I order them in this mode of cable subscriptions? This isn't pay-per-view or HBO or even PBS. The costs will go down because I won't have 100+ channels I never watch artifically inflating the cost of my DirecTV subscription.
Even 'if' the cost could be passed on to the consumer, outside of how it already is (Viacom askes for more money from DishNetwork, Dish in turn raises the consumer's rate), the cost will balance out because we won't have to pay for everything else.
Cable's fault or content provider's fault? (Score:5, Insightful)
Cable operators have said that forced bundling by the content providers forces them to bundle channels as well, since they could easily sell ESPN ala cart but the 27 shit channels they have to pay for as well to get ESPN wouldn't sell, making it a huge money loser.
I'm generally in favor of unbundled channels, but only if they're vertically unbundled and the cable company only pays the content providers based on the subscriptions they have for those channels. Anything else should be considered a restraint of trade.
Re:More for all channels, but not the point... (Score:4, Insightful)
Better Nothing Than Second-Best (Score:4, Insightful)
I'll repeat myself: I should have added: When you cancel your account, be sure to write -- or better yet, write and call -- to let the company know why you are dropping their service: make clear what they must do to win back your business.
Better to do without, than to settle for second-best.
-kgj
Re: Evil Government Intrusion (Score:4, Insightful)
Cable does not have a monopoly on content delivery. Cable has about 70 million subscribers, compared to 20 million for the two major satellite providers. Nearly all consumers, even apartment dwellers, have a choice between cable and satellite television.
If you look at how the market has changed in the last five years, cable rates have gone up, but quality and quantity of channels have also improved. Cable improved their product to meet competition from the satellite guys, which traditionally have offered better quality and more channels - appearantly what most consumers want.
The satellite guys experimented with a la carte a few years ago, but it didn't sell. People wanted the 150 channel package. "Super size it. I want the best value."
The government should stay out of this particular fight. Market forces are working. The thing regulators need to watch is the mega-mergers between the content providers (News Corp, Time Warner, Disney, etc). It's these guys who have the power now. The cable and satellite guys are nearing a commodity status for delivery.
Competition is the only answer (Score:3, Insightful)
A big problem with cable is that the content providers are wanting money simply to allow the cable companies to carry their content. The best (most watched) content is still on the networks that broadcast over the airwaves for free. This is the way TV has worked for years and this is the way it still should work. Let the cable companies scramble over Internet, Phone and Pay-per-view/premium services but make your standard basic cable free.
If widely adopted this could be a huge boost to the economy since many people's monthly bills would go down $30-$50.
Re:And here Slashdot shows its leftist bent (Score:4, Insightful)
What I want (Score:4, Insightful)
So yeah, that'd be great.
Can we afford the choice? (Score:4, Insightful)
Think about it for a second. We have, what, 108 million cable subscribers in the US? Round that to 100 million for simplicity. If each cable channel (ESPN, CNN, Discovery, etc.) gets $0.25 per subscriber, they get $25 million to cover the costs of production. But if all of a sudden, we have all but 1 million of those people no longer paying, the channel only gets $250,000. So if it actually takes $25 million to produce the shows, then they're going to have raise their costs to $25.00 to make up the difference. Do you want to spend $25.00 a month to pay for SciFi?
Whether or not it costs $25 million to run the channel is open for debate.
Re:Regional monopoly (Score:4, Insightful)
Other grocery stores came and went. The town just wasn't able to support more than one, so in each case, the family-owned store survived because they were more concerned with staying in business than maintaining high profit margins. If they had raised their prices enough to piss people off, another chain could easily walk in and topple them, and periodically did.
Cable companies, by contrast, are a monopoly. There is a tremendous cost to starting a new cable company. First, you have to get permission to run lines. For areas with underground utilities, this often proves impossible, which kills that plan before it starts. Next, you have to pay the (often huge) cost of leasing pole space. And of course, you have to spend months running the lines across the city at a tremendous cost.
Compounding this problem is the contract that many municipalities have with their cable company, which provides for a government-sanctioned monopoly. The city may actually have to go through a termination process to remove the existing company before another would be allowed to provide service (assuming a traditional wire-based distribution).
Competing technologies like satellite have proven to be ineffectual because of the (perceived) high barrier to entry by the individual consumer (purchasing the system, installing it, etc.) Even the periodic "free dish with free installation" offerings do little to help because the cable companies abuse their monopoly power by showing advertisements disguised as public service announcements that pound lies and half-truths about satellite services into the heads of prospective consumers.
The only way cable service will ever be priced reasonably is if either there are always two or more cable companies per market or the prices are regulated by law. It's sad that it takes an election year to get our government to even give it a second look. If only every year were an election year.... *sigh*
Best thing that could happen to cable (Score:2, Insightful)
need REAL deregulation (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with cable in most areas is that there is one cable operator and satellite, and that's it. What if you bought your basic cable service from an Regional Cable Operator (like a RBOC) and then purchased your cable package separately from one of several competing content providers? They could then compete on price and selection.
The cable companies may complain about the loss of less popular channels, but that's a smokescreen. Some people will want huge packages like we have today. And some media conglomerates will buy multiple niche channels and sell them as a package to content providers. Most of the premium channels work this way anyway; when you buy HBO you get multiple channels that can serve different niches.
The cable operators would hate this, and now that they are parts of huge media conglomerates they have lots of resources to fight it. that's why we need government intervention to make it happen.
Save even more money, Save Time, Lose Weight (Score:3, Insightful)
You're going to pay the same price anyways (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Invisible Hand Bitch-Slaps Cable Companies (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's the problem with these blanket "If enough consumers blah, blah, blah" statements that I always hear on
It sucks, but that's the way things are. It's easy enough for us to say and do the "If Joe Average blah, blah, blah" statements because we're not Joe Average. Unfortunately, Joe Average usually doesn't see things the same way, or sometimes does but will continue to pay the costs becuase he's too lazy or has some external forces influencing his decision making.
Personally, I don't pay for cable (other than the basic-basic, broadcast channels without the static package, becuase it was only $5 more per month than just the cable modem subscription). When I moved into my apartment, my roommate and I thought about how much TV we actually watched and decided that it wasn't worth the extra $50 a month just so that there might be something good on whenever we are bored enough to sit down and watch TV. Instead we have the internet, DVDs, and (gasp!) books to keep us entertained.