Cable TV A La Carte? 461
Anonymous Coward writes "According to this BusinessWeek article you can now get your MTV a la carte. I having been waiting for years to buy my cable by the channel, and this article indicates that my cable company is now legally required to let me. I am going to call Time Warner tomorrow with my list just to see what they say. Anyone out there doing this now?"
woohoo! (Score:4, Interesting)
You're not married are you? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:You're not married are you? (Score:5, Funny)
My wife would divorce me if I were to cancel Lifetime.
I'm recently divorced and can honestly say the best part is never having to sit through another Trading Spaces marathon!
Re:You're not married are you? (Score:5, Interesting)
Her best friend recently had a neighbor do an episode. The weekend after they left they undid everything that they had done to their room.
Re:You're not married are you? (Score:2)
Re:You're not married are you? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:You're not married are you? (Score:2)
I showed my wife an article about the behind the sceens of one of those episodes and how much damage/money it costs to repair the "renovation".
LINKS, DAMMIT, LINKS!
Re:You're not married are you? (Score:2)
But do you still watch it? I think it is a cool show. Vern has got some talent, and usually makes really cool rooms. But part of why I watch is to see how stupid they can get in their designs. If that bastard Frank drew any kittens/chickens/people on my walls I would strangle him. :-) And don't tell me Paige isn't a buff hottie, or you don't like watching Amy Wynn with the power tools, or wouldn't like to tumble with Genevieve.
The good reactions are cool, but the bad reactions are even better. They even run episodes where they highlight the people who didn't like their rooms. I think it is hilarious when people bitch and moan. Come on, the show is well known, people know what they are signing up for when they go to do the show. Keep your damn rooms white and boring if you don't want to take a chance. And boy, some of the before pictures are hideous.
Re:You're not married are you? (Score:5, Informative)
You can also do a search on Google searches for Tranding Spaces hay [google.com], Trading Spaces cry [google.com], or Pam Herrick [google.com] to find out more about the show.
Things that they don't tell you on the show:
You sign a contract stating what room is to be changed, what can NOT be touched (They ignore this), what you would like (colors, themes, etc). Trading Spaces then assigns a designer (none of which have any formal design education) to do what ever they want, not what you want. Most of the work is done off camera by the crew. Sewing done on camera is just for show...they have a crew to do that. Same with carpentry. The furniture is made super cheap...particle board bookcases come to mind on one show. I just got to the point where I started laughing at the shows. Some had interesting decorations, but most were a joke. You get around $1000 to change the room, but nothing if you don't like it. You are responsibie for carting away trash (they will pay the disposal fee, but it's just a hassle). You also have to put up with that annoying Paige lady. That would be the ultimate deal breaker for me regardless of the rest.
Re:You're not married are you? (Score:4, Funny)
You said Only a drugged up lesbian designer would think Gluing hay on a wall was a good idea
What you should have said was Only a drugged up lesbian designer who has no children would think Gluing hay on a wall was a good idea
Re:You're not married are you? (Score:5, Funny)
No way.. paint chips & hay are a great afterschool snack!
Re:You're not married are you? (Score:2)
The key word here being "some". It's gotta be a nice deal for the designers; they get to test out any wacky idea they want, and see if people like it. If people like it, it goes in their portfolio. If not, to their trashcan of shame...Definitely gives them a chance to flex their artistic muscles, but you're definitely taking a chance when you invite them to do your home. I wonder what kind of contracts they make you sign...
Re:You're not married are you? (Score:5, Informative)
The second season of Trading Spaces has seen some pretty dramatic room makeovers, as well as homeowner reactions. None more memorable than that of Pam Herrick, who had to leave the room and cry, after the reveal of her new dark brown living room. She tells EntertainmentWeekly.com that she "felt violated." Meanwhile her husband says the "Trading Spaces crew is sloppy, unprofessional and unsafe when it comes to the makeover process. Our home was left a fire hazard and in violation of local building codes." Meanwhile, a couple weeks ago, TLC aired an episode in which designer Hilda Santo-Tomas glued straw/hay all over a couple's living room. In case you were wondering, it took 5 adults (including the neighbours who glued it on in the first place) 17 hours to get all the hay and glue off the walls, after the show had left. As the unstable bookshelf that Trading Spaces installed became a hazard for their young children, the couple removed it from the room. In addition, they paid $3000 for a new mantle, to replace the one that Hilda removed. So much for that $1000 budget.
Re:You're not married are you? (Score:4, Funny)
I set the password to '1234'. She'll never figure it out...
Re:You're not married are you? (Score:5, Funny)
Just hope that isn't the combination on her luggage...
Re:You're not married are you? (Score:4, Funny)
Is that because you no longer have a wife or no longer have a T.V.?
Lifetime only package (Score:3, Funny)
Re:woohoo! (Score:5, Funny)
Just what we need, a thread where all the Slashdotters post lists of their favorite TV channels. Don't you people go out?
I can't, my parents lock the basement door.
No, you can't get MTV a la cart, read it again... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No, you can't get MTV a la cart, read it again. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:No, you can't get MTV a la cart, read it again. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:No, you can't get MTV a la cart, read it again. (Score:2)
Re:No, you can't get MTV a la cart, read it again. (Score:2)
Re:No, you can't get MTV a la cart, read it again. (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, in the case of AOL/TW, you are required to have digital cable in order to have HBO, because they simply don't offer HBO on their analog cable.
'Sides, one thing they can do (and are doing) to control this is with cable modems. I have AOL/TW's cable modem service. They charge $44.95/mo unless you have at least what they call their 'extended basic' package, which costs $39.95/mo. Otherwise, the price is $89.95/mo for the cable modem by itself.
Re:No, you can't get MTV a la cart, read it again. (Score:2)
BS! In Columbus, OH where I live, if your on Time Warner, if your on BASIC service (which is Analog) you can get 3 channels of HBO for price of one. For Digital subscribers, you can get 14 HBO's for the price of one. Doesn't do me any good cuz I'd never watch HBO any way.
Re:No, you can't get MTV a la cart, read it again. (Score:2)
Pipe Dream (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Pipe Dream (Score:2)
As for digital radio...I was at a party last weekend where that relatively benign phenomenon became the star attraction. The CD player was broken, you see, so we all fought over the remote, forcing people to listen to power ballads or progressive rock. It was more fun that it sounds in retrospect.
These things get bundled for a reason, and it's that everybody has different tastes.
Re:Pipe Dream (Score:2)
what's the temperature in hell?
Re:Pipe Dream (Score:2)
These things get bundled for a reason. (Score:3, Funny)
As a welfare programme for arts graduates ?
Premium channels only (Score:4, Informative)
Doesn't apply to basic cable.
Re:Premium channels only (Score:5, Interesting)
Am I missing something here? Seems to me that being able to select which regular channels you want (so you don't have to get QVC, for example) would be more useful.
Same as gas stations... (Score:2)
I imagine they will charge a crazy amount for individual channels, but then give a "discount" for multiple channels. I may get 10 channels for $40 now, but if I ask, they'll probably charge $10 each and then bundle the 10 for $40.
My cable company, Adelphia, is made up of a bunch of weasels (some of whom are now headed to jail for dipping into the profits for personal use) always looking to screw people. Where there's a weasel, there's a way.
Price limits? (Score:5, Insightful)
I do think this is a good law though, How many people on slashdot would want to get cable just for TechTV?
Re:Price limits? (Score:5, Informative)
However, unless you are buying less than 5 channels you'll spend more money than the package.
Since most people want at least MTV, TWC, CNN, DISC, CC and SCIFI it's kind of a moot point.
Re:Price limits? (Score:2, Offtopic)
True SlashDot geeks are watching the Discovery network channels, National Geographic, and the History channel any chance they can get.
Re:Price limits? (Score:2)
You left out BBC America...where else are you going to get your Monty Python fix?
Re:Price limits? (Score:5, Funny)
Thanks for reminding us, Dexter. Sometimes I forget what I am supposed to watch or do so that my membership in the True SlashDot Geek Club won't lapse or be revoked. I'd hate to have to turn in my decoder ring.
All my free-thinking and living-my-own-life crap sometimes plays havok with the whole
Thanks again, bro!
Re:Price limits? (Score:2)
Screensavers: Talk about using bash
Call for Help: Plug in a printer
CyberCrime: TAlk to somebody about ID theft
Fresh gear: The only 'fresh' show on the network
TechLive: "Bill gates announced xyz today, yesterday he announced zyx!"
and speaking of TechTV, read on fuckedcompany that they just closed 3 bureaus..12 people canned
here's the story [bizjournals.com]
That's why it won't work (Score:2)
The only way it would make sense for them is market segmentation. In other words, if some new pricing scheme made them more money than it lost (in terms of full subscribers switching down), then they'll do it. This is why they offer a really shitty basic cable - they want it to be just better than a rooftop antenna, but limited enough that it makes you want premium.
So no, there is no system under which we all end up paying less for cable than we are now.
Re:Why bother with cable? (Score:3, Insightful)
--
Re:Why bother with cable? (Score:2)
Channel 27 is owned by the same group that owns KDFW, and they re-run "Fox 4 News" at 10:30. KPXD has a deal going with channel 5, so they re-show KXAS' news at some point ("5 on PAX"). Regarding KDAF, there's some controversy over what that should have been. Common rumour has it being "K-Dallas And Fort worth."
KLDT used to be owned by televangelist Robert Tilton, and has its transmitter in Lewisville. Common reasons for its callsign are "K-Lewisville-Dallas-Television" or "K-Lake-Dallas-Television" (after the lake cities town of the same name).
KFWD used to be the Telemundo affiliate, before they switched to 39. I believe Hispanic Broadcasting now owns them.
KSTR was Home Shopping Network's entry into the broadcast "shop at home" idea, which flopped miserably. They bounced between one satellite feed or another of some teleshopping network, before Univision bought them, too. For some reason they run Dallas Stars, I guess none of the major stations wanted to pick up the license.
I would just like to say that KXTX used to be a lot better. They would do re-runs of a lot of old shows, and even some first-runs. I remember watching first-runs of Knight Rider, as well as re-runs of A-Team on that channel. For the Star Trek buffs, KTXA has always been the station that ran Star Trek for Dallas. I knew their "Star Trek manager," the guy who was in charge of everything related, and he was a fanatic about making sure station management picked up the syndex rights for every episode.
Re:Why bother with cable? (Score:2)
Re:Why bother with cable? (Score:2)
Well, TV is mostly crap anyway. Fewer choices of crap might motivate you to do more active things that absorb boob-toob radiation all night.
Re:tech tv? Max Headroom reruns are there! (Score:2)
we've only had TechTV for about a year on our crappy digital cable, and i've had a lifetime dose of Screen Savers. even my M$-lovin' roomate can't take most of their programming. i watched the Apple keynotes that they showed, and Max Headroom... that's about it i think. i tried to watch more but it gets bogged down in M$ Windows nonsense that means nothing to me. oh well.
my order (Score:5, Funny)
Wait a minute, does that mean that now we have to tip? double the tax my ass!
Fun ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Package deal - 39.99
Individual Channels - $3.00 -$5.00 per channel.
It could add up very quickly, and I think that most consumers couldn't be bothered to pick and choose channels while taking pricing into account IMO.
Cheers,
VonKraken
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Fun ... (Score:3, Informative)
They tried to con you too? Be glad you didn't take it, digital isn't all that much better and it doesn't degrades gracefully. Time-Warner in our area didn't want to be bothered actually fixing the ancient equipment in our neighborhood so the tv was impossible to watch. We went back to analog in a month.
Re:Fun ... (Score:2)
however, my ex switched over to TW digital cable; every time you change a channel it takes about 3 secods, then the picture becomes all blocky for a few while it descrambles
fiber to the curb is what I'm waiting for
Wrong (Score:5, Informative)
Long Time Overdue (Score:5, Insightful)
It would be better to have 70 channels of things you want to watch, rather than have 125 channels which include 4 home shopping networks, oxygen, lifetime,5 gardening channels etc....
Letting the viewers decide what they want to pay for is quite a concept. What took em so long?
Re:Long Time Overdue (Score:2)
Why would you pay more for 70 channels when you could just remove them from the scan for free?
Re:Long Time Overdue (Score:2)
i went home for the weekend last week and my dad had just gotten directv installed (i.e. "Tom! set up the stereo so i can use it!") and i found myself setting up my profile in the unit...
i just kept deleting channels so fast, now i have maybe 10 channels and then the movie channels that he got free. surfing is actually easy now
Re:Long Time Overdue (Score:2)
Well yeah, thanks for pointing out the obvious sparky. The problem isn't that we have to flip trough 170 channels, it's that we have to pay for 170 channels to get the 5 channels we really watch.
What's Basic Service.. (Score:3, Interesting)
As long as I can keep Women's Entertainment (WE) I'm fine.
talk about getting screwed (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't be sad... (Score:4, Funny)
Yes, that right! Just read this:
"It's up to our clients [the cable operators] to decide how they offer our services,"
Translation: we got a stick behind the door.
"It's our hope that our affiliates would use whatever tactics are available to increase their premium penetration."
Translation: We're gonna screw you with it!
What we have in parts of Canada (Score:5, Interesting)
1) Analog channels. Channels 2-~78 are analog. We can choose between 3 "tiers" which determine what type of filter is installed at the cable box itself. 2-28 is "basic" cable. 29-~42(?) is another tier, ~43-78 is another. They are grouped this way as to make filtering easier. Changing the programming is a PITA as someone has to physically drive down from the cable company and change things. Usually being wishy-washy as to what you want will net you a $50 charge each time someone has to drive over.
2) Digital channels. Channels 80-999 are digital. You can order most any of the "basic" ones for $2.50 / each / month. Bundling them in bigger sets gets you bigger discounts. ie: 5 channels for $10, 10 channels for $15, etc. You can mix and match as you please, and they are activated usually before your call to the cable company is finished.
It's been this way for a year and a quarter now.
Re:What we have in parts of Canada (Score:4, Interesting)
The wonderful thing about "digital" cable is that it isn't. Only some of the channels are digital - generally everything below 80-100 is still analog. You can tell which are which by looking at the packages - the basic cable and extended basic are all analog. But any channels that get added by upgrading to a digital cable package are digital. Heck, if you're on digital cable you can still plug in a TV/VCR to the cable feed without a box and tune to any of the analog channels.
Re:What we have in parts of Canada (Score:3, Interesting)
That's just a pass-through connection...if you plug a TV directly into the cable outlet, it'll pick up analog. Here in Las Vegas at least (maybe in other Cox markets as well), I'm fairly sure that if you subscribe to digital cable, all channels are delivered as digital channels. I saw some decoding glitches last night while watching Enterprise, which would indicate that even the local channels are converted to digital before they're sent out. (It's either that, or the hard drive in my TiVo is acting up...but I doubt that's the case.)
Re:What we have in parts of Canada (Score:2)
I agree. The cable/satellite companies make it very attractive to overbuy, by making the discrete channels expensive and the packages cheap. They also tend to break the discrete channels into aggragate similar groups that you can't split up.
This means I can't easily assemble, for example, a group with a hockey channel, and not get the Golf Channel. Which means I end up paying for two channels I sometimes watch (NHL Channel) and one I never watch (Golf). The same goes for many other of my choices.
One criticism I have of the 1000 channel universe is that while I agree with splitting up some things into speciality channels, I think it's presumptuous to do so for other subjects. For example, in Canada we have a few digital music stations spun off of MuchMusic segments. I don't agree that one must listen to the same stuff all the time. I have a varied taste in music, and splitting the channels into an age or earning demographic is good enough for me. Instead, I have to decide whether I want MuchLoud, MuchGroove, MuchFoo or MuchBar (or all four).
The same goes for the movie channels. Sometimes I like "lost drive-in classics" and sometimes I like "independents". I either have to choose between them, or pay for both. I'm not saying there are not any general movie or music channels, but that I see a tendency toward more and more specialization until we might be coerced into buying more channels than we really want. I'd like the optin to underbuy and still get a fair amount of value. My back-of-the-envelope calculations show that pick and choosers like me pay almost 50-70% more.
This is all moot, I guess, since I'm leaning toward getting rid of cable altogether. The only reason I have cable now is for high-speed inet. As soon as I arrange a DSL connection, I imagine I'll cancel cable completely.
Sweet (Score:3, Funny)
Goodbye Showcase, CNN, Discovery, TLC, Sci-Fi.. hello pr0n!
In Canada, we have this already. (Score:2, Informative)
Here is an example of one of our à la carte providers. [illico.tv]
Viewers Choice? (Score:2, Funny)
Better things to do (Score:2)
Buy single channels.. cool. What about...? (Score:2)
Re:Buy single channels.. cool. What about...? (Score:2)
The real problem is getting local broadcast channels like Fox. If you don't live in one of their broadcast markets, they are legally prohibited from giving you the local package. The local Fox station where I used to live turned down my waiver request three times. The third time I called them myself and offered to give them $10, which is more then they will ever make off of me in advertising...like I am going to put up some analog wire when I have a nice digital satellite dish to recieve TV from space.
Re:Buy single channels.. cool. What about...? (Score:2)
How is it illegal? For 4 years now, I pick up the local channels for Denver, LA, Miami, New York and Chicago I think. but the thing is, Dish Network maks you also pay for my local chanels (Boston). so you first must buy the local package, which is $4.99 I think. And then you can upgrade that to the super local package which is $7.99 (maybe 9) that includes the other cities. And yes, I do get the WB, UPN and fox local channels for those cities. I thinks it just a mix.
I am a little confused why you made a waiver request? If you do have Dish Network, ask for the super station package and it include other local channels.
I'd be happy with VH-1 Classic (Score:2)
It's too bad MTV2 failed where VH-1 classic picked up. Imagine, a channel that plays just music videos that time hath forgotten! Never thought I would see the day VH-1 Classic is playing Megadeth videos while MTV plays "Fast Lane".
Situation in other countires? (Score:5, Interesting)
I spent four months living in France this year and my cable provider had a point system. Each channel cost a certain number of points (ranging from about 2 for something boring up to 15-25 for a premium channel) and you paid for packages with varying amounts of points. Then you could pick the channels you wanted and not waste points on something you would never watch. It seemed like a better deal (perhaps not cheaper, but much more flexible) than what we have in the US. I don't even have cable here since I'm not a huge fan of television and cable TV packages cost more than I am willing to pay.
-Joe
Re:Situation in other countires? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Situation in other countires? (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, in the UK, you've got Cable (NTL or Telewest generally) or if you want Digital, you have Sky [sky.co.uk] and Freeview [freeview.co.uk] (used to be called OnDigital then ITV Digital then bust).
Freeview is in its unfancy and is basically free stuff. I also know very little about it.
Sky on the other hand has tonnes of packages [sky.com]. In short, all the decent channels (IMO) are spread about several packages. Which means that if you want all of them you have to pay the premium rate and get 55 other really rubbish ones.
AFAIK there is no way to pick and chose your cable products too. You just have to pick a bundle and put up with the rubbish ones that come with it.
UK (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps the biggest difference is that the dominant pay-tv supplier is satellite, not cable. The satellite system has practically completed the switch to digital, the cable systems are much more recent than the US <10 yo) and pretty much entirely digital. You usually get a free STB, but are committed to a min contract of 1 year and pay for services.
The packages are similar to the older US system as described in the article, but are sorted by content type rather than supplier. i.e. Entertainment, Sport or Movie packages rather than Disney, Vista, etc. These tend to be priced at £10-£20 (15-30 $/) per package per month for ~10 channels. The exception is the premium movie channels with cost about £8-£16 (12-20 $/) each pcm, expensive but good. They do seem to take most new-release movies within a few weeks of DVD release.
Aside from the Premium Movie Channels, the best content is available from the free-to-air BBC which is mainly distributed though both analog and digital terrestrial (UHF) transmission. They are usually also bundled with the other transmission mediums. This medium also support some national and regional advert funded, free-to-air channels of good quality.
The new kid on the block is broadband IP-DTV, this is delivered via broadband xDSL line to a STB. It differs from cable because the network topology is star and not a ring. It supports a real return channel, dedicated bandwidth to each installation. And therfore allows true content on demand (VOD), server side PVR, and real interactive content. I guess you can call it programme level al-a-carte. Each movie is about £1.50-2.50 UKP (2-3.50 $/) for 24hours, this is about the same as a movie rental.
I work on this (www.kitv.co.uk) IP-DTV project. There are a couple of others, Yes, and Homechoice.
Big Dish (Score:2)
I used to dig watching M2 when it was new, and I was spending late, late nights in the TV station. *sigh* Master Control sucks.
*Which* federal rule? (Score:2)
I'd like to see the actual federal mandate to see what it actually covers before going to Time Warner here in Austin and asking them to give me some pricing info. If anyone's already done this here, reply and let me know..
Re:*Which* federal rule? (Score:2)
What I want (Score:3, Interesting)
No real mention of cable Internet (Score:2)
I don't know if they will offer Internet without at least Broadcast cable TV. But they add a surcharge to the cable Internet if you don't have at least Basic, so you may as well get Basic.
Pricing for Internet wasn't mentioned, but now this makes me wonder if this practice is legal.
Not a great idea... (Score:5, Insightful)
First off, it's more expensive. Consider: a fair price for a channel you really want is probably 2-5$ per month. I receive 85 channels for $23. Even eliminating the dozens I don't watch, there's more than 10 channels I do want to get, including all five major networks, comedy central, cartoon network and a gaggle of learning channels, BBCA and of course Food TV.
Second off, it's not really good for the cable co based on how the cable companies receive and send the channels themselves. Everything's handled by big blocks of splitters and amplifiers. Each handles a set of channels. Channels are pulled down from satelites in blocks as well...TWC in Albany has a set of five or so, one of which is dedicated to all the myriad HBOs, one to all the turner channels, etc. So it makes sense to sell TV in blocks...it's impossible to accurately tell how much a SINGLE channel costs you. In fact, after setup costs and maintenance costs and offsetting the possibility of customer service, just getting one channel may cost about $15 on a good margin, while getting fifty channels on the same line would only be pennies more.
Finally, it's not fair for marginal channels. You know all those channels you don't watch, like History or Speedvision or Golf TV or Univision? They're all somebody's favorite channel, believe it or not. There may be very few people who watch them, but they're getting equal billing due to being part of a package deal. Thus, they also have the ability to get hugely popular -- after all, you're more likely to catch something interesting on than if you had to order it specifically. Would TV Food be such a mainstay in our house were it not for having actually seen Good Eats, Iron Chef, David Rosengarden's Taste or Jamie Oliver? No. Hell, we wouldn't have ordered "ala carte" a channel that was ostensibly just reruns of Julia Childs.
Block pricing isn't really that expensive, anyway. I get 85 channels and broadband internet for less than the a quarter of the cost of my car's insurance and upkeep, and I sure get a lot more utility out of it.
Not fair? (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually I think it is unfair that a Speedvision viewer would have to subsidize GolfTV.
Who Cares About Networks? (Score:2)
1. People don't care about networks, they care about shows. Give me "The Sopranos", "Survivor", "Cowboy Bebop", "[Insert your favorite show here]", a la carte. I couldn't care less about these dinosaurs called networks. The sooner networks disappear the better.
2. But, this show based nirvana is never going to happen because the companies controlling the television system are just as violently opposed to changing their business model as the [RI|MP]AA companies. So even with a la carte networks, I'm still going to have to pay for 167 hours of crap each week for the one hour I do want.
Feh! A pox on all their houses.
Re:Who Cares About Networks? (Score:2)
Its like a T-Rex loking up in the Sky to see a big firey meteor plunging toward the earth and saying "Boy, that sure is going to screw those other guys, I'm glad it won't effect me..roar."
Cablevision allows this (Score:2)
Although it sucks that we get fewer channels now for a higher price (even before adding the 75 cents) than we did in our old area.
IT's all abput perception (Score:2)
That means whe I surf I only surf the channels I watch.
so take the 30 dollars divide that by the 20 channels that are watched. that means I'm paying 1.5 dollars per channel PLUS I get a bunch of "preview" channels of other shows, in case I want to see what my other options are.
In short, just filter the channel you don't watch then see how much per channel you enjoy that you are paying. Probably getting a better deal then if you bought the channel individually.
OTOH, thats not what the article was about, it was about not having to buy a premium package just to get HBO/Showtime.
see, I did read the article
Shania Twain Chanel (Score:3, Funny)
We've had this for years (Score:2, Informative)
all porn, all the time (Score:2)
What if the internet was this way and you had to pay to view other web pages that you were not interested in just to get to the few that you actually want to see? Oh wait, NetZero and Juno couldn't give that away. the only difference I see is the cable companies don't have to compete for local market share (can you say monopoly?).
We can here... (Score:2, Interesting)
I found i still preferred to get a big package, though, just because i like to have lots of channels around. But someone who only wants the essential plus HBO wouldn't have to buy a package.
Here is a link to and copy of the actual reg (Score:4, Informative)
Because the link is slow, here is the text of that rule:
What Time Warner will say (Score:4, Funny)
A Summary of the Section the article talks about (Score:3, Informative)
Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 that is being refered to:
Prohibits (with exceptions) a cable operator from: (1) requiring the subscription to any tier other than the basic service tier as a condition of access to cable programming offered on a per channel or per program basis; or (2) discriminating between subscribers to the basic service tier and other subscribers with respect to rates charged for video programming offered on a per channel or per program basis.
Gotten from: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d102:SN00
So, it says that if a channel is offered alone, then the cable company cannot say must buy something else first. However, in the case of (for example) the Home And Garden channel, they don't sell it alone, so you cannot buy it alone.
Cable Companies have actually been doing this for a while, but you have to ask explicitly for it. Even (on occassion) forcing the sales person to talk to their manager.
I would love to buy channels ala cart, though.
Ciao!
Why No One knows (Score:3, Interesting)
Tell that to the cigarette companies. They are being forced to advertise the cancer-causing properties of their products -- against their right to free speech!
For-profit companies do not have the same right to the freedom of speech as do individuals. The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are addressed to human beings, not commercial entities. The Constitution begins with the famous phrase "We the people" and the Bill of Rights amendements all specifically designate people as the recipients of those important freedoms.
This law will be totally ineffective unless the corporations are forced to inform their own customers about their legal rights and options when purchasing services from them. It's not such a radical idea -- there are plently of examples of this already. The FCC should stop its laissez faire approach to regulation and actually try to enforce the law for a change.
Pipe Dream, They don't do this. (Score:3, Interesting)
ESPN2
MTV2
CNN
Comedy Central
Cartoon Network
TNT
USA
FX
History Channel
The Learning Channel
Discovery
Animal Planet
Sci-Fi
National Geographic Channel
The representative told me that I was 'wrong' and that I would have to pay $50 a month to get these, "along with over 120 additional channels". I told about the Cable Act, and she told me I was mistaken.
So there's non-compliance with the law right there. Should I press charges
Bastard cable companies.
Just got off the phone (Score:3, Interesting)
These people are criminals.
I signed up for HBO in september - I told them that i didnt want anything but to add HBO to my existing service. I was told that there was now way that I could get HBO unless I signed up for their Silver package - at 62 per month.
I asked what it came with and she listed all this other crap - i said that I didnt want any of that - that i just wanted HBO.
Then I called today about this law - and the fact that I just wanted HBO - and they quoted a range of other packages that are cheaper that had HBO. The girl said that they didnt have these packages in September which is why I wasnt offered. I told her to find out. Low and behold - these packages were available in september, they dont knwo why i was told otherwise - and that no they could not change the package and give me credit back retro-active.
the said that if you want HBo its 13.95/month + plus 12.55 for basic + 5.00 for the digital cable box rental.
this is all bullshit. I wanted to hit them in the face with a shovel.
In the end all i got was 10 off my bill for the next year.
but I think Ill just cancel all together.
They will *never* do this! (Score:3, Insightful)
Networks make their money by packaging and sometimes producing programming to get eyeballs. The greater the number of eyeballs, the more they can charge for ad placement. Ad placement is directly responsible for their bottom line.
Those same eyeball numbers also give them power over the marketing of their programming as well. Valuable shows make or break many networks. The power of the eyeball gives them leverage when it comes to buying or selling program content or placement on their network.
Right now the Cable and Sat companies basically are selling a fat pipe. Everyone gets in, but everyone also gets out as well. There are basically three tiers. Lame Basic, the basic you should have, and premium. For almost all subscribers, you have to get the first two tiers because of the sick packaging schemes.
These two factors boost the eyeball numbers for all the networks. This plus the fact that the cable companies can localize ad placement keeps ad revenue high. The more bundling they do, the better this really is for them.
Networks compete now on a fairly level playing field. The bundles make sure that all of the networks get their chance for air time. If people are allowed to choose the channels they want, then the barrier for entry becomes a lot higher for those less popular or specialized networks. They must work harder to generate interest. Because they are not part of the default channel line-up.
Nobody involved in the money chain wants this. The cable companies are best served by selling as many channels as they can. The networks want their chance at your attention to come as easily and cheaply as possible and the ad agencies want to be able to target as precisely as possible.
Per channel subscription breaks all of this. Remember the network exists to make money, not serve your interests. Nice Huh?
Bundles help smooth revenue also. The best thing you can do for your entertainment provider is to subscribe at the top tier, get your occasional bonus pay per view and never ever call them. Wall Street likes nice smooth growth and month over month revenue.
This makes their revenue model very simple. Basically all they really care about is the number of subscribers. Their marketing efforts are more or less directed at customer loyalty (Hey we have added more channels!), pay per view and or premium content (Catch the next lame fight @ 49.95 today!), or new subscriptions. (You get your first month free and our installers will make sure your dish and antenna don't work after we are finished!)
The packages build a sense of value for the whole thing and they stay focused on that. Think maga channels for few dollars -vs- sign with us and get program x.
One other very important aspect of this goes back to the eyeball number. If you have more channels than you can use, the best way to get your moneys worth is to spend a lot of time watching. You might miss something right? After all there are so many channels, there has always got to be something on.
Packages encourage casual TV use. There is something to browse and if you browse long enough, there is something interesting.
Per channel subscription takes a lot of that away. People would then become focused on the various networks more than they are now. The result of this would be more focused television use.
With both of these comes less overall use because people would become more aware of the programming and when they get the most value from it. Nobody making money wants this either.
This also would encourage more time based competition from the various networks as well.
Personally, I feel all of these things are good. Too much aimless TV viewing is bad for all of us. The problem really is there is *zero* financial incentive to provide the sort of service that lets users exercise control of their viewing experience. It is far easier to make money when the viewer has limited choices than it is when they have more choice.
BTW this is exactly why I quit using subscription programming. Take that money, and purchase programming on media. You can watch at your leisure, don't have to worry about recording and archiving so many things, and can trade with your friends for big savings. If you are tired of it, you can resell it for an even bigger savings.
Just got the first three seasons of Stargate SG1. Now if I have a free hour, I can watch one of those. In the mood at 3AM and want to share an episode with a friend? Maybe it came up at dinner or work? No problem, do it anywhere you like whenever you like.
Taking the next step (Score:3, Interesting)
There's also a lot of selection in PPV. Movies for $5 (a bit pricey I think).
What I'd like to see next is the ability to order specific shows on stations you don't subscribe to, for, say, $0.25 a show. All the TV listings are already there in the Digital cable box. I'd be more interested paying for shows than for channels. Take that marketing data to see if a show should stay on the air or not.
And for the record, I've only ordered one channel from the 31.
Great News! (Score:4, Funny)
The actual text of the law and what it means (Score:4, Informative)
CITE
47 USC Sec.543 01/02/01
EXPCITE
TITLE 47 - TELEGRAPHS, TELEPHONES, AND RADIOTELEGRAPHS
CHAPTER 5 - WIRE OR RADIO COMMUNICATION
SUBCHAPTER V-A - CABLE COMMUNICATIONS
Part III - Franchising and Regulation
HEAD
Sec. 543. Regulation of rates
STATUTE (Partial Text)
(7) Components of basic tier subject to rate regulation
(A) Minimum contents
Each cable operator of a cable system shall provide its subscribers a separately available basic service tier to which subscription is required for access to any other tier of service. Such basic service tier shall, at a minimum, consist of the following:
(i) All signals carried in fulfillment of the requirements of sections 534 and 535 of this title.
(ii) Any public, educational, and governmental access programming required by the franchise of the cable system to be provided to subscribers.
(iii) Any signal of any television broadcast station that is provided by the cable operator to any subscriber, except a signal which is secondarily transmitted by a satellite carrier beyond the local service area of such station.
(B) Permitted additions to basic tier
A cable operator may add additional video programming signals or services to the basic service tier. Any such additional signals or services provided on the basic service tier shall be provided to subscribers at rates determined under the regulations prescribed by the Commission under this subsection.
(8) Buy-through of other tiers prohibited
(A) Prohibition A cable operator may not require the subscription to any tier other than the basic service tier required by paragraph (7) as a condition of access to video programming offered on a per channel or per program basis. A cable operator may not discriminate between subscribers to the basic service tier and other subscribers with regard to the rates charged for video programming offered on a per channel or per program basis.
(B) Exception; limitation
The prohibition in subparagraph (A) shall not apply to a cable system that, by reason of the lack of addressable converter boxes or other technological limitations, does not permit the operator to offer programming on a per channel or per program basis in the same manner required by subparagraph
(A). This subparagraph shall not be available to any cable operator after -
(i) the technology utilized by the cable system is modified or improved in a way that eliminates such technological limitation; or
(ii) 10 years after October 5, 1992, subject to subparagraph (C).
(C) Waiver: If, in any proceeding initiated at the request of any cable operator, the Commission determines that compliance with the requirements of subparagraph (A) would require the cable operator to increase its rates, the Commission may, to the extent consistent with the public interest, grant such cable operator a waiver from such requirements for such specified period as the Commission determines reasonable and appropriate.
--
Note that this the 1992 "Act" is really only a set of ammendments to the original Title 47 (Telecom act of 1934).
The relevant portion is here:
"A cable operator may not require the subscription to any tier other than the basic service tier required by paragraph (7) as a condition of access to video programming offered on a per channel or per program basis."
This means that it only applies to premium and pay-per-view channels i.e. "offered on a per channel or per program basis."
Paragraph 7 also is vague enough about the "basic" service they have to offer that AT&T (my provider) can use their "Standard" package ($37.50/mo) as the base. I called them and they said "Sure, buy the $37 standard package and we'll sell ya HBO ala carte." But he wouldn't sell me HBO on top of the $12 "Basic" package, which may or may not be legal.
Regardless, this means diddly for me, because I couldn't care less about HBO. I just want Comedy Central and Sci-Fi with my broadcast stations.