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."
Yes, HBO (Score:3, Funny)
Our legal system (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Our legal system (Score:4, Interesting)
The concept is doubtless rife with problems (such as, the cable company can't bill you in advance and make money from the interest on your advance payment) but anyone here care to take a stab at making it a workable concept?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Our legal system (Score:3, Informative)
Here's the rule: The only tier everybody has to buy is the "basic" tier, and the local regulators get to set the price of that tier. By law, that tier must contain the local broadcasters and local access stations, and usually that's all it contains.
Every other tier has to be sold one-by-one. Multi-tier discounts are illegal. They can't make you get the "digital basic" tier in order to get HBO... they can't even make you get the analog standard tier.
But in order to get anything digital off the system, you need a digital decoder. And right now, the digital decoders are a closed spec, so the only place you can get it is to rent it from the cable company. This is why it seems like you have to buy a $10.99 "digital basic" package in order to keep your HBO subscription. Really, you're paying $10/mo to rent the reciever, and 99 cents for the useless channels. You can drop the useless channels and keep your 99 cents, but there's not much you can do about the equipment rental...
However, the FCC is requiring the cable companies to come up with a standard for digital cable boxes, so that you can buy the hardware at your local electronics store, and then they hit it with the authorization codes telling it what it can and can't decode. This'll mean you can buy your way out of that decoder rental fee, and only pay for the content tiers you want.
Of course, technical problems are very easy to find when you want to roadblock a project, so the cable companies have an interest in keeping the decoder setup the way it is now. Hopefully lawmakers will put an end to this feet dragging soon.
Re:Our legal system (Score:1)
No thanks! Why should I buy something I can get for free? Seems silly to me...
Re:Our legal system (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Our legal system (Score:2)
Your local TV stations are probably already broadcasting digital TV; most people in the country are within range of at least one digital station, and for something like 40% of the country all of your local stations have already migrated.
Welcome to the 21st century.
Re:Our legal system (Score:2)
Than what? Than a wire in the ground? Sure. But your statement about people who get no picture at all is generally not true. I have friends in apartments (two of them, actually) who get perfect HD reception using nothing more than an indoor antenna. And I have one friend who lives way the heck out in the sticks who gets perfect reception with an inexpensive rooftop antenna.
When a thunderstorm blows through, you will occasionally get a few drop-outs in your picture because of atmospheric interference. But these are few and far between, and you never lose the signal entirely like you can with buried cable.
Re:Our legal system (Score:2, Interesting)
No it isn't. Analog cable (which is what most basic channels are on) is, in fact, much poorer quality than a good OTA broadcast.
The Cable Co. takes the same signal you would receive, then shifts it to another channel, puts it through an ungodly amount of amplification, and runs it 30 miles to your house through all sorts of crapped out cable (it was good cable until a dozen of your neighbours built pools without calling the before-you-dig number).
When you put up a decent, highly directional, antenna (heck, even Radio Shack has ones good enough) you can rotate it to perfection, and end up with a near perfect signal. Of course, for far away signals, reception sucks. Interestingly enough, though, I've found all those far away signals that are snowy aren't available as part of the basics. With my TV tower I get signals from almost 100 miles away (although they are not clear) which my local Cable Co doesn't even offer. Everything on their basics I get as clear, if not more, on my TV antenna. Of course, that was on Cable a decade and a half ago, since I haven't subscribed to it since then (they didn't bother running it to the "new" house).
>Over the air sucks ass for apartment dwellers.
Cable TV is just one of the many extra costs incurred for living in a restricted area. C'est la vie!
Re:Our legal system (Score:2)
Well, no. Since we're talking about apartments, it's all about who owns that building. Sure, you can mount a dish on the outside of your window. You'll be able to see it from the street, which is where you'll be sleeping when your landlord kicks you out.
The United States has all sorts of goofy local statutes regarding things like this. Here in Philadelphia, there are certain things you cannot put on certain buildings even if you own them, because they're part of a 'historical area' or something like that. In many housing developments, you need to have changes to your house that you own including (but not limited to) building a deck, painting the front a different color, etc checked by a local or county zoning commission.
Some places are a little less nuts, but they're becoming more and more rare. Two people are neighbors, three people are a zoning commission.
Emmett Plant [mailto]
CEO, Xiph.org Foundation [xiph.org]
Yes but nobody is willing to buy the boxes (Score:2, Interesting)
On the main topic. TWC in WI does allow you do get just the basic package and a box with whatever premium channels or packages you want.
Re:Yes but nobody is willing to buy the boxes (Score:2)
Think of how much a telephone costed when AT&T was the only place you could buy one. On episodes of Press Your Luck from 1984 that are now running on Game Show Network, contestants win $750 phones!
Re:Our legal system (Score:2)
The spirit of the law died when Lincoln invaded the southern, soverign states following their cecession from the union. It was during this time that more laws were violated than in any other time in history, including the suspension of Habeas Corpus by the President. Even though this particular action was later ruled unconstitutional, it proved that when it comes to breaking the law, it's easy to get forgiveness than it is to get permission. Once our leaders began to set aside the law when and where they saw fit, the "spirit" of the law was dead.
"Spirit of the Law"
R . I . P . 1861
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:Our legal system (Score:2)
Have I ever stopped to think what our history would look like? There's not much need, as there are pro's and con's any which way you look at it, and the speculation for the past, the present, and the future is absolutely endless. We may have been much better off as two seperate unions. Certainly those hundreds of thousands of people who died during the US Civil War (stated as such to avoid semantecal arguments) would have been better off; they'd have not been killed in that war.
As for WWII, I shall assess the situation based on your own logic and assumptions. Let's assume that the two unions created by the cecession of the southern states were not strong enough to defeat Germany in 1945. First of all, without the help of the US (single nation) in WWI, it's possible the Germans would have signed a very beneficial peace accord with the rest of the allies, thereby heading off the economic desparity that lead to the rise of Hitler and the Nazis. Assuming the Nazis did come to power anyway, we could also speculate that after 50 years, changes in internal politics within the united, conquered Nazis Europe would have had a massive and unparalleled good effect on the rest of the world. To be clear, I am absolutely not defending any of the horrific atrocities commited by the Nazi party in and around WWII; only speculating that 50 years could potentially bring about major changes in policies. A united Europe could have potentially devoted itself to helping people all over the world. Instead of small member states in the EU and the UN, we could have a world governing body that actually gets things done. Low pollution, advances in science, elimination of most wars and diseases; the possibilities are endless. On the other side, we could also have possibly seen the most horrible nightmares imagined come to life under the rule of the Nazi party. Then again, it's possible that with the collapse of the eastern front in WWII, the Allies could have possibly won with no help at all from the US.
In the end, the only thing we can say for certain is what is in the history books. What I see in them is a tail of unforgivable treachery from a government devised solely to better implement the will of the states and the will of the people. There is a reason the Civil War is said to have pitted brother against brother: it was wrong. The South was not "reclaimed", it was destroyed; hence the period of time post-dating the Civil War called "Reconstruction". From murderous barbarity, much good has come to be sure, but at what price? Do you sacrifice every moral fiber in your body because what comes next seems good? Lincoln had a choice to make: to follow the spirit of the law and allow the southern states to go their own way as it was always intended they ought to be able to do, or to start a massive, bloody war that would tear apart families and costs hundreds of thousands of lives and millions in damages. To allow the southern states to leave would put the economy of the North in jeopardy. It was a financial decision; it was the easy decision; it was the wrong decision. Unfortunately, the North won the war, and to the victors go the spoils. Thus, history spins the Civil War as a good thing and teaches the youth to believe that it was a hard and morally sound decision.
War is rarely a hard decision, and for damn sure is almost never a morally sound decision.
As for totally disagreeing with everything I said, I invite you to teach me about Ex Parte Milligan, in which the Supreme Court of the United States of America directly stated in no uncertain terms that the suspension of Habeas Corpus by the President was unconstitutional. Perhaps what you mean is that you disagree with the Supreme Court. That's fine; you have a right to do so, and I encourage you to petition the court to review that decision. Somehow, I doubt you'll find their response encouraging.
from the ruling in Ex Parte Milligan [state.gov]:
"it could be well said that a country, preserved at the sacrifice of all the cardinal principles of liberty, is not worth the cost of preservation."
And:
"Martial rule can never exist where the courts are open, and in the proper and unobstructed exercise of their jurisdiction. It is also confined to the locality of actual war."
Martial law is, of course, required for the suspension of Habeas Corpus. (Unless you ask the Bush Administration, which can come up with justification for anything the resident President does, even if it doesn't make any sense or have any relevence)
If i had the choice (Score:1, Insightful)
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.
Re:If i had the choice (Score:3, Interesting)
So why not make these channels optional too, but with a negative price, i.e. get QVC and take $0.50 a month off your bill? I expect most people would just program their TVs to skip over these channels anyway, just like we do now, but with a bit of a savings.
Re:If i had the choice (Score:2)
Right now, you're just lucky that there's some dolt elsewhere in your town who is buing more than her fair share of QVC products, so that the pennies are getting averaged into everybody's bill.
AOL's New strategy (Score:1)
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.
Re:Big Fat DUH! (Score:1)
Re:Big Fat DUH! (Score:2)
Re:Big Fat DUH! (Score:2)
The fact that, for most people, the only communication they get on issues like this federal rule are from the relevant service provider (some real honesty there), rather than from the feds, ensures that the profit loss from service cancellation from a few slashdotters won't even scratch the surface of the piles they're raking in from the mooing masses.
Re:How is this flamebait? (Score:1)
Re:Goatse Ban (Score:1, Offtopic)
I have a page or two of items in that index. The servers that try serve up pop-ups are one, I can still read the site but now there's less risk of pop-ups, regardless of what browser I am using. I also block sites that use Flash banner ads.
The goatse site isn't really a problem for me, because there are a lot of slashdot shiteheads I _always_ check the URL before clicking the link. I really don't know what makes those posters that try to pass the link think they are so cool.
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.
Conglomerates (Score:2)
Re:As always... (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem is not the distributors, but the content makers in the first place. In order to carry the popular broadcast stations and cable networks, you must bundle in that company's less popular cable networks, some of which are upstart no-names nobody would pay for if they didn't have to.
There has to be a law unbundling networks at the wholesale layer before content distributors can have packages that reflect what you want to get and nothing more and nothing less.
Re:As always... (Score:3, Interesting)
Uh... you mean like broadcast TV?
telco delivered video on demand
I predict that this won't happen until we come up with a DRM system that actually works. Content providers want to protect their media, and the law says they have that right. We as a society would be better off-- in the purely lazy, couch potato sense, of course-- with a good DRM infrastructure than without one. I will, of course, get senselessly flamed for this by people who wouldn't recognize a good DRM system if it bit them on the DVD player. Here's a hint: a good DRM system will protect consumers' rights just as much as it protects licensors' rights.
streaming video over IP
How do we fix the fact that this simply doesn't work very well? I've been of the opinion for some time that the best video-on-demand system would be a store-and-watch one. You request a movie or show and your STB/TV/player/whatever starts downloading it. Depending on your bandwidth, the program might take a minute to download or it might take a day. When it's downloaded, you can watch it.
Those of us who own TiVos kind of have this system already. I look at the list of programming that's available over the next several days and decide what I'd like to see. When it comes along, my TiVo records and caches it for me. I can then watch it at my leisure, as many times as I like until I decide to delete it. Couple this mode of operation-- particularly the "season pass" feature that lets you specify repeating program events-- with IP-based content delivery and we might have a winner.
Ultimately this loops back to DRM, though. I don't think content providers would be too excited about this idea unless they knew their rights would be protected, and obviously consumers won't be happy unless they know that their rights are also protected. Ergo, we require good DRM.
Tivo will evolve into VOD (Score:4, Interesting)
And, to make it proper VOD, it should grab from all 4 channels (feasible even on DBS, as long as they are on the right transponders so that it can all come off one LNB), so 4 minutes fill in each minute. You have the first 30 minutes queued up (so you can rewind fast foward, etc), and within 30 minutes, the entire 2 hours block is recorded.
I would expect an HD Tivo (DirecTivo model, maybe an HD Tivo cable version when the open cable really happen) in about 6 months, gauging us early adopters. Once that happens, we start moving into Tivos w/ really big hard drives. The HD channels may always be limited, but the 480p spec allows streaming DVD quality films, which is probably "good enough" for PPV, etc.
Give it 2 years, and DirecTV and Dish release a killer VOD system on top of their time-shifting PVR boxes.
TV tech is finally getting good.
But yeah, DRM is necessary. However, the studios need to realize that the stuff will get out, but they can keep it out of mainstream. Downloading TV/Movies won't occur unless convergence happened, and its a dying fad. People don't want interactive television, most people don't want PVRs. People watch TV to vege, and that's the reality that all us gadget freaks miss when we wonder why something isn't there yet.
However, at least w/ the tech, hopefully they will make new and exciting toys for those of us willing to pay a premium. VHS took off, S-VHS and Laserdisc never hit mainstream, but DVD got HUGE fast. PVRs didn't take off, VOD isn't taking off, maybe whatever comes next will.
Personally, I think that DTV + PVR could do it. I have the Sunday Ticket demo package (4 months w/ everything free), and I was planning to keep all the channels. Currently, I barely take advantage of them, because the ReplayTV doesn't have enough space to store movies. Give me an 80 hour PVR that will find movies for me, and I'm willing to pay for all the movie channels.
If you could find movies for me and I could have 30 movies (plus all my weekly shows), constantly rotating, of which 5 could interest me... Good bye Blockbuster, and I'm happy to send ~$100 to DirecTV each month.
Alex
Re:As always... (Score:2)
Late contender for oxymoron of the year...
No thanks (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:No thanks (Score:2)
Re:No thanks (Score:3, Interesting)
Between Netflix and internet access, I've got on-demand 24 hour news. Coverage of any sporting event I could ever have interest in. No commercials (except banner ads and pop ups, and there's software to eliminate those). A much bigger variety of movies than I could ever hope to see on cable (especially in older movies).
I do miss The Simpsons and Babylon 5 reruns. But now that both shows are coming out on DVD, I'm set. I do miss vegging out in front of the tube at 4am, but I do get alot more reading, writing and coding done now.
Re:No thanks (Score:2)
Re:No thanks (Score:2)
Re:No thanks (Score:2)
true, just don't get cable (Score:2)
I was amazed how much free time I had after I cancelled my cable ( when Directv anyway ). I didn't think I watched much tv a day, but I guess a show here, and a movie there adds up.
Now I'm getting much more done, including coding projects I'd been dragging for a while.
I'll be honest, I miss it now and then ( especially the sundance channel ), when I get really bored, but I always seem to find something slightly more productive or entertaining to do.
right on! (Score:2)
However. If I could get just The History Channel, Comedy Central, AMC, Bravo and SciFi I'd do it.
Sidebar - I kinda like the fact that TV shows are being released on DVD. I just picked up the first Season of Law & Order cheap and LOVED it: no commercials and no scheduling. Easily worth 40 bucks.
Triv
Re:No thanks (Score:2)
My wife likes BET/MTV/etc.
I watch ESPN for RedWings Hockey
I like the clarity of the reception
$40/month is a little extreme for these few things so if I could get it al la carte, you know I would be paying like $20 as originally it cost...
if the local stations begin to transmit in digital, I will likely drop the cable, but Ill miss my discovery channel...
Re:No thanks (Score:2)
Re:No thanks (Score:2)
The plus is BET/Discovery/ESPN2/Comedy Channel and a few others.
Bizarre that the "blackest" city in the Nation population wise (Detroit) has to pay extra for BET, not that I even watch it. I call that extortion.
its like another $5 and they don't offer it to you, they give it to you without asking or telling. You have to tell them to take it off. My mom didnt even know she was paying extra...
It ain't so great anyway (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It ain't so great anyway (Score:4, Funny)
The way it's currently set up, the only way to get any sushi at all is if you order [this is based on my cable company] 69 sushi things. To me, that's too much sushi, and some of it I wouldnt even want by itself. The resteraunt won't even let me share what I get with others(as illogical as this sounds. Even if it seems unenforceable, there are federal laws stating that you CAN'T share your sushi with someone else. The resteraunt doesnt have to enforce it because they got the government to) Some of the sushi has weird spanish spices on it, some of it is prepared Kosher, some of it is prepared with alchohol and served on the same big plate even though I ordered with my family. The only way to get the house special is to get another 10 peices of shrimp. Well, not really. They serve the house special on the same big plate, but they'll only let you eat it with their special silverware, and if you try to get at it with the chopsticks you had to bring yourself, they arrest you. The silverware costs more money, and comes with an e-mail account, but also comes with a menu that will tell you which of the sushi has alchohol in it- something you can get to otherwise only by waiting for somebody to walk by with a menu, all the while talking about how to get cheap patents, and of course calling out information about other sushis which if you'd have been able to eat you wouldnt be paying attention to the menu guy anyway.
Re:It ain't so great anyway (Score:2)
I hate cable companies (Score:3, Insightful)
Chris
Re:I hate cable companies (Score:2)
They have ruled cable modems as an "information service" rather than a "cable service". This difference means that all of the regulations that apply to cable TV do not apply to cable modem services, so they can can charge people who refuse to accept their other services more than people who don't. If there were regulations that required them not to charge punative fees to those who refuse to buy their cable service, they'd actually have to do the work to install traps so that cable modem lines didn't have to have the low-tier cable service on them... that's simple equipment, but it costs money to get it and install it, and they're just lazy.
If the FCC would classify cable modems as a "cable service", then that would mean local regulators would also have the ability to regulate the quality of the service... speeds, which ports are blocked and which aren't, etc. That'd be a good thing.
Re:Cable stupidity (was: Re:I hate cable companies (Score:2)
I wish my ISP had a la carte (Score:1)
Re:I wish my ISP had a la carte (Score:2)
Read about my attempts to get cable ala carte... (Score:2)
And don't forget to do everyone a favor, and help add to the compatibility database...
*grin*
Re:Read about my attempts to get cable ala carte.. (Score:1)
I didn't know.... (Score:1)
I know where I live, my cable rates have gone up a lot. I pay almost $100 a month for basic digital cable and my cable modem. There are so many channels that I don't even want, but I pay for them anyways. Even so, and even if the rules have changed...... I doubt there is anything I can do about it. They would laugh at me if I called and said "take of ESPN... I don't want to pay for it"
I'm sure many slashdotters have cable service at home too... what choices do you think you have?
In India... (Score:2, Interesting)
Showtime DVD and more! (Score:3, Interesting)
Secondsun
cable sucks, well sometimes (Score:1)
PS. My cable box says dolby digital on it but i have yet to find a digital output on the back of any kind.
Re:cable sucks, well sometimes (Score:2, Interesting)
I also asked about HDTV via cable... they said that it's technically not possible.... on their website however, it's an option in several markets. Don't feed me bull, just tell me that my market isn't big enough to bother with... and that we have no competition.
Re:cable sucks, well sometimes (Score:1)
Coax goes in, with "digital" signal, only coax comes out. No red, white, yellow, optical, etc, just an RF plug. How the hell can you call that "digital"???? Because it displays the time and channel on a "digital" read out??? Thank god DSL is cheap here.
Bye, Bye cable, and commercials. Hello P2P Simpson's episodes. I would watch the commercials to "pay" for the episodes, but they aren't shown frequently enough to meet my needs. "Digitally" or otherwise on cable.
Re:cable sucks, well sometimes (Score:2)
Re:cable sucks, well sometimes (Score:2)
They say they're gonna upgrade, but they're about to blow right through a contractual committment to have it done by the end of Winter.
Commercialization syncronization (Score:1)
Re:Commercialization syncronization (Score:1)
I've noticed that too. And its starting to piss me off... Doesn't happen to often during the daytime but during prime time (6pm-10pm roughly) it gets really bad especially on channels like MTV, Comedy Central, USA, and FX.
I don't remember this 5 years ago either...
Um, WOW (Score:1)
Is it actually true that you can't order a single PPV event? I'm baffled. Flabbergasted. Snamboozled.
I like - and use - cable (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't mind HBO being considered a part of a tier. While HBO consists of about 12 channels here (HBOHD/HBO/HBO+ East, HBO/HBO+ West, HBO Family, HBO Comedy, HBO Signature, etc.), it offers a whole lot of choices. Throw in the Showtime and Cinamax packages (probably 30 channels in all) and I'll call it a tier.
I don't want ala carte cable. It would be expensive (to manage and therefore to buy) and it would mean I would have to spend much more time picking and choosing between channels. Even at $1 per channel per month, my bill would quickly double if I picked everything I now get. I don't know how I'd pick which channels to get rid of - BBC America? VH1 Classic Rock? CNBC? No thanks, I'll take what they offer until it doesn't meet my needs any longer.
What planet are you from? (Score:2)
Other Excuse (Score:2, Informative)
Previous story (Score:3, Informative)
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/11/07/13824
It's only Television (Score:2)
It's like a car, if you want a certain feature, you most likely have to buy it in a package. Yes, I know it is a bad analogy, due to the fact that there is a lot of competition in the car arena, however it was the best I was able to think of.
I am not saying what the cable companies do is right, I am trying to put it into perspective. I am a cable customer, and I do pay around $100 per month for it, so I know how much they can screw you. But, I choose to pay it because I get pretty much what I want, and it doesn't put too big a hole in my pocket.
Like I said before, it is only television, you do not need it.
Re:It's only Television (Score:2)
Easy fix- custom tiers (Score:2)
Not bad, eh?
~geogeek
not-so-Easy fix- custom tiers (Score:2)
See, the content owners get paid by the cable companies for each subscriber who could watch their channels, not for those who actually do. Most people already only really watch 10-15 cable networks and wouldn't miss the others, however that means marginal cable networks would see their number of households slashed dramatically.
For example, I know there's an audience for ESPN Classic, but it's certainly nowhere close to the number of people who'd put ESPN itself in their top 10 list. However, why is ESPN Classic on all of our cable systems now? Because Disney insists that cable systems that want ESPN must accept paying for and give a good channel position to ESPN Classic. Don't want ESPN Classic, you lose ESPN too... no cable operator can get away with that.
Sure, providers would love to offer a "Pick 10 for $15/mo, Pick 20 for $25/mo." type package, but the channel owners simply will not allow that to exist because some of the marginal networks will find themselves without the critcal mass needed to survive. The money consumers would save would come from them, so they're not budging. They don't want to see that kind of package offered, so they won't let it be offered.
Until an a la carte pricing scheme is required at the wholesale level, you'll never be able to get one at the retail level.
Re:not-so-Easy fix- custom tiers (Score:2)
That issue could be solved, I think. Take my idea again, but lets say the package is more like this:
You chose 7, we choose 5, +11.99/mo. I bet that would still me an immensely popular program. The cable companies choose 5 channels based on the initial 7 chosen by the user. Or, the cable company provides sets of 5 channels to choose from with your a la carte order.
The wholesaler is now part of the picture, and the customer is given a great precieved choice (its very marketable to both parties). The provider only stands to profit.
~geogeek
Re:not-so-Easy fix- custom tiers (Score:2)
Re:not-so-Easy fix- custom tiers (Score:2)
Re:not-so-Easy fix- custom tiers (Score:2)
More choice than none, but not by much.
Why cable companies do this (Score:1)
For cable companies its frequently cheaper to have a channel lineup that includes say, 4 time warner owned channels to a subscriber, instead of just one or two (i.e. they have to pay less for the programming).
Remember, a large percentage of what you pay for cable goes for programming fees, then they have tons of other costs, etc... They probably are being greedy to an extent, but, its not exactly as cost effective for them to provide programming on a per channel basis (due to programming charges, and other things).
Legislation isn't needed! (Score:4, Interesting)
If we could completely deregulate the industry, including the LOCAL regulations that decree that a cable company shall be a monopoly ("common carrier") and that satellite dishes could be placed on anyone's private property without regulations, I think you'd see many more providers popping up. Why should a town only have ONE cable company?
In a truly unregulated market, competition WOULD provide for what the MARKET wants. No, you can't just get HBO for $2.99 a month and EPSON for $1.99 a month because there are many fixed costs for cable. The premium packages are the best value because they subsidize the costs of smaller packages. Just like airplane companies make all their money off of first class full fare passengers, with coach passengers only giving them tiny incentives when the plane is full, cable carriers make their money off of the people who get the whole ball and chain.
Honestly, all these regulations "for the consumer" only end up making government have to offer incentives "for the provider." They don't work. The Austrian School of Economics shows time and again that there are no consumers and no providers -- we're both just trading items of value for what we think is more valuable. If you completely deregulate the markets (COMPLETELY) you'll allow competition in, and competition will ALWAYS offer what will make both sides happy at the lowest level.
If you think you can offer better service to people who want it, in a deregulated economy you can! But today, how can I offer cable to you a la carte, at a price you want, if the cable provider in your area is a government imposed monopoly?
Study the realities of further legislation -- you'll only see that more government introduced "rights" for the consumer will hurt us in the end.
dada
Re:Legislation isn't needed! (Score:2)
Two wrongs don't make a right!
The old dog major airlines run this way. These are also the same major airlines that are now losing millions of dollars a day and going bankrupt fast, United being the biggest loser when last minute business travel declined, one of their goals during reorganization is to get a more rounded profit from all passengers and not have to rely on the top 10% to pay the bills. Wether they can change fast enough is to be determined.
Southwest, Jetblue, Airtran (formally ValueJet), Frontier, and small regional feeder carriers do not have they same subsidizing fare system and all are making money and experiencing double digit growth rates, these guys are running lean and mean and built from the ground up with that in mind. They are giving the consumers what they want and efficent enough to provide it. If the airlines were running as near monoplies or under a back scratching business plan like the cable industry, the smaller upcoming airlines would not have adapted and would have been gone long ago.
Re:Legislation isn't needed! (Score:2)
Re:Legislation isn't needed! (Score:2)
Re:Legislation isn't needed! (Score:2)
The parent poster was not advocating repealing antitrust law, as you seem to have convinced yourself. He was simply saying that getting rid of regulation that grants the monopolies in the first place would foster competition in the cable access space, which would be beneficial to the consumer and to the progress of the industry as a whole.
Re:Legislation isn't needed! (Score:4, Informative)
Sure, we could have a "regulated breakup", like with the baby bells, where people who own the cable are required to allow others to provide service over that wire. We saw how well that worked out with DSL, right?
Re:Legislation isn't needed! (Score:2)
If there were bodies regulating these companies with the consumer interests in mind, they might "have to care," but they don't. They have the bucks to buy access to governmnet officials that the average consumer does not. And of course, no one in government would dare do anything so anti-capitalist as threaten to take away the cable companies wire and turn it over to the public, which is about the only kind of threat that could make them sit up and listen.
Re:Legislation isn't needed! (Score:2)
Re:Legislation isn't needed! (Score:2)
Re:Legislation isn't needed! (Score:2)
How would you like me to discard the burnt remains of your straw man?
Default Service for Cable Modem Users (Score:5, Interesting)
A few days ago a wage-monkey came out to uninstall my telephone interface. After he let himself into my backyard, I politely went out and asked him what the hell he was doing. He explained and then asked me which of the three cable jacks in the house my modem was plugged into. My first reaction was that I didn't have time to trace which line terminated at the appropriate wall jack. Then I realized that he aimed to disconnect two of my three jacks, since I 'obviously' didn't need them. I regarded this idea with disdain, since I wanted the freedom to move my cable modem to a different jack if I were to rearrange my house (and such an activity *is* planned). I told the monkey as much, and he finished his work without disconnecting any jacks.
A few days after that, I accidentally turned on a TV that was still connected to a cable outlet. I saw a picture! I scanned through the channels, and behold, I now had more active channels than I did with the 'digital' service. I wasn't looking to break the law; I simply stepped on the damn remote control.
My suggestion: lose the cable service, keep the cable modem service. Watch TV. Oh, and one more phrase: at your own risk.
Re:Default Service for Cable Modem Users (Score:2, Informative)
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:2)
Re:Default Service for Cable Modem Users (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Default Service for Cable Modem Users (Score:2)
In many areas, they cannot turn on Cable Modem service without turning on Basic cable. That's why many times the cable companies act like you can only get broadband if you have basic cable.
I personally made the switch to DirecTV last year... I wish there was a third option. The no local channel B.S. with DirecTV is the major drawback to the service. I ended up getting a smart card programmer and hacking the system so I could get ABC. Total BS.
Cable TV should be regulated like a utility. In many cities they will not even allow for another cable carrier to run wire. This strikes me as the very essence of a utility. In saner times, the Cable companies would be acting as a utility. Only in our corrupt age we deregulate and give them more freedom.
Sad.
~Hammy
Not possible for true a la carte programming. (Score:4, Interesting)
Now I see why there is no a la carte.
It would raise rates all over the place. People who think that they'll get a better deal by only paying for one channel will quintuple call volume at call centers. By calling in several times per day to change programming.
HBO in the morning, ABC in the afternoon, NBC at night, HBO again the next morning. Rinse, repeat.
In order to keep the call center staffed, companies will need to increase the number of operators on the line at any given time. People don't work for free. And the effect of a la carte will be instant. Meaning overtime for countless employees. That is a higher cost. Higher operational costs equal higher consumer costs. Those cheap bastards who are trying to get over on the system will cause everyone else's prices to skyrocket.
LK
Why watch TV? (Score:3, Interesting)
I have a DVD player, and don't mind buying movies. I have walls of books. But broadcast TV? Why?
Tech TV (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Wait.......cable isn't FREE? (Score:3, Informative)
> taps for illegal hookups. There's no easy press
> a button at the office solution, but they can
> catch you.
I'm not convinced that the threatening letters they send out aren't random mailings. I got a "we think you're stealing cable" letter addressed to "Occupant" once from a cable company in a town I used to live in. While it's true that I was at the time receiving Showtime and the "basic" channels, it was over a satellite dish. In fact, I'd been using the satellite dish for about FOUR YEARS at that point, and anyone who cared to look into the back yard could have seen it.
I also had an attic-mounted antenna for the local channels. That, I'd only had about a year or two (as an upgrade over the rabbit ears) when the cable company's letter came.