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?"
evil cable companies (Score:4, Interesting)
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:evil cable companies (Score:4, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:evil cable companies (Score:5, Informative)
The likely scenario if a la carte were mandatory would be for major channels to acquire smaller ones, then shift some key programming over to the smaller channel in hopes of building the subscriber base. If that didn't work, they'd just shut it down and cherry-pick the programming.
A la carte sounds nice, until you realize that the menu will change once it goes into effect. If I could pick and choose amomg existing channels, it might be one thing. But that won't be the choice once reality hits home.
And for that matter, this sort of price regulation inevitably makes it illegal to offer certain discounts... they couldn't do a "buy ESPN & CNN, and get another channel for free" for example, without reducing the base price of the individual channels. Most likely, they'd have to break out a base "service cost", so out of your $40 cable bill, they'll say that $30 of it is technology overhead and $10 is programming. Or $10/$30, depending on which is more profitable. Don't worry, the FCC will play right along with whatever they request.
And expect the news and political channels to get an exemption.
Meanwhile, this is about the third time in a row that Congress has promised to lower our cable bill in an election year. How many times are we gonna fall for it?
Re:evil cable companies (Score:5, Interesting)
I also think that some channels that are less popular will simply get removed, regardless of the wishes of the fans of _those_ networks feel, which can be unfortunate if you happen to be a fan of that network. I may not care about HGTV but what if it were more popular than Boomerang? Which channel is going to get dropped first to make way for another channel?
More for all channels, but not the point... (Score:5, Interesting)
Honestly, out of the 100 channels you get, how many do you spend more than a fraction of a second surfing past? I probably only watch 20% of the channels I get. If the rates were to double for all of basic cable, but I only paid for the 20% I wanted, I'm still saving.
One downside I see is that networks could become like TV shows. If it doesn't perform well in the first year, it'll get pulled for something else.
Who watches MTV? (Score:4, Interesting)
Except, MTV is mostly viewed by the people in a household who are not the ones paying the cable bill. A sudden drop in subscribers could just as easily be explained by parents angrily dropping the channel, giving MTV back its "rebel" status and making it even more appealing to the younger crowd... you know, the ones with the disposable income.
If you don't believe me, look at VH1, a channel that plays much more music, appeals to an older crowd, lives under the same umbrella... and doesn't come close in ratings or revenue.
Re:More for all channels, but not the point... (Score:5, Interesting)
And, honestly, how many percent of the programming on those channels do you watch? So, why should we have to pay for the rest of the crap that's on?
Why not just skip the middle men and just buy the content we want?
Re:More for all channels, but not the point... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: Evil Government Intrusion (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Evil Government Intrusion (Score:4, Interesting)
However, it would be nice to get HD service from either of them with a cable modem at a decent speed for under $100 / month. Ugh - slave to electronics.
Re: Evil Government Intrusion (Score:5, Interesting)
I better make this quick before the Mod-sharks bork my opinions again.
You bring up a valid issue, one that most of the leftists here are incapable of listening to. It is possible, however difficult, to keep things on the local level. Cable companies deal with the local goverments, and this is how they keep their monopolies. Take the fight to the city council, and you can see real change.
Take the fight to Washington, and you get Federalization, more hegemony, more collusion. Do you actually think that John McCain gives a flying crap about your cable bills? The man probably hasn't paid a cable bill in 20 years (if ever). He's interested in maintaining the relationship he has with the Time-Warners and Comcasts of the world. Do you really think he'd knowingly sabotage that relationship, just so you can watch Dick Van Dyke re-runs for $10 less a month?
Please. You want Uncle Sam to stop playing with the Big Boys of Wall Street? Then, YOU stop playing with them. I haven't watched cable TV in 7 years. I find my news and entertainment elsewhere. What would happen if most Americans did that, hmm? The Big Boys wouldn't be quite so Big, would they?
Re: Evil Government Intrusion (Score:5, Interesting)
What's it gotten us? Not damn shit. Bresnan bought Cox, Charater bought Bresnan, and each one proceedes to screw us harder than the last one, and more people went to the city council to complain.
So, we ran a referrendum. It passed overwhelmingly, and we kicked Bresnan out in favor of Nova (who, at the time, offered 50 channels for $25 a month, compared to Bresnan's 30 channels for $35)
Guess what happened? Bresnan bought Nova, and we got fucked again - as did everybody up in Gladwin county who already had Nova for their cable. We got our 20 extra channels, but we also got another fifteen bucks a month on our bill instead of ten off.
Last year, Charter cut seven channels and increased the price by $8. This year, they're planning to cut two channels and add one that will soon be merging with a channel we already get anyway, and they've already tacked $5 on the bill, with $10 more comming this summer.
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: 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.
Regional monopoly (Score:4, Interesting)
Look at a map. Companies know that 95% of people live and die within 10 miles of their home so it's easy to carve out territories.
Buyers like competition but sellers do not. If everyone agrees to keep their distance, everybody makes money. In the South where development is basically new (~30 years) this is a rock solid law of nature. Major corporations stay close enough to carry the banner of free markets but far enough away to make money.
Re:Regional monopoly (Score:5, Funny)
I don't know about your town, but in my town, Winchester, VA, USA, I can stand in one parking lot and throw rocks in four directions, hitting, in order, a Target, a Wal Mart, a Lowes, and a Home Depot.
None of them have a local monopoly, but they all call the law when you throw rocks at them.
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*
Re:Regional monopoly (Score:4, Interesting)
I really don't know how much profit cable companies take from monthly service charges, especially compared to similar services such as satellite or cell phones. But as has been written before, cable programming is just "bait" for the advertisements. The money you pay each month for cable is seen as a connection charge to the cable company. This can be loosely compared to how we pay for an internet connection but that payment is not for the content (in most cases) but rather for the connection. Free content on the web is paid for by advertising, much how TV works. Premium, ad-free content on the web requires payment in some form, much like cable channels such as HBO and Cinemax.
What this all means is that the cable companies cannot in any practical means charge you significantly less monthly if you choose not to have certain channels. This means that while there may be a law passed to require custom packages, this same law will not cut your cable bill in half by any means. I could see cable companies offering a flat connection charge of say $30 a month and then a certain charge for each channel added to the package. Different channels might cost different amounts. As you can see here, you may end up paying more to achieve about the same amount of decent programming you had originally. You may only have 4 favorite channels, that's how I am, but I find that having more options is often better. yes, half of the channels do suck, but who cares?
Ultimately, the best solution for dealing with high cable bills is to call up customer service and explain that you cannot afford the rate any more. They'll usually cut your bill down considerably for a year and then you can renegotiate later.
Re: Evil Government Intrusion (Score:5, Interesting)
But then the concrete on your roads would nver set for cable companies laying down cable. And the investment is too high for too many competitors. So the market has to be as free as possible. And freedom to choose what to buy is the best answer in the circumstances.
Re: Evil Government Intrusion (Score:4, Insightful)
Thanks for answering your own question. Makes life easier for me.
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?
Non English? (Score:3, Funny)
Dude Xuxa, ilLvatello, those chicks are all so hot and slutty.
He who pays the Piper calls the tune (Score:5, 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.
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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:He who pays the Piper calls the tune (Score:4, Funny)
Deregulation (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:He who pays the Piper calls the tune (Score:4, Funny)
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?
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: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:My thumb thanks you (Score:3, Troll)
Re:My thumb thanks you (Score:5, Funny)
You just reminded me which buzzword I find most annoying
Not only that... (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm all for choice, but this will in no way affect the PROVIDERS of the entertainment. The American public has already shown a willingness to basically pay whatever they have to for their entertainment (look at ticket prices to any event nowadays for proof!) The program providers know this and so no matter what the cablecos do to split up channel selections, THEY will still pay out the ass.
Now THAT'S 'reality television' for you...
Re:My thumb thanks you (Score:4, Interesting)
If I paid $3/channel I actually watched my cable bill would be about 1/4 the amount it used to be for basic digital. Sounds great to me.
Re:My thumb thanks you (Score:3, Insightful)
This is bad because it further encourages the homogenization of the entertainment industry.
Re:My thumb thanks you (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do you have cable TV in the first place, then?
Quality (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't forget that quality has also dropped noticeably. We're paying more for more channels, not more good programs.
Re:Quality (Score:5, Funny)
Prove it. I call bullshit. The 'poor quality' argument is a favorite of the "HEY EVERYONE, I DON'T OWN A TV, LET ME TELL YOU WHY" crowd.
I enjoy: The Sopranos, Curb Your Enthusiasm, Sex and the City, The Simpsons, The Daily Show, The West Wing, Arrested Development, Survivor (the only reality show I watch or have any interest in), Law & Order: Criminal Intent, Dennis Miller's new show on CNBC, ESPN SportsCenter, HDTV live sports, and now HBO has rolled out their next good show, Deadwood.
There is PLENTY of quality programming on TV.
Just because there is also plenty of unadulterated SHIT out there doesn't mean the quality of all programming is down. You say the quality has "dropped noticeably." Prove it. I don't see it. I also don't read my horoscope or believe causation when there is only correlation.
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.
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
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
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.
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)
Yep... Case in point - (Score:4, Interesting)
Nonetheless, my dad made the call and was informed that there was an unadvertised package for $15/month that would give them basic local and a few other channels. They called it the 'basic-basic' plan or some such garbage. I guess it was a way to keep people like my parents for leaving completely.
The cablecos know their pricing is out of hand, but the fact is, the PROVIDERS of the channels are equally blameworthy, if not more so.
Viacom: "Tell ya what. We'll give you VH2, MTV2 and 3, and the Munchkin Channel as part of our package deal!"
Comcast Exec: "Yeah, but all we really want is VH2 and MTV 2 and 3..."
Viacom: "Ah, so sorry. These channels only come as a package... Say! Would you like some Food Channel to go along with that?"
Frustrating indeed!
Do this for DirecTV (Score:5, Interesting)
English channels (Score:3, Insightful)
Cable companies now have no excuse (Score:5, Interesting)
I couldn't have said this better myself... (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't get me wrong - I have NO problem with access to any of those channels, but what *I* have wanted for *years* is for cable (and satellite) companies to provide me with the content *I* want at a reasonable price. Not charge me for a 120 channels because that's the only way I can see the 20 that I actually *want*.
I wouldn't mind so much IF cable wasn't so expensive. I looked from switching back from Dish Network to my local cable co.. The price I pay for *everything* that's available on my line-up is US$89/mo. via Dish Network. I wanted to get the local channels in HDTV. But to do that I'd have to switch back to cable. To switch back to cable, and keep my current channel lineup would have been US$170/mo!!! And that's not including the HDTV support...! To add insult - my local cable co (Comcast) doesn't *have* as many channels as Dish Network does.
The Dish Network ads are right - cable cos. *are* pigs...
Access Control with Analog? (Score:3, Informative)
It is very hard for the cable company to do access control on Analog channels --- basically some person has to drive to your house and install a filter on the line. There are only so many filters that you can stack up there. Denying access to analog channels is so expensive, that often times they just forget to do it if you are downgrading from extended basic to basic service and the like.
Meanwhile, digital channels can be individually decoded and decryped. Sounds great, but the problem is that it is proprietary. No TV tuner cards support it and neither does TiVo and the like.
Be careful what you ask for....
Something missing... (Score:3, Insightful)
Not a good thing.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Less is sometimes even worse... (Score:3, Interesting)
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
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
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
Technical Nightmare (Score:5, Interesting)
Therefore, we're talking requiring a digital box for each customer, and every single TV set - that alone will tack $5+ per TV onto everyone's monthly cable bill (digital boxes are ~$150-200 and up.
You'd probably also end up with a lot of marginal channels going off the air (outside of Slashdot, how many folks will actually _pay_ for TechTV on an a la carte basis?).
Re:Technical Nightmare (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Technical Nightmare (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Technical Nightmare (Score:4, Informative)
Free market economics (Score:5, Funny)
I thought the theory was that unregulated markets drove down prices and were good for consumers...
Re:Free market economics (Score:4, Informative)
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: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;
Not a FEDERAL monopoly (Score:5, Informative)
Finally, if Congress is going to require that the cable operators unbundle channels, then they better be sure that they require the media companies to unbundle as well. That is, if Comcast is required to sell ESPN without a dozen other Disney-owned channels, then Disney should also be required to make ESPN available to Comcast at a lower price than the bundle of ESPN plus other channels that they require Comcast to buy today. It would be interesting to see, should the cable and satellite providers sell those channels on a cost-plus-markup basis, how loud the end-users scream at ESPN's 20% annual price hikes :^)
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).
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.
Charging by channel? (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course, the problem with this is the cable companies' tendency to price gouge. However, maybe something as simple as mandating that the cable box always display an accurate real-time running count of the day's viewing charges might counteract this. Since most people are basically cheap, they'll shut off the service if they see the day's total go over a couple of bucks. This would put pressure on the cable providers to keep the charges reasonable.
Another approach might be to give billing control over the various channels directly to the upstream provider. The current cable company would only handle the physical infrastructure, with their costs covered by the base rate. The content providers would compete against each other on price for the individual channels that people watch. This could work kind of like the current arrangement for competition in long-distance phone service, where you choose among long-distance services that are brought to you via your local phone company.
Think of how it will effect HD (Score:4, Informative)
Great, but this doesn't go far enough (Score:4, Informative)
1) Digital transmission allows carrying the content of many channels in the bandwidth of a single analog channel. These added channels cost less to carry and maintain since their addition does not tax the power output capacity of the distribution amplifiers. Also the demands for signal amplitude and freedom from cross-modulation (amplifier distortion causing noise and spill-over between channels) are lessened since the digital signal is less vulnerable than analog. Analog tv signals use vestigal-sideband amplitude modulation which is vulnerable to noise in the same way that A.M. radio brodcasts are. We've all seen the cost savings of digital transmission in long-distance telephone service. The same principles apply to some degree.
2) Cable companies actually get kickbacks from sales on shopping channels, and often give those more desirable channel placement than things we want. They should pay US for carrying these!
3) Cost of the systems are subsidized by locally inserted advertising in many cases. And while this competition for ad revenue is damaging to local radio and tv broadcasters, the cable company isn't faced with the high-cost of producing news programming, or the burden of complying with public inspection files.
4) The cost for basic service users should be lower now that digital technology has virtually eliminated piracy of premium services.
5) Although it should be fair use to watch and record cable programs on anything in a household (much like we're now free to have extension phones without added fees), digital transmission requires a decoder for each location, and we're stuck with added fees for this.
6) We're stuck with paying perhaps $1 a month per decoder box for electricity to power the decoder boxes which are party of the cable company infrastructure. These boxes use power even when we're not watching which is not only costly, but environmentally unfriendly.
7) In my area, there is an anti-competitive "cable access fee" of about $10/month tacked on for internet service of those that are not cable tv subscribers. This is unreasonable considering that the connection is simply a tap into an existing feed, NOT a dedicated cable all the way back to a central office (as it is with a phone company). To the extent that using the cable system for internet use covers a portion of the infrastructure costs, the cost for basic cable users should fall.
Cable rates are held artificially high because we're dealing with monopoly. With lack of competition relief must come through regulation.
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.
Comment removed (Score:5, 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:And here Slashdot shows its leftist bent (Score:5, Informative)
Uh, huh huh. It is a government-sanctioned monopoly. There is no free market, so the market is probably not going to be able to decide. I totally agree with the article - lets force them to innovate, or make them give up their monopoly!
Re:Of course there is a "market" for this (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Of course there is a "market" for this (Score:5, Interesting)
but you TV-addicts are the ones fueling the market
I am really sorry I enjoy watching movies, TLC, TechTV, etc. I wish I could be cool and liberated like you, Anonymous Coward. Sorry if I get a flamebait outa that. I just couldn't get through Sunday without my Simpsons/Sopranos fix.
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, ye
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: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:And here Slashdot shows its leftist bent (Score:5, Informative)
You don't have the choice to buy channels a la carte because nobody, not even satellite offers it. This is a symptom of a breakdown of the market called an oligopoly, a cousin of the better known monopoly. Both the monopoly and the oligopoly are vulnerable to having the benefits of their position taken forcably by a govenment because they are not benefiting consumers as best as they could. Since only people (consumers) vote, they have all the power, so they can ( justly IMHO ) steal from mono/oligopolies of the world that would parasitise us all if left unchecked.
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:And here Slashdot shows its leftist bent (Score:4, 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:This will do nothing (Score:5, Insightful)
Didn't Viacom and EchoStar have a fight over this issue just a few weeks ago?
Re:Home Shopping Network (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This will do nothing (Score:3, Interesting)
The cable company isn't sponsoring daily corporate carnivals for the CEO's kids with the money they make. The service they provide costs money. If they make less money, there will be an increase in prices to pay for the costs, or there will be a decrease in service.
Also, many channels that are decent but not necessarily profitable, i.e. CSPAN, will be the first to go.
It'll be a lot of fun paying current rates for six channels, because thos
Re:This will do nothing (Score:5, Funny)
Ummm... are you sure about that? [cnn.com]
Re:I'm in. (Score:4, Funny)
Tony, how in the *beep* did you think I *beep* *beep* *beep* the car *beep* *beep* and take his *beep* head *beep* over to Frankies *beep* *beep* *beep* *beep* *beep* *beep* the end.
Josh
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:Why a big government solution? (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, there's satellite. Which doesn't seem to be competition enough.
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:Awesome! (Score:3, Informative)
You're right it is totally awesome. Now you'll get to pay the same price for 5 channels as you pay for 50. Super! In addition, you'll get the advantage of more complicated equipment, increased overhead, and (as a ultra-special bonus) burdensome government regulation. Outstanding!
If this is forced on the industry, we'll end up with "movie theater soda pricing".
15 oz coke: 2.75
90 oz coke
Re:DISH used to do this (Score:5, Informative)
Dish Pix was $1.50/channel, $5.00 minimum.
The price was right in that if you purchased the channels a la carte, you would rack up a much higher bill than purchasing packages. This encouraged the purchase of packages.
For example, the the bottom package was the top 50 (now top 60 since they did away with Pix). 50 Channels at $1.50 apiece would be $75, but the top 50/60 package was, IIRC, about $20. If you could really pick out 13 specific channels you wanted, and only those 13, then you could make out better with Dish Pix, especially if some of those channels were in higher tiers.
The part that became costly for Dish Network, though, and something that all of the supplemental TV services will have to address, is not the technology, but keeping customers from spending long lengths of time on the phone with customer service hemming and hawing about what channels they want. This is the reason why Dish discontinued this service, from what I understand.
The move to all-digital on cable would be a boost. This will free up some 420 MHz of bandwidth used for analogue channels from our local system, for example, which could then be turned around into one or more of: (a) better bitrate, ergo better picture, (b) more channels or (c) higher throughput for cable modem users. As I am a cable modem user, but not a cable TV viewer (I get my TV from Dish Network), option C would be my choice, but, as I said, these three are not mutually exclusive.