McCain: introduces bill promoting a la carte cable

[drebo]

I thought that's how it is now. It's my understanding that there is a mutual agreement between providers not to tread into each others territory (I know it's true for the big providers at least).

Nope.

It's called franchising. Providers pay municipalities for exclusive rights to certain types of infrastructure. In the case of cable, there is no government law forcing them to lease the cable to competing providers either, as is the case with the twisted pair copper infrastructure.

What's hilariously, though, is that all this infrastructure was paid for by the tax payers anyway. Why it doesn't belong to them (through the local governments) is beyond me. Sure, AT&T has to lease copper to whoever asks for it (and jumps through the requisite legal, bureaucratic, and political hoops), but we still paid to put that shit in the ground in the first place.

 

[zinfamous]

I like it!

well, based on current infrastructure and licensing costs, a la carte pricing would be the worst thing to ever happen to the consumer.

individual channels would be absurdly expensive based on some pricing structures I saw a few years ago. So, you get the 10 or so channels you actually want and pay about $100 a month, or you get some 130 channels, with the 10 channels you want, and pay about $70-80 month, as it is now....

I do like the notion of no local blackouts for publicly-financed stadiums. Anything to stick it to asshole owners and, well, the NFL in general.

 

[BoberFett]

I thought that's how it is now. It's my understanding that there is a mutual agreement between providers not to tread into each others territory (I know it's true for the big providers at least).

Hardly. Cities enter into agreements with providers and grant them monopolies.

Edit: I see Drebo covered it.

 

[postmortemIA]

well, based on current infrastructure and licensing costs, a la carte pricing would be the worst thing to ever happen to the consumer.

individual channels would be absurdly expensive based on some pricing structures I saw a few years ago. So, you get the 10 or so channels you actually want and pay about $100 a month, or you get some 130 channels, with the 10 channels you want, and pay about $70-80 month, as it is now....

I do like the notion of no local blackouts for publicly-financed stadiums. Anything to stick it to asshole owners and, well, the NFL in general.

And if i like 3-5 channels I pay 30-50... better deal than 85 how it is now. Better deal for Cable Co, too, cuz they are not getting anything from me.

 

[werepossum]

That's because you see government intervention as sometimes necessary. Have you heard that argument made from the right? I have but only when it's for things they like.

I see pros and cons to this but I do like the part that if public money is used for stadiums that there shouldn't be any blackouts.

I'm pretty far right and I have the same views. In general, no one argues for government intervention in favor of things they do not like, not even liberals. Conversely, conservatives advocate for government intervention all the time, sometimes into things that do not materially affect us like gay marriage. Both major parties' adherents are in favor of a powerful federal government, just for different reasons.

I also like the part that if public money is used for stadiums that there shouldn't be any blackouts. I think the other is largely irrelevant today in many areas, as cable companies are not the only way to get television. But in some areas, rural areas or poor yet unsubsidized areas, the local cable company still has something of a monopoly on television.

 

[Dari]

Why would government have the authority to dictate such a thing?

Because there are only so many cable companies you can have in a region. Therefore, the government allows certain companies to form monopolies or oligarchies. With this blessing comes conditions...

 

[Wreckem]

Why would government have the authority to dictate such a thing?

Because the govt allows cable companies to operate monopolies on a regional basis. But mainly because its interstate commerce.

 

[Dari]

Not the right way to do it. I voted with my wallet by disconnecting cable because I was tired of paying to crap I didn't watch. Give me an ESPN app on the apple tv at a $10 a month and I would sign up tomorrow, same thing with HBO. The rest of the channels I don't want and won't pay for.

This is absolutely the right way to do it. If you're allowed to have a monopoly then that comes with certain restrictions. The day when pay tv can be watched via the internet is the day when pay tv companies can do whatever they want.

 

[Attic]

Ultimately McCains cause here is something I agree with, but I don't think it's appropriate to get government involved.

I never like the outrageous cable packages, I now have basic cable for under 20 a month and that's HD for network TV. I use a cable tuner card in my PC and get a DVR function with no box rental fees. I'd rather consumers speak with their wallets rather than transition power on this issue to McCain and the other corrupted dingbats in Congress.

 

[Balt]

On the surface this seems like a great idea. The reality of it might be less desirable.

I cut the cord several months ago because I didn't like paying $80/month to watch 4 shows/channels once a week. I also had a moral problem with paying for programming that includes brain-damaging shit like "Keeping Up With the Kardashians".

The sad thing is, however, that many more people probably watch that show than the shows that I watched. In other words, what I consider "quality programming" is probably subsidized by garbage like reality tv rather than the other way around.

I'd still like a la carte pricing because 1) it's the right thing to do and 2) I might actually subscribe to a few channels, but I think there could be some unfortunate casualties.

Edit:

BUT, another thing I found interesting that's nested in the bill: If PUBLIC money is used to finance stadiums, no local blackouts.

And this is a great idea. Publicly financed stadiums are basically corporate/upper class/upper-middle-class welfare at this point, considering ticket prices. At least let Joe Sixpack watch the games from home.

 

[ViRGE]

Basically this.

I bought the full season NHL Gamecenter Live package where I can stream games live in HD over the internet. It's fantastic, except they have an agreement with the tv stations that they won't let me watch a game if it is available on a local cable network.

I cut my cable tv because I didn't want to pay $80 to get the 2 sports channels I wanted.

I paid $80 for the year to watch streaming live hockey from the NHL.

I couldn't watch the Canucks playoffs because it was on the cable-only sports channel here.

Keep in mind that the only reason the NHL can sell you that package at $80 is because it's essentially "free" money for them. Primary funding of the league and its teams comes through ticket sales and local media sales. Broadcasting rights outside of the team's designated broadcast area are worth so little that they're a rounding error; worth selling, but not a lot of revenue on its own (not very many care what their non-local team does).

If you wanted to get around blackouts, you would have to pay far more. Depending on your local situation you'd either need to pay as much as the regional sports network is paying per subscriber (if local games aren't blacked out on the RSN), or pay as much as a ticket holder (if games are blacked out if they don't sell out). You're probably looking at $50-$100/year for the RSN alternative, and potentially thousands if it's taking away from ticket sales.

 

[Sonikku]

Would prefer bill illegalizing collusion between competitors.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ilMx7k7mso

 

[Farang]

Not viable. It would kill almost all the channels. It isn't commercially viable to produce all the shows on, say, FX, and build and maintain the infrastructure to send it out. The channels are lumped together because it is expensive to get them into your home, by grouping they diffuse the cost and ultimately the price.

 

[jackschmittusa]

I have a 2 year bundle contract that ends at the beginning of fall. Then cable/satellite is done for me.

I detest having any of my money going to subsidize crooks like Pat Robertson and his ilk. The shopping channels sell outdated junk and crap that can't be sold without a 10min mini infomercial (haven't watched them in years). Reality shows are worthless tripe to me.

Maybe growing up in a very different era forms my opinion that most of what passes for entertainment today is a waste of time.

 

[Doppel]

I would like it, but too many people don't realize--or keep forgetting--that a lot of the channels we get and don't watch cost us virtually nothing anyway. I don't watch ESPN. I can't remember if I have it or not, but it's a very expensive channel with a high demand. I also don't watch channel 271 on DTV. I have no idea what channel 271 is and I bet nobody here does, but the point is that channel probably just costs a few pennies/month anyway.

Most of the shit that we all get and don't watch is just that and costs what shit costs, i.e. very little.

Still, I am forced to pay for some pricey channels and would love a la carte. The industry has said no to this, and I come ever closer to ditching my sat entirely. I realize over the last 2 months I am watching netflix far more anyway and it's $8/month. I watch mainly series and far less typical crap (reality shit), which is what most of the channels are highly inundated with now.

Like the poster before me I have a two year contract. I've noticed that directv raises prices substantially each year and I will not sign up for a 2 year contract again. I just can't afford to be married to a provider like this again.

 

[irishScott]

I barely even watch TV. I stick with broadcast for the major networks and watch my regular shows on the internet at various sites. If cable were a-la carte I might reconsider...

 

[PokerGuy]

You gotta love those small government republicans that want government out of their lives, unless of course it's something they agree with.

It's funny because I don't see the free market nuts chiming in with disgust.


Not surprising of course.

If the cable industry was a competitive open industry (ie, a free market), I'd say the government should stay the heck out. However, the cable industry is a series of local monopolies granted by local governments, so it's not at all a free market and not at all competitive. Most people have only one or two options for internet access. In the absence of competition, the consumers suffer. Either get rid of the monopolies and allow competition to drive what consumers get, or force the companies to do what consumers want.

 

[Genx87]

You gotta love those small government republicans that want government out of their lives, unless of course it's something they agree with.

It's funny because I don't see the free market nuts chiming in with disgust.


Not surprising of course.

You think McCain is a small govt republican? That is your first mistake.

 

[PokerGuy]

Ultimately McCains cause here is something I agree with, but I don't think it's appropriate to get government involved.

The government is already HEAVILY involved. Most cable companies have monopolies in local markets, granted by the government (local level).

I never like the outrageous cable packages, I now have basic cable for under 20 a month and that's HD for network TV. I use a cable tuner card in my PC and get a DVR function with no box rental fees.

Guess what, the cable companies lobbied for and got permission by the FCC to encrypt all channels. Your setup will no longer work once the cable company decides to scramble all channels, including the "network tv" channels. You'll be forced to either get a box or not get to watch anything in HD.

I'd rather consumers speak with their wallets rather than transition power on this issue to McCain and the other corrupted dingbats in Congress.

I agree, I'd rather consumers vote with their wallets. The problem is that consumers don't have a way to do that when there are monopolies in play. If you have no viable alternatives then "voting with your wallet" is not an option.

 

[Genx87]

I think this will cause a lot of smaller channels to go away, but overall I totally support this. I'm unwilling to pay $100 a month for cable but I would totally pay $30-40 a month for a handful of channels I actually want.

That being said, I don't really view this as too much of unwarranted government intrusion into the free market. Telecoms function as near monopolies with government sanction anyways, so it's not like there's a free market happening there anyway.

Exactly. We arent dealing with a free market but a govt reegulated monopoly. If a company is willing to live by this protection racket they will need to bend to its will as well.

And stadiums being built with public money for millionare and billionares? I dont have a problem with telling them no to local blackouts either. Build your own damn stadium and feel free to punish the local market for not buying enough tickets.

If they cry about it. Tough shit imo.

 

[PokerGuy]

I think this will cause a lot of smaller channels to go away, but overall I totally support this. I'm unwilling to pay $100 a month for cable but I would totally pay $30-40 a month for a handful of channels I actually want.

That being said, I don't really view this as too much of unwarranted government intrusion into the free market. Telecoms function as near monopolies with government sanction anyways, so it's not like there's a free market happening there anyway.

Well I'll be darned..... I agree 100% with an eskimospy post. Apparently I need to reconsider my stance on the matter

 

[actuarial]

If the cable industry was a competitive open industry (ie, a free market), I'd say the government should stay the heck out. However, the cable industry is a series of local monopolies granted by local governments, so it's not at all a free market and not at all competitive. Most people have only one or two options for internet access. In the absence of competition, the consumers suffer. Either get rid of the monopolies and allow competition to drive what consumers get, or force the companies to do what consumers want.

If the cable industry was free of government regulation, it would still be a monopoly. The natural barriers to entry for cable companies (A) >>>> government barriers to entry (B). I would even argue that B is simply a result of A.

The problem of having limited internet options is the same. Take the government completely out of the picture: how much would it cost to have multiple companies setting up identical infrastructure all over the country?

 

[PokerGuy]

If the cable industry was free of government regulation, it would still be a monopoly. The natural barriers to entry for cable companies (A) >>>> government barriers to entry (B). I would even argue that B is simply a result of A.

Actually, no, that's not true. If "natural" barriers to entry were such that there would essentially still be a monopoly, then cable companies would not spend millions in continual efforts to create and maintain local monopolies.

When verizon wanted to push FIOS across the country, they quickly realized that the local cable companies had created hundreds of little monopolies across the country. Verizon was very willing to pay for the infrastructure (fiber) roll out, but they were effectively torpedoed by all the local monopolies that the cable companies continue to build.

In addition, you're also seeing the cable companies now putting in serious money at the state level to create laws to prevent municipalities and townships etc from creating their own infrastructure for internet access.

If infrastructure was a natural barrier to entry that would create a monopoly, then the cable providers should be treated and regulated like any utility. The cable industry wants to be a monopoly and act like one, but they don't want to be regulated like one. They want their cake and eat it too.

Take the government completely out of the picture: how much would it cost to have multiple companies setting up identical infrastructure all over the country?

Companies like google and verizon were willing to do it and enter the market, but were not able to because of the monopolies.

 

[actuarial]

Actually, no, that's not true. If "natural" barriers to entry were such that there would essentially still be a monopoly, then cable companies would not spend millions in continual efforts to create and maintain local monopolies.

When verizon wanted to push FIOS across the country, they quickly realized that the local cable companies had created hundreds of little monopolies across the country. Verizon was very willing to pay for the infrastructure (fiber) roll out, but they were effectively torpedoed by all the local monopolies that the cable companies continue to build.

I don't see how this changes what I said. You named one company (two including the lower portion of the post) that was willing to actually do it absent the monopoly. That's still extremely limited competition.

In addition, you're also seeing the cable companies now putting in serious money at the state level to create laws to prevent municipalities and townships etc from creating their own infrastructure for internet access.

I don't see how cable companies lobbying to maintain monopolies is something that would only happen in the situation where there were not natural barriers to entry. If there was a huge natural barrier to entry (which I believe there was) and a company offered to build the infrastructure only on the condition that they would hold a monopoly, of course they're going to fight to maintain that monopoly.

And what does a municipality building their own infrastructure have anything to do with a free market solution?

If infrastructure was a natural barrier to entry that would create a monopoly, then the cable providers should be treated and regulated like any utility. The cable industry wants to be a monopoly and act like one, but they don't want to be regulated like one. They want their cake and eat it too.

I agree, and I would prefer to see telecommunications regulated like any utility. I would prefer that localities built infrastructure and then leased it. But I don't see the absence of proper competition as a problem created by the government (in this specific case), but rather one of the few weaknesses of the free market. The solution that the government chose to solve that problem was a poor one IMO, but it would have been a problem even if they had remained on the sidelines.

Companies like google and verizon were willing to do it and enter the market, but were not able to because of the monopolies.

Like I said above, having two options isn't really the ideal of open competition.

 

[DietDrThunder]

Not the right way to do it. I voted with my wallet by disconnecting cable because I was tired of paying to crap I didn't watch. Give me an ESPN app on the apple tv at a $10 a month and I would sign up tomorrow, same thing with HBO. The rest of the channels I don't want and won't pay for.

We did the same. On top of DirecTV, we had Netflix and Hulu Plus. So besides the $100+ a month, we were paying $16 a month for Netflix and $8 a month for Hulu Plus. After a few months we dropped DirecTV because we were rarely watching it. Now with an antenna to watch the local news, Netflix, and Hulu Plus, we find that we have all the TV we need. Can I tell you, I really like having the extra $1,200+ a year in my bank account.

With video streaming, it is my opinion that Cable/Satellite TV providers are dying industry. NBC, ABC, CBS already stream their programming. It won't be long until USA, SYFY and others do the same.