Posted on 05/09/2013 12:34:44 PM PDT by Teflonic
John McCain wants to unbundle cable and to stop broadcasters like CBS and Fox from moving their stations to pay TV. The Arizona senator right now on the Senate floor is introducing The TV Consumer Freedom Act of 2013 (read it here). The legislation is intended to “allow the consumer, the television viewer who subscribes to cable, to have à la carte capability. In other words, not required to buy a whole bunch of channels that that consumer may not want wish to subscribe to,” McCain said moments ago. The former GOP Presidential candidate also went after broadcasters like CBS and Fox who have said that they could move to cable if they lose in the courts against Barry Diller’s Aereo streaming service. “We’ll also establish consequences if broadcasters choose to downgrade their over-the-air service,” McCain told the Senate. His legislation would also eliminate the sports blackout rule “in events that are held in publicly financed stadiums.”
The proposal is expected to meet heavy resistance among the cable companies. ”Only Dish and Cablevision have been for a la carte and smaller bundles because we think it’s consumer-friendly”, Dish Network chairman Charlie Ergen said during his company’s conference call today. “Having said that, there are five big groups that probably have enough clout in Congress to stop that legislation today. He added that “the marketplace is going to determine” if the price is too high. “There’s an awful lot of people who don’t consume (200 channels)”, he said, “and most of us would like to look for creative solutions”.
“This is unfair and wrong — especially when you consider how the regulatory deck is stacked in favor of industry and against the American consumer”, he said. “You can only do that when you have a monopoly”, he added.
(Excerpt) Read more at deadline.com ...
Screw the Revisionist History channel, and E-spin.
The NFL will sue. They have a tight grip on broadcasts.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
The FCC only handles rate regulations. 99% of the regs are based in the local authority or the states. It varies from market to market.
Trust me, as someone who spent twenty years building these systems you really want larger bodies doing the regulating. I had so many encounters with local politicians at the state and city level who were the most corrupt people I had ever met. Out and out crooks.
If you do not like what cable provides, get your programming through the net, or through satellite (or even over the air.) Cable TV has plenty of competition.
Don’t get your hopes up, there is an old trick politicians have used for decades, they introduce a bill they know will go nowhere and wait for the target to ‘contribute’ to his coffers.
>> “The cable TV/Broadband plant was the largest privately funded construction project in history.” <<
.
No, it isn’t; it requires the use of our street rights of way, and sweetheart legislation by cities to outlaw TV antennas that are visible.
We’ve been scammed again.
The government took over pricing in 1996. The formulae established was supposed to provide an incentive to establish new channels that filled niches.
Many of the channels that are carried TNT, TBS, etc are bundled by the supplier to force wider distribution.
Very, very few of the channels pay the cable provider. It is quite the opposite. The cable providers are subject to the whim of the programmers.
The NCAA just announced they will split the final four between CBS and TBS. You think this will result in TBS/TNT’s carry fees to drop? Not a chance. The fees THEY are paying to the NCAA will come from TBS from the cable operators who will gleefully pass them along to you.
People bitch about the programming, but if you had only the channels you watch you would have ten to fifteen channels and it would cost you more. Plus the technology to delivery it will increase your monthly fees.
Its a stupid idea put forth by people who do not understand how the system works and how the government has “effed” it already for the past 15 years or so.
The cable companies need less regulation, not more.
” If you wish to spend the money to build cable plant, and you agree to the terms of the agreement with licensing agency, you too can build a cable system.”
What nonsense. You can’t tunnel under public streets. You can’t connect to people’s houses via public power poles, etc.
You can build all the hydroelectric dams you want, but you’re not going to be allowed to connect your water to people’s houses and compete with the local water company.
Cable is, by necessity, a PUBLIC enterprise, not private.
John McCain has too much time on his hands, now that he has solved all the other problems the country is facing.
I have no use for Ted Turner but I do enjoy TCM. Also like the Fox Soccer channel.
Public Infrastructure?
Do you mean the roads?
Cable companies pay franchise fees to the towns for that privilege. Cable companies pay property taxes on the equipment on those poles. The poles are not public property. They belong to the telephone and electric companies. Cable companies pay rent on those poles.
We built cable plant under the roads at our expense. We dug them up, we paid for the materials, labor, and police. The town gives up nothing. The town, usually, makes out like a bandit.
No, cable TV is not a utility. Get your power to your home from someone else? Nope. Get gas from someone else? Nope. Get entertainment services from someone else? Sure: Satellite, telephone companies, internet, redbox, etc.
You do not understand what a utility is.
He’ll give even more power to the networks. Tiers exist because that’s what the networks want, they push bundles, cable companies sell to us the way the networks want it.
You are 100% wrong.
There is no such thing as an exclusive cable contract. If you wish to build over the existing plant, and you can meet the franchise requirements...go ahead. That is NOT possible with a utility.
I understand it is delivered in a manner that seems like a utility, but it is not a utility.
The government did not spend a single dime constructing cable plant. It was all done privately. And the government spends a lot of time trying to squeeze more money out of the cable companies.
They see a bunch of revenue coming in and they cannot stop trying to find another way to get a tax on the business.
If you do not like the programming, drop the cable. There are plenty of other ways to get the programming.
The issue is that the over the air broadcast networks are failing.
In ten years there will be two or three local channels in the big cities. In the bottom 200 markets you will be lucky to have anything over the air.
There is a way to use an analog DVR with digital cable, but it sucks. I can run an RS-232 cable from the digital adapter to the TIVO to change the channel, but since the digital box only has one tuner, I could only record the show that I’m already watching right now. I would be able to program the TIVO to record one show at a time, but not while watching anything else, and I would still have to pay TIVO the subscription fee since they have software-disabled the TIVO once I stopped paying. I am double screwed.
Back when we were “living with” the AT&T monopoly we had the best telecommunication system in the world, upgrades to the infrastructure were constant, even in low population regions (which usually got the left overs from recently upgraded high population regions). Now that we have all these baby bells most of them don’t have the money for upgrades, most of fly over country is at least 15 years behind the curve and we have the worst telco system of the industrialized world.
Cable networks sell bundles to cable companies. 6 companies own the vast majority of the cable dial. They’re not going to stop selling that way. And that’s why cable companies sell to you that way.
Bullshit.
Go read your local cable franchise. There are examples after examples where a large cable company came in and built over a smaller company because they could not deliver the same technology.
The franchise agreement is what gives you the “right” to dig in the streets. If you wish to attach to a pole, you are not dealing with any municipality (unless they own the Electric) you are dealing with a private electric or phone company. You can absolutely rent space from them, if there is space available.
Just because it is expensive and complicated doesn’t mean you cannot do it.
You should do some reading before you post silly things.
Content is the issue I agree.
What more reason to allow local broadcasting be given control to the locals.
Public like Youtube airwaves would rock. Today that cant happen and McCains bill will allow it.
Forcing cable/Sat companies to price per channel will make customers able to choose. Thats it in a nutshell.
I built at least twenty cable systems in New England.
We go no sweetheart legislation about anything. In fact, I can cite example after example where we had to kiss the local’s butts to get streets open, get over railroad crossings, work in historical districts.
And at no time did the local, state, or Federal government give us a break over anything. We paid through the nose.
The franchise agreements that we negotiated and fulfilled paid heavily for the privilege of being able to knock on your door to sell you cable.
I don’t know where you live, but no where in New England have I ever heard of a rule about TV antennas on homes. In 25 years, never.
You will end up with three networks again.
Even now you see the “channels” like Netflix and Amazon begin to develop their own programming.
Cable TV is moving away from the TV side to being simnply the conduit. Left alone, in ten years there will be no “channels.” Everything will be “on demand” and through the internet.
This is an example of dinosaurs fighting over the last pieces of food on the plains. They don’t realize the reason that they are so hungry is that the world has changed around them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.