  B52GUNRKM 7D love and D5 Nirvana
MVM
join:2001-03-06
Suisun City, CA
5 recommendations |
I'm shocked!No, really! I'm actually shocked the FCC even bothered to get up off their knees long enough to clean their chin and publish something. | |
|
 | | |
Re: I'm shocked!said by B52GUNR:No, really! I'm actually shocked the FCC even bothered to get up off their knees long enough to clean their chin and publish something. LMAO | |
|
| |
1 recommendation |
Re: I'm shocked!said by mikeg826:said by B52GUNR:No, really! I'm actually shocked the FCC even bothered to get up off their knees long enough to clean their chin and publish something. LMAO For the amount that people around here that laugh their asses off at even the remotest hint of humor, you'd think they'd all be walking around with their pants at their ankles due to their lack of a rear end. | |
|
| krobarIs this thing on?
join:2002-09-15
Columbus, OH |
to B52GUNR
*sigh* well said, well said indeed.  | |
|
| | |
to B52GUNR
said by B52GUNR:I'm actually shocked the FCC even bothered to get up off their knees long enough to clean their chin and publish something. Haha! That's an awesome comment. Anything I'd have to say would pale to this. Well said. It wraps it all up in one neat sentence. | |
|
| | |
OK-HAVEITYOURWAY to B52GUNR
Anon
2004-Nov-21 10:27 pm
to B52GUNR
Ok have it your way, force bundling.. but don't be surprised when LARGE streams of content from cable tv get encoded... for now it's just the shows (sitcoms, etc) but soon it will be ALL content, cnn breaking news, local channels, no channels are safe anymore.. those divx encoders will be working overtime baby... oh well... It will be interesting to see content from local networks in other states, sports feeds, premium content... etc etc
First it was PSTN (telephone network) to get revolutionized, now it will Be catv's forced bundling that forces tha divx 24/7 show-time!!!
Sigh,, | |
|
| |
Some Random Dude
Anon
2004-Nov-19 2:13 pm
I no longer believe......the US government represents "the people".
We live in an age when corporations pull the strings and the government marionettes dance.
Welcome to the New World(tm). | |
|
| | |
Re: I no longer believe...said by Some Random Dude:
...the US government represents "the people". You got that right. If I want a channel that's not in my "package", I have to buy another package, even though there are 30 channels in my current package I never, ever watch. That's the flaw in the argument. I can't trade channels to see what I want - I'm forced to buy high $ packages to get what interests me. As for channel surfing, since the networks bought into the cable channels there's very little original programming. Endless reruns of network shows - wow. Just how much Law & Order do we need to see? ESPN no longer carries sports - they just talk about it a lot. No, thanks. | |
|
| | | |
Re: I no longer believe...And I thought it was just me paying $60/mo (2nd lowest package) for nothing more than a clear picture and endless variety of commercials that will change my life.
Personally, I could give a crap less about packages yadda yadda - I want more than ONE cable co in my area, only then will prices begin to be reasonable.
Misfit | |
|
joebear29totesmcgoats
join:2003-07-20
Alabaster, AL
1 recommendation |
Anyone know how the study was flawed?I know consumer groups say its flawed, but how so?
I've never been a big believer in a la carte programming saving money - it seems to me that everyone is subsidizing the others viewing habits to a large degree, and it's all a wash - but I would be interested in specific criticisms of the study. | |
|
| | |
dotditdot
Anon
2004-Nov-19 2:33 pm
Re: Anyone know how the study was flawed?Read page 23 of the study (and the following pages). Its all "Comcast states", "Charter states", "Warner states", "Disney states" and then the report goes on to accept the statements from the large cable companies as the correct answer, with minimal consideration of any other point of view. | |
|
| | joebear29totesmcgoats
join:2003-07-20
Alabaster, AL |
Re: Anyone know how the study was flawed?Did you read pages 21 & 22? It has comments from the Consumers Union of America and other anti-bundling groups. There are several other places in the report where it lists views from non-cable/satellite companies. | |
|
| | | | |
dotditdot
Anon
2004-Nov-19 2:42 pm
Re: Anyone know how the study was flawed?I read them... keep reading. The report goes on & on about how the cable co's are going to have higher costs because consumers are too stupid to pick a package on their own, etc etc etc. The report promptly dismisses any views supporting a la carte, and instead accepts the cable cos views. I thought the FCC was to represent the interest of the general popluation? How hard would it have been for them to come to a conclusion that cable cos should offer a la carte side by side with packages? | |
|
| | | | joebear29totesmcgoats
join:2003-07-20
Alabaster, AL |
Re: Anyone know how the study was flawed?Given the facts in the report, it would be very hard to come to that conclusion. | |
|
| |
dotditdot
Anon
2004-Nov-19 2:20 pm
Terrible conclusionsI just read the report, and they deem that a la carte isn't worth it, because out monthly bill would rise based on the national average amount of channels each person receives. Sucks for those of use who only want 2 or 3 channels (the report concludes that people who would purchase 9 or less channels would face a reduction in their bills). The report goes on to say that *any* form of a la carte would result in additional expenses for the operators.
On top of that, they deem that video on demand and DVRs and increased broadband adoption will enable viewers to choose their own programming, whenever they want... | |
|
| | dotditdot |
dotditdot
Anon
2004-Nov-19 2:23 pm
Re: Terrible conclusionsI gets better. They deem that channel surfing is now an integral part of watching tv (and something that viewers find very valuable), and that a la carte programming would reduce channel surfing, therfore tv "viewership" would go down! Wasn't that part of the point in a la carte? | |
|
| |  ropeguru
Premium Member
join:2001-01-25
Mechanicsville, VA |
ropeguru
Premium Member
2004-Nov-19 3:52 pm
Re: Terrible conclusionsVALUABLE??? The only reason people channel surf is because of all the CRAP programming that is put out now a days, and when you do have a couple of programs you like you have to flip flop because of all of the advertisements that you are bombarded with. | |
|
| | |  JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA |
Re: Terrible conclusionsHow are you supposed to be surfing with these slow-assed cable boxes that sometimes even miss changing the channel, and which a Comcast employee said herself to me once that the tuner box "isn't meant for channel surfing"?
Why do people "channel surf"? Cuz there's 30 channels of crap in between the shows they like! That's why! | |
|
-1 recommendation |
WarrenMan
Anon
2004-Nov-19 2:28 pm
A La Carte Cable PricingThis is really a silly issue. If you cannot afford $50 - $60 per month for cable then you shouldn't have it. Most people enjoy flipping through all 90 channels or so on occasion just to see if anything is interesting on one of the channels -- even though they may end up usually watching a few stations regularly. Penny pinchers should not dictate pricing for the rest of us. | |
|
|  xirian
Premium Member
join:2003-01-26
Beacon, NY |
xirian
Premium Member
2004-Nov-19 2:30 pm
Re: A La Carte Cable PricingI have iO, tons of channels. I only actually ever watch 10 or 15 of them. The rest I dont see any use for. Think of it, why pay for something you dont want? People can afford it, but do that want to spend all that money to get the little bit they do want? | |
|
| | | |
dotditdot
Anon
2004-Nov-19 2:35 pm
Re: A La Carte Cable PricingThe report gives the example of the Golf channel which started out as a la carte channel and was teetering on the verge of bankrupcty until they finally managed to become part of one of the packages... Should tell you something about how many people actually want to watch the content of plenty of these bundled channels. | |
|
| | |  tsu9
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL
1 edit
1 recommendation |
tsu9
Member
2004-Nov-19 4:53 pm
Re: A La Carte Cable Pricingquote:
Should tell you something about how many people actually want to watch the content of plenty of these bundled channels.
Which is precisely why some channels need to die. If a channel can't stand on it's own, then it's a crappy channel. Sorry, but having 40 sports channels isn't something I need. Hell, the sports channels never show sports anymore! They talk about sports. Remember when ESPN was good because it showed sports all the time? Now, you have to subscribe to, get this, a la carte sports channels in the digital sections. SHOCKWe're already in 'a la carte', people. We're just stuck with dozens of crappy packages that we think might have stuff we want, when the a la carte stuff actually carries most of it. This is especially true of sports (and lord knows there are thousands of sports channels it seems) I have lovely 'silver digital' packages from Comcast. In all, I watch perhaps 8 channels--TOTAL. I'm forced to endure 300 channels of crap I don't want to watch to see the 2.7% of my package (read: "Give us money!") I want to view.  | |
|
| | |
to WarrenMan
said by WarrenMan:
This is really a silly issue. If you cannot afford $50 - $60 per month for cable then you shouldn't have it. Most people enjoy flipping through all 90 channels or so on occasion just to see if anything is interesting on one of the channels -- even though they may end up usually watching a few stations regularly. Penny pinchers should not dictate pricing for the rest of us.
I can see your point, but I don't completely agree with it. There are some channels I will never watch, like those shopping or sports channels. If I could, I'd drop them like a bad habit. | |
|
| | Cyron
join:2002-09-24
Charlotte, NC |
Cyron
Member
2004-Nov-19 3:36 pm
Re: A La Carte Cable PricingThe shopping channels actually pay the cable company to be included in these packages. If you take them off, your bill will go up. | |
|
|  bistro777Donuts-Is There Anything They Can't Do?
Premium Member
join:2002-02-07
Englewood, CO
1 recommendation |
to WarrenMan
If I buy an order of chicken wings, odds are I’m gonna eat all of ‘em. If I buy a six-pack, count on that being consumed, too.
So why force me to buy every chicken and brand of beer in the supermarket when I just walk by them to get what I really want?
A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking. | |
|
| |  John Galt6Forward, March
Premium Member
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
1 edit |
Re: A La Carte Cable Pricingsaid by bistro777:If I buy an order of chicken wings, odds are I’m gonna eat all of ‘em. If I buy a six-pack, count on that being consumed, too. So why force me to buy every chicken and brand of beer in the supermarket when I just walk by them to get what I really want? You raise a good point... Imagine if your local supermarket operated this way. They would have carts pre-filled at the door and you would buy the whole cart, regardless of whether or not you needed all of the items. Doesn't seem very realistic, does it? Hey, but you would save money, right?? Their argument would be that if they didn't do things this way, they would go out of business. Does this sound familiar? | |
|
|  TechyDad
Premium Member
join:2001-07-13
USA |
to WarrenMan
When I channel surf, I normally end up on one of a small set (about 10 including local network channels) of stations despite there being something on the order of 80 stations in my base package. If I could eliminate the stations that I never land on (e.g. Spanish language station), I wouldn't stop channel surfing. I would simply become a more efficient channel surfer. I'd be able to switch between stations a lot quicker and thus figure out what show (if any) I wanted to watch. | |
|
| | |
to WarrenMan
This is really a silly issue. If you cannot afford $50 - $60 per month for cable then you shouldn't have it. Most people enjoy flipping through all 90 channels or so on occasion just to see if anything is interesting on one of the channels -- even though they may end up usually watching a few stations regularly. Penny pinchers should not dictate pricing for the rest of us. So every time I go to Wal-Mart, I should buy one of everything in the store, or stay away? Good reasoning. | |
|
 SequimPCGot Fiber?
Premium Member
join:2004-02-11
Sequim, WA |
SequimPC
Premium Member
2004-Nov-19 2:46 pm
A La ModeI would like to see an A La Mode approach. You know, you have your basic channels, then you add X number of channels for a price, but the packages are customizable.
They want me to be subject to them. When did businesses get so damn cocky? I thought the Customer was always right, but the government agencies that dictate policy to us say otherwise. America is no longer by the people for the people, it's by the elite for the elite.
It's not usually about what's best fo us either, it's about what profits a man if he loses his soul. | |
|
| John Galt6Forward, March
Premium Member
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp |
Re: A La Modesaid by SequimPC:When did businesses get so damn cocky? I thought the Customer was always right, but the government agencies that dictate policy to us say otherwise. No, no, no...where have you been? Now, it 'you're just a customer, so f*ck you'. You need to get with the times... (I can say this because I have worked for cable companies that actually had this opinion as a matter of 'policy'. Their attitude was 'they'll take what we give them' and if they don't like it, we'll disconnect them.) | |
|
| | | |
Garius0
Member
2004-Nov-19 11:57 pm
Re: A La ModeWe as consumers are partially to blame here, as over time we have come to view luxuries as outright necessities. Customer service becomes a nonissue once the product is one that the buyer can't live without. I had cable since it was first available, and I finally got rid of it 5 years ago. It amazes me even now how much I don't miss it. It leaves me in an awkward state of ignorance sometimes as people reference programs or commercials that I may not have heard of, but otherwise I still seem be alive and well.
I still watch lots of movies or play games on my entertainment center, so it still gets frequent use, and the money I save on the cable pipe can go towards new DVDs - the last bastion of reasonably priced mass media. | |
|
| | | SequimPCGot Fiber?
Premium Member
join:2004-02-11
Sequim, WA |
SequimPC
Premium Member
2004-Nov-20 1:21 am
Re: A La ModeThat sounds so familiar. I quit watching TV after I noticed I was feeling depressed after watching the 11 O'clock news. I check the broadband News streams from time to time and really like the Canadian stations for a different view on american news. Other than that I don't miss it anymore.
As for the cable companies that don't care about you. I see that where I live with one company in particular and vow to learn all I can about alternatives to them and point people in that direction. | |
|
| |
Sports channels should be a la carte. Peroid.And this is coming from a baseball fan. I would have no problem paying extra. Sports programming is one of the biggest costs to cable operators. | |
|
Phatty
join:2000-05-10
Saint Louis, MO |
Phatty
Member
2004-Nov-19 2:51 pm
I agree with itAs much as I would love to save money, and would love to just stick with the 10-15 or so channels I actually watch on a regular basis I think A La carte would end up hurting in the long run. Some channels would definitely go out of business making our choices less. You may say then that just shows they are not getting enough viewers, but certain channels are targeted for a specific group of people. You start Al La Carte and you are going to end up with a lot less selection. The only time I think a la carte is good is if a certain channel cost considerable amount more than the rest such as the sports channels. It makes since to me that if the cable company blames some rate hikes on certain channels, then those certain channels need to be a la carte so it doesn't affect everyone as much. That way those high cost channels can actually see if they are worth the price they think they are worth when consumers act with their wallets by not paying extra for them..
Just my thoughts.
Phatty | |
|
1 recommendation |
Rigged"The study was rigged against consumers in favor of large cable companies, giant broadcasters and other media behemoths," says Gene Kimmelman of the Consumer's Union.
The ruling doesn't say what he'd like, so automatically 'The study was rigged'. When my three year old acts like that I punish her. | |
|
 mikeky
Premium Member
join:2001-12-07
Kentucky
1 recommendation |
mikeky
Premium Member
2004-Nov-19 3:00 pm
Makes sense...The cable companies must make a certain average rate off all its customers in order to stay in business. If the majority of customers drop channels, then their only recourse will be to raise rates of individual channels to get the rate back to the average, with the end result the consumers get less for the same price. As a side effect, specialty channels and the diversity these represent will disappear, no longer subsidized by the other channels. | |
|
|
•••••••• |
 ReVeLaTeD
Premium Member
join:2001-11-10
San Diego, CA |
...Well, for my own purposes, I can name the channels I watch.
- UPN
- SpikeTV
- Sci-Fi Channel
- FOX
That's it. 4 channels. Let's assume an a-la-carte starting price of $5/channel. My bill would be $20/month for JUST CABLE. I think it's a great idea. Couple that with $13 for DVR which I would more than happily pay, $40 for internet and $10 for phone. We're talking $80-$90 for the whole shot, a $30/month or $360/year savings over what I pay now. It makes a difference. Call it me, but I think that whatever they used to determine whether or not this is a good idea is flawed. Why is it that people can choose "a-la-carte" phone features, but not cable channels? I know they pay residual to the networks, that's fine. What I'm saying is, how is it really any different? Would some people rather prefer to pay more for custom channels than to be forced into a high amount of channels? In other words, why can't they just charge me for the channels I'd like? Why can the telephone be customized with individual features but not the cable? Charging a price is charging a price; it's the same concept. | |
|
|
••••• |
 ctceo
Premium Member
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN |
ctceo
Premium Member
2004-Nov-19 5:06 pm
ReallyWhat their concerned about is people getting commercial free channels, instead of being forced to get the crap channels that come with the package, that force feed advertising 60% of the time. | |
|
| |
al a cartea la carte has it's pro's and cons, i would rather like to see more organized cable packages. if i want to have cartoons, i order the cartoon package (disney, nick, c/n so - on). if i want sports, i'll lay down on the operating table and have a kidney removed then they'll give me the sports package, if i want to see my wife sit on the couch with a box of hanky's for hours, i'll get the estragene package. if i want music/pop culture i'll get the i claim to be a music channel, but i haven't shown the slightest resemblance to music in 5 years package. this way the lower rated cult channels still stay around, i just only get the one's that are within my interest. a year or so ago a applauded dish network for standing up against viacom. for 3 days i didn't miss cbs, or mtv the least little bit, hell i never even noticed they were gone. but my daughter let me know all too often that nick was gone... i'm still disapointed that dish network gave in | |
|
| |
Skunko
Member
2004-Nov-19 8:06 pm
cableThere is no way they would offer "A la Carte" programming. Imagine a cable tech having to go to every house to put on 50+ Cable filters. It wouldnt be feasible one bit. | |
|
| John Galt6Forward, March
Premium Member
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
1 edit |
Re: cablesaid by Skunko:There is no way they would offer "A la Carte" programming. Imagine a cable tech having to go to every house to put on 50+ Cable filters. It wouldnt be feasible one bit. I think that they have something a little more advanced in mind... | |
|
SequimPCGot Fiber?
Premium Member
join:2004-02-11
Sequim, WA |
SequimPC
Premium Member
2004-Nov-20 1:31 am
Wholesale?I remember reading an article here not long ago about someone streaming cable over the net from Canada. I believe it was .26 per channel wholesale. I would like to know what the terms are for the cable companies to have the channels we want to watch. I want to watch 15 channels and have access to another 15 for a total of 30. Why can't I find them and subscribe to them? I feel that with fiber optic connections and streamed television, that will become a reality. Now with Windows Media Center Edition 2005 as an option to do it yourself computer builder, you could set up one hell of an entertainment package. | |
|
| |
Only the Strong Will Survive...In my opinion, if we pay a flat fee per channel, only the most popular channels will last. While you may think "free marketplace, that's what they get, if no one's watching, they deserve to die, blah, blah, blah", after a while we'll end up with only the channels/shows the majority of Americans watch: CSI, Monster Garage, Everybody Loves Raymond, Extreme Makeover, Friends, one of the endless Survivor varieties, etc. Those of us that are too smart, too dumb, or just too strange to follow the popular opinion will be left holding the bag, with nothing to watch at all.
The niche channels will not survive without charging exorbitant rates to subscribers. I don't watch 95% of the channels I have on DirecTV, but the guy watching 'Snakehead Terror' on SciFi helps subsidize me watching 'World Music' on Link and vice versa. I'd rather pay $40 a month for 100 channels than have to pay $10 a month for a single channel so my wife can watch soft-core porn on Oxygen on Sunday nights. | |
|
 k_oQue Hora Es?
Premium Member
join:2002-12-05
Lakeport, CA |
k_o
Premium Member
2004-Nov-20 6:49 pm
this is what I WANT...While discussing this with my son, we we liked some of the analogies such as the POTS al a carte, the beer n chicken, and such. We came to the conclusion that a basic $20 pkg with additional channels $1/per would be our suggestion.
You know what i really wish for is access to other cities Public Access channels. Really! I miss watching the one in SF. MST3K started out that way. In my county, there is little actual programming. Mostly, it's a powerpoint BB of the lunch menus of the senior centers. Did you know there was such a thing as International Worm Racing? Yes, Lake County has it all...
I feel it would help support the really good ones and encourage more people to check them out. Interesting that not once has the mention of amateur broadcast been mentioned in the thread. While there has been discussion of what channels would die or reduce original material, I don't feel that it would be all that bleak. If there were some more flexibility in channel selection, more interesting things could be broadcast... | |
|
|
|
