| WHy do we need FCC Why do you libs want to evolve government when thing do not go your way. Frankly you all are a bunch of hypocrites. On one hand you want government to get involved when you own ox is gored by rising rates or not providing A La cart pricing, then turn around and scream free speech when then same FCC want to ban indecency.
Do you be like the BBC where at onetime a government regulated broadcast system only gave you 4 channels? I do not want FCC or any government to tell private businesses what channels to carry or their price. There is no constitutional right to cheap cable. If you do not like the new pricing then take you cable box back and go get a the dish.
For me I will re assess the situation. If the price is too high I am going to end my cable subscription and go back to Verizon for my broadband. If Comcast start losing customers for jacking up prices then believe me they will start listening. |
|
Zoly
join:2004-01-04
Houston, TX
1 edit | Why do you, republicans, want to evolve the government, when things do not go your way?
While a-la carte is not a bad idea, I really oppose this thing. A-la carte now is a republican idea - creating some sort of "family-friendly tier" filled with some 20 religious channels...
If we really want to have a-la carte, then let peolple REALLY decide which channels to pay for.
If someone is on extazy from Fox News' O'reily, then let them pick it, if someone wants to pray 24/7 - it's their personal choise, let them pay for religious package...
If someone wants to watch just a news, let them pay for CNN or Sky News...
And if a-la carte will not be able to provide people with complete freedom of choise of channels, then we do not need it now. The problem solved |
|
|
|
 JTRockvilleData HoPremium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD
 ·Verizon FiOS
| reply to richardpor
said by richardpor:There is no constitutional right to cheap cable. Is there a constitutional right to use public property for private profit? |
|
| said by JTRockville:said by richardpor:There is no constitutional right to cheap cable. Is there a constitutional right to use public property for private profit? No more public than operating a hot dog cart on a street corner. Because a hot dog cart is on a public thoroughfare doe not give me a right to free or cheap hotdogs. It is the same with cable. The only public about cable is the easements that allow cable to be laid, not the network |
|
| reply to Zoly
Let me put this way. Pretend I am the CEO of Richard cable co. You come to me with argument above. Here is my answer: NO, it will be too expensive to go a-la carte. I can care less what you think.
Now tell me what you will do, what right you have to tell me how to run my business. |
|
| reply to JTRockville
Don't the counties/cities get paid for the use? |
|
| reply to richardpor
Exactly. Per day, Cable service is not expensive. My bill is roughly 140 a month. Thats like 4.66 +/- a day. I pay more in tolls to get to work.
4.66 a day for TV and CHSI is good for me. Once again, if you think its too expensive dont get it.
I think a Ferrari is way too expensive, so therefore I will not buy it. |
|
| reply to richardpor
But aren't those easements a fundemental difference between selling hotdogs and selling cable? If you're going to get privileged access to public infrastructure in order to run your business, then the public should be able to have some say as to how that service works. |
|
 calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | reply to Zoly
said by Zoly:... If someone is on extazy from Fox News' O'reily, then let them pick it, if someone wants to pray 24/7 - it's their personal choise, let them pay for religious package... ... Well, based on current ratings versus pricing, the market doesn't pay FoxNews as highly as CNN. If consumer choice followed ratings, then FoxNews would probably get more money and CNN would get less.
Hmmm. Might help reduce that "liberal bias" we hear so much about....
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
 kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY | said by calvoiper:said by Zoly:... If someone is on extazy from Fox News' O'reily, then let them pick it, if someone wants to pray 24/7 - it's their personal choise, let them pay for religious package... ... Well, based on current ratings versus pricing, the market doesn't pay FoxNews as highly as CNN. If consumer choice followed ratings, then FoxNews would probably get more money and CNN would get less. Hmmm. Might help reduce that "liberal bias" we hear so much about.... calvoiper Well, I doubt it. The legend of FauxNews' high ratings are not more valid than the claim of 'liberal bias' in the media...
I, for one, would be the first to drop FauxNews - a worthless piece of shit, I never watch it. |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | said by kamm:said by calvoiper:... The legend of FauxNews' high ratings are not more valid than the claim of 'liberal bias' in the media... That's your battle with Nielsen. Unfortunately for the liberal elite, documented viewer statistics are difficult to dispute. calvoiper --
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
1 edit | Well, that's why I said what I just said, my son. 
FauxNews is nowhere near to be an elite when it comes to *REAL* data, kid. |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | No, that's not what you said. You attempted to state that Fox News claims of high ratings were invalid. They aren't invalid--they accurately claim that Fox News has high ratings, from Nielsen and others.
You may not like that. You may think that the ratings are wrong. That doesn't change the fact that the ratings exist and that they show Fox News as higher than other media. Your claim that the higher Fox News ratings are a "legend" is simply wrong and deceptive.
As for what constitutes "real data", you may choose to believe fake Vietnam dispatches composed on a word processor that didn't exist prior to 1985 as Dan Rather and Mary Mapes did (or as they claimed to believe when their liberal smear job was exposed as a falsity.) Personally, I prefer to sample "news" from a wide variety of sources, believing that multiple sources help expose the truth and expose frauds.
Of course, there are those who prefer a lockstep journalism approach. Examples include American liberals, Communist Chinese, and Communist Cubans.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
