Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
| hit the content owners then
if you notice that even in areas where cable fights fios its strictly the TV rates that see constant climbs while data and digital phone hold steady. part of this is things like Disney wanting even more money per customer to carry ESPN(one of the most costly basic cable channels). the the providers certainly are not innocent in this matter, but the fact TV goes up and internet doesnt says something. comcast is doubling speed from 6 to 12 and it stays 42.95. so some blame does lay with the content conglomerates.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
 ·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
| and the government has what say so to the media companies that own the channels? NONE. You are free to go else where for your TV needs and so are the cableTV providers. But lets face it, the government has no control over Disney ABC, Comcast Media, The Big Ten Network, ViaCom, Fox (except for local channels like Lin TV).
So what is going after Disney going to do? Not a damn thing except cost more money going to court when they're sued and the tax payers pay more. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| reply to Kearnstd
said by Kearnstd  :if you notice that even in areas where cable fights fios its strictly the TV rates that see constant climbs while data and digital phone hold steady. part of this is things like Disney wanting even more money per customer to carry ESPN(one of the most costly basic cable channels). the the providers certainly are not innocent in this matter, but the fact TV goes up and internet doesnt says something. comcast is doubling speed from 6 to 12 and it stays 42.95. so some blame does lay with the content conglomerates. It is the iron control that the few major entertainment companies have on all forms of TV & Movies that keep these rates high. If the FCC wants to do something to bring down cable TV rates, that is where they should start.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? |
|
beaups
join:2003-08-11
Hilliard, OH
1 edit | reply to Kearnstd
Agree. The content owners are the one's raping us and raising rates and dictating what tiers their channels fall on. BigTen and NFL networks come to mind. It'll get worse before it gets better.
I think the big problem in some of these cases IS the competition. hear me out....for example here in Columbus, Big10 network comes to town and wants ~$1.00/mo from EVERY subscriber on Time Warner's network. TW says no way (thankfully)...then WideOpenWest and other small guys see this as an opportunity and jump all over it advertising "Switch to us to get the Big10 network". TW is forced to cave in and ultimately those costs are passed on to us. The whole thing is a shame. |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| said by beaups :Agree. The content owners are the one's raping us and raising rates and dictating what tiers their channels fall on. BigTen and NFL networks come to mind. It'll get worse before it gets better. I think the big problem in some of these cases IS the competition. hear me out....for example here in Columbus, Big10 network comes to town and wants ~$1.00/mo from EVERY subscriber on Time Warner's network. TW says no way (thankfully)...then WideOpenWest and other small guys see this as an opportunity and jump all over it advertising "Switch to us to get the Big10 network". TW is forced to cave in and ultimately those costs are passed on to us. The whole thing is a shame. You do realize that Disney is charging nearly $5 for ESPN and ESPN2 yet you complain about 70 cents NFL Network wants. |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :It is the iron control that the few major entertainment companies have on all forms of TV & Movies that keep these rates high. If the FCC wants to do something to bring down cable TV rates, that is where they should start. absolutely agree. but I would also like them to look at why an HD DVR rental would increase $2/mo. - I have the same box I had last year and there is absolutely no reason I can think of to justify an increase except comcast wants more money. |
|
beaups
join:2003-08-11
Hilliard, OH
| reply to BF69
It was just an example. I don't know what ESPN USED to charge...so I can't claim it has anything to do with a rate-hike. But the Big10 ransom is NEW...
That said, if Big10 was WORTH $1.00 then Espn is worth $50  |
|
anon14
@direcpc.com
| reply to Kearnstd
BS competition does not lower prices never has,everything goes up in price.The only thing that will lower prices is regulation from the government to keep all these jackassses from wasting money on failed projects such as BPL.wimax,and whitespace will be the latest failed projects.stop wasting money on this shit and spend it on tech that works,and wire the whole country.there prob. has been enough money wasted to already have that,and then work on higher speed for all |
|
MadMANN
Premium
join:2005-08-19
·Comcast
| reply to nasadude
said by nasadude :absolutely agree. but I would also like them to look at why an HD DVR rental would increase $2/mo. - I have the same box I had last year and there is absolutely no reason I can think of to justify an increase except comcast wants more money. Ok here's two:
1. The content providers citing the increased use of DVRs taking away ad revenue since customers can record their shows and fast forward through commercials.
2. Comcast not wanting to implement the content provider-suggested technology that prevents the FF feature from working on certain channels in exchange for lower rates for their content.
Does Comcast want more money? Sure. Don't we all? They also do not want to make less money providing the same content the majority scream about if taken away.
Do you remember Viacom vs. Dish Network? Guess who won? |
|
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA
| reply to hottboiinnc
said by hottboiinnc :and the government has what say so to the media companies that own the channels? NONE. Untrue, the government has complete control over copyright law that all of the media companies depend on and the government can represent the people rather than corporations for a change and make bundling illegal anytime it wants to. |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| reply to beaups
said by beaups :It was just an example. I don't know what ESPN USED to charge...so I can't claim it has anything to do with a rate-hike. But the Big10 ransom is NEW... That said, if Big10 was WORTH $1.00 then Espn is worth $50 If ESPN and ESPN were moved to sports tier all you non sports customers would see a 10% rate reduction. |
|
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| reply to Kearnstd
said by Kearnstd :the fact TV goes up and internet doesnt says something. Because VIDEO subs subsidize HSI via higher rates.
--
When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee |
|
kpfx
join:2005-10-28
Kerrville, TX
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to BF69
To be honest.... with the NFL channel being so specialized its only worth that $0.70 for 3 months out of the year when they run the (very few) exclusive games that have been pulled from the other networks that previously did.
So for the remaining 9 months of the year you're paying for a totally useless channel that does nothing but replay old games from 4 years ago and regurgitates the same sports stats that I can get online from a million other sources... the cost we pay for the time the channel is actually relevant is closer to $2.80/mo for the 3 months.
That's way too expensive for one football channel... and not worth passing on to all cable customers regardless if they're football fans or not. |
|
VegasMan
Are We There Yet?
join:2002-11-17
Schaumburg, IL
 ·AT&T Midwest
| reply to anon14
said by anon14 :
BS competition does not lower prices never has,everything goes up in price.The only thing that will lower prices is regulation from the government to keep all these jackassses from wasting money on failed projects such as BPL.wimax,and whitespace will be the latest failed projects.stop wasting money on this shit and spend it on tech that works,and wire the whole country.there prob. has been enough money wasted to already have that,and then work on higher speed for all
Good thing Verizon didn't listen to you there would be a hell of a lot of people without FIOS.
Hell most of the country would still be on Dial-up. 
If the companies don't try these new technologies then how are they to know if they are bad or not? I remember when there was bitching about the cost of Fiber years ago. It's too brittle it will break easy stay with copper it's proven reliable.
--
In need of a Vegas vacation.
|
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
| reply to Sammer
just because the own the copy right doesnt mean the can just take the copyright away.
if the Feds ever took away copyrighting they would be sued beyond what the gov't could ever pay.
And just by taking the copyright away wouldn't make the bundling illegal. |
|
PhonePower
Premium
join:2007-07-20
Winnetka, CA | reply to BF69
I'm a football fan, but you can't even compare ESPN to the NFL network. You can sell ads on ESPN, NFL network... not so much. |
|
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA
1 edit | reply to hottboiinnc
said by hottboiinnc :if the Feds ever took away copyrighting they would be sued beyond what the gov't could ever pay. The government doesn't have to take copyright away, they just have to make it a condition of copyright that bundling is illegal. The Constitution gives Congress the power to make laws that promote the arts ands sciences (such as copyright) but it doesn't preclude Congress from making bundling cable channels illegal. BTW the government can even make it impossible to win a lawsuit against the government. |
|
