Time Warner Cable Fires Broadside At Broadcasters > Sports free package, anyone?

reply to fifty nine

Re: Sports free package, anyone?

If TWC nd Comcast both did it, Disney would have to capitulate I'm pretty sure, since that's so many customers. Especially since lots of folks can't get Dish'DirecTV.

Hmm...DirecTV...maybe they should make an IP-based product...

reply to caco
I would love a sports free package. Would probably cut the bill by two-thirds.
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears.

reply to iansltx
No, Disney would go running to some congress critter that they have in their back pocket. That congress critter would demand a hearing in which he would rage against harm that not having wholesome family entertainment on basic programming . Basically you would need thigh high boots at the amount of crap that would be flowing.
--
»www.seabee.navy.mil

Ah, right. That's why I'm in favor of a government small enough that it can't do anyone any harm.

reply to caco

reply to iansltx
See, it's nice to have competition, but that also plays against the consumer too. We ALL well know how many times cable has tried to get tough with these networks and what happens in the end is that the networks will pull the plug on cable subscribers. ADDITIONALLY, which I think should be banned, is that these networks will start a scroll on the cable provider's feed telling the customer that the cable operator isn't playing fair and they'll subsidize and give a discount if they switch to a dish provider.

Personally, that's WRONG WRONG WONG and this is an example of where I believe that Congress MUST step in and stop this.

The cost to provide networks should be a fixed rate to the provider - period. The ONLY discount should be based on is the term period they are willing to sign a contract of carriage... nothing more. EVERYONE pays the same. This way, its up to the providers to cut their own prices to remain competitive.

Again, too, my personal issue is when they use the very network in question to target those scrolls and offers during contract negotiation.. the networks do it, as well as the local broadcasters... just wrong.

The customer is being played and really no one is doing anything about it..

reply to Romney2012

reply to fiberguy
The customer holds all the cards, actually. Nobody needs any of what is offered on cable; consumers have been brainwashed into paying outrageous amounts of money to watch television programming they could easily go without.

What is really needed is a wholesale shift in the public psyche away from the entire idea of cable. Like any good crack dealer, the MSOs (and the programmers like Disney) know they can raise the price without losing customers until the customers break their addiction.

Aren't you the one usually harping that cable is a luxury and not a basic human right? It's laughable that NOW you want Congress to step in and force the program producers to lower prices when cable is merely a retransmission medium that makes hundreds of millions of dollars off the work of others. Why should they not pay for that?

reply to iansltx
or any good.
and when this happens who are you going to complain to?

People with money for not seizing the opportunity to offer a competitive service.

Seriously, it's also darned hard to block Internet connectivity to a selection of sites. Heard of a proxy?

geez you are thick.
it was an analogy of what will happen if net neutrality is not made into a law.

Not thick at all; I've seen that image before, several times.

I'm just saying that:

a) Net neutrality hasn't been a low for, well, forever.
b) Satellite internet is net-neutral, if all else fails. Capped and throttled after the cap, yes. Neutral? Also yes.
c) If all a company has to do to gain customers is to be net neutral (vs. offering faster speeds, lower prices, larger e-mail boxes) that's yet another product differentiator that may lure competition into a market.

Part C is, IMO, partially the reason that Time Warner Cable didn't go through with capping its users in central Texas. As soon as TWC made noise about caps, Grande Communications (cable overbuilder with plans a little below TWC's) immediately touted that their plans don't have caps. Additionally, Guadalupe Valley Telephone Cooperative is rolling out fiber and has both ILEC and CLEC abilities, so if TWC capped in any given area GVTC could move in, offer uncapped service and rake in high-ARPU customers with a relatively quick ROI ($2000 per fiber install isn't so horrible when you're pulling in $70 per month for 20/3 internet, plus money from cable and telephone service).

Whcih is how the system is supposed to work, at least IMO.

reply to 56403739
You clearly don't pay attention to what I say, and you assume a lot too.

Cable IS a luxury.. I still believe that.. I also have a problem with price gouging as well. However, I don't believe, and never have, that the cable companies are the ones gouging the customer, rather, it's the content providers. I've ALSO been on record many times stating that cable is simply a consignment operation as well. They get to sell the product but are largely leashed by the rules of the content owners. (as is satellite too)

Cable is NOT a basic human right.. seriously.. where do you even come up with that crap... even OTA is not a "basic human right".. it IS, however, a public air wave that, at least in this country, have a general right to have for free.

And YES, I'd like congress to step in and stop unfair practices which I've taken great detail to outline in my original post. I do NOT believe that they should be able to insert scrolls on content that the consumer is paying for which interrupts the signal, PAID FOR by the consumer, in order to hash out contract agreements and ALSO is a slap to the cable or satellite provider they are in dispute with in the first place. I do NOT believe that the contract states, to either the provider or customer, that they are allowed to use the signal to advertise a competing product. This has happened, so far, on cable, dish and direcTV to this date.

AND FURTHER, to embarrass you, please tell me where I stated that i wanted "congress to step in and force the program producers to lower prices"... What I DID say was that Congress should, and I have to say it in a different way obviously, that they should enforce a little regulation on the content producers and they should be forced to sell the content at the same price to all the providers.. none of these negotiation deals they do now. IE: Lifetime TV is .20 cents per head - period. Not .20 to satellite and .35 to cable. I SAID that it should be fair pricing and that any discounting should be done based on contract carriage terms.. ie: the length of the contract, nothing more.

So seriously.. if you're going to try to change the meaning of my post and put words in my mouth, please try to actually read my post next time.

reply to jazzlady

reply to n2jtx

reply to fiberguy

LOL