how-to block ads
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: Sports free package, anyone? 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.. | |
|   56403739Less than 5 months leftPremium
join:2006-03-08
Naples, FL
kudos:2 | Re: Sports free package, anyone? 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? | |
| | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3
1 edit | Re: Sports free package, anyone? 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.
 | |
| | | | | Re: Sports free package, anyone? Wrong.
For some of us, cable is NOT a luxury.
Some of us live in fringe areas where there is no signal, and therefore no TV of any kind without cable or satellite.
But I will agree, anything more than just basic cable is a luxury... | |
| | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: Sports free package, anyone? said by jazzlady:Wrong. For some of us, cable is NOT a luxury. Some of us live in fringe areas where there is no signal, and therefore no TV of any kind without cable or satellite. But I will agree, anything more than just basic cable is a luxury... WRONG!
You're confused... cable, satellite, fiber fed, microwave TV service that had channels over the OTA channels IS a luxury..
You're trying to twist the meaning of my post to make a statement and you've gone overboard.
Here's the thing.. if you live in the stixx, then you may not be able to get ANY pay television service.. You can live in a non cable area, have too many trees and be way beyond local broadcast areas.. hell, some people in the dessert areas of CA (circa Palm Springs) only have a few of the locals available.. that still doesn't make it a "right" to have those services.. they HAVE to get cable or satellite if they want even local programming. In THAT case, satellite is your friend. If you live in the mountains, as I hinted above, unless you cut down trees, you may not get TV at all.. still, it doesn't make "cable" or "satellite" anything more than a luxury.. becuase it is.
If you live in a fringe area and have no OTA.. sorry to say, that's not going to change the fact that it's a luxury.. you have the right to choose where you live.. NOTHING guarantees that TV signals will blanket the country.. as I said before, pay services are not "rights" or as some people have said "god given rights"...
The choice is up to the individual. | |
| | | |  BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | said by jazzlady:Wrong. For some of us, cable is NOT a luxury. Some of us live in fringe areas where there is no signal, and therefore no TV of any kind without cable or satellite. But I will agree, anything more than just basic cable is a luxury... But you can get basic cable for $20. Also you appearantly have internet and last time I checked most of the networks do in fact put thier shows on the internet now. | |
| | | | | | ...and to clarify what you are communicating in my words... In order to be an informed citizen and properly participate in modern society as an informed member, one needs TV and basic cable....
If this is what you're implying, that didn't always used to be the case and some will argue that you can pick up a news paper. I think I can agree with you though! This isn't 1970. | |
| | | | | zipjay
join:2003-03-11
South Williamson, KY | Re: Sports free package, anyone? I dont have tv and basic cable. Guess all those websites just wont tell me everything. I need the TV. Newspapers and radio arent good enough either. | |
|
| | | | said by fiberguy: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) I have seen, time and time again, that the cable companies do NOT get tough with the content providers. Case in point is ABC. There have been a few times, locally, the ABC affiliate was pulled from the local lineup over a rate increase. The cable company (in this case Comcast) made some passing reference to the increased costs but did not explain the whole situation (carry the local, carry ESPN and Disney.) If they would come out and explain this, with clear numbers, then you would have a lot more customers on their side.
said by fiberguy: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. This becomes a VERY touchy subject. Are you asking Congress for the right to not show certain commercials since they may show a competing product? This would be like a Comcast not allowing FIOS commericals on any channels. What if Verizon decided not to show and University of Maryland (Maryland Terps) games because they play at the "Comcast Center?" The argument could go so far as to block all references to Redbox or Netflix since they would compete with On Demand programming. | |
|
| | said by fiberguy: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.. Lol, so what you want is for government to step in and protect the cable operator from any `harm` done to it by the networks.
But you don`t want the government involved in any way protecting consumers. You are one twisted monkey. | |
| | | | Re: Sports free package, anyone? LOL | |
|
| |
|
