dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
   
spc
story category
Small Cable Ops Say Market's Broken Due to Media Consolidation
So Hey, Let's Eliminate Media Consolidation Rules!
by Karl Bode 08:49AM Monday Mar 18 2013
Small cable operators this week met up at the American Cable Association Summit to complain that the TV market is rigged and broken thanks to media consolidation. Speaking at the event, executives like Wide Open West CEO Colleen Abdoulah complained that content prices were skyrocketing due to collusion. That collusion is specifically at play in the higher rates being charged for retransmission fees, the fight over which have resulted in consistent content blackouts for consumers and higher rates for users -- irregardless of which side "wins" the rate negotiation.

Cable operators at the show often blamed the broken TV market on increased media consolidation, leading to anti-competitive behavior from content gatekeepers:
quote:
It’s an issue of media ownership. Because ownership has consolidated over the years, media companies have been able to bundle popular content with shows operators might otherwise not buy and charge for both. In theory the media companies are supposed to negotiate in good faith with operators to make content available, but as I overheard one person say in a hallway at the summit, there is no good, there is no faith, and there is no negotiation.
Most ACA attendees of course cheer for deregulation, never quite connecting the fact that most obnoxious predatory behavior is either courtesy of deregulation, or bad regulation passed by those wealthy enough and large enough to buy it. Some of the small cable operators who ceaselessly preach deregulation now want the FCC to step in and regulate retransmission rates. Others, like show attendee and new FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai, think the way to stop the issues caused by media consolidation is to weaken media consolidation rules further.

From the schizophrenic philosophies espoused at summit, things won't be getting better for small cable operators anytime soon.

view:
topics flat nest 

FFH5
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

ACA issues page lays out their case for changes

What the ACA wants is the same the big cable companies want - to get the stranglehold the big content companies have over content under control. The only difference is the small cable companies have no leverage at all, unlike Verizon, Comcast or TWC, so they pay even more. And bundled channels is their greatest issue.
»www.americancable.org/issues
Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY

Re: ACA issues page lays out their case for changes

said by FFH5:

What the ACA wants is the same the big cable companies want - to get the stranglehold the big content companies have over content under control.

Stop paying for it. Tell your customers why you're not paying for it. Lay it out in plain English, if we carry X channel(s) your costs will go up Y amount. Put the onus on the customer, and if they are happy to keep ponying up more cash every month then they deserve to have a lighter wallet.

Cable television is not a life essential service. The sooner people realize this the sooner the "stranglehold" on content will be broken.
TBBroadband

join:2012-10-26
Fremont, OH

Re: ACA issues page lays out their case for changes

Actually if the MSOs were up front on the entire cost of labor and what they pay per channel, etc more people would be happy. Except they never tell you how much they pay for anything.
openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2

Re: ACA issues page lays out their case for changes

said by TBBroadband:

Except they never tell you how much they pay for anything.

I'm sure there's a contractual reason for that.
kxrm

join:2002-07-18
Fort Worth, TX

2 recommendations

Irregardless?

Hate to be a grammar nazi but irregardless is not a word.
b10010011
Whats a Posting tag?

join:2004-09-07
Bellingham, WA
Reviews:
·Comcast Formerl..

Re: Irregardless?

I was about to post the same thing.

the fight over which have resulted in consistent content blackouts for consumers and higher rates for users -- irregardless regardless of which side "wins" the rate negotiation.
--
Bellingham Scanner Kicks Ass! »bhamscanner.kicks-ass.org/

jap
Premium
join:2003-08-10
038xx
said by kxrm:

Hate to be a grammar nazi but irregardless is not a word.

Oh it's a word. An unfortunate development but none the less in wide currency and well established. Language: the ultimate democracy.

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irregardless
b10010011
Whats a Posting tag?

join:2004-09-07
Bellingham, WA
Reviews:
·Comcast Formerl..

3 edits

Media consolidation needs to be stopped!

When I moved to the community I live in there were several local radio stations. The main "talk" station was full of locally originated content all day long. Now one company owns every single radio station in the area. They fired the local news and production crew and now it's all syndicated talk shows and the only news we get is the national news off "the wire".

We used to have a local TV station that had local content and an hour of local news every morning. Some other media conglomeration bought the TV station. Fired the everyone and turned it into a robo-station playing reruns 24/4. No local content or news.

Our local newspaper is owned by a conglomerate. They have gutted the news section down to one or two reporters. They print very little local news and the majority is state/national news off "the wire".

And yet people complain about "the main stream media" just repeating the same stories. Well they are all the same "station" anymore with no local reporters so they can only report what is given them.
--
Bellingham Scanner Kicks Ass! »bhamscanner.kicks-ass.org/
wahoospa

join:2006-03-23
Charleston, SC

Merriam-webster say irregardless is a word.

»www.merriam-webster.com/dictiona···gardless

"Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead."
kxrm

join:2002-07-18
Fort Worth, TX

Re: Merriam-webster say irregardless is a word.

said by wahoospa:

»www.merriam-webster.com/dictiona···gardless

"Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead."

Anything that comes from one's pen or mouth could be defined as a word. The context is incorrect. Irregardless is at best a double negative. So it's incorrect.

Squire James

@embarqhsd.net

Re: Merriam-webster say irregardless is a word.

Who knew this thread would become a debate over whether something is a word or not?

That being said, "irregardless" has become a word, though it lacks sophistication because it means the opposite of what its prefix suggests (ir- normally suggests "opposite of"). It's kind of like using the word "bad" when you mean "good".

Probitas

@teksavvy.com

Less is definitely not More in these cases

Less competition is always better for companies, not consumers.