 | | kind of figured this well they really only have mention above those good shows. | |
|
 LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 |  Created push for regulations imposing stricter rules
created a stronger push for regulations imposing stricter rules on negotiations
If the cable company can't walk away, they will get taken to the cleaners(which of course means the customers will be taken to the cleaners).
--
»www.mittromney.com/s/repeal-and-···bamacare
»www.mittromney.com/issues/health-care | |
|
 | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | Re: Created push for regulations imposing stricter rules I know it would be an utter mess to get there but this is why entertainment should be OTT (i.e. streaming video) and it should be a cafeteria purchase experience. Pay by the show, pay by the day, pay by the month or pick whatever package combo discounts might be offered.
Aside from the obvious billing headaches (hey, this is why computers thrive), this puts the consumer in control of their programming. If a content provider wants to raise rates, they can get duke it out with the consumer.
What we have today is like UPS and Fedex signing long-term contracts with end consumers to deliver weekly grocery "bundles" at a fixed cost. Every time the cost of specific foods increase, UPS and Fedex drop those products from the bundle. Imagine if Fedex decided to drop a staple product like cow's milk or replaced it with goat milk and kept charging the same delivery rates! Sounds pretty silly, doesn't it.
This is why content delivery should be completely separate from content creators and/or sellers. We've lost our way and somewhere the journey started down a very slippery slope. | |
|
| | | | Re: Created push for regulations imposing stricter rules I'm going to go with the darwinian answer on this. We shouldn't have regulations to make this problem go away, because this is an innate issue with the content provider/service provider model. Without regulation, Over-the-Top competitors will win out more quickly because cable companies will be locked in negotiations with content creators. Let the system's flaws naturally destroy the system, I say. | |
|
| | | Reviews:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·AT&T Midwest
 ·voip.ms
| Re: Created push for regulations imposing stricter rules said by ricklerre:We shouldn't have regulations to make this problem go away, because this is an innate issue with the content provider/service provider model. Without regulation, Over-the-Top competitors will win out more quickly because cable companies will be locked in negotiations with content creators. Let the system's flaws naturally destroy the system, I say.
Hear Hear! I would be in favor of a law prohibiting metered internet service and prohibiting contract clauses that prevent content providers from streaming programming in real time.
I don't have room for a C Band dish, but I'd love it if my internet connection could give me subscription options of that magnitude.
--
USNG:
16TDN2870
Find your USNG coordinates:
USNGWeb | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Created push for regulations imposing stricter rules you can NOT force a private company to offer uncapped internet- free enterprise is here for a reason. Taking that right away from these businesses is NOT free enterprise. If the market was there for unmetered Internet- then go give money to the new WiMax reseller and tell them to build out a new network and cover everyone. | |
|
| | | | | Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
·AT&T Midwest
·voip.ms
| Re: Created push for regulations imposing stricter rules said by 25139889:you can NOT force a private company to offer uncapped internet
Sorry, I was speaking in jest. My point was that vertical monopolies naturally tend to package their services and write their contracts in ways to discourage competition, and I don't see a lot of evidence that regulation or lack thereof is doing a whole lot to discourage that behavior at the moment.
It's a given that requiring a company to offer a service at a set price or under fixed conditions would be regulation. Providers understand that at some point consumers (aka voters) get tired of anti-competitive behavior and demand that "something" be done about it. That's why they put so much money into lobbyists and PR fronts.
--
USNG:
16TDN2870
Find your USNG coordinates:
USNGWeb | |
|
| | | | | | | | Re: Created push for regulations imposing stricter rules being a voter means nothing with purchasing something. still pointless regulation to even try and create when you know the law will go before the Courts and they will strike the law down. time and time again. | |
|
| | | | |  AVDRespice, Adspice, ProspicePremium
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ
kudos:1 | said by 25139889:you can NOT force a private company to offer uncapped internet- free enterprise is here for a reason. Taking that right away from these businesses is NOT free enterprise. If the market was there for unmetered Internet- then go give money to the new WiMax reseller and tell them to build out a new network and cover everyone.
I think that the mobile market is regulatable.
--
--Standard disclaimers apply.--
The preceding posting is null and void in Arizona and any other jurisdiction where prohibited by law. | |
|
| | | | | | | | Re: Created push for regulations imposing stricter rules not in terms of the Internet. Sorry. Internet is Internet. You can not force a company that sells the Internet to certain things regardless. and the FCC knows this. | |
|
| | | | | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | I'm not saying we should or should not regulate Internet connections to eliminate caps. I'm only responding to government regulation and free enterprise. Minimum wage requires all companies to pay a minimum amount for even the most unskilled tasks. It's a rule within which they must operate and compete. By your definition, this is NOT free enterprise. It has nothing to do with free enterprise. It just changes how the game is played. Likewise if the government said Internet connections must consider all traffic equal and cannot impose a limit on the quantity of traffic, it would simply be a rule by which all providers must compete.
If regulation eliminated caps, speeds would drop or prices would increase until an equilibrium is reached. As time passed, speeds would gradually rise again and prices would stay the same or drop. | |
|
| | | | | | | | Re: Created push for regulations imposing stricter rules You should stop putting words in my mouth. Minimum wage is different than requiring companies to offer something just because you wait it- such as Internet in the sticks, unlimited usage on that iPhone or uncapped Internet.
And you do realize that rules can not be corrected very easily to allow for uncapped Internet right? Nobody has the control over the Internet as the FCC gave up that one some years ago. Congress has to restore that power itself and they are NOT going to get into that pissing battle with the FCC or current ISPs. | |
|
| | | | | | | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | Re: Created push for regulations imposing stricter rules You said:
...you can NOT force a private company to offer uncapped internet- free enterprise is here for a reason. Taking that right away from these businesses is NOT free enterprise...
We force car companies to create safe vehicles by installing airbags. We force them to use emissions devices so they pollute less. When new homes are built, they must be assembled according to an absolutely extensive and almost exhaustive list of codes. They cannot legally sell the home if it does not comply with these codes.
Whether or not we should or should not do this is irrelevant. The facts are that we have been doing these things for a long time and if we were violating a corporation's rights, we would have been challenged long ago all the way to SCOTUS. Since rules like this not only remain but thrive, by inference we can create laws by which business must operate just like by which people must live.
In other words, if we want to pass a law that says Internet access in the US must meet certain criteria, we can do that just like in the examples I cited and countless others.
Again -- I'm NOT commenting on whether or not we should. Get that out of your head. I'm just calling out that if we did define what Internet service means, provided it's reasonable and doesn't put anyone out of business, we aren't impacting free enterprise and we aren't violating any corporate rights. | |
|
| | | | | | Subscription options of what magnitude? C Band subscription services are dead. Fewer than 20,000 people now subscribe to TV via C Band and there are no HD networks you can subscribe to.
AMC Networks doesn't even offer access to their channels via C Band subscription services either, btw. | |
|
| | | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | Isn't that why everyone is frantically implementing caps? Otherwise you are correct. OTT video will destroy MSO video. In fact it could happen within a few short years if Microsoft, Apple, Google or someone new creates a device in the home that makes it easily accessible for the "VCR flashing 12:00am" crowd. | |
|
| | | | AVDRespice, Adspice, ProspicePremium
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ
kudos:1 | Re: Created push for regulations imposing stricter rules said by rradina:Isn't that why everyone is frantically implementing caps? Otherwise you are correct. OTT video will destroy MSO video. In fact it could happen within a few short years if Microsoft, Apple, Google or someone new creates a device in the home that makes it easily accessible for the "VCR flashing 12:00am" crowd.
you mean TiVo
--
--Standard disclaimers apply.--
The preceding posting is null and void in Arizona and any other jurisdiction where prohibited by law. | |
|
| | | | | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | Re: Created push for regulations imposing stricter rules No I didn't mean TiVo. The VCR reference was to create context for a group of people with a particular technical prowess.
While TiVo offers NetFlix, so does the XBox 360, PS3, Wii, iPad, Apple TV and increasingly, various smart TVs. However, most still have a cable box and most still pay for an MSO video package.
Apparently there needs to be a new device that raises awareness that NetFlix and an Internet connection is all you need. That's why rumors fly about a potential new Apple television set. Tech folks believe it will do for TV what the iPod did for music. However, that could also come from Google or Microsoft or, who knows, even Amazon or Facebook. | |
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD |  No Regulation Needed
quote:
The frequency of these feuds and the number of resulting blackouts has created a stronger push for regulations imposing stricter rules on negotiations -- specifically rules that prohibit suddenly disconnecting content to paying customers.
First and foremost Cable TV is a luxury service. These disputes are between private entities and no one else. Why should the government get involved here?
Also, how can this be a "sudden" disconnection when these feuds stay in the public eye for weeks or months?
--
Romney 2012 - Put an adult in charge. | |
|
| KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | Re: No Regulation Needed These content owners keep squeezing the MSOs they may find themselves going out of business. advertisers pay for eyeballs, being dropped off a whole service means less eye balls. If i where say... Toyota I would now be demanding a lower ad rate during their programming should they get dropped from a TV provider.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
| | | | Re: No Regulation Needed And those providers have the right not to do business with the Content owners.
Time for these MSOs and rebroadcasters to be big boys and act like their a business instead of asking for government for laws that are pointless and cost us more money when they all end up in court. If smaller companies can afford these rates- companies like ATT and Dish can as well. Tell them to suck it up and stop taking the pay rate increases they are if they want those customers to stick around. | |
|
| | Hey AT&T! Drop the channels permanently and then lower my rate for what you were paying them to begin with! | |
|
| | | Re: Hey AT&T! said by Skippy25:Drop the channels permanently and then lower my rate for what you were paying them to begin with!
Man, you're funny! | |
|
|  aaronwtPremium
join:2004-11-07
Woodbridge, VA | I wish all the carriers would threaten to drop the ESPN channels and force them to lower their rates. | |
|
| | | | Re: Hey AT&T! Drop ESPN? You do realize how many channels are tied to ESPN right? Disney-ABC owns a SHIT load of content. You want to lose ESPN- you face losing your local ABC news station and other ABC owned content. | |
|
| scross
join:2002-09-13
Cordova, TN | Better yet, drop the channels permanently and by doing so thoroughly piss off my wife and daughter, both of whom love U-Verse TV (me, not so much), thereby giving me the perfect excuse to drop it and go back to DirecTV (whch I've been itching to do for quite a while now) and in the process save me some really big bucks!
Run along now, you've got work to do! June 30 is tomorrow, after all. | |
|
| | | | Re: Hey AT&T! Get your pants back from your wife and do it anyway.  | |
|
| | | scross
join:2002-09-13
Cordova, TN | Re: Hey AT&T! said by Skippy25:Get your pants back from your wife and do it anyway.
"wife and daughter"
I can handle one or the other, but not both! If AT&T doesn't cooperate, then I may tell them that they have to start help paying for it if they want to keep it. We'll see what they have to say about that. | |
|
| | | | scross
join:2002-09-13
Cordova, TN | Re: Hey AT&T! I mentioned the situation to my wife today, and it turns out that she's already angry about the Hallmark channel, so this latest issue move may push her over the line. Yippee! | |
|
|  GbcueP.E.Premium
join:2001-09-30
Santa Rosa, CA
kudos:8 | said by Skippy25:Drop the channels permanently and then lower my rate for what you were paying them to begin with!
Yup! | |
|
| | At&t is full of cheapasses. Except any contract negotiation to be handled ala Charlie Ergen; channels dropped. | |
|
| |
 IllIlIlllIllEliteDataPremium
join:2003-07-06
Hampton Bays, NY
kudos:7 | time to stream AMC on Justin.tv  | |
|
| |
 mech1164I'll Be Back
join:2001-11-19
Lodi, NJ | Neither is worth it. They deserve each other. Meanwhile we take it in the rear each time. I would much rather pay ala cart but I know that's a pipe dream (would need an act of congress to break the bundling rules of both MSO and content providers.).
If I ever get a chance to live where I can get a good signal, cable will be out the door. | |
|
| | Nothing Unusual Here They bicker every day... move along... nothing unusual going on here! They'll make up, get all kissy-face, and disgust everyone again soon enough... | |
|
decifal
join:2007-03-10
Bon Aqua, TN
kudos:1 | first First dish now the death star.. If directv drops em, how will they be able to stay afloat with the higher prices? I mean seriously, wtf are they thinking by jacking up rates at the current pretend economy we have? | |
|
| | | Re: first They're grabbing for as much cash as they can get. It's likely that they know they can't get as much as they're asking for, but it's a negotiating tactic. If they want, say, a 50% price increase, then they ask for 100% and negotiate down from there.
As for how they can justify such an increase in this economy, they justify it as any other company would. If they think people will pay, they'll make them pay. Such greed doesn't build goodwill, but they don't care, as long as the money comes in. That's all that counts. | |
|
| | | other companies afford these rates so can these two. | |
|
| | decifal
join:2007-03-10
Bon Aqua, TN
kudos:1 | Re: first Makes me wonder though if the "other" companies are charging more overall or not in the first place.. Not that ATT would pass any savings to the customer.. | |
|
| | KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | since we have no way to know what the other companies paid its possible they are paying less. Comcast is the biggest cable provider, my guess is they bring serious weight to the table. AT&T is a small fish in the TV business compared to Comcast.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
| | | |
 kpfx
join:2005-10-28
San Antonio, TX | Full Disclosure would be a first step Here's an idea.... first step: force the content providers to actually disclose their prices publicly on our Cable / Satellite / Telco bills! They've been hiding behind these package deals far too long.
When I order something and have it delivered, my bill shows the cost for my item, and the delivery charges. In this day and age of modern networks, why should a content provider and service provider be different? | |
|
| | | Re: Full Disclosure would be a first step Your pay TV bill does show your cost for the services that you subscribe to along with appropriate taxes and fees.
Your pay TV bill does not show what costs are incurred by the TV provider just as the bill for when you order a product does not show the costs incurred by the company that you purchased that item from. | |
|
| fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | said by kpfx:Here's an idea.... first step: force the content providers to actually disclose their prices publicly on our Cable / Satellite / Telco bills! They've been hiding behind these package deals far too long.
When I order something and have it delivered, my bill shows the cost for my item, and the delivery charges. In this day and age of modern networks, why should a content provider and service provider be different?
How funny how irony plays well into your own post. You're advocating something that you, yourself are doing and not admitting.
What you're REALLY saying is that you want ala cart pricing with out actually saying it. It's kind of like you not telling me the price of something, and then demanding it.
You can't know the price, per channel, because said price doesn't existing nor has it ever. So you're asking for a fundamental change in a billing practice to suit your own need. Since you can't buy the channels individually, the price per channel is irrelevant in the first place. Your bill comes with a price on it and it's told to you at the time of ordering.. so where are you being failed at?
.. maybe when you come out of hiding behind your own agenda, you'll be able to see my point. The price you pay for the channels are there.. you buy a package of channels, not just one. HBO, Starz, and other premium ala cart channels are priced as you wish. However, basic channels are not, and most likely will never bet. Your price for the channels you get is clearly printed on your bill, so unless you're blind you've already got your answer. | |
|
| | | how do you plan on forcing them to disclose their prices? You can't legally do so. And while you're going to force them are you going to force everyone else? Something tells me good luck with that as the US Gov't will be sued until no tomorrow. | |
|
BiggA
join:2005-11-23
EARTH | Who cares. What is AMC anyways? | |
|
| | | Re: Who cares. American Movie Classics. | |
|
 HarddriveProud American and Infidel since 1968.Premium
join:2000-09-20
Phone Room
kudos:2 | Propaganda time. AMC HD already has the banner up every 5 or 10 minutes scrolling across the screen.
| |
|
| | AT&T = Comcast? So I take it that AT&T includes Comcast, right? I'd be extremely bummed to lose all those great AMC shows.
| |
|
| | | Re: AT&T = Comcast? said by joblojones :So I take it that AT&T includes Comcast, right? I'd be extremely bummed to lose all those great AMC shows.
Huh? AT&T and Comcast are competitors. This has nothing to do with Comcast at all.
--
Capturing the images of Colorado
»jdebordphoto.com | |
|
| | at&t doesn't care about keeeping OUR costs down... Uverse is the most expensive service around...
More expensive that FiOS for lesser service.
They don't care about keeping our costs down, so why should AMC care about keeping their costs down?
If Disney/ESPN can do it, why not AMC. I know Breaking Bad and The Walking Dead are two shows that I always watch... | |
|
1 edit | Cut the Cord Glad I cut the cord a few years back.. don't miss it. Still get a dozen HD channels OTA and a some good sub digital ones for free. It does not matter if they drop a channel from a carriage dispute, the rates will still climb faster then real wages or the rate of inflation etc..
I'm saving over 900 dollars a year for more then two years now and I don't miss it one bit! There is no regulation or ala carte. Only rate increases. This is the same for ALL satellite and cable services.
The two rip offs for consumers today are data plans for wireless phones and cable/satellite TV subscriptions. I've got a 32 dollar a month straight talk phone 1000 minute/text plan, 27 dollar DSL and HD OTA TV and have a skype account to call family overseas. It does not get any better then that. I get allot of value for my money. | |
|
| decifal
join:2007-03-10
Bon Aqua, TN
kudos:1 Reviews:
 ·Verizon Broadban..
| Re: Cut the Cord Be glad you have access to the dsl.. I'm looking for the deathstar to take care of that due to some excuse one day.. "oh we have to limit our landline customers to um, 10 gigs.. Err, the president made us do it"..
some crazy lame ass crap i'm sure...
I'm bout to go prepaid myself in the near future.. Verizon has officially turned me off as a customer with the super happy pricing plan.. Its not worth it.. I rather buy a car with the monthly fees.. | |
|
| | | TV will NEVER have regulation. | |
|
| | So I Thought AMC Stood For American MOVIE Classics Sense When Is..>Mad Men," "Breaking Bad," and "The Walking Dead,,CSI Movies....I Pretty Much Stopped Watchin AMC when they started with all the crap shows..And Went To Having Commercials Years Back...I Hope TCM Don't Turn Into Another AMC! | |
|
| | | Re: So I Thought AMC Stood For American MOVIE Classics They may not be movies, but they're damned good shows. I also have the question about whether AT&T includes Comcast. | |
|
| mogamer
join:2011-04-20
Royal Oak, MI | said by Bigden7456:Sense When Is..>Mad Men," "Breaking Bad," and "The Walking Dead,,CSI Movies....I Pretty Much Stopped Watchin AMC when they started with all the crap shows..And Went To Having Commercials Years Back...I Hope TCM Don't Turn Into Another AMC!
Well since the channel was renamed AMC from American Movie Classics, I guess it doesn't. And those "crap" shows have a much larger viewership compared to those old and tired, but commercial-free movies. | |
|
| | Reviews:
·Virgin Mobile Br..
| Re: So I Thought AMC Stood For American MOVIE Classics When AMC was still commercial-free (like 20+ years ago) they still showed lots of great old movies, but then Turner got the rights to a lot of the real classics, and that left AMC with the dregs. That plus the fact that they started running commercials pretty much made it a "who the hell watches it" channel until Mad Men came along, and then all the others. | |
|
| | Not Retrans Strictly speaking, this is not a retransmission consent fight. That's a broadcast channel carriage thing. This AMC thing is just a carriage negotiation thing. AT&T has certain regulatory obligations when it comes to local broadcast. Not so with "cable" channels like AMC or ESPN. Those are business decisions. | |
|
|
|
·