| |Camelot OnePremium,MVM
This seems like something SCOTUS would strike down quickly While the idea of helping consumers sounds nice, and I even like the idea of forcing people like CBS and Disney to negotiate pricing one channel at a time, the bottom line is that the bill would remove the free market from the equation. The Government can't force one company to sell a product to another, nor can you force one company to buy a product from another. And you certainly can't let the Government set the price.
This is isn't a dispute that interrupts water supply, food supply, power, or any other essential service. No one NEEDS cable TV. You could make an argument that having internet service brings some economic or educational advantage to the end user, but neither is true for cable TV. It is a pure luxury.
If more American's would stop wasting their lives in front of the TV, the free market would put an end to this crap really quick. Don't want to give me the channels I want? Fine, I cancel service. End of story. Holding channels hostage currently works for both sides, but only because people think TV is too important to give up.
Re: This seems like something SCOTUS would strike down quickly Your right if were talking about a perfect world but its not. In this case you almost have a responsibility to cancel and suffer as do most of us in order to get all this on the right track. Nothing good come without effort or sacrifice. So make a stand and sacrifice. Cancel!
In my area I do have a few options but switching isn't going to solve the problem anyways. Besides I'm not really looking to punish just the cable co. I'm looking to punish the whole industry which sorely deserves it.
Re: Very Vague on Costs If you can get it with an antenna, it shouldn't be blacked out. Or if you can get it with an antenna, you shouldn't have to pay for the cable service of the same. Buy the other programs you want.
If you live in a mostly urban area, you are usually OK. But if you live where you can't get the local signal even with an antenna, you shouldn't be held hostage. A lot depend on local news for flash flood, smoke, and other warnings. A lot of cities have discontinued the warning sirens.
Re: add to this bill
said by biochemistry:yes and everything with will be sunshine and rainbows. Seriously you believe that?
And with 100+ affiliates, someone will buckle for a lower price. It's amazing what a little competition will do.
Santa Monica, CA
·Time Warner Cable
Re: Bill sticks it to networks more than cable companies And what's wrong with that?
The cable industry is a competitive last-mile provider, while content is exclusively held.
(On principle, I'm not in favor of federal meddling, especially considering this whole mess was created by federal re-regulation, but if they're going to "fix" it, it isn't your satellite company, telcoTV or cable provider that needs correction.)
Trim it down to the unbundling requirement That seems to be the heart of the matter. I'm OK with the government saying "Thou shalt not". "Wholesale unbundling" sounds like a good law, if the majority of Congress agrees then it should be law. Forcing someone to continue broadcasting seems to be overreaching though.