John McCain has become an unlikely hero in the fight against Cable TV

[TechMan]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/14/john-mccain-tv-television-consumer-freedom-act_n_3273002.html

McCain (R-Ariz.) introduced the Television Consumer Freedom Act last week, a bill that would allow cable subscribers to pick the channels they want and pay for them on an a-la-carte basis. The bill would also repeal blackout restrictions for local sports teams using publicly funded stadiums.

I am torn with this.  I think the free market should sort it out for the channels.  I don't like that fact that I pay for all the channels that I don't use, so I don't have cable tv.  I do like the repeal of the blackout restrictions for teams that are using publicly funded stadiums.  He did introduce something similar in 2006 and it never got out of committee. Also meddling by the .gov could have the reverse effect:

Michael Powell, head of cable trade group National Cable & Telecommunications Association, also spoke at the hearing. “It’s a very serious question mark whether consumers would have lower bills or cheaper service as a result of a la carte,” Powell said. In 2004, when Powell was head of the Federal Communications Commission, he had the groups economists work up a study on this new pricing model that found a-la-carte pricing would do the opposite of its intentions by driving up costs and causing many channels to go out of business. Though the study has faced some scrutiny, Powell has continually defended it.

[Jamisjockey]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/14/john-mccain-tv-television-consumer-freedom-act_n_3273002.html


I am torn with this.  I think the free market should sort it out for the channels.  I don't like that fact that I pay for all the channels that I don't use, so I don't have cable tv.  I do like the repeal of the blackout restrictions for teams that are using publicly funded stadiums.  He did introduce something similar in 2006 and it never got out of committee. Also meddling by the .gov could have the reverse effect:

Sigh.  Yeah.  Cable is poised to go the way of the dinosaur thanks to internet streaming TV.  Useless legislation that just doesn't make sense. 
Free market and all that, too. 

[AZRedhawk44]

I would actually have cable if this passed.

FX (SoA, Justified, Archer)
AMC (Hell on Wheels, Breaking Bad, Walking Dead)
HBO (Game of Thrones)

And that's probably it.


As-is, I get these via "alternate means" and salve my conscience by buying the boxed sets of them once released.  Still costs a whole hell of a lot less than a cable bill.

[brimic]

Since when is cable tv of such vital importance to the survival of Americans that .gov needs to interfere?


More focus on bread and circuses than issues that really need to be addressed like our mounting debt, unemployment, lack of a federal budget, and nightmares like obamacare coming up.
Way to not disappoint us by continuing to be a useless turd, McCain.

[HankB]

Most places, cable companies have "exclusive" areas of service, assigned/approved by government; there's really not a choice of cable providers. In my neighborhood, it's Time Warner or nothing.

The real reason that "a-la-cart" pricing is unlikely to be implemented is that marginal channels like BET and UNIVISION are unlikely to survive in many markets . . . and discontinuing them for poor ratings or low subscription rates would be racist.

[lupinus]

Actually, I can support this.

As Hank said, most cable companies are exclusive to the area. I have the option of having Charter or of not having cable, that isn't what I call a free market in the slightest. I have about as much choice in my choice of cable provider as I do in my choice of electric, water, or sewer utility. Those damn sure aren't a free market. And as such, they need approval from the critters I elect to represent me to do certain things.

I don't think it's right to outright treat them like a utility as it's not exactly the same, but it's close enough that certain things I could be in favor of. This is one of them.

A free market solution is, of course, much better. But given the amount of infrastructure strung up all over the place is involved letting every company that wants to run wire do so might not be the most practical thing out there.

[freakazoid]

Plus it turns the channels into a free market.

[Fitz]

Since when is cable tv of such vital importance to the survival of Americans that .gov needs to interfere?


More focus on bread and circuses than issues that really need to be addressed like our mounting debt, unemployment, lack of a federal budget, and nightmares like obamacare coming up.
Way to not disappoint us by continuing to be a useless turd, McCain.

This

[Devonai]

Politics aside, I don't understand why this has to be so complicated for cable companies.

1. Figure out the average number of channels subscribers actually watch (shouldn't be that hard).

2. Divide the cost per a la carte channel by the existing rates.

3. Offer a discount for channels if they exceed the greater standard deviation.

So if they offer basic cable for $50/month, and the average user watches ten channels, then price each channel at $5 up to the first 15.  Then offer additional channels for $1 each.

[MechAg94]

Politics aside, I don't understand why this has to be so complicated for cable companies.

1. Figure out the average number of channels subscribers actually watch (shouldn't be that hard).

2. Divide the cost per a la carte channel by the existing rates.

3. Offer a discount for channels if they exceed the greater standard deviation.

So if they offer basic cable for $50/month, and the average user watches ten channels, then price each channel at $5 up to the first 15.  Then offer additional channels for $1 each.

That would mean:
1.  They would have to be somewhat honest and up front about their actual costs.

2.  This would make the govt taxes and fees added to those costs more obvious.

[MechAg94]

Since when is cable tv of such vital importance to the survival of Americans that .gov needs to interfere?


More focus on bread and circuses than issues that really need to be addressed like our mounting debt, unemployment, lack of a federal budget, and nightmares like obamacare coming up.
Way to not disappoint us by continuing to be a useless turd, McCain.

It is a bit late for that.  Govt interfered a long time ago.

[zxcvbob]

I have no use for ESPN, there's plenty of sports on ABC, CBS, NBC, and FOX.  But I bet it adds at least $5 to my cable bill every month.   Wife would like BBC America added to our cable plan, but it only come bundled with a bunch of other craptastic channels.

[lupinus]

Since when is cable tv of such vital importance to the survival of Americans that .gov needs to interfere?

But that's the thing, they already interfere and are invited to do so.

They get exclusive rights to certain areas and like it that way. They don't have to really compete for individual customers they have to compete for markets. Getting you to buy their service is more or less secondary once they have the market, they just have to manage to not piss off enough people to keep their rights to the area. If you live in that area your options are buy that companies service, and only that companies service, don't have access to the service, or move. That's not a free market solution right out of the gate. As such, I don't have an issue with a little basic consumer protection like "you can't randomly package together a bunch of channels and make people buy all of them to get one of them."

Now, would a better solution be a straight free market one? Of course it would, you could then shop around for price, service, and if you prefer bundles or a la cart you could select a provider that offers such. The problem with that is you are dealing with hard wired infrastructure and it's not terribly practical to have twenty different sets of lines running down the street. Nor is it terribly practical for each company to maintain a huge spread out network.

[Blakenzy]

What is this "cable" you speak of?

[Sergeant Bob]

I have no use for ESPN, there's plenty of sports on ABC, CBS, NBC, and FOX.  But I bet it adds at least $5 to my cable bill every month.  Wife would like BBC America added to our cable plan, but it only come bundled with a bunch of other craptastic channels.

BBC has been running a few pretty good series (not just Dr Who) which even my wife likes to watch. Copper, Shadow Line, Orphan Black.

[never_retreat]

I'll go along with this. If I'm forced into a provider I should be able to pick what I want.
The problem comes to the cable companies that can only get x channel from the owner while getting crap channels y and z.

[MechAg94]

I have no use for ESPN, there's plenty of sports on ABC, CBS, NBC, and FOX.  But I bet it adds at least $5 to my cable bill every month.   Wife would like BBC America added to our cable plan, but it only come bundled with a bunch of other craptastic channels.

I want ESPN.  I don't care for most of their stuff, but they show many of the college football games in the fall.  They showed the A&M spring game a couple weeks ago.  I would love to drop ABC, CBS, adn NBC if they did not also show football games.  I could care less about BBC. 

I like the idea of having more choice of the channels I want, but the whole system is set up to avoid that.  I think best thing you could hope for in the short term is "channel packages" of some sort.  I think competition down the road from the internet will be required before anything changes.

A-la-carte would mean the death of a whole bunch of completely useless channels that just take up space.  I bet if I really looked at how many channels I actually watched in the last 6 months, it would probably be no more than 20 or 30.  I don't need 300 channels.

[HankB]

I have no use for ESPN, there's plenty of sports on ABC, CBS, NBC, and FOX.  But I bet it adds at least $5 to my cable bill every month.  

Probably a lot more than that - Bolivian soccer matches are expensive.   

My "Basic" cable has about 50 or 60 channels, and I would cheerfully get rid of BET, Univision, Azteca America, QVC, HSN, E!, WEtv, Oxygen, Lifetime, Disney, MTV, VH1, Fox Sports SW, ESPN, Estrella TV, and several others for a discount.

Yet I can't get something like The Outdoor Channel without a) upgrading to digital cable with multiple boxes for multiple TVs; and b) Subscribing to a premium "sports package" which will get me all manner of cr@p I don't want. Would probably cost an extra $50 a month by the time all the "extras" were added up.

[brimic]

But that's the thing, they already interfere and are invited to do so.

They get exclusive rights to certain areas and like it that way. They don't have to really compete for individual customers they have to compete for markets. Getting you to buy their service is more or less secondary once they have the market, they just have to manage to not piss off enough people to keep their rights to the area. If you live in that area your options are buy that companies service, and only that companies service, don't have access to the service, or move. That's not a free market solution right out of the gate. As such, I don't have an issue with a little basic consumer protection like "you can't randomly package together a bunch of channels and make people buy all of them to get one of them."

Where I live, you can get Charter, AT&T, or one or more Dish services. There are also other ways such as Roku or netflix.
Even if .gov screwed the pooch in the beginning, the free market will eventually work things out.
Once again, I'll reiterate- if the people elected mcCain to do a job, he should find a much better things to do with his time than making sure Americans have plenty of entertainment choices- especially with the state in which our country is in right now.

[mtnbkr]

Where I live, you can get Charter, AT&T, or one or more Dish services. There are also other ways such as Roku or netflix.
Even if .gov screwed the pooch in the beginning, the free market will eventually work things out.

It hasn't yet, though the Internet-based options may eventually change that.  Change certainly didn't occur with the cable/satellite options, even if you had multiple choices (all were essentially the same and no ala carte options)

Chris

[BlueStarLizzard]

I would have been all for it, if it had happened twenty years ago, but now? Meh.

It won't be long before the only cable you need connected to your house is the one for high speed internet of some varaity, and you can almost get away with that now, depending on what content you want.

It's a shame because if it had been done this way early on, it would have likely cut down on a lot of BS and improved content of the channels that survived as they would need direct imput of subscribers to continue.

[MicroBalrog]

Even having a  cable into your house is not really so necessary. You can have 1 Gbit/s wireless Internet. The technology is there.

[brimic]

Even having a  cable into your house is not really so necessary. You can have 1 Gbit/s wireless Internet. The technology is there.

Our village offers a 'wireless internet utility' at about that speed for a reasonable price.

[lupinus]

Where I live, you can get Charter, AT&T, or one or more Dish services. There are also other ways such as Roku or netflix.
Even if .gov screwed the pooch in the beginning, the free market will eventually work things out.
Once again, I'll reiterate- if the people elected mcCain to do a job, he should find a much better things to do with his time than making sure Americans have plenty of entertainment choices- especially with the state in which our country is in right now.

And I can have electric utility or plaster some solar panels to my roof and stick a wind turbine in my front yard. Or I can decide I just want to rough it. Saying that you can instal a dish (sucks, and not viable in all areas) or do a work around with netflix or hulu is an comparing apples to oranges and say well, it's still fruit! The end result might be similar but we're talking different services.

As long as you've got a government enabled monopoly over an area, then I have no problem with some reasonable conditions. If one of those is not forcing people to buy any more service than they want via a la cart channel ordering then I am all for it.

Now if a town were to instal big enough lines to handle the bandwidth, and cable companies can operate on them for a fee and consumers can choose whichever of those providers they want? Now you've actually got a free market and the free market can sort it out.

[MicroBalrog]

Do you have a phone company and a cavle company?

Are those separate from each other?

Clearly they can compete with each other.