Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I live in the UK and I hope we can pass this kind of legislation at some stage. I have cable and over 200 channels and watch perhaps 10/15 at most. It is not only frustrating but time wasting as you have to wade through some much garbage. Even narrowing down our list of favourites I think you still have the subconscious feel you might be missing something when you somehow never do....
A la carte sounds brilliant. No more sports, no more religious, shopping, reality tv, innane garbage to zap through. Only paying for the channels we use. I would never even have to know that such things exist. Sounds perfect.
There is a certain monopolistic power that the producers have here. Disney says you want ESPN? Well you have to take x,y, and z.
So a legislation would be interesting and from my perspective. . .leveling. It would reduce cost, though you will see niche channels die off (not enough people pick up them ala cart). I would save money by ditching ESPN. . . one of the biggest expenses on your bill
Though I'm not sure if it will pass. If you have to de-bundle and pay alacart than the Disney of the world would have more incentive to go direct to consumers. In the current model consumers get screwed, Disney and Comcast win, via bundle.
Both comcast would lose (because alacart would mean direct to consumer) and Disney would lose (not getting you forced to take whatever channel).
When only the consumer wins, I have no faith in govt.
BUT
lets get this straight. The internet + ala cart may end up with more diversity not less. Networks going straight to consumers for shows instead of through cable companies could open up lots of niche shows ala Netflix (Arrested Development starts soon!)
Agreed, and that is what the McCain bill is about is to protect the big cable providers. If the gvt gets out of the way customers choosing their own line up of channels would soon be a reality. Like Time Warner if they did not offer customers choosing channels they would become a dinosaur.
Agreed, and that is what the McCain bill is about is to protect the big cable providers. If the gvt gets out of the way customers choosing their own line up of channels would soon be a reality. Like Time Warner if they did not offer customers choosing channels they would become a dinosaur.
I disagree . . .
I see this as a mixed bill. Perhaps the big cable would like more power to break up the channels. . .but I see it as a double edge sword.
if its ala-cart, the networks would have more incentive to just offer ESPN and other channels direct. over broadband. . .
Quote:
The National Association of Broadcasters and the National Cable and Telecommunications Association declined to comment, but the groups are expected to oppose the legislation. Both industries have argued that the government should not micromanage how they offer their products to customers and that bundling can promote diverse offerings.
I remember the time when there were only 4 channels available. The programming wasn't that great. In fact I think some (by no means all) TV today is outstanding. Much better than it ever was with limited channels. It could be the result of wanting to attract viewers and cache in the industry.
I think the ratio between good and bad shows from then and now are about even.
Of all the issues we face, it seems a tad silly to spend time and money forcing Cable to unbundle the bundle. Then again, this is the sort of thing that resonates with Americans.
Because if only those channels that people watch are funded, then we'll be down to pretty much Fox, MSNBC, maybe CNN, etc..
You end up with a handful of major stations when the other ones cant meet their budgets.
That is certainly your opinion, which you are entitled to have.
Why are you so against the free market? It works for hundreds of thousands of products. It has been working on the 3 main channels for years. If a show doesn't get the viewership, it is cancelled. if it gets viewership, it stays on the air. Simple concept.
I disagree totally with, " then we'll be down to pretty much Fox, MSNBC, maybe CNN, etc.."
Americans have become to used to a wide variety of different channels and shows. Their demand will keep the ones that get the most viewership and make money for the sponsors.
Who decides how much each channel costs? The most popular channels will of course cost more so folks may end up paying more than they are now. That is probably how it will shake out as whenever the government gets involved they screw things up worse. Then they will blame each other for it and campaign claiming they are the only ones who can fix it even though they screwed it up in the first place. lol
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
