Posted on 02/09/2006 3:49:28 PM PST by workerbee
WASHINGTON — American consumers could see their cable or satellite television bill fall by as much as 13 percent if they could pay for only the channels they want, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission said Thursday, contradicting its earlier study.
FCC Chairman Kevin Martin, consumer groups and some lawmakers have pushed channel choice, often referred to as "a la carte service" instead of bundles, as a way for consumers to block programming they do not want their children to see.
Martin has said there were many flaws in the FCC's 2004 study that found a la carte would cost consumers more.
"A more balanced analysis suggests that a la carte could produce many consumer benefits that the first report fails to consider," the new FCC report said. "A la carte may reduce consumers' prices, thereby potentially increasing demand" for subscription television service.
The cable industry has long opposed a la carte service arguing it would cost consumers more, squeeze out niche channels that attract casual viewers and upset advertising revenue for operators.
The new report found in some scenarios for a la carte that monthly prices could fall 3 percent to 13 percent, instead of rising 14 percent to 30 percent as earlier forecast.
The new study also found that customers could receive up to 20 channels, including six broadcast channels, without seeing their bill increase. The 2004 study said costs would not go up if a customer picked only nine cable channels, but did not fully account for broadcast channels.
The average household watches about 17 channels, according to the FCC. Cable rates have consistently outpaced inflation, rising 5.4 percent in 2003, the latest FCC data available.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
posted already
And, ironically enough, FoxNews is one of the reasons why. Every channel on your cable or satellite is "cross sold" with others - - if a provider buys FoxNews, they get Fox Movies for free, for example.
Plus, the idea of any cable company EVER dropping their rates is just plain funny.
Cable/Satellite, is an oligopoly. There is no real competition because both groups offer the same thing, magically, at the same price, and they both make gazillions. And they use a little bit of that to pay off the politicians to keep the system the way it is.
That's very cynical -- though in large part, accurate.
I think it will change eventually. Alot of people are just plain getting sick of the crap.
Fat chance.
If cable companies ever offer this, they will actually charge EXTRA for it.
If they did this, my bill would be even lower. I watch about 15 channels out of the 250 or so provided.
You'd think so, which makes me wonder why they just don't do it now?
Wrong! I have Comcast Cable TV. I have Fox News. Fox Movies is 'not authorized'.
This doesn't mean that I'm in favor of government control over broadcast rights (beyond what we already have). However, I have a whole bunch of channels the wife and I never watch and for the 65$ we pay every month we could do a lot better for our money.
Your final paragraph is right on. your example of Fox News misses the mark.
Why is any of this the business of the federal government?
My thoughts exactly. Want the budget deficit to fall to nothing in no time? Get the feds out of things they had no business being in in the first place.
You are making the mistaken assumption that your cable/satellite provider will actually charge you *LESS* for those fifteen channels than the whole two hundred fifty. Many of those 'other' channels are *package* deals for the provider, and some of them pay the provider to have their programs included in your particular channel lineup. Forcing your provider to exclude such programming actually frees up bandwidth on their end -but you are sadly mistaken if you think for a moment that your total fee will be reduced.
If it wasn't for Fox and an occasional show on History (plus CSPAN), I'd ship the whole shebang back to the office and keep my money.
As it is, I'm just praying for a good reason ...
Because you would do something other than pay the $65 per month, the cable companies will never let you. They'll keep saying "but we have 3.5 million channels!" And you'll say "but I only watch 3." And they say "we don't care - pay us $65."
So far, that has worked for them. This FCC initiative talks about doing something different - - but it doesn't DO anything different. Nothing will come of this. They own the FCC (along with the other big companies).
They may offer the same thing at the same price but they don't offer it in the same locations. I live in a rural area outside a major metropolitian area. Cable is not available here, my only choice is satellite 1 or satellite 2.
They may offer the same thing at the same price but they don't offer it in the same locations. I live in a rural area outside a major metropolitian area. Cable is not available here, my only choice is satellite 1 or satellite 2.
You know what else we'd get? Programming more of us want to see. Because viewers would be voting with their wallets, and the networks couldn't hide behind their screwy Nielsen ratings system to keep foisting dreck on us.
Should the FCC have any say at all in the way a TV service provider packages its product? Absolutely not!
"Government is the problem!" - Ronald Reagan
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.