Posted on 05/10/2013 10:23:58 AM PDT by BO Stinkss
John McCain, the media’s favorite “maverick” – unless he’s actively running for something – has just introduced a bill in congress called the Television Consumer Freedom Act of 2013. Normally, my iron clad rule of thumb is to take any side this guy is against but I have to admit he may have a point here. The bill would allow consumers to buy only the cable channels they want “a la carte” and not have 500 others jammed down their throats. Does anyone recall the original promise of cable TV? More than 30 years ago we asked, “why should we pay 20 dollars a month for TV when it doesn’t cost anything now?” The official answer was, “because programming will be commercial free!” Not only that, we were going to get much more than the dozen or so channels we were used to. That was then. My, how times have changed. They were certainly right about the channels. We got hundreds. And then, hundreds more. And every damn one of them has commercials up the wazoo except the classic movie channel. (Their policy is to remain commercial free but to destroy your will to live with commentary by Drew Barrymore and Cher.) The cost of cable, which is easily over 200 dollars a month, doesn’t even include any of the other movie channels which are all “extra”. Why in God’s name am I paying for hundreds of channels of programming I have absolutely no need for?
I’m not the parent of small kids anymore so I don’t need Nickelodeon or any of the kids networks.
I’m an English speaking American so I don’t want 10 Spanish language stations.
I’m not a liberal so I have no use for CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS, CNN, MSNBC, HBO, or “Comedy” Central.
I’m not gay, (or even sure about all those letters in that LGBTQ thing), so I don’t need Bravo, Logo, or HDTV.
I have no interest in professional sports so I don’t want ESPN, or any of the other 20 sports networks.
I don’t choose my entertainment based on the color of people’s skin so I have no use for BET.
I’m old enough to remember the original Global Cooling Hoax so I don’t want the Current network.
I love my country so I don’t need Robert Redford’s channel.
I’m not an imbecile so I have no use for MTV or E!
I’m not a 10th Century Savage bent on beheading people because I just saw a woman without a dishrag on her head so I don’t want Algore-Jazeera.
In fact, ironically, more than 30 years after first getting cable I think I can now narrow my viewing preferences down to a dozen or so channels. Look, I don’t want to dictate to anyone else what they can and should be watching. If you want to start a new LGBTQ network, go right ahead. More power to ya. And if you want to choose between 20 LGBTQ networks on your cable system you have my blessing. I just don’t want to pay for it anymore.
That’s what we have here with Cox Cable.......
FOX News
TCM
The Blaze
History
Military Channel
If I have these then I’m all set :-)
I download all else from usenet and YouTube
Would love this myself...but guarantee you if you only had 5 channels they’d figure out how to charge as much as they do now for 500 channels.
3. It would be the end of the sports industry as we know it. Payments to ESPN and other sports-related channels are a kind of tax on cable and dish viewers for the benefit of the sports industry. That’s how those fifty-million-dollar salaries and billion-dollar broadcast deals are funded.
For that reason alone, this will not happen.
Come on now?!?! Bundled television is the socialist way. Think about it: The profitable and desirable channels / shows get to subsidize the crap that caters to niche audiences, in the interest of diversity and social justice. You’ll buy your cable package, and you’ll like it! It’s the patriotic thing to do: millions of under-served pseudo Americans rely upon it: Bravo network for gays, BET for Amish, Univision for the entire SW U.S., etc...
Exactly, and then the screams of racism will get the whole idea shot down.
No, the original promise of cable TV was that you would be able to get a good signal to all areas, without messing around with your rabbit ears or hoping the wind was blowing in the right direction.
Ala Carteq is here. Netflix, Hulu, and Apple TV unit. Buy the programs you want, episodes or series, WAY cheaper and no ads! Never saw anything on FoxNews that I did not know about already.
You're getting robbed. Turn off some extras and negotiate with the cable company.
Or, get rid of it altogether.
The price of the popular channels would go way up and then people would find another way to get the content then the government would find a way to tax/control that.
You don't have to tune in the channels you don't want.
Dish network in SoCal did have multiple personal directory setup, and the wife had hers, I had mine. Loved it.
Add to that an increased monthly charge from the cable company and Govt. taxes.
Ah, here we go, from 2011:
“Viacom’s Chief Executive Philippe Dauman noted that ESPN alone “is double the cost of all our networks combined.””
“Cable executives worry that these high fees [to ESPN et al] will lead to de-bundling, as younger people want cheaper à la carte packages. ESPN is the obvious target for cable execs, given it charges the highest per-household subscription fee of any cable channel.”
“SNL Kagan [an industry research firm] estimates its monthly per-subscriber fees for the flagship channel [ESPN] have risen 42% to $4.69 since 2006, compared to the average cable channel fee, which rose 24% over that same period to 26 cents a month, report Schechner and Peers.”
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2011/12/why-is-your-cable-bill-so-high/45791/
More recently (Feb 2013):
“Some consumers now see separate $2-$3 charges, specifically tied to sports, on their monthly TV bills. At least three pay-TV service providers — DirecTV, Cablevision and Verizon — have done that so far. DirecTV, the first to do so, says in a statement that its $3 monthly fee in select areas is meant to help offset the “skyrocketing costs of sports.””
“Disney’s ESPN, according to the Charlottesville, Va.-based research firm SNL Kagan, charges cable operators by far the industry’s highest fees — $5.13 per month. Virtually all other channels charge less than $1 monthly, such as CNN (57 cents) and MTV (39 cents). And ESPN insists operators carry the channel on basic cable — so they can’t recoup their costs by putting it on a pay tier.”
Back in the day, we had the 10’ C-band dish. We had the option of bundling or a la carte. I paid like $5 for a years worth of Cartoon Network.
We only watched about 12 channels and paid $80 a year.
Not only do I not want to tune into them(which I don't), I don't want to have to pay for them either.
Plus the providers are in a bind too. Companies like Viacom and turner say, “you want MTV, TBS, TNT? You gotta take this too” and buy crap like Current, ect. And when those companies raise license fees, your cable bill goes up. Shows like Game of Thrones and Walking Dead are expensive to produce. And advertising only covers so much of the cost.
I dropped Netflix when they pulled their sponsorship from Rush. Screw ‘em.
Do you really believe that the cable company will charge you less each month for using their facilities if you don’t want QVC or MTV? The Company will just say all crap channels are free and you pay extra for the popular ones. Crap channels pay the cable company.
MY hope is that when my current contract with DirecTV expires next year, the ability to order ala carte programming off the web and use streaming or download-and-watch delivery has matured to the point where I can cut off cable/satellite altogether.
Honestly, it’s already almost to the point where I can just buy the shows I’m interested in off of iTunes or the like, and then I also own a copy of that show for good (as much as DRM-protected media allows for), not just for the single airing. If I can get live events and supplement with a regular OTA antenna, I should be just fine.
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.