Skip to comments.
John McCain Introduces Cable A La Carte Legislation To Stop Bundling
Deadline ^
| 5/9/13
| DOMINIC PATTEN
Posted on 05/09/2013 12:34:44 PM PDT by Teflonic
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140, 141-152 next last
To: ConservativeMan55
As to your assertion that wed still be living with an ATT monopoly? I dont think so. If something else comes along thats cheaper and a better
Well, no $hit Sherlock, that's my point. What private company came along to compete with and break up AT&T? No one. Free market my butt.
121
posted on
05/09/2013 4:19:03 PM PDT
by
oh8eleven
(RVN '67-'68)
To: oh8eleven
Well if no one else came along then people must have been happy.
Otherwise something WOULD have come along.
The reason Foxnews is still in business is because people want to watch it.
The reason Glenn Beck is making millions each year.. and his network is about to start competing with CNN and Foxnews.. because people wanted something else.
To: discostu
Theyre not going to stop selling that way. And thats why cable companies sell to you that way.
Cable companies can refuse to buy that way, they just chose the easy way out and don't.
If they explained to the subscriber why they won't be adding another 25 unwanted channels and raising rates, I think the vast majority would support them.
123
posted on
05/09/2013 4:23:49 PM PDT
by
oh8eleven
(RVN '67-'68)
To: ConservativeMan55
Well if no one else came along then people must have been happy.
They had NO choice - it was be happy or "no phone for you."
I guarantee, if a second cable provider moved into my area offering just a 10% discount, 50% would switch. If they offered a la carte service, 90% would switch.
124
posted on
05/09/2013 4:28:11 PM PDT
by
oh8eleven
(RVN '67-'68)
To: oh8eleven
Yes they DID have a choice!
No phone! lol!
If people were so unhappy about the prices that they
started dropping their phones then I bet ATT would
have changed pretty quick. Don’t you think??
To: ConservativeMan55
If people were so unhappy about the prices ...
How/why would they be unhappy - nothing to compare pricing with.
126
posted on
05/09/2013 4:33:52 PM PDT
by
oh8eleven
(RVN '67-'68)
To: oh8eleven
You don’t have to have anything to compare it to, to be upset about prices.
That particular price may not fit in your particular budget.
No one is forcing you to buy their service.
To: oh8eleven
So it’s lack of competition. Surely the govt isn’t the solution in that regard.
128
posted on
05/09/2013 4:35:19 PM PDT
by
Gene Eric
(The Palin Doctrine.)
To: ConservativeMan55
No one is forcing you to buy their service.
Yeah, but who could be without a phone? You may not remember, or may even be too young to have known about, party lines.
You shared a phone line with a total stranger and you paid a lower monthly price.
129
posted on
05/09/2013 4:38:15 PM PDT
by
oh8eleven
(RVN '67-'68)
To: Teflonic
If our government really wanted to serve the people's interest there would not be any taxes on interfamily communication such as phone services.
I don't see any Republicans proposing something as simple as that, instead they want to play games with regulations on nonessential luxuries like the boob tube.
130
posted on
05/09/2013 4:39:03 PM PDT
by
piasa
(Attitude adjustments offered here free of charge)
To: oh8eleven
I know quite a few people today who live without phone, cable TV.. and gasp! Internet! why? Because they can’t afford it.
But nobody is coming to their door saying... you HAVE to fit this into your budget.
It’s an option. And since it’s an option that gives ALL the power to the customer.
To: Gene Eric
So its lack of competition. Surely the govt isnt the solution in that regard.
Why not? Why can't the gov't void the agreements the cable companies have signed to not sell their product in each other's areas?
BTW ... beer companies used to have the same agreements many moons ago.
132
posted on
05/09/2013 4:42:01 PM PDT
by
oh8eleven
(RVN '67-'68)
To: ConservativeMan55
that gives ALL the power to the customer.
Yeah, power to pull the plug and watch local stations. Some "power."
And do you think the cable company gives a $hit if you bail on them? They just raise the rates on the remaining customers.
This is the exact same scenario Kodak went through with their film sales beginning in the 1980s. As they lost market share to Fuji Film, their only response ever was to just raise their prices.
133
posted on
05/09/2013 4:49:17 PM PDT
by
oh8eleven
(RVN '67-'68)
To: oh8eleven
You or I have no more right to tell the Cable Companies what to charge.. than I do to come into your house and tell you what to eat for dinner each night.
It’s NONE of our business what a PRIVATE company does.
You know why, because their service is an OPTION.
To: ConservativeMan55
135
posted on
05/09/2013 4:51:47 PM PDT
by
oh8eleven
(RVN '67-'68)
To: oh8eleven
To: oh8eleven
I’d rather have the govt fees and taxes removed from my bills.
Collusion to undermine market competition prolly involved support in the Senate, but I don’t have any evidence of that at my immediate disposal. But my point is the govt likely facilitated the thing you want it to fix.
Netflix is turning to original content. There’s an alternative.
I agree with your preference for competitive choice, but I don’t agree with the regulations mentioned in the article.
137
posted on
05/09/2013 4:55:35 PM PDT
by
Gene Eric
(The Palin Doctrine.)
Comment #138 Removed by Moderator
To: Mister Tea
You might want to ask Glenn Beck about that.
Because that’s exactly what he did. Don’t like something.. build your own network.
Comment #140 Removed by Moderator
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140, 141-152 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson