John McCain wants to blow up the cable industry as we currently know it

[QMany]

I'm going to sound like I'm arguing all sides of this.

 

My first thought on this is GREAT. I don't need to now pay for shopping channels that I have to flip through constantly to get to the ones I actually watch.

 

However, I also see this causing marital issues. My wife is an accountant and watches every single penny. So.....I will constantly hear how about the one or two channels that I'm the only one in the family that watches. AND, I might only watch them every once in a while. So, she is going to come back and act like it's just not worth $5 (or how ever much it's going to be) for said channels.

 

After saying all that....my very first reaction to this was wondering...."what the hell business is it of congress's to tell private industry what kind of service they must provide"? This service has nothing to do with public security, equal opportunity...etc.

 

Why is congress involved in this in the first place?

Goes back to Knapp's comments.

Each of these providers basically has a monopoly on municipalities.

Just like your energy companies are regulated (state), it may be necessary for Government intervention if cable providers are charging unfairly (FCC is already Federal).

[BigRedBuster]

I'm going to sound like I'm arguing all sides of this.

 

My first thought on this is GREAT. I don't need to now pay for shopping channels that I have to flip through constantly to get to the ones I actually watch.

 

However, I also see this causing marital issues. My wife is an accountant and watches every single penny. So.....I will constantly hear how about the one or two channels that I'm the only one in the family that watches. AND, I might only watch them every once in a while. So, she is going to come back and act like it's just not worth $5 (or how ever much it's going to be) for said channels.

 

After saying all that....my very first reaction to this was wondering...."what the hell business is it of congress's to tell private industry what kind of service they must provide"? This service has nothing to do with public security, equal opportunity...etc.

 

Why is congress involved in this in the first place?

Goes back to Knapp's comments.

Each of these providers basically has a monopoly on municipalities.

Just like your energy companies are regulated (state), it may be necessary for Government intervention if cable providers are charging unfairly (FCC is already Federal).

 

 

I agree there is very little competition but it's not a monopoly if the customer can tell the cable company to go to hell and buy satellite. I haven't subscribed to cable TV for well over 15 years.

[BigRedBuster]

I'm going to sound like I'm arguing all sides of this.

 

My first thought on this is GREAT. I don't need to now pay for shopping channels that I have to flip through constantly to get to the ones I actually watch.

 

However, I also see this causing marital issues. My wife is an accountant and watches every single penny. So.....I will constantly hear how about the one or two channels that I'm the only one in the family that watches. AND, I might only watch them every once in a while. So, she is going to come back and act like it's just not worth $5 (or how ever much it's going to be) for said channels.

 

After saying all that....my very first reaction to this was wondering...."what the hell business is it of congress's to tell private industry what kind of service they must provide"? This service has nothing to do with public security, equal opportunity...etc.

 

Why is congress involved in this in the first place?

Goes back to Knapp's comments.

Each of these providers basically has a monopoly on municipalities.

Just like your energy companies are regulated (state), it may be necessary for Government intervention if cable providers are charging unfairly (FCC is already Federal).

 

 

Also, power companies would fall into a category that is pretty much a necessity for anyone living in most of the US. So, I can understand some type of over sight that makes sure customers are served fairly. Cable TV is not a necessity.

[beanman]

great, so now when my wife says that we do not need the hallmark channel, what will my excuse be?

 

I knew it!!!

[QMany]

I'm going to sound like I'm arguing all sides of this.

 

My first thought on this is GREAT. I don't need to now pay for shopping channels that I have to flip through constantly to get to the ones I actually watch.

 

However, I also see this causing marital issues. My wife is an accountant and watches every single penny. So.....I will constantly hear how about the one or two channels that I'm the only one in the family that watches. AND, I might only watch them every once in a while. So, she is going to come back and act like it's just not worth $5 (or how ever much it's going to be) for said channels.

 

After saying all that....my very first reaction to this was wondering...."what the hell business is it of congress's to tell private industry what kind of service they must provide"? This service has nothing to do with public security, equal opportunity...etc.

 

Why is congress involved in this in the first place?

Goes back to Knapp's comments.

Each of these providers basically has a monopoly on municipalities.

Just like your energy companies are regulated (state), it may be necessary for Government intervention if cable providers are charging unfairly (FCC is already Federal).

Also, power companies would fall into a category that is pretty much a necessity for anyone living in most of the US. So, I can understand some type of over sight that makes sure customers are served fairly. Cable TV is not a necessity.

It doesn't just apply to necessities. States also regulate phone lines and rates, for example.

I think their rationale is the considerable barriers to entry in the field. Also, both power companies and cable providers can be granted government easements to install their products.

I'm not saying I agree with it, I'm just guessing that is the rationale.

[GSG]

 

On the front page of HB, it says: John McCain wants to blow u...

[Junior]

I keep reading John McClain. Every. Single. Time.

 

Yippee ki yay, cable companies.

 

[QMany]

The McCain family is putting off a Democrat vibe this week.

 

Meghan McCain ‏@MeghanMcCain7 May

Really republicans? We're gonna get behind Mark Sanford and claim gay couples will ruin marriage. This is why young people don't vote GOP!!!

[BigRedBuster]

The McCain family is putting off a Democrat vibe this week.

 

Meghan McCain ‏@MeghanMcCain7 May

Really republicans? We're gonna get behind Mark Sanford and claim gay couples will ruin marriage. This is why young people don't vote GOP!!!

 

And he's right.

[strigori]

Its a mixed bag to be sure. And what may look good at first is going to have more collateral damage than people think. Most networks will go dark almost instantly after this goes through. They simply would not have enough people buy them. And we eliminate competition. Many of the really good shows anymore are not on the networks, and the drop in people using them will make funding shows difficult at best.

 

And I really don't think people are going to be getting as good deals as they think. Every network would be forced into more of an HBO style payment setup. ESPN gets $5.05 per household and 100 million people have ESPN, and this doesn't count ESPN2 or ESPNU. Its safe to assume you will lose at least half, probably more, on the proposal, with the loss of revenue, and the decrease in what they can charge advertisers, you are looking at at least $12, probably $15 or more for just one channel. Remember they have to cover all the contracts they have, and rates will move up.

 

Lots of mentionings of streaming shows. Doing that for free will come to and end, at least legally, all those sites will be charging subscription fees, where now they might not if you are watching a day or two later.

 

I honestly think that in the long run it ends up worse for the consumer with less options to pick from, and ultimately costing more for the fewer options.

[JJ Husker]

Its a mixed bag to be sure. And what may look good at first is going to have more collateral damage than people think. Most networks will go dark almost instantly after this goes through. They simply would not have enough people buy them. And we eliminate competition. Many of the really good shows anymore are not on the networks, and the drop in people using them will make funding shows difficult at best.

 

And I really don't think people are going to be getting as good deals as they think. Every network would be forced into more of an HBO style payment setup. ESPN gets $5.05 per household and 100 million people have ESPN, and this doesn't count ESPN2 or ESPNU. Its safe to assume you will lose at least half, probably more, on the proposal, with the loss of revenue, and the decrease in what they can charge advertisers, you are looking at at least $12, probably $15 or more for just one channel. Remember they have to cover all the contracts they have, and rates will move up.

 

Lots of mentionings of streaming shows. Doing that for free will come to and end, at least legally, all those sites will be charging subscription fees, where now they might not if you are watching a day or two later.

 

I honestly think that in the long run it ends up worse for the consumer with less options to pick from, and ultimately costing more for the fewer options.

 

Not to be argumentative but I disagree with this assessment. All of the current networks are surviving off their piece of the cable pie now. There might be a few that go down, if we get to pick and choose, but I'm guessing it would be the same ones that are on cables chopping block now. I think some of the less popular networks might be forced to charge a little more to survive which in turn might drive them out but there can't be that much subsidizing from the better networks now. People like ESPN and AMC know what their product is worth in the marketplace.

 

I'd love to have the opportunity to trim my cable lineup down to only the 20 or 30 stations that we ever watch. Heck, I wouldn't care if it cost the same total amount. About 200+ of those channels are just wasted space (that I'm sure plenty of others would not live without).

[ZRod]

Why don't they consider reducing some of the taxes cable companies pass on to their customers. Have you guys ever looked at all the ridiculous fees that you pay for on your cable bill? About a third of your bill is probably just fees they passed on to you.

[strigori]

Better option yet is to break the monopolies for the municipalities. For instance, Verizon has had to sue its way into new markets every time they expand FiOS.

[deedsker]

Dropping channels like their hot, drop them like their hot.

 

Channels giving you attitude? Drop them like their hot. Drop them like their hot.

[irafreak]

I'm not a fan of the government interferring with business but at least it gives them something to do. If I could just order my 4 or 5 sports channels for football season I might actually get cable. This move doesn't surprise me as mccain is really a moderate. Typically it's not the conservative thing to do.