John McCain Wants Pay Channels Sold Individually, Not In Bundles

[sam_gordon]

Wow...One can watch the Olympics on Directv's multi screen service. They can watch highlights on line..One buy a Prius at any used car dealer that sells them.
HULU and Roku make watching tv outside the reaches of the pay providers.
Let one thing be perfectly clear. The government is ALREADY involved. The lobbyists hired by the pay TV lobby have cajoled, wined, dined and flooded political campaign coffers with cash to get votes on stuff the programmers and providers want.
There is no lobbying firm representing the consumers.
If the government was not involved there would be no need for legislation to offer the consumer a choice. He would already have that choice.
I submit that all those who support the status quo are either so fearful of change they would gladly see their rates continue to skyrocket or they are niche channel viewers who fear the loss of the seldom viewed service.
The bottom lie is the current system is merely a welfare system funded by the customers.
Why the hell should anyone subsidize another person's viewing preferences?

So please, do not be so naive as to claim the government is not involved.

Point taken.

Consumers are free to lobby on their own. Contact your lawmakers. Get your friends to do the same. Heck, start your own lobbying group.

As far as why anyone subsidizes another's viewing preferences? Answer that yourself. If you have cable or satellite, YOU are doing exactly that. Did anyone force you to sign up for service?

As for me, I get the service in order to watch the programming I want to watch. If it gets too expensive (and it does get closer and closer to that point), it's my choice to drop the service.

 

[dishcomm]

what your not reading other posters views or are you so young and have no knowledge of government ?

Please.
Save your indignation for someone who cares.
The OP is incorrect. He implies government in not involved with the current conditions. The fact is government is heavily involved.
Hence, the reason for the need for legislation to reverse what has been done...by government.

 

[dishcomm]

what your not reading other posters views or are you so young and have no knowledge of government ?

BTW, you did not bother to answer the question.
Or you simply evaded the question.

 

[dishcomm]

Point taken.

Consumers are free to lobby on their own. Contact your lawmakers. Get your friends to do the same. Heck, start your own lobbying group.

As far as why anyone subsidizes another's viewing preferences? Answer that yourself. If you have cable or satellite, YOU are doing exactly that. Did anyone force you to sign up for service?

As for me, I get the service in order to watch the programming I want to watch. If it gets too expensive (and it does get closer and closer to that point), it's my choice to drop the service.

Amusing.
Look, pay tv is what it is. Some 90% of us subscribe.
The fees and other costs have gone through the roof. The status quo is old and worn out. Drastic change is needed.
And it is that coming change which has people upset.
The fact is subscribers are missing the choice to pick whichever services they wish to buy with the exclusion of all others. That is not right and it needs to be corrected.
If that means certain niche channels will go away, so be it. Customers are in the tv viewing business. Not the tv production welfare business.

 

[madmadworld]

http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public...Store_id=d26f11d4-7030-44ff-b980-1c0c75e8f5d1

 

[riffjim4069]

Thanks! Although I am not a constituent, I sent Senator McClain a letter thanking him for drafting this proposed legislation along with my comments on how to improve it. I'm sure his office would love to hear your comments on the matter...both good and bad. http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.contactform

 

[harshness]

He implies government in not involved with the current conditions. The fact is government is heavily involved.
Hence, the reason for the need for legislation to reverse what has been done...by government.

Congress does what the lobbyists tell them is best. There little different from any other legislative body.

 

[sam_gordon]

Amusing.
Look, pay tv is what it is. Some 90% of us subscribe.
The fees and other costs have gone through the roof. The status quo is old and worn out. Drastic change is needed.
And it is that coming change which has people upset.
The fact is subscribers are missing the choice to pick whichever services they wish to buy with the exclusion of all others. That is not right and it needs to be corrected.
If that means certain niche channels will go away, so be it. Customers are in the tv viewing business. Not the tv production welfare business.

Just because you WANT something doesn't mean it's NEEDED. There's a big difference between the two. If you're unhappy with what you're paying or what you're getting, there's a easy solution... CANCEL. You aren't forced to "subsidize others", or give anyone your money. If enough customers get upset and leave, a company will change how it does business or close its doors.

Now, remember the phrase "be careful what you ask for"? Let's say for a moment, you get your wish and ala carte becomes a law. Should Congress also regulate how much can be charged for each channel? What happens when a single channel is $10/month? My family probably watches ~7-8 channels regularly. So my bill would be about the same AND I'd now "lose" the channels I occasionally watch.

I am not against ala carte. I just don't think cable/satcos should be forced to do it.

Here's something else to think about... right now, someone pays $100/month for x amount of channels. They may only watch 10 of those channels. "I'm paying for 90 channels I don't watch! I'm getting ripped off!" Instead of looking at it that way, why not "I'm paying for 10 channels. I'm getting 90 free!" If $100 is too much for those 10 channels, drop your service. Why do you keep acting like you are FORCED to participate in this "sham and racket" (I know, those weren't your words).

 

[dare2be]

Here's something else to think about... right now, someone pays $100/month for x amount of channels. They may only watch 10 of those channels. "I'm paying for 90 channels I don't watch! I'm getting ripped off!" Instead of looking at it that way, why not "I'm paying for 10 channels. I'm getting 90 free!" If $100 is too much for those 10 channels, drop your service. Why do you keep acting like you are FORCED to participate in this "sham and racket" (I know, those weren't your words).

I'm glad I don't have your "all or nothing" defeatist attitude.

 

[jayn_j]

Here's something else to think about... right now, someone pays $100/month for x amount of channels. They may only watch 10 of those channels. "I'm paying for 90 channels I don't watch! I'm getting ripped off!" Instead of looking at it that way, why not "I'm paying for 10 channels. I'm getting 90 free!" If $100 is too much for those 10 channels, drop your service. Why do you keep acting like you are FORCED to participate in this "sham and racket" (I know, those weren't your words).

I did, and cut the cable. I don't believe that the final answer can be true ala-carte for reasons already stated. However, most will tell you it is all about the sports and the associated costs. Sports tend to dominate our society and add a big chunk of $$ to each bill. I resent having to pay a big chunk of my cable bill each month so someone else can watch their favorite sports team. I never watch ESPN, yet it would cost me $10/mo of my cable bill for the ESPN affiliated networks and another $5 for the Fox sports set.

It applies in other areas as well. Detroit is broke, so there is a serious proposal out there to sell the art from their museum. However, nobody is talking about shedding one of the sports teams, even though stadium costs and maintenance are fully on the shoulders of the same residents. Sports is God with a capial G.

I'd like to see a tiered cable rate structure tied to interests. Probably a few blocks like sports, home improvement, science and reality programming. Not hung up on those catagories, except that sports needs to be by itself.

 

[riffjim4069]

You're not getting it. What if auto manufacturers decided to sell their vehicles in bundles? Instead of buying that new F-150 you may need for work, Ford tells you they only sell their vehicles in bundles and the F-150 comes bundled with a Ford Mustang and Ford Focus. While having multiple vehicles is not a bad option for your family, it's difficult paying to put gas in the F-150 and the Mustang is not nearly as fuel efficient as you would like - so it would sit in the garage gathering dust and being unused the majority of the time. Moreover, while the Focus may be more energy efficient, you find it's too small for your family's needs and it too would sit in the driveway gathering dust and bird poop. The auto dealers (Chevy, Honda, etc.) sell similar bundles in which you're having to buy vehicles you will not use in order to get the one vehicle you actually want and need. So you're paying more than 80K for three vehicles when all you really wanted was just the F-150. Of course, as you pointed-out, you have a choice to not purchase (i.e., subscribe) any of these vehicle bundles...however, you really do need a work vehicle to provide for your family. So you fork over big bucks because it's the lesser evil of the all-or-nothing, take-it-or-leave-it option being forced down your throat. Is this really your definition of choice?

Likewise, your windowed grandmother wants a Ford Focus to run her errands and drive to bingo night, but she is forced to buy an F-150 and Mustang if she wants that Focus. Why the heck should she pay for two other vehicles when she only wants, and needs, a single vehicle? This practice is unAmerican, anti-consumer, and is the byproduct of a Cable Oligopoly gone wrong. Do you work in the Cable or Programming Industry? I ask this question because you're shoveling the same shite, and selling the same tired double-talk and rhetoric we've been hearing for years and years from Cable. We (the public) are sick of it!

A more accurate statement involving choice is, "I'm not against Bundling (in fact, it's a good choice for many), but consumers should not be forced into paying for programming they don't want in any form or fashion. How 'bout I pay for the 10% of channels I watch and let the 90% of crap I don't watch (quite a bit of it may be objectionable to the subscriber) find their own subscribers or, better yet, go out-of-business and stop wasting valuable bandwidth. Isn't this how capitalism is suppose to work? We need to change the current subsidized/socialistic oligopoly and get rid of a lot of unneeded/unwanted infomercial laden garbage rerun channels.

You call bundling choice...the rest of us call it having it having choice rolled-up and shoved up our arses. Many of us are now choosing not to be raped by the Cable Companies in order to watch the 10 or 15 channels we actually watch. Again, people can continue to subscribe to bundled offerings, but there should also be common sense programming packs and a la carte options available to consumers.

Just because you WANT something doesn't mean it's NEEDED. There's a big difference between the two. If you're unhappy with what you're paying or what you're getting, there's a easy solution... CANCEL. You aren't forced to "subsidize others", or give anyone your money. If enough customers get upset and leave, a company will change how it does business or close its doors.

Now, remember the phrase "be careful what you ask for"? Let's say for a moment, you get your wish and ala carte becomes a law. Should Congress also regulate how much can be charged for each channel? What happens when a single channel is $10/month? My family probably watches ~7-8 channels regularly. So my bill would be about the same AND I'd now "lose" the channels I occasionally watch.

I am not against ala carte. I just don't think cable/satcos should be forced to do it.

Here's something else to think about... right now, someone pays $100/month for x amount of channels. They may only watch 10 of those channels. "I'm paying for 90 channels I don't watch! I'm getting ripped off!" Instead of looking at it that way, why not "I'm paying for 10 channels. I'm getting 90 free!" If $100 is too much for those 10 channels, drop your service. Why do you keep acting like you are FORCED to participate in this "sham and racket" (I know, those weren't your words).

 

[sam_gordon]

I did, and cut the cable. I don't believe that the final answer can be true ala-carte for reasons already stated. However, most will tell you it is all about the sports and the associated costs. Sports tend to dominate our society and add a big chunk of $$ to each bill. I resent having to pay a big chunk of my cable bill each month so someone else can watch their favorite sports team. I never watch ESPN, yet it would cost me $10/mo of my cable bill for the ESPN affiliated networks and another $5 for the Fox sports set.

It applies in other areas as well. Detroit is broke, so there is a serious proposal out there to sell the art from their museum. However, nobody is talking about shedding one of the sports teams, even though stadium costs and maintenance are fully on the shoulders of the same residents. Sports is God with a capial G.

I'd like to see a tiered cable rate structure tied to interests. Probably a few blocks like sports, home improvement, science and reality programming. Not hung up on those catagories, except that sports needs to be by itself.

Agreed. 100%

You're not getting it.

You call bundling choice...the rest of us call it having it having choice rolled-up and shoved up our arses. Many of us are now choosing not to be raped by the Cable Companies in order to watch the 10 or 15 channels we actually watch. Again, people can continue to subscribe to bundled offerings, but there should also be common sense programming packs and a la carte options available to consumers.

No, I AM getting it. If Ford (your example) bundled three cars together, don't you have the choice not to buy the bundle? Who is FORCING you to buy the bundle (getting it shoved up your arse)? Why is this so difficult to understand? If you don't like the options presented, DON'T UTILIZE THEM. Vote with your wallet.

And to the previous poster who said I have a "defeatest" attitude, I call it realistic. I *WANT* ala carte, but only if it saves me money or improves my picture. I simply don't think whining to the government (or on an internet message board) is the appropriate way to get it.

In my ideal world, each channel (of however many) would be available to the subscriber. The subscriber goes online and clicks check boxes... ESPN yes (for me), ESPN2 yes, Nick (for the kids) yes, Disney yes, History yes, etc, etc. Next to each box shows how much each channel will cost me for the month. Simple.

My second choice would be "channel bundles" based on content. Let's say the ESPN family is one. Disney, Nick, Cartoon Network, etc is another. Discovery, History, H2, Military is a third.

If a provider would offer one of the above, I'd be taking a hard look at them. However, until they do, I'm stuck with the status quo (and the associated cost). When that cost gets too high, I cancel. Which is what many people are doing now. When a provider feels too many have canceled, they try to get them back. That would either be lowered pricing, or more features. The features may or may not include some version of ala carte.

 

[dare2be]

No, I AM getting it. If Ford (your example) bundled three cars together, don't you have the choice not to buy the bundle? Who is FORCING you to buy the bundle (getting it shoved up your arse)? Why is this so difficult to understand? If you don't like the options presented, DON'T UTILIZE THEM. Vote with your wallet.

I never thought the car buying examples are good ones, but to follow along...right, don't buy the Ford 3-car bundle, don't buy the Kia 2-car bundle, don't buy the Lexus 4-car bundle. Vote with your wallet. Buy a bicycle instead. Those are the "choices" we are faced with now. And don't get it wrong, the MVPDs are just as hog-tied as the consumer...they couldn't offer ala carte even if they wanted to due to the oligopolic collusion of the content owners. Collusion is not a free market and is un-American.

 

[sam_gordon]

I never thought the car buying examples are good ones, but to follow along...right, don't buy the Ford 3-car bundle, don't buy the Kia 2-car bundle, don't buy the Lexus 4-car bundle. Vote with your wallet. Buy a bicycle instead. Those are the "choices" we are faced with now. And don't get it wrong, the MVPDs are just as hog-tied as the consumer...they couldn't offer ala carte even if they wanted to due to the oligopolic collusion of the content owners. Collusion is not a free market and is un-American.

I thought collusion was illegal in fact. If you've got some kind of proof of illegalities, file it with your state's attorney general.

Let's make this simple... Disney owns some networks (ESPN, ABC, etc). They should be able to sell those however they feel like it. If they want to bundle them, fine. If they want to sell them piecemeal, fine. Just because you or I don't like it (and I don't), doesn't mean we get to dictate how they operate their business. If they want to charge $100/month/channel, they should be able to. No different than you going to your boss and saying "I want $100/hour". Or do you want the government to go to Disney and say "You must sell your programming a channel at a time and you can only ask $x for each subscriber." That's a slippery slope *I* don't want to go down.

 

[riffjim4069]

If a programmer wishes to bundle their entire lineup then why should the government interfere? Likewise, how the MVPDs package and sell these services should also be none of government's businesses? This sounds like pure capitalism in action, right? Well, it would be if it weren't for two items:

1. The programmers (ESPN/Disney, Lifetime, AMC, etc.) have largely managed to force the all-or-nothing mentality upon the MVPDs, in which the costs were passed along to the consumer en masse as being 'In Our Best Interest'. Please, let me decide what is in my best interest. Some MVPDs have complained about programming costs, but, in the end, nothing has been done to break-up the oligopoly; it's a very successful collusion that has been permitted to operate for decades.

2. Programmers and MVPDs use public rights of way and lease spectrum that is regulated by the FCC. These includes Cable, Broadcaster, Satcasters and Telcos. While the Lifetime Network should be permitted to force bundle Lifetime, Lifetime Movie Networks and Real Woman on the infrastructures they own, their activities can be and should be regulated when using public infrastructures. This is the reason McCain's Senate Bill makes so much sense and why it is being embraced by consumers.

Personally, I hope McCain is successful at getting this legislation to pass and the entire Pay TV industry is knocked arse over tea kettle. A radical change in how we subscribe to our entertainment providers.

 

[jayn_j]

Ah, but there is a difference.
Municipalities have granted a monopoly to cable operators to provide services, although this is lately becoming diluted by uverse, fios and the satellite companies entering.

However, program providers are still restricting competition and available packaging by requiring channels to be not only bundled, but also placed in certain basic packages. A cable or satellite company finds itself faced with the situation where ABC insists that to get ESPN, they must also carry ABC Family and Soapnet at the basic cable level. Since each carrier feels that they must have ESPN available, they must cave and accept the package. The high infrastructure cost used to prevent new entry into the market, but now entry is being prevented by the collusion you describe in that internet-only packages are being forbidden by the major carriers.

The situation is now reversing. HBO attempted last month to offer internet-only access, only to be told by TWC and Comcast that they would not allow it. Situation is made worse where the cable companies own major program blocks as well.

This is a case where the government has allowed a predatory monopoly to be established and can only be solved through regulation. Think of this much the same way as the relationships between US Steel, Standard Oil and the railrods that led to Sherman anti-trust in the first place.

 

[dare2be]

Or do you want the government to go to Disney and say "You must sell your programming a channel at a time and you can only ask $x for each subscriber." That's a slippery slope *I* don't want to go down.

Why do you keep bringing up government price controls? No one is saying that, only you. It's a strawman argument.

 

[sam_gordon]

Why do you keep bringing up government price controls? No one is saying that, only you. It's a strawman argument.

So you don't care what MVPD's charge per channel, as long as it's ala carte? If your programmer came out tomorrow and said "We're going ala carte! Only $20/month/channel!", that's fine? What if they want $50/channel?

 

[riffjim4069]

Why do you keep bringing up government price controls? No one is saying that, only you. It's a strawman argument.

Agreed. I want to see the consumer set the fair market price they are willing to pay for a channel (i.e., law of supply and demand) and every customer pay the same amount regardless if they're being serviced by Comcast, DirecTV, Verizon, etc. If people are willing to pay $10 for ESPN then so be it. However, I'm sure this is going to be a topic of discussion at the dinner table when families are only paying AMC $.60 and A&E $.40 (just a hypothetical).

 

[riffjim4069]

So you don't care what MVPD's charge per channel, as long as it's ala carte? If your programmer came out tomorrow and said "We're going ala carte! Only $20/month/channel!", that's fine? What if they want $50/channel?

Law of supply and demand. If it's worth the price then people will pay with their discretionary income to subscribe to this channel. If not, they will drop it a hot potato and find something else to watch. Even better...make all channels that accept advertising dollars free-of-charge to all licensed MVPDs. Good programming will draw millions of viewers and the programmers can charge lot of money for ad time. I like this model.