John McCain Wants Pay Channels Sold Individually, Not In Bundles

[Teehar]

Because there's competition with the other broadcaster(s) who own 15 channels? How many competitors do you need until there's competition? Even if only two broadcasters owned every channel, wouldn't there still be competition between them?

THAT I will grant you. But it is far from the only oligopoly industry.

So you are down with oligopoly's?

You never did answer the question of whether you had been in business for yourself or not.

I have here is an example of how my business would have failed miserably.Christmas trees is the business.Now lets say customers come to my business to purchase a Christmas tree.I have many to choose from,different shapes,sizes,and prices.However there is a catch.In order to by my Christmas tree,you must also take it with the decorations at a higher price.Of course my business would fail in no time flat,most customers would move on to the next tree lot.But,lets say me and maybe 3 or 4 others owned all the tree lots,furthermore we all agreed to go with the decorations included for a higher price.Customers would have no choice.Either buy the trees decorations included,or go without a tree.I can tell you that a lot of people would take the deal,they wouldn't want their children to wake up on Christmas morning with no tree.


It's like that now in the pay tv industry.There are maybe 10,and that's probably being liberal,companies that own all the top rated networks available.They know that people aren't going to go without tv,it's that simple.Take for an example ABC,say they get x amount of dollars from all the providers to carry ABC/ESPN/Disney suite of channels,as soon as NBC,FOX,and CBS,finds out how much ABC struck a deal for they will be asking for the same amount.It doesn't matter how good their content is.They can do it because they know if the providers don't pay,they can pull the channels,thus causing a huge uproar from angry customers over missing channels.To me that doesn't define competition,I can sum it up in one word...

Greed

 

[dishcomm]

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).

The reverse psychology you conjured up to make yourself feel better is a load of nonsense.
Try that logic with other consumer driven business.
How about we do the same thing for gasoline. How about this....People with small cars pay more per gallon because they buy less gas? Think it through. You claim that those who desire to choose which channels they wish to buy will pay more per channel.
The current system is no longer working for the consumer.
If you want ot watch your pay TV bill fly past $200 per month while paying for channels you never watch, be my guest. But don't you dare assume others get no choice in the matter.
Change is coming.
Oh, a piece of advice. Don't make this personal.

 

[riffjim4069]

The failing in this theory is that the consumers don't get a direct say in the matter. If they want a channel, they have to subscribe to whatever bundle includes it. An individual isn't going to be able to convince Cox or DISH that they should be able to get a channel a la carte if the carrier is contractually prohibited from offering it that way.

That's why the landscape has to change and why so many individuals favor McCain's legislation. Customers should purchase channels and not the MVPDs, and all pay the same rate no matter if they're with Comcast, DirecTV, Verizon, etc. Customers establish how much they are willing to pay for a channel based on programming content and quality. Legislation should require that all channels be sold individuals (i.e., a la carte) although they can still offer bundles, if they wish, again directly to consumers and not the MVPDs.

Additionally, I would love to see legislation require all channels that accept advertising dollars (e.g., commercials and infomercials) make their programming available free-of-charge to all licensed MVPDs and their customers. This includes both cable and broadcast television. Only non-commercials programmers can charge a subscription fee. These pro-consumer measures would ensure fair-market practices and increase competition. Unfortunately, the Cable and Broadcast lobbyist will fight tooth and nail to protect their fiefdoms. Heck, even local government want to protect the status quo because the more we pay for Cable TV, they more they collect in franchise fees. Plus, until recently, local government have been permitted make ridiculous demands prior to awarding a cable franchise (e.g., free 'community' channels and services to government facilities and building parks, roads, etc. - stuff not related to cable TV). It's been a government tolerated collusion and this too must stop.

So there is no failing with my theory since McCain's legislation is attempting to give consumers a direct say in the matter.

 

[dishcomm]

call cancel before the next bill.......done

The status quo on this issue is the losing side.
This is not going away. Change is coming.

 

[dishcomm]

So that's the choice you propose, bend over or pay the extortion.

The individuals that want things to remain as they are, are most likely niche channel viewers who FEAR those niche channels going away if a la carte becomes a choice for the consumer.

 

[riffjim4069]

When one broadcaster owns 15 different channels how is that competition?Oligopoly is the key word.

...and don't forget the government sponsored collusion that has been permitted to exist for decades. Governments extort millions in free cable services and capital improvements (often having nothing to do with cable television service) and, in turn, the cable lords were given carte blanche to operate as they pleased. After all, the more cable charged their customers, the more the local franchise authorities made in franchise fees (taxes).

 

[dishcomm]

First, please show me where ANYONE has said you should be "ecstatic" over the deal. I never said you should feel good about it, I never said the choices you have are good ones. I've said MULTIPLE times I'm at least interested in ala carte. I told you how I'd like to see it work. I am worried about the cost though.

As far as your restaurant analogy goes... that happens every time I take my family out to eat. Something (usually a side) gets ordered because it comes with the meal. It sits untouched on the plate. Should I not be charged if I don't eat it? Should I go to the government and say "make them charge individually for their items"?

Since we all like analogies so much... I take the family to Disney World. I pay for everyone to go into the park. That admission gets me access to every ride. However, there are some rides we don't go on. I think they're either a waste of time or just "not my style". Should I get a discount on the admission ticket because I don't go on some rides?

I only have two points...
1) If you don't think you're getting enough for your money, cancel. NO ONE is forcing you into this deal. It's up to you to decide if the $150/month is worth it to you. If it's not worth it, don't pay it.
2) I don't think government should be regulating businesses unless someones health or safety is at risk.

In order for a "side" to be added to your meal, you must CHOOSE to order it.
Or you may decline the side or ask for a substitute.
You skewed the analogy to suit your agenda.

 

[dishcomm]

First, please show me where ANYONE has said you should be "ecstatic" over the deal. I never said you should feel good about it, I never said the choices you have are good ones. I've said MULTIPLE times I'm at least interested in ala carte. I told you how I'd like to see it work. I am worried about the cost though.

As far as your restaurant analogy goes... that happens every time I take my family out to eat. Something (usually a side) gets ordered because it comes with the meal. It sits untouched on the plate. Should I not be charged if I don't eat it? Should I go to the government and say "make them charge individually for their items"?

Since we all like analogies so much... I take the family to Disney World. I pay for everyone to go into the park. That admission gets me access to every ride. However, there are some rides we don't go on. I think they're either a waste of time or just "not my style". Should I get a discount on the admission ticket because I don't go on some rides?

I only have two points...
1) If you don't think you're getting enough for your money, cancel. NO ONE is forcing you into this deal. It's up to you to decide if the $150/month is worth it to you. If it's not worth it, don't pay it.
2) I don't think government should be regulating businesses unless someones health or safety is at risk.

Once again, the federal government is ALREADY involved. They are already regulating the consumer side of the business.
"I don't think"....Well, that's nice.

 

[riffjim4069]

Let's just agree that some people have an agenda and they will die to defend their gravy train; they will not listen to any common sense argument and I'm sure their pundits are going to battle Senator McCain's legislation (or anyone else who may oppose their machine). Business are failing and families are hurting...yet, we're seeing record profits in Cabledom. Not all people are stupid and many are tired of being taken advantage of by the cable cartel. They want real choice and not the choices being made for them.

The reverse psychology you conjured up to make yourself feel better is a load of nonsense.
Try that logic with other consumer driven business.
How about we do the same thing for gasoline. How about this....People with small cars pay more per gallon because they buy less gas? Think it through. You claim that those who desire to choose which channels they wish to buy will pay more per channel.
The current system is no longer working for the consumer.
If you want ot watch your pay TV bill fly past $200 per month while paying for channels you never watch, be my guest. But don't you dare assume others get no choice in the matter.
Change is coming.
Oh, a piece of advice. Don't make this personal.

 

[mike123abc]

In a perfect world companies like Disney and Fox would offer their channels how they want them to be bundled.

In a perfect world consumers would be able to pick their channels.

The problem is that we do not live in a perfect world. A few companies control almost all the channels that consumers want watch and they have no interest in competing against each other. Instead the companies want to offer unique content and only allow the consumer to buy the content if they bundle with other content from the provider and the providers competition. This essentially eliminates competition and makes it a monopoly. Disney only allows their content to be sold alongside and including Fox's programming, alongside and including Comcast's offerings, etc. You do not have a choice, the cable company does not have a choice. It is not a free market!

 

[dare2be]

It's been revealed before that sam is in the network broadcast business, so take everything he says with a grain of salt.

 

[Tyralak]

It's been revealed before that sam is in the network broadcast business, so take everything he says with a grain of salt.

Wasn't he the one a while back who was siding with the networks over commercial skipping, and claiming that the Hopper was an illegal product? :haha

 

[Tyralak]

I would even be satisfied with being able choose micro-packages. For instance, Locals, General Entertainment (USA, TNT, SCI-FI, etc), News (CNN, FOXNews, TWC, etc) Education (History, Animal Planet, Science, and so on) That way I could exclude types of programming that I would never watch, like sports.

 

[osu1991]

It's been revealed before that sam is in the network broadcast business, so take everything he says with a grain of salt.

I believe that was during some of the retransmission consent threads over paying the locals for carriage.

 

[riffjim4069]

I agree with everything you said...just substitute monopoly (one) with oligopoly (few).

In a perfect world companies like Disney and Fox would offer their channels how they want them to be bundled.

In a perfect world consumers would be able to pick their channels.

The problem is that we do not live in a perfect world. A few companies control almost all the channels that consumers want watch and they have no interest in competing against each other. Instead the companies want to offer unique content and only allow the consumer to buy the content if they bundle with other content from the provider and the providers competition. This essentially eliminates competition and makes it a monopoly. Disney only allows their content to be sold alongside and including Fox's programming, alongside and including Comcast's offerings, etc. You do not have a choice, the cable company does not have a choice. It is not a free market!

 

[sam_gordon]

So you are down with oligopoly's?

You never did answer the question of whether you had been in business for yourself or not.

I'll answer your question... no, I've never owned a business.

Will you answer MY questions (which I've repeatedly ask but everyone ignores)...

I have here is an example of how my business would have failed miserably.Christmas trees is the business.Now lets say customers come to my business to purchase a Christmas tree.I have many to choose from,different shapes,sizes,and prices.However there is a catch.In order to by my Christmas tree,you must also take it with the decorations at a higher price.Of course my business would fail in no time flat,most customers would move on to the next tree lot.But,lets say me and maybe 3 or 4 others owned all the tree lots,furthermore we all agreed to go with the decorations included for a higher price.Customers would have no choice.Either buy the trees decorations included,or go without a tree.I can tell you that a lot of people would take the deal,they wouldn't want their children to wake up on Christmas morning with no tree.

Isn't the part I bolded collusion? Isn't collusion illegal?

 

[sam_gordon]

"I don't think"....Well, that's nice.

So now I can't state my opinions unless they agree with the majority?

"Change is coming"? Fine. Bring it on. I just think the change shouldn't come because of legislation. I've said this over and over on this thread. I have no problem with ala carte. I've even said how'd I'd like to see it work. But it doesn't matter what I say because people will read their bias into it.

So, carry on.

I'll be back in another 6 months or so so you can beat up again for having an opposing viewpoint.

 

[madmadworld]

our luck smart John will mess this up the last thing he is remember for. the golden goose of the century.
paid $24.95 for 1 channel in the early 80s that was only on 7-8 hours a day. todays cost $69.70. be careful what you wish for.
http://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/result.php?year_source=1980&amount=25&year_result=2013

 

[Teehar]

I'll answer your question... no, I've never owned a business.

Will you answer MY questions (which I've repeatedly ask but everyone ignores)...
Isn't the part I bolded collusion? Isn't collusion illegal?

Yes it is indeed collusion.Plain and simple.The powers that be ignore it,because they get their campaigns funded.The broadcasters have a lot of pull in DC.

 

[mike123abc]

I'll answer your question... no, I've never owned a business.

Will you answer MY questions (which I've repeatedly ask but everyone ignores)...
Isn't the part I bolded collusion? Isn't collusion illegal?

It is only collusion if they get together and decide to do this. If they without working together insist on it individually it is not collusion.

It would be like 2 fast food restaurants not trying to cut prices below the other one. As long as they did not get together to make the decision it is a business practice. If they both decide not to compete with each other independent of each other, it is their business decision and illegal.