We'd all be better off if the feds would stick to what the Constitution charges them with, and unless I'm missing something the way I read it, they don't need to be wasting our hard-earned money playing "carrot and stick" for a completely optional service. Somehow, and I don't understand how this happened, we've gotten so twisted around in this country that we think we have the right to anything from anyone just because we want it. I would much rather be able to pay less than 50 cents for my daily paper, by skipping the sports and editorial pages in which I have zero interest. But just as it's not the feds' place to tell the publisher to offer an a la carte newspaper, it's not their job to be wasting time on how companies package television.Nearly every market has a minimum of three television providers--a cable company and two satellite companies--with more on the way. If one or more feels there's a good business model behind a la carte, great--more power to them. If not, no one forces you or me to subscribe. Just because I want my History Channel and A&E doesn't mean I have some inherent right to have those without Nickelodeon or ESPN.jellyeggs said:
Ah, but it's a choice to have satellite or cable or not, so no one is forced to subsidise anything, whether it's FX or Disney. I completely understand why people like the a la carte idea, and if it makes good business sense in what's supposed to be a (relatively) free-market system, someone will find a way to make a buck by doing it. My contention is that it's not the government's job to pander to every whim of a spoiled, pampered population. Instead of having the cajones to tell people to shut up and turn off the TV--and/or stop subscribing to satellite/cable--the politicians propose blatantly unconstitutional regulations that let people escape personal responsibility. If enough people stop subscribing to the services, and stop watching the "offending" series, things would change in a heartbeat. If you're so principled that you don't want to pay for FX or USA or whatever network pushes your hot buttons, by all means, don't subscribe to that package. It may mean you don't get to watch something else you would like, but that's what choices are all about. You can't always have only the options you want laid out before you--life just ain't always that way. Sometimes you're faced with a more difficult choice--so stand up for your principles, whatever they may be, and let everyone else stand up for theirs. Let the market decide what works--not the overpaid lawmakers.jellyeggs said:
But, it does own MTV, VH-1, CMT, Spike, Logo & a few others that people could drop if cable systems were able to offer them a la carte, which would likely affect Viacom's bottom line.
The legislation offer incentives to broadcasters and cable system operators to offer a la carte service -- but no incentives are offered to cable network owners if they don't also own broadcast stations or cable systems. Since Viacom owns neither, there would be no reason under this legislation for Viacom to allow cable systems to offer their networks on an a la carte basis.Therefore, it seems likely that if this legislation were to pass, cable systems would still not be able to offer those Viacom networks on an a la carte basis.There is, however, a potential long-term threat to Viacom if the legislation were to sufficiently change the business environment in the industry, even though Viacom would not be *directly* affected. But that is speculative, and would take years to happen (if it did at all).jellyeggs said:
Congress has tried several times before to clamp down on rising cable rates. Every time they have, the rates have gone up. I have no doubt they would rise again if this idea is made into law. The free market argument is right on target in this case. There are dozens of companies competing for viewers and providing programming in the television industry these days. It's not like 30 years ago when there were 3 companies that controlled 90%+ of the business. If a la cart became the law of the land, many of the "basic" cable channels would become premium channels and charge 5-15 bucks a month each. Cable bills would skyrocket. Many channels that couldn't get enough subscribers would cut way back on programming budgets or just go dark. Broadcasters would love this because it would cut back on competition. The end result would be fewer choices for a lot more money.TexasTom said:
That's because you have some in Congress with their fingers in the pockets of those $$$-flaunting lobbyists.Once we get those who claim they don't take PAC funds even though they really do and once they ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING about keeping the PAC lobbyists out, THEN & ONLY THEN will ever see Congress take some action.tested said:
Hey...SOMEONE has to "reimburse" the lobbyist.tested said:
I have to agree. This law isn't such a hot idea and would just have too many undesirable consequences which I'm sure ARE NOT the intent or spirit behind the bill. As such, I really hope Senator McClain doesn't press it too much.Cheerstested said:
