You do know you can get cable Internet without signing up for the TV? In fact you get the basic TV tier free when they hook you up for cable Internet. I had Internet for a year and paid just for that and got the basic level no charge.
Why is this not regarded as socialism?
Because itās āfree enterpriseā ā the opposite of scialism.
We are being forced to pay even if you do not want ESPN and this accomplishes two vile things - 1) subsidies the true cost for those viewers who actually do want ESPN 2) ensures ESPN gets a piece of every satellite or cable invoice in the country.
Precisely.
The fact that this type of involuntary bundling is still occurring is disturbing enough, - the fact that if you had to pay for only the channels you want and watch could significantly lower your monthly payment ā¦
I donāt think this is true. Hereās why:
http://theoldcatvequipmentmuseum.org/320/321/index.html#alacarte
ā¦ and nothing has been done thus far by governmental regulators is disgusting.
Governmental regulators CREATED this situation!
In 1992, Congress enacted a grotesquely-misnamed law known as the āCable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992.ā That law gives broadcast station licensees the legal right to bundle non-broadcast programming with broadcast programming.
In the case at hand, Disney owns the ABC television network and local ABC stations in several markets. It also owns 80% of ESPN. The 1992 Cable Act gives Disney the right to bundle ESPN with your local ABC station. The cable company canāt carry the ABC station without taking ESPN as part of the deal.
And they have to pay for both of them! They have to pay āretransmission consentā fees for the ABC station and they have to pay ālicense feesā for ESPN. Every time these fees go up, the cable TV company has no choice but to raise the retail price.
If you donāt like this situation, donāt blame your cable TV company. Petition your representatives in Congress to repeal the 1992 Cable Act.
Neal McLain
aka retiredcableguy
1 Like
I hear you; and i believe channels like AMC have responded to bundling by creating a couple must-see shows so they can negotiate a better rate, but the empirical evidence tells me that the only channel currently coming close to the ala-carte utopian ideal (HBO) is the leader here, and Netflix, also an ala-carte option, is making a good case too.
The current cable system has too many people with vested interests in its current revenue structure to have it change anytime soon. HBO could maybe sell their Go service ala-carte profitably, but they are owned by Time-warner I think, which has other channels, and so it would hurt them in the big picture. What irks me is that my alumni loyalty sports network (BTN) wonāt let me stream if I donāt subscribe to a cable system that carries it. This is a channel ideal for alacarte; a large number of alumni live outside the region where it is likely to be carried on their cable system, and most people within the region are not alumni, and the network is independent, and they have a vested interest in maintaining alumni enthusiasm. Iām sure the fee they get from the cable companies must be contingent on a no-streaming option, and their revenue would plummet if they offered it. pffft.
In the case at hand, Disney owns the ABC television network and local ABC stations in several markets. It also owns 80% of ESPN. The 1992 Cable Act gives Disney the right to bundle ESPN with your local ABC station. The cable company canāt carry the ABC station without taking ESPN as part of the deal.
And they have to pay for both of them! They have to pay āretransmission consentā fees for the ABC station and they have to pay ālicense feesā for ESPN. Every time these fees go up, the cable TV company has no choice but to raise the retail price.
[/quote]
Thatās what Iām saying ! - Hey Iām all for free enterpriseā¦ just not when it means fucking your fellow human over a barrel so some of the viewers donāt
have to pay more ā¦ I donāt like ESPN - donāt watch ESPN- why the hell am I paying for the privilege of not watching it ? because some corporate free enterprise son of a bitch says so ? - and as far as the solution of "Just donāt pay for television service and problem solved " that is not the answer - I do like to watch certain shows - I do not like to and should not have to pay for crap that I donāt watch or even want for that matter.
Why should the cost be passed down to the viewer - arenāt they making enough $$$ from commercials , raise the rates on them - other corporations have no problems paying millions for 15 seconds of an ad during Superbowl ? - Oh yeah thatās right those costs are pushed down to us as well - enjoy your $15.00 beer and $10.00 hot dog at the next big game ! - you know more "free enterprise "
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
