Jesus, what is wrong with people like you that have little to concept of market forces and how they shape purchasing decisions? I'm not talking about specific things like that and clearly the market has decided that this game isn't worth the money to play. All the risk is on the company, not the consumers. They didn't make EA make the game, but rather EA thought this is what consumers would want. They screwed it up, they are paying price. The market dealt with it. Get a clue or go buy one. I'm sure there is an institution out there willing to help you out in understanding how this stuff works. Sheesh.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
New Bill Pushes For A La Carte Cable TV
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
Jesus, what is wrong with people like you that have little to concept of market forces and how they shape purchasing decisions? I'm not talking about specific things like that and clearly the market has decided that this game isn't worth the money to play. All the risk is on the company, not the consumers. They didn't make EA make the game, but rather EA thought this is what consumers would want. They screwed it up, they are paying price. The market dealt with it. Get a clue or go buy one. I'm sure there is an institution out there willing to help you out in understanding how this stuff works. Sheesh.
I never said a purely free or unregulated market did I? Stop reading more than what I said. I'm just saying that government isn't required in all transactions or in a regulatory way to monitor or legislate all exchanges of capital from supplier to consumer.
Like channel MTV 1 billion?
sfsuphysics
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2007
- Messages
- 15,993
+! on this.
Our GOVERNMENT shouldn't be fucking legislating what TV channels we do or don't get. Now opening up cable lines and forcing them to lease lines that are built in public areas ... that's different, kind of like how telecom giants need to offer up their lines for lease. That's how my ISP gets things done, and they can offer a cheaper price than AT&T for DSL (that's also faster), which says something about how AT&T is pricing themselves out.
Parmenides
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 6,578
McCain has his issues, but one thing he's good for is staying away from the earmarks. He can't really be bought, at least not easily. He's pretty clean if not completely clean in that regard.
His post is pretty ironic considering big media, cable companies, movie studios own the Democratic Party and that is where the vast majority of their political donations go.
I did not read into what you said. Nor did I say you advocated a purely free market. Perhaps it is you who should watch out for reading too far into what people are saying.
My point was a purely free and unregulated market has its own dangers and issues, just like an overly controlled market does. It is a balance. Simply defaulting to a "let the market decide" is not always the right answer - especially when there are already monopolies and anti-competitive practices in place.
You cannot go back in time and fix it before it started. Those issues are here and have to be considered/dealt with. Saying just let the market determine everything, is to pretend that they don't exist.
Parmenides
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 6,578
So that explains the lack of democrat support. Usually it's the Democrats who like to tell businesses what to do.
D
Deleted member 80813
Guest
We already have A La Carte, it is called Netflix/Amazon Prime/Hulu.
Betaboy1983
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2008
- Messages
- 1,264
Living out in the sticks I made my own gang of 2 DTV antennas out of extra copper wire from an underground electric dog fence and some 2x4's and I receive channels from 100+ miles away. One is 3 feet above my roof line and the other is ganged in my attic. I still only get 30 channels vs Sats' mega bundles but half of my channels are in HD and quite free so I am happy. My 2 year old son enjoys PBS a lot so that is what we are tuned into most of the time the 52" Samsung is powered up. Besides the History Channel (and the likes) I don't think I need any more channels than I already have. Netflix fills the void when needed it seems. Being in the sticks I get my internet over a WiMAX connection too. Ping is a little high for gaming, but the local internet provider will NEVER expand to even offer DSL where I live. It has been established. (even though I am 25 miles from fiber building, and 10 miles from the nearest 10mb DSL). Thank goodness a wireless service stepped up and helped a lot of people get high speed internet because we would have been really f*&^ed otherwise.
Long story short, I'm a happy camper with my antennas.
macksomerville
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- May 18, 2000
- Messages
- 1,986
McStain... Its hard for me to believe anything from my Senator anymore.
I think a majority of people wanting this are excited because they think it will be $5 a month because they only want The Food Network.
Sadly this won't be cheaper, a ton of channels are going to suffer and a good majority will fade away. The good thing is this may actually force channel competition once again to give us better programming.
Sadly this won't be cheaper, a ton of channels are going to suffer and a good majority will fade away. The good thing is this may actually force channel competition once again to give us better programming.
UrielDagda
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2004
- Messages
- 2,844
The market is just a fake illusion. Pretty much now the market is just a few large conglomerates that own tons of companies, so that even the competition is all actually owned by one entity that creates some semblance of competition that really doesn't exist.
Individual people with few resources have very little chance against the large corporate structure that would love to do nothing other than to get us to get so angry with government that we are willing to dismantle it, so they can swoop into the power vacuum and take over.
Then we'll see just how worthless the Constitution really is when they just burn it, saying they're private enterprise and are immune to having to honor it. At which point we'll either have to bend over and take it, or take up arms and rebel..
Hell we're already perilously close to them just purchasing every single politician and all the airwaves anyway, which also would be Game Over.
AceGoober
Live! Laug[H]! Overclock!
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2003
- Messages
- 25,537
"A La Carte" cable subscriptions should have been done a long, long time ago. I haven't subscribed to a TV service for several years due to the simple fact I couldn't choose the channels I wanted to watch not what the corporation(s) wanted me to watch.
Ashbringer
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2010
- Messages
- 5,522
It really is pointless, cause most people who have TV have alternative methods to get what they want for cheap. Cable companies should be doing this themselves, unless they want to go out of business?
What they should do is force cable companies to not require a cable box. QAM doesn't need to be encrypted. I don't wanna rent a cable box that burns up electricity.
What they should do is force cable companies to not require a cable box. QAM doesn't need to be encrypted. I don't wanna rent a cable box that burns up electricity.
It really is sad when a show like Oprah will make a ton more money just putting the show on their own channel and making cheap filler for the other 23 hours..
The current system breads few quality shows and mostly filler...
http://abovethecrowd.com/2010/04/28/affiliate-fees-make-the-world-go-round/
The sad part is that the nay-sayers are true... Just like with Verizon's "share everything plan" where some can benefit, many do not.
While you will save .25 per crappy channel, you probably will pay $5 for any resemblance of a good one. Heck you probably would see AMC breaking up each of their hit shows to different channels and charging $5 each per mo.
The only people that will benefit would be those that watch 5 channels.
The current system breads few quality shows and mostly filler...
http://abovethecrowd.com/2010/04/28/affiliate-fees-make-the-world-go-round/
The sad part is that the nay-sayers are true... Just like with Verizon's "share everything plan" where some can benefit, many do not.
While you will save .25 per crappy channel, you probably will pay $5 for any resemblance of a good one. Heck you probably would see AMC breaking up each of their hit shows to different channels and charging $5 each per mo.
The only people that will benefit would be those that watch 5 channels.
Don't let making any sense get in yours.
uhhh. yeah... this sounds like a GREAT idea
voluntary, huh? like the network providers will really give up their revenue stream?
gee, who thinks the providers won't mark up the prices on the channels that operators do want?
therefore, the big channels will get marked up a shit-ton.
Or, the network providers will provide a "discount" to get all the channels, which won't amount to much savings compared to only purchasing the big channels.
Regardless, it's wonderful how people bitch about the cable companies. It's not the cable companies fault when it's the network providers that are forcing this bundling of shitty channels.
voluntary, huh? like the network providers will really give up their revenue stream?
gee, who thinks the providers won't mark up the prices on the channels that operators do want?
therefore, the big channels will get marked up a shit-ton.
Or, the network providers will provide a "discount" to get all the channels, which won't amount to much savings compared to only purchasing the big channels.
Regardless, it's wonderful how people bitch about the cable companies. It's not the cable companies fault when it's the network providers that are forcing this bundling of shitty channels.
Agreed.
I just don't see how cable TV is a serious enough problem to make it onto the floor. With the internet now giving us so many options for content consumption (ex: iTunes, Netflix), I just don't see how this is important now. I could maybe understand the reasoning 10-20 years ago - but now? Absolutely not.
We have greater problems.
WBurchnall
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2009
- Messages
- 2,622
Government should just stay out of this ... if there is a market for ala carte then someone will offer it to steal customers from the others ... they should leave this alone ... as the market moves to online streaming we should see this option emerge
A. Giant monopoly with few to often one 'player' in a given area with no competition to 'offer it'.
B. Starting up real competition to say 'Shaw' TV and Cable or Comcast requires 200 mil+ in capital to setup your network, wiring, local hubs, billing system, promotional advertising/marketing, admin staff, cable installer, equipment, etc.
C. Customers have wanted this for year and no 'company' has came around to offer it b/c customers interest is not in any corporations top priority. Profit is and theres more profit in screwing over a cable subscriber when there's no other competition in an area or 'unoffically' price fixing with your 1 competitor.
WBurchnall
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2009
- Messages
- 2,622
McCain thinks the way to solve the debt is to never cut military spending and cutting taxes for the rich....and wait for the rich to 'trickle down' on us to revitalize the economy. The real issues like unemployment, the economy and our on-going 'two' wars with third looming are difficult complex issues plus you can't have a democrat in office when any of those are solved. Heaven forbid progess get made on, in or around the hill when a democrat is in office
. You still want to get re-elected and make it 'look' like your doing something for the 'little guy' though; so you bring up small issues that don't really matter like...this. If his bill gets lobbyed into oblivion, he gets a lot of super-pac money from said lobbyists to make the bill go away to help his next election. If it doesn't, he looks like he did something for the little guys. It's a win-win either way for John McCain.
Exactly. The one thing you can be absolutely sure of is that your overall cable / satellite bill will not change. But you WILL be shocked at how much you are paying for the few channels you do watch and you WILL then be pissed when you want to watch something on one of the channels you don't get.
Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.
Whatever you say, comrade
kbrickley
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 13, 2012
- Messages
- 7,514
We already have competition (at the channel level) and the programming is better (depending on your definition of "better"):
HBO is now presenting high quality miniseries and other shows (they are probably the model of what a la carte cable would look like ... you would pay 15-20/month for the high end/popular networks)
Shows like Archer, American Horror Story, Walking Dead, Mad Men, Bates Hotel, Amerikans are providing high class/mature entertainment on cable networks
The Bible miniseries on the History Channel blew away the numbers for most broadcast networks
The problem with our current system is that the studios and corporations that own the channels want to package them so the cable provider is forced to buy more channels than they would like (or pay more because of their popularity) ... hard to do a la carte on the cable side when they have to buy and pay for the channels anyway
With Netflix, Prime, and Hulu you already have a la carte ... as those services expand they will get more choices and they are a better a la carte venue than cable
Skripka
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2012
- Messages
- 10,791
I thought about this recently.
TWC has been adverting HBO carrying Game of Thrones like no tomorrow on all the lower basic-tier channels....trying to get people like me who only get basic basic cable for free with 20/2 cable modem service for $50/month....to spend an extra $100/month to watch that one series. Which is simply idiotic in my book.
Apparently they think I'm stupid and desperate enough to actually do that.
kbrickley
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 13, 2012
- Messages
- 7,514
A. The cable monopolies exist because of local regulations and restrictions ... the only time the Feds were involved is during mergers where they made companies give certain cities to competitors due to merger restrictions ... a la carte and other federal regulations will not impact this situation
B. Nobody is going to compete with land cable networks, and except for land internet there is no future in that type of competition ... starting an internet based provider is not as expensive ... although the studios that own the networks and content still ultimately control who will sell their products and for how much
C. Customers want this as a theoretical concept ... the harsh reality of a la carte will never match up to reality ... most people pay somewhere in the range of 30-50 for basic cable (100-200 channels) and upwards of 60-80 for extended cable (300-500+ channels) ... if you throw in pay channels like HBO it would be more
With a la carte they will pay the same they do now ... unless they only want the unpopular channels or a single package ... because of the restrictions the cable companies face from the content providers I would expect a la carte offering to look something like this:
Standard basic cable (no change, it would stay in the 30-50 range)
Extended cable (no change, it would stay in the 60-80 range)
HBO and other movie channel offerings (no change, 15-25 as individual packages and some sort of bulk offering for all of them in the 60-80 range)
Sports (ESPN would likely go for HBO prices, something in the 15-25 range; they would probably offer a bulk package in the 50-80 range)
Science (Discover, History, and the like would probably also be in the 15-25 range)
Kids (Cartoon, Disney, etc could be 10-15 individually with some sort of bulk package in the 40-60 range)
etc, etc, etc
a la carte would be designed for higher returns, not lower, because they now know what you want and there are only a limited number of sources to get it ... the cable providers would likely keep offering the bulk packages because they know that if consumers are going to pay 40-50 a month either way they might like it better if they get 200 channels for 50 rather than only 50 channels
pgwalsh
Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2005
- Messages
- 698
Agree wit this 100%
dr.stevil
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2008
- Messages
- 9,266
my thoughts exactly. The government has no business sticking their nose in this and it will only end up hurting consumers and businesses in the long run.
If people want to save money, then just get rid of it and jump on Hulu/Netflix. As others have mentioned, the cable companies will get their money one way or another...
the only involvement the government should have is to hand out money to push competition. I see what they want. they are probably looking at other countries and see that they pay a lot less for things like cable, internet, and cell phone service but they don't know how to figure out how to stop the ever increasing costs to the consumer.
This bill would have been great... 8 years ago.
Now, it's kind of silly. Unless you're a sports fan (programming that makes up the majority of a cable bill already) why would you even need cable?
I've never had my own cable service, and don't see myself ever signing up for one. Getting cable was a big deal for me when I was a kid back in the 90s, but now, I see no point. I've already reached media saturation with streaming services and websites, and have neither the time nor inclination to buy a service that lets me only watch specific shows at specific times... Let alone pay $50-$80 for it.
Now, things were different back in the early-mid 2000s, when there were few streaming options, and what ones we had were kind of crap. We aren't there anymore. I briefly looked at the output from a cable set top box last year, and was frankly horrified by the video quality it put out. I get that they sell more expensive "HD" packages, but if I can get much better video quality out of Amazon Prime (which I would gladly pay for anyway, even without streaming) and don't have enough time to even watch that on a regular basis, why would I even pay $1 for a cable channel that requires yet another box under my TV?
Now, it's kind of silly. Unless you're a sports fan (programming that makes up the majority of a cable bill already) why would you even need cable?
I've never had my own cable service, and don't see myself ever signing up for one. Getting cable was a big deal for me when I was a kid back in the 90s, but now, I see no point. I've already reached media saturation with streaming services and websites, and have neither the time nor inclination to buy a service that lets me only watch specific shows at specific times... Let alone pay $50-$80 for it.
Now, things were different back in the early-mid 2000s, when there were few streaming options, and what ones we had were kind of crap. We aren't there anymore. I briefly looked at the output from a cable set top box last year, and was frankly horrified by the video quality it put out. I get that they sell more expensive "HD" packages, but if I can get much better video quality out of Amazon Prime (which I would gladly pay for anyway, even without streaming) and don't have enough time to even watch that on a regular basis, why would I even pay $1 for a cable channel that requires yet another box under my TV?
Youn
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2007
- Messages
- 5,973
Can they now pass a bill to allow mcdonalds to serve hamburgers without all the extra crap they manufacture into it? just wondering, not that I'd eat that stuff either way
The problem is without this bill, the government would be stupid enough to bail out the cable companies when their monopolies start to fail (telephone, cable, internet) when they lobby for lower taxes, grants, and exclusive rights to sustain a failing business model.
This is impossible on cable lines, just FYI.
twelveparsex
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2000
- Messages
- 12,955
if they think it's that big of a threat to them they the deep pockets required to squash it before it even gets voted on.
I'd rather congress come up with ways to protect consumers by making laws that protect those who want to unlock and mod their smartphones than waste their fucking time on a bill targeted at an industry that's got one foot in the grave anyway
Well the post was small for a reason as it was from my phone, so it was very brief. While we do have content competition, its not very extreme. Granted the more views on a certain channel gives the content providers more revinue there are plenty of subscribers already that lets them be relaxed. Once a series is a hit and dominates another series the content creators/providers will run with it until its dry and not even attempt to supplement it with another show.
Right now having shows like Bates/Game of Thrones/Hannibal/etc. is really a breath of fresh air as a huge majority of what we get is actually WORTH the amount I'm paying for. I have plenty of stuff in my queue to watch when I get home almost nightly and I haven't been pissed at my cable bill in months. This A'la Carte preview we are about to get (outside of Netflix/Hulu) will be abysmal.
You also brought up another good point with the retermed package deals. It won't change much, just give more people options to cut off main stream channels if they didn't really want it to begin with. The rest stays the same essentially.
PC Surgeon
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2005
- Messages
- 292
A La Carte TV? Nah I'd rather have A La Carte government. Sick of paying for crap I don't use, endorse or care for.