6 ms·

McCain working on bill to allow for 'a la carte' cable TV packages

44 points by fady 13y ago

Shivetya 13y ago
First off, read the link early in the story to his comments. Its more informative. I wonder how he is going to address must carry channels that local governments impose upon the cable companies? I am all for choosing channels, but I wonder if this would permit currently premium channels to be chosen without excessive charges? As in, will they still permit bundle requirements to have HBO? Considering it imposes similar rules on those companies selling channels to cable companies the host of groups who will line up to fight this will be impressive. My favorite part is eliminating the black out rules on sports events for public funded stadiums.
aneth4 13y ago
Not that this bill is necessarily a bad thing, but Republicans know no end to their hypocrisy. They'll introduce all sorts of unnecessary micro-regulation to create a "free" market. This is the same guy who supported the bills deregulating the financial industry, which lead to the derivatives crisis. I guess Senators suffer from the same problems as software engineers - they only see the problems in their living room.
- FelixP 13y ago
  Honestly, this seems like a pretty unambiguously good thing - don't assume it's bad just because you dislike the politician / party that's proposing it.
  - illuminate 13y ago
    It's the "stopped clock" principle, we're wondering where the catch is, and what's going to come out and water this down into uselessness. I'll be happy and laud the originator if everything goes as proposed. They rarely do.
- jacoblyles 13y ago
  Some people just hate Republicans no matter what they do.
  - aneth4 13y ago
    I don't hate Republicans who are not either completely hypocritical or spineless before the social conservatives and tea party idiocy.
- roc 13y ago
  The "free" market doesn't exist without regulation against things like fraud, collusion, monopolies, etc. This is exactly the sort of regulation Republicans should care about. Not that this excuses Republicans from being hypocrites. But on this issue, there's no conflict with their core philosophy. And frankly, even deregulating the financial industry was consistent with their philosophy. It was their support for socializing what should have been private losses that was the philosophical problem.
  - illuminate 13y ago
    "The "free" market doesn't exist without regulation" This is where every liberal/conservative rolls there eyes in disgust.
- jerrya 13y ago
  I don't have a free market in cable providers. In my largish apartment complex, there is one cable provider: Cox. I can't use a sat dish, my apartment faces the wrong direction and I'm on the second floor. FIOS isn't available. CenturyLink agrees no "prism tv" whatever that is for me, and directtv is out because I am on the second floor and face the wrong direction. So there's really no free market in cable providers for me, it's a monopoly situation. The free market solution would be to require Cox to allow other cable providers to use their cable to get last mile to me and then let Cox, et. al., charge me however they wish. I would be curious to know which situation Cox would prefer: mandatory unbundling, or force them to share the cable. EDIT: I do wonder what keeps Verizon from offering FIOS if they wanted to. Is it too expensive to rewire a huge sprawling multi-floor apartment complex?
  - twoodfin 13y ago
    EDIT: I do wonder what keeps Verizon from offering FIOS if they wanted to. Is it too expensive to rewire a huge sprawling multi-floor apartment complex? My understanding is that Verizon has dramatically slowed their FiOS rollout, primarily because they don't think they're likely to be able to sell you "premium services" long-term. Does anyone think that within 10 years there will be any content worth having not available over a 100Mbit (or gigabit, even) pure IP connection? How much can Verizon expect to charge for such a connection? FiOS made sense when they thought they would be Skype, HBO, NetFlix and iTunes combined, or at least get a cut on all of those. But even if we don't get regulated Network Neutrality, competitive pressure alone will commoditize content and application delivery over IP.
    - AnthonyMouse 13y ago
      What I don't understand is their pricing model. It seems like they would do a lot better to have A) a "cheap crappy" option which is something like 384K internet and basic cable for an extraordinarily low price, and B) a 100Mbps+ internet service at the same profit margin they would get by selling an entire "triple play" package and then optional over the top phone and cable packages effectively for Verizon's cost, the point of offering them at all merely being to be able to supply the same overall offering as their existing competitors. The result would be that Verizon could stop giving a crap about whether you use their TV offerings or Hulu or whatever else because that's not where they make their money, but at the same time customers wanting the "triple play" package can get it from them for a total price competitive with similarly situated ISPs and with an overall profit margin they expect from such a thing. Just admit to themselves that they're in the wire business, stop trying to be in the content business, and charge accordingly for the wire. Suddenly "cord cutters" are not a problem, especially when the competing ISP realizes the logic and does the same thing.
codex 13y ago
I would love a la carte TV, but make no mistake: it will destroy the profitability of cable companies. Bundling allows cable operators to segment the market: to sell the same product to different audiences at different prices depending on their willingness to pay. A $100 package of bundled sports + movies can be sold to the person who is willing to pay $90 for sports and $10 for movies and also to the person who is willing to pay $10 for sports and $90 for movies. But sports and movies are unbundled, they must be sold at the same price to everyone. Should they be priced at $10 each? $90? Somewhere in between? Pick any price and the cable companies lose money: the person who values it more will pay less for it than they would have, and the person who values it less won't buy it at all. EDIT: I don't want to sound pro-cable; indeed, I am not; I am just pointing out the effects of this legislation. In some ways, bundling is a natural way to package content. MOG, Spotify, and other subscription music services bundle their content (you don't get to pick and choose what you subscribe to), and the big daddy of disruption, Netflix streaming, doesn't let you unbundle either. It's one flat fee for everything. In these cases, of course, it's easier to swallow because prices are so low to begin with. Perhaps it's not bundling that's the problem with cable, but the pricing.
- kaa2102 13y ago
  Customers shouldn't be forced to do what's best for companies.
  - ibejoeb 13y ago
    Likewise, we have a general principal in US wherein companies should be free to develop profitable business practices. Cable is sort of special since it's become part of our infrastructure, so it deserves some oversight, but does that extend so far as to dictate how programs are packaged? I think a la carte is pretty tricky. I want it because I only want to watch AMC and HBO. It might not be so good for the consumer who wants 20 different networks.
    - philwelch 13y ago
      Television is luxury, not infrastructure.
dlhavema 13y ago
I would totally love to order the sci-fi channel, fx, history channel and a couple others and not have to scroll through 30+ channels to get to them... i haven't had cable in years because it's never been worth it to me for just a few channels...
- Avenger42 13y ago
  You'll probably still have to scroll through them - they'll just be marketing screens saying "call <cable provider> to order <useless channel>!" I just downgraded my U-verse account. The channels I used to have are now just a blue screen with the image of a TV and a message either saying "you are not subscribed to this channel" or "call <number> to order this channel".
alexsilver 13y ago
As much as it kills me to support McCain (I'm not a fan of him at all), all I can say is "Holy cow, well done!!!" This thought came across my mind first when I was 15, wishing for Cartoon Network without paying extra for cable that we couldn't afford.
- aaronblohowiak 13y ago
  pre-presidential-race McCain was known for stuff like this.
  - illuminate 13y ago
    Pre-Presidential candidate was known for promoting himself as a "maverick", but I think the majority of that meme was his self-promotion and an easy media narrative. He hasn't been very independent, even if it doesn't take much to be considered an odd duck Republican in this tea party climate.
codegeek 13y ago
This will be awesome and it is long overdue in the United States in my opinion. The monopoluy of the cable companies is outrageous to say the least. Also, enough with the bullshit "bundles" and "packages". I don't want to pay $100 to comcast (Northeast US region where I live) and get a "bundle" of channels but if i want to watch HBO, pay extra. If I want to watch Showtime, pay extra. Basically, any channel worth watching, pay extra. I would rather pay $100 to pick 10 channels that I really watch even if that includes CNN.
seanalltogether 13y ago
Perhaps we need a bill that covers 2 things. 1. If a channel is free (NBC, TBS, etc), cable/sat providers are required to include it as part of the base connection fee. 2. If a channel is paid, subscribers need to pay for it directly, it can't be subsidized through the basic connection fee. Now individual networks have the power to determine if a channel is part of the basic service or not. Cable companies still have the option of bundling channels together or go ala carte if subscribers really want to access premium channels.
- codegeek 13y ago
  I am confused. How is it any different than we have today ? Free channels are always part of the base fee and where the cable companies get you is the so called "Premium" Channels which they offer in their "bundles".
  - samolang 13y ago
    I think he means channels the cable company has to pay for. Some channels don't charge the cable cable, but get all of their money from advertising. Other channels do charge the cable company and may or may not also have advertising. Example: http://www.sportsgrid.com/media/espn-cable-subscriber-fees/ http://www.sportsgrid.com/media/espn-cable-subscriber-fees/ List of a bunch of channels' costs: http://allthingsd.com/20100308/hate-paying-for-cable-heres-the-reason-why/ http://allthingsd.com/20100308/hate-paying-for-cable-heres-t...
  - seanalltogether 13y ago
    The distinction is subtle but I believe it's the most important. Currently comcast is allowed to decide what channels to offer you as part of the basic connection fee (aside from OTA requirements). By putting the decision in the hands of the networks themselves to decide whether to be a default channel or a premium channel, it changes the landscape significantly. It also changes networks incentives to fight for or against being bundled with certain other channels.
- tobylane 13y ago
  I've indirectly read (I doubt those kind of memories) about people saying the current setup favours sport. What else does it favour, probably natural history? I wouldn't want to see the US backers of Attenborough become massively defunded.
ck2 13y ago
Beware of conservatives bearing "gifts". Check which lobbyists have been visiting/donating to him recently. (and with all the problems we have right now, all the unfilled positions for five years, this is what he is working on?)
- CrazedGeek 13y ago
  It seems like he's been spending a lot of time recently banging the Benghazi drum, so this is at least an improvement.
Vivtek 13y ago
I'm going to be seriously conflicted if McCain does something I like.
- aaronblohowiak 13y ago
  Cable providers are government-sanctioned monopolies in their service areas. While I would rather there was a separation between physical infrastructure and content providers, I think that positive regulation of natural monopolies is a net win.
- AnthonyMouse 13y ago
  McCain has a history of doing a lot of sensible things. The reason people think he's a nutter is that he wanted to be president, and he learned in 2000 that you have to at least pretend to be a crazy person in order to secure the Republican nomination.
- jacoblyles 13y ago
  With McCain I learned that "maverick" means "no consistent underlying principles". Sometimes it works to your favor.
NoPiece 13y ago
The interesting thing is that the foundation of the TV system is built on the increasingly obsolete concept of broadcast TV. If you could get rid of that, and force all content providers to compete evenly via the internet, we'd have much more interesting environment. You'd free up the airwaves for more valuable use, you wouldn't need the FCC regulating content, and you'd break up the abc/cbs/nbc/fox semi-monopoly must carry position. Think how wasteful it is to use all that television frequency bandwidth largely to transmit tv signals from networks to cable companies. According to NAB, only 17.8% of US homes rely only on OTA. https://www.nab.org/documents/newsroom/pressRelease.asp?id=2761 https://www.nab.org/documents/newsroom/pressRelease.asp?id=2...
fixxer 13y ago
I gave up cable TV three years ago and honestly don't miss it. I still have Internet (Netflix, Amazon Prime, NoWhere TV) and the options for providers in my area are limited... but it worth it just to pay less to Comcast. This bill, if it even passes, will not sway me to change.
- ameister14 13y ago
  Yeah, I guess I just don't see the point in legislating something that is going to be gone soon anyway.
vampirechicken 13y ago
This will be lobbied into oblivion. Content providers won't go for it, because they currently use their popular programming to force their new ventures onto cable providers. You can't force a cable provider to put your crappy home and garden channel on their line-up, if nobody orders it. You can't argue with real sales metrics. Further, cable providers can't make a living when all of their customers downgrade to the three basic-cable channels they actually watch, plus HBO. Because the idea of a la cart cable is to lower the bills by not paying for what you don't want. Huge amounts of money will, from both sides of the cable programming negotiating table will align against this pro-consumer measure, because it will force a radical rethinking of an industry that has never really had to be pro consumer.
- codegeek 13y ago
  "radical rethinking of an industry " No one said it would be easy. But is it long overdue ? hell yea.
- ihsw 13y ago
  > Further, cable providers can't make a living when all of their customers downgrade to the three basic-cable channels they actually watch, plus HBO. Personally I'm quite fine with that.
- mey 13y ago
  I'm ok with that, I've have ditched cable tv and switched entirely over to OTA digital broadcast, netflix and hulu. Considering adding Amazon Prime to the list, and it is all still cheaper then cable.
- adelevie 13y ago
  > This will be lobbied into oblivion. Nearly every regulatory issue in telecom (and likely most other industries, but I'll just stick with what I know) is lobbied extensively by someone. Most issues will, whatever the underlying intent, benefit certain sub-industries over others. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. In fact, it's virtually impossible to propose a regulation that won't affect the market. By definition, regulations are supposed to to affect the market. To assume that "cable" will outright oppose this is false, and overly simplistic. Cable is hardly a monolith, and there are things in this proposal that different types of cable companies could conceivably support. NCTA, the larger cable trade org opposes the measure, while ACA (representing relatively smaller cable companies) supports at least many of the principles behind the proposal[1]. There's a big difference in policy goals between vertically-integrated and non-vertically-integrated cable companies. Comcast, as both a cable company and a content producer, probably does enjoy policies that allow for bundling and would oppose that certain part of the proposal. However, competing cable companies who are not vertically integrated would probably support such a measure. It's not a crazy thought that Independent Cable Co. X would like to pick and choose which channels to buy for its subscribers without being forced into a bundle. In other words, for the same reason that consumers might want this choice, many cable companies could want this as well. The part of the bill that penalizes broadcasters who switch to pay TV is something that probably all cable companies, even the big ones like Comcast, could support. Retransmission consent fees paid by cable companies to broadcasters are increasingly high and a court-blessed Aereo would provide an avenue for cable companies to simply stop paying those fees (or at least give them a good bargaining chip in retrans fee negotiations). Oddly enough, wireless companies (e.g. Verizon) might oppose this part of the proposal. They badly want spectrum, and if FOX and others leave the airwaves, this could help get that spectrum into their hands. As an aside, I think the threats from FOX are hollow for a number of reasons. Anyways, getting a little bit meta here, but the telecom industry is where I've been interning (various places) and would like to work in at some point. There's no reason to expect the average HNer to know these intricacies. However, from what I've learned about telecom, I can at least have a better idea of knowing what I don't know about other policy arenas. Thankfully, this will prevent me from reaching super simple (and often flat out wrong observations) such as "[t]his will be lobbied into oblivion." Obviously lots of money will be spent opposing this, but that's true for nearly any regulatory proposal, and is far from dispositive of any outcome. [1] http://www.fiercecable.com/story/mccain-bill-sparks-conflict-between-aca-and-ncta/2013-05-10 http://www.fiercecable.com/story/mccain-bill-sparks-conflict...
tyre 13y ago
This sounds really awesome, but I cannot see this being really effective. For individual channels, they can just make it extremely cost-prohibitive to purchase single channels. Want ESPN? $20/month or you can get 20 channels for $25/month. There are some people that will take that, but I wouldn't count on it. Same goes for cable bundling. You don't have to take ESPN with ABC, but you can either have either one of them for $15m each (making up numbers), or $15,000,001 for both. Maybe I'm a pessimist, but these companies are experts in ignoring what people want. Without very careful checks, they'll find a way to keep their margins (which, given that they own the content, they absolutely have the right to do, as much as it upsets me.)
- AnthonyMouse 13y ago
  >ESPN? $20/month or you can get 20 channels for $25/month. But if you never watch ESPN then even saving $5 is worth it. There are plenty of people who pay for cable exclusively for HBO, and since HBO and ESPN don't share a parent company they're not going to want their networks to be bundled together. And it also allows you to make sensible decisions like specifically refusing to pay for HLN because it puts Nancy Grace on the air.
zeroexzeroone 13y ago
I have not had cable TV for nearly 3 years and it has worked out very well since I am outdoors more often. However, the day al a carte is in town is the day I buy cable again. Comcast et. al. are just like banks, they could care less about the consumer. I am not holding my breath as McCain is simply spinning his wheels.
rocky1138 13y ago
Too little, too late. We needed this around 1990.
jsymolon 13y ago
I always thought that the physical plant / last mile should always be another company and not any way attached/owned by the content provider(s). In most areas there are at least 2 content providers who can split the physical plant costs (+ minor profit).
tjansen 13y ago
The bill won't have any significant impact on most customers because cable channels won't charge the cable companies any less. If a cable companies has to pay, say, $1 Mio to distribute a channel, it needs the subscriptions to pay for that. It can either sell channels a la carte for a high fee, or sell bundles for a lower fee per channel. But the revenue will always need to be on the same level. The only difference will be that people who want very few extra channels may get them cheaper than people who want all available channels. But as soon as you want 3-4 channels (or whatever the amount of channels is that the average consumer is actually interested in), a la carte won't be cheaper than the bundle.
jetti 13y ago
I would love to be able to buy individual channels, however, I don't think that this is something the government should get involved in. I would suggest working on a bill that would try to increase the prevalence of affordable high speed internet throughout the country. This would give access to all parts of the country but it would also give citizens more options when it comes to TV because Netflix, Hulu, etc would be accesible to everybody and could cause the cable companies to re-evaluate their strategy.

44 points by fady 13y ago

First off, read the link early in the story to his comments. Its more informative. I wonder how he is going to address must carry channels that local governments impose upon the cable companies? I am all for choosing channels, but I wonder if this would permit currently premium channels to be chosen without excessive charges? As in, will they still permit bundle requirements to have HBO? Considering it imposes similar rules on those companies selling channels to cable companies the host of groups who will line up to fight this will be impressive. My favorite part is eliminating the black out rules on sports events for public funded stadiums.

aneth4 13y ago

Not that this bill is necessarily a bad thing, but Republicans know no end to their hypocrisy. They'll introduce all sorts of unnecessary micro-regulation to create a "free" market. This is the same guy who supported the bills deregulating the financial industry, which lead to the derivatives crisis. I guess Senators suffer from the same problems as software engineers - they only see the problems in their living room.

FelixP 13y ago
Honestly, this seems like a pretty unambiguously good thing - don't assume it's bad just because you dislike the politician / party that's proposing it.
- illuminate 13y ago
  It's the "stopped clock" principle, we're wondering where the catch is, and what's going to come out and water this down into uselessness. I'll be happy and laud the originator if everything goes as proposed. They rarely do.
jacoblyles 13y ago
Some people just hate Republicans no matter what they do.
- aneth4 13y ago
  I don't hate Republicans who are not either completely hypocritical or spineless before the social conservatives and tea party idiocy.
roc 13y ago
The "free" market doesn't exist without regulation against things like fraud, collusion, monopolies, etc. This is exactly the sort of regulation Republicans should care about. Not that this excuses Republicans from being hypocrites. But on this issue, there's no conflict with their core philosophy. And frankly, even deregulating the financial industry was consistent with their philosophy. It was their support for socializing what should have been private losses that was the philosophical problem.
- illuminate 13y ago
  "The "free" market doesn't exist without regulation" This is where every liberal/conservative rolls there eyes in disgust.
jerrya 13y ago
I don't have a free market in cable providers. In my largish apartment complex, there is one cable provider: Cox. I can't use a sat dish, my apartment faces the wrong direction and I'm on the second floor. FIOS isn't available. CenturyLink agrees no "prism tv" whatever that is for me, and directtv is out because I am on the second floor and face the wrong direction. So there's really no free market in cable providers for me, it's a monopoly situation. The free market solution would be to require Cox to allow other cable providers to use their cable to get last mile to me and then let Cox, et. al., charge me however they wish. I would be curious to know which situation Cox would prefer: mandatory unbundling, or force them to share the cable. EDIT: I do wonder what keeps Verizon from offering FIOS if they wanted to. Is it too expensive to rewire a huge sprawling multi-floor apartment complex?
- twoodfin 13y ago
  EDIT: I do wonder what keeps Verizon from offering FIOS if they wanted to. Is it too expensive to rewire a huge sprawling multi-floor apartment complex? My understanding is that Verizon has dramatically slowed their FiOS rollout, primarily because they don't think they're likely to be able to sell you "premium services" long-term. Does anyone think that within 10 years there will be any content worth having not available over a 100Mbit (or gigabit, even) pure IP connection? How much can Verizon expect to charge for such a connection? FiOS made sense when they thought they would be Skype, HBO, NetFlix and iTunes combined, or at least get a cut on all of those. But even if we don't get regulated Network Neutrality, competitive pressure alone will commoditize content and application delivery over IP.
  - AnthonyMouse 13y ago
    What I don't understand is their pricing model. It seems like they would do a lot better to have A) a "cheap crappy" option which is something like 384K internet and basic cable for an extraordinarily low price, and B) a 100Mbps+ internet service at the same profit margin they would get by selling an entire "triple play" package and then optional over the top phone and cable packages effectively for Verizon's cost, the point of offering them at all merely being to be able to supply the same overall offering as their existing competitors. The result would be that Verizon could stop giving a crap about whether you use their TV offerings or Hulu or whatever else because that's not where they make their money, but at the same time customers wanting the "triple play" package can get it from them for a total price competitive with similarly situated ISPs and with an overall profit margin they expect from such a thing. Just admit to themselves that they're in the wire business, stop trying to be in the content business, and charge accordingly for the wire. Suddenly "cord cutters" are not a problem, especially when the competing ISP realizes the logic and does the same thing.

codex 13y ago

I would love a la carte TV, but make no mistake: it will destroy the profitability of cable companies. Bundling allows cable operators to segment the market: to sell the same product to different audiences at different prices depending on their willingness to pay. A $100 package of bundled sports + movies can be sold to the person who is willing to pay $90 for sports and $10 for movies and also to the person who is willing to pay $10 for sports and $90 for movies. But sports and movies are unbundled, they must be sold at the same price to everyone. Should they be priced at $10 each? $90? Somewhere in between? Pick any price and the cable companies lose money: the person who values it more will pay less for it than they would have, and the person who values it less won't buy it at all. EDIT: I don't want to sound pro-cable; indeed, I am not; I am just pointing out the effects of this legislation. In some ways, bundling is a natural way to package content. MOG, Spotify, and other subscription music services bundle their content (you don't get to pick and choose what you subscribe to), and the big daddy of disruption, Netflix streaming, doesn't let you unbundle either. It's one flat fee for everything. In these cases, of course, it's easier to swallow because prices are so low to begin with. Perhaps it's not bundling that's the problem with cable, but the pricing.

kaa2102 13y ago
Customers shouldn't be forced to do what's best for companies.
- ibejoeb 13y ago
  Likewise, we have a general principal in US wherein companies should be free to develop profitable business practices. Cable is sort of special since it's become part of our infrastructure, so it deserves some oversight, but does that extend so far as to dictate how programs are packaged? I think a la carte is pretty tricky. I want it because I only want to watch AMC and HBO. It might not be so good for the consumer who wants 20 different networks.
  - philwelch 13y ago
    Television is luxury, not infrastructure.

dlhavema 13y ago

I would totally love to order the sci-fi channel, fx, history channel and a couple others and not have to scroll through 30+ channels to get to them... i haven't had cable in years because it's never been worth it to me for just a few channels...

Avenger42 13y ago
You'll probably still have to scroll through them - they'll just be marketing screens saying "call <cable provider> to order <useless channel>!" I just downgraded my U-verse account. The channels I used to have are now just a blue screen with the image of a TV and a message either saying "you are not subscribed to this channel" or "call <number> to order this channel".

alexsilver 13y ago

As much as it kills me to support McCain (I'm not a fan of him at all), all I can say is "Holy cow, well done!!!" This thought came across my mind first when I was 15, wishing for Cartoon Network without paying extra for cable that we couldn't afford.

aaronblohowiak 13y ago
pre-presidential-race McCain was known for stuff like this.
- illuminate 13y ago
  Pre-Presidential candidate was known for promoting himself as a "maverick", but I think the majority of that meme was his self-promotion and an easy media narrative. He hasn't been very independent, even if it doesn't take much to be considered an odd duck Republican in this tea party climate.

codegeek 13y ago

This will be awesome and it is long overdue in the United States in my opinion. The monopoluy of the cable companies is outrageous to say the least. Also, enough with the bullshit "bundles" and "packages". I don't want to pay $100 to comcast (Northeast US region where I live) and get a "bundle" of channels but if i want to watch HBO, pay extra. If I want to watch Showtime, pay extra. Basically, any channel worth watching, pay extra. I would rather pay $100 to pick 10 channels that I really watch even if that includes CNN.

seanalltogether 13y ago

Perhaps we need a bill that covers 2 things. 1. If a channel is free (NBC, TBS, etc), cable/sat providers are required to include it as part of the base connection fee. 2. If a channel is paid, subscribers need to pay for it directly, it can't be subsidized through the basic connection fee. Now individual networks have the power to determine if a channel is part of the basic service or not. Cable companies still have the option of bundling channels together or go ala carte if subscribers really want to access premium channels.

codegeek 13y ago
I am confused. How is it any different than we have today ? Free channels are always part of the base fee and where the cable companies get you is the so called "Premium" Channels which they offer in their "bundles".
- samolang 13y ago
  I think he means channels the cable company has to pay for. Some channels don't charge the cable cable, but get all of their money from advertising. Other channels do charge the cable company and may or may not also have advertising. Example: http://www.sportsgrid.com/media/espn-cable-subscriber-fees/ http://www.sportsgrid.com/media/espn-cable-subscriber-fees/ List of a bunch of channels' costs: http://allthingsd.com/20100308/hate-paying-for-cable-heres-the-reason-why/ http://allthingsd.com/20100308/hate-paying-for-cable-heres-t...
- seanalltogether 13y ago
  The distinction is subtle but I believe it's the most important. Currently comcast is allowed to decide what channels to offer you as part of the basic connection fee (aside from OTA requirements). By putting the decision in the hands of the networks themselves to decide whether to be a default channel or a premium channel, it changes the landscape significantly. It also changes networks incentives to fight for or against being bundled with certain other channels.
tobylane 13y ago
I've indirectly read (I doubt those kind of memories) about people saying the current setup favours sport. What else does it favour, probably natural history? I wouldn't want to see the US backers of Attenborough become massively defunded.

ck2 13y ago

Beware of conservatives bearing "gifts". Check which lobbyists have been visiting/donating to him recently. (and with all the problems we have right now, all the unfilled positions for five years, this is what he is working on?)

CrazedGeek 13y ago
It seems like he's been spending a lot of time recently banging the Benghazi drum, so this is at least an improvement.

Vivtek 13y ago

I'm going to be seriously conflicted if McCain does something I like.

aaronblohowiak 13y ago
Cable providers are government-sanctioned monopolies in their service areas. While I would rather there was a separation between physical infrastructure and content providers, I think that positive regulation of natural monopolies is a net win.
AnthonyMouse 13y ago
McCain has a history of doing a lot of sensible things. The reason people think he's a nutter is that he wanted to be president, and he learned in 2000 that you have to at least pretend to be a crazy person in order to secure the Republican nomination.
jacoblyles 13y ago
With McCain I learned that "maverick" means "no consistent underlying principles". Sometimes it works to your favor.

NoPiece 13y ago

The interesting thing is that the foundation of the TV system is built on the increasingly obsolete concept of broadcast TV. If you could get rid of that, and force all content providers to compete evenly via the internet, we'd have much more interesting environment. You'd free up the airwaves for more valuable use, you wouldn't need the FCC regulating content, and you'd break up the abc/cbs/nbc/fox semi-monopoly must carry position. Think how wasteful it is to use all that television frequency bandwidth largely to transmit tv signals from networks to cable companies. According to NAB, only 17.8% of US homes rely only on OTA. https://www.nab.org/documents/newsroom/pressRelease.asp?id=2761 https://www.nab.org/documents/newsroom/pressRelease.asp?id=2...

fixxer 13y ago

I gave up cable TV three years ago and honestly don't miss it. I still have Internet (Netflix, Amazon Prime, NoWhere TV) and the options for providers in my area are limited... but it worth it just to pay less to Comcast. This bill, if it even passes, will not sway me to change.

ameister14 13y ago
Yeah, I guess I just don't see the point in legislating something that is going to be gone soon anyway.

vampirechicken 13y ago

This will be lobbied into oblivion. Content providers won't go for it, because they currently use their popular programming to force their new ventures onto cable providers. You can't force a cable provider to put your crappy home and garden channel on their line-up, if nobody orders it. You can't argue with real sales metrics. Further, cable providers can't make a living when all of their customers downgrade to the three basic-cable channels they actually watch, plus HBO. Because the idea of a la cart cable is to lower the bills by not paying for what you don't want. Huge amounts of money will, from both sides of the cable programming negotiating table will align against this pro-consumer measure, because it will force a radical rethinking of an industry that has never really had to be pro consumer.

codegeek 13y ago
"radical rethinking of an industry " No one said it would be easy. But is it long overdue ? hell yea.
ihsw 13y ago
> Further, cable providers can't make a living when all of their customers downgrade to the three basic-cable channels they actually watch, plus HBO. Personally I'm quite fine with that.
mey 13y ago
I'm ok with that, I've have ditched cable tv and switched entirely over to OTA digital broadcast, netflix and hulu. Considering adding Amazon Prime to the list, and it is all still cheaper then cable.
adelevie 13y ago
> This will be lobbied into oblivion. Nearly every regulatory issue in telecom (and likely most other industries, but I'll just stick with what I know) is lobbied extensively by someone. Most issues will, whatever the underlying intent, benefit certain sub-industries over others. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. In fact, it's virtually impossible to propose a regulation that won't affect the market. By definition, regulations are supposed to to affect the market. To assume that "cable" will outright oppose this is false, and overly simplistic. Cable is hardly a monolith, and there are things in this proposal that different types of cable companies could conceivably support. NCTA, the larger cable trade org opposes the measure, while ACA (representing relatively smaller cable companies) supports at least many of the principles behind the proposal[1]. There's a big difference in policy goals between vertically-integrated and non-vertically-integrated cable companies. Comcast, as both a cable company and a content producer, probably does enjoy policies that allow for bundling and would oppose that certain part of the proposal. However, competing cable companies who are not vertically integrated would probably support such a measure. It's not a crazy thought that Independent Cable Co. X would like to pick and choose which channels to buy for its subscribers without being forced into a bundle. In other words, for the same reason that consumers might want this choice, many cable companies could want this as well. The part of the bill that penalizes broadcasters who switch to pay TV is something that probably all cable companies, even the big ones like Comcast, could support. Retransmission consent fees paid by cable companies to broadcasters are increasingly high and a court-blessed Aereo would provide an avenue for cable companies to simply stop paying those fees (or at least give them a good bargaining chip in retrans fee negotiations). Oddly enough, wireless companies (e.g. Verizon) might oppose this part of the proposal. They badly want spectrum, and if FOX and others leave the airwaves, this could help get that spectrum into their hands. As an aside, I think the threats from FOX are hollow for a number of reasons. Anyways, getting a little bit meta here, but the telecom industry is where I've been interning (various places) and would like to work in at some point. There's no reason to expect the average HNer to know these intricacies. However, from what I've learned about telecom, I can at least have a better idea of knowing what I don't know about other policy arenas. Thankfully, this will prevent me from reaching super simple (and often flat out wrong observations) such as "[t]his will be lobbied into oblivion." Obviously lots of money will be spent opposing this, but that's true for nearly any regulatory proposal, and is far from dispositive of any outcome. [1] http://www.fiercecable.com/story/mccain-bill-sparks-conflict-between-aca-and-ncta/2013-05-10 http://www.fiercecable.com/story/mccain-bill-sparks-conflict...

tyre 13y ago

This sounds really awesome, but I cannot see this being really effective. For individual channels, they can just make it extremely cost-prohibitive to purchase single channels. Want ESPN? $20/month or you can get 20 channels for $25/month. There are some people that will take that, but I wouldn't count on it. Same goes for cable bundling. You don't have to take ESPN with ABC, but you can either have either one of them for $15m each (making up numbers), or $15,000,001 for both. Maybe I'm a pessimist, but these companies are experts in ignoring what people want. Without very careful checks, they'll find a way to keep their margins (which, given that they own the content, they absolutely have the right to do, as much as it upsets me.)

AnthonyMouse 13y ago
>ESPN? $20/month or you can get 20 channels for $25/month. But if you never watch ESPN then even saving $5 is worth it. There are plenty of people who pay for cable exclusively for HBO, and since HBO and ESPN don't share a parent company they're not going to want their networks to be bundled together. And it also allows you to make sensible decisions like specifically refusing to pay for HLN because it puts Nancy Grace on the air.

zeroexzeroone 13y ago

I have not had cable TV for nearly 3 years and it has worked out very well since I am outdoors more often. However, the day al a carte is in town is the day I buy cable again. Comcast et. al. are just like banks, they could care less about the consumer. I am not holding my breath as McCain is simply spinning his wheels.

rocky1138 13y ago

Too little, too late. We needed this around 1990.

jsymolon 13y ago

I always thought that the physical plant / last mile should always be another company and not any way attached/owned by the content provider(s). In most areas there are at least 2 content providers who can split the physical plant costs (+ minor profit).

tjansen 13y ago

The bill won't have any significant impact on most customers because cable channels won't charge the cable companies any less. If a cable companies has to pay, say, $1 Mio to distribute a channel, it needs the subscriptions to pay for that. It can either sell channels a la carte for a high fee, or sell bundles for a lower fee per channel. But the revenue will always need to be on the same level. The only difference will be that people who want very few extra channels may get them cheaper than people who want all available channels. But as soon as you want 3-4 channels (or whatever the amount of channels is that the average consumer is actually interested in), a la carte won't be cheaper than the bundle.

jetti 13y ago

I would love to be able to buy individual channels, however, I don't think that this is something the government should get involved in. I would suggest working on a bill that would try to increase the prevalence of affordable high speed internet throughout the country. This would give access to all parts of the country but it would also give citizens more options when it comes to TV because Netflix, Hulu, etc would be accesible to everybody and could cause the cable companies to re-evaluate their strategy.