6 ms·
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 connec
by 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 agoI 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 agoI 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 agoThe 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 agoI'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.
- twoodfin 13y agoThe current setup favored AMC, which would have had no incentive to produce a show like "Mad Men" without the hope that it would increase the rate they could charge carriers. In an a la carte world, they'd have to rely on word of mouth from whatever tiny subscriber base they would have already had, which seems implausible.
- AnthonyMouse 13y agoOn the other hand, anyone could produce a pilot and put it on the internet to demonstrate the existence of an audience. Really the whole concept of "networks" and "broadcast television" should just go away. The technology exists for everything to be delivered on demand. The primary missing piece is for 99% of households to be able to watch internet-delivered programming on their actual television, which itself is primarily an issue of the installed base of TVs not being able to do it. And that could be solved in a hurry if that capacity was inserted into all the cable boxes.
- tobylane 13y agoHow much do indoor pilots cost? Cheap pilots will probably end up being multi camera, no audience, outdoors, and overly pandering. Pilots need to be funded by people who aren't looking for high ratings within ten minutes. Netflix does look past that, but they do look at when people pause or stop, something broadcasters can't do.