4 ms·

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 cab

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...
illuminate 13y ago
"This will be lobbied into oblivion" I'm just curious what lobby is pushing McCain? He's not a guy known for his principles.

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...

illuminate 13y ago

"This will be lobbied into oblivion" I'm just curious what lobby is pushing McCain? He's not a guy known for his principles.