Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(C|Net)   John McCain pushes to end cable bundling, says anyone that wants certain channels should just go up on the roof and adjust the antenna like he does   (news.cnet.com) divider line 114
    More: Spiffy, John McCain, senate commerce committee, cable operators, Google's YouTube, product bundling  
•       •       •

1497 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 May 2013 at 11:18 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



114 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-12 05:48:12 AM  

Dinjiin: Jacobin: He just wants that one channel with Matlock reruns

Central Arizona has three retro networks: MeTV, ThisTV and BounceTV.  If you have a clear line to Tucson, you also get CoziTV and AntennaTV.  Only thing we're missing is RetroTV.  The silver hairs do quite well w/o needing cable.

/Matlock airs on OTV channel 3-1
//see McCain as more of a Perry Mason sort of guy... that's on 7-2


Do they get Lawrence Welk? Oldsters love them some Lawrence Welk.

And Championship Bowling.
 
2013-05-12 09:14:07 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Dinjiin: Jacobin: He just wants that one channel with Matlock reruns

Central Arizona has three retro networks: MeTV, ThisTV and BounceTV.  If you have a clear line to Tucson, you also get CoziTV and AntennaTV.  Only thing we're missing is RetroTV.  The silver hairs do quite well w/o needing cable.

/Matlock airs on OTV channel 3-1
//see McCain as more of a Perry Mason sort of guy... that's on 7-2

Do they get Lawrence Welk? Oldsters love them some Lawrence Welk.

And Championship Bowling.


At least our PBS station shows Lawrence Welk every week.
 
2013-05-12 10:42:56 AM  

dletter: 2. The thing you are REALLY overpaying for that raises your bill.... equipment.   The fact that 3rd parties can't sell you a compatible box for $50-100 and you have to "rent" a box from the company for anywhere from $5-20/month for a 2nd, 3rd, 4th TV or for DVR/HD level box is what is really killing your bill.  If guys like McCain really want to lower your cable bill, you'd attack that end of the bill.


I keep getting the hard sell for AT&T uVerse so I tell them I only want the internet and only if I can use my own router.  They say I have to use theirs.  So I say OK, but I'm not paying extra to "rent" their equipment.  They say sure, that's waived if you get the TV, telephone & internet bundle.  I tell them no thanks and hang up.

Then a few weeks later they call again...
 
2013-05-12 11:04:33 AM  

ZeroCorpse: thurstonxhowell: ZeroCorpse: Think about it: You're paying ridiculous fees to watch people throw balls and stuff. You could watch that for free in the local playground, or cheaper in lesser league venues, but for some reason it's more compelling when millionaires are doing it and the shows are padded by lots of beer and car commercials.

That's like saying it's ridiculous to pay for a Broadway play when I can watch my 6 year old nephew act out his videogames.

Don't  even try to compare playing sports with writing, acting, and theatrical arts. You MIGHT be able to compare sports to reality TV shows (no plot, random jerks being overpaid to do something mundane) but not to a play that has a coherent story, music, dialogue, costuming, effects, varying degrees of acting talent, and so on.

Pro Wrestling is more like a play than real sports, I'll grant. It's basically Greek theater in the round. But a football game doesn't require a script to be written, dialogue to be delivered, emotions to be portrayed, different costumes for each individual, or music to fit the story. All it requires is that a bunch of brutes try to get the ball from here to there using a limited playbook of moves. And it's like that every time.

Sports is basically watching guys doing manual labor in a directed manner. The only difference between watching a football game and watching a team of guys dig a ditch is that the ditch diggers aren't wearing tights or paid as well. They're still just using physical labor to get to the goal, from one side to the other, and they end up just as dirty and sweaty at the end. Some of them might have some real skills with the shovel, but in the end, there's only so much you can do to make the task any less boring.

"BAM! Jones really got that load of dirt high in the air, and Ramirez follows up with a wicked left-handed shovel spin. The ditchdiggers are really moving tonight!"

Real exciting stuff. This is why ESPN 2 can show ridiculous crap like toughman competiti ...


You could have saved a lot of time by just explaining that you're an asshole. That's the only thing I'm getting from you, anyway.
 
2013-05-12 11:13:46 AM  

thurstonxhowell: ZeroCorpse: thurstonxhowell: ZeroCorpse: Think about it: You're paying ridiculous fees to watch people throw balls and stuff. You could watch that for free in the local playground, or cheaper in lesser league venues, but for some reason it's more compelling when millionaires are doing it and the shows are padded by lots of beer and car commercials.

That's like saying it's ridiculous to pay for a Broadway play when I can watch my 6 year old nephew act out his videogames.

Don't  even try to compare playing sports with writing, acting, and theatrical arts. You MIGHT be able to compare sports to reality TV shows (no plot, random jerks being overpaid to do something mundane) but not to a play that has a coherent story, music, dialogue, costuming, effects, varying degrees of acting talent, and so on.

Pro Wrestling is more like a play than real sports, I'll grant. It's basically Greek theater in the round. But a football game doesn't require a script to be written, dialogue to be delivered, emotions to be portrayed, different costumes for each individual, or music to fit the story. All it requires is that a bunch of brutes try to get the ball from here to there using a limited playbook of moves. And it's like that every time.

Sports is basically watching guys doing manual labor in a directed manner. The only difference between watching a football game and watching a team of guys dig a ditch is that the ditch diggers aren't wearing tights or paid as well. They're still just using physical labor to get to the goal, from one side to the other, and they end up just as dirty and sweaty at the end. Some of them might have some real skills with the shovel, but in the end, there's only so much you can do to make the task any less boring.

"BAM! Jones really got that load of dirt high in the air, and Ramirez follows up with a wicked left-handed shovel spin. The ditchdiggers are really moving tonight!"

Real exciting stuff. This is why ESPN 2 can show ridiculous crap like toughm ...


I think you just meant to use this....

i.imgur.com
 
2013-05-12 11:30:56 AM  
"Now many home games are blacked out in an effort to encourage fans to go to the stadium"

I wonder what percentage of people who go to see an event at the venue in which it's hosted would not go if the event were broadcast where it can be seen on TV
 
2013-05-12 11:42:21 AM  

Ontos: macadamnut: [oi26.tinypic.com image 425x512]

"Rich guys always want what's best for everyone!"

Is Obama not rich?

How did you feel about Kerry in 2004?



I don't see either of those guys mentioned in TFA.
 
2013-05-12 12:03:52 PM  

dletter: Karac: If they offered me a chance to pick and choose the channels I wanted for say ... $1 a month each, I'd probably take them up on a few.

And if that expensive restaurant with really good steaks would only sell them to me for, oh, say, $3.... I'd eat their 3 days a week.


---- I say they should offer ALL CHANNELS besides premiums like HBO in a package called PICK 20 for $40.
I'm only interested in TCM, BBC and some others that are in upper tiers and I resent paying extra to get them, only to have a pile of worthless shiat channels accompanying. That's all I need, 20 channels.

/grew up with 13 channels of shiat on the TV to choose from.... choose from.... choose from....
 
2013-05-12 02:42:21 PM  

puddleonfire: dletter: Karac: If they offered me a chance to pick and choose the channels I wanted for say ... $1 a month each, I'd probably take them up on a few.

And if that expensive restaurant with really good steaks would only sell them to me for, oh, say, $3.... I'd eat their 3 days a week.

---- I say they should offer ALL CHANNELS besides premiums like HBO in a package called PICK 20 for $40.
I'm only interested in TCM, BBC and some others that are in upper tiers and I resent paying extra to get them, only to have a pile of worthless shiat channels accompanying. That's all I need, 20 channels.

/grew up with 13 channels of shiat on the TV to choose from.... choose from.... choose from....


This I might actually get behind a bit more.... the fact that the companies do "tier" , and do their tiering differently, is a bit of an issue, especially if as you say, there are 2-3 channels you want in the "Top 240", but, otherwise you'd be happy to just pay for the "Top 120" package.
 
2013-05-12 03:25:23 PM  

Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: "Now many home games are blacked out in an effort to encourage fans to go to the stadium"

I wonder what percentage of people who go to see an event at the venue in which it's hosted would not go if the event were broadcast where it can be seen on TV


Hence blackout rules. Depends on your degree of rabid fanaticism. If you're talking football, I for one refuse to go to the stadium anymore. The seats suck, the kneeroom is non-existent, the sightlines are horrible, the concession prices are stratospheric (and of course the quality is subterranean), the parking area is bomb-cratered, the traffic in and out is Brobdingnagian, and the on-field product is sub-par.

I'll watch the hell out of it on TV though, so here's to the really rabid ticket holders who generate the sellout and allow me to watch from the comfort of my neighborhood watering hole.

Baseball, however, is meant to be experienced in person. See you at the field.
 
2013-05-12 03:41:56 PM  
madgonad:
What they are doing is eliminating competition - and without competition there is no control on pricing.

There's a ton of competition in television.  Networks and shows compete with each other both for advertising and for carriage fees.  It's just that the consumer isn't the one negotiating the prices.  Think of it like health insurance.  By combining with thousands of other customers, a carrier is able to negotiate lower prices.  Sure, you may end up with a number of services you don't need nor will you ever need, and some people are going to pay more than they would otherwise while others will pay less, but by pooling everybody together the cost for the average person goes down.

My solution - cable/dish companies sell the basic/lifeline package and they can charge 5-10 for cable boxes. That is their entire direct income stream. It is good money, but not piles of it - and they will lose the headache of having to deal with the content providers.
 The content providers will sell their products through the cable company.


I think you're drastically underestimated the fixed costs for a cable company.  I just did a quick check and, for my cable providers cheapest package, the actual cost for the channels is less than $10, for a $35 package.  So the "basic/lifeline package" in your scenario is going to cost $25+ just for access, before any channels.  And the popular channels are going to end up costing more, so you're still looking at $60-100 for anything more than 5 or 10 channels, especially if you want anything popular.

The problem with networks losing that carriage revenue is that they'll need to get that revenue from somewhere else, so they're going to either increase the ad time or decrease the amount of original programming.  One of the reasons a network like AMC can put out relatively low-rated shows like Mad Men and Breaking Bad is because they have consistent carriage revenue.  Eliminating that (or decreasing it significantly) will end up sending us back to where cable was twenty years ago: Few channels, no original scripted programming, and lots of reruns.

The end result will be that marginal channels will fail because they are not built on an economically sound foundation. They have only brought money in because there are some 'casual' watchers and they have been bundled with more desirable channels. So yeah, the Golf channel is going bye bye.

So your solution for "fixing" television will result in fewer channels, less original scripted programming, and more advertising?  Sounds awesome.

This will also put the sports channels in the pickle. They won't be able to leech off of the considerable fees that everyone has been paying when 2/3 of the viewers are no longer paying. Sure, ESPN can ask a bit more for their content - probably as high as $20/mo. But push it any higher and people will start doing without. This in turn will reduce the outlandish fees that broadcasters have been paying professional sports - so that means less money supporting them. That means athletes won't be able to make so much money.
I like this idea more and more.


Okay, now you're just trolling.
 
2013-05-12 03:43:53 PM  

WordyGrrl: I'm guessing the only thing really keeping cable tv alive is... live sporting events. If I were a cable operator, I'd be spending a LOT of money to build more stadiums and invent more big, splashy competitive events worthy of airtime.


It makes sense to have a product that appeals to a large stupid group of people, even more so if it is heavily subsidized by the government.

...but maybe there is a moral alternative.
 
2013-05-12 07:20:42 PM  
Haven't had cable since 2006.  Use Netflix and pay $25/month for MLB.TV, but I mostly watch what the kids watch (PBS).

Miss ESPN and the other sports channels though.
 
2013-05-12 10:03:10 PM  

Slappy McLongstockings: WordyGrrl: I'm guessing the only thing really keeping cable tv alive is... live sporting events. If I were a cable operator, I'd be spending a LOT of money to build more stadiums and invent more big, splashy competitive events worthy of airtime.

It makes sense to have a product that appeals to a large stupid group of people, even more so if it is heavily subsidized by the government.

...but maybe there is a moral alternative.


Hmm, maybe do something religious/historical? Like Christians vs Lions?
 
Displayed 14 of 114 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report