Time Warner Unveils Family Cable Plan
from the decent-but-boring dept
In an attempt to head off having a la carte imposed on them by the FCC, cable companies have been considering offering family-friendly programming packages, and Time Warner says it's the first to take the plunge. For $33 per month, subscribers will get a sanitzed package of about 35 channels, and critics aren't impressed, saying the package is weak and the price too high. It seems like whatever the cable companies do here, nobody's going to be perfectly happy -- for instance, Time Warner hasn't included ESPN (because fan behavior might be offensive), and doesn't include religious channels, with a spokesman conceding that what's objectionable differs from house to house. The chairman of a prominent family group says the package is "designed to fail" -- given the FCC's priority on cracking down on indecency, and the attention they pay to these activist groups, it wouldn't be surprising to see their unhappiness with cable operators' attempts at these family tiers serve to strengthen the push for a la carte, rather than weaken it.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
Try to find a package with you local cable company that offers ESPN, ESPN2, broadcast networks, Disney, Discovery and the Nature channel. Without any of the undesirable (to some) PREMIUM channels.
That's why their is such a push for a la carte. Everytime I've checked into it, to get the channels I want I would have to subscribe to anywhere from 10 to 100 or more channels I don't want. Why should I subsidize cable networks that I have no desire to watch?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
I could give a frozen rat turd about ESPN, SPEED, and Lifetime, or any of the dozen home shopping channels. I'm a smart consumer, I don't want to pay for what I don't want to watch.
Its not about censorship, but unfair bargaining power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
Try to find a package with you local cable company that offers ESPN, ESPN2, broadcast networks, Disney, Discovery and the Nature channel. Without any of the undesirable (to some) PREMIUM channels.
That's why their is such a push for a la carte. Everytime I've checked into it, to get the channels I want I would have to subscribe to anywhere from 10 to 100 or more channels I don't want. Why should I subsidize cable networks that I have no desire to watch?
Except... as has been explained many, many times, this argument is incorrect. If you unbundled those channels, you'd end up paying a lot *MORE*. First, the cable co's would need to re-architect their system to handle managing so many different configurations, which has a serious cost. Also, the only way they can price things the way they do is they work out deals with the various channels -- where the different channels bundle less popular channels with more popular ones. So, if you want to break out the channels you want, each of those channels is going to be prohibitively expensive on their own.
So, the argument that you just want a few different channels makes less sense, once you realize that to get those few channels, your bill is going to be much larger.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
They should realize this by now that no matter what they do besides giving up all package control to the FCC entirely, that they will come to no agreement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
As if kids need TV to see naked people or hear bad words. Look on the internet, naked people and cursing everywhere. If for some (sad) reason the kids can't get past their parents' parental control software all they need to do is run off to the magazine stand and sit in a corner or get a dirty jokes magazine.
I don't understand the logic in blocking so much TV. They put all their efforts into it when it's not even the thing we should be worrying about if we're trying to censor things from children.
Vchips are the devil.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
People have a right to speak out and petition, particularly in the marketplace. It astounds me that those who decry such freedom, do it with the battlecry of censorship. The irony is so thick...or is it just hypocrisy?
But I guess that we, the viewing public, should just keep our mouths shut and accept anything the networks and cable companies throw our way, right? If we speak out and demand an alternative, that's oppressive and censorous. Brilliant. I guess Stoned4Life is more than just a handle.
So if a network were to start broadcasting a sitcom called "Those Nutty N---ers," where white actors in blackface speak in extreme ebonics and do nothing but steal and cheat the government, you'd call anyone who opposed the show a censor, hmmm?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
What's worse, some people don't like citrus-flavored waters, and want to prevent anyone else from receiving those flavors, even if they happen to like citrus.
You can always shut off the taps to certain flavors if you don't like them. The water company even provides locks that fit on your tap. You still have to pay for the water delivery, of course, but you can at least control what sort of water your family actually drinks. These people don't care, though. They think that citrus flavors are just plain harmful to everyone.
Does this example make a little more sense? Or are we still fascist when we say that no one has a right to limit what types of water we are allowed to drink? (As long as, of course, such waters don't harm *other* people in the making of them. Soylent Green water is clearly out of the picture.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
What I don't like is how the censorship is being applied. If something potentially offensive is aired, the FCC does not immediately investigate and start handing out tickets. But if A SINGLE PERSON complains, the investigation rolls forward and fines ultimately follow.
Do I care if Janet flashed a nipple? Not really, because I know it was unintentional and will not be repeated; it's the "risk" you assume with live broadcast.
For cable, the rules are different (or at least should be different). Paid cable is a luxury item. If you don't like what's being shown, stop paying and watch crappy network programming on the big 4 channels. The argument on a la cart programming should not be one of censorship, but one of offering more options to the comsumer. It's a basic customer service issue. That's it.
And save the crap about the V-chip being too much work. If it's that damn important to you, RTFM, learn how to block content at the TV level, and leave me (and my pr0n) the hell alone.
The "water coming into your house" analogy is a weak argument. Cable/Satellite is more like a tap that dispenses Kool-Aide instead of water if you're willing to pay $90 a month. Don;t like the Kool-Aide that's flowing? Fine. Cancel your fruit punch service and go back to plain old tap water.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
Who gets to decide what is offensive? I Guarantee that no mater WHAT you say / do / project / distribute / whatever, there will be some one who is “genuinely and truly” offended. So what? Does that mean that that thing cannot / should not be said / done / projected / distributed / etc? Of course not.
When did we receive the right to go through life without being offended? Quite frankly, I find THAT idea quite offensive.
What we need to do, rather than worry so much about who is offended by what – is worry less about the people who are offended – let them grow up and get over it on their own, or at least find something serious to complain about. We cannot cater to everyone who whines about being offended, so we cannot rightly cater to ANYONE who whines about being offended.
There are real problems in this world people, nipples, and penises are not among them. People who can’t deal with their own sexuality and therefore feel the need to repress the sexuality of others IS one of them.
Lets stop supporting the oppressors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
What I think it all comes down to is accepting personal responsibility for your actions. If you do not want your kids to watch certain material, take a more active role in thier life. Do not use the TV as a babysitter and then get mad that they watched something you think is bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Everyone knows true Americans watch at least 20 hours of TV a day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
You sir, are awesome!
You have managed to define censorship, as freedom of speech! That is without question the BEST spin I have EVER seen.
Seriously, you have a future in politics. Your just dumb enough for it, and three times as slippery as your best competitor. YOU FUCKING RULE.
Just for the record – YOUR freedom of speech allows you to say – “I don’t want to look at that,” or even as you seem to be arguing “I don’t want you to look at that!” It does not however allow you to actually prevent me from looking at that. But nice try, I do have to hand it to you, that was great attempt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
Yes. I'd also call anyone who watched it or ran advertisements during the show a racist asshole. Of course, it's your right to be that racist asshole if you so desire...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Get a clue
Unfortunately Cable is more monopoly based, I only have a choice of one company, but at least now I could get satellite. But I have choosen no cable or satellite for our family due to these bizarre ideas that I should support groups I don't agree with, and we are not missing anything and have more time and money for fun things and travel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
And by the way, MOST of America does not support this philosophy. Its only the MEDIA who propogate this leaning.
We dont all want to propogandize our children into thinking jumping from bed to bed is par for the course, that a homosexual relationship is as normal as a marriage, that body piercing, murder,
sodomy and foul language have to be an everyday part of our lives......Hey, if I dont turn on my tv, I may not even hear an off color remark, or see a suggestive provacation.
I dont CARE what you do.......I repeat......do as you please.......but WE'd LIKE AN ALTERNATIVE.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
this is so stupid
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bundling and choice
Actually, I don't like the channel much anymore since they concentrate on gaming. Of course that's another example of why bundling helps. I bet the channel gained some gamer viewers. We don't all like the same things, ya know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bundling and choice
As soon as Verizon finishes installing Fiber (FiOs) in my neighborhood, I'm dumping Time Warner for good. Should only be a few more weeks now, as the splicers are already hard at work :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
Unfortunately, a la carte channels will mean higher costs or less choice for most consumers. The only customomers who'll benefit are those who would subscribe to 5 or less channels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ESPN
I'd still pay a few percent total for several fringe channels I didn't watch (including MTV whatever that is now), but if the "fringe" is a full half of my cable bill then provide some way to NOT pay for it, and pronto!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]