Why Mandate A La Carte Cable When It's Happening Online Already?
from the just-let-it-go dept
We've been among those who think that the government shouldn't be forcing cable providers to offer a la carte channels. While people always insist that if they got a la carte cable, it would be cheaper, the facts are quite different. The economics of providing a la carte through existing systems would greatly increase overhead, and make it difficult to make things work. Most people would end up paying the same or more -- but for fewer channels. Those who are complaining might be better off recognizing that when they pay for cable they're effectively just paying for what they want -- and the other channels are freebies.Or, they can just realize that a la carte TV is coming without the need for government interference. Adam Thierer notes that there's a growing movement of folks realizing that you can get an awful lot of television programming (legally) online these days. It's reaching the point where we're finally moving towards a world that we predicted years ago that shows are independent of channels or TV providers, and you can just get them directly online. That's already leading some people to ditch TV service entirely, knowing they can get plenty of shows they want online -- and all of this is happening without the government getting involved at all. So, can anyone explain why it still makes sense for the government to get involved here?
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
Filed Under: a la carte, cable, internet, regulations
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
A La Carte
technology required to make it happen is costly.... and.. not very... appealing (visually).
the technology does exist to make it appealing. however, it requires cable boxes, or converters. the ability to provide al la carte via cable boxes and traps that work with them, is easier hide within the premise, (as apposed to mile long of devices sitting behind the consumers tv) the catch 22 however, is that normally, those who want a la carte, do not want a cable box.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A La Carte
There is nothing that needs to be done on a cable providers systems. They already determine what channels are available the consumer. On demand shows that it it's already there. It would not cost any additional money to shut all the channels off and allow the consumer to determine what channels they want available on their cable box. As the cable companies, Comcast in this area, already do that.
The problem is they cant charge over board prices when you only have 10-15 channels enabled on your cable box.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A La Carte
And you are 100%, completely, and udderly wrong about a la carte provisioning. It will require more equipment, and that cost will be passed on the the consumer -- you. You seem to lack any understanding of how cable works, much less economics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: A La Carte
Please explain why it difficult/expensive anyways
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: A La Carte
Expensive? It *will* be more expensive for anything other than the massively popular content (i.e. professional wrestling, UFC, etc...) But the cost for PBS and other less watched networks would definitely go up a bunch.
It's not as simple as choosing only 10 of 200 channels and expecting your monthly rate to drop comparatively. You'd likely see a comparable price and end up with fewer channels received.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: A La Carte
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: A La Carte
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: A La Carte
I pay $79/month, and I only watch Comedy Central, G4, and F/X. You can't tell me that my bill would go up if they let me cut all the stupid sports and 'Dancing With The Stars' and movie channels and all the other freaking trash out there...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A La Carte
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A La Carte
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A La Carte
I would FEEL so much better believing none of my subscription dollars would be going to produce all of those incredibly asinine voyeur shows - you know the ones I'm talking about; House Wives, Duck Dodgers, Honey Boo (oh thank GOD that's off the air) Boo, The Karcrashians, etc, etc.
That TRASH is ruining this country. People are beginning to believe it is ALRIGHT to act like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The advantage is I am only paying for my internet access to watch pretty much all the TV shows I watch, on demand. The hulu commercials are very short and there is only 2-4 commercials that play during an entire episode and never more than 1 in a row.
If you don't have a PC connected to your main Television you can also use a product like PlayOn from www.themediamall.com to stream various content like hulu.com, netflix, espn.com, etc... to your Xbox 360 or PS3 from a PC connected to your home network.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cost per channel is a joke
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TV
The only TV shows I pay to watch come in DVD box sets. What really gets me mad is because of the writer strike last year you get half as many episodes for the same price if you buy last years seasons. I've been boycotting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One problem...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One problem...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One problem...
Of course he is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One problem...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE: A La Carte
So I mostly leave the TV off and read. When I want to "channel surf" I pick up a magazine.
Comcast can rot in hell as far as I'm concerned. They clearly feel the same way about their customers. Aside from their new pricing, clearly designed to screw the customer, their customer service is a disaster.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Cable TV
It's been about 18 months, and I'm happy to save $45. For vegging I have numerous tapes and DVDs, and I can rent 20 movies a month for about the same charge. That's 40 hours, which I'd be reluctant to watch more TV than that a month.
For news I use radio and news.google. The Internet is superior to the alternatives.
I was concerned about missing Battlestar Galactica, but I managed to see it, and the program is on yet another hiatus anyway.
I was very concerned about missing the Olympics, but NBC's online coverage was superior to cable. I finally got to watch archery and judo, rather than rhythm gymnastics.
I might pay $20 per month for scifi, history, discover, and a tech channel -- but this topic is about potential cost increase, so it's nothing that affects me. Cable Co. has to seriously revamp their business model if they want customers like me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Cable TV
I too would like to have a package with the Discovery Channels, National Geographic, and a few others. I own a lot of DVD's...well, about 200 (legally purchased), but I do download a lot of movies as well, and if it is worth it I will buy the actual DVD when it comes out (I usually get them before they hit the shelves). I do the same for my music, but I mostly buy from independent artists. I do download mainstream stuff, and again if the CD is worth it I will buy it, but now I go to the artists page and they usually have good deals to increase the value of their stuff. Like with Staind's latest CD I pre-ordered it with a limited edition shirt for like $35. Then, Disturbed had 2 shirts and their CD for $45. I rarely go to the stores and buy CD's since there are usually better deals online from the artists (or their labels rather).
So as you can see I do like to sample my stuff before spending money on it...lol.
What would be really cool is if the cable providers offered something like a flat fee for their entire library through an "on demand" channel and you could just watch what you wanted when you wanted with no worries of caps, commercials, and extra fees sneaking up on you (my mother thought some of her channels were free and included in her package since they showed up on her TV, but she didn't read the part about having to subscribe to them since they make it so easy to sign up now and not know you are being charged until the bill gets there). Oh well, now she knows to read everything before clicking...lol. BTW, Time Warner, was nice enough to reverse the charges since she has been a customer of theirs since they bought out Roger's here a LOOOONG time ago. We haven't had any issues with them like I hear a lot of people complaining about. I'm in San Antonio, so I'm not sure if it is just different areas that are having customer service issues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Cable TV
Being a sci-fi fan, I get MUCH more content online than I have with ANY cable company's offerings in the past. The programming available online is improving in quality and quantity on a regular basis.
And, since I use Linux, rather than M$, I don't have to deal with DRM (even though I don't participate in pirating, DRM is a pain with M$ and Macs).
And, finally, Hulu ROCKS! Hoping for more like them!
KevDude
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Huh?
aside from decade of errors on behalf of the cable companies, which put them in their current situation, religious channels are big about this. they rely on the channels for evangelistic purposes, like the channel surfer at 3 am.
http://www.pff.org/issues-pubs/ps/2006/ps2.2natlreview.html
and there is a lot of talk about not understanding the economics, but jsprat is correct, not all channels are equal. they pay varying amounts for every channel and if a channel drops drastically for long periods, the cable company could then negotiation a better price to carry that channel. if 90% of subscribers watch hbo and 10% watch showtime, does it make sense to charge the same amount for both?
it would also be a much better indicator for what shows are better liked by the consumer. lets face it, the neilsons rating and other sampling services don't work. if they did, fox wouldn't have canceled family guy years ago, only to have it make tons of money selling dvds. there are lots of flaws in the system that all parties can benefit from by being fixed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We probably just need to be patient
The first post said most users don't want a cable box. Maybe some day standard TVs will have a way to load digital decryption keys.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We probably just need to be patient
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A THOUSAND BUCKS A YEAR TO WATCH TV! HAVE WE ALL GONE NUTS?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Online Video
jmyers0341@gmail.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Internet-TV over cable box
"My shows" would be recurring shows made available either over the Internet or to my cable provider from anywhere in the world.
I'd pay a small bandwidth charge for every minute I actually watched plus a premium fee for subscription content, minus an allowance for every minute of advertising I didn't fast-forward over. So, if I wanted to watch high school football from several states away, and my cable company could get access to it, I could watch it. I or an advertiser would pay my cable company who in turn would probably pay a fee to the schools that were playing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cable A L Carte
The reason a la carte would cost consumers more - and by that I mean the average consumer would pay more for less - is because the cable companies make their money in two different ways - subscriber fees and advertising. If cable companies let everybody choose which channels they wanted, advertising revenues would decline sharply for both the cable networks and the cable operators, and channels would sharply raise their prices.
Let's say a consumer is paying $75 a month for basic digital. If that customer were to just pick the networks he would be willing to pay for, there might be about 15. But the consumer is actually paying the cable company about $110 for those 15 channels. Meanwhile, the cable company is paying the consumer back $35 a month to take the channels that the consumer has little interest in. Because the consumer will spend some time watching those extra channels he wouldn't have ordered, cable can sell their advertising on those channels for more money
Every consumer has different favorites, of course, but the way this works out is that cable networks are able to maximize their revenue through a combination of subscriber fees and ad revenue. If most of that ad revenue disappears, then a lot of cable networks will find it more profitable to become niche networks that require every member of a much smaller subscriber base to pay a lot more in fees to get that one network.
Some consumers - those who would only subscribe to maybe 3 or 4 cable networks - would make money. Pay cable networks like HBO would make a lot more money under an a la carte system, since potentials customers wouldn't have to pay $50 a month to just be eligible to order HBO. A significant number of networks would go out of business, including some large ones. I suspect that CNN would have a lot more problem than FOX News or MSNBC, because the latter channels have more avid fans. The avidity of a channels viewers - and thus their willingness to pony up $10 a month for that channel - would matter a lot more than overall viewership size. Some networks, no doubt, would go the PBS route and hold pledge drives (If you want to to continue to see GSN bring you classic game shows, please send us a check for $100 and we'll mail you back an autographed copy of Gene Rayburn's autobiography featuring an exclusive cover with embossed lettering!)
I'm not a big fan of most of the cable companies. They get to overcharge customers while providing poor customer service because they have close to a monopoly in many places. And they've fought very hard to make sure the government shields them from real competition. But in the case of the debates over a la carte, the cable companies are correct - requiring total a la carte will result in higher rates for less programming. Forcing a la carte into the system would be like removing a fish that plays an important role as both prey and predator in an ecosystem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IPTV, Hulu via PlayOn and BitTorrent...
Just like VoIP is starting to hurt the telcos it will make it's way to the typical consumer
Imagine a way to watch movies on-demand on your Xbox... oh, you can with Netflix. Hulu, EPSN, CBS and other content... PlayOn (http://getplayon.com), AppleTV. Microsoft MediaCenter etc ... all make it easy to use BitTorrent to get any show you want from anywhere in the world
Of the 100 channels Comcast try to deliver to me, I maybe use 5. If it wasn't for my daughter wanting to watch cartoon network and the ability for me to get live sports... we'd probably have got rid of the service in favor of just using the cheapest pipe...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's a bunch of tubes man
Every time the cable company buys new equipment it deducts the price it paid for it from it's taxes.
The telcos have been given huge tax incentives to update their infrastructure but my old phone bill still has me paying for pert of that. Ergo the reason I am on vonage.
Whet it comes down to is if you don't like to pays then you don't needs to buy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hulu
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hurrr
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Newsflash...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
huh
Did you check the entire list? As TFA says, they list only 15 out of the complete list here:
http://www.cancelcable.com/db/showfinder.php
I wasn't aware that HBO, showtime, Nickelodeon, Disney, Comedy Central, and SciFi Channel were free non cable channels.
BTW, I didn't take the time to see if those were Hulu, Other, Netflix, or Itunes, but feel free if you are interested.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you have bought gold from others before, you may know that the deliver time of WOW Gold is too
long. But now you are visiting Euwowgold.com, we have own farmers, and we are not middleman, we
can give you the gold as soon as possible, face to face or mail, choose you like.
Reliable We farm the by manual, no bots, no cheats, no hacks. We have the 24*7*365 Online
Support. You can contact us anytime via Live Chat, E-mail, IM and Telephone.
http://www.iwpls.com
http://www.iwowleveling.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One is not(supposed to be..) able to save the stream to replay whenever you want commercial free. More importantly though is that there are 'country borders' where for example Canadian viewers cannot access media like American Dad without using a proxy.
It is far easier and more efficient to simply torrent or otherwise acquire the episodes you want commercial free and without artificial restrictions in place. Until cross-border licensing becomes a thing of the past, sites like Hulu hold little interest to myself and likely other such affected potential viewers.
Traditional media-distributors and hopefully ISPs as more than an unmolested internet connection, as a whole, will fast and rightly so become an endangered business practice.
There is no need to force upon the consumer bells and whistles they can get find shinier bells and prettier whistles at a reduced cost if not free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A La Carte
What I WOULD like to see is the ability to add additonal out-of-market channels. I do not see why a consumer could not choose to add on say CBS from X city so they could watch the regional football game or add the local cable channel that is only availble from that area. Unless I want to fork over hundreds of dollars to get the NFL or MLB entire package, I can not longer watch the teams I want...only what the powers that be TELL me I can watch. I have not the time nor desire to watch EVERY football or baseball game...but I would like to see every one from my old city.
Just my ¢!
Blitz
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why I want a la carte
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stop the lies...
The simple fact that small mom and pop cable companies and the large dish providers are able to provide this service is proof that not only is it possible, but it is cost effective. This has been demonstrated several times so stop the industry regergating lies.
There are 2 simple reasons this is being resisted by the monopolies. 1.) They benefit from the forced bundling by having higher rates that they get a bigger payout for and advertising from. 2.) They can continue to hide behind forced bundling and use that as their scape goat anytime anyone questions them.
As with everything else.. all you have to do is follow the money and see who benefits from this. It certainly is not the customer and thus it is not done for the customer's benefit and is therefore done for the benefit of the providers and the content owners.
Lastly, A la carte would not eliminate bundles any more than a la carte eliminates the need for value menus. It would simply give consumers the ability to choose what they want and not have it forced (and thus their bill forced up) because it is what the noncompetitive monopolies want. And online stuff available is no where need ready to replace actual TV and won't be for years. (Nice try again). It is nice though that these same companies are attempting to protect themselves from this technology advancement as well by implementing caps all in the name of "network management". Telco's and cable companies just need to roll over and become the dumbpipes they truly are (for internet) so technology can advance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's too bad companies try to eke every last dime out of people. They spoil a lot of good programming by trying to sell it around, tacking on extras, or reformatting things for local audiences.
One planet, one people, one global network, just let me cherry pick what I want and I'll be happy to pay for it ... as long as it's not through the nose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I've been seriously thinking of
Then, just stream it to my trusty old modded Xbox to my LCD TV in the living room. Works great.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As to the title of this thread "Why Mandate A La Carte Cable When It's Happening Online Already?"
Not EVERYONE in the country who has cable/satellite has high speed internet connections... even if they do they may not know how to use it effectively.
Cable/Satellite has been around for 30 yrs or more - my grandparents are comfortable with it, but would be hard pressed to navigate their way around Hulu to find theire fav episode of Matlock!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Horse Puckey
Hulu, YouTube, iTunes and Netflix and other internet sites may offer a lot of variety, but they don't offer the same content that is available on the cable networks, and to date, each site presents a different interface, search mechanism, and display format. It is not "ala-carte".
Hotels, Dorms, Hospitals, HOAs and other Bulk/MDU buyers can assemble their own channel lineups and the per-channel charges are nominal. With today's STB's and internet billing, there is no reason that ala carte can't be made available, except that its more profitable to force us to buy channels we don't want.
Sure, a small percentage of us disconnect altogether. But most of America is fat and lazy, and paying $60 a month to watch LifeTime is cheaper than a divorce, so the cable and satellite guys win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In analog it just isn't practical from a technical perspective. It isn't as simple as "controlling it from the office", you have to send a tech out to filter the content at the customer's home, and filtering based on a channel by channel basis would not be practical (it's hard to explain, I work as a tech so take my word on this one).
As for digital, yes of course they are making more money by bundling, but customers are voting with their wallets, and they are voting for more choice. In order to have any hope of competing with online which has a variety of niche content, you need to bundle channels to give the smaller channels, that would have no hope on their own, a large enough audience to get picked up. I'm sure that it is also often the case that the bundles are all from the same company (if you want one of our cable channels, you need to take the other two as well).
I also think the attitude of "the operators are ripping people off" is silly when we're talking about television. It's entertainment, not tap water. It's far from a necessary service, if it's not the best way to be offering services to customers, it's because they could be making more money another way. If somehow they could offer a better service for more people by selling channels a la carte, they would have already done it because that would make them more money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I live in AZ and am forced to buy, if I want cable: 8 religious channels, 6 shopping channels , and 5 spanish language channels.
I rent, though i'd prefer to buy; yet that's not possible, a digital convertor box. It has a feature called " ON DEMAND". a majority of the programming is in SPANISH. There is no SAP ( in English) Yet, the English language channels have, mostly, SAP in Spanish.
I have no objection to other language programing. I just DON'T WANT IT and object to paying for it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ala carte is no problem, cable is just greedy
Alacarte is possible, its already in Canada and elsewhere.
All the US cable providers behave like robber barons because they've been given a monopoly and are using it to their advantage.
Alacarte is a simple database, which can be all done online.
Hell, even I can write the software routine for that.
If I want to watch it, I will pay for it. If I don't , I don't want to sift through a zillion channels of garbage to get to it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
a la carte
Screw you hollywood............ take your liberal bullshit and go to hell. btw............. thank god the supreme court of california upheld prop 8. Kudo's ............
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: a la carte
"Yo celebrity, Dance monkey dance"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No cable
It's only a matter of time before my favorite shows are offered as video podcasts, and I'll buy them a la carte anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cable package deals are nuts!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We?
Forcing a la carte would enable consumers to choose who lives and dies in the world of tv stations. It could potentially save consumers money as these companies vie for our dollars trying to avoid our cancellation. Even if the cost to the consumer would not fall there would still be benefits.
As it stands I pay my cable bill to watch a handful of channels. I have to flip through 70 something channels that I NEVER watch just to find something I would. I'd gladly pay the same rate for 10 percent of the channels and not support those stations that I consider to be filler.
Saying that the equipment needed for this would be expensive is nothing short of a smoke screen. The equipment currently in use is expensive. The coax that runs pole to pole is expensive. The cost to pay someone to climb those poles is expensive. Yet, all of those taps, amplifiers, nodes, strands of coax and fiber are hanging there for all to see.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the person if it is not so foolish as to say the words, plastic cards manufacturer while the
photographs just so a pack of cigarettes, plastic cards manufacturer then he is still "a
good official in your own" mean? plastic cards manufacturer An official with impunity to
show their wealth, actually waited till plastic cards manufacturer today due to plastic
cards manufacturer public outcry eventually fall, I plastic cards manufacturer wonder if
this responsibility should be attributed to plastic cards manufacturer?
Unfortunately, cheap plastic card printing
the two are said to have human cheap plastic card printing flesh search out User weeks is a
long-farming brother, real estate developer, but the ruling only spoke cheap plastic card
printing of accepting bribes from other people, did not say whether there is cheap plastic
card printing dereliction of duty and so on. As a separate but cheap plastic card printing
common sense is concerned, now other people who can receive bribes, cheap plastic card
printing his integrity should not be "impeccable."
Of course, PETG card printing even if there is
a lot of regrets, we should also see PETG card printing that it is among the Internet
history are doomed to write a will be a PETG card printing landmark event. In a sense, this
is the most typical case PETG card printing of anti-corruption network PETG card printing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
company the best way is for each subsequent session of the
new U.S. president plastic card company takes office, the Nobel
Peace Committee have deemed it the "Peace Prize", so also is
plastic card company difficult to fight the war up plastic card
company.
Today's Obama in
plasticcards.co.uk">cheap plastic card the "shock" while
also still very pleased. However, cheap plastic card when he
formally accepted the "Peace Prize", the fear that the U.S.
politicians and military cheap plastic card people would
realize that it had received a hot potato. For this award,
which cheap plastic card can greatly tied Obama in office
during the U.S. foreign policy. This is cheap plastic card
perhaps the Nobel Peace Prize selection committee had hoped
In any case, the
supplier.co.uk"> smart card service Nobel committee is a
group have a good, full of hope for peace smart card
serviceprofessionals, they want to use their own special
rewards for those who hold smart card service the power of
human life or death over the people, to lay down their evil
smart card service thoughts in my mind, and have become the
ideal smart card service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
company the best way is for each subsequent session of the
new U.S. president plastic card company takes office, the Nobel
Peace Committee have deemed it the "Peace Prize", so also is
plastic card company difficult to fight the war up plastic card
company.
Today's Obama in
plasticcards.co.uk">cheap plastic card the "shock" while
also still very pleased. However, cheap plastic card when he
formally accepted the "Peace Prize", the fear that the U.S.
politicians and military cheap plastic card people would
realize that it had received a hot potato. For this award,
which cheap plastic card can greatly tied Obama in office
during the U.S. foreign policy. This is cheap plastic card
perhaps the Nobel Peace Prize selection committee had hoped
In any case, the
supplier.co.uk"> smart card service Nobel committee is a
group have a good, full of hope for peace smart card
serviceprofessionals, they want to use their own special
rewards for those who hold smart card service the power of
human life or death over the people, to lay down their evil
smart card service thoughts in my mind, and have become the
ideal smart card service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
let me choose what I want. I have no need for the 700 club!
..and the problem is what? The cable companies want consumers to pay for channels they may not give a click for; like sports or church stuff. If the government is forcing cable companies to offer an a la carte option in addition to selling packages then isn't it forcing the cable to stop forcing something on the consumer? More freedom baby.
Sushi menu style cable... no dragon boat for me today- you put too much mackerel in it. I will order a plate full of sake, unagi, and ikura instead mmmmmmmm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Comcast is nuts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On-Demand......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fox wants to charge a ton? Well other than the NFL I don't care for the channel so I'll dump them 2/3 of the year.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My complaint is very simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fr'gveav e'fvgtrbytse\]][v[r[[vf\v
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fr'gveav e'fvgtrbytse\]][v[r[[vf\v
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fr'gveav e'fvgtrbytse\]][v[r[[vf\v
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A few years later...
So, here we are, a few years later - Where's that a la carte TV? Hulu doesn't play with set top boxes unless you pay, and even then they're picky about those with whom they associate. Premium channels aren't streaming. Want to stream NFL games? Good luck with that.
Why should the government get involved? Because cable companies are endorsed monopolies in most areas. That's not free trade.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]