What is Digg?Sponsored by Double Your Dating
Scary Quiz - Do you have what it takes to attract women? view!
doubleyourdating.com - Think you know a thing or two about meeting women? Take this quiz and find out...
58 Comments
- dcd722, on 11/13/2007, -1/+33Two Words.
*****.comcast.
Go google! - arbulus, on 11/12/2007, -0/+27We desperately need MORE competition in the telecom industry. I for one would love to see 20 different cable companies and 20 different phone companies in my area, because that means they are competing with each other and are going to try to provide the best service, the best price and the best customer service to try to win your business. It would mean an end to Comcast being the ONLY cable and internet provider in my area where they can ***** me in every hole and I just have to lay here and take it because I have absolutely NO choice.
- teamparadox, on 11/13/2007, -0/+16I really do hope the FCC breaks up cable packages. Im paying about $70 a month for "basic digital" and I only watch like 8 channels at the absolute most. I have to subscribe to the package though because its the cheapest option for the channels i want to watch. If i could pick just the 8 channels and pay for just those...i would be an incredibly happy person.
- Error601, on 11/12/2007, -1/+15That was completely lacking in details. It could be another stupid FCC move or an actual move toward the future of completely on-demand based and no channels.
- DivisibleByZero, on 11/12/2007, -1/+13See, I'm looking at this as an opportunity to GET the big cable companies into my apartment complex. As much as I hate Comcast, the "little guy" who has an exclusive deal with my landlord is 20 times worse.
- icekold, on 11/12/2007, -0/+9Rules are being drawn up as we speak that would ban these exclusivity deals.
- humpingmonkey, on 11/12/2007, -1/+10How is it a "free market" if there's legislation involved?
- captinherb, on 11/12/2007, -0/+8It's weird that this article that really didn't say much made the front page, while the actual article from the NYT only got 23 diggs
http://digg.com/tech_news/F_C_C_Planning_Rules_to_ ... - lucidguru, on 11/12/2007, -2/+9Wow... the government is starting to understand economics!
The cost of entry is ALL that's stopping competition in the telco sector. The current problem is that enter the market you've got to wire the entire city/town. This costs WAY to much as a start up and profits are greatly decreased when you must wire impoverished areas. However with better legislation "mom and pop" gigs can wire individual house with super high speed connections and push the monopolistic companies out of the market. Go free market! - zomgflamer, on 11/13/2007, -2/+8I really don't mind paying 50 bucks for quality programming but currently it seems that all they have on TV is 20 channels of television shopping and 40 channels of 24/7 commercial and they play golf and poker on sports channels, repeats of ***** old ass hacky shows and movies.
ANd you know what pisses me even more is that on friggen spanish stations, they play way better and new movies but I cant freaking understand mexican language god damn it.!!!
On top of that *****, I download the ***** tv series online because they come out in some unknow French town a month before. WTF is this *****!!! an American series played in France Before USA???? Mother ***** ***** lips, these ***** Cable companies deserve worst bashing than Bush. - windohs, on 11/12/2007, -0/+4I LIKE the io triple play.......3 services for 90 bucks and no taxes on opt voice (since its not a phone company). No contracts either for same price *cough verizon
- JasonCox, on 11/13/2007, -1/+5GoogleTV (gTV) [beta]:
99% commercials, 1% content - javaroast, on 11/12/2007, -2/+6There is no such thing as a free market
- Bawk, on 11/11/2007, -1/+5Finally a little competition in the market.
- inactive, on 11/13/2007, -0/+4"cable companies are too dominant" and phone companies aren't? If my memory serves me well, the FCC overturned the rule forcing telcos "resale" at a decent cost to other providers. Thus the decline in most CLEC phone companies, and the return of MA bell
- truck87bp, on 11/11/2007, -0/+3We have Comcast and WideOpenWest in or area for competition and thay have the same prices....What a joke ! Communications in the USA suck...way too expensive!!!... no matter what you go with except maybe an Antenna for reg programs and a Hi-Def Antenna for Hi-Def local chanels.
We have the power to change this but too many wouldn't bother. - tgunner, on 11/11/2007, -0/+3'bout damn time.
- teamparadox, on 11/12/2007, -1/+4I dont agree with their censorship but if they can force cable companies to allow me to pick channels they earn at least 1 point.
- deadbaby, on 11/12/2007, -2/+5Yep. I don't know what people expect. It's all the same business model. In a lot of ways stuff like U-Verse is even more restrictive than cable. What happens if you want to record an HD channel, watch another and someone in another room watch another? Out of luck. CableCARD? Nope. Lease a box from AT&T for each TV. FiOS's limited QAM space is well documented. Availability of both services is awful. Pricing is suspect to change at anytime and you're usually bound by a contract. Sounds great eh? They're all a rip off.
- windohs, on 11/12/2007, -0/+3um...i've had it for over a year and its about the same (thanks to threatening about fios)
- Ratteler, on 11/12/2007, -1/+4Until you reach the end of the year, then the TV climbs to $75, the Cable modem $45, and the VOIP line $40.
- sjbdallas, on 11/12/2007, -0/+3exactly. I don't know why we can't choose our channels yet. If a company can come along and let us choose our channels they'd dominate.
- kd1s, on 11/12/2007, -1/+4People don't realize that unbundling will only mean higher prices. Oh well, it was nice while it lasted.
- coreman, on 11/11/2007, -0/+2but will this also affect FiOS, or does Verizon get "rewarded" due to its complicity with the NSA and its data vacuuming project(s)?
- alphacritic, on 11/12/2007, -5/+7Good story! I work in the cable industry, so stories like this really grab my attention. I've been keeping my eye on these developments as they surface. Thanks
- jaewon223, on 11/12/2007, -0/+1pricing per channel may turn out to be more expensive for some but in the majority it should save people more money because most people dont need FX or USA and only tune into several channels at most.
and also dont forget that this brings a whole new level of competition to bring down costs - tech42er, on 11/12/2007, -0/+1True. The best thing the government can do is stop supporting monopolies and then get out of the market.
- humpingmonkey, on 11/12/2007, -0/+1The answer is what you alluded to above... get GovCo. out all together, don't just add yet another crippling bandaid that sets even more precedent for further encroachment of property rights.
- humpingmonkey, on 11/12/2007, -0/+1"Competition lowers price."
Free, unobstructed competition lowers prices and raises quality... "competition" as a result of government meddling is a violation of property rights. It's equivalent to saying that if you hold a gun to a salesman's head, he'll cut you a better deal or make a product the way you want it at the price you want it.
By what right does government tell an individual how to run his business? - trghpy, on 11/11/2007, -0/+1Go back to your basic networking class.
Cable and Phone have a significantly different architecture.
Sharing the "Golden Mile" would be quite a bit harder for cable to do with out an architecture change. - reddikilowatt, on 11/13/2007, -1/+2Well, then the cable/satellite/phone/etc company would just split your bill out between the "service" and the "subscription." The service charge would cover the cost of maintaining your connection, and the subscription cost would be for those 8 channels. Either that, or every channel will cost $15/mo.
I agree that cable is too expensive for what you get, but there are a few channels that I only watch one or two shows on, but aren't enough to justify a subscription, since I only watch them once in a great while. Sundance, for example, is not something I would subscribe to, but there are a few movies I've watched over the years that I'm glad I got to see, and otherwise wouldn't have known about.
I think the the long term strategy should be to get away from channels and all the "branding" ***** that goes on and move to a more on-demand model. I watch Mythbusters and Dirty Jobs, not Discovery Channel. - tech42er, on 11/12/2007, -0/+1The only problem I have with the telcos is that they're not innocent. Many of them are protected by the government. The barrier to entering the telco market is high because of all the red tape a startup needs to go through. It's like ***** India.
- digitalarcanum, on 11/11/2007, -1/+2Since the article linked to a NY times article, I decided to give that a read:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/10/washington/10cab ...
what I found funniest about the NY times article was this particular block of the article:
'“The provision itself is a relic of decades-old regulation and there is no basis for reviving it now,” Mr. McSlarrow added. “Twisting statistics in order to breathe life into this rule is simply another attempt to justify unnecessary government intrusion into a marketplace where competition is thriving and new technology is providing consumers more choices, better programming and exciting new interactive services.”
By contrast, consumer groups and phone companies have urged the commission to invoke the rule. They say it gives the commission broader authority than the cable industry has claimed.'
cable company: that's not fair!!
phone company: yes it is
cable company: nuh-uh!
phone company uh-huh!
(rinse, repeart)
this ***** should have been done years ago. cable industry is screwing us, and it looks like the FCC is finally waking up to realize it. I mean, I'd say there's a bit of a problem when you can go to major cities and/or rural areas and discover that there's a lack of ISP or cable television competition.. but that's just me. Example being detroit. What are your choices for TV in Detroit? Comcast or Dish Network. Either way, you fail. - jaewon223, on 11/12/2007, -0/+1dont blast them jsut yet. google's got a good track record thus far
- humpingmonkey, on 11/12/2007, -1/+2*Laissez-faire* is the epitome of free market. The only way you "protect" a free market is stay out of it. Anti-trust laws are undefinable, unenforceable and accomplish nothing but destruction.
- mrkuhn, on 11/11/2007, -0/+1I'm completely impartial to the whole wholesale à la carte. What I give a damn about is if the FCC would force cable companies to open up their broadband infrastructure. The mass majority of broadband in the US is from cable companies, to individuals. DSL has its range issues, though services like FiOS can help change that in the next few decades. I'm a DOCSIS engineer, and I'd love to offer my own cable Internet service like how companies can piggy back off CLECs like Verizon, and AT&T. Competition lowers price.
- marijuanaman, on 11/12/2007, -1/+2they wont do it, comcast and other tv companys are just too powerful. the battle has all ready been lost
- AlanJV, on 11/12/2007, -0/+1I don't know. It's the FCC, so I feel like we're going to screwed somehow, no matter what happens.
- jaewon223, on 11/12/2007, -0/+1idiot, never... stop... fighting (the good fight)
- tech42er, on 11/12/2007, -0/+1Very true, humping. The problem with the telecom market is the gov already ***** it up. One of the biggest barriers to entry are government regulations and laws limiting how many cable providers an area my have. These regulations aren't necessarily federal, but they kill the free market.
- humpingmonkey, on 11/12/2007, -1/+2By what right can they force a company to do anything? The company has a product that you can either choose to consume or not. That's it. You have no right to cable. If this were your company being forced, you'd see it differently.
Basically you are saying "what I want should trump what mr. cable guy wants...". By what right? - keraneuology, on 11/12/2007, -0/+1So charge $15/month for every channel. What do you think would happen to BET, SRI, or the Game Show Network?
- windohs, on 11/11/2007, -2/+2What if you need to learn how to ride a bike? TV or IPTV
- humpingmonkey, on 11/12/2007, -2/+2Sure there is. Limit government intervention to what it should be - contract enforcement and dispute settlement - and let individuals trade freely.
It's actually a very simple and easily achievable notion. - teamparadox, on 11/11/2007, -1/+1Most of the shows i watch dont come out on dvd..well yea thats about right. I do buy plenty of shows on dvd, shows i never watch on tv. Half of the channels i get are for my son. Discovery, cartoon network, nick etc. I watch Comedy Central, History Channel, and on occasion Spike and the sci-fi channel and my Girlfriend likes E and VH1. So i lied we watch about 9 channels instead of 8 but even then we dont watch them enough to make it worthwhile, but if we didnt have cable there would be those times where things get very boring.
- inactive, on 11/11/2007, -1/+1sounds about right!!
- promixr, on 04/13/2009, -0/+0As a taxpayer and consumer of cable television I am calling on the FCC to regulate cable television providers and remove the obstacles to 'A La Carte' cable television service. Subscribers should be able to choose individual networks that they would like to subscribe to without having to buy costly 'packages.' Subscribers should also be able to discontinue channels that are included with basic packages of channels they are not watching, or whose content they deem dangerous, offensive or otherwise dissatisfying.
This change to the rules of cable television would be good for the industry:
a) it would inspire more competitive programming, stations with the most informative or enjoyable content would remain on, stations whose content is uninformative would go away.
b) Cable would become more family friendly, as parents could permanently unsubscribe from cable programming they deem unsuitable for their children, without sacrificing channels that are harmless.
c) advertisers would have a better gauge of effective programming, the networks could charge more money for ad time on most watched networks, sponsorship becomes more effective, products could be targeted more effectively.
d) consumers could make political statements through subscription, (for example, viewers who object to the propaganda they see on FOX or CNBC could switch that channel off- providing in effect a check and balance to ineffective or just plain 'wrong' media coverage, broadcasters of 'news' programming would be forced to adhere to high standards of broadcast journalism)
e) consumers would have access to a broader range of entertainment, by spending money on only the media they wish to view. A consumer currently may not subscribe to an entire expensive cable package to view the content of a particular cable channel, so that consumer is cut off from it. Cable television would benefit because while the 'packages' would go away, subscribers would make up for it in the individual variety of a la carte subscriptions. A sports nut would be turning off food networks, but adding sports channels, a sci-fi nut would be turning off children's programming, but subscribing to more movie channels, etc...
The FCC needs to overcome, through regulation, the objections of cable television lobbying groups and large media providers and serve the best interests of the consumer of media. The best and most progressive way to do this is through a La Carte cable television. - philba, on 11/12/2007, -0/+0this will happen when pigs fly out of my butt.
- gkiltz, on 11/12/2007, -0/+0Or not! It also may just make the "infomercial" problem worse!
It is far more important to level the playing field!
My local cable system offers local stations from both Washington, DC, and Richmond, VA. DirecTV, on the other hand, is allowed one or the other, but not both, and has, for reasons that should be obvious, chosen to offer DC. I would have done the same thing, but I still think they should play by the same rules as the cable system, and at least be allowed to negotiate with the individual stations in that situation! - ajamer, on 11/13/2007, -2/+2I hope those 8 channels you watch are really worth $850 a year
just buy the dvds when they come out for massive savings -
Show 51 - 58 of 58 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is