McCain breaks out of 6 year HP slump with FF bill

[King]

From the AV Club:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Indy Texas]

I think John McCain may just have some weird bone to pick with cable companies. Wasn't he one of only a handful of senators to vote against telecom deregulation in the '90s when like 90+ members were voting 'aye' on it?

[Marokai Backbeat]

All of the things included in this proposal seem like shockingly good ideas, which means there's not a chance in hell this gets anywhere.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

[Modernity has failed us]

Well done, Senator.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

All of the things included in this proposal seem like shockingly good ideas, which means there's not a chance in hell this gets anywhere.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

All of the things included in this proposal seem like shockingly good ideas, which means there's not a chance in hell this gets anywhere.

[Lief 🗽]

Er... this is a horrible idea and would destroy television, basically. Right now the sh[inks]tty channels are basically subsidizing the good, niche ones. Without bundling, those niche channels would quickly go out of business and consumer choice would plummet.

That or it would be prohibitively expensive, to the point that you end up paying about the same as you're paying for cable now but getting many fewer channels as a result. And it would basically be impossible for new channels to ever come into existence without bundling.

This is one of those policies that sounds great, but in reality it would be a huge failure.

edit: These are both good ideas though:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Jordan]

I agree about removing the sports blackouts in taxpayer funded stadiums.

[Old Man Svensson]

Good. Cable companies will need to do this if they want to compete at all with YouTube's recent decision to allow paid a la carte channels.

[RogueBeaver]

Well done, Senator.

[Thomas D]

Before you all jump on this bandwagon I have 3 words and 3 letters for you:

Trent Lott on B.E.T.

I never would have signed up for B.E.T. But I was glad I had it when Sen. Lott went on there.

[Goldwater]

Well done, Senator.

[badgate]

This would not destroy television, this would destroy the status quo. I mean seriously, do you wanna get in the time machine and go back to when people said mandatory seat belts would destroy the auto industry?

Also, props to King for also reading the AV Club. I love their TV show reviews

[they don't love you like i love you]

Lief is right. This is a bad idea. The sports blackout ban one is not though.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

McCain is mostly a HP, but I'll give him credit for siding with 80% of Americans on Citizens United.

[Lief 🗽]

What this also means is that it really doesn't cost any more to deliver every channel to every customer rather than allowing people to pick and choose. So the typical cable consumer, at least, will find himself or herself paying about as much as she had before for a reduced quantity of programming.

Yeah, exactly. If you're someone who buys a few hundred channel cable package right for like $80 per month, but you only watch like three channels, you've already shown that just those three channels have a subjective value of $80 per month to you. No one is going to save any money under this scheme; you'll be paying the same amount but receiving many, many fewer channels for it.

[Zarn]

It's a stupid regulation bill (as most are) whereas the cable companies will just find a way to charge you the same or more for fewer channels.

[LastVoter]

Er... this is a horrible idea and would destroy television, basically. Right now the sh[inks]tty channels are basically subsidizing the good, niche ones. Without bundling, those niche channels would quickly go out of business and consumer choice would plummet.

That or it would be prohibitively expensive, to the point that you end up paying about the same as you're paying for cable now but getting many fewer channels as a result. And it would basically be impossible for new channels to ever come into existence without bundling.

This is one of those policies that sounds great, but in reality it would be a huge failure.

edit: These are both good ideas though:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why should the industry be saved? Are there a lot of union jobs at stake? I'm pretty certain most of revenue/profits end up in capitalist hands in this industry.

[bedstuy]

This is a dumb idea.  If people really wanted a la carte channel selection, cable companies would offer it.  The people that can handle paying for content they don't like, can continue paying for cable.  The people that hate it so much can cancel their subscription. Nobody is forcing you to get cable anyway.   

Plus, cable television is a going to change drastically in the next 10 years and this bill will be outdated.  Eventually, I think most people will only watch live TV for sports, a few major shows and news events. 

[DC Al Fine]

It's a stupid regulation bill (as most are) whereas the cable companies will just find a way to charge you the same or more for fewer channels.

Good on ya McCain.

[NVGonzalez]

All of the things included in this proposal seem like shockingly good ideas, which means there's not a chance in hell this gets anywhere.

[Napoleon]

This is a pretty terrible bill, unless the dumbed down media found on the big networks is tailored for you. In which case, I offer my pity.

sh**t coated with gold still stinks. This bill sounds amazing but the effects would leave people upset. Unless you think cable companies would forfeit profits because of this bill....

the cable companies will just find a way to charge you the same or more for fewer channels.

Truth.

I agree about removing the sports blackouts in taxpayer funded stadiums.

Same.

[HoosierPoliticalJunkie]

All of the things included in this proposal seem like shockingly good ideas, which means there's not a chance in hell this gets anywhere.

I like the idea.  I am concerned about negative consequences, so I would like to see a state try this first before implementing it nationally. 

[Lief 🗽]

Er... this is a horrible idea and would destroy television, basically. Right now the sh[inks]tty channels are basically subsidizing the good, niche ones. Without bundling, those niche channels would quickly go out of business and consumer choice would plummet.

That or it would be prohibitively expensive, to the point that you end up paying about the same as you're paying for cable now but getting many fewer channels as a result. And it would basically be impossible for new channels to ever come into existence without bundling.

This is one of those policies that sounds great, but in reality it would be a huge failure.

edit: These are both good ideas though:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why should the industry be saved? Are there a lot of union jobs at stake? I'm pretty certain most of revenue/profits end up in capitalist hands in this industry.

Uh... yeah most people who work on TV shows are unionized. AFTRA, Writers Guild of America, IATSE, Teamsters, etc.