damaged people dot com

I'd be supportive of it.

Anyone who remembers me railing against having to pay for the golf channel when I lived in Spokane will remember how much I was irritated by having to pay for all those damn channels I didn't want. Particularly when I had to upgrade to the deluxe mega-digital package to get two different channels that were offered exclusively as a part of it. I don't currently pay for cable and will not again until a la cart is offered.

A la cart for me would be easy:

• Discovery
• History
• Sci-Fi
• Spike

that pretty much rounds it out... don't watch much more than that.

miftah wrote:I don't currently pay for cable and will not again until a la cart is offered.

Agreed!


The last few weeks I have been enjoying this: Joox

My new favorite shows are Peep Show and Little Britain. Yeah I love the Brits.

One thing that really ticks me off is the fact that I have to pay for channels that broadcast in a language I don't even speak!

mudflap wrote:One thing that really ticks me off is the fact that I have to pay for channels that broadcast in a language I don't even speak!

imagine how i feel being the token Fezz ?????

I've been thinking about this for a bit, and I'm not sure this is in the best interest of the consumer.

If we assume the existing ifrastructure costs for providers is stagnant, then there would almost have to be added costs for systems/software to split channels appropriately for each subscriber. Most likely, the providers would find a way to pass these costs on to the consumer. Overall, I'd bet that the cost of programming for consumers at a macro scale would go up, not down.

The second, possibly more frigntening thing, is that your channel selection could then be used as one more dimension in which to use to target advertising. Once that's done, it's only a hop skip and a jump to selling this information to third parties who like to send junk mail. Since cable/satalite are private systems, there's very few laws prohibiting such behavior.

I think I'm pretty happy where it is.

ironpants wrote:If we assume the existing infrastructure costs for providers is stagnant, then there would almost have to be added costs for systems/software to split channels appropriately for each subscriber. Most likely, the providers would find a way to pass these costs on to the consumer. Overall, I'd bet that the cost of programming for consumers at a macro scale would go up, not down.

Bottom line is that there is no way a cable company is going to give up a $50-$100 price point without being forced. The cable companies say that the price is fixed by nature of the packages they have to purchase in order to be able to offer certain channels. In other words you have to buy licensing for so many Viacom channels to get Comedy Central, etc. I think this is overstated, and the truth is that anything can be done if they're interested in making a buck in any given market. Passing the cost onto the consumer? I'm willing to wager your free-market tendencies would kick in here.

There's going to have to be a major infra-restructuring based upon the limited pipe of coaxial cable. Most markets have already maxed their digital high-def capability and its only a matter of time until your going to see some significant re-wiring as it is. In this age, wireless is the more sensible option and given that there's already a market for wireless media delivery and its in direct composition with cable, well, cable's days are numbered. Period.

And I don't buy the idea that there's an issue with turning channels on or off. My GF's dad doesn't pay more for blocking BET and MTV from his system, and they always seem to get HBO through while blocking all of the other pay channels. In the age of the digital cable box, where they can deliver video-on-demand that doesn't really wash.

The real question here is how many of their potential market is outside their current customer-base. If this makes sense for them in an effort to exploit those who do not currently subscribe, it would have already happened. Being as it does not, it comes down to FCC regulation. Given the current political climate, this is unlikely to occur. It should, but it won't.

One of the problems is that it would be financially (and possibly creatively) disastrous for cable companies to go "wireless". The beauty of the system from a cost/competitive standpoint is the FCC has no jurisdiction over privately owned wires. If cable went wireless, the FCC would have jurisdiction as the air waves in the US are owned by the people, not corporations.

I’d suggest this is probably a good thing. If Comedy Central had to live by the FCC’s regulations, it probably wouldn’t exist.

After reading your post, I can see now that the cost probably isn’t fixed as I first asserted so there’s probably room for a solution in here somewhere. That being said, adding a bunch of government bureaucracy from the FCC probably isn’t part of the solution. I'd assert the cable companies are best left off the airwaves.

Uh, 'Pants I was referring to satellite when I said wireless (easy to miss when I typo-ed "in direct composition with"...meant competition). Which is regulated in some ways by the government, but not for content. Its not free, therefore not of the public forum that the FCC oversees. And I'm willing to wager you're in a microscopic minority in thinking Comedy Central not existing would be a good thing.

WiMAX has the potential to see the end of the cable company as we know it.

It is a long range wireless format that we will see soon. The Cellular company's are going to use it to try to replace the DSL and Cable internet connections. I forecast that when the infrastructure is in place and running smoothly they will start looking at the TV portion.

We should start seeing the first built-in WiMAX computers early in 2008.

As for FCC juristiction, apperently they want to disagree with me too:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070925/ap_ ... ews_fine_1

this should be fun.

ZIPPER wrote:

miftah wrote:I don't currently pay for cable and will not again until a la cart is offered.

Agreed!


The last few weeks I have been enjoying this: Joox

My new favorite shows are Peep Show and Little Britain. Yeah I love the Brits.

Computah says no.

Encap wrote:Computah says no.

Do you have DivX installed? I am currently watching programs on the mac but I used this site before on my older win laptop (Athlon XP-M 797MHz, 512 ram, GeForce4 32m).

Or is this a slower connection problem. When I watch stuff on it I pause it for about 1min after the buffer to stream enough so that I never have a problem. Your results may vary.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=wxga4tmhhJY[/youtube]