target2019
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Same. COMCA$T is evil. Long history with them. Never a give back or enticement for 20+ years of payments.Thanks for your response. I'll stick with the consumer's POV.
Same. COMCA$T is evil. Long history with them. Never a give back or enticement for 20+ years of payments.Thanks for your response. I'll stick with the consumer's POV.
Some of the reason that cable bills have been raised is that the content provider is raising their rates... I have seen a number of times advertisements saying 'your (whatever) channel is about to be cut' due to the cable operator not wanting to pay us more money... it is not always that they want to have higher profits....
I get a ton of channels that I never watch and never want to watch.... they might be 25 cents each, heck, even 10 cents each (I do not think any are this cheap), but that is money that I would rather not spend if I did not have to....
About income... I am saying that having more discretionary income is not a good reason to spend more on a cable bill... IOW, more income does not equate to wanting to pay higher bills.... and that the higher bill is now a bargain because it is a smaller percent of your discretionary income...
A higher bill is just a higher bill... period...
There are actually a string of parties involved: Cable company, broadcast network, distributor, production company, talent. However, what they all want is their piece of the pie, a pie who's size is dictated by how much it is worth to a typical viewer to have that X hours of entertainment rather than not having it.Some of the reason that cable bills have been raised is that the content provider is raising their rates... I have seen a number of times advertisements saying 'your (whatever) channel is about to be cut' due to the cable operator not wanting to pay us more money... it is not always that they want to have higher profits....
You can go forward considering that you're only paying for the channels you want, and you're getting the rest included for free, because operationally that is your reality. It was well-established a decade or so ago, through comparisons to C-Band subscriptions, that when they are offered via retail a la carte, channels generally cost an order of magnitude higher than when bundled into a large basic package. You can get a good idea, today, how much a typical channel would cost by checking out the a la carte price for HBO. Figure TNT, USA and FX would cost about 5% less; Syfy, AMC, A&E, would cost about 10% less; etc. If you watch more than six channels within a month, then you're better off with bundle pricing. It is an eye-opener for folks to realize how many channels they casually watch without realizing it, and therefore how readily the trip over that six channels mark.I get a ton of channels that I never watch and never want to watch.... they might be 25 cents each, heck, even 10 cents each (I do not think any are this cheap), but that is money that I would rather not spend if I did not have to....
My point was that it generally does dictate how much typical consumers spend on cable.About income... I am saying that having more discretionary income is not a good reason to spend more on a cable bill...
Nothing equates to "wanting" to pay higher bills. That line of reasoning makes no sense to me. When do you want to pay higher bills for the sake of higher bills?IOW, more income does not equate to wanting to pay higher bills....
Meanwhile, I'll bet dollars to donuts that the experts who's job it is to determine whether it is a monopoly or not have determined instead that there is effective competition for subscription television service in that area that your DD lives. It may seem like a monopoly to consumers, but in reality, in accordance with the law that actually defines what is and is not a monopoly, it is not.She lives a few miles from us in a established subdivision and Comcast is the ONLY PROVIDER of cable services. Speak about a monopoly.
Nothing equates to "wanting" to pay higher bills. That line of reasoning makes no sense to me. When do you want to pay higher bills for the sake of higher bills?
+1We live in the Eagle Ford oil patch in South Texas. Given what the crash in oil prices did to the local economy and the jobs of a lot of people I know, yeah, I'd personally prefer to pay $2.50 for a gallon of gas than $1.50, at least if it means jobs and local business here aren't going away and some that have left would come back. I recognize that this isn't shared by most people (since most people don't live where oil and gas are critical industries), but even though I do not directly benefit from the oil business here, in our area, and in *my* specific situation, a higher bill at the pumps is worth paying.
... The perspective I've shared is more akin to how a journalist reporting the issue in a balanced way would characterize things...
... you have to admit, at least, that if no one prosecutes the matter, then nothing is going to change to make things better for consumers.
It isn't paying higher bills you want - it's the economic vitality that you want.We live in the Eagle Ford oil patch in South Texas. Given what the crash in oil prices did to the local economy and the jobs of a lot of people I know, yeah, I'd personally prefer to pay $2.50 for a gallon of gas than $1.50, at least if it means jobs and local business here aren't going away and some that have left would come back.I recognize that this isn't shared by most people (since most people don't live where oil and gas are critical industries), but even though I do not directly benefit from the oil business here, in our area, and in *my* specific situation, a higher bill at the pumps is worth paying.
Just because what I highlighted doesn't fit your personal preferences doesn't mean it isn't objective. The fact that it doesn't fit my personal preferences indicates that it is more likely that it is.Well, so much for being an objective journalist and his attempt to present the issue in a balanced way.
So you plan on moving on to another subject, seeing as how absolutely no one is agreeing with your point of view?So let's stop with the nonsense.
Thanks for your response. I'll stick with the consumer's POV.
To you, without a doubt.The fact that everyone else is promoting a strictly-consumer-biased perspective makes my contributions all-the-more relevant.
Meanwhile, I'll bet dollars to donuts that the experts who's job it is to determine whether it is a monopoly or not have determined instead that there is effective competition for subscription television service in that area that your DD lives. It may seem like a monopoly to consumers, but in reality, in accordance with the law that actually defines what is and is not a monopoly, it is not.
FCC commissioners and their staff.A who might these "experts" be?
And DirecTV and Dish Network.She lives in a residential area with hundreds of homes, all stuck with Comca$t.
One of literally hundreds if not thousands of examples:FCC commissioners and their staff.
https://www.fcc.gov/document/comcast-effective-competition-md4. The first prong of this test has three elements: the franchise area must be “served by” at
least two unaffiliated MVPDs who offer “comparable programming” to at least “50 percent” of the
households in the franchise area.7 It is undisputed that the Communities are “served by” both DBS
providers, DIRECTV and DISH, and that these two MVPD providers are unaffiliated with Petitioner or
with each other. A franchise area is considered “served by” an MVPD if that MVPD’s service is both
technically and actually available in the franchise area. DBS service is presumed to be technically
available due to its nationwide satellite footprint, and presumed to be actually available if households in
the franchise area are made reasonably aware of the service's availability.8 The Commission has held that
a party may use evidence of penetration rates in the franchise area (the second prong of the competing
provider test discussed below) coupled with the ubiquity of DBS services to show that consumers are
reasonably aware of the availability of DBS service.9 We further find that Petitioner has provided
sufficient evidence to support its assertion that potential customers in the Communities are reasonably
aware that they may purchase the service of these MVPD providers.10 The “comparable programming”
element is met if a competing MVPD provider offers at least 12 channels of video programming,
including at least one channel of nonbroadcast service programming,11 and is supported in this petition
with copies of channel lineups for both DIRECTV and DISH.12 Also undisputed is Petitioner’s assertion
that both DIRECTV and DISH offer service to at least “50 percent” of the households in the Communities
because of their national satellite footprint.13 Accordingly, we find that the first prong of the competing
provider test is satisfied.
5. The second prong of the competing provider test requires that the number of households
subscribing to MVPDs, other than the largest MVPD, exceeds 15 percent of the households in a franchise
area. Petitioner asserts that it is the largest MVPD in the Communities.14 Petitioner sought to determine
the competing provider penetration in the Communities by purchasing a subscriber tracking report from
the Satellite Broadcasting and Communications Association that identified the number of subscribers
attributable to the DBS providers within the Communities on a zip code plus four basis.15
...
Based on the foregoing, we conclude
that Petitioner has submitted sufficient evidence demonstrating that both prongs of the competing
provider test are satisfied and Petitioner is subject to effective competition in the Communities listed on
Attachment A.
...
III. ORDERING CLAUSES
7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for a determination of effective
competition filed in the captioned proceeding by Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, IS GRANTED.
8. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the certification to regulate basic cable service rates
granted to any of the Communities set forth on Attachment A IS REVOKED.
9. This action is taken pursuant to delegated authority pursuant to Section 0.283 of the
Commission’s rules.17
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Steven A. Broeckaert
Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau
Same here. Maybe this year it will be worth the money! Go Mariners!