Telco TV Could Save Us Big Bucks
I have been critical of efforts in Congress and the FCC to force the cable TV industry to adopt so-called 'a la Carte' programming. I believe that if cable operators allow consumers to order channels individually rather than in packages, it will actually increase our cable bills. Why? To maintain current revenue levels, the cable providers would have to set the prices of the individual channels higher than you might expect. For instance, how would you like to pay $10 a month for ESPN?
However, Congress and FCC Chairman Kevin Martin can't resist bashing the cable industry because many consumers are upset over rising cable bills. So, they resort to making false claims to win favor with the voters.
But if federal officials really want to bring cable (and satellite) prices down, they should do more to help the telcos enter the TV business. AT&T and Verizon are now offering TV services in select areas, but some local cities are demanding they obtain city licenses, juat as the cable operators did. But I think Congress should pass a national license that would allow the telcos to open up shop anywhere, just as the satellite operators did. The widespread availability of another TV service would force both cable and satellite to keep prices down.
Disagree? Well, talk to Yale Braunstein, a professor in the School of Information at UC Berkeley. Prof. Braunstein just completed a study showing that cable prices have dropped 15 to 22 percent in areas where telco TV competes with cable.
To learn more, click Here
To get more news and analysis on TV technolgy, click TVPredictions.com
4 Comments:
I think the FCC is bashing cable due to so-called "indecency". The government is pretty far to the right these days, and tied as it is to "Christian" fundamentalists, is eager to stifle free expression.
And why should I believe a study funded by AT&T?
Really, who doesn't feel like they're getting ripped off by their cable company? There's not enough competition, and everyone is forced to get a bundle of garbage just to watch what they want.
And I watch six channels: ESPN, espn2, TCM, Comedy Central... plus PBS and C-Span. I'd definitely pay ten bucks a month for ESPN.
I'm living in an apartment, and I have no choice for TV/Internet. I looked into satellite TV, but they have installation/dish fees and still only offer packages with too many channels. Same for internet. And DSL requires paying for a phone line, which I don't have.
I don't think the problem is with the cable companies. If it were, they would be making obscene profits just like the oil companies. The networks and cable channels are forcing the cable & sat companies to negotiate unreasonable rates or not carry their channels. They can't refuse to carry ESPN, or they would loose a lot of subscribers.
Post a Comment
<< Home