|
[opendtv] Re: News: Independent Networks, ACA Speak Out Against Program Tying
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2008 09:23:53 -0400
At 6:53 PM -0400 6/7/08, Albert Manfredi wrote:
NO. This is the way government supported oligopolies
work. In a free market economy there would be
competition.
So as long as people create the notion that this cable connection
is critical, the cable companies can raise prices as much as they
please. Power and water/sewage utilities could do exactly the same
thing, were it not for regulation.
Uhhhh Bert.
The cable companies ARE highly regulated. There was a period in the
late '80s when the regulation was relaxed, but the rates kept going
up so Congress used this as an excuse to re-regulate the cable
industry and to give the broadcasters the keys to the cable kingdom
via retransmission consent.
In order for the cable companies to raise prices they must typically
submit the rate increase to the local regulatory authority - in our
case, an appointed board of citizens who oversee the cable system.
The problem is that increases in "programming cost" can simply be
passed through without question. The cable company simply points to
the congloms and say we are being forced to pay more for the content.
The OTHER major way that the cable companies have been able to get
away with increases is via system upgrades that allow them to put
more channels into the extended basic tier. Most systems went through
digital upgrades in the '90s from 550 MHz systems to 750 MHz and in
some cases 1 GHz systems. As they did this they kept adding a few new
analog channels each year and raising the rates as the total number
of channels increased. Their excuse was always that they are paying
more for these channels - and for the rate increases for existing
channels like ESPN.
So Both the congloms and the cable companies were able to increase
their reach into our pockets, without any complaints from the
regulators. And by the way, the local power and water utility is
doing much the same to us. We have had our second electricity rate
increase this year and they told us to "Brace yourself Bridgit" cause
we are going to do it to you again later this year. The
justification is the increase in the cost of natural gas. OUr public
utility has a large coal fired plant and a share of a nuclear plant
in the region - Natural gas accounts for less than 10% of their
generating capacity...but that's enough to justify pushing up rates...
So, again, either you accept this govt role, or you stop
complaining about high prices.
Why? Should I also accept never ending tax increases and more and
more onerous regulation. You would not believe the hoops that we must
go through to open a brewery.
THERE IS NO REASON TO ACCEPT TECHNOPOLITICAL GERRYMANDERING WITH WHAT
SHOULD BE FREE MARKETS.
The situation now, with Verizon and AT&T competing with cable, has
not changed much. They all pretty much charge the same rates, for
similar services, similarly bundling programs in tiers. There isn't
that much competition. Maybe WiMAX will change matters, we'll see.
EXACTLY. Why change the business model when everybody is making
oligopoly profits?
DBS could change the rules, but they do not. The only reasons that i
can ascribe to this are:
1. That they might have difficulty getting contracts for content if
they do not play by the same rules as competitors.
OR
2. They like the fact that they can charge customers for a bunch of
things they do not want, because it allows them to make higher
profits.
While I do not like the practice, I CAN understand that the
multi-channel services do not want to allow us to pick and choose, as
most of us would not choose to pay for stuff we do not watch.
Well, the FCC is the only govt agency out there suggesting that
cable companies introduce more a la carte offerings. If this becomes
law, it would be the FCC that accomplished your goal. Otherwise, why
on earth should cable companies, on their own, do anything that
increases their operating costs and reduces their profit margins?
Congress is not an agency, but there are many members of Congress
calling for ala carte. But it takes a majority to legislate this
change. The FCC has no authority to force this to happen - so they
just use their Bully Pulpit to put a little pressure on the
multi-channel industry. Only Congress, or the companies themselves,
can change this.
> Nobody is forcing you to buy an SUV. You can drive an
econo-box or ride a bike.
The increased demand created by behemoths, which behemoths have not
had to meet the more stringent CAFE requirements that automobiles
have had to meet, is in part why the supply of oil isn't meeting the
demand, and why the price is going up.
Really?
I seriously doubt that you can substantiate that argument. The fact
that the population increased from 225 million in 1979 (the last big
gas crisis) to 304 million today is a much more significant factor.
And then there is the number of vehicles per capita:
From Wilkipedia:
According to cumulative data[1] by the Federal Highway
Administration (FHA) the number of motor vehicles has also increased
steadily since 1960, only stagnating once in 1997 and declining from
1990 to 1991. Otherwise the number of motor vehicles has been rising
by an estimated 3.69 million each year since 1960 with the largest
annual growth between 1998 and 1999 as well as between 2000 and 2001
when the number of motor vehicles in the United States increased by
eight million.[1] Since the study by the FHA the number of vehicles
has increased by approximately eleven million, one of the largest
recorded increases. The largest percentage increase was between the
years of 1972 and 1973 when the number of cars increased by 5.88%.
So the real issue is that there are many more people driving many
more cars, not the mileage that those cars get, which has been
increasing over the same time period. In 1980 the average mileage for
all passenger vehicles was 13.3 mpg; in 2004 it was 17.1 mpg - and
this includes all of those gas guzzling SUVs.
But that's only part of the problem. In 1979 we imported less than
40% of the oil we use in the U.S. Today it is over 70%. We are
competing in a world market with a large number of industrializing
nations who are seeing big improvements in their standards of living
including more appliances and automobiles.
Bottom line, the world's oil producers are limiting production to
keep the prices up as demand increases. And countries like the U.S.
are making it nearly impossible to develop new energy resources and
refining capacity.
So once again, it is not the consumer who is at fault here - you can
buy SUVs real cheap now - it is the political gerrymandering that has
prevented us from developing the resources we need to keep up with a
growing economy.
So, while there are many factors involved, including the increased
demand from India and China, SUV and large pickup truck owners are
very much responsible for EXACERBATING the situation here in the US.
NO. This is just a small blip.
I don't have to remind you that until very recently, these
obscentities were accounting for half the sales of personal
transportation vehicles in the US. And that as a consequence, in
spite of the fact that AUTOMOBILE fuel economy has increased
dramatically since 1970, the average miles per gallon of privately
owned vehicles has gone slightly DOWN in that period of time.
WRONG.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_vehicles_in_the_United_States#Fuel_economy
So, JUST LIKE those cable subscribers who consider cable to be
indispensable, people who help create a problem cannot expect a lot
of sympathy when they have to pay for the consequences of their
unrepressed behavior.
Your view of the world is twisted Bert.
But then, we must consider the source of the news and information
that you choose to suck on...
Regards
Craig
Bert
_________________________________________________________________
Search that pays you back! Introducing Live Search cashback.
http://search.live.com/cashback/?&pkw=form=MIJAAF/publ=HMTGL/crea=srchpaysyouback
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings
at FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the
word unsubscribe in the subject line.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
Other related posts:[opendtv] News: Independent Networks, ACA Speak Out Against Program Tying [opendtv] Re: News: Independent Networks, ACA Speak Out Against Program Tying [opendtv] Re: News: Independent Networks, ACA Speak Out Against Program Tying [opendtv] Re: News: Independent Networks, ACA Speak Out Against Program Tying [opendtv] Re: News: Independent Networks, ACA Speak Out Against Program Tying [opendtv] Re: News: Independent Networks, ACA Speak Out Against Program Tying [opendtv] Re: News: Independent Networks, ACA Speak Out Against Program Tying [opendtv] Re: News: Independent Networks, ACA Speak Out Against Program Tying [opendtv] Re: News: Independent Networks, ACA Speak Out Against Program Tying [opendtv] Re: News: Independent Networks, ACA Speak Out Against Program Tying
|
|
|
[ Home |
Signup |
Help |
Login |
Archives |
Lists
]
All trademarks and copyrights within the FreeLists archives are owned
by their respective owners.
Everything else ©2008 Avenir Technologies, LLC.
|
|
|
