[opendtv] Re: News: Independent Networks, ACA Speak Out Against Program Tying

Craig;

You are clearly wrong about 1) cable being highly regulated and 2) local price 
regulation by the local franchising authority.

Price regulation went OUT in the 1992 cable re-write.  All you need to do to 
find out about this is to contact the cable-regulatory guy or gal in 
Gainesville.

And, the 1996 and later re-writes even opened up the doors even wider.  Indeed, 
the most recent legislation passed in the last year, permitting state-wide 
franchising authority, and California at least has legislation implementing it 
here.

John Willkie



-----Original Message-----
>From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Jun 8, 2008 6:23 AM
>To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [opendtv] Re: News: Independent Networks, ACA Speak Out Against  
>Program Tying
>
>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.
>

 
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: