backtop


Print 123 comment(s) - last by inperfectdarkn.. on May 16 at 4:21 AM


Sen. John McCain  (Source: Associated Press)
McCain is hoping his new bill will force cable providers to let customers pick and choose the channels they want

Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona) wants satellite and cable TV customers to be able to choose the channels they pay for instead of being forced to buy expensive packages -- and he's working on a bill that will push providers in that direction.

McCain is expected to introduce a new bill soon, which would allow satellite and cable TV customers to have an "a la carte" package instead of the pre-determined options given by providers. 

Right now, customers must purchase expensive cable TV packages and pay for many channels they don't want in order to receive the few they do want. McCain doesn't see this as a fair way to go, and is hoping his new bill will force cable providers to let customers pick and choose what they want. 
 
In addition, McCain's bill would ban TV networks from bundling broadcast stations with cable channels they own. In other words, a parent company that owns multiple broadcast stations could not force a cable provider to pay for one station in order to carry another. 

It doesn't end there. The bill would also give Web TV service Aereo a lift, which allows customers to stream broadcast TV on their computers or mobile gadgets. 

McCain's bill would also eliminate the sports blackout rule, where cable companies cannot carry a sports event if the game is blacked out on local broadcast television stations. This rule was put in place to draw more fans to live games.

McCain tried pushing out a similar bill in 2006, but it didn't end up going anywhere at the time. 

He could face heavy opposition this round as well, considering the National Association of Broadcasters and the National Cable and Telecommunications Association are just a couple of expected opponents. 

In March of this year, Verizon announced that it's looking to launch a similar method of cable TV consumption. It's currently in negotiations to give customers access to the entire spectrum of cable channels. It works like this: whenever Verizon's set-top box records a customer watching a specific channel for more than 5 minutes, Verizon would pay the bundler for that channel, and charge the customer for that channel.

Source: The Hill



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

But...but...
By Motoman on 5/9/2013 1:26:47 PM , Rating: 5
Industry: "But if you don't let us bundle unwanted channels with the ones people actually want, those channels will die!"

Us: "OK."




RE: But...but...
By retrospooty on 5/9/13, Rating: 0
RE: But...but...
By icemansims on 5/9/2013 2:03:27 PM , Rating: 5
It is, actually. It's very important. You're talking about consumer/buyer choice versus supplier/seller rights. It's basically enforcing capitalism into the media which traditionally had a monopolistic style control.


RE: But...but...
By karimtemple on 5/9/13, Rating: 0
RE: But...but...
By MrBlastman on 5/9/2013 4:06:16 PM , Rating: 5
And suing Lance Armstrong while not incarcerating the money wizards leading to the financial crisis is a sight of correct priorities, also?

Anyways, this would be a neat bill to see passed. I cancelled cable a while back (Comcast) and they continue to pester me with offers constantly trying to win me back--while at the same time (I suspect) trying to throttle sites like Youtube to make coming back more appealing. Of course, I have no evidence to support they are throttling me on video other than it happening far more often after cancelling cable than before.

Who knows.

Would passage of a bill like this lead me to come back to Cable? Perhaps. I could cut out all the useless crap like ESPN and I'd be pretty happy. That and those reality TV channels--all useless.


RE: But...but...
By Bateluer on 5/9/13, Rating: 0
RE: But...but...
By FITCamaro on 5/9/13, Rating: 0
RE: But...but...
By Kazinji on 5/9/2013 6:55:37 PM , Rating: 2
ESPN, are some of the most expensive channels. Who on that reads this site actually watches ESPN?


RE: But...but...
By HrilL on 5/9/2013 7:25:47 PM , Rating: 2
I watch ESPN sometimes for the NBA or Xgames. But other than that I never do. They never have hockey on there and that is the only other sport I watch. ESPN is mostly college sports it seems like and I could really care less about those. Without everyone paying 45-7 each subscriber for the ESPN channels they'd have to be $15-20 each person that actually wants it.

I think this is short sighted anyway. What we really need is to be able to just watch whatever we want at a reasonable price. Say you want to watch the NBA then you pay to watch that. (Sure they have league pass but you can't watch your local teams without using a proxy because they block those games) If you like such and such show you can watch that. Broadcasting is an old tech that is not really needed now days.


RE: But...but...
By bigboxes on 5/9/2013 10:59:02 PM , Rating: 2
I hate paying for channels I don't watch, but ESPN? So, if you're a techie you don't watch sports?? I watch NFL, NCAA Football, NBA, NCAA Basketball, MLB. I could care less about NASCAR, SportsCenter or Professional Poker. If I want highlights or scores I just check out ESPN.com.


RE: But...but...
By FITCamaro on 5/10/2013 1:13:56 PM , Rating: 2
Uh....I'm a huge football fan....


RE: But...but...
By Kiffberet on 5/13/2013 8:07:46 AM , Rating: 2
What a ridiculou bill.

"I'll just get rid of the channels I don't watch and save myself a fortune!"

WRONG!

What you'll find is that the most popular channels will just cost more. A cable provider needs to make as much money as they can get away with. One way or another. This bill will do nothing for the consumer... In fact I doubt it will get through.


RE: But...but...
By seraphiem on 5/10/2013 11:24:41 AM , Rating: 2
Yes those folks share some of the responsibility but the bankers should shoulder a good portion if not majority of the blame too. The bankers found a way to make money off of the "sub-prime" folks with no risk whatsoever on their part. They were well aware these sub-prime loans were rotten and a good percentage would default. Yet they were making too much money on them and since they externalized the risk what was their downside? Once they figured this out the bankers went full bore and were making as many sub-prime mortgages as they could. They full well knew what they were doing and continued doing it.


RE: But...but...
By Reclaimer77 on 5/10/13, Rating: 0
RE: But...but...
By BRB29 on 5/10/2013 12:56:02 PM , Rating: 2
The sub-prime bubble was a result of government de-regulation, banking greed, and overspeculating "investors". Banks were throwing large amounts of money at people with no money down and barely any requirements.

The government cannot force any mortgages on any banks. Do you even know how the Federal Reserve works and who is in charge? They are actually very separate from the government itself and it was intentionally made that way. If anything, I would say the Feds have little government control since it's made up of bankers and regional banks.

The government, banks and people are all to blame for the recent economic meltdown.

I have no idea how you even mention Obama in this one. People cry for banking regulations and they got it.

You have no idea what you're saying.


RE: But...but...
By Reclaimer77 on 5/10/2013 1:14:33 PM , Rating: 2
Oh shut up you Collectivist shill. Nothing you say is credible.

quote:
The government cannot force any mortgages on any banks.


I suggest you do some research.

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-perspecti...

quote:
You have no idea what you're saying.


Nice try, but your bias is clearly causing you to spew rhetoric instead of facts.

And I know you think things like the CRA are just examples of "good Government people trying to help", you've said as much before on other subjects. But once again we see the dangerous unintended consequences of Government mucking around with the free market.


RE: But...but...
By FITCamaro on 5/10/2013 1:17:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The government cannot force any mortgages on any banks.


No they can't force banks to give loans. But they can threaten to refuse to insure their deposits through the FDIC to coerce them to give out loans. Which is exactly what Janet Reno did under Clinton.


RE: But...but...
By BRB29 on 5/10/2013 2:50:44 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, they pulled the race card and did not use statistic analysis of risks. They were wrong.


RE: But...but...
By timothyd97402 on 5/10/2013 5:15:17 PM , Rating: 2
The tactics that mortgage originators used to sell to those less qualified has been well documented. The originators knew full well that the consumers would have problems meeting their commitments down the road when interest rates were "adjusted".

Consumers should not have to be lawyers or CPAs in order to fully comprehend the terms in the fine print. You also should not blame the average joe when some sharp comes along and convinces him that he really can afford the american dream.

The originators didn't care because they were going to sell the loans straightaway to bundlers. The bundlers didn't care because they were going to package the mortgages into mortgage backed securities and sell them on to investors.

The investors were mislead into buying "AAA" rated securities because the ratings agencies were pressured into blessing all the bundles as such by the bundlers, the ratings agencies had a lot of business with these investment banks after all, in one case the ratings agency was OWNED by one of the investment banks.

Politicians were receiving sweetheart mortgages and massive amounts of campaign cash and regulators were put on notice by the Bush administration to lay off in general.

The whole business stank to high heaven. Those on the inside collected TRILLIONS of dollars in fraudulent profits and those on the outside were flattened.

Retirees and near retirees saw their retirement portfolios decimated in weeks or even days. Those middle class folk prudently slowed or stopped their spending and tried to rebuild their own financial security.

Before you write another word on this subject you need to educate yourself on what all went down.


RE: But...but...
By V-Money on 5/11/2013 1:08:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Consumers should not have to be lawyers or CPAs in order to fully comprehend the terms in the fine print. You also should not blame the average joe when some sharp comes along and convinces him that he really can afford the american dream.


Whereas I agree with you to a point, if you are a bagboy trying to buy a half million dollar house I think you are part of the problem as well. If a Ferrari salesman came to your house and offered you financing for a new 458 spider would you take it? The better question is do you think you could afford it? Of course not, yet this is effective what happened.

People are selfish and always want more, so they will spend beyond their means to get more. Were the banks wrong for taking advantage of them? Of course, but to place the blame solely on them and pretend like the consumers who defaulted on their debts are all innocent and were conned is just one more way to deflect responsibility.

As it turns out I bought a house during the crisis, and I still have my house. Do you want to know why? There is a loophole in the mortgage contract where you can keep your house, the trick is to make your mortgage payment...


RE: But...but...
By Reclaimer77 on 5/11/2013 1:37:56 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with you completely, however I must reiterate, the banks did nothing wrong.

They were forced to offer loans that had qualifying terms far below the standards they would normally adhere to. They were then told they had to meet a quota amount of these loans or there would be repercussions.

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-perspecti...

Keep in mind they are a business with a responsibility to shareholders/bondholders etc etc, to make a profit. So what could they do?

quote:
As it turns out I bought a house during the crisis, and I still have my house. Do you want to know why? There is a loophole in the mortgage contract where you can keep your house, the trick is to make your mortgage payment...


Responsibility? What's that!?


RE: But...but...
By Kiffberet on 5/13/2013 8:18:54 AM , Rating: 2
I'f I was a bagboy and someone offered me a Ferrari 458 spider, I'd say yes whether I could afford it or not!

Whats the worse that could happen? They take the car back when I miss a payment.

Same with houses. It cost the people buying the houses very little. The salemen got the commission and moved on. Once the situation changed and the home owner could no longer afford it, they just handed in the keys and walked away. House price plummetted, and the bank lost money. The investrs in the bank or products the mortgages were sold to lost money. The housebuyer, he lost very little money.

So, who do you blame now?


RE: But...but...
By ppardee on 5/13/2013 4:45:03 PM , Rating: 2
Why is borrowing money a crime? They didn't commit fraud and the bank decided that the return was worth the risk. And when you borrow that money, the contract you sign has a clause that defines what you do when you decide that you no longer want to pay the money back. The bank gets all of your equity AND the house. Normally, the consumer gets shafted. It was the bank's turn this time around.

The people who 'panicked' and pulled their cash out probably saved themselves a boatload of money and are able to spend that money. The people who are hurting are the ones that left their money in. The economy tanked because of the massive amounts of consumer debt we have as a nation.

Right now, we are so entrenched in debt, we can't spend. The spending we WERE doing prior to the crash was inflated by the fact that we were borrowing money to do the spending. You can't spend your way out of this. The only long term solution is to pay off debt and spend conservatively. Unfortunately, that means we'll have slow growth for about 10 more years... or we won't and we'll have another crash. The Keynesian fools running the government right now will ensure that the boom and bust cycle will be the norm for a while now.


RE: But...but...
By Stuka on 5/10/2013 12:14:11 PM , Rating: 2
There's always something of tragic importance going on. That doesn't mean everything else gets put aside. When your grandmother is in the hospital, do you stop wearing pants?


RE: But...but...
By arazok on 5/9/2013 4:17:26 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, the free market would be nowhere without government regulation.


RE: But...but...
By brasstax on 5/9/2013 10:39:34 PM , Rating: 2
It may be competitive, but it's not capitalist.

Two wrongs do not make a right. Although I would love to have this choice, this gets there by going in the wrong direction.


RE: But...but...
By BRB29 on 5/10/2013 7:36:52 AM , Rating: 2
Please enlighten us on how supply and demand will change it without the government saying "enough is enough, you're screwing over our citizen with unfair bundling practices?"


RE: But...but...
By arazok on 5/10/2013 10:47:27 AM , Rating: 3
It won’t. But I have two points:

1. TV is a luxury good, and is about as important to your right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as a bag of Fritos. If the market is such that it’s a rip off, we all have the right not to consume it. If we consume it anyways, then I suppose the price isn’t as unfair as we claim.

2. Supply and demand won’t change this, but the market will. The internet is within a few years of completely turning the broadcast industry on it’s head, and the market will force cable providers to unbundle their services and lower prices anyway. People will have options soon.

This is just government populism, it’s a total waste of time, and it just another sign of big government trying to justify its own existence.


RE: But...but...
By BRB29 on 5/10/2013 11:20:24 AM , Rating: 2
If you think that TV is a luxury good then smartphones, internet, most cars, most foods, etc... just about every damn product out there is luxury goods. We consume it anyways because we want TV and they know we don't have a choice since they won't sell individual channels.

quote:
Supply and demand won’t change this, but the market will.

wut? supply and demand is what the market is all about. Internet streaming is an alternative goods to TV. There is a high demand for individual TV channel subscription but the suppliers are not willing to provide.

quote:
market will force cable providers to unbundle their services and lower prices anyway.


That is an incorrect statement. What you meant to say is the demand will force the suppliers to unbundle. Too bad the suppliers are the only ones in town, you can demand all you want but you can only get it if you pay for the bundle.

There are already legal streaming services like Hulu and Netflix but the networks doesn't want to sign an affordable contract for both sides. That's why the shows are limited on streaming services. The TV networks does not want to cannibalize their own service. If they don't make money off streaming services then people will pirate anyways. They're in a balancing act right now and forcing customers to pay for their existence. That's wrong.

You don't question why you have to pay for a 300 channel package when you know no one that even watch 5% of that? Most people only watch about 2-5 different shows.


RE: But...but...
By Reclaimer77 on 5/10/13, Rating: 0
RE: But...but...
By Motoman on 5/9/2013 2:03:58 PM , Rating: 5
I'd say protecting consumer rights is always pretty important.


RE: But...but...
By dgingerich on 5/9/2013 2:26:55 PM , Rating: 2
I still have my rights regardless of what the cable companies do. I cancelled cable and went with just Hulu, Netflix, and Amazon Prime, at less than 1/4 of the cost of cable. I even get to watch just the shows I want on my own schedule as well as see them with far fewer commercials.

Screw the cable companies. If they don't want to change, I don't care to force them. they'll die a slow death, just like land line telephones, newspapers, and magazines.


RE: But...but...
By karimtemple on 5/9/13, Rating: -1
RE: But...but...
By Flunk on 5/9/2013 3:15:27 PM , Rating: 5
No, both parties are for big government. Despite the rhetoric they're both increasing the reach of the federal government.


RE: But...but...
By laser_cow on 5/9/13, Rating: -1
RE: But...but...
By Nutzo on 5/9/2013 6:04:10 PM , Rating: 1
Way to hit all the Democrat talking points (just another word for lies). I'd rather have a tiny brain than no brain at all.

I (and most people I know) did alot better under "trickle down" than We're doing under the current big government/big taxes administration.

If you love Democrat policies you should come out here to California where you can live with high taxes and high unemployment.


RE: But...but...
By Mint on 5/9/2013 6:32:00 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
I (and most people I know) did alot better under "trickle down" than We're doing under the current big government/big taxes administration.
That's because for ~25 years before the recession, the economy was leeching from the future. That future is now the present.


RE: But...but...
By BRB29 on 5/10/2013 7:47:46 AM , Rating: 2
High taxes and unemployment is everywhere. California just doesn't have as much incentives for large corporations as states like North Carolina or Virginia right now. By your logic then Texas(strong republican state) should be doing fantastic. No state tax, cheap everything yet they're broke like Charlie Sheen's career right now and has been for a while.

Everyone is so quick to find a scapegoat when things go bad. This whole thing started because of Republican policies when they're in power but you don't see me posting that crap everywhere. The point is bad politicians are bad politicians regardless of parties. Stop voting for parties and start voting for people that will work for the people and not their party. The party should be irrelevant as they're supposed to be the voice of the people.

And I work with people from everywhere. There's very few natives here. People from Cali are always wanting to go back and didn't think it was a good decision to leave. Most everyone else from other places love DC more than where they came from.


RE: But...but...
By Ammohunt on 5/10/2013 1:15:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
By your logic then Texas(strong republican state) should be doing fantastic. No state tax, cheap everything yet they're broke like Charlie Sheen's career right now and has been for a while.


Huh? this year Texas has an $8.8 Billion dollar surplus. California on the other hand is close to $1 Trillion in debt so to recap:

California 2013: Big government, leftist managed, blue state = $1 Trillion debt.
Texas 2013: Limited Government, Conservative, red state = $8.8 Billion surplus.

Texas also has its own power grid, energy supplies and alternative monetary system separate from the federal reserve. I am surprised people still live in California considering the whole state is going to resemble Detroit within 10 years.

You should really educate yourself on topics before you speak to them.


RE: But...but...
By Reclaimer77 on 5/10/2013 1:21:15 PM , Rating: 1
He's a fucking idiot who just spews whatever pro-big Government argument he can. No matter how false or dishonest or out-right crazy it sounds.

I can only assume he pulled his Texas comments out of his ass. Because not even the most Liberal wacko rag or website would even attempt to make that argument.


RE: But...but...
By BRB29 on 5/10/2013 2:24:30 PM , Rating: 2
So you don't mention that fact that they were expecting a deficit like every other year and this was very unexpected?

You also used a total debt figure and compare it to a one time surplus to Texas. Texas's Debt is ~300billion. For a resource rich state, that is pretty lame.

Alternative monetary system is not real or in effect. It's another hawkish proposal from Texas throughout history. They've been trying to secede forever. Too bad they will never pull it off. So no, Texas does not have its own monetary system separate from the federal reserve. It is still using the dollars.

Yea, they have their own power grid to escape federal regulation and then end up importing some power from Mexico
http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2011...

Maybe you should not be so biased when you speak.


RE: But...but...
By Reclaimer77 on 5/10/2013 3:23:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So you don't mention that fact that they were expecting a deficit like every other year and this was very unexpected?


How does that change the fact that you were wrong? Just admit it, you were wrong. More Conservative states are NOT doing worst than Liberal ones. Especially Texas, which you just made up a bunch of stuff about that's not true.

Just stop posting you idiot.


RE: But...but...
By retrospooty on 5/9/2013 3:51:27 PM , Rating: 3
"No, both parties are for big government"

Exactly...


RE: But...but...
By BRB29 on 5/10/2013 7:50:37 AM , Rating: 2
lol I don't understand why this common sense escape so many people either.


RE: But...but...
By Reclaimer77 on 5/10/2013 8:16:20 AM , Rating: 2
Funny but you never heard the "both parties" excuse when Bush was President. He was portrayed as an emperor who single-handedly started wars, caused natural disaster cleanup issues, and is singularly responsible for the TSA and Patriot Act. Even though both parties nearly unanimously voted for the war and the anti-terrorism bills.

Suddenly Obama takes office, his plans completely fail in every way, nothing gets better, but oohhh oh wait we can't blame him, it's BOTH PARTIES! Yeah guys, they both suck, lets deflect all blame from the Messiah!


RE: But...but...
By Nfarce on 5/9/2013 3:58:50 PM , Rating: 5
Well you just proved that Republicans can't win no matter what they do. If they want to cut back some draconian, job-destroying government regulations on corporations (and taxes that go with them in many cases), then Republicans are complete government haters. On the other hand, if a Republican (Repub Light in reference to McCain) wants to increase a regulation through government on something, then Republicans are hypocrites.

That's effectively what you said, and what liberal Democrats believe in general when throwing out the baby with the bath water: Republicans hate all forms of government. Of course, in reality, nothing could be further from the truth. What Republicans (and Conservatives, specifically) are against is nanny state government intruding in our lives. See exhibit A: Bloomberg and worrying about salt shakers on restaurant tables and the size of soda fountain cups.

Of course, Democrats are for more expansive and intrusive government up front, and they sure have not let their constituents down there under the first term of Obama.


RE: But...but...
By retrospooty on 5/9/2013 5:28:32 PM , Rating: 1
Right... Its not like republicans want to intrude in our lives. Except for that pro-choice thing... And they believe in small government... Except for the actions of the past 3 decades thing.

By your definition, there are no republicans in office in the past 30+ years. Because that group of people sure as HELL arent fiscally conservative. Not any more than the dems, both are just ridiculous spending our money like it comes from an endless well of diamond encrusted god nuggets.


RE: But...but...
By retrospooty on 5/9/2013 5:29:38 PM , Rating: 2
derp... Gold Nuggets. God nuggets are something different ;)


RE: But...but...
By Motoman on 5/9/2013 6:37:00 PM , Rating: 2
That was the name I danced under in college - "God Nuggets"


RE: But...but...
By Nfarce on 5/9/2013 8:52:27 PM , Rating: 2
1) The "pro-choice" Republicans are not a major player in Washington, and every time one of the far right ones makes a stupid comment about abortion (especially that idiot and the rape comment), he gets the deserved boot out of office. The Libertarian in me wants no government telling a woman what she can and cannot do with her body, any more than I want the government telling me what I should be eating.

2) If you break down the amount of government social spending increase between a GOP-led Congress, and a Democrat-led Congress, you'd be surprised at the gap, which favors Democrats. We can start by looking at LBJ's "Great Society" that was supposed to eradicate poverty starting a half century ago (the so-called War On Poverty), and finish on Obamacare.

That's not to say Republicans aren't big spenders themselves of course as you state (looking at you Bush Sr. and Jr.), but to state that both parties are the same in fiscal irresponsibility is not peeling back the onion.


RE: But...but...
By Reclaimer77 on 5/10/2013 8:23:23 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Libertarian in me wants no government telling a woman what she can and cannot do with her body, any more than I want the government telling me what I should be eating.


I believe a woman should do whatever she wants with her body too.

I draw the line, however, at murder. I'm not a religious man, however I have a moral problem with most selective abortions.

I believe you are terminating a life that should be protected under the Constitution.

Now for some reason this is an extremely controversial opinion, but oh well, there it is.

However I can state whole-hardheartedly that I've never cast a single vote because of the abortion issue. It's just a stereotype used against most Republicans, but as you say, it's not a major outlier in Washington. It's more of a local/state issue.

quote:
That's not to say Republicans aren't big spenders themselves of course as you state (looking at you Bush Sr. and Jr.), but to state that both parties are the same in fiscal irresponsibility is not peeling back the onion.


Game-set-match.


RE: But...but...
By mikeyD95125 on 5/9/2013 2:46:58 PM , Rating: 2
Man where do all you liberals come from? This is just another joke of a law coming from big city Libs like McCain, and all those liberal clowns in the house who voted for CISPA. Can I get an amen Reclaimer??

Ha trolling aside. Things like "A la carte" cable and market price cell phones are great ideas, but we should not be passing laws to force a company to implement a business model like that. Cable TV does not have a monopoly on digital entertainment. There are plenty of alternatives. For sports, at least hockey and baseball, and can pay $150 and access all the games for entire season anywhere you want with an internet connection.

In other news John McCain should take a well deserved retirement. Who wants to deal with all this stuff? He served our country well; he needs to relax and play some golf.


RE: But...but...
By laser_cow on 5/9/2013 3:13:10 PM , Rating: 2
Oh wow, please tell me this was a joke ... McCain being uber conservative and CISPA being a Repbulican built / supported bill vetoed by Obama. I'm 99% sure you're kidding, but when it comes to the Republican / Tea party; there's really nothing too insane or idiotic to put past them.


RE: But...but...
By Nfarce on 5/9/2013 4:00:58 PM , Rating: 4
Yeah well in the liberal Democrat mind, Republicans are also to blame for the sequester and mandatory government cuts, too.


RE: But...but...
By GatoRat on 5/10/2013 11:14:15 AM , Rating: 2
McCain isn't conservative, let alone "uber conservative." Like most so-called conservative republicans, he disagrees with the liberals only on how government should be controlling our lives.

(To make this even more plain; most Democrats and Republicans are simply arguing about what form of tyranny our government should be, not that we shouldn't have a tyranny at all. To me, one of the more surprising developments is how much Democrats, especially Obama, have embraced crony capitalism and held civil liberties in contempt; it's by-the-book fascism. McCain is very much part of that.)


RE: But...but...
By Zaranthos on 5/9/2013 4:04:32 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah the republicans argue for free market capitalism and then one of their own proposes a new law to force businesses to do what they want. You can't have it both ways. You want a free market or not? Hypocrites like McCain are why the republicans are losing elections. Less government, less regulations, less control of our lives. Don't say it's more consumer freedom either because forcing business to do what consumers want is still not a free market.


RE: But...but...
By FITCamaro on 5/9/2013 6:53:12 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. John McCain is part of the problem in the Republican Party, not the solution.


RE: But...but...
By Reclaimer77 on 5/10/2013 8:38:26 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Hypocrites like McCain are why the republicans are losing elections. Less government, less regulations, less control of our lives. Don't say it's more consumer freedom either because forcing business to do what consumers want is still not a free market.


Preach it brother.

McCain needs to be put down behind the shed, like Old Yeller lol.


RE: But...but...
By kypd275 on 5/9/2013 8:01:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Cable TV does not have a monopoly on digital entertainment. There are plenty of alternatives. For sports, at least hockey and baseball, and can pay $150 and access all the games for entire season anywhere you want with an internet connection.


Wow, not only are your trolling terrible, you can't even get your basic facts right.

Go ahead, try to use your MLB TV subscription to watch your home team - oh wait, you can't, because local market team games are blacked out.


RE: But...but...
By FITCamaro on 5/9/2013 6:53:41 PM , Rating: 2
I must have missed the right to whatever products we want at whatever price we want in the Constitution.


RE: But...but...
By FITCamaro on 5/9/2013 6:54:42 PM , Rating: 2
Let me add that there are places that "consumer rights" laws have a place, but this is not one of them. We may not like what they want to sell us, but we don't have the right to force them to sell us what we want.


RE: But...but...
By Reclaimer77 on 5/10/2013 11:12:39 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'd say protecting consumer rights is always pretty important.


What rights? Please show me in the Constitution where you have the right to cheap entertainment on your terms?? Wtf guy.

No wonder the country is lost, seriously. When these kinds of attitudes prevail.


RE: But...but...
By FITCamaro on 5/9/2013 6:48:08 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think there is anyone out there who doesn't want what this bill wants to do.

But Congress has no right to force cable and satellite providers to offer a product they currently don't.

If you don't like the way cable and satellite are, stop giving them your money. Period. Not act like you're entitled to a la carte programming.


RE: But...but...
By Motoman on 5/9/2013 8:39:02 PM , Rating: 2
The problem is that the cable/satellite companies function as a monopoly or oligopoly, depending on your specific location, and they all do the same thing with their pricing. You can't get cable or satellite from *any* provider that doesn't have the bundled pricing models, which are patently abusive to the consumer.

Hulu and some other similar services aren't complete alternatives - not everything's on Hulu for example. And if you're on satellite, you might not have access to broadband internet anyway - making any and all streaming services useless.

It's made worse by local regulation of the market that grants the cable companies local monopolies all over the place...and very infrequently, maybe a duopoly. But ultimately it doesn't matter, because anywhere you turn they're all using the same abusive pricing structures.

If they operated in a truly open market, maybe there'd be sufficient competition such that prices would be restructured in a way that's more fair to the consumer on it's own. But they don't.

This is the only market I can think of, off the top of my head, where I'd make any such suggestion as to some kind of regulation of how a company can sell it's products in bundles vs. a la carte. Because this is a very unique industry, ruled by an oligarchy-cartel that basically has you by the balls if you want to get such a service.


RE: But...but...
By ebakke on 5/10/2013 1:40:05 AM , Rating: 2
We're talking about entertainment. If you don't like the mechanism in which the entertainment is offered, don't buy it. Entertain yourself in another fashion, buy the service or a reasonable alternative elsewhere, or go without.

If people cared more about the price of cable more than, say, their access to ESPN or the Kardashians they wouldn't buy the product. If people didn't buy the product, the cable companies would change their model or go out of business.

No matter how you slice it, this isn't a problem that's solved with more government intrusion.


RE: But...but...
By Motoman on 5/10/2013 10:23:54 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
No matter how you slice it, this isn't a problem that's solved with more government intrusion.


OK. Then how about getting the government to stop f%cking with the industry as they always have been, giving artificial monopolies (and sometimes duopolies) to the cable companies in given geographic regions?

The government is part-and-parcel of the problem that we already have.


RE: But...but...
By Reclaimer77 on 5/10/2013 10:33:42 AM , Rating: 2
That's done on the state level. To my knowledge there was no act of Congress granting municipal level monopolies. I'm not 100% sure though.

But again even if you fix that the reason we have these cable packages are the content providers, not the cable companies. If there were 10 cable companies in your town to choose from, they would still ALL be doing the same things.


RE: But...but...
By ebakke on 5/10/2013 2:15:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Then how about getting the government to stop f%cking with the industry as they always have been, giving artificial monopolies (and sometimes duopolies) to the cable companies in given geographic regions?
Boom. Now we're talking!


RE: But...but...
By FITCamaro on 5/10/2013 1:15:27 PM , Rating: 2
Yes and who created those monopolies? The government. More government isn't going to fix things.


RE: But...but...
By BRB29 on 5/10/2013 2:55:26 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, we don't know if more or less government will help. The only thing we know is more honest politicians will help. Greed and corruption is killing this country.

Everyone feels that the government is too big. But then we all agree that just about every politician is bought out by private interests. So who is really in power? the government or the rich? In the end, it's still about money. Unfortunately, money has no backing except faith lol.


RE: But...but...
By barclay on 5/9/2013 10:05:01 PM , Rating: 2
Unbundling will not lower costs in any meaningful way. Watch and learn.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mw5RLzWNnE&feature...

Also, McCain is late to the party. Cable subscription is in decline. Consumers, especially younger consumers, are switching to cheaper and more flexible online substitutes (Netflix, Hulu, etc).


RE: But...but...
By Reclaimer77 on 5/9/2013 10:14:59 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry but as much as I hate the cable business model, I simply cannot abide this being a Federal issues. Seriously Congress has absolutely NO business mandating that cable companies allow al a carte programming.

This honestly makes me sick to my stomach. Seriously, what channels you watch on TV is a matter for Congress now? Really?

I'm disgusted.


Good one
By BurnItDwn on 5/9/2013 2:21:16 PM , Rating: 3
Yay!!!! A good bill that makes sense and is what people actually want!!!

I don't care that McCain is playing on the R team and I am on the D team, This proposed bill sounds most excellent.




RE: Good one
By Goty on 5/9/2013 2:27:16 PM , Rating: 2
McCain is pretty centrist, so he's hard to consistently like or hate.


RE: Good one
By fic2 on 5/9/2013 4:41:25 PM , Rating: 2
He made Sarah Palin a household talking head who thinks her opinion matters - enough reason to hate him.


RE: Good one
By Cheesew1z69 on 5/9/2013 4:45:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
He made Sarah Palin a household talking head who thinks her opinion matters - enough reason to hate him.
Kind of like you thinking yours does?


RE: Good one
By FITCamaro on 5/9/2013 6:57:19 PM , Rating: 2
Certainly matters more than yours.


RE: Good one
By Nfarce on 5/9/2013 8:58:38 PM , Rating: 2
Her opinion certainly matters enough to you liberal Democrats that you people can't ever seem to SHUT UP about her.


RE: Good one
By fic2 on 5/10/2013 12:48:37 PM , Rating: 2
Libertarian thank you very much - i.e. reformed Republican. Partly brought about by McCain who I used to respect.


RE: Good one
By ebakke on 5/10/2013 2:20:44 PM , Rating: 2
So you hate a man because you have different political beliefs than another person he chose as a running mate, whom you find obnoxious?

What's wrong with just disagreeing with him? Or is hyperbole your thing?


RE: Good one
By BRB29 on 5/11/2013 1:11:20 AM , Rating: 2
you can't just disagree, you gotta hate! that's the DT theme


RE: Good one
By laser_cow on 5/9/2013 3:31:09 PM , Rating: 2
well its one of the few things the R team has proposed that isn't trying to destroy our economy and small businesses, while supporting big business free loading monopolies. So yes, this is a small miracle.


RE: Good one
By Reclaimer77 on 5/9/2013 10:18:49 PM , Rating: 1
No this is NOT good, this is not something to cheer.

Consumers shouldn't be forced to "get what they want" via federal mandates handed down from Congress.

Vote with your wallet and your feet, like I did, and drop cable for Netflix or whatever. If enough people actually wanted real change, it would happen! The dirty truth is the majority are perfectly fine with the way cable companies do things, which is why nothing much has changed!

Change at the point of a gun doesn't work for the benefit of everyone. When will we learn!!??


RE: Good one
By ebakke on 5/10/2013 1:45:24 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Change at the point of a gun doesn't work for the benefit of everyone. When will we learn!!??
About 30 seconds before/after we're pushed into the ovens... give or take.


Surprise?
By Raiders12 on 5/9/2013 1:38:28 PM , Rating: 2
I was waiting for the sneaky langauge of this bill or some dark motive, but it seems Sen. McCain is actually on the side of the consumer. Surprising seeing how willing he is to send our youth to die....but I'll take the option of ESPN, FX, comedy Central, and my local channels. Of course this won't stop telecoms from pricing this option into undesirable territory. "Hey, we can buy 5 channels for $50/mo, or the 'limited select' pkg for $55/mo"...




RE: Surprise?
By aurareturn on 5/9/2013 2:30:13 PM , Rating: 2
My thoughts exactly.

Hey, ESPN & TNT are $20/each. So you can either have 2 channels for $40 or have 190 channels including ESPN and TNT for $60.


RE: Surprise?
By ven1ger on 5/9/2013 3:20:25 PM , Rating: 2
When I moved to Dish from Cable, I wanted the cheapest package which had all the channels I wanted except for one channel which was included in the next package. I had to opt for the more expensive package because of this. I'm sort of on the fence with this, I like the idea that McCain is proposing (though, I don't always like his politics) but I don't like the idea of too much gov't intervention into things like this.

It would be nice to be able to ala carte the channels in only paying for those that you watch but I don't know if we should legislate this, I think need to find out why companies don't offer this as an option, because if I found a satellite/cable company that could offer ala carte options at a cheaper total cost, I'd jump right-away. I think the gov't needs to look into whether there is some collusion going on with content providers to bilk customers or is there a legitimate reason. I think a lot of channels can be done away with if they were priced accordingly.


RE: Surprise?
By Motoman on 5/9/2013 5:23:05 PM , Rating: 2
There has to be some accountability to what the individual vs. bundle fees are.

If you want to say that ESPN and TNT are $40 worth of the $60 190 channel bundle, then the remaining 188 channels should be around 11 cents each.

Well...maybe 12 cents each - because you *are* getting a discount on the bundle, after all.

Naturally, out of those remaining 188 channels, the ones that I'd be willing to pay 11 cents for I could probably count on one hand anyway.


RE: Surprise?
By Solandri on 5/9/2013 2:56:37 PM , Rating: 2
McCain's a straight shooter. He was complicit in the savings and loan scandal in the 1980s, and vowed never to get himself involved in something like that again. He's been keeping himself clean ever since. You can disagree with his politics, but you can trust that what he says is what he actually thinks, no sneakiness or hidden motives. He's about as close to the mythical "honest politician" as you can get.


RE: Surprise?
By laser_cow on 5/9/2013 3:30:01 PM , Rating: 1
That use to be true, but post 2008 the guy flip flopped more than a pancake at Denny's.


RE: Surprise?
By FITCamaro on 5/9/2013 6:55:45 PM , Rating: 2
He sent himself to die first jackass. I might despise the man as a politician, but I won't question his service to the country for a second.


RE: Surprise?
By Reclaimer77 on 5/9/13, Rating: 0
RE: Surprise?
By FITCamaro on 5/10/2013 1:14:46 PM , Rating: 2
Well I agree with you on the political side. But I'm not going to wish death on the man for having an opposing viewpoint to mine most of the time.


RE: Surprise?
By BRB29 on 5/10/2013 2:27:51 PM , Rating: 2
some people have very strong opinions


By Hydrocron on 5/9/2013 2:34:45 PM , Rating: 5
As someone that works in the industry I can tell you that it is the content providers that are against this and not the cable companies. ESPN alone can be as high as $4 to $5 of your cable bill and the way the contract is worded unless the cable company keeps it in the lowest channels (read basic service) they can jack the price another few dollars or more where cable company X is now not competitive with cable company Y.

I hope they direct their attention to the content providers because there is next to no profit for the cable companies in TV they make it up in the High Speed Internet services or phone.




By theapparition on 5/9/2013 4:23:35 PM , Rating: 3
So here is a voice of reason.

Everyone wants to hate the cable company, but it's not them. It has more to do with the media companies.

For example, the cable company can't buy the rights to the FX channel. They have to buy a package from Fox, that includes rights to the local Fox station, Fox News and 10 others.

So why is it fair that they have to buy 10 channels just so you can only watch one?

Not only that, but that pricing is based on inclusion into channel packages. Blow that up and the a-la-carte pricing goes through the roof.

I'd like the ability to pay for only what I watch, but I also know enough of the industry to know that's not going to happen with the current model. A-la-carte prices will increase prices, not lower them for the average family.

We are rapidly approaching an a-la-carte model though, through internet distribution. That's when cable providers become completely irrelevant other than providing the data connection to your home.


By inperfectdarkness on 5/16/2013 4:21:19 AM , Rating: 2
Mostly true, but not entirely. Don't forget that at least one cable company (Time Warner) is also a content owner/provider. How this vertical integration in a de-facto monopoly (as most ISP's are) ever got past federal regulators--is beyond me.

This legislation is a step in the right direction, but there needs to be more progress. Netflix being raked over the coals by content providers is another problem that needs to be addressed.


By fic2 on 5/9/2013 4:38:53 PM , Rating: 2
Everyone in the industry knows that cable company X doesn't compete with cable company Y... (actually everyone knows this)

Yes, content providers are against this since they force bundle their channels (Disney force bundles ESPN, Disney and some others) but the cable companies don't want to off it either. They also make plenty of money from cable tv especially PPV/OnDemand.


By Motoman on 5/9/2013 8:45:23 PM , Rating: 2
I will admit I haven't gone looking to read the verbiage of this bill...does anyone know if it contains any requirements for how the content providers sell rights to their programming too?

Because it is entirely valid to point out that sh1t rolls downhill. If the cable/satellite companies have to take it in the bum from the content providers, then you can be sure the consumers will too.

I would have to think that the whole industry would have to be regulated such that non-predatory and non-preferential pricing was created and maintained between all the content providers and all the cable/satellite companies - on a per-network basis, without bundling.


Wait...
By Arkive on 5/9/2013 2:33:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It works like this: whenever Verizon's set-top box records a customer watching a specific channel for more than 5 minutes, Verizon would pay the bundler for that channel, and charge the customer for that channel.


And how will my cable provider know that I turned my TV off and am simply not watching whatever channel the box is currently tuned to? Am I going to have to power on/off my cable box every time I flip the TV on/off? Sounds fun.




RE: Wait...
By Veero on 5/9/2013 3:30:13 PM , Rating: 2
Oh no! You mean you will have to push a button and wait 20-30 seconds for the box to turn on and show your channel? That will add just to much time and effort to even bother watching TV at all!


RE: Wait...
By wempa on 5/9/2013 4:13:59 PM , Rating: 2
This is absolutely a valid concern. Some cable boxes are not meant to be shut off. For example, the DVR boxes need to remain on in order to record shows. You just turn your TV off and the cable box stays tuned to a channel. Also, a lot of people use universal remotes nowadays. When my daughter or a guest presses the OFF button, they don't care whether or not they shut off the TV or the cable box, as long as the TV is off. I don't know about you, but I DO care if I'm getting charged for a channel that I'm not actually watching.


RE: Wait...
By fic2 on 5/9/2013 4:34:27 PM , Rating: 2
This is complete BS. I work for one of the major cable box makers. All the cable boxes made for the last 10 years can record video with the box "off". The parts that need to record DVR (tuner + HD) wake up when a show is scheduled to record, tunes to it, records it, then go back to sleep. Parts of the box stay on (cpu in low power mode, out of band tuner to receive updates (catalogs and such)) so the box isn't as "off" as being unplugged more like a laptop or desktop in a wake to network state.


RE: Wait...
By kwrzesien on 5/13/2013 5:38:57 PM , Rating: 2
Unless it is recording a show when you go to turn it off, in which case it stays on until the next day. Then my universal remote turns it off when turning everything else on and I have to power that one device on through the detailed menu. No, they don't have it all figured out yet. In fact there should be separate IR codes for "on" and "off" for programming universal app controllers, in addition to the power toggle code.


As much as I would like this...
By tigz1218 on 5/9/2013 2:53:07 PM , Rating: 1
I do not support this bill at all, even though I would love to pick my own channels.

The problem this creates is the ever increasing scope of government into business. What WOULD make sense is an investigation into the major cable companies to see if they are colluding to set up a non-competive environment.

It's obvious that they are. How do I know this? Because look at the market! Everyone wants a cable service that they can choose their channels and NONE of the big companies offer this! If they were competing they would have jumped on this immediately. But, instead, they make back room deals to not compete so they can still collect giant profits off there outdated business model.





RE: As much as I would like this...
By Hector2 on 5/9/2013 3:01:11 PM , Rating: 2
I'm guessing you still would prefer that we never broke up the AT&T monopoly and everyone still rent their phones from Ma Bell ? There isn't enough competition in Cable TV today and we're stuck with expensive packages as a result


By tigz1218 on 5/10/2013 10:17:10 AM , Rating: 2
No I'm saying that's exactly what we need to do. Read my post again more carefully, I'm saying we need to punish the companies if they are conspiring to not compete, which is essentially like a monopoly, BUT I'm also saying we can't tell them how to run their business because the government should not be responsible for that. Sorry if I didn't make that clear in first post.


By Solandri on 5/9/2013 3:06:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The problem this creates is the ever increasing scope of government into business. What WOULD make sense is an investigation into the major cable companies to see if they are colluding to set up a non-competive environment.

Actually, cable TV is one of the situations where you need government regulation (or deregulation as it were). Most residences are only serviced by a single cable company. It's an artificial monopoly granted by the municipality, usually in exchange for other concessions like guaranteed service to low-income neighborhoods. There's no investigation needed - the non-competitive environment was granted by the local government.

So there's no competition to force the local cable company to provide better service or lower prices. There were some court cases a few decades ago trying to stop this practice. But satellite TV service had just begun, and the courts ruled that satellite TV was sufficient competition for cable TV. All I can say is that I've seen the local cable company face competition twice. Once in Boston when the city decided to grant a second cable company a license, and once in California when Verizon FIOS rolled out and offered TV service. In both cases, my cable bill was reduced by 10%-20% without me even having to ask.


This is stupid
By tjacoby on 5/9/2013 5:55:35 PM , Rating: 2
A la carte would not do anything. Ok, so you pick combination "n" channels, someone else picks combination "o" channels. Each individual channel will cost more a la carte than they did as a package, since the price of all the channels is split among all customers. The big channels that people would want (ESPN, Disney, etc) are the most costly for networks to carry, additional channels around them (Disney 2? ESPN 2, U, Classic, ESPANOL) are, I would guess, more or less "free" add ons. I can almost guarantee people will see a minimal drop in cost, but a huge reduction in choice.

It would be like going to a full-service oil change center, where you can get "The Works" that includes 7 different benefits, 4 of which are minor, or selecting 3 of those "a la carte" for 3% less cost. Not the best analogy, but its hard to argue that bulk pricing tends to be a much better value. I for one occasionally (rarely, admittedly) watch some of the less popular channels when something interesting happens to catch my attention. I think it is worth the tiny premium I pay over having a fraction of selection.

That's just from a logical standpoint. From a governance standpoint, under what premise does the government believe it has the right to control such things? Who are they to say how two (or more) companies can structure their contracts for services?




RE: This is stupid
By ven1ger on 5/9/2013 6:27:59 PM , Rating: 3
Requiring someone to pay for channels or content that you absolutely don't want to watch isn't consumer friendly. I use the favorite channels setup, so guess what, I usually never see the other channels. Why do I need channels with religion, foreign languages, etc. I don't see any problems with bundling, but the bundling should be maybe around content providers, if I want Disney bundle, I pay for the Disney bundle and get x amount of channels. If I want Sports bundle, I pay for the Sports bundle and get y amount of channels, but can even break up the sports bundle into different sporting events, and etc.

There is no reason not to a la carte items and offer special prices on bundles, except for maybe gouging customers. I would like to see the pricing on a la carte channels versus the bundles so I can make up my own mind as to what I'd like to pay and watch and what I'm exactly paying for in regards to channels I'm paying for. Right now, the consumer doesn't even know how much each of these channels are costing within the packages that are being offered.

I'd be in favor of a bill that requires companies to provide what each of these channels are being charged to the subscriber for its monthly charge. I'd like to know what is the exact cost of each of these channels being added to the bundle to see if it is worth the extra expense for the bundle. Otherwise these are hidden fees to the consumer.


RE: This is stupid
By Reclaimer77 on 5/10/2013 8:47:52 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Requiring someone to pay for channels or content that you absolutely don't want to watch isn't consumer friendly.


Then do what I do and switch to on-demand services like Netflix. Where YOU can only watch what YOU want.

Even with satellite you get packages with channels that YOU might not want. I guess next we'll need another thousand page pork-barrel bill pushed through Congress to regulate that too?

You're a perfect example of the mindset destroying this nation. I want I want I want I want whaaa WHAAA WHAAAAAAA!!!!


Good luck...
By Cheesew1z69 on 5/9/2013 1:21:04 PM , Rating: 3
But won't happen...




RE: Good luck...
By Lord 666 on 5/9/2013 5:40:57 PM , Rating: 2
Make a Meghan McCain channel and they will come.


Finally
By Hector2 on 5/9/2013 2:56:05 PM , Rating: 2
McCain is finally doing something I like !




Hypocrites
By OneArmedScissorB on 5/9/2013 3:21:14 PM , Rating: 2
Yet another case of "limited government" Republicans playing central planner.

The establishment media is dying. CNBC is down to 2005 viewer levels. News Corp is splitting up.

McCain is desperately trying to save his fearmongering cheerleader squad. When they go, that will be the final nail in the coffin of the neocons.

You want a market? There it is, working just great!

Or do all of you saying they need this to "enforce capitalism" want the talking heads riling up old farts to support another made up Iraq invasion?

When you use coercion to get your way, you get more coercion and a downward spiral of unintended consequences.




Prices will increase
By GatoRat on 5/10/2013 11:08:25 AM , Rating: 2
All other issues aside, do consumers know that this will drive their bills up, not down? I'll wage it will likely double most consumers' bills. In reality, you are only paying for a basic set of channels, with the rest being added by the content providers to sell commercials and subsidize their main offerings.




Cable Money
By wallijonn on 5/10/2013 12:30:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
McCain tried pushing out a similar bill in 2006, but it didn't end up going anywhere at the time.


Choose 1:
[A] McCain wants more money from the cable companies not to ram through this legislation.

or

[B] The cable companies already bribe enough other congressmen which will ensure that any legislation put forth will be resoundingly defeated.




By Chaser on 5/10/2013 2:37:59 PM , Rating: 2
Just another establishment Republican sticking up for one of his crony corporate campaign contributors.

But if we were to get cable ala carte I could turn off Fox News so I don't have to hear all this stupid noise Bengazi noise about an amabassador, and several staff members that were killed solely due to a YouTube video weeks before the presidential reelection campaign.




Price
By phrizzo on 5/10/2013 3:12:00 PM , Rating: 2
My worry is that instead of paying $100 for 5 good channels and 95 terrible "channels" what would happen is that we would end up paying $20/channel and still end up paying $100, but now we would still just get the 5 good channels. The only difference is we would lose the 95 terrible channels. What needs to happen is that each good channel costs $2, so we only end up paying $10 for 5 channels, not $100 for 5 channels. Ideally, I could buy those 5 good channels and then 95 "specialty" channels on topics that I like. Then I wouldn't mind paying $100 per month. Think of it, the Star Trek Channel, the Windows Sucks Channel, the How to Avoid Lame-ers, How to Hack …, All Linux All the Time, the Why Do Germans Love David HasselHoff Channel, … plus standard good channels like The Sci-Fi Network, The History Channel, Discovers, ESPN, …




Comcast
By Scooter1970 on 5/10/2013 7:30:55 PM , Rating: 2
Any bets on whether Comcast and other cablecos make sure this doesn't pass?




antitrust history
By DockScience on 5/11/2013 1:53:06 AM , Rating: 2
Forced bundling and price fixing are long used tools of monopoly trusts, and ones which were once illegal.

Disney is the Standard Oil of the new millenium.




!!!!!!!
By MelodyRamos49 on 5/12/2013 4:35:00 AM , Rating: 2
If you think Susan`s story is neat,, one week ago my cousins girlfriend got $4845 putting in a fourty hour month from there house and they're roomate's step-sister`s neighbour has done this for 6 months and worked and got paid more than $4845 in there spare time on their mac. applie the instructions from this website, Jump44.comTAKE A LOOK




!!!
By BarbaraRedding14 on 5/9/13, Rating: 0
"You can bet that Sony built a long-term business plan about being successful in Japan and that business plan is crumbling." -- Peter Moore, 24 hours before his Microsoft resignation














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki