Cable Companies feeling some Heat

[AzorAhai]

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. I was paying $30 a month just in equipment rental from Uverse and just about every Cable/Satellite provider has gone to this "rental fee". I could understand an extra fee if it was an optional upgrade to watch the programming they offer, but if you need their box to watch their programming, they shouldn’t charge you extra for it. Of course what they will do is just increase the prices on their programming so you don't see the seperate fees for the boxes. Their profit loss will be made up one way or another.

 

[Kevinicus]

you might not be a troll but you are wearing a troll's uniform and it is confusing people

the cable companies don't need white knight defenders, they are pretty despicable with their practices and I think they get off on it

I'm not defending cable companies, I'm defending all companies rights. Consumers aren't entitled to everything they want.

 

[CyberB0b]

I'm not defending cable companies, I'm defending all companies rights. Consumers aren't entitled to everything they want.

They're entitled to a choice, however.

 

[BigStar]

I'm not defending cable companies, I'm defending all companies rights. Consumers aren't entitled to everything they want.

So both anti government and anti consumer?

 

[Kevinicus]

So both anti government and anti consumer?

No, just pro freedom, and that applies to both sides.

 

[Kevinicus]

They're entitled to a choice, however.

And they have one (or several), even if it's not one they like.

 

[YosemiteSam]

I'm not defending cable companies, I'm defending all companies rights. Consumers aren't entitled to everything they want.

Yes we are. GET OUT!

 

[BigStar]

No, just pro freedom, and that applies to both sides.

I think the whole situation here is that your sense of freedom seems to only apply to the company and not the consumer/govt in this case?

 

[YosemiteSam]

The cable TV needs to wilt and die. The future of TV is not cable TV. It's Internet TV. The government needs to abolish the monopolies in areas where Internet is provided. There is no way any company should be refused the ability to offer service in any consumer area.

Internet Service Providers (ISPs) should not be able to dictate what is transferred over their service, only that the consumer has all the bandwidth their offer provides. (in other words, they can't throttle anything on the Internet, except bandwidth overages) If they create an agreement with a customer to offer 5GB of bandwidth per month, the should not be allowed to throttle anything until the 5GB is reached. Even if the consumer uses 4.5GB of bandwidth the first day.

Yes, ChldsPlay. The companies have a choice. Provide a service the consumer wants, or their option. Find a new business.

If you disagree. DIE DIE DIE!!!

 

[Kevinicus]

I think the whole situation here is that your sense of freedom seems to only apply to the company and not the consumer/govt in this case?

No. I don't believe the consumer has a right to have whatever they want at whatever cost they want. They have the freedom to buy something, buy something else, buy somewhere else, or not to buy. Their choice is about what they are or are not willing to pay for. The company has the freedom to determine what they will and will not offer, and what they will offer it for, (and constitutionally they should have the freedom to decide who they offer it to as well). I don't think the government has much freedom to do anything except regulate interstate commerce, but that is far more simple than they make it.

Not being able to get what you want, when you want it, how you want it, or for the cost you want is not a lack of freedom.

 

[BigStar]

No. I don't believe the consumer has a right to have whatever they want at whatever cost they want. They have the freedom to buy something, buy something else, buy somewhere else, or not to buy. Their choice is about what they are or are not willing to pay for. The company has the freedom to determine what they will and will not offer, and what they will offer it for, (and constitutionally they should have the freedom to decide who they offer it to as well). I don't think the government has much freedom to do anything except regulate interstate commerce, but that is far more simple than they make it.

Not being able to get what you want, when you want it, how you want it, or for the cost you want is not a lack of freedom.

So basically discriminate consumers and Pro monopolize "if possible"?

 

[Kevinicus]

So basically discriminate consumers and Pro monopolize "if possible"?

No. Freedom to discriminate (discrimination is not necessarily a bad thing - everyone uses it to make decisions of all kinds) sure. It doesn't mean I think a company should descriminate for this reason or that, but they absolutely should (and constitutionally do) have the freedom to make those choices for themselves.

I am not necessarily pro monopoly, but certainly not anti-monopoly.

This is all getting to close to being political though.

 

[DogFace]

No. Freedom to discriminate (discrimination is not necessarily a bad thing - everyone uses it to make decisions of all kinds) sure. It doesn't mean I think a company should descriminate for this reason or that, but they absolutely should (and constitutionally do) have the freedom to make those choices for themselves.

I am not necessarily pro monopoly, but certainly not anti-monopoly.

This is all getting to close to being political though.

What about the infrastructure provided by the government to the cable companies? You should look into how local governments take kickbacks from cable companies to make these monopolies possible. The federal government stepping in is good for the many. Not the few. That's part of their role.
http://www.fastcoexist.com/3034938/...ster-internet-but-cable-companies-wont-let-it
It's widely accepted by many except some of the "elitist" in our society and the pawns that blindly follow them that monopolies are corrupt in nature and hurtful to capitalism.

 

[Kevinicus]

What about the infrastructure provided by the government to the cable companies? You should look into how local governments take kickbacks from cable companies to make these monopolies possible. The federal government stepping in is good for the many. Not the few. That's part of their role.
http://www.fastcoexist.com/3034938/...ster-internet-but-cable-companies-wont-let-it
It's widely accepted by many except some of the "elitist" in our society and the pawns that blindly follow them that monopolies are corrupt in nature and hurtful to capitalism.

I strongly disagree with your view of the role of government and your last comment about monopolies (which the government often plays a large part in creating), however in regards to the infrastructure provided (in cases where it's being used), I'm sure there are some contracts that dictate the rights of both parties, so it would really depend on what those say. In general though, I would say it's a bad precedent for the government to be dictating the features of products and services.

 

[BigStar]

I strongly disagree with your view of the role of government and your last comment about monopolies (which the government often plays a large part in creating), however in regards to the infrastructure provided (in cases where it's being used), I'm sure there are some contracts that dictate the rights of both parties, so it would really depend on what those say. In general though, I would say it's a bad precedent for the government to be dictating the features of products and services.

https://encrypted-tbn0.***NOT-ALLOWED***/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT7dPVoxJVa7wrqm-pXPxEw_p4imG4W2gOgkdifhZNG6myaRQYQ

 

[Hoofbite]

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. I was paying $30 a month just in equipment rental from Uverse and just about every Cable/Satellite provider has gone to this "rental fee". I could understand an extra fee if it was an optional upgrade to watch the programming they offer, but if you need their box to watch their programming, they shouldn’t charge you extra for it. Of course what they will do is just increase the prices on their programming so you don't see the seperate fees for the boxes. Their profit loss will be made up one way or another.

Which will leave the power in the hands of the consumer to decide if they want to pay the extra amount.

As it is, not every has 2, 3 or 4 boxes. Some people just have 1 box. When the price of the services increases by the average number of boxes, if that prices is greater than the number of boxes individual consumers currently have then the company will risk losing those customers with the price increase.

You pay for the services. You shouldn't be forced to pay a monthly fee for their equipment to access the services. The fact that you can pay for HD channels and then have to upgrade to the HD box should have everyone in favor of opening the market up to 3rd parties.

Imagine a similar setup in the cell phone market. Rather than being able to purchase any phone you want that is compatible with your carrier, you get to rent one of the phones that AT&T, Verizon, or T-Mobile have. Granted the cell phone market has it's own Ponzi scheme, but the fact remains that nobody would advocate for fewer choices to the consumer in the cell phone market. Why anyone would do that for the cable market is hard to understand.

 

[Kevinicus]

https://encrypted-tbn0.***NOT-ALLOWED***/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT7dPVoxJVa7wrqm-pXPxEw_p4imG4W2gOgkdifhZNG6myaRQYQ

Stop posting selfies.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

Gentlemen please leave politics out of the conversation.

 

[Kevinicus]

Gentlemen please politics out of the conversation.

You give us too much credit.

 

[JD_KaPow]

Imagine a similar setup in the cell phone market. Rather than being able to purchase any phone you want that is compatible with your carrier, you get to rent one of the phones that AT&T, Verizon, or T-Mobile have. Granted the cell phone market has it's own Ponzi scheme, but the fact remains that nobody would advocate for fewer choices to the consumer in the cell phone market. Why anyone would do that for the cable market is hard to understand.

That was exactly the setup in the land line market a few decades ago. Everyone rented a phone from Ma Bell, and there was no market for different or better phones. Then the government broke them up, and lo and behold, within a few years there was a large and varied market for telephone handsets with low prices and lots of new features.