Letter from my Congressman regarding NFL Network

[SDogo]

Thanks for contacting me about the NFL Network and cable companies' price structure.

Congress has talked for a while about letting cable subscribers choose their channels "a la carte." This proposal sounds great in theory because it would allow subscrib ers to lower your cable bill, keep objectionable content out of your home , and tailor your cable package to your interests . However, it has many of the smaller channels - including those with religious programming - worried because they rely on the package model to get enough revenue to survive. They say the proposal may actually reduce choice.

This is a difficult and complicated issue, and I'm still reviewing the implications myself. With the convergence of cable and broadband Internet, we may soon see the day that you can subscribe to individual TV shows rather than channels, changing the entire playing field. I believe technology and the marketplace will eventually resolve this, but I hope to keep in touch as this develops.



Best regards,
Bob Inglis

 

[Ren]

Got to love politicians he basicly said nothing

 

[SDogo]

Got to love politicians he basicly said nothing

That's about it

I do have DirecTv but will continue the fight for those that can not get the NFL Network!

 

[theogt]

Got to love politicians he basicly said nothing

He actually said a lot and was surprisingly well informed.

 

[TX_Yid]

I agree with his concerns on a pay for channels approach. If it went down to a pay for TV shows situation I think I'd have to shoot myself in the face before I end up watching a tall bald guy opening suitcases and that git Carruso adjusting his shades.

No thank you.

 

[MC KAos]

That's about it

I do have DirecTv but will continue the fight for those that can not get the NFL Network!

 

[dogunwo]

He actually said a lot and was surprisingly well informed.

Yeah, that was pretty surprising. Politicians usually master the Art of saying nothing profoundly.

 

[Danny White]

He actually said a lot and was surprisingly well informed.

A legislative assistant almost certainly has a form letter on telecommunications issues and just churns it out whenever they get a constituent letter on the issue and slaps the Congressman's signature on it.

I used to write those letters when I was a Congressional intern. The "it is a difficult and complicated issue" is an old standby which essentially means he's not gonna tell you what he thinks!

 

[NorTex]

He actually said a lot and was surprisingly well informed.

What he said is that he is sitting on the fence because he doesn't want to take a stand and possibly lose votes.

And, why is it surprising that he knew the basics of this arguement?

 

[burmafrd]

What there should be is a way that you are only charged for what you watch and no more.

 

[theogt]

What he said is that he is sitting on the fence because he doesn't want to take a stand and possibly lose votes.

And, why is it surprising that he knew the basics of this arguement?

What he said is that a la carte is a bad idea and that he doesn't think it's a good idea for the government to be involved.

 

[JerryFan]

That's about it

I do have DirecTv but will continue the fight for those that can not get the NFL Network!

Here is the thing though. It's going to be more then just the NFL network. In the midwest (where I live) it's the cable companies vs. the BigTenNetwork. I know the SEC has it's own channel in the works also, and I'm sure the Big 12, Pac 10, and ACC will follow suit. Some big decisions for cable companies on the horizon. One more thing cable companies need to figure out is that once they lose these customers to dish they are most likely NOT getting them back.

 

[Apollo Creed]

Yada yada yada, it all goes back to one thing it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyNMz_LxEoA

 

[Gadfly22]

Thanks for contacting me about the NFL Network and cable companies' price structure.

Congress has talked for a while about letting cable subscribers choose their channels "a la carte." This proposal sounds great in theory because it would allow subscrib ers to lower your cable bill, keep objectionable content out of your home , and tailor your cable package to your interests . However, it has many of the smaller channels - including those with religious programming - worried because they rely on the package model to get enough revenue to survive. They say the proposal may actually reduce choice.

This is a difficult and complicated issue, and I'm still reviewing the implications myself. With the convergence of cable and broadband Internet, we may soon see the day that you can subscribe to individual TV shows rather than channels, changing the entire playing field. I believe technology and the marketplace will eventually resolve this, but I hope to keep in touch as this develops.



Best regards,
Bob Inglis

So let me get this straight: smaller religious channels that would not be able to survive in the TV marketplace because of a lack of viewship should be subsidized by all the package viewers who don't watch them (socialism!!). And that's a good thing?

Well, technology might help solve the problem, but the marketplace sure won't if it's not given a chance to work on an a la carte basis and with more choice of options for cable consumers. My town is tied to Comcast at the moment, though Verizon FIOS is coming soon.

 

[Doomsday]

So let me get this straight: smaller religious channels that would not be able to survive in the TV marketplace because of a lack of viewship should be subsidized by all the package viewers who don't watch them (socialism!!). And that's a good thing?

Well, technology might help solve the problem, but the marketplace sure won't if it's not given a chance to work on an a la carte basis and with more choice of options for cable consumers. My town is tied to Comcast at the moment, though Verizon FIOS is coming soon.

You just read my mind. Why is our responsibility to make sure religious and other small channels that no one watches survive?

 

[Idgit]

Interesting that the congressman apparently thinks that the fact that religious interests support bundling is a positive in this case.

 

[PullMyFinger]

I love the "a la carte" idea. I only watch about a dozen channels anyway. Cable companies should have been doing this for years.

 

[TheGoat73]

Polispeak for "I plan to wait it out and do nothing".

 

[JackMagist]

Right now we are stuck with Time-Warner and they are the biggest ripoff company out there. They took over this area from Comcast and I immediately lost my Encore On Demand and the NFL Channel. I looking forward to AT&T getting their Fiber Optic network into my area...my son has it and it is a much better deal.

The problem here is that there is no competition for the cable service. If I could get someone besides Time-Warner I'd be gone. I've had dish and didn't like it...too much weather interferance and signal fade. The FCC needs to find someway to create competition.

 

[BrassCowboy]

A legislative assistant almost certainly has a form letter on telecommunications issues and just churns it out whenever they get a constituent letter on the issue and slaps the Congressman's signature on it.

I used to write those letters when I was a Congressional intern. The "it is a difficult and complicated issue" is an old standby which essentially means he's not gonna tell you what he thinks!

yep, just like most nurses who do more of the "Doctor" work than the doctor does.