Jump to content


Welcome to DBSTalk


Sign In 

Create Account
Welcome to DBSTalk, like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process that requires minimal information for you to signup. Be a part of DBSTalk by signing in or creating an account.
  • Start new topics and reply to others
  • Subscribe to topics and forums to get email updates
  • Get your own profile page and make new friends
  • Send personal messages to other members.
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Photo

'No compelling need for cable a la carte'


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
3 replies to this topic

#1 OFFLINE   Nick

Nick

    In Loving Memory of Lisa Sullivan

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 21,082 posts
  • LocationThe Beautiful Golden Isles of Georgia
Joined: Apr 23, 2002

Posted 05 December 2006 - 05:00 PM

New FCC Commissioner says he "doesn't see a compelling
need for cable operators to sell a la carte programming".


The newest member of the Federal Communications Commission, Robert McDowell,
appears to be preparing himself for a turbulent period at the agency. The commissioner
said today that should he be needed to break a FCC deadlock on the AT&T/BellSouth
deal that he could quickly get up to speed on the review. Although McDowell gave few
clues as to how he feels about the proposal, saying the "transaction is not that different
from two we saw last year, and I hope my colleagues would proceed along a similar path."

McDowell also told attendees of an investor conference in New York City that he didn't
see a compelling need for cable operators to sell a la carte programming - a divergence
from FCC Chair Kevin Martin's stance that embraces the idea.

.


~ 12 Year Anniversary Month ~
Charter Gold Club Member
DBSTalk Club ~ 21k Club
Top 10 Poster

.


...Ads Help To Support This SIte...

#2 OFFLINE   Mike D-CO5

Mike D-CO5

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 3,099 posts
Joined: Mar 11, 2003

Posted 05 December 2006 - 06:35 PM

Which means more higher cable /satellite bills for the future.

#3 OFFLINE   Nick

Nick

    In Loving Memory of Lisa Sullivan

  • Topic Starter
  • DBSTalk Club
  • 21,082 posts
  • LocationThe Beautiful Golden Isles of Georgia
Joined: Apr 23, 2002

Posted 05 December 2006 - 08:00 PM

Sorry, but you've got it wrong, Mike.

Who do you think is ultimately going to bear the massive cost of implementing and operating an
unbelieveably complex a la carte channel system? It would dramatically raise equivalent per
channel costs, and worse, substantially increase overall rates for all subscribers across the board.

Personally, I don't want to bear the added cost so that you can pick and choose just the channels
you want, and frankly I don't think you and other 'a la carters' could afford to share the cost among
yourselves, nor would you want to.

.


~ 12 Year Anniversary Month ~
Charter Gold Club Member
DBSTalk Club ~ 21k Club
Top 10 Poster

.


#4 OFFLINE   FTA Michael

FTA Michael

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 3,473 posts
Joined: Jul 21, 2002

Posted 05 December 2006 - 11:54 PM

As the voice of moderation, I must point out that we haven't even decided on the form of a la carte (bundles, tiers, every individual channel, reverse, others?), so it's difficult to make sweeping predictions on what would result from mandated a la carte.

Nick, I agree that cable a la carte is incompatible with its current requirement to deliver core channels through an analog signal, and cable is what McDowell was talking about. OTOH, the satellite providers already have the system in place for a truly unbelievable range of permutations. Each satellite receiver can qualify for dozens of different packages, including locals and internationals. Yet the satellite system tells each receiver exactly when to black out a given sporting event on a particular channel. It's pretty amazing when you think about it that way.
Yes, FTABlog is active again. Why do you ask?




spam firewall