HDTV Expert - Cable TV – Socialism?

[720pete]

Let’s see: Forcing you to buy things you don‘t want, to get the things you do want. Hmm…does that sound like a free market system? Didn’t think so.

[url=http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/columns/2010/11/hdtv-expert-cable-tv-socialism.php]Read Column[/url]

[joed32]

We have had Socialism in this country for a long, long time. Social Security without which many people would starve to death, the public school system without which our society would be ignorant. It's just a buzzword that some people use to criticize programs that they don't like while exempting the ones that they do. Cable TV is a product that you are free to buy if you choose to, it's not mandatory, it's a business, free enterprise at work. If someone thinks they have a better way of delivering service such as ala-carte which I think you are suggesting let them start a company and try it. Ala carte was available when I got my 1st satellite dish, a 10 1/2' C-Band. No matter how I tried to select channels for my ala carte list there was always a package that included those channels for less than I would pay by purchasing them individually. The present Cable/Sat system doesn't have that available because it's not good for their business since not many people would buy it. They compete with each other to provide the best service for the least amount of money. If they all had the same service at the same price that would be Socialism. The system we have now is Free Enterprise at it's best. I can choose between Cable, Directv, Dish Network and in some areas FIOS or I can use OTA Netflix, Hulu, etc.

[kq6qv]

When I was young, I thought the way you do. But if fairness is your main concern then that is wrong.

Suppose I always watch 20 hours of TV every week. Suppose I only ever watch one channel, and the cable company lets me subscribe to just that channel for a fair rate. Then suppose I decide to add a second channel. Since I now watch the original channel only half as much, I should have to pay only half as much for it. Each time I add a channel, I watch my other channels less, so I should have to pay less for them.

In a completely fair system, I would pay for the total hours I watched, and the cable company would figure out how much to compensate each network.

This is roughly the system presently in use. One difference is that some channels, like HBO, are much more expensive. So the cable companies offer tiers of channels, where all the channels of a tier are about equally costly.

An even more fair system would have a coin slot on the TV, and you paid as you watched. I would hate such an annoying system, but its economic fairness would be unsurpassed. The present cable systems achieve fairness quite close to this without the annoyance.

-Ken

[JazzGuyy]

But that assumes that all channels have equal value. They may have equal value to you but in the marketplace as a whole they do not. More people value ESPN than The Comedy Channel for instance. The bundle of channels is designed to enable less popular channels to also survive for those who do value them. The idea is that the highly popular channels help to subsidize the less popular ones. It is possible to argue whether this model is appropriate and the best choice but it is certainly not a socialistic one. Would the Sundance Channel, for instance, disappear from cable if it wasn't part of a package? I don't know. Maybe, with Internet selection of programming, we will find out. It is possible we won't like the end result.

[stevekaden]

You basic premise that sane people think aspects of a social system in America are socialism....is simply Tea Bagger BS. Eg. your statement: "Is that socialism? Sure it is! Our legislators made a decision that all American citizens benefit from an interstate highway system, even if most of us never drive more than 50 miles from home."

In case you didn't get the point, the Interstate system, in it's inception HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH a Sunday drive to church. And EVERYTHING to do with intestate commerce and national defense. (and after it's inception - almost everyone in America will hop on a freeway even if to go one exit.)

Like many many things the Tea Baggers can't understand, broad social systems are not for the freekin self absorbed individual but the survival of the society. We'll all get that as the New republicans move to collapse the economy based on short term ideologies - oh, except for their pet peeves - intrustion on a woman's right to choose and same sex couple's right to existence - then of course for their moral, all freedoms are thrown under the bus.

As for the rest of your argument- Buy a Roku box. The revolution is already here.

[steve112950]

Socialism is government ownership of business and industry. The Interstate highway system is NOT socialism any more than local police or our national military are socialism. All contries, from Comunist to Capitalist, have decided that some things must be done by government.

We can argue whether something should be done by government on its merits, not by calling it Socialist or Free Market or any other label. The important things to consider are who benefits and what costs (financial and other costs) are paid by whom.

[kq6qv]

Very few people watch the Golf Channel. Golf Channel revenues reflect that. Probably one penny of your monthly payment goes to the Golf Channel. Is that a subsidy? Hardly.

I see no evidence that any station subsidizes any other station. The cable companies simply maximize their profits. If they have 200 channels to fill, they pick the 200 most popular stations and hope for the best. Their payments to the networks depend on the viewer-hours, not the connection totals, so the channel choice is cost-neutral. But their own revenue comes from subscribers, and people will pay more if they watch more.

[stevekaden]

I get the feeling that if the cable vendors had to support a cafeteria plan - the overhead, the mistakes, the maintenance of the billing - in other words the chaos would be costly.

Then we'd probably end up with just as expensive a system, that only had shows that were most popular. You know, like Miley Cyrus over Dexter. Lowest common denominator stuff - and sink back to ~3 networks because they have laugh tracks and we are hypnotized to think their shows are worth watching. Or similar, we all are bored with something that is popular - for some inconceivable reason.

I could be wrong in my understanding of the systems - but a Roku or a Google TV provide a platform, a mechanism that Other providers each handle their segement. Some free, some not. That mitigates the host from having to juggle who owns what. I would be suspect that is where we will end up. Essentially Google TV and each provider will create a 'channel'. Of course that is scary as in the end, we will probably end up with ~10 popular networks.... (ditto, see above).

[Roger Halstead]

That certainly is part of the free market system and has absolutely nothing to do with socialism. Look up the definition of socialism, it's a form of government although government has used marketing tactics for centuries.

[ccclvib]

as you stay hooked to ESPN, Discovery, Fox News, USA, AMC, MSNBC, TBS, TNT, and other ratings leaders.

How's that again? These alleged "leaders" are already doing what the network broadcasters are always accused of, namely dumbing down their output to attract the largest audience; particularly the "news" channels. Do you really believe what you see/hear on them? If you do, your definition of all of the 'isms' has been cramped severely in the first place. ...and those "leaders" would still die a horrible death if they were required to stand on the subscriptions of viewers. The only providers that would survive are the ones (except for Fox, who started much later - and dumbed down their output to match the others right off the bat) who were there originally. We'd probably be back to four providers - period, because they would be the only ones who could draw sufficient viewers to run on their own.

Any other programming would have to be a la carte, and via the Internet, and expensive because all the production costs would have to be borne by the subscribers. If the producers were lucky to enough to make a profit, they'd be tempted to try again, but if they didn't it, would be harder and harder to raise capital to try again.

It might turn out that way, and lots of people will be asking, "Why?" But by then it will be too late.

At the same time, Netflix and any of their competitors that survives will be able to provide movie downloads and discs to those viewers who still want to be able to watch something on their HDTV besides the four remaining outlets.

Depressing, isn't it?