Time Warner Unveils Family Cable Plan
from the decent-but-boring dept
In an attempt to head off having a la carte imposed on them by the FCC, cable companies have been considering offering family-friendly programming packages, and Time Warner says it’s the first to take the plunge. For $33 per month, subscribers will get a sanitzed package of about 35 channels, and critics aren’t impressed, saying the package is weak and the price too high. It seems like whatever the cable companies do here, nobody’s going to be perfectly happy — for instance, Time Warner hasn’t included ESPN (because fan behavior might be offensive), and doesn’t include religious channels, with a spokesman conceding that what’s objectionable differs from house to house. The chairman of a prominent family group says the package is “designed to fail” — given the FCC’s priority on cracking down on indecency, and the attention they pay to these activist groups, it wouldn’t be surprising to see their unhappiness with cable operators’ attempts at these family tiers serve to strengthen the push for a la carte, rather than weaken it.
Comments on “Time Warner Unveils Family Cable Plan”
No Subject Given
i dont get this at all. I can accept that a la carte was a ruse. But, why would cable companies need to offer “family friendly” packages at all?? (a) cant you block channels on cable via the box, anyway? and (b) didnt they already mandate a v-chip so you can block at the tv level? How can we possibley need more and more and more methods of preventing childen from hearing the word “penis”????
Re: No Subject Given
Because us consumers are all too lazy and stupid to realize these things and figure out how to use them. This is mearly an attempt to appease those who want a la carte prgraming. I think the cable people are baiscally saying, why do we need a la carte, look we have family friendly packages. I am sure at some point they will try ot offer several different themes of packages.
Re: Re: No Subject Given
Actually, I believe it has more to do with no wanting to pay for channels I’m not interested in. I have no desire to subscribe to MTV, HBO, or a host of other channels.
Try to find a package with you local cable company that offers ESPN, ESPN2, broadcast networks, Disney, Discovery and the Nature channel. Without any of the undesirable (to some) PREMIUM channels.
That’s why their is such a push for a la carte. Everytime I’ve checked into it, to get the channels I want I would have to subscribe to anywhere from 10 to 100 or more channels I don’t want. Why should I subsidize cable networks that I have no desire to watch?
Re: Re: Re: No Subject Given
Hear hear!
I could give a frozen rat turd about ESPN, SPEED, and Lifetime, or any of the dozen home shopping channels. I’m a smart consumer, I don’t want to pay for what I don’t want to watch.
Its not about censorship, but unfair bargaining power.
Re: Re: Re: No Subject Given
Try to find a package with you local cable company that offers ESPN, ESPN2, broadcast networks, Disney, Discovery and the Nature channel. Without any of the undesirable (to some) PREMIUM channels.
That’s why their is such a push for a la carte. Everytime I’ve checked into it, to get the channels I want I would have to subscribe to anywhere from 10 to 100 or more channels I don’t want. Why should I subsidize cable networks that I have no desire to watch?
Except… as has been explained many, many times, this argument is incorrect. If you unbundled those channels, you’d end up paying a lot *MORE*. First, the cable co’s would need to re-architect their system to handle managing so many different configurations, which has a serious cost. Also, the only way they can price things the way they do is they work out deals with the various channels — where the different channels bundle less popular channels with more popular ones. So, if you want to break out the channels you want, each of those channels is going to be prohibitively expensive on their own.
So, the argument that you just want a few different channels makes less sense, once you realize that to get those few channels, your bill is going to be much larger.
Re: No Subject Given
Because the ultimate goal of these FCC Family Activists is full censorship, not just compliency. They want all media content that they deem unacceptable completely banned from the air. The constant objects on TOP of all that is already available: the vchip, parental controls (blocking channels) etc.
They should realize this by now that no matter what they do besides giving up all package control to the FCC entirely, that they will come to no agreement.
Re: Re: No Subject Given
Good lord, give me a break… please.
As if kids need TV to see naked people or hear bad words. Look on the internet, naked people and cursing everywhere. If for some (sad) reason the kids can’t get past their parents’ parental control software all they need to do is run off to the magazine stand and sit in a corner or get a dirty jokes magazine.
I don’t understand the logic in blocking so much TV. They put all their efforts into it when it’s not even the thing we should be worrying about if we’re trying to censor things from children.
Vchips are the devil.
Re: Re: No Subject Given
I love hearing people flip out over “censorship” when people with an opposing viewpoint make use of their first amendment right to speak out. The attitude is, “you should accept anything that is broadcast, and if you don’t like it, either don’t watch TV or take measures to block it.” By that logic, if the water company starts pumping sewage into your house, either filter it to get pure water or stop using water altogether, and anyone who demands the water company do some cleanup on their end is a fascist.
People have a right to speak out and petition, particularly in the marketplace. It astounds me that those who decry such freedom, do it with the battlecry of censorship. The irony is so thick…or is it just hypocrisy?
But I guess that we, the viewing public, should just keep our mouths shut and accept anything the networks and cable companies throw our way, right? If we speak out and demand an alternative, that’s oppressive and censorous. Brilliant. I guess Stoned4Life is more than just a handle.
So if a network were to start broadcasting a sitcom called “Those Nutty N—ers,” where white actors in blackface speak in extreme ebonics and do nothing but steal and cheat the government, you’d call anyone who opposed the show a censor, hmmm?
Re: Re: Re: No Subject Given
Well, Vasco, the situation is more analogous to the water company sending flavored water to your house. All sorts of flavors, to appeal to all sorts of people. Only the water company won’t let you choose what types of flavors you get; you have to pay for all of them, even if all you like is the strawberry and chocolate flavors.
What’s worse, some people don’t like citrus-flavored waters, and want to prevent anyone else from receiving those flavors, even if they happen to like citrus.
You can always shut off the taps to certain flavors if you don’t like them. The water company even provides locks that fit on your tap. You still have to pay for the water delivery, of course, but you can at least control what sort of water your family actually drinks. These people don’t care, though. They think that citrus flavors are just plain harmful to everyone.
Does this example make a little more sense? Or are we still fascist when we say that no one has a right to limit what types of water we are allowed to drink? (As long as, of course, such waters don’t harm *other* people in the making of them. Soylent Green water is clearly out of the picture.)
Re: Re: Re: No Subject Given
Look, I’m fine with censorship on broadcast TV. If something is genuinely and truly offensive, then the FCC should take measures to stop it.
What I don’t like is how the censorship is being applied. If something potentially offensive is aired, the FCC does not immediately investigate and start handing out tickets. But if A SINGLE PERSON complains, the investigation rolls forward and fines ultimately follow.
Do I care if Janet flashed a nipple? Not really, because I know it was unintentional and will not be repeated; it’s the “risk” you assume with live broadcast.
For cable, the rules are different (or at least should be different). Paid cable is a luxury item. If you don’t like what’s being shown, stop paying and watch crappy network programming on the big 4 channels. The argument on a la cart programming should not be one of censorship, but one of offering more options to the comsumer. It’s a basic customer service issue. That’s it.
And save the crap about the V-chip being too much work. If it’s that damn important to you, RTFM, learn how to block content at the TV level, and leave me (and my pr0n) the hell alone.
The “water coming into your house” analogy is a weak argument. Cable/Satellite is more like a tap that dispenses Kool-Aide instead of water if you’re willing to pay $90 a month. Don;t like the Kool-Aide that’s flowing? Fine. Cancel your fruit punch service and go back to plain old tap water.
Re: Re: Re:2 No Subject Given
Look, I’m fine with censorship on broadcast TV. If something is genuinely and truly offensive, then the FCC should take measures to stop it.
Who gets to decide what is offensive? I Guarantee that no mater WHAT you say / do / project / distribute / whatever, there will be some one who is ?genuinely and truly? offended. So what? Does that mean that that thing cannot / should not be said / done / projected / distributed / etc? Of course not.
When did we receive the right to go through life without being offended? Quite frankly, I find THAT idea quite offensive.
What we need to do, rather than worry so much about who is offended by what ? is worry less about the people who are offended ? let them grow up and get over it on their own, or at least find something serious to complain about. We cannot cater to everyone who whines about being offended, so we cannot rightly cater to ANYONE who whines about being offended.
There are real problems in this world people, nipples, and penises are not among them. People who can?t deal with their own sexuality and therefore feel the need to repress the sexuality of others IS one of them.
Lets stop supporting the oppressors.
Re: Re: Re: No Subject Given
Yes, Vasco DaGameboy, I would call you a censor. You have no right to say someone can’t broadcast a program or needs to change it to suit you or your group. Your water company analogy doesn’t take into account that you can’t simply stop using water if you decide you don’t like it anymore. You can do that with TV. That’s why a la carte programming is the only way that freedom of speech and uptight people can co-exist. So that people can view only the channels that appeal to them and would not be forced to pay for channels that offend them.
Re: Re: Re: No Subject Given
I have no problems with people expressing thier opinions. I do have issue with you telling me what I can and can not do. To say “you will not watch ESPN because I find it objectionable” is asinine.
What I think it all comes down to is accepting personal responsibility for your actions. If you do not want your kids to watch certain material, take a more active role in thier life. Do not use the TV as a babysitter and then get mad that they watched something you think is bad.
Re: Re: Re:2 No Subject Given
I don’t understand why cable companies are actually fighting the alacarte mandate. This could mean big money for them because it sets the precident from moving from a services based pricing scheme to a more transactional one. The consumer thinks it will save them money, but in reality what it will end up being is a micropayment method, like the cell phone ring tones. Fifty bucks a month for programming seems like a lot, but twenty five cents to watch the Simpons seems pretty cheap. That’s what’s on the horizon, folks. You will be charged for every show you watch, every time you change the channel. Seem like a good deal? Consider the american average of 16 hours a day of television usage and you can start to see how much this could cost us.
Re: Re: Re:3 No Subject Given
“16 hours”
That’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard. Everyone knows true Americans watch at least 20 hours of TV a day.
Re: Re: Re: No Subject Given
I love hearing people flip out over “censorship” when people with an opposing viewpoint make use of their first amendment right to speak out. The attitude is, “you should accept anything that is broadcast, and if you don’t like it, either don’t watch TV or take measures to block it.” By that logic, if the water company starts pumping sewage into your house, either filter it to get pure water or stop using water altogether, and anyone who demands the water company do some cleanup on their end is a fascist.
People have a right to speak out and petition, particularly in the marketplace. It astounds me that those who decry such freedom, do it with the battlecry of censorship. The irony is so thick…or is it just hypocrisy?
But I guess that we, the viewing public, should just keep our mouths shut and accept anything the networks and cable companies throw our way, right? If we speak out and demand an alternative, that’s oppressive and censorous. Brilliant. I guess Stoned4Life is more than just a handle.
So if a network were to start broadcasting a sitcom called “Those Nutty N—ers,” where white actors in blackface speak in extreme ebonics and do nothing but steal and cheat the government, you’d call anyone who opposed the show a censor, hmmm?
You sir, are awesome!
You have managed to define censorship, as freedom of speech! That is without question the BEST spin I have EVER seen.
Seriously, you have a future in politics. Your just dumb enough for it, and three times as slippery as your best competitor. YOU FUCKING RULE.
Just for the record ? YOUR freedom of speech allows you to say ? ?I don?t want to look at that,? or even as you seem to be arguing ?I don?t want you to look at that!? It does not however allow you to actually prevent me from looking at that. But nice try, I do have to hand it to you, that was great attempt.
Re: Re: Re:2 No Subject Given
So if a network were to start broadcasting a sitcom called “Those Nutty N—ers,” where white actors in blackface speak in extreme ebonics and do nothing but steal and cheat the government, you’d call anyone who opposed the show a censor, hmmm?
Yes. I’d also call anyone who watched it or ran advertisements during the show a racist asshole. Of course, it’s your right to be that racist asshole if you so desire…
Re: No Subject Given
what a joke, this is a joke right? well if not it should be. hell, the evening news which is a local channel anywhere has more drugs violence and sex than most shows on cable, furthermore, parents need to raise there own kids and stop depending on companies to do it , it would be cheaper.
Re: Get a clue
Actually why should they get channels that support groups they do not believe in. I don’t think it is a goverment issue, but rather that subscribers should just cancel their subscriptions.
Unfortunately Cable is more monopoly based, I only have a choice of one company, but at least now I could get satellite. But I have choosen no cable or satellite for our family due to these bizarre ideas that I should support groups I don’t agree with, and we are not missing anything and have more time and money for fun things and travel.
Re: No Subject Given
maybe you dont see all the suggestive material, hear all the immoral stuff………..but the whole tv system is of a ultra liberal persuasion.
And by the way, MOST of America does not support this philosophy. Its only the MEDIA who propogate this leaning.
We dont all want to propogandize our children into thinking jumping from bed to bed is par for the course, that a homosexual relationship is as normal as a marriage, that body piercing, murder,
sodomy and foul language have to be an everyday part of our lives……Hey, if I dont turn on my tv, I may not even hear an off color remark, or see a suggestive provacation.
I dont CARE what you do…….I repeat……do as you please…….but WE’d LIKE AN ALTERNATIVE.
No Subject Given
bababooey
No Subject Given
$33 a month to filter the content. I’ve got a better idea- It’s called the power butto, and the best thing of all is that this little beauty comes standard nearly with every TV, computer, and electronic device.
this is so stupid
People can already block undesirable channels if
they take 30 seconds to RTFM. Further, cable/sat
are *not* over the air and should not be subject
to FCC oversight. Consumers are also free to go
back to FREE OTA TV. Nobody holds a gun to their
head to buy cable TV. And with few exceptions
one can’t make substitutions when buying a package
deal from a company so why should you be able to
with TV? Its up to the companies to realize their
customers want a change. That said, these changes
wont happen until local municipalities get their
greedy hands out of the pie and eliminate franchise
agreements. Only when any provider can sell
service will companies actually give a damn.
Bundling and choice
I totally understand the reasons for bundling. Bundling makes possible a larger choice in channels. I like certain channels that others would never be interested in watching. Others watch channels I would never watch. It averages out. Without bundling, only the channels watched by a very large number of people would be available. Without bundling, do you really think there would be a G4/TechTV? God forbid.
Actually, I don’t like the channel much anymore since they concentrate on gaming. Of course that’s another example of why bundling helps. I bet the channel gained some gamer viewers. We don’t all like the same things, ya know.
Re: Bundling and choice
As soon as Verizon finishes installing Fiber (FiOs) in my neighborhood, I’m dumping Time Warner for good. Should only be a few more weeks now, as the splicers are already hard at work 🙂
No Subject Given
Virtually everybody’s cable or satellite company offers all basic channels without a premium channel like HBO; I don’t know what you all are talking about up in this discussion
Unfortunately, a la carte channels will mean higher costs or less choice for most consumers. The only customomers who’ll benefit are those who would subscribe to 5 or less channels.
ESPN
The only argument around this nonsense that grabs me is that several sources suggest that sports channels are so expensive that they currently account for nearly half of an expanded basic cable bill. If true, excuse me, but all you sports fanatics can f*ck off! I have no use for sports, at least not until we return to doing it at least (semi)naked like the original olympics did. Nude basketball or football, that I might watch with enthusiasm!
I’d still pay a few percent total for several fringe channels I didn’t watch (including MTV whatever that is now), but if the “fringe” is a full half of my cable bill then provide some way to NOT pay for it, and pronto!
Pay per phone is the future. Use daopay!