7 comments

• 

  eric

  1 year ago

  Won't the increasing availability of on-demand internet video act as a brake on overpricing of a la carte or any other package? For example, I'm about to try out Netflix's on-demand movie service, and it sounds like a great alternative to cable or satellite for me. Currently I have the opportunity for unlimited access to their streaming movie catalog as a perk that comes even with their cheap $9/mo. plan for 1-physical-DVD-out-at-a-time. In some ways, that's better than a $40/month cable subscription.
  reply
• 

  Dave Ignatius

  1 year ago

  It's funny that Adam Theirer always fails to mention that his employer (Progress and Freedom Foundation) receives a majority of its funding from the cable industry. Adam -- when are you going to be intellectually honest and disclose that relevant fact?
  
  Looks like it is the old game in Washington for the industry to pay a shill to be its mouth piece.
  Cable industry "Whack-a-mole" in action. Whether you agree with FCC Chairman Kevin Martin or not, at least he is has been up front and consistent on where he stands. Adam have you ever written about rising cable rates that have gone up more than 100% in the last ten years? Instead, at every turn, you shill for the cable industry.
  
  When you come back and disclose your industry benefactors then we can weigh your intellectual honesty and whether you are unbaised.
  reply
• 

  Adam Thierer

  1 year ago

  Dave... PFF is perfectly transparent about where we get our support. It's all right there on our website under the "About" tab:
  
  http://www.pff.org/about/supporters.html
  
  Incidentally, do you complain about the fact that there is no similar disclosure from Leftist think tanks? Free Press, for example, refuses to identify it sources of support. It consistently amazes me how the Left gets away with hiding its sources of funding but then bitches about others who disclose.
  
  And for your information--but not that you care--we do not get the majority of our funding from cable companies. PFF receives contributions from a wide diversity of high-technology, communications, media and cable companies.
  
  If you ever care to engage in actual debate about the substance of issues instead of engaging in cowardly ad hominem attacks, feel free to come back and join us for a serious debate.
  reply
• 

  Anonymous

  1 year ago

  Right on Adam! I agree completely with your response to dear old Dave.
  
  Transparency works both ways. Even if Adam were a cable shill (which is pretty obvious that he is not!) why would he take a position against A La Carte if it would serve to raise prices that Cable Companies could charge? I mean more profits and less strain on their infrastructure so they don't have to spend money on upgrades? Why would the Cable Co.s not want to do this?!
  
  Seems to me that Adam is looking at the big picture realistically and coming to some pretty solid conclusions based on solid research and facts as to why it's a bad idea for the FCC to mandate A La Carte.
  
  When you take into account the obvious favoritism that Martin holds for the Telecoms and the obvious dislike that Martin holds for the Cable Co.s, well the picture becomes even clearer. He's not really mandating A La Carte primarily because it might, in theory, be good for consumers.
  reply
• 

  Steve R.

  1 year ago

  The A La Carte debate, from my point of view, is quite humorous since it points to how "fluid" ones intellectual viewpoint can be.
  
  I tend to be pro-regulatory, I don't have a problem with governments subsidizing cable/telecoms services to rural areas where these companies would find it uneconomic. I take this position for the "common good". Adam takes the position that this form of government "interference" is inappropriate since it subsidizes something that is uneconomic. A true capitalist viewpoint.
  
  Now here, we have a situation were a "regulation" would unbundle pre-defined packages so that we have more competition and end the subsidy for uneconomic components. Adam's position, in this case, is to keep bundled cable packages thus supporting subsidizing uneconomic components in the name of the "common good". My position, in this case, if its uneconomic cable service, let it die. A true capitalist viewpoint.
  
  I guess my hand should go out to Adam for recognizing the concept of the "common good". Even worse, maybe Ayn Rand is beginning to affect my empathy for the "common good".
  reply
• 

  Adam Thierer

  1 year ago

  Steve... the "common good" at the force of a gun is not so good. That's the difference between us, and it's why I refer to myself as a "radical pacifist." I believe in using voluntary agreements to achieve "the common good." You believe in using coercion.
  
  Finally, if we took your position to the logical extreme that all bundles or packages were somehow fundamentally at odds with "the common good"--however you and your statist chums define it--then we would need to empower regulators to essentially dismantle our economy and restructure entire markets since bundles and packages are all around us. Just go to your corner grocery store or local car dealership sometime and try to buy everything in the most atomistic unit possible. It's not possible. And it's not possible because it's not efficient. Same goes for cable TV.
  
  And no one is making you buy cable each month either.
  reply
• 

  Steve R.

  1 year ago

  A little short on humor? I have not accused you of being a "shill", but your response says that I and my "statist chums" are into coercion. I don't know who you are referring to and I am not proposing any coercion.
  
  I simply find it ironic that if a corporation wants to bundle a service and restrict the consumer's "freedom of choice" that this is considered "GOOD". Now if the government does the same thing that is automatically defined as "BAD".
  
  You take the position that if we don't appreciate a corporation, you don't have to do business with that corporation. True enough, but we still have monopolies and where I live, I can only get cable from one company. So while no one is making me buy cable each month, I have no choice if I want to be "plugged in".
  
  If we extend this corporate "no one is making you" buy concept, the same case could be made for living here, in the US. No one is making you live here. If you do not like the laws and regulations passed by the government then move to another country. My point, oppression whether it comes from a COMPANY or a GOVERNMENT is wrong.
  reply