Hiltzik on cable regulations
The Los Angeles Times' Michael Hiltzik has a column today about the cable access bill moving through the Legislature. I have a simple rule of thumb for determining whether my cable TV service is overpriced: Is it a monopoly? Then it's overpriced. And let's face it: Virtually every cable TV operation in the country is a monopoly. In principle, therefore, we should welcome the efforts of the phone companies Verizon Communications Inc. and AT&T Inc. to offer cable-style video services to the home in competition with the Comcasts and Time Warner Cables of the world. The record shows that when a genuine rival enters a cable TV market, subscription rates plummet. (Satellite TV doesn't have as marked an effect, because dish TV has its own inadequacies and can't provide broadband Internet service as conveniently as cable or DSL.) But the question raised by a bill in the state Assembly is whether it's necessary to wipe out all local regulation of cable services in order to achieve the nirvana of video competition. AB 2987, sponsored by Democratic Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez and Assemblyman Lloyd Levine (D-Van Nuys), chairman of the Utilities and Commerce Committee, would do just that. |
Comments on "Hiltzik on cable regulations"
Cable TV is a sanctioned monopoly, but is called a "regulated" industry. It is a insult to democracy.
I paid $56 a month for "Deluxe Cable" in Mount Shasta Ca. I watch a few of the 99 channels: CNBC, CNN, CBS, NBC History, Discovery, the Food Channel.
I can't afford the $56 a month so went in to ask if they had another less expensive package. Yes, the local broadcast channels (that you can't get on an antenna), CNBC, Local Access, a spanish channel, a christian channel and a midwestern channel!
I went for the cheaper package. No choose here!