Menino wants to regulate cable rate
Angered by repeated rate hikes, Mayor Thomas M. Menino will file an emergency petition today with the federal government seeking authority to regulate the cost of basic cable in Boston for the first time in a decade.
The filing with the Federal Communications Commission follows three consecutive price increases by Comcast, which has hiked the cost for its lowest rung of service by more than 60 percent over the past three years, according to Menino’s office.
[shakes head]
Wow. Where do I begin? First off, they've already regulated the price of cable? Are you kidding me? Cable is a luxury item, folks. If it's too expensive, don't get it. Plain and simple. There's a very elegant solution to cable prices being "too high" - get an antenna. They even passed out .gov subsidies to get the converter. It doesn't get any cheaper than free.
Secondly, does the office of the mayor of Boston really have nothing better to do than to dicker over the price of cable? Really? There are no other pressing matters in Boston that they can argue over what is by any objective measure a luxury item? What's next? OMG, they're totally gouging on the price of beluga caviar! Quick, assemble the Maybach Task Force - those cars are WAY overpriced!
Ah, Massachusetts - just when you think it can't get any more surreal here...
That is all.
11 comments:
Cross-bank ATM surcharges . . .
Oh.
Wait.
They tried that in California.
- Brad
And of course price-fixing never works, but good luck getting Liberals to realize this.
Cable is an integral part of the bread (aka welfare) and circuses (entertainment) that those in power use to placate the masses in most areas.
If he tries to control the price of cable, be prepared for channels going away. Part of the reason cable's price keeps going up is they are adding content. I remember when my family first got cable. We got about 20 channels (instead of the normal over the air 4) with guaranteed good reception. We paid about $20/month. I know get phone, high speed internet, even better reception, on demand shows and over 400 channels for about $180/month. I think it is a pretty good bargain.
Also, how much of that cable bill is made up of taxes?
FYI: With the advent of Banning CRT type TeeWee's, and everyone having to buy Flat Screens, the Convertor Boxes have nearly dried up. Think of buying Harnesses for your horse when everyone else is driving Model Ts. Wally World had some a few months ago, but it took me a day to track them down.
Now the Antenna industry (what's left of it) had to have new circuitry made to feed those over-the air signals that are now Broadcast in HD. But since that also became Mandatory, the signal strength of the TeeWee signals have dropped off dramatically. So even if you wanted to watch only local Stations, much beyond the commuting range of a major city, all you are watching is the background radiation of the Universe.
Trust me, I just helped my sister who lives in a rural area set up her TV. All her neighbors hate it, because they now have to get Satellite TV, because the local cable company hasn't stung the lines yet to her neighborhood. But what is funny, is they ALL are charging pretty much the same for the same stuff, whether it's Cable or Satellite. Half the time, they can't pick up the TV signals that are free that they regularly received 10 years ago, unless the Sun shines and the Wind's right, even with the new tech.
So, yeah, it's another example of if the Gooberment wants to Regulate Something, and if it is done not for the "Good of the People", but for Control, they'll do something, whether they have the Constitutional Authority or not.
Got Shortwave?
The thing that has to be done before deregulating cable prices is to allow competition. Cable companies in MA get government enforced monopolies. Gov't monopolies without price regulation is classic crony capitalism.
I don't think the FCC is likely to be much more sympathetic this time around. They're too busy trying to make the Internet the egalitarian brotherhood it was designed to be (snort) by the visionary (chuckle) Al Gore and his... his... BAWWHAAWHAAW... sorry, I can't say that and keep a straight face.
Anyway, whether RCN is owned by a telco or private equity, the FCC is going to see it as fair competition for Comcast. I doubt Menino is going to get much satisfaction.
Ah, Massachusetts - just when you think it can't get any more surreal here...
I have never reached that point :)
Don't we always say that the revolution will commence about 15 minutes after the masses can't watch Oprah every day? This is just the government's way of making sure that we get our daily dose of soma at a reasonable cost and don't take to the streets with rope, pitchfork, and torch.
As long as they don't decide a right to cable TV is a necessity to have a TV, I'm good. Useless things. (At least the whole digital signal switchover thing gives us an excuse to not use Erik's.)
Where in the Constitution are we given the right to cable television?
Er, not to interrupt a thoroughly worthwhile haterage, but Mumbles is a city mayor, not a federal politico, and as such can do a lot of things a fed can't.
Yes, once upon a time cable rates were regulated. Cable TV was one of many things that was deregulated in the 1980s, in the belief that it would lead to competition and reduced cable rates. Didn't work worth a damn.
Secondly, does the office of the mayor of Boston really have nothing better to do than to dicker over the price of cable?
Boston elected His Idiocy; Boston deserves whatever it damn well gets as a result. Consider this as well: do you really want Mumbles applying his incompetence and liberalism to problems that actually matter? Problems where his ability to do damage is that much greater?
Can it get worse? Of course it can get worse. In Britain, the BBC is subsidized by a "radio tax" (and more recently by a "TV tax")... which means that the police have the right to search your home and determine if you're hiding a TV set.
You have to be on the receiving end of one of these searches to see how truly ridiculous it is, particularly with hundreds of cable and satellite channels that are NOT so regulated. ("So tell me Ossifer, can I skip paying the tax if I promise never to watch BBC?")
From an American perspective, of course, it's a logical progression. If they can regulate the daylights out of the Second Amendment, why not the First?
Post a Comment