Tea Party vs Cable Companies

[Expat]

This is a half-formed idea in my head right now, so I'm sorry if it comes out garbled. I should also say at the outset that I don't pay much attention to sports on a daily basis.

I'm pondering a situation where there is one plank in the Tea Party's platform that demands some kind of reform in the packaging and/or pricing of cable.

The Tea Party is a populist movement. It is based on a pretty specific perception of "how things are supposed to be." Certainly a part of that- simplistic as it may seem- is just watching the game.

Would it really take very much for the Tea Party to take a stance on cable cartels limiting access to sports by packaging them with hundreds of channels they don't want?

It may sound anti-corprorate, but I think it could be spun properly. I can see some politician shouting something like, "You shouldn't have to pay for LogoTV- a network that promotes [blah blah] lifestyles- if you want to watch a wholesome, all-American game of football!"
Or to get away from sports, "Should I really have to buy MSNBC if I want my Fox News?"
Or how about other culture war criticisms: you want access to a few, specific conservative-focused channels and have to deal with MTV and Bravo and all the rest of the biased liberal media (speaking as a Tea Party partisan, you understand.)

They could even tie it into criticism of the ACA: "Just another entity forcing decent Americans to buy what they don't want to buy!"

I know it's a really niche issue, but I can see it being an immensely popular one on the right. So, does anyone think this has a chance of becoming a national issue with the Tea Party? What effects do you think it would have? If this wasn't just seen as a cause for "ungrateful" Millennials, would it have more success?

 

[Kevin R.]

I actually have seen such "culture war" arguments (i.e. "I shouldn't have to pay for the filth on MTV to get my football and Fox News!") proposed in support of increased cable regulation; they were the first things I thought of when I read the title. As a matter of fact, they are among the most common arguments that I've seen in favor of regulation, as from what I've seen with myself and my friends and family (I'm 23), cable regulation isn't much of a "millennial" issue like you seem to be stating. Myself and many other young people don't care much about cable TV either way outside of a few networks, since a growing number of us get our favorite TV shows from the internet -- both legal networks like Netflix, Hulu, iTunes, Amazon, and YouTube, and less-than-legal avenues like BitTorrent. (Look up "cord-cutting" -- canceling one's cable subscription and going with just the internet and over-the-air TV. It's mostly young people who do it.)

So if you ask me, if the movement for cable regulation gathers any steam, it will be because religious conservatives took it up.

 

[Expat]

I suppose I mean it's a millennial issue inasmuch as millennials are the consumers who are most likely to reject cable entirely, and are therefore seen as the market force that will primarily change the way things work. Specifically for the reasons you cite, young people are the consumers who haven't bought into the system, and are therefore the prize cable companies seek to win. In that sense, they are the ones who drive the debate.

It's the millennial demographic, for instance, that has Comcast proposing a new package with just internet, local TV, and HBO.

While I'm sure conservative griping is a real thing, it doesn't seem to have attracted the cable companies' attention. I guess I'm wondering if it's possible for a conservative appropriation of the issue to the point where results are achieved.

 

[Mr.J]

Having the Tea Party gain support based on this would be like Al Franken's book where he wins the Presidency on a campaign to lower ATM fees

It's just not that big an issue.

 

[Corbell Mark IV]

Having the Tea Party gain support based on this would be like Al Franken's book where he wins the Presidency on a campaign to lower ATM fees

It's just not that big an issue.

I could see it as part of a bigger anti-predatroy business practices issues, throw in ATM fees, other crappy banks fees, perhaps slam Indian phone solicitation, ect.

 

[Expat]

Having the Tea Party gain support based on this would be like Al Franken's book where he wins the Presidency on a campaign to lower ATM fees

It's just not that big an issue.

Yes, I was thinking of it backwards from you, though. The issue gains success on the back of the Tea Party movement because they make it an issue. You may say it's too small an issue for them to make a big deal of, but...well...do I really have to truck out some of their other pet issues that seem to come up time and again?

But no, I wasn't thinking, "Tea Party gains White House on strength of success from cable fight!"

Though thinking about it, I wonder what might happen if the Tea Party really did have one legitimate success in their back pocket. All of a sudden they're not just the folks with the "BENGAZI!" Tourette Syndrome propping up America's faltering tricorn hat industry, they're the folks that gave more satisfying television to America. It's not a path to electoral victory maybe, but it does muddy the waters quite a bit.

 

[JohanusCalvinusLibertas]

The individual should get to pick the individual channels that they want without having to take channels they don't. Thus it would force the channels to compete and spur economic growth to compete with the online market.

As someone who doesn't have cable, the online market has been a good one for me to utilize. Competition should promote affordability by driving prices down and thus make it easier to add subscribers.

 

[GeographyDude]

and now more than a year later . . .

( . . . resurrecting the thread . . . )

It would be interesting if the political right got a little bit of an anti-corporate strain, or let's call it a corporate-skeptic strain. And maybe starting with highlighting the difference between legitimate competition and more of an oligarchical situation. Maybe even with a sense of comedy and delight, for there really is a lot of potential comedic material.

And more broadly, the Democrats and Republican do not need to have the basket of goods they currently have. Partial realignment or contesting for issues previously conceded might make for some very interesting timelines.

 

[mrmandias]

Do you mean 'plank in the platform' metaphorically? Because the tea party isn't an actual organization. There is no platform.

 

[brovane]

Would it really take very much for the Tea Party to take a stance on cable cartels limiting access to sports by packaging them with hundreds of channels they don't want?

You need to start with the Media companies not the Cable Companies, (this becomes blurred when companies are both). The cable companies cannot carry a channel unless it has a carriage agreement with the media company that owns the channels. The media companies over the years have gone through mergers so each media company owns multiple channels. The media companies can dictate in the contract on what tier the channel is carried. For example ESPN, the carriage agreement makes it to so the channel has to be carried on the basic channel plan so everyone has to pay for it. In the LA Market, all the gripping about the Dodger channel. The issue could be over with yesterday if a carriage agreement allowed the Dodger channel to be carried on a separate tier. The problem is that Time-Warner bid so much money that they have to force the channel to everyone to make back what they paid. At some point I believe the government will need to step in. The sports channels in the US have been forced down the throat of so many people that could care less.

 

[DValdron]

The Tea Party isn't a populist movement, it's an astroturf movement. It's been designed to capture and enlist a lot of popular disaffection. But it does what it's told, and follows what the owners want. It lasts exactly as long as someone is writing its cheques.

 

[Expat]

Do you mean 'plank in the platform' metaphorically? Because the tea party isn't an actual organization. There is no platform.

Yes, I meant loosely. There are clearly a slate of issues Tea Partiers care about, and you can (not unreasonably) list them like a platform.

Also it certainly wouldn't work today. If ever the movement was grass roots, that is no longer the case, as DValdron points out. This would have to occur back in 2010 or '11 at the latest.

@brovane, excuse my flippancy, but do you really think if the Tea Party demographic took up this issue they'd really look into the structure of telecom agreements?
You make a demand and some politician courting you tries to translate that demand into reality.

@GeographyDude- pushing the movement more towards anarcho-capitalist thinking ("Corporations are only evil if the government is involved!") The excesses of the cable companies laid at the feet of the "government that lets them rob us under the protection of federal regulations," or some such blather.
This would be a good opening for Ron Paul to really seize control over the movement, which I feel like he gave up on IOTL. I'm certainly not a fan of Ron Paul, but it would be interesting to see the bulk of the "grassroots right" grows more libertarian.

 

[brovane]

@brovane, excuse my flippancy, but do you really think if the Tea Party demographic took up this issue they'd really look into the structure of telecom agreements?
You make a demand and some politician courting you tries to translate that demand into reality.
.

I think some cable companies would be perfectly happy to provide a-la-carte. However any demands by politicians are going to run into signed carriage contracts, those contracts have terms that prevent a-la-carte. Unless they can somehow null-and-void those contracts they can jump up and down as much as they want but it isn't going to happen. If they make it so new contracts cannot be signed that dictate where channels are carried then they would be onto something. Just trying to dictate to the cable/Satellite TV providers that they have to offer a-la-carte isn't going to work unless they deal with the carriage contracts.

 

[Expat]

I think some cable companies would be perfectly happy to provide a-la-carte. However any demands by politicians are going to run into signed carriage contracts, those contracts have terms that prevent a-la-carte. Unless they can somehow null-and-void those contracts they can jump up and down as much as they want but it isn't going to happen. If they make it so new contracts cannot be signed that dictate where channels are carried then they would be onto something. Just trying to dictate to the cable/Satellite TV providers that they have to offer a-la-carte isn't going to work unless they deal with the carriage contracts.

Again, why does this matter? Does the movement really seem concerned with process?

It's interesting that you know this, and I appreciate you sharing the knowledge, but how does this effect the demands of a fringe movement? You can sit them down and explain to them how the Affordable Care Act is going to save them money, too, but you know how they're going to respond if you do.

It just doesn't even enter in to the equation as I see it.

 

[mattep74]

Having the Tea Party gain support based on this would be like Al Franken's book where he wins the Presidency on a campaign to lower ATM fees

It's just not that big an issue.

There is a fee to use ATMs in USA? I have used ATMs in Sweden for free since i first got a card in 1990

 

[brovane]

Again, why does this matter? Does the movement really seem concerned with process?

It's interesting that you know this, and I appreciate you sharing the knowledge, but how does this effect the demands of a fringe movement? You can sit them down and explain to them how the Affordable Care Act is going to save them money, too, but you know how they're going to respond if you do.

It just doesn't even enter in to the equation as I see it.

It will affect them if they want any of their demands to be put into action. This is something more than explaining how ACA will save them money. At some point it will have to be dealt with before laws are written or they will just find their laws thrown out by the courts. Just not sure how far you are wanting to take this ATL.

 

[Mark E.]

There is a fee to use ATMs in USA? I have used ATMs in Sweden for free since i first got a card in 1990

It is free if you have an account at the bank that operates the machine. Otherwise, there is a fee.

 

[GeographyDude]

There is often a 3 dollar fee from your bank + 3 dollars by the bank owning the ATM. Plus, there might be a monthly account fee, or a fee if your account dips below a certain 'minimum' at any time during the month. Plus, American banks do not pay interest unless you have like three thousand or five thousand dollars in your account, and then it's only like 1% or 1 and 1/2 percent. And notice the spread between this and the interest credit card companies charge you (all my info is a couple of years old).

Banks are shitty. They purport to compete on service, and maybe they do in a fashion. They do not compete on the bread and butter of giving the customer a good deal.

And then there's something like bank credit. If you've ever had an account closed with a negative balance, you might get listed by this credit service and then none of the other banks want to touch you. It's like they've finally got the syndicate right. Imagine, if you've ever had an argument with a restaurant, you're not allowed to eat at any of the other restaurants. Or, if you've ever had an argument with a hotel, none of the other hotels will rent to you. And this is one reason many low-income persons use check cashing businesses and pay the fees there.

 

[GeographyDude]

And then there's the situation, that even if something starts off astroturf, things may get out of hand! It may not be as easy to control as the original leaders thought it would.

(and I kind of think the Tea Party was blurry and blendy, and not pure astroturf)

 

[Expat]

And then there's the situation, that even if something starts off astroturf, things may get out of hand! It may not be as easy to control as the original leaders thought it would.

(and I kind of think the Tea Party was blurry and blendy, and not pure astroturf)

For sure! And this is an issue that could have legs beyond the OTL slate of complaints. Who knows who it could attract? It's the kind of thing protest votes are made of. "Screw it, I'm gonna vote for the guy who wants to give me a la carte ESPN."

As for brovane's concern with how this plays out down the line, I'm honestly never really meant this thread to be a, "how do we reform cable" thread (which sounds like a good idea in its own right.) It's more about cultural changes resulting from an issue that's seen IOTL as a cause for niche millennials finding root in a different demographic. And second to that, the electoral changes that might result from the Tea Party movement embracing said issue. Less concerned with actual legislation proposed because I don't know if we even reach that point, you know?

But yeah, I would be interested in reading a thread on exactly what telecom reform looks like.

And to the world, yes, American banks are terrible about nickle-and-diming people.