« But This Time We're Serious, Sort Of | Main | The Need for Teeth »

July 11, 2007

Comments

My guess is that wireless providers want the rule. Sure, they get a two-year commitment from their customers today, but they have to provide the cellphone. Maybe the providers are looking at Europe, where the customer buys the phone, and deciding that the cost of a little added churn is little enough that it is cheaper than the cost of new phones for all, but no one wants to exit this marketing merry-go-round first.

Publius-

As a law-talking guy with knowledgeable things to say about FCC issues, how do you feel about a la carte cable?

washerdreyer: I know you asked publius, since he actually knows what he's talking about, but: oh how I wish there were a la carte cable! I have essentially no interest in sports: I could save money by ditching ESPN et al! All those golf, cooking, etc. networks: gone! Goodbye cartoons and MTV! Maybe, just maybe, someone would offer a 24 hour BBC feed, or even, dare one hope, more international channels -- I would love to have access to English al Jazeera, for instance.

God, it would be great.

oh, and best of all: no Fox! Why should I subsidize them? Inquiring minds want to know.

access to English al Jazeera, for instance.

I'm a little surprised DHS hasn't already insisted that US cable companies carry English AJ on an a la carte basis.

It'd make it a lot easier to find those AQ sleeper cells.

BackOnT -- Publius: Can you explain a little further what the proposed Open Access rules will do for the consumer. Beyond the ability to use any device in the new chunk of spectrum, what do I get?

hilzoy! Do you mean to say you'd actually give up the poker channel? What on earth would you do for amusement??

xanax: contemplate my empty, meaningless existence, of course. Without the poker channel (is there a poker channel?), what else would be left to me?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad