When Sen. John McCain goes shopping, the grocery store doesn't make him buy broccoli if he's buying milk. Why then, the powerful head of the Senate Commerce Committee wonders, do cable and satellite-TV companies make people pay for channels they don't watch, say for example, ESPN?
Instead of forcing consumers to buy a prix-fixe menu of channels, the Arizona Republican is pushing for a la carte service, or individual channels in lieu of traditional packages. And the idea is gaining popularity.
This idea, and complaints about cable-television service and rising rates, emerged at a Senate subcommittee hearing yesterday led by Mr. McCain. Lawmakers at the hearing pilloried the cable industry for not being more responsive to consumers: Sen. Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, said cable subscribers "are being force-fed channels and features they don't want" and encouraged the industry to give consumers the choice. "Do something about your rising rates or you're going to have trouble," added Sen. Trent Lott, a Mississippi Republican.
Perhaps the trouble Mr. Lott ominously alludes to is a possible decrease in revenue as a result of more consumers exercising their free (yes, I am disagreeing with Mr. McCain's assertion that people are being "forced" to buy cable) choice to forgo cable subscriptions. Or perhaps not. Maybe its the threat of totally unwarranted government action to further befoul the cable TV market, a market whose problems are caused nearly exclusively by competition-limiting regulation. Stop over-regulating cable and the problems will fix themselves. But that solution doesn't lend itself well to having a heroic Congressional savior, so that won't even be considered. Never mind that the "problem" this article discusses isn't really a problem at all. Sure there are a lot of people who'd rather pay by the channel. There are also people who would rather pay for cable by the hour. There are those who think ESPN is worth $20/month and those who wouldn't pay a nickel for it. People should be free to vote with their pocketbooks and cable companies should be free to provide what people want or suffer the consequences. If there was a real demand for unbundled cable, the free market would certainly provide it. But even if it wouldn't, it really doesn't matter. Are people going to really suffer that badly if they decide not to have cable? Some of the illiterati and semiliterati might think they really are suffering pretty badly, but then again, these are groups of people who will buy cable, regardless of quality, until the price exceeds their income. Does Mr. Lott really think this is the best use of his time? If people are still buying cable, the cost is acceptable to them. They may not consider it perfect, but it is totally discretionary and they are still buying it, so the only conclusion to draw is that it must not be that damn bad. Its not like cable is a necessity for survival, no matter what that glassy-eyed overweight teenager might say. Why this is even being discussed in the Senate is beyond me. Have they truly run out of important stuff to talk about? If so, they should go home.
Basically what happened here is a bunch of business got together and agreed, as a group, to raise all their prices simultaneously. Further, they agreed that their prices would remain at the higher level for a defined period. This is a clear-cut case of collusion to fix prices. It cannot honestly be called by any name other than collusion and it is a clear violation of antitrust law. Of that there is absolutely no doubt. Usually in antitrust cases, prosecutors must piece together scattered bits of evidence and try to establish a pattern in an attempt to prove collusion, and the cases are usually pretty flimsy. In this case, there is an actual agreement by the cartel spelling out exactly what their intentions are, and this agreement was made public. Further, the cartel, when confronted, doesn't even deny it. But wait, there's more: the cartel is absolutely without a doubt in bed with multiple public entities, which has given its blessing, thus helping to sustain the cartel by providing protection against new businesses which would otherwise be able to compete with the cartel. In other words, the cartel has the power to set prices and keep out competitors that wouldn't agree to abide by their pricing scheme. Nobody denies this either.
An open and shut case? Hardly. For these business owners have the vaunted "good intentions." For the businesses are bars, and the collusion to increase drink prices took place under the guise of reducing collegiate imbibery. So that makes it okay for these colluders to do whatever they please.
Now, I'm not really a fan of telling business they can't talk to their competitors and come to voluntary agreements among themselves, so long as these agreements don't involve coercing other businesses, burning down buildings, breaking kneecaps, and that sort of thing. But the fact that local and federal governments are involved casts serious doubt on the "voluntary" aspect. When a federal agency "encourages" something, that typically means "do this or else" and the "else" is almost always ominous enough to get the "encouraged" business to comply. On many levels, this cartel is just plain wrong.
But what's more, the scheme isn't even having its intended effect:
Data on the effect of the ban on drink specials have been mixed. A study released by the project shows that since the implementation of bans on weekend drink specials in downtown bars, alcohol-related crimes have actually increased.
Tom Powell, a member of the Madison Alcohol License Review Committee, agreed that the voluntary weekend ban on drink specials didn't have much of an impact on student behavior, since most drink specials are offered toward the beginning of the week.
Imagine if all the area gas stations, landlords, or grocery stores got together and agreed to raise their prices, then took it a step further and got the blessing of a public entity which would work to prevent a new gas station/apartment complex/grocery store from entering the market and charging lower prices. This would probably be considered bad, and any students who opposed it would thereby be considered good. The cartel would promptly be ordered to comply with the law. But since this is for the student's "own good" legality can be tossed out the window.
COSTCO CHALLENGES THREE-TIER SYSTEM
In a move that could have major implications for the three-tier system, warehouse-retailer Costco is suing the Washington State Liquor Control Board to remove a number of three-tier regulations, one of which mandates that retailers purchase alcoholic beverages from wholesale distributors, rather than directly from the manufacturers. Since the current regulations also state that retailers cannot buy products directly from out-of-state wineries and breweries, Costco has invoked federal antitrust laws and interstate commerce provisions in its claim. Costco alleges that these regulations restrict competition and are the cause of higher prices paid for beer and wine by the consumer. When Prohibition ended 70 years ago, regulations governing the sales, distribution and marketing of alcoholic beverages were put in the hands of the states, creating a network of varying laws that differ from state to state. The suit, if decided in Costco's favor, would require significant overhaul of the Washington's alcohol-beverage
regulations, requiring approval of the Washington state Legislature. It could then spill into other states.
Sue those dirty bastards! For once antitrust has been invoked against those guilty of actual nefarious activity and coercion rather than the typical target: a company that has made a lot of money and has gotten too big for some delicate toolsheds' comfort.
9:32 AM
Monday, March 22, 2004 Um, okay, sure
The idea that campuses are dominated by left-wing radicals is laughable; the country's major universities are predominantly centrist to right-leaning institutions, and UT is no different.
I guess this would be true if you consider Mark Morford "centrist" and Molly Ivins "right-leaning." And if you consider ELF to be a peaceful bunch of birdwatchers. And the Democratic National Committee to be an organization of extreme right-wing radicals.
10:33 AM
Help is on the way for people who can only read 2 words per day and don't understand numbers.
Fear not, drooling morons! Big Brother is scurrying to help you. The FDA recognizes that not everyone is capable of rotating a food package 90 or even 180 (!) degrees and looking at the numbers (click here for example)on said package and making sense of them and will soon be taking action.
Yes, for those of you who see low-carb on the front of the package and throw it in your cart thinking it will make you into a scrawny bastard, help is indeed forthcoming. The wise, wise FDA will spend thousands if not millions of dollars deciding what precise number of carbohydrate grams something must not exceed in order to tout itself as low-carb. Never mind that the carbohydrate content is printed clearly on the "Nutrition Facts" label (which used to be "Nutrition Information" label, coincidentally, but that was WAY too intimidating), as well as the number of calories, and other information useful to those who have any sort of passing interest in what they shovel into their gaping gullet. So the FDA's official positio is that people can't possibly be expected to look at those labels and make any sense of them. The average person is simply incapable of looking at two food labels and making any sense of the numbers on them or figuring out which has more carbs (fat, calories, Vitamin C, etc.) relative to the other and then choosing the better option.
I tend to be of the belief that if someone actually gives a crap what's in the box/bag/can/jug/vat of whatever they are buying but is too dumb to make sense of the black and white label on the container, they are probably also too dumb to read the words "low-carb" and have any clue what a carb is or whether it should be high or low. They may think it has something to do with automotive gas delivery. Further, if they are in fact so dumb as to not be able to comprehend the small b&w label, but smart enough to know that low-carb refers to carbohydrates, which provide energy, which they know they only need in low levels because moving from couch to bed and back again doesn't require that much damn energy, they are probably still stupid enough to not realize that a diet of boxes low-carb crackers followed by boxes and boxes of low-carb cookies and a few gallons of low-fat ice-cream probably isn't the best nutrition plan. How do you help people like that? They are beyond help. But let's throw some flies into everyone else's ointment on their behalf nonetheless.
