The battle for a la carte cable is resumed
Perhaps the most interesting media development this week is the resumption of the debate over cable pricing. FCC chair Kevin J. Martin has come out in favor of a la carte pricing on cable systems. In other words, cable subscribers would be allowed to pick and choose which individual channels they would like to pay for (beyond a basic tier of broadcast and cable networks). This is a sharp reversal of the FCC's previous position, which was to support the cable industry's desire to retain the current system of bundling channels into ever larger cable packages (this is of course very profitable for the cable operators). The motive for this new initiative is, as ever with the federal government, a desire to protect children from indecency and violence on television. It seems that many viewers would prefer to block--and not have to pay for--"edgier" basic cable offerings such as Comedy Central and MTV. Martin now seems to have concluded that the best way to protect the children is to allow subscribers to pick and choose their own channels. Cable operators argue that if this was mandated by the government, consumers would end up paying more for fewer channels.
The FCC has no power to mandate a switch to a la carte pricing--that power is left to Congress. But Martin is certainly in an influential position to get the debate moving. As for the cable industry, it has little public support for its current strategy, that could be construed as price-gouging unhappy cable consumers. For years the cable industry has been adding more and more channels to their cable lineups. Most viewers only watch a fraction of these channels--typically 17 channels out of an averagge of 88 available to subscribers, according to a 2004 FCC report (cited in USA Today on Nov 30). Yet since cable was deregulated in the mid-1990s, cable subscription rates have increased at well in excess of the rate of inflation. Many subscribers wonder why they're paying so much for scores of channels they never watch.
And now AT&T is backing the move to a la carte pricing. AT&T was for a while one of the biggest MSOs (Multiple System Operators); it got out of the business in 2001 when its cable operations were bought up by rival Comcast; but the company is now looking to get back into the game through promoting its own a la carte programming services.
(For a fuller insight into both sides of the argument, USA Today runs a pro- and con debate over a la carte pricing in its Dec 1 edition -- see here for the pro-pick and choose position and here for the leave-things-as-they-are argument.)
posted by hdougie at 12/01/2005 09:53:00 AM
4 Comments:
As my last official blog for the Comm 160 I am glad that it will be one where I can really pitch a rant. I’m not the only who ever thought of this concept before and obviously not the only one who wants to see two from column A and five from B, throw in a couple C’s and lets not for the love my sanity forget a bunch from column K. Being a poor college student once again and having to pick between the occasional fling uptown or a lot of useless channels for the same price, I chose the flings. My $9.37 a month gets me 12 channels, BUT WAIT THERE’S MORE, actually there is less since I get doubled-up ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX and the WB from Rochester AND Buffalo bringing it down to five actual channels. You throw in a useless channel to scroll pubic events on gaudy high liter colored screens (school menus, meetings for DAM (Mothers Against Dyslexia), penny socials, etc.); all with a background music from the local AM station’s take on the world that is Dansville and you got you a whole lot of entertainment at your fingertips. Thank the heavens above for a few good network shows and my savings grace, the lone PBS station.
Surprisingly though, I was able to experiment this past month. I was offered the basic cable channels for free for a month and I almost didn’t take it since my study habits were fairly safely set. I was afraid of the temptation of too many channels to lure me into a reclining position and having the only mental exercising going on be initiating the synapse that controls the one finger used to key the remote. But it was free!!!
So I took their offer and amazingly I found that I didn’t watch anymore TV, of course when I did it was the history channel, which was exceptional since they kept having shows pertinent to my Humanities class. Boy did I sound smarter in class having info not covered in the books.
So I’m back to basic-basic but still wish I could pick eight of the twelve shows I am paying for and they would be—History Channel, Discovery, Comedy Central, TLC, Sci-Fi, CNN, Bravo and FX (love The Shield). So would it be so hard to give me a choice? I say let it be a Republican rant---let a free market decide, if HGTV isn’t ordered by enough people and that strange Nun who has the quirky show aren’t ordered---so what—let the masses choose in a capitalistic way what we want to watch. At least when I had surfed through these few channels of interest I would realize that there is nothing on of interest and I could shut off the TV and do my communications homework quicker.
DJ
First off, let me congratulate you on a year's worth of blogs. Well done.
I think it's important to give more choice to "basic" users, however I think it's important to leave cable channels alone for the most part. If you get cable, the idea is that you either watch more TV on average or enjoy certain channels enough to keep cable. (see DJ's post) I think the vast variety of options available to cable users are not necessarily a bad thing, even if you don't use them that often. For example, I may not always want to watch Telemundo or College Sports Network or the Military Network, but that doesn't mean that I don't somedays want to sit down and watch one of their programs for one reason or another. I think it's important to realize that when you get cable, you have a variety of options available for your use, and it's to your advantage to appreciate most (if not all) your paid-for channels.
Now, obviously everyone is not going to feel as I do and I'm sure a lot of people will feel that it's a good choice for some customers to get a la carte. I say it should be up to the user's discretion, but that those a la carte customers would be missing out from some of the channels they would not think they'd watch. Lord knows how many documentaries I've seen about Hitler now, but I can spout random information to people and look smarter because of my uninhibited cable TV access. I say keep mine the way it is.
-Libby
While I probably watch programming on about 5 channels regularly, I can't say that I mind the option of other channels. There have been times when I have watched certain programs offered by channels that I wouldn't normally watch. Just because I don't choose to watch certain channels regularly, doesn't mean that they wouldn't ever run something of interest to me every now and then. The only reason that I could see the need for a la carte cable pricing would be (as mentioned in the original post), to protect kids from indecency. However, I know that there are certain ways to block channels from being viewed when one has digital cable (I don't know if this is the case with "regular" cable). Therefore, if mandating a la carte cable pricing would raise cable prices and allow us to view fewer channels, perhaps parents could look into other options such as digital cable in order to protect their children from violence and indecency.
-Jillian Nunn
This is a argument that I never considered before, but I think that it is a really good idea. When I think about it, I only ever watch a handful of TV channels, and it seems stupid to me to pay for all those other channels that I never watch. I think that if people could pick and choose their favorite shows and get them for a decent price, then that would benefit a lot of families. Not only could you block out channels that you don't want your kids watching, but I think that this "a la carte menu" would make individual channels start to step up the competition. If the channel's well being depended upon how many people paid for the it then it might start to offer better programming to attract more viewers. On the other hand, this system could force certain channels to disappear entirely. However, that could be a good thing because in this digital age more TV channels is not something that the public needs. If anything, we should be more concerned with how to get people away from the television, and if channel surfing were drastically reduced, then people may start to give up that habit all together. Therefore, I would definitely support an "a la carte" menu when it comes to cable TV.
Allison Lane
Post a Comment
<< Home