Comments on: The false choice of a-la-carte TV

FCC chairman wants to give TV watchers a fairer shake, but FreedomWorks' Peter Suderman says he's going about it all wrong.

[Penguinisto]

Author = Industry Shill

"[i]Both SBC and Verizon help to fund FreedomWorks, an anti-tax group headed by former House Majority Leader Richard Armey, R-Texas. FreedomWorks launched a multimedia effort in June to promote cable competition. The campaign seeks to boost legislation permitting nationwide video franchises, a top priority for the Bells.[/i]

Ref: http://www.freepress.net/news/9242

There be Astroturf in the C|NET article...

[rad91]

This is an opinion page in Cnet

This article is in the Perspective section of the site, similar to the Opinion page of a newspaper. Whether or not you agree with the the lobbyists, politicians, or business executives that may write in opinion pages, I think its important that they do. It's better than reading/hearing a sound bite.

[Mister C]

Whatever happened to the free market?

Whenever some high power bureaucrat (especially a conservative one) talks about large scale market regulation, you can bet there is some big money waiting in the wings to make a killing.

Starting with the so-called breakup of ATT it has been just one sham after the other. Time magazine featured a cover of the ATT juggernaut taking over the computer world. Yes they screwed it up and lost their shirts but look at the deal itself. ATT got to dump all the things that cost them money and keep those that were the money makers.

And not to forget our boy Bill and his giveaway of the Telcom infrastructure that was built with 40 years of tax payer subsidies.

Conservatives howl about government intervention when it is used to help the working class but oh do they love it when it benefits their corporate masters. Wonder who the big winner is behind the veil of this latest sham.

[Penguinisto]

Monopolies, anyone?

[i]"Whenever some high power bureaucrat (especially a conservative one) talks about large scale market regulation, you can bet there is some big money waiting in the wings to make a killing."[/i]

I got bad news here: It doesn't matter which side of the ideological fence a proponent sits on; odds are fair that somebody looks to make a killing anyway... even environmental regs. (e.g. The CFC ban - it meant a TON of money for Dow Chemical, who already had the refrigerant R-134a all ready and waiting to sell to a forced customer base).

That said, in this case I don't see it as a bad thing. After all, who on earth stands to make money off of cable companies having to offer un-bundled channel pricing?

After all, folks like TBS, Discovery, etc won't make or lose money either way, since they'll still sell their stable of channels to the cable companies by the bundled package.

Satellite companies won't stand to make or lose money either way (different carrier method, coupled with not having the a-la-carte feature that seems to appeal to so many people). It will actually provide pricing pressure against the cable companies in order to keep their a-la-carte pricing honest (aside from locally-enforced cable-only policies such as certain apartment complexes and such, almost anyone can go satellite). But still... no big payday for them.

So we've established that sat companies won't be making a killing, nor will channel operators/owners.

This leaves... advertisers? Nope - they prefer bundles so they can hawk their wares shotgun-style across a group of channels all at once. If advertisers had to pick-and-choose which channels to advertise on, perhaps we'd stop seeing so much mindless drek, and instead see the advertisers actually concentrate on making stuff that would catch your attention.

Speaking of which, would this lead to an increase in ads? Pffft! Please... they're pushing that envelope now, whether we go a-la-carte or not.

Okay, so it ain't advertisers... who else we got?

Qwest or other alternate come-lately television providers? Prolly not, since they'd fall under the same rules (because most of them are also quasi-monopolies).

Tell me - who stands to make money from such a regulation? Because quite frankly, I don;t see the money angle here.

Seems that, like the public access channels, the customer stands to win here. (Okay, bad example in most parts of the US, but at least locally in Portland, Oregon, we get to see some really, really weird sh*t sometimes on the local access channels, and it's either cool in a cult way --e.g. "Super Atomic Television"-- , or its really good for a laugh).

/P

[boatseller]

Plenty of Options

The article is merely an opinion, like ALL journalism whether it's in the editorial section or on the front page. You simply can't separate people from their opinions.

The relationship between you and the content delivery is entirely that, between you and them. If you do not agree to the terms of the service, you are perfectly free to not order it. So, yes, it's a take what you get arrangement. It's the price you pay, or don't pay, for freedom of commerce.

However, I think this whole discussion us utterly pointless as the delivery and consumption are shifting to a less channel focused arrangement.

For me with my DVR, there is no meaningful difference among entire groups of channels to the point that I'm sure would distress the content owners. For instance, I just realized, after 7 or 8 weeks, that Ice Road Truckers was a History Channel show and not Discovery.

So, my sat provider has become just a giant pipe of content flowing into my DVRs. Channels? What channels? The more the better!

BTW, if you're ultimate goal is to control the nature of the content, which I think is totally super if you're a parent, cancel the cable and sat and sign up for a DVD service like NetFlix. There, it's totally up to you.

[ktmotox]

Channels are noticeable at bill time

It would be great if when I watch a show from my DVR, I get charged a small fee and the money goes directly to the content producer. The CableCo can just get a fixed monthly fee for providing the pipe. The less viewings a show gets, the less money the producer will get. The more viewings a show gets, the more money the producer will get. Hey, it's just like feature films!

boatseller, it's true that with the DVR, you tend not to notice "channels" when you view programming. But you do notice "channels" when you pay your bill (via the packages you selected). 100% pay-per-view is the way to go. If I had a provider that competed against Comcast with a service that charged me for just what I watched, I would switch to it in a minute, even if it did not reduce my monthly bill at all. It's the principle of being able to vote for content with my dollars; consumer choice.

[bwithnel]

infrustructure+

The problem with the author's view is that it is false in several accounts. First, the cost of service might be higher if a person orders all the items that a bundle contains without a bundle, but I know of no individual that does that. He makes the complaint that the number of channels would be diminished if smaller channels don't get the support of the bundle. That is absolutely true, and why bundling costs more for the average user. I watch at most 5 channels, I'd like to add 2 more, but I'm not about to pay $30+ a month to add those two. Why is it so much to add two channels? Because I'd have to add the entire bundle of 40 or so channels to obtain them. Sure, it might cost me $5 more for adding those two channels, and if I added all 40 (the industry study does just that in order to come up with the 15% increase in cost) it would be more than the cost of the bundle. But for me it would be cheaper.

I wouldn't mind at all if the 38 I don't watch go out of business -- and I shouldn't have to pay for them. As it is, if this gentleman would like to reduce government involvement (something I generally support) have him put in place laws to prohibit government sanctioned monopolies that eliminate choice of cable provider. Those monopolies are the reason we have the bundles in the first place. Remove the local government regulation of who can provide me cable service, and it all becomes easy.

[bpsanborn]

This is word-for- word cable company BS

This article is pure "new speak" from slick tongued lobbist for the cable companies. It is the usual word-for-word clap trap that the cable companies serve up to fight good old common sense winning out against a monoply.

I only watch maybe 20 channels the rest are a wasteland. And worse some are ouright offensive and I can't get rid of them.

[ralfthedog]

I would be more than willing to bet....

I would be more than willing to bet that many of the 20 channels you watch would be an offensive wasteland to me.

How many of the 20 that you watch will be the ones that go away?

[ktmotox]

Forced Subsidization is Stealing

...a small but vocal faction is still complaining about a lack of choice...

This is a cheap shot at saying those who favor ala carte aren't worth paying attention to.

...they're almost exclusively the work of a small, highly overrepresented squad of committed complainers...

Yet another cheap shot at dismissing those with an apposing view from the author.

The bottom line is that many channels on cable today don't have a large enough audience to justify their existence. They should be eliminated. They only exist due to subsidies from non-viewers. The non-viewers have no choice; they are forced to pay for these channels that they don't want in order to get the channels that they do want.

[Had_to_be_said]

Hardly, an inaccurate characterization...

>> "...they're almost exclusively the work of a small, highly overrepresented squad of committed complainers..."

Actually, if the information provided by the author is, anywhere near, accurate...

>> "...the Parents Television Council. Out of the whopping 240,000 complaints the FCC received in 2003, 99.8 percent were generated by the PTCs online complaint form. In July of 2005, the FCC received more than 23,000 complaints. Only five came from other sources."

Furthermore, 240,000 "complaints" is hardly a staggering number in a nation of 300-million people, which watches television 365 days a year.

Based upon this information, Id say that the authors characterization of, "...a small, highly overrepresented squad of committed complainers", was hardly, merely, an attempt at a "...cheap shot at dismissing those with an apposing view".

In fact, Id say the characterization of the overwhelming majority of the FCCs, actual, complaint-filers, was bang-on CORRECT (especially, after I checked out the "Parents Television Council" website). They ARE a relatively tiny (less than 1/2 of one-percent of the citizenry), extremist, ultra-conservative, right-wing group... dedicated to reshaping virtually all of societies communications "medium(s)" to their own, statistically-atypical beliefs. They hope to do this, primarily, by "filing complaints" with the FCC (this is, in fact, one of the main tabs on their front web-page). They also work with ultra-conservative politicians, and "Government agencies", to influence "policy" and "legislation" designed to control "mainstream media".

Finally, I wont even go into the idiotic, NEOCON, extremist-philosophy that spawned the asinine statement:

"Forced Subsidization is Stealing".

Perhaps you should take a basic "Civics" class, so that you can better understand exactly what is actually necessary for any society to successfully function.

[Orr101]

Why not both?

Why is this an Either-or?
Cable companies could offer BOTH a-la-carte AND packages. I suspect anyone who argues why one or the other is better of having an agenda.

As to the 'Parental control' argument -
Two problems:
(1) Ads and Previews for coming shows/movies
frequently contain stuff some may want to
prevent kids from seeing. How can a parent
control *that*?
(2) Prents have to either know how to use
parental control features, or sit in real-
time when the children watch to control the
TV. If most can't program their VCR, is this
practical?

Disclaimer - I am NOT part of the a-la-carte
movement, and actually do NOT find TV content
problematic in general *except too many ads ...), and KNOW how to sue parental controls if I ever wanted them. I am just curious why the arguiment is either-or.

[Dingbattie]

Bittorrent.

There's your "a la carte."

[zonageezer]

True Freedom

To all the PTC out there! If you truly are concerned about protecting your family from all of the "Hollywood Smut", may I suggest a hammer applied to all your TV'S and then provide your family with a library card. This will send a stronger message to the "Smut Makers" and "Smut Providers" than your useless griping to the government "Big Daddy" you think should protect you..Azlizird

[NoVista]

Australia is different

For one thing, there was a 25 year moratorium on cable TV "so they could do it right". Well, leave it to a government, they didn't.

Here in Far North Queensland, I think I'd welcome competition. Our choice in a country area: Austar satellite. About 75 channels. In packages.

About this time last year, they started promo-ing a new SciFi channel. "Seven years in the making." Blah. And when it went online toward the end of last year, I am sure they studied the demographics to place it in an underperforming package. So now I have six other channels I never watch.

The justification for a basic package seems to be, to cover the infrastructure cost. But there are better business models that would serve both the service provider and the customer.

Just as all DVDs don't cost the same, nor magazine subscriptions, a minimum subscription could just as easily be posited as, X dollar amount and you pick the mix. Extras as cost per channel on the list. Why should I, with no children or grandchildren need three crappy cartoon channels I'd never watch?

I'd even pay extra for a commercial blocker. LOL.

As for free/commercial TV channels, the house I moved into doesn't have an antenna. Not sure it'd be worth the $300+ to have one installed. Some of the old timers here are still stuck in the 1950s and happy as pigs in mud to watch a snowy signal.

More and more, it looks like DVDs are the way to go. I buy from a good inexpensive online site. If it weren't for new, weather channel (definitely useful when we had a Category 5 cyclone last year) and some doco's, I'd probably already have ditched the dish!

[ralfthedog]

Less service, more money

companies like Time Warner and NBC will not let there income go down. If people subscribe to half of the channels they sell, they will double the cost of the ones you get.

This might or might not increase your cable bill, however under no circumstances will it cause your cable bill to drop, and you will get fewer channels.

Less service for the same or more money does not sound like a good deal.

[TelcomSam]

A La Carte TV

My objection to the current bundle system is that the networks are pushing all the content into the basic and expanded basic tiers and driving up the cost of the tiers (ie NFL Network). This pushes the expanded basic tier channel numbers up along with the ever increasing cost. If I could tier the sports, movies and other special interest bundles the I would have a choice, but the opposite is happening with more and more content being carried in the basic and expanded basic tiers.

[herr_howard]

Is it just me...

Or does anyone else seem to get the fact the reason cable companies and, yes, even the DBS companies bundle things the way they do is because the content providers MANDATE it...for example, Disney owns ESPN, Disney, and ABC Family channel. Disney won't allow a cable company or DBS company to carry ANY of these channels unless they carry ALL of them...and they then further dictate how they can be packaged. There is absolutely nothing, NOTHING technologically that prevents a la carte channel distribution, it's all a big ploy by the content providers to generate a consistant revenue stream.

I also don't understand how giving the parents the choice to chose the channels that come into their houses limits parental involvement (equated in the article to 'just use the remote, silly')...Sure, I could lock out the channels I don't like, but I'd still be paying for them. What kind of sense does that make? Like the guy who kept trying to pressure me to buy a car with fake wood panneling...no matter how much of a deal he was giving me, he finally stopped when I told him "Why should I pay $150 for something I don't even want in the first place?" Um, DUH!

Folks, it seems to me that the government isn't telling the cable companies which channels to carry...they're only saying give your customers the ability to pick their own programming. They'll find out pretty quickly if anybody really cares about 60 channels of XM radio on their TV, or if anyone cares for the 10 choices of shopping channels, etc.

[telcomo]

It's the programmers

The points made in this article are true, as far as they go. However, two important items are missing. First, the infrastructure to deliver a la carte programming already exists. It is being used by many telephone companies today and it is called "switched digital video". The channel selected by the remote control is the only one delivered to the set. Cable companies are also beginning to test SDV.

Second, it is the programmers, the owners of the channels who will not permit a la carte. Generally speaking, a cable company, or other providers, cannot obtain the rights to carry today's cable programming unless they agree to bundle it into the traditional groupings.

Existing video service providers do, however, strongly support the current method of bundling channels together because that is the business model on which they operate. To change to a la carte would mean a tremendous upheaval and great cost, albeit temporary. No one wants to open that can of worms. It would also, by the way, be quite upsetting to the vast majority of consumers.

Cable companies have historically abdicated their responsibility to demand annual price increases from programmers be kept to a reasonable amount. Consequently, these have been passed through to consumers year after year.

One final thing--even though there are many channels, the actual content that appears on them has only increased in an incrementally small way. That's why you see the same programming passed around from channel to channel. The investment to actually create new and entertaining content is apparently too risky. Consequently, the current system of bundling channels together artificially supports the current system, while most content on a given day is repetitive and of marginal value.

[digitaldday]

Lobbyist: Highest order of Scumbag

This guy works for a think tank which is now doubt funded by the cable companies. A visit to the website shows that Freedom works also is against net neutrality. Freedom Works is no doubt funded by the cable companies and CNET has a duty to disclose this on thier website. Simply saying that he is a writer for Freedom Works is not enough.

[SohailAhmed]

Who says you need to eliminate a basic bundle?

There's no reason both models can't work people. You can have
analog cable for those who choose it (at a very basic selection of
chanels). You can then have the cable box a la carte option for
those who opt into that option. With HDTV mandated in the future
and all going digital, this type of fine grained control will eventually
be the standard anyways.

[SohailAhmed]

Are you?

501c3 organizations can engage in lobbying. See http://
www.asaecenter.org/PublicationsResources/
whitepaperdetail.cfm?ItemNumber=12202 and google for lots
more if you need convincing.

Are you really trying to tell me that no cable companies are
supporting this same position? I'm not saying that there are no
individuals who favor this approach, and there are good
arguments that bundle pricing is cheaper if you're going to get
lots of channels.

The point is, the original author seemed to downplay the
motivations of those wanting a la carte service with such flimsy
justifications, it had the wreak of a lobbyist agenda. Kind of like
when cable companies made statements that hydro (power)
companies should stick to power and not expand into ethernet
over power service to consumers and business. Hmmm...smells
fishy to me.

[g_k_boyles]

Woah...

Three things...

One.
There seems to be this thought that you can just toss a set of rabbit ears up and get OTA everywhere. Unless you live in a relatively urban locale that is not the case. More like erecting a 40 foot tower in the back yard.

Two.
What the crap are you people calling smut? There is no porn on my digital or analog that you could just "surf into" by default. If you are calling nonporn shows smut - shut up. What is smut to you may not be to me. Are you people all fascist muslims? You sound like it.

Three.
What is crap to you might be art to me. I love Discovery and loathe Lifetime but my wife is the total opposite. Quit describing channels that you dont like as "crap".

Quite frankly I cant tell you what channels I watch - I watch shows not channels. I know a few of the channels the show are on but more often than not it just browse the guide and click on the show. Maybe I am strange but I like being able to pick what to watch from a lot of different channels.

[00rb]

Waste of tax payer's money

The v chip and parental controls embedded in today's cable/satellite offerings does just fine. How about focusing on a real issue like immigration or healthcare?