Now, Martin Says Family Tiers Are Kinda Boring
from the make-up-your-mind dept
FCC chairman Kevin Martin's been
wasting spending a lot of time trying to push cable operators to offer so-called family-friendly tiers of channels, holding the threat of forcing them to offer
a la carte programming over their heads. Last month, he whined that the family tiers cable companies had announced
weren't inoffensive enough, but now he's complaining that they're
awfully boring, especially since they don't include sports channels. Putting Goldilocks comparisons aside for a moment, is Martin aware of a hidden amendment to the Constitution that guarantees the right to a cable television service that adheres to some personal code of decency? If people are so offended by cable TV content, they already have a number of choices, such as using parental controls offered on many cable boxes and TVs, or even -- gasp -- just not getting cable at all. As nice as a la carte programming sounds, particularly for the easily offended,
its implementation will likely fall well short of its promise, and would probably end up increasing most people's cable bills. But apparently that's a small price for the rest of us to pay to help a minority of people stamp out all the rampant filth that's invaded their living room -- at their own invitation, of course.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Re: Now, Martin Says
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sport is not guaranteed Family Friendly
"Seb Pearce, Oxford's recently appointed cox, made only one mistake, when the people from ITV switched on his microphone and featured him in a starring role saying: "Right, let's fucking attack them."" - The Guardian
Very funny because of the timing. And that was the last we heard from the guy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Woah!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
By The Way...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and commericials...
Parental controls also don't work well to block unseemly commercials. We don't watch much of anything anymore without recording it first so we can zip through the commericals. We also use a TV Guardian, which I highly recommend.
At any rate, cable-a-la-carte may become moot if TV signals start getting shipped via TCP/IP. It could all be a-la-carte.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Forget Decency I still want a la cart!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Forget Decency I still want a la cart!
I also do not like paying for something I don't use, but the concern I have is that if we get what we are asking for (a la carte channel selection) we may suddenly realize that our 10-15 favorite channels are not the ones the majority of people watch. Which of course may lead to them being dropped or priced significantly higher to offset the limited viewership. Leading to my first observation.
Case in point: I would love to be able to watch the FIA WRC races. I would pay to be able to do so. How much I'm not sure, but the fact that the two main "Speed" channels don't carry them (choosing to run NASCRAP 24x7) tells me it would likely be more than I would care to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'd like a la carte.
Even with all 70+ channels I have trouble finding something to watch.
I had TW digital for a while when they had a promotion and I loved all the on demand stuff they had. Between that and the DVR that was in the promo I always had something to watch, sometimes too much. Imagine sitting and watching the whole season of Soppranos in 1 weekend, just because you could. Maybe that's not a good thing after all. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you don't like what is on TV...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If you don't like what is on TV...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reality Check...
In the perfect world cable companies would realize that the pissing contest to have the most worthless channels is over and that what customers really want isnt more selection but a lower bill without giving up the 1-2 channels they truly want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pay for your own channels
Why should everyone else subscribing to cable be subsidizing your particular choice of viewing? If you want to watch the FIA WRC races, that's YOUR business, but most people I think would rather NOT pay for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TVXux
everyone knows it. Until corporate America gets off there lazy tails and starts producing quality television I will stick to IPTV. Kevin Rose is a genius and deserves credit for the IPTV wave that has hit the internet. When Normal TV starts producing the quality programs I can find (and watch anytime I might ad) on the internet I will be happy to shell out $50 - $100 a month for cable TV.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The other "option"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why A La Carte Cable Would Cost More
The end result of a la carte cable would therefore be that most people's cable bills will go up, because they'll no longer get that rebate that's built into the bill. (Customers who only subscribe to a few channels or just want to get HBO would obviously save money)
Kevin Martin's full of hot air with this stuff regarding sports. Sports channels are by far the most expensive cable channels. If cable companies included the sports channels in their family packages, the prices for those packages would rise substantially and then Martin would be complaining that customers don't save any money by subscribing to only the family tier. Which would be true, for the reasons I stated above.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rots what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's Easy - why not allow al la carte?
Techdirt is FOR internet companies applying state sales tax accross thousands of municipalities since "computers will make it simple".
But is AGAINST personal choice in choosing individual cable channels since it is so complicated.
Just checking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A La Carte
And evidently, you are against letting companies individually choose whether to offer channels a la carte. You think that the government should be able to force companies to run their busineeses the way the government wants them to. That he government should be able to force businesses to run their companies in a way that ensures that the average consumer will end up paying more money for less channels.
I do wonder - where were all the complaints for all those years that consumers were forced to pay extra for tv sets that recieved all VHF and UHF channels? Many people would have been perfectly happy with a tv that just received one or two channels, and the governmenbt could have forced tv manufacturers to make and sell those cheaper, limited tvs!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A La Carte
And dont confuse yourself too much. TV is a duopoloy market and the consumer has little to no say in what is broadcasted. We get what is negotiated by the providers per THEIR interest not ours. Which is the single biggest problem.
Outside the local market OTA channels there are maybe 7 cable / sat channels I would actually ever watch. I would save tremendously on my bill by only subscribing to those 7. However, I do not have that choice in this duopoloy market, nor am I ever going to get that choice without some outside force because that may hurt their bottom line which is truely all the companies care about (understandably, to a limit).
In the end we can simply look at 2 things: 1.) Ignoring cost, savings, or anthing else; Would consumers prefer to choose what they want or have it forced on them? 2.) Why do the companies that control giving consumers what they want resist giving it to them?
My answer to #1 is Choice. All things being equal consumers will always want to pick what they want and how they want it. #2 is as simple as... they dont want it because it does not benefit them. They aren't resisting because they are trying to protect consumer's pocket books. If it cost them the same and gave user's better choice and gave them a better image, they would have implemented it. And without question, if they could make more off a la carte, they would have implemented that long ago without hesitation because their bottom lines are more important than any single customer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And 2) Obviously, yes, they're advocating their position because it's to their benefit. But that doesn't mean it's not to consumers' benefit as well. A la carte will hurt the cable franchises and many cable networks. But it will help over-the air channels and the broadcast networks, as well as pay channels like HBO and Showtime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]