Martin Again Beating Cable A La Carte Drum
from the tv-as-cafeteria dept
FCC Chairman Kevin Martin's attempts to force cable companies to offer a la carte pricing have been largely unsuccessful, mainly because his contention that it will save people money is unlikely to prove to be true. But Martin doesn't really care all that much about your wallet; he sees a la carte as a way to restrict programming seen as indecent by "family" groups whose TV remote controls apparently don't work. He's now gone to Congress voicing his support (via Broadband Reports) for legislation that would force operators to offer channels on an a la carte basis. Martin apparently again portrayed this as a financial issue, by saying that cable prices keep rising, and that consumers tend to only watch 15 to 17 channels of all the ones they have to pay for. Again, Martin's insistence that a la carte will lead to lower prices isn't certain, and it seems likely that per-channel prices would simply increase to offset any potential shortfall in cable revenues. If Martin wants to address the competitive problems in the marketplace that lead to continually rising prices, that would be great, but it would seem his real interest is in pandering to pressure groups, and any talk of saving consumers money looks like little more than a smokescreen. After all, he's never really explained why the FCC suddenly changed its mind and decided that a la carte would be cheaper for consumers once he came into power there.
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
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cable A La Carte
But I think if channels are offered A La Carte, ALL restrictions must be removed as to what can and cant be shown on TV. All channels would have to have a description as to what might be shown. Then the choice is left to the people ordering that channel.
So if a channel indicates there might be nudity(whether there is or isnt) people have a choice not to get that channel. No more Janet Jackson syndrome!
The only channel that EVERYONE would have to pay for is PBS, since its a public channel.
Just my thoughts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You got it
Imagine...choosing what I want...only paying for what I use.
Wow. What a concept!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You got it
What's really obscene is having to pay:
1. for programming in languages i do not understand.
2. channels where the same screaming ninnies try to sell nearly identical trash over and over.
3. talking head channels, especially of the left and right wing extremist variety.
4. local government and education channels that are as interesting and informative as last months sour milk.
5. comcast and verizon (in my area) obscene to the nth, rates. if i see that "it's the network" thing or that "it's comcastic" thing again , i don't know what i'll do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TV content
Remember the national DO NOT CALL LIST. How about we use that for the cable companies piping in crap tv channels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's All About Choice
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Forget Pay Per Channel, What About Pay Per Show
But forget about PPC. That's yesterday's discussion. What I want going forward is Pay Per Show. This is the Internet, VOD, iTunes, OnDemand model of buying programming, and I like it. Want a show, pay $1. Want a movie, pay $2. And you could get 50% off if you accept advertising.
The Internet and 2-way communications with cable cos allows us to buy our content on a much, much more granular level than the broadcast or cable TV models did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tsk Tsk
All those commentators who insist that they only watch about 15 channels are probably underestimating what all they watch in any annual period. Maybe they should actually keep a diary for a while. Sure, you can set up which channels you think you'll most need, but all it will take is a couple of "must see" or "must check out" shows on some channels you don't have, and before you know it, your list will slowly increase. Only then you'll have to pay even more than you used to for the 200 or so that you get now.
If you're not able to find something to watch on most of your 200 or so channels that you get now, then you're really not maximizing the choices you have. Personally, I've found that my DVR does an great job of maximizing my choices, and allows me to make the most use of the full 200 channels that I get. My DVR allows me to find obscure but interesting shows or movies that play at 4:00 AM on some nearly anonymous cable channel. Then I can timeshift it to watch when it's convenient for me. In a way, that DVR is what makes having 200+ cable channels worth it.
If you're really only watching 16 cable channels, then either you have a very limited range of taste, or you're not really aware of what you're actually watching. I don't say this to denigrate having limited tastes. There's nothing wrong with sticking to tried and true channels that you know you'll enjoy. But why make the rest of us suffer because you don't think highly of the value of having a choice of 200+ channels. And anyone who thinks that somehow this will reduce their cable bill is deluded.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tsk Tsk
I happen to be one of "those commentators" and if anything, I'm overestimating the amount of TV I watch. I actually can't remember the last time I watched TV.
Oh, yeah. I worked at Sears a while ago. During really slow times I would sometimes watched the display TVs for a few minutes. I would invariably tune them to the History Channel, or something like that. If I'm gonna watch TV, I at least like to think that I'm not stupider for having done so.
To be truthful, most TV totally fails to entertain me. If I actually had my own TV, I would probably watch the science and educational channels, and the Sci-Fi channel because I'm a sucker for bad SF. Other than that, bleh. I have better things to do with my time than have some idiot sitcom insult my intelligence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tsk Tsk
There's no reason we should have to speculate about what ala carte would cost. The FCC's first step should be to force the cable companies to disclose exactly what every channel is costing. Then subscribers could decide whether ala carte pricing makes sense.
The problem is not mainly about the pricing structure, it's about the structure of the business. Cable never should have been allowed to be more than a common carrier for content by independent producers. If Martin really wants to fix things, that's where he should be looking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Tsk Tsk
I agree with this Davey.
I don't know that the FCC should force the cable companies to disclose what every channel is costing. Cost is no predictor of price in a monopolistic market like this, and price regulation policy rarely makes economic sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tsk Tsk
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Choosy Mothers Choose Less
The people who want it can pay for it, but I feel soiled by giving those jock bastards money!
I don't want ANY religious programs; be they dedicated channels, or paid programming on late nights. I want to protect my children from religious cultists. I consider it at least as toxic as hardcore porn, and should have the right to completely exclude it from coming into my home.
I realize that this is not the intent of Martin and his Oompa Loompas.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Choosy Mothers Choose Less
Since I am not privy to Martin's thoughts, I have no idea what he has in mind. I just want to pay only for what I want to watch.
The Pay-Per-Program idea has a lot of merit, too. If it is on-demand, I will get to watch what I want, when I actually have time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just HBO HD
Either way, I think you are bing harsh that just right wing family values groups want al la carte programming. Oh contrare, I think there are MANY people that would go this route.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Would Like Cable
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And Who said.....
No one said that Bundling had to go away completely.. in fact i'd rather it not, because I am quite clear that the tier/bundling/whatever-they-wanna-call it is a cheaper way of going about it, all i want is a choice in HOW my channels get bundled... Give me a 20 channel option at the same cost of my twenty channel tier, and that will satisfy me, even that way most people willl end up having to choose some channels that they might never watch, or might someday find an interest in...
Just remember the option for bundling isn't at risk here, Martin's only vying to put options in the hands of consumers... and i could care less if it cost me more or less if i'm not getting twenty channels of sports shoved down my throat just cause i wanted one extra channel.... and i could really care less what Martin's motivation is (which i am sure is more motivated by pandering to parent groups and other 'family tv' advocates.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
al la Carte Cable TV
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ala Carte Cable
I would go to satellite if I had a "clear, unobstructed view of the southern sky" but I don't. I'm generally against government interference in the market, but cable company already benefits from its government-sanctioned monopoly status, at my expense. Therefore, I consider them fair game for external direction.
That said, if I were a tech-saavy entrepreneur looking for some way to make mountains of money with The Next Big Thing, I think I would look at a way to bypass that "infrastructure" you say I'm paying for. To begin with, I think I would look at the much lower prices being paid for Telecom in places like Hong Kong and South Korea, two places that have led the United States in broadband market penetration and which have SUBSTANTIALLY lower rates for access than the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]