Congress To Force Cable a la Carte Plans

unassimilatible writes "Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John McCain seems to be leaning towards sponsoring legislation mandating something I have wanted for a long time: Forcing cable companies to offer "a la carte" programming packages. No U.S. cable or satellite currently offers such a plan. However, as the Washington Post reports, "That may change, if some lawmakers and consumer groups get their way, as the cable industry finds itself under increasing scrutiny. Lawmakers report that their constituents are angry about cable bills that have risen at three times the rate of inflation since the industry was largely deregulated in 1996." McCain money quote: "I go down to buy a loaf of bread. I don't have to buy broccoli and milk to go with it." Bottom line is, cable companies have a government-authorized monopoly, so maybe they need to recieve government-mandated "innovation." Why should I pay for 15 non-English channels?"

Comments

This Topic Hacked to death on usenet

[amigoro]

You can check the discussion here.

(Shows you once again the lag time between usenet and slashdot ;)

Moderate this comment
Negative: Offtopic Flamebait Troll Redundant
Positive: Insightful Interesting Informative Funny

Unbelievable

[GileadGreene]

It is truly mind-boggling how wealthy, secure, and decadent we have become. It seems like every time I turn around there's some politician preparing to legislate about something that, while I'm sure it may be annoying, is
(a) not really life-threatening, and
(b) the result of the aggregate free choices of "the people".
Have we no bigger problems in the world than ensuring that people can get access to cable channels without having to buy entire packages, or keeping the world safe from telemarketers. These do not seem like Earth-shattering issues.

I wonder, do people actually write letters to their congress-critter begging them to tell those nasty cable companies to let them buy the channels they want without having to buy a package? Or is it simply the case that McCain wanted to get HBO without paying for Discovery, got annoyed that he couldn't, and decided that this was "an important issue" to legislate on.

Right....

[buzzoff]

government-mandated "innovation."

Was that meant as a joke?

Re:Costs? Check your phone bill

[Clock Nova]

Is it me, or did this guy just cite the holocaust in a discussion about cable TV pricing?

Not a monopoly

[vijayiyer]

Cable is not a monopoly - they provide a television signal, just like satellite providers and broadcasters do. It's ridiculous to have government regulation of a business just because some consumers want it. The top of the slippery slope was electricity price regulation. This is far worse. Looks like we're headed towards the bottom - full fleged Communism. Thomas Jefferson must be turning in his grave.

non-english channels

[eurostar]

"Why should I pay for 15 non-English channels?"

lets see now,
Better Education ? Better TV ? Seeing the world through others eyes ? Learning foreign languages ?

"I go down to buy a loaf of bread. I don't have to buy broccoli and milk to go with it."

Oh, does he mean like "I go down to buy a computer. I don't have to buy Windows to go with it." ?

Pfft...

TV is a commercial delivery system

[DanTheLewis]

in the same way that cigarettes are a nicotine delivery system. Everyone keeps talking like this thing is about Content and Quality Programming and Comedy Central. The truth is that they are marketing to us: "24 is presented without commercial interruption" (remember the next part?) "by Ford."

So this flap is not really about USA/TNT/TBS subsidizing poor TechTV or the Golf Channel. It is about cable companies and content providers selling us things. They gain a lot by packaging channels together: commercials on ABC that refer you to programming on TNT; covering a broader spectrum of demographics (read: target audiences) in the event that you get a girlfriend, a new roommate, or a kid; cable companies contracting for several channels of content at volume discounts... You can probably think of other reasons they would do this.

A la carte programming is a threat to their best practices of marketing: selling White-Male-Age-15-to-40-everyone-listens-to-me 50 channels, Asian-Woman-Age-55+ 5 channels. When we complain that we don't want the Nuts and Gum (together at last!) they listen politely, then laugh all the way to the bank.

No wonder they are so frightened by the substantial overhaul that a la carte would be. Follow the money! There are a lot of connections to sniff out here.