FCC Report Supports a la Carte TV Pricing

An anonymous reader writes "The FCC may soon allow cable/sat companies to sell individually customized TV channel packages. From the article: ' FCC chairman Kevin Martin spoke to a forum, sponsored by the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee in Washington, which has been examining indecency on radio and television. Martin told the forum that the FCC will soon release a report that concludes that offering TV programming a la carte is economically feasible and in the best interest of consumers.'"

Comments

TV a la carte increases overall price?

[digitaldc]

Questions for the FCC Overlords of Programming:
Who determines how much a channel is worth? The FCC? A parental group who hates Howard Stern and anything deemed indecent by their 'decency' standards?
Will you have the choice of either or plan? To opt out?
Can you choose from something other than one monopolistic cable company that only serves your area?

If you do not have the choice of leaving your plan the way it is, I see this only increasing the price of your overall bill if you want to keep the same amount of channels you already had. Then again, maybe this will inspire people to stop watching TV altogether...but probably not.

Re:Capitalism must suck

[Tim C]

Of course, nevermind that the channels that are "less-popular" are probably useless beef anyway.

Or they simply cater to a much less mainstream taste, such as literary or arts programs. Just because something isn't to your taste (or mine) doesn't make it "useless beef".

It's been possible for a while

[cblguy]

I used to work in the analog head end department at Scientific-Atlanta. We could configure channel groups, as many as we wanted (or at least, I saw no limit). I could see this extending all the way to the customer. However, the 'gotcha' is that it requires a cable box (or some other intelligent device) to do it. Customers that rely simply on cable ready TV's/VCRs would not be able to do it.

With the digital set top boxes, it'd be a piece of cake.

I don't see it being offered with the possibility to save you money on your cable bill, though. It requires individualized effort (unless they tie a web interface to the head end, and allow you to select your channels online, which would be cool). Even then, there would have to be added cost to do it. But I'd love to get rid of shopping channels, crazy religious channels, and other channels that I will never watch (spanish, BET, etc).

Wrong: A very good idea

[foolish_to_be_here]

I've heard in this thread lots of complaints that (little viewed) channels like, Discovery, History and PBS would be dropped using this approach. Wrong! These channels have huge followings as they get referred to, time and again in diverse public forums other than Slashdot. Think about it, both SciFi and Food channel were once part of the basic Direct TV satellite package years ago until the little phone cord attached to the back of every box tattled to the marketing guru's that they were getting lots of viewer time, so they got bumped up into premium packages.

Re:A la carte *allowed*?

[Life2Short]

We gave up our big analog dish when we moved in 1999. When we left "a la carte" programming had been available and was still available, dating back to when we originally bought it (1985, I'm sure it was available before then as well). Not only could you pick and choose channels, you could decide to have them for only a month at a time if you liked. So I could call in, give my account number and satellite receiver number (VideoCipher descrambler), and they could activate Cinemax for me for one month because I had read the monthly dish guide and I saw a lot of programming in the upcoming month I wanted to watch. Funny how that was all possible then...

Re:Right Answer, Wrong Reason

[morgan_greywolf]

From your linked article:

Our founding fathers were God-fearing men who understood that for a country to stand it must have a solid foundation; the Bible was the source of this foundation. They believed that God's ways were much higher than Man's ways and held firmly that the Bible was the absolute standard of truth and used the Bible as a source to form our government.

From the Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11:

"The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."

I think Thomas Paine's words are a perfect example that the Founding Fathers were Deists, not Christians;

I would not dare to so dishonor my Creator God by attaching His name to that book (the Bible).
Among the most detestable villains in history, you could not find one worse than Moses. Here is an order, attributed to 'God' to butcher the boys, to massacre the mothers and to debauch and rape the daughters. I would not dare so dishonor my Creator's name by (attaching) it to this filthy book (the Bible).
It is the duty of every true Deist to vindicate the moral justice of God against the evils of the Bible.
Accustom a people to believe that priests and clergy can forgive sins...and you will have sins in abundance.
The Christian church has set up a religion of pomp and revenue in pretended imitation of a person (Jesus) who lived a life of poverty.

Or how about Benjamin Franklin?

As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupt changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and I think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble...."

Still think the Founding Fathers never had Separation of Church and State in mind? How about Madison:

Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.

The real myth is that the United States was founded on Christian principles. It wasn't. This is a lie propogated by people pushing a particular religious and political viewpoint not shared by the vast majority of Americans.