Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
I've been wishing for this for as long as I can remember. Now that I am paying my own cable bill I want it even more. Why should I pay for channels like Lifetime if I never watch it?
The cable industry really has a choke hold on consumers. I'm glad the FCC is finally doing something right.
They believe that a la carte pricing would make it too expensive to offer less-popular channels that presently are bundled with popular channels.
Of course, nevermind that the channels that are "less-popular" are probably useless beef anyway.
Am I the only one concerned that this appears to be coming about from the efforts to protect Joe Righteous from "harmful" television instead of a desire to protect the consumer from price gouging package deals?
SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
A la carte pricing could be really great (I haven't studied the economics of it, but it sounds good). But it irks me no end that this conclusion is drawn in the context of fighting "indecency" on the air.
Now, I certainly don't want television to become nothing but porn and violence--but the way indecency restrictions work these days is quite ridiculous. Moreover, its only purpose is to push strongly religious-based values as if they were the "one, true way", when our Constitution explicitly forbids the government from so much as suggesting that there might be a "one, true way".
Why not let us make our own decisions about what to watch--and let the networks make their own decisions about what to air?
Dan Aris
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
A person stepping out of the shower is natural, legal and a very real part of millions of people's lives and yet it is "indecent" to show on television. On the other hand, an action sequence with some demon from the pits of hell tearing a person apart in front of their children is fine for a Sunday afternoon movie promotion. I like to watch an occasional sporting event with my kids (11,6,2,2 years old) and have to have a hand on the remote. It would be one thing at 9:00pm, but quite another at 2:00 on Sunday. I would like to let my oldest watch a football game (he is more into it than I am), but you can actually see a response to the flashing explosive movie trailers in my younger kids.
I am frustrated as a parent that the human body and sexuality that is natural, legal, etc...is considered too dirty for television, but antisocial violent behavior that is both illegal and unnatural is "fine for family viewing". It's a strange world we live in!
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
Or the history channel and similar channels will be charged at a higher rate, to be able to survive with fewer viewers?
I'd be more than happy to pay $5 each for the good channels (discovery channels for example, mtv is not an example) instead of paying $30 (or whatever) to have 3 good and 400 shitty channels.
This is an absolutely fantastic idea. The whole "to get the channels you want, you have to take these other ones too" concept is ludicrous. Just imagine if other industries did that...
What if every time you bought a ticket to an NBA game, you were forced to buy one for a WNBA game too? Not fair? Don't like it? Tough.
What if every time you bought an X-Box 360 or Nintendo DS, you were forced to buy an N-Gage, Gizmondo, or Virtual Boy too? Not fair? Don't like it? Tough.
What if every time you went to see a popular movie, say Revenge of the Sith or Harry Potter, you were forced to buy a ticket to something like Gigli or Ashlee Simpson's Undiscovered or the latest Uwe Boll masterpiece? Not fair? Don't like it? Tough.
Consumers generally appreciate having a choice, and hate the feeling of forced decisions, especially ones that don't seem particularly logical ("What? You like to watch CNN and The Sopranos? Well you're sure to love the Competitive Quilting Channel too!")
It's sad that this is being rolled out in the name of "decency", but it's still a good idea.
Andrew Lenahan http://www.starblind.com/
This is such a good idea. Which means it will never happen.
Well, it's not necessarily a good idea, for two reasons.
a) It will mean higher prices.
b) It will mean fewer choices.
Pretty much exactly the opposite of why some people seem to want it. Let me explain.
Right now, you pay what, $30 for 100 channels or whatever your cable company charges for the package you have. Switch to a-la-carte and do you really think any channel is going to allow themselves to be priced for under a buck a month? It's one thing to be included as part of a package, but if you break it down and say "this channel is worth 20 cents, this channel is worth $2", no channel is going to accept being priced on that low end. And the whole point of a-la-carte pricing is to take the power out of the cable company's hands, so it will be the channels themselves that do the pricing.
A lot of channels right now are subsidized by other channels that whatever media conglomerate that owns them requires the cable company to include as part of a package of other, more popular channels. This is how channels like Sundance Channel and BBC America exist. It both helps new channels mature and grow a customer base and it brings prestige and cross-marketing opportunities to the channels' owner. These channels will be gone under a-la-carte pricing, because they will be forced to pay their own way from day one, and they will not be able to command the prices required for them to operate profitably.
What you're going to end up with is a bunch of lowest common denominator, mainstream channels that are as driven by the cable equivalent of "ratings" as the major TV networks are now (in cable's case, those "ratings" would be represented by subscriptions). Is that really a good thing? Not to me, it isn't.
Now, you can argue that it's the free market, blah blah blah, and that's true, but I'd like to point out that it's the free market that made Titanic the #1 movie of all time and Britney Spears the #1 selling music artist of the past few years. Do you really want to be relying on your fellow customers to support the channels you want well enough to keep them afloat on their own?
Now, I'm not saying the current system is perfect; it isn't. It needs major changes, and it is a government-sanctioned monopoly right now from the bottom on up. But one of the good things about the current system, which will be thrown out the window with a-la-carte pricing, is a sort of immunity to mainstream whims that the major networks have to contend with. It's why cable channels can be a little edgier, why they can take more chances in finding and building an audience. You should really be asking yourself why it is that the FCC is recommending this in the name of promoting decency on television - it's not about price. It's about putting out of business channels that do anything outside the mainstream.
Because now parents wont have to pay for more adult-targetted channels like FX and Spike when they just want to give little Timmy access to Discovery and Animal Planet. The current cable paradigm is a pretty good example of market failure - of market forces failing to produce optimal consumer outcomes or even providing coherent and significant choices for the consumer. Somehow I doubt the conservatives will be framing it that way when they announce government intervention.
It should be more economical to buy a package deal than to buy each channel individually.
I'd be happy to pay up to $6 a month for each of the 5 or 6 channels that I watch, rather than $60 per month for the 250 channels that I never watch.
If choice means I get to choose between 250 channels of pure garbage, I guess I don't care so much about giving it up.
I still think the majority of the public will go for the large package deals because many people watch a wide variety of channels, especially families.
Allow? Are they not allowed to sell thier service that way now? I don't want the FCC to 'allow' cable companies to do this, I want the FCC to force cable companies to do this.
Technoli
So true.
After all, it takes a village to raise an idiot...
This is such a good idea. Which means it will never happen.
The underlying idea of A la carte programming seems like a good idea, and will even cost those of us who couldn't care less about sports a LOT less (disgustingly enough, the bulk of your "extended basic" cable bill goes toward subsidizing the sports channels, which cost more than premium channels like HBO and contractually force cable carriers to include them in anything beyond their most basic package).
However, BEWARE of this FCC "ruling" - It counts as little less than an attempted power-grab.
The FCC does not currently have the authority to regulate cable. They can't tell the cable companies to unbundle their offerings, and more importantly, they can't censor cable-only channels on the basis of content. In even looking at this issue, the FCC has bluntly said "we support this extremely popular move, but don't have the authority to make it a reality... But! If congress would just give us a little more power..."
I'll gladly pay a bit more if it means the PTC can't make cable as pablum-like as broadcast TV. I would hope that some day the cable companies would grow a pair and tell the sports networks to take a hike, but in the mean time, I'll take bundled programming over all "child friendly" programming.
A related example to that one is stuff like PBS which is required to be carried and is subsidized by non-profits and by the government. That wouldn't change in this pricing model. PBS could still be subsized and the consumer won't even know it.
Actually, that's how all channels are now. Ratings = more viewers = more advertiser dollars. Actually, I wonder if some channels will actually become FREE in the hopes of selling ads. (I guess that didn't work in newspapers and magazines, but they are cheap.) I know that you are obviously a much better consumer than everyone else, with better tastes. That's because you read Slashdot.Totally off the wall: I am curious what cheap TV programming was never available before, that might become available now.
Tired of the cable companies forcing standardized channel lineups. Wait till the phone companies start coming in with Fiber to the premises. This is when the consumer might actually start to get some leverage here. When we have cable, telephone and satellite companies all competing for your dollars, then we might get a more customizable channel lineup.
http://www.stockmarketgarden.com/
Why on earth does that concern you?
This proposal allows the viewer to decide what is indecent and what is ok.
Everyone, including Joe Righteous, should have a right to do this.
Remember, You do not have a right to impose your values on 'Joe Righeous' any more than he has a right to impose his on you.
Based on upvotes, Ageism is the only "-ism" Slashdotters care about and think isn't SJW
Wow, you're wrong in so, so many ways... You seem to think that stations make all their profit from the cable companies, but that's not just true. They get a lot of revenue from advertising. And offering channels for $0 answers most of your issues. First of all, why can't a channel allow itself to be "sold" for under $1? In fact, many channels might want to be priced at $0 so they have the largest possible viewership. If you could select channels for $0, would you? "[Fledgling] channels will be gone under a-la-carte pricing, because they will be forced to pay their own way from day one, and they will not be able to command the prices required for them to operate profitably." Again, if they got sponsership from another channel with bundles, why would that stop for a-la-carte? They'd still get funding, offer the channel for $0, and the viewership, again, would be the same. Only the people who "opt-out" of these channels won't get them, and they probably would never watch anyways. And finally, you suggest that the only successful channels will be determined by the "lowest common denominator." That's how it is today, buddy. Allowing people to pick their own channels won't change their viewing habits, and no show that already has a large following will suffer. And no show that has a small group of very dedicated fans will suffer, either. What I like about this is that I can make my TV decent. I could finally get rid of all that profane religious garbage, stop my children from being damaged by seeing senseless Disney cartoons, and not have to channel flip by the sound-byte happy conservative news stations :) (Not actually, but I'm trying to get a point across, the road goes both ways).
Moderation: Put your hand inside the puppet head!
This used to puzzle me as well, but the more I thought about it, I came to realize that people don't seem to mind their kids seeing violence as much as sex because they don't actually think their kids will do any of the violent things they see, but they might actually do the sexual things. Certainly there are those who think kids do mimic the violent things they see, and for a very small subset of society, that's true. But, the vast majority of people exposed to violence rarely re-enact it. But, if kids see "natural and legal" sexual behavior, their going to think, "Hey, why can't I do that?" And therin lies the concern about sex in the media.
Two Minus Three Equals Negative Fun -Troy McClure
Everyone is forgetting how and why cable began, it was to offer commercial free premium tv for a subscription. Originally it was never meant to charge for commercial TV. Ted Turner was the last to cave when he ran into financial problems and the cable providers threatened to remove him from cable if he didn't scramble his satellite signal. Channels with commercials should be free or nearly free and supported by the advertisers. I am kind of suprised that Murdoch hasn't started offering all of Fox offerings for free just to boost revenues. But I watch about 10 channels, scifi and most of the history/discovery stuff and news, they are all stuffed with far too many commercials and I'm paying to watch commercials, pretty ridiculous.
On the television in my bedroom, I already have a channel add/delete option on my remote. I delete the majority of the channels, and then I just flip through the ones I like until I find something I want to watch.
As far as indencent content on television goes, I am opposed to censorship. It should be up to the viewer to decide what he or she wants to watch, not some regulatory commission financed by my tax dollars. Also, parents that do not want their children to be exposed to such content should just use the parental controls. If you are extra paranoid, put your children in plastic bubbles and throw away your television sets. Remember that the television is not a babysitter, it is up to the parents to monitor their children's viewing habits if they want to be sure that the shows they are watching are beneficial to their learning. My niece loves to watch Dora the Explorer, and she learns many different things like Spanish, problem solving, and positive social values. I make sure that what she is watching reinforces her understanding of the world, I do not let her watch television without parental supervision.
You have a strange notion of 'Most of the world'. Catholic South America and Islamic countries are more conservative than we are with flesh, and just as liberal with violence (if only we'd read the ratings label on Iraq!). Since Islam is growing faster than the world population, and most parents restrict what their children watch worldwide, there's a good reason to doubt that 'most of the world doesn't think seeing naked people scars the young mind'. In the last few years, we've had Bush's 'surprise' re-election, Al-Qaeda, gay marriage and the French riots. So I ask when will old white people in Europe, Australia and Canada realize they are actually in a global minority representing secular values?
Based on birthrates, the only people having children worldwide are religous conservatives, so it's doubly ironic you chose those words to make fun of us.