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.
What does indecency have to do with this? Am I going to be able to get just the indecent channels now?
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.
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.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
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.
With PVR's now common and soon Video on Demand over broadband it seems to be the next logical step.
You only have to look at how popular recorded TV episodes have become on bittorent sites to see that people these days don't want to sit in front of the TV at prescribed times.
If they want to stop piracy they'll have to provide programming around other people schedules. People have a lot more things to do and are not prepared to fit their lives around their schedule.
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/
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).
Right now there's a TON of crap on TV, and I don't mean 'offensive' I just mean crap (every reality show ever created comes to mind). And if a la carte means that some of the crap will go away for lack of interest, that's fine by me.
But just because there's a minority of interest doesn't mean that a channel will necessarily disappear. It just means that the viewers of that channel will be called upon to donate to the content providers to help keep the channel alive (much like PBS' tele-thons). That's where the real interest will be shown by the viewers of the content.
I mean consider for a moment that not everything on TV should remain on TV. When a business starts up, it needs to be able to maintain some market share and operate within its revenue streams. When the revenue stream disappears for lack of customer interest or access, the business dies. In our current situation these "other channels", like the struggling businesses, would be dead or dying if it weren't for subsidization by the giant channel packages. I think that's not necessarily good because anytime someone wants to throw in a niche channel that will have 5 viewers, the cost of support for the whole thing necessarily increases to take on that additional burden. It's TV socialism.
I'm also not saying we shouldn't have any packages at all, just not 600 channels in one bundle (though that could certainly still be an option - as long as it's not the only option). For example, with most cable/sat providers, HBO and others come in packages of 3 to 5 or more channels of that type of content. You get all or nothing, but that's ok because you're paying for movie channels, not for some eclectic mix of different content much of which you're not interested in.
Only time will tell if the FCC tries to take this too far or just leaves well-enough alone by opening the door for a la carte.
...and that's the way the cookie crumbles.
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.
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.
Please mod me 1 or troll. It's where the truth is these days, even on Slashdot. Beware the power of moderators everywh
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...
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
I'm shocked to see how many people are blindly in approval of this. Think "big picture" and think "long term"... There are plenty of channels that I watch on occassion or very unpredictably (like TNT when they have a sporting event I want to watch). Do I want to pay what they'll charge (noone's even said what an individual channel would even cost yet) to watch one or two shows a month? Sure, there are a handful of channels that are "must haves", but out of the rest in the package, there are a TON of them that are "on occassion" viewing. How pissed will you be when owners of channels shuffle popular shows between their channels just to raise funds on the less popular channels? If sales of Discovery Kids is low, who is to stop Discovery Channel from moving Mythbusters over there to increase sales? In the long run, ala-carte will probably end up costing most of us MORE (due to increased fees), and we're going to be upset when we can't watch half the shows we used to because they get shuffled to less popular channels. Throw in the death of many of the "fringe" interest shows and you end up with satelite/cable being just another Network TV paradise of reality shows all vying for more mass viewership instead of quality programming.
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.
Just saw the probable pricing for some of these channels. ESPN currenty charges the cablecos about 2.50 per customer in a package deal from their owners. If they go separate they will be looking for 12-17.00 per month. I suggest be very careful what you ask for as you may get it. And it will cost a lot more not just a little. The popular channels know they are popular and will charge accordingly.
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
Comment removed based on user account deletion
a) It will mean higher prices.
b) It will mean fewer choices.
You forgot one..
c) It will suck
Think of this: there are channels out there that built their viewer-base through popularity. (FoodTV, Discovery) How did they get popular? People could tune in and check it out because they already had the channel. How will that work if people only get certain channels? Will there be a preview option? How do you know if any of the other channels are interesting? What if a channel kind of gets out of "focus" for you? I thought I would love having the Speed channel, but it is mostly crap now - NASCAR, American Chopper knockoffs, NASCAR. blech. I am glad I have it because I can catch something interesting every once in a while, but if I had to choose whether or not to pay for it, I probably wouldn't.
I have been channel-surfing or have seen something in the guide that made me stop and watch it, sometimes on a channel I would never watch. Sometimes I am in the mood to watch a dog show! But I don't think I'd pay for Animal Planet. But I guess I am not "normal". I don't have 30 different shows that I follow religiously. If I miss a show that I do like - oh well. One thing I wish they would do is if you buy a channel, they give you a free re-run channel so you can catch things you miss.
But the big point that some people are missing is that you probably will still be able to buy your tier channel packages, they will most likely just add on the ala carte channels as an option. And probably a relatively expensive one too. If the cable companies don't want you to use this option, they will make sure that you don't. I do think it is a great idea, in theory. But I think that the media companies will make sure that it isn't so attractive. They can then comply with the gov (who they are clearly in bed with) and still keep doing what they are doing.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
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.