Slashdot Mirror
FCC Head Supports Ala Carte Cable
MikeyTheK writes "PC Magazine Reports that Kevin Martin, chairman of the FCC, supports ala carte cable.
In a letter to several minority groups on Wednesday, Martin said "While I believe all consumers would benefit from channels being sold in a more a la carte manner, minority consumers, especially those living in Spanish speaking homes, might benefit most of all,". He goes on to argue "Cable companies act as gatekeepers into the programming allowed by the expanded basic cable package, preventing independent content producers from reaching viewers,", citing the example of Black Family Television, which was forced to go online-only because cable operators refused to carry it, even after it reached 16 million homes."
We think we can make a ton more cash by charging for each channel extra. Basically, what we're gonna do is reduce the nominal fee by a good 20 percent, cut channels in half and if you want anything but the propaganda, you'll pay extra.
We think that the average household will want about 80% of the channels they got today, generating about 120-130% of the revenue of today.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Why do I need to pay for others to have 50 sport channels? The SciFi (et al) channel works just fine for me, I don't want to have ESPN; which by talking to the cable companies is one of the most expenive "free" channels out there.
WHy is the ridiculous?
If I get 1/20th the content, I should pay 1/20th the price.
The market would drive it there eventually.Assuming it applied to cable and sat satellite and fiber.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The problem with a-la-carte pricing is that it makes it impossible for new networks to get enough subscribers to start up. Think about it - how many of us would personally watch LOGO, the Gay/Lesbian Network? Some, but not enough for it to survive without charging an insane amount per subscriber. How about a network like the old TechTV, or even G4? Most of us would, but most consumers wouldn't. Even networks that would appeal to everyone would have a tough time gaining ground once it went into effect. Would you call in to purchase a new network? Not unless it had a show you really, really wanted. You can make an argument that it should be based on who wants each network, and that you shouldn't pay for networks you won't watch, but I'd argue that package programming keeps the price down for all networks.
I'd be happy to pay $1 per month per channel. I'd probably end up getting half as many channels as I do now while paying the same amount, but they'd be the [i]correct[/i] channels. I'd drop 30 channels I never watch and add 2 that I would.
Or, if they want to price the channels competitively, I'd be willing to work with that, too. I'll pay $4 per month for ESPN if it's so expensive, but I'm going to pick it up each August and drop it each January so I can just get college football. At $1/month for ESPN I wouldn't bother.
This doesn't make it hard for new channels to break in, either. Dish Network is always having "free preview weekends" for higher-tier cable and premium content. If you want to launch a new cable channel and get people interested, you might have to (*gasp*) give it away for free and rely only on your advertisement income or your startup capital before you gather a critical mass of viewers. Then, you can add a low monthly fee, and scale it up as your popularity continues to climb. Sounds fair to me.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
Not to mention that the public has paid for much of the infrastructure in the form of tax breaks and public infrastructure allotments. They use our public easements, too. You build on the easements you serve the people. Period. Want to fuck the people? Go find your own easements.
I thought Fox, ABC, CBS, and NBC were the (mostly) White Family Channels.
The Black Family Channel just happens to reveal their target demographic in their name.
It's nothing but crumpled porno and Ayn Rand.
The ACLU defends Klansmen's rights to march protesting the "black vote" just as adamantly as it does African American people's right to vote.
Other than that, keep rocking the suburbs, the white american male is soooo discriminated against... boo hoo.
Except that's not how it would work. Right now you basically pay for the marquee channels in each package and get the rest of the channels free as a bonus. If channels were un-packaged you wouldn't get HBO for 1/20th the price of a premium package. Instead you'd get HBO for 1/2 the price of the premium package and all of the other channels for something more than 1/20th. The total cost of putting it back together would be higher than what you pay now.
Why? Simple economics.
Let's say there's a cable package that has 20 channels including G3, HBO, and ESPN. Slashdot readers are willing to pay $20 for G3 but only $1 for ESPN and $0 for any other channel. Sports nuts are willing to pay $20 for ESPN, but only $1 for G3 and $0 for any other channel. And families are willing to pay $20 for HBO, but $0 for any other channel.
Right now the cable company could charge $20 for that package and all 3 groups would buy it. Everybody pays $20 and gets 20 channels.
If forced to offer it a la carte the cable company wouldn't sell HBO for $1. They'd sell it for $20 in order to capture the family market, who is willing to pay that much for it. Same for ESPN -- they can sell it for $20 and capture the jock market. Same for G3 - they can sell it for $20 and capture the techie market. Now everyone is worse off. The families, techies, and jocks are still paying $20 for cable, but getting fewer channels for their troubles.
You can question the empirical assumptions -- maybe the pricing breakdown isn't that extreme -- but bundling of goods has long been a means to allow people who value different parts of a package differently to enjoy the package for one price.
This is all BS and anyone with half a brain knows it. Cable monopolies are not interested in providing consumer choice. If such an "A-La-Carte" system were ever put in place, you'd get 5 channels a month for $60 instead of 200. Sure, they'd be the 5 you want, but would YOU pay $60 for just those lousy 5 channels? They'll kill this idea just like CableCARD...Speaking of, how is that going these days?
Too bad there's no in-between option, where to get the first channel it costs half of your current cable bill, and then each channel costs 7%-10% of your total now. That would mean that if you watch more than half your channels, stick with your current service. If you're getting cable for only 5 of the channels, then you'll save money and the cable company doesn't have to pay the channel for the subscriber.
The difference is that it's fine for executives to be racist as long as it's favoring a minority, not the majority.
So if all I wanted was HBO I get it for half price? Sounds good.
If all I wanted was a couple of the other channels I'd get it 20% of the current price? Sounds good too.
Sure the people who want all the channels lose their current subsidy from everyone else, but there's probably about 3 such people.
From your analysis of ESPN, it seems like you're saying that with a la carte cable, the customer would be able to pay $9 for ESPN if they did not want ESPN 2. To me, that is exactly the appeal of a la carte cable. I'm not expecting to pay 3/40th for three of the channels in a 40 channel bundle, but rather something less than 100%. It would be cheaper, and I don't lose anything because the other 37 channels are just noise to me.
Also, the other part of your argument sounds like you're saying that the cost of transition would be high since cable companies are committed to the bundling system. This is exactly why government intervention would be needed, since the high cost discourages companies from making the transition on their own.
I would be willing to pay more if I could pick which channels made the money. I don't like knowing that a bit of my money goes to support a channel whose values I despise.
Also, ala carte does not necessarily mean that there be _no_ bundling. It gives users a choice to be bundled or not. You cable companies can continue to offer a "basic tier" at the lower price and let people decide if they want to pay the same amount for four channels instead of 40. It also ensures a certain number of subscribers still bundle. However, outrageous prices for ala carte would have to be prohibited to prevent cable companies from forcing bundling down subscribers throats.
Hell, the only reason I have cable TV is because I have cable broadband and have to pay the same amount regardless of whether I have the TV coverage or not. So, I chose the 'value' choice of getting something instead of nothing. Assume basic cable costs $20/month. Assume it costs $20/month for broadband. I don't like having to pay $40/month without TV, but I would be willing to pay $30/month without TV. The pricing now feels like coercion. Why not DSL? Because I don't have a landline, and my 'hood has switched to SiO, where telephony is shoved down my throat.
As you're explaining all this anyway, would you mind explaining _why_ its the same with/without TV for broadband?
What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.