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."
Television is still mostly paid for by commercials. Any channel not generating much viewership isn't generating much sales. Either that, or the target audience doesn't buy things as much.
Either way, a la carte would end up looking exactly the same...except probably with less variety, since channels that are currently not competing would start.
Of course, I'm with the majority, so it'd be great for me. USA, Cartoon Network, Sci-Fi Channel, and Comedy Central are my channels, and I know that they're all pretty popular. Then again...I wonder what's more popular. It could lead to more of that reality-tv crap infesting my channels. There are already full channels that run nothing else.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
I've never ordered cable or satellite because there are only a half dozen channels I care about. I'll take the 6 channels I like and they can charge me 6 bucks a month. For an extra dollar I'll take the university channels. If they want to charge more, well I will continue to abstain from purchasing their product.
Since I've upgraded to Digital TV OTA, I now get a music video channel, and 8 PBS channels -- amongst the others. I could care less about cable unless they want to give me the product I want to buy. Still I think paying for COMMERCIAL television is retarded, but then I don't buy bottled water either.
Naturally, but this might also point to cable companies' desire to stop pushing everything over coaxial at once and move towards a TV over IP system. It's probably cheaper to gain bandwidth by pushing out new cable boxes to everyone than digging and laying new lines. For my parents, who only want one or two international channels, this would probably be a good move.
I hope that it cuts down on the number of folks around the country watching crappy tv once they have to shell out cash for it specifically. If moms and dads aren't willing to pay for MTV anymore, we might actually see the Viacom monopoly start to crumble, fingers crossed. Maybe folks will even start tuning into PBS more often! Yay! Quality entertainment, despite the terrible telethons.
Yeah, you could be a complete dick and look at it that way, or you could price structure it like:
Cable will cost you $XX servicing fee, that includes YOU CHOICE of Y channels, whatever ones you like (I guess they could have different pricing based on 'premium' channels so maybe you get X premium and Y not so premium channels... whatever)... then any extra channels you pay per channel some small amount.
How would that not work to everyone's advantage? I live in Australia and cable penetration is much, much lower than in the states... because we've got pretty a ok free to air really... but mostly because for the base cable package I get a couple of channels I like plus a WHOLE LOT I couldn't care less about, while missing out on others I would like, but I have to purchase a whole other package on top of the basic one to get them... also getting a whole slew of other crud channels that I don't want.
So, if I could instead pay the basic amount price and get the same number of channels, but the ones I actually WANT, I'd actually sign up to cable.
They'd get another customer
And there are many more like me.
Agreed.
ESPN is a shining example of why bundled packages don't work. ESPN is one of the most expensive channels for cable and sat companies to offer. This is, in part, due to the huge costs associated with the acquisition of broadcasting rights for various sporting events by ESPN.
It is compounded by ESPN's growth model, which is to spawn more specialized sporting channels that they then shuffle semi-major sporting events to. This was done with ESPN-2 and is now being done with ESPN-U. (see here) So if I want more of the specialized channels *I* want, I end up paying more for ESPN channels I could care less about.
The icing on the cake is this - about seven years ago, I paid over $600 for an ATSC/DVB-S receiver in order to pick up HD stations. The sat provider that I went with offered several HD channels for free. Several more channels were added to the HD package over the years, but the cost remained the same. This continued until ESPN-HD arrived. Suddenly, I was asked to pay a small fee to continue to watch all of these channels.
I subscribed to it for a while, but why? Most of the programming on ESPN-HD was simply upconvered NTSC analog programming. So I dumped it. Kept my sat service for a few more months then dumped it completely. Now all I get are local channels, TBS, WGN and Discovery that come free with my cable company's digital cable package.
Both my cable co and my former sat company bombard me with offers for HD PVRs and several months of free service. Why? All of it except for one or two channels is nothing but junk to me. The only way for me to pick and choose is to get a C-band sat, which my HOA would never approve.
So in the end, this cartoon from the CSMonitor sums it all up...
ESPN accounts for approximately 1/3 of the entire cost of expanded basic cable programming. This is because ABC/Disney FORCES cable companies to cary every ABC channel, every ESPN channel, every disney variant or none at all. ABC/Disney can go F@!# themselves because I don't want to watch any of their content, yet because they are one big company offering content, they can force cable companies to carry channels very few people watch (like ABC News Now, a cable news channel that nobody wants and that cable companies are being forced to carry when they renew their ESPN content agreements)
There are basically just a few companies that own the vast majority of content on the cable channel lineup. They are:
GE--NBC, Telemundo, MSNBC, Bravo and the Sci Fi Channel.
Time Warner--The WB Television Network, CNN, HBO, Cinemax, Cartoon Network, TBS, TNT
ABC/Disney--ABC Television Network, ESPN, The Disney Channel, SOAPnet, A&E and Lifetime
Viacom--Music Television, Nickelodeon, VH1, BET, Comedy Central, (and until spun off last year, CBS Television Network, UPN, Showtime)
Scripps--HGTV, Food Network
News Corp--Fox, National Geographic and FX,
There are very few channels these companies do not own. Forcing these companies to allow consumers to choose what they watch will give them less incentive to conglommerate and force feed mediocre content down our throats. You know, cable companies have to spend quite a bit of money on their plant to expand the number of channels they offer. By forcing cable companies to carry channels nobody wants, content companies are increasing cable bills by more than just the cost of the content.
I've been researching the cable industy looking into IPTV, and I have to say, there are more layers of evil than you would imagine in this industry. If you think cable companies suck--and for the most part, they do--the content companies suck even more.