Posted on 12/04/2005 9:47:08 AM PST by Zuben Elgenubi
WASHINGTON -- Trying to preserve their electronic pulpits, the nation's religious broadcasters find themselves in the unusual position of fighting an effort by anti-indecency groups to thwart channels offering racy programming.
The issue involves a debate over whether cable companies should continue offering subscribers mainstream and niche channels in bundles, or let them buy what they want on an "a la carte" basis.
(Excerpt) Read more at post-gazette.com ...
As in anything else, laws will be slithered around and the only ones losing out will be the religous channels.
> Is there an actual effort to allow a la carte
> satellite television programing?
Yes. Although the FCC is not positioned to require it,
a lot of customers want it - and I've already fired
Dish over it.
If all you want is FoxNews, HGTV, and either want or
don't mind a bunch of Christian channels, look at
skyangel.com
Prior threads:
Conservative groups push à la carte cable menus
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1533297/posts
A la carte pricing urged for cable TV
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1530642/posts
FCC May Endorse Cable a la Carte, In a Policy Shift
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1530249/posts
The historical objection by providers was the labor
expense in manually or phone-handling each customer's
configuration. Restricting alc customers to on-screen
or web setup makes that go away.
New set-top boxes might be required for cable, and
posssibly new boxes and/or smart cards for DBS. Make
those customers who want alc pay for them.
These channels are supported by advertising revenues. HBO is supported by subscription fees. Some of the religious broadcasters have already run subscription trials. Abject failures all. Your claims of subscription underwriting are unfounded. ESPN has branding and viewership, thus commanding hefty advertising fees. "Bobs All Winter Sports Network" has no branding.
Not really. These evangelical made for TV "ministries" can buy a time slot on any channel (which they do). It's like an infomercial. That's why you see them on at off hours, sunday mornings, and early mornings on weekdays. It cheap, dead air time.
Well then, they either purchase time to broadcast, get subscriptions or fall by the wayside. This is a tough, changing market.
Personnally, I don't like subsidizing channels like VH-1 with my subscription, although I don't object to Mr Robinson. If both VH-1 and Pat Robertson fall by the wayside in the process, getting rid of VH-1 would be a step in the right direction. VH-1 recruits, Pat preaches to the choir.
More red herrings. The phone service would not require a box. Any odious programs are the one's you pay for.
One size fits all is an elitist system whether it's in the Soviet Union, the PRC, at NPR, in HillaryCare or coming into my tv.
Thank you Boundless for your post and links.
What ever happened to just skipping programs that you don't want to watch. This whole thing is a gigantic cluster f*ck. I'm already paying too much for basic cable.
Our monthly fees must be subsidizing the mediocrity of TV.
What ever happened to not paying for something you don't use or don't want?
I;m in business. If I try to swing a deal with a customer that ties in the availability of one product based upon the price of another product, it's illegal. An illegal tie in.
Therein is the catch-22. Subscription services are under no obligation to make air time available. Hence you never see cross promotionals on HBO for Starz-Encore or Showtime-TMC. Advertising Contracts that currently exist will have to be re-negotiated. And very importantly, exemptions for "news" and sports will go away. The ratings icons and associated symbols appear for 15 seconds at the beginning of all rated programming. Sports, news, commercials, promotions and unedited movies with a Motion Picture Association of America rating that are aired on premium cable channels are exempt from these ratings.
The industry is much larger than just America: Cable systems are operating in every state of the United States and in many other countries, including Austria, Canada, Belgium, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland.
http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/csgen.html
> What ever happened to just skipping programs that
> you don't want to watch.
Most TVs, and cable/sat set-top boxes have parental
controls to lock-out objectionable channels. And it
is easy to ignore the stuff never watched (e.g. all
the sports channels here & most of the music).
The real issue for many (including me), is that we
couldn't get a bundle that excluded content we objected
to paying for, such as:
- PBS
- Agenda/bias/spin "news" channels (e.g. CNN, MSNBC)
- Lefty commercial channels (e.g. Sundance)
- Lefty university bilge channels
I told Dish to call back when they get a'la carte.
The providers may figure out that there are a lot of
customers who want this, and that offering it will
also make the populist politicians stand down.
Don't expect the average alc configuration to cost
less than typical bundles today. It will, however,
give you control, and keep your money away from the
channels advocating your destruction.
Whatever happened to not over-regulating business?
The deal is it doesn't cost the cable company twice as much money to give you twice as many channels. It costs about the same. Thats why they find it more profitable to keep the cost high and increase the number of channels. If you think that introducing a la carte is going to make it so that instead of getting 200 channels for $40/mo, you could now just get the disney channel and fox news for 40 cents a month, you're going to end up very disappointed. Whats going to happen is that you're going to end up getting the disney channel and fox news for $35/month, and if you want 10 or 15 channels, you're going to be paying $45, and the 200 channels that you used to get for $40 is going to now cost $80. And maybe some channel you like (chances are some rleigious channels might be hit by this) isn't going to be carried anymore because not enough people feel like paying $1/month especially for it, and now that the cable company doesn't have so much of its bandwidth eaten up by 100 money losing channels, they're going to be using it for more pay per view (incl pornography).
This is the wrong horse to be fighting for. Go into the menu of your cable box or tv and disable the channels that offend you. Or use that V-chip that the government made everyone pay for the last time peoiple got up in arms about tv even though nobody uses it. Push your legislature and local officials for some cable company competition to drive the prices down.
The phone companies are going to offer ala carte by their own choice. No regulation involved. They're desperate to compete with the cabal CABAL. So they are going to tap into the great, unwashed group of people who think subsidizing content that disintegrates society
I'm not adovating over-regulating business. One size does not fit all. We will have more options and chances are, you will get the system you like and so will I. I will pay for what I want, including not paying for content I find offense.
Mr. Martin outlined numerous possible approaches to the problem, including:
• Creating family-friendly program tiers that don't bundle channels like Nickelodeon with others that air racier content;
• Allowing subscribers to buy channels individually with their choices priced accordingly;
• Making basic and expanded cable service adhere to the same indecency rules currently reserved for broadcast networks.
The real issue for many (including me), is that we couldn't get a bundle that excluded content we objected to paying for, such as... I want a telephone service that does not charge me for a universal service charge (that I do not want to pay), and does not charge me a tax to fund the war of 1812 (that I would pay for on an ala carte basis). I also want a telephone service that guarantees that I will NEVER have to listen to crappy elevator hold music, and fine any company that puts this offensive content on MY phone line. I also demand that they take the alphabet off of the buttons, because someone told my children they could call 1-800-SEXMEUP. It is for the children.
The providers may figure out that there are a lot of customers who want this, and that offering it will also make the populist politicians stand down. Just exactly who is going to pay for this overhaul of an industry? Technical feasibility is very different from implementing this on a national and global scale. I would rather the marketplace drive the implementation. If anyone does not like the package, they are not required to buy it. That simple.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.