Posted on 02/18/2006 9:18:36 PM PST by Theodore R.
Cable Choice Now by L. Brent Bozell III Posted Feb 19, 2006
The "cable choice" initiative continues to gather momentum. Increasing numbers of public policy organizations, political leaders, and even telecommunications companies are endorsing the very simple concept that consumers should take and pay for only that which they want on cable television, rather than having to continue subsidizing programming they find offensive or just plain lousy.
As to be expected, the cable industry is fighting back, with everything it's got. The problem is that it has very little, and is now reduced to argumentation that flirts with the bizarre.
First the industry claimed that technology limitations prevented cable choice. This was proven to be false with the arrival of powerful new digital set-top boxes. Then they argued that cable choice actually threatened the public interest because it would ruin programming diversity: Networks cancelled would mean networks bankrupted. High School Economics 101 answered that: How would the public interest be threatened if the public wasn't interested enough to subscribe to The Dune Buggy Network?
Then someone recommended "family tiers" as a compromise. Rather than pure cable choice, the cable companies could bundle a special family-friendly grouping of networks and offer them to families alarmed by the filth being put in front of their children. The cable industry balked, said the technology didn't exist, which technology they miraculously discovered a couple of weeks later when Congress threatened them with cable choice legislation.
Perhaps the most cynical response from the cable industry was its announcement last fall that it would spend a whopping $250 million to teach parents to be more responsible in the wake of Hollywood's excesses by learning how to block offensive networks. Their generosity was limited, however. Parents still would be required to subsidize those networks through their monthly cable bills.
Their loudest argument all along was that cable rates would increase with competition, and pointed to a 2004 Federal Communications Commission (FCC) study that said so. It being discovered that said report was funded by the cable giant Comcast, new FCC head Kevin Martin called for a new, independent review. The results have just been released. Cable rates could go down as much as 13 percent with cable choice.
Besides which, since when did the cable industry ever care about high cable rates for consumers? While the Consumer Price Index increased in the five-year period from 1999 to 2003 at an annual rate of 2.4 percent (or an aggregate hike of 12.6 percent), basic cable rates rose at an annual rate of 7.5 percent (or 43.5 percent in the aggregate).
The cable industry is officially out of gas. Or are they?
They now have a new line of attack. And I think we should hear them out, don't you? The Oxygen network is one of those that has complained that cable choice will put it out of business, a proposition certain to send shudders down the spines of its dozens of fans. Now Oxygen Media chairman Geraldine Laybourne is back with another argument: "TV viewers don't know what they want to watch until it's there for them as an option."
The silly, ignorant consumer. Just what will he, or she, be missing with cable choice? Ms. Laybourne tells us, and I swear to God I'm not making this up: "Who would have known to subscribe to Bravo to watch 'Queer Eye for the Straight Guy' prior to it airing?"
Laybourne is using an awfully odd show as an example, the one program that's likely to cause more viewers to opt out of Bravo than any other, unless the consumer is attracted to this show's brand of ribald references, like wondering whether home stains were caused by male bodily fluids.
But Laybourne didn't need to stop at "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy." Thanks to her industry's commitment to diversity, and options, 18 million cable households -- check your dial, this could mean you -- also now are subsidizing Viacom's gay channel Logo, another network they'd never otherwise have the forced opportunity to enjoy with cable choice.
On the weekend before Valentine's Day, Logo premiered a new documentary called "Beautiful Daughters." It's about the first all-transgendered production of the play "The Vagina Monologues."
The FCC has given parents concrete evidence that giving cable choice to consumers is feasible and affordable, despite all the cable industry's millions in lobbying and buckets of excuses. Sen. John McCain, who claims to have the support of 40 national organizations, is offering legislation to mandate it. It's time for the cable moguls to offer some version of unbundled programming for viewers who want it. No more excuses. No more dodges. And please, no more arguments like Ms. Laybourne's.
Mr. Bozell is president of the Media Research Center.
What makes anyone think that Congress could pull this off when they can't get rid of PBS and NPR?
"McCain might increase his potential lead for the 2008 nomination if he could get this enacted. I think that it is something people do want."
Might be true about the cable choices - but not so sure too many are interested in McCain getting the nomination!
I think this would be GREAT....and also, maybe they should include PBS and NPR in it....make people PAY to watch it...we really only watch about 10 of the 80+ stations on our REGULAR Cable.....(too much time freeping!)
People will end up paying the same amount they do now, and will really only be blocking the channels they don't want. Most TV's already do this.
The market has already set the price of what people are willing to pay for what they ~are~, so the market will adjust back to that price.
dang. s/b "what they ~are~ getting..."
I would think SOME of what's shown would STOP being shown/offered, because people would NOT opt to pay for it....eh?
The savings on a per channel basis are tiny, I believe.
I suspect the problem is that cable providers get paid for all their stupid info-mercial channels, pay very little for others and have to pay ridiculous amounts for popular, but narrow venues like MTV, and Lifetime. (Dish network has dropped some of these completely when they feel the costs are out of control, and introduced interesting, often much better, competitors.)
I'd say introduce choice, and let the market decide who survives. Make sure the all channels that are available to presented to views.
I also thought cable wasn't supposed to have commercials, how come they have just as many as regular tv?
I agree. Whose pockets are being lined by cable providers?
I was born in this country, the USA. TV is supposed to be free here, unlike the UK.
I will pay for German mineral water, and DSL or cable internet, but I will not pay to breathe air or for TV.
Some things are supposed to be free. Especially if they take up your time and rot your brains.
but it's something the feds have no business mandating.
It could be a good business move for a smart cable company, but the feds should keep their nose out of it.
But that would be like asking ted kennedy to not be a fat hypocrite.
BUMP
I only watch SoapNet and Fox, don't need all the rest. ;-)
I'd love it if I didn't have to subsidize CNN, the Sundance Channel, HBO, Bravo, and other leftist channels I don't watch.
PLEASE put Oxygen channel out of buisness!
I hate to say this...but I think most Americans have 12 favorite channels...and the other 200 choices just sit there on the dial...never used. After you list the "big three", Fox, Fox News, ESPN, the history channel, Discovery...and toss in four more...thats really all you need. Of course, if you had teenagers in the house...add another six...but nobody is watching 100 or 200 channels. Lets face it...once a year...I'll wake up at 3am and can't sleep...and I need to watch Bankok tigers mating, or watch a interview of a Bulgarian country and western singer...but thats awful rare.
When I'm in Germany, I usually just drink the tap water. It tastes better.
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.