NAACP Opposes A La Carte

Broadcasting and Cable ^ | 3/15/2007 | John Eggerton

[AT7Saluki]

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People has written FCC Chairman Kevin Martin and the other commissioners registering their opposition to a la carte cable pricing.

It was responding to reports that a violence report the commission is preparing to give to Congress suggests TV violence justifies imposing per-channel pricing as a way to give viewers more control over the programming in their homes.

Saying many of its constituents live in communities affected by violence, NAACP Director Hilary Shelton said the FCC needed to review the "negative impact of dramatically reducing the diversity of cable and satellite programs targeting racial and ethnic minorities."

Kevin Martin has been pushing hard for a la carte in Washington and was even making the case to advertisers in a January speech in New York.

[AT7Saluki]

I'm no fan of the so-called panacea that is a la carte. Diversity in programming will certainly be negatively impacted. But what does living in a violent neighborhood have to do with anything?

[nothingnew]

You're adverse to the idea of allowing people to choose what shows they want to buy and have in their homes and leave the rest of the stuff off their cart? Why?

FMCDH(BITS)

[VeniVidiVici]

Diversity in programming will be negatively impacted? Does that mean that channels like this new Logo channel that I found on my dial yesterday wouldn't otherwise exist because nobody would watch it otherwise?

BTW, this new channel, "...is entertainment programming for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered community."

[SampleMan]

Saying many of its constituents live in communities affected by violence, NAACP Director Hilary Shelton said the FCC needed to review the "negative impact of dramatically reducing the diversity of cable and satellite programs targeting racial and ethnic minorities."

This tells me that many cable channels can't cut it on their own. Yes, diversity in programming will be cut initially by a la carte, because a lot of crap that no one wants will go away. However, just like in the rest of the capitalist universe, a la carte will bring about competition for quality programming in existing and new channels.

Why on Earth are you against only paying for what you want?

[Red Badger]

...what does living in a violent neighborhood have to do with anything?

If the pricing is a la carte, they might not get the local channels to see themslves on the 10 o'clock news...........

[AT7Saluki]

For the same reason several big providers refused to bow to the NFL network: cost. The myth is that customer cost will be less. They won't be. ESPNs, USAs, NICKs, will still demand premium prices. The highest rated networks will charge dollars per subscriber and the dreg channels will fade into the ether. You want selection - fine. But don't think anyone's going to be paying a buck a channel and lower their overall bill.

[Rb ver. 2.0]

BET channel will take a huge hit with a la carte pricing.

[ryan71]

What? They should love A La Carte

Jerry Springer
Idol
NBA

What else is there?

[cinives]

When you go to a restaurant, do you want to pay for a dinner that the restaurant delivers to your table, even if you only will eat one item on that plate ?

I have no interest in 80% of the channels on my cable and I know my bill reflects a lot of programming that I would not buy if I had the choice.

Allowing a la carte pricing is getting government out of your home and wallet, and ending a form of corporate welfare.

[cinives]

Since I have zero interest in NFL, golf, espn, mtv, vh1 and the like, my bill would most certainly be greatly reduced. Let the pro sports fans pay for their own programming - I am not interested in subsidizing their habits.

[L98Fiero]

"BET channel will take a huge hit with a la carte pricing."

I like a person who gets down to the crux of the matter and you just nailed it.

[AT7Saluki]

The point is, nobody is going to take a pay cut. ESPN is not going to accept decreasing revenues because it now only has half as many subscribers. It will still charge Provider X the same or MORE. Provider X is not going to reach into it's "pot of gold" and pony up. Who do you suppose gets to absorb the cost?

[Ford4000]

I, for one, am sick and tired of hearing the ESPN is one of the primary reasons for increasing cable costs.

[Vinnie]

I like the idea of a la carte channels.
However, I'm sure the individual prices would be bumped up. The cable Co.s need to make a profit and will price the channels accordingly.
I could dump about 3/4ths or more of the channels I have, easily.
MTV would be first.

[Ford4000]

In your scenario ESPN will eventually have to pay the price because the cable companies cannot afford to subsidise it for long. Customers will see their bill and rightly blame ESPN for the cost of ESPN.

[AT7Saluki]

Sorry. Carriage fees are the number one expense providers have. Guess who headlines the list?

[webstersII]

"Guess who headlines the list?"

I thought it was ESPN.

Who is it?

[Ford4000]

I'm sure ESPN will try to play the bully but it won't work in the long run. You are assuming that the current system will exist unchanged except for the customer billing. In reality, the change will percolate throughout the supply chain as cable companies can no longer cross subsidise.

[AD from SpringBay]

What the heck is it to them? Why should they even be concerned about it?

[AD from SpringBay]

BET channel will take a huge hit with a la carte pricing.

Ok - it makes sense now. I bet Je$$e and $harpton and a few others have their fingers in some stations that were strong-armed into becoming 'diverse' and with ala carte those stations may go away because there is really no demand for the crap they produce.