Conservative groups push à la carte cable menus

AP via Boston.com ^ | December 3, 2005 | By Jennifer C. Kerr

[cloud8]

At least 2 companies break rank, express support for options

WASHINGTON -- Conservative groups love the idea of letting television viewers pay for only the channels they want on cable and are happy it's back on the table in Washington, where lawmakers and regulators are fed up with raunchy television.

While the cable industry generally loathes the notion of an à la carte pricing system, at least one cable company and a potentially big cable competitor have embraced it.

À la carte would allow cable subscribers to pick and pay for individual channels rather than being forced to buy packages. A parent, for example, could pick Nickelodeon and the Cartoon Network -- and not have to take MTV or other channels they may find objectionable as part of a bundled package.

[tsali]

It is about time everyone did not have to carry MTV and all that other crap that is included ---like LINK and Gore's baby Station

[BlazingArizona]

In a free market isn't the corporation entitled to offer whatever package deals they want without government regulation? Dell doesn't have to sell individual hard drives if they don't want to - they are free to focus on selling complete systems if they choose.

You would have a point if we got our TV by subscription over the Internet, which would allow us to choose freely among packages or individual channels offered in open competition.

But that's not how we get cable. The single pipe coming into your house (which probably includes your Internet feed) is a natural monopoly. If we don't like SuckCable's menu of packages, we can't magically opt for BetterCable instead unless we were to move into their service area.

[TomGuy]

The biggest challenge may be coming soon via electric companies. They are developing the technology to provide television and Internet through normal electrical outlets. Their Internet speed is said to be many times faster than cable highspeed.

In some areas SBC offers satellite, DSL Internet and phone at much less than the individual providers can.

The problem with future development and competition is existing laws and regulations that have prevented that.

[Tax-chick]

Highly probable. But at least it would limit your reception to your chosen channels, which would be more convenient and safer if there are things you don't want your children to see.

[BureaucratusMaximus]

Buh bye CNN, MSNBE, CNBC, Lifetime, Oxygen, The Commie Channel, etc....

And MTV, VH1, BET, and Bravo. Everything else can stay.

[MineralMan]

"All the negative things about "a la cart" have to do with losing the packages -like the difficulty for new channels to get started.

Why can't they still have packages at current prices for those who want them but also have by the channel prices?"

---

They can. And they will. Most consumers won't bother to pick through the channels. It's a PITA.

One of the first group of channels to disappear, by the way, will be the religious channels. Already almost nobody watches them, but they're on the cable, thanks to requirements that local on-air programming must be included in basic cable lineups.

So, they fire up lots of low-power stations, all fed via satellite with the same programming. Since they have a local transmitter, the cable company is obligated to carry their programming. Fun stuff.

Here's an interesting little experiment. See if you can pick up any of your local religious channels with an antenna on your set. Odds are you can't. Their local transmitter is a very low power unit, designed to barely meet the requirements for local broadcasting. It's funny.

Do a la carte, and all of these little stations will go bye-bye instantly.

[Landru]

"Buh bye CNN, MSNBE, CNBC, Lifetime, Oxygen, The Commie Channel, etc..."

Bingo, Doc.

The days of forced subsidizing the Liberal-Socialist misfits who could never make it on their own will be all over with this, post haste.

The consumer will finally be the "judge" & y'all know what that'll mean.
The death penalty.

What'll be really facinating to track though?
The *careers* Hollyweird's Liberal-Socialist shills & apoligists once they're past behavior's subject to those they tried BS'g over the past decade, as cable was coming into its own.

People like Chris Mathews, Tim Robbins (& his bag) and Kieth Olberman -- to name but 3 -- will likely find themselves unemployable; hence, permanently unemployed. :o)

...whadda shame. ;^)

[ElPatriota]

I am also for choices BUT cable/satellite companies know that if they don't "package" the product, a lot of garbage channels would go down the drain due to insufficient support... and after all, they want to offer "choices" for all the freaks/degenerates out there. And I will bet you, if we were to pay for chosen channels (out of package), they price per channels would pretty high.

It would be nice to have packages by the amount of channels.. say 20 channel package, or 40 channel package. As well as the regular packages (basic, premium, gold... whatever)

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

It isn't just objectionable channels but things I have no interest in. Like any of the sports channels. Or any of the shopping channels. Or most of the music channels.

There are maybe a dozen channels I watch with maybe another dozen that I may watch one show a month. Sure I can and do block them but I would prefer to be able to substitute a channel that I want rather then just filter out what I do not want.

[diverteach]

The real savings will be from having the remote control batteries lasting longer by not having to flip through as many channels.

[TalBlack]

"But they're not getting any from us, with the current setup."

Exactly. My 55" TV is hooked up to a DVD player. I MIGHT think about cable or sattelite if I can cherry-pick the stations. Watching the fast degradation of the culture is otherwise too depressing.

[Tax-chick]

LOL! I don't really want cable, because when we have it, I watch TV more than is productive (instead of FReeping more than is productive ...). So with the current setup, I can say, "We don't really want all these channels ..." and if they change to "a la carte," I can say, "Well, it doesn't cost any less than it did before!"

[MineralMan]

Actually, I want MORE channels, not less. I want to be able to receive the local news in the town where my parents live. I'd like to be able to get Moscow television whenever I want, to see what's happening when things are going on there and to keep my Russian active.

When news is breaking in Pittsburgh, I want to be able to tune in to local coverage there. You get the idea.

Eventually, all that will be available through internet feeds, but it's not there yet. I want that stuff on my big TV in the living room, anyhow, and I can't do that right now.

I don't want fewer channels. I want MORE choices.

[TomGuy]

The cable companies can still offer their Basic and Extended cable packages

If the ala carte happens, it will probably force consumers into digital, and that will allow cable providers to charge 'for the converter box'. Some cable basic/extended/expanded are still analog. (Mine is with 70 channels). To go ala carte, the cable co could only do that through digital service or with an old analog channel box. Digital is computer operated at the office, so selecting and deselecting is just a matter of entering channels on a computer screen. Analog channel selection would require filters and individually adjusted selection boxes -- and that could make the 'installation' fairly expensive.

[cloud8]

> All the negative things about "a la cart" have to do with losing the packages -like the difficulty for new channels to get started.

Good point. A gift to MSM, and darn near impossible for the fledgling newcomers (sniff, poor Al Gore).

[NewCenturions]

Excellent idea! I DON'T want 'my' MTV!!

[Senator Bedfellow]

For their trouble, they will get charged a premium price for each channel, bringing their total to just about the same as they're paying now. In fact, if the cable companies don't like the idea, they'll make it more expensive to have a la carte programming.

Pretty much, although it's not really the cable/satellite companies that don't like a la carte programming so much - it's really the networks themselves that don't like it, because they use the revenues from their big, popular channels to subsidize narrower, more specialized channels. A&E pays for the Biography channel and History International channel. The Discovery Channel pays for things like Discovery Health and the Military Channel.

Really, one of two things will happen - either those specialty channels will just evaporate and disappear for lack of interest (along with some of the stations that people here dislike for whatever reason), or the price of those "flagship" channels will be set high enough that you're effectively paying for niche channels anyway, whether you subscribe or not - it'll be a package in everything but name, only instead of having a channel you pay for but never watch, you'll have a channel that you pay for but can't watch.

[SolutionsOnly]

I just canceled my cable service last week for this exact reason. And I let them know that a-la-carte service is the only way they'll get me back. I refuse to subsidize MTV, E!, and all the other garbage out there - and that's what current cable subscribers are in fact doing - subsidizing the sleaze.

[gondramB]

"But that's not how we get cable. The single pipe coming into your house (which probably includes your Internet feed) is a natural monopoly."

So it's only cable we are talking about - not satellites - since nobody has a satellite monopoly?


The cable people will scream bloody murder if you add government regulation to them and not satellites.

[TalBlack]

"I want to be able to receive the local news in the town where my parents live."

It'd be interesting to be able to zero in on oddball stations like that at will.

In the last 6 years that I had cable I MAY have hit the nets once or twice. Invaribly what I saw and heard on them was down right dis-spiriting. I usually watched a handful of the cable stations. .