January 05, 2009 07:59 am Tots, tweens and twentysomethings are no doubt sighing with relief that Nickelodeon, MTV, Comedy Central and other Viacom stations will remain on their TV dials, thanks to an 11th-hour agreement reached between Time Warner Cable and Viacom late last week. The details of the deal haven't yet been disclosed, but the dispute raises an interesting question: why should we, as consumers, be at the mercy of the cable company when it comes to the channels we watch? Why can't we just pick the ones we want, pay for those channels, and leave off the ones we don't want? The idea sounded pretty good to me. I envisioned myself crafting a custom package featuring the YES Network, Bravo, Discovery and a few other select stations. I spent the better part of New Year's Day researching the idea, and I'm still not sure I have it all straight. God love the Internet, but sometimes it raises more questions than it answers. I learned that this concept of "a la carte" programming has been around for years; in 1993, the New York Times reported on cable companies such as Adelphia that had begun offering the service on the heels of the 1992 Cable Act. The act effectively repealed deregulation, seeking to cut consumer costs and rein in the explosive growth of cable companies. Among other things, the act stipulated that "a cable operator may not require the subscription to any tier other than the basic service tier ... as a condition of access to video programing offered on a per channel or per program basis." The first time I read this statement (online at www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/OSEC/library/legislative�histories/1439.pdf), I got excited, thinking it meant cable companies were required to offer a la carte programming. After reading it about 20 more times, and digging into the New York Times' archives, I came to understand that it really means cable companies have to offer premium channels to basic-cable subscribers, rather than requiring the purchase of a "deluxe" package _ not quite the revolutionary idea I had thought it might be. A la carte was not popular with providers in 1993. "Turner Broadcasting does not like the idea of its services being a la carted' at all," Turner Cable Network Sales president Paul Beckham said in the New York Times story, in part because the network had enticed advertisers with the promise of reaching a large market. Put the network on its own, and keeping that promise could prove difficult. Not much has changed since 1993; earlier this year, a civil rights coalition representing gay/ lesbian, black, Latino and rural interest groups spoke out against a la carte programming. In a letter to the Federal Communications Commission, the group wrote that "Given the smaller size of their target audiences, (video channels catering to minorities) face an uphill battle in earning and expanding carriage on cable and satellite systems" and argued that un-bundling these channels would be tantamount to signing their death warrant. The group was writing to the FCC because its chairman, Kevin Martin, had been pushing hard for a la carte. In 2005, shortly after he took over the agency, Martin told the Associated Press that he supported a la carte programming as a way to allow parents to limit objectionable content. He promised that a report was forthcoming from his agency that would demonstrate how beneficial a la carte pricing would be for consumers. The report, which came out in 2006, gave fuel to Martin's fire and drew considerable media attention. The New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today and other major media outlets covered the diverse array of opinions associated with the idea of a la carte pricing. Unfortunately for its advocates _ and for Martin _ it seems the FCC report was fabricated. In December, the U.S. House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee released a report bashing Martin's tenure at the FCC, alleging that, among other things, he instructed staffers to write a report saying that a la carte pricing would benefit consumers, despite the fact that there was no data to support such a claim. So it seems the idea of a la carte cable is back to the drawing board _ or worse. Martin is expected to leave his post at the FCC, and it seems unlikely his successor will be inclined to take up this contentious issue. Last week, David Ho of Cox News reported that "many FCC watchers expect pressure on cable to ease and the a la carte issue to fade as broadband becomes the top priority" in the Obama administration. In the meantime, I'll echo the sentiments of Kevin Albrecht, who wrote about a la carte cable for newteevee.com, a blog that "describes and analyzes the future of the business of online video." Albrecht told the FCC and cable companies to "go ahead, keep fighting; we'll be over here watching Hulu." Daily Star Community Editor Emily Popek is chronicling her cable-free lifestyle in "TV 2.0," a weekly column.
—
Copyright © 1999-2008 cnhi, inc.
Photos
