Finally — something good from the FCC

[Oeditpus Rex]

Gonna be interesting to see how this plays out.

Federal regulators are on the verge of suggesting that cable companies could best serve consumers by letting them subscribe to individual channels instead of offering only prepackaged bundles.

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin is expected to announce today at a Senate forum on indecency that the FCC will soon reissue its review of cable industry "à la carte" pricing with a wholly different conclusion. While the original report concluded that consumers would pay more for individual channels, the new one concludes they could pay less.

WSJ: FCC May Endorse Cable à la Carte, In a Policy Shift

[LSparkle]

1. At last, a TRUE Faux Blocker! My fingers are crossed this passes

That'll be the FIRST channel I un-subscribe to.

[ikojo]

12. Don't get too excited...the religious broadcasters

know that if cable goes a la carte, there goes their networks. They are against this big time.


http://www.latimes.com/business/custom/cotown/la-fi-indecency29nov29,0,7255306.story?coll=la-tot-promo

snip

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.

Consumer groups are pushing to let people choose their channels rather than pay for ones they don't watch. One Federal Communications Commission study showed people on average regularly watch only 17 of the more than 100 cable channels they typically receive.

"We don't just want to preach to the choir; we want to reach the unchurched," said Paul Crouch Jr. of Trinity Broadcast Network in Santa Ana. "The bottom line is that we want to be everywhere on cable."

snip

Christian broadcasters, including such big names as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, worry that changing the current system will cut into viewership. If that puts them on the opposite side of where they usually stand in the indecency debate, Crouch said, "so be it."

[warrens]

16. cockroaches

Their service is so vital no one will pay for it and there go their mansions and yachts. Let the market decide if they deserve to be heard.

[LSparkle]

23. Hey, don't I have a right NOT to be subjected to Paul and Jan Crouch

even as I channel surf? AAARGHHH!

[NorCalDem]

24. But, but, but, that wouldn't be letting the market do it's job! n/t

[belle]

37. Well, Paul, how can I put this: tough shit.

You want to reach the unwashed masses, put some legwork into it. Nobody wants to subsidize your annoying kitschfests anymore than they'd want to pay taxes to support Jehovah's Witnesses ringing the doorbell at eight in the morning.

[kevinbgoode]

2. I am definitely in favor of this measure. . .

because this would be the ultimate break we need to boycott bogus news operations like Fox. . .those awful shopping channels, and those sacreligious snake oil mantras that appear on far too many cable channels around here.

Maybe if some of these channels would be left without captive subscriber audiences they might straighten up and actually be responsible for their content.

[BlueJazz]

19. Geez..Tell me about ..Fellow DUer...I have about 55 channels...

..(out of 120) that are filled with the most boring crap there is...
I mean ..damn..does anybody actually watch "The Knick-Knack" channel??

(They sell that cheap doo-dad stuff that's in K-mart.)

[Ravy]

26. Self Delete

[ken_g]

3. I think this would be great, but my instinct keeps saying, "what are

these guys up to?".

[leftstreet]

5. This statement is odd...

"The report also finds that "themed tiers" of channels could be "economically feasible," the official said."

So would that mean the cheapest tier would be a bundle of FOX, Christian Broadcasting, and More FOX?

[iconoclastNYC]

9. LOL.

Probably. Don't forget Ayn Rand TV.

[Initech]

4. Paying for cable channels a la carte would be very nice!

I only watch three as it is - HBO, Comedy Central, Fox (for Arrested Development and the Simpsons).

[iconoclastNYC]

14. I just got Arrested Development 1 and 2 on DVD

Amazon had a deal -- I got them both for $35 including shipping.

[iconoclastNYC]

6. Yes, there shoudl be a free market for CABLE.

All I want is Comedy Central. Why do I need to pay $60 for all these other crap channels therefore supporting cable networks like FOX whom I'm morally oppose to.

[SoCalDem]

7. Think menus.. A la carte always costs more

and once the "niche" channels like Link & FSTV are split off on their own, they will probably disappear completely.. Cable companies will jettison "losers" in the money department..

What I wish they would do is to credit your bill for the channels you don;t want.. We abhor sports and do not want the music stuff or the kids stuff..

They just need to package things differently..

[iconoclastNYC]

11. This makes no sense.

Why woudln't the cable cos reneg thier contracts to the networks that bases thier fees on how many people are paying for it?

You are reciting the Cable Industries # 1 talking point.

[Johonny]

33. I imagine

they'll still be allowed to sell packages as long as selective "more expensive" options are offered. Personally the only reason I have cable TV at all is that it came free with my internet.

[sendero]

39. Sure...

.. they'd cost more if you bought them all. Of the channels you currently get, what percentage would you be willing to buy individually? Half? 2/3rds?

I wouldn't mind if they still offered "bundles", I just want to be able to select 20-30 channels, with no FOX, no CNN, no MSNBC no RELIGOUS BULLSHIT THAT I DO NOT WATCH AND DO NOT WISH TO SUBSIDIZE!

[Ysolde]

8. I hope it pans out....

but, I am ALWAYS suspicious of these folks. So far, no good has come from any of their work.

[Renew Deal]

10. Any competition is good.

This could be positive. This would give the cable companies incentive to compete with themselves. Then again, they might just charge $5/channel and then this would be bad.

[iconoclastNYC]

13. As long as the net effect

Is more choice for the consumer this can't be bad. I'd pay $15 for three channels I want to watch. Right now you have to get the big bundles to get the channels I want. Way more then $15.

[Ian David]

15. The fundies are almost having a civil war over this...

"We don't just want to preach to the choir; we want to reach the unchurched," said Paul Crouch Jr. of Trinity Broadcast Network in Santa Ana. "The bottom line is that we want to be everywhere on cable."

See related thread:

Televangelists on Unusual Side in Indecency Debate
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=109x23935

[Writer]

17. This has both good and bad ramifications.

Who wouldn't be for choice in cable? Especially given their current rates...

But at the same time, offering an a la carte service completely strips cable of any hope of public service. This will drive all news forms into the same niche element as in the Internet. In other words, Republicans and conservatives might opt for Fox only (if at all) and Democrats and liberals might opt for Free Speech TV, maybe CNN, or most likely nothing at all.

This may lead to a more fragmented public who chooses its news that reinforces its own beliefs. Not sure if this is a such a great idea for that reason.

[babylonsister]

18. Point well taken. There would be no chance for anyone to

broaden their viewpoint, though as it stands now, I watch what I want and don't tune in to Faux even though I can.
I worry about the price structure they'll come up with, though w/our current bundle, there are loads of channels we never watch.

[Mutley]

20. Well, good for me in a different way...

I don't ever watch 80% of the channels I get, so my cable bill would likely be a lot cheaper if I could pick and choose my channels.

[displacedtexan]

21. I don't believe them. They'll raise prices... a la carte.

Suddenly, they'll claim that individual channel costs have to be higher than bulk channel costs.

I don't trust these * cronies at all.

[Double T]

22. The cable company and individual network lobbyists........

have their bags packed and will be 'correcting this situation' immediately. I would NOT bet on this ever getting through Congress.

[A Simple Game]

25. I'll take all of the shopping channels and all of the religious

channels, and they throw in any 10 channels I want.

And I will only charge the cable company $10 a month!

[Swamp Rat]

27. Oh, I though this post was going to be about fining Osama Bin Reilly.

:(

What he said was a trillion times worse than Howard Stern! :eyes:

[Ravy]

28. Not a good idea.

Most of the channels that people here object to are supported by commercial sponsors so are free or extremely cheap for the cable companies to throw together in a basic or extended basic package.

Your cable bill will not drop to 79 cents a month if you only watch MSNBC and Comedy Central.

[Oeditpus Rex]

29. Not 79 cents, no

But I think what the cable/satellite providers are missing — or ignoring for commercial interests — is that most consumers will pay more per item for what they want. If I could subscribe only to the 10 channels I'd actually watch, I'd be much more willing to pay a higher per-channel average — say, $30 a month for those 10 — than to pay $60 for 100 channels I'd never watch but must subscribe to if I want those 10.

I can't be the only one who thinks like this... can I? :shrug:

[Ravy]

30. Would you rather pay $40 a month for the 10 channels you watch,

or $29.95 for those 10 and 45 more?

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/cable_bundles.html

[Oeditpus Rex]

31. If that were the case

obviously I'd rather spend less money. But it isn't the case. There's one channel in particular — Discovery Wings — that I can't get without subscribing to the Super Duper Hell Yeah Premium Package. :grr:

The story you linked cites the report that the FCC now says isn't valid. (See OP.) That makes me suspicious, though. The FCC hasn't done anything for consumers in 20 years. Why would it suddenly be the nice guy without an ulterior motive?

[Ravy]

32. I agree with your sentiments...

But if Faux News is free to give to you (being sponsored by commercials) and it will cost cable operators money (with additional billing costs and some technical mechanism to prevent you from receiving the broadcast), which do you think will ultimately cost you more?

I feel like this, like everything else in our government, is about the money and which interest gets it.

PS, I like Discovery Wings too.

[Oeditpus Rex]

34. Since one of my primary goals

is the utter destruction of Faux "News" (and Faux Sports), the question is moot. :7

[Ravy]

35. That is a different topic altogether...

When you get a good answer on how to do that, I'll join ya!

[Oeditpus Rex]

36. No problem

:nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :evilgrin:

[sendero]

38. I've been wanting this ..

... for YEARS. It would solve so many problems I don't know where to start.

Let's hope it happens!