FCC Chairman Martin Pitches A La Carte

[Peter Loge]

According to a report in the National Journal's Telecomm Insider on 8/14, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin told an Aspen Institute meeting that a la carte pricing of cable and DBS "would help parents control what their children see on the small screen."

According to Telecomm Insider,

"Martin said "parents must have meaningful choices, and choices must have meaningful consequences." Currently, there is no incentive for the marketplace to respond if subscribers pay for channels they do not want, he said.

He told the conference on media and society that the issue is "more immediate and pressing" than finding filtering and monitoring technologies for online content. "I believe no consumer should have to pay for content they do not want to receive," he said.

Martin said he prefers marketplace-driven changes over federal regulation, "but that doesn't mean that government doesn't have an important role to play..."

The full story is available here: http://www.njtelecomupdate.com/

[Greg Strangis]

I started out totally ambivalent about this entire a la carte debate, and now I think I support the position.

Consumers should NOT have to pay for programming they specifically do not want...

Broadcast entities that can only survive by being forced on consumers need to change their business models or go out of business...

Martin said he prefers marketplace-driven changes over federal regulation...

Couldn't agree more.

But that's just me.

I believe some Steering Committee members are actively opposed to a la carte.

[Greg Strangis]

The Caucus for Television Producers, Writers & Directors urges you to reject a la carte cable television pricing. The system would decrease both the quality and quantity of choices for viewers, would decrease competition, and would threaten the livelihoods of independent producers, writers and directors.

In recent years, the Federal Communications Commission and Congress –
over the objection of the public – has significantly modified ownership rules. These ownership rules now allow individual companies to control significantly more media outlets and thus control more of what communities see, hear and learn. As a result of these liberalized rules, a virtual oligarchy now rules the media landscape as five companies nationally control nearly all television content. This consolidation silences local artists, quiets local community discussion, and closes the marketplace of ideas.

A la carte pricing would limit choice even further.

The handful of companies that control what Americans have the chance to see will have an incentive to cut options further. By selling specific, limited, tiers broadcasters (who also control most of cable) can virtually eliminate the chances of a viewer accidentally coming across something interesting. We watch television by cruising through channels, hoping to trip over the unexpected; in clicking from the History Channel to ESPN, we may have to pass the Biography Channel and get drawn into the untold story of an unsung American hero.

For decades television has been able to bring America together. It is where we learn about all of our country, where we learn about ourselves, and where in many ways we learn how to be citizens. We learn this not just from the news, but from important programs like Roots, The Cosby Show, and All in the Family.

This coming together, this shared learning, is more important now than ever. Our America is growing increasingly fragmented and narrowcasted. More and more people get their news from partisan news outlets and web sites with whose opinions they already agree and they eschew broad social organizations for online “communities” who focused on their own narrow interest. A la carte programming threatens to shut down our nation’s town square. People will only see and appreciate that which they already know and believe. That is fundamentally unhealthy for democracy. Our nation’s strength is its commitment to unity in diversity, to understanding the role of each of the parts – urban and rural, north and south, farm and factory – in constructing our national polity.

A la carte means fewer choices, fewer channels, and fewer options. That means fewer new ideas being produced and fewer people producing them. Since a viewer can’t know what he or she doesn’t see, they literally won’t know what they are missing. Viewers will not be able to say “I Want My MTV” because it won’t be there, and one tier is not likely advertise for another, competing, tier. Viewers won’t find a new show and help it build a following. They won’t defy marketer’s expectations and flock to a program that is new, creative and challenging – because in a la carte those shows won’t be there.

The greatest threat posed by a la carte is to America’s shrinking ranks of independent producers, writers and directors, that relative handful of people interested in making quality television that entertains and educates, who are interested in good ideas before bottom lines, and who have been responsible for some of the most important programs of the past several decades.

A la carte isn’t worth the price.

[Peter Loge]

A la carte programming has some real perils - but in a modified fashion can also offer some interesting possibilities for independent producers.

There are two primary arguments for a la carte: consumer fairness and limitation of exposure to violent or inappropriate programming.

As a consumer my first reaction is to embrace a la carte - why should I pay for all those channels between ESPN and Comedy Central that I don't watch? But my second reaction is the opposite, all those other channels help subsidize the relatively expensive programming I choose the most (for example, ESPN).

The studies on the economic impacts of a la carte have found different results, some say a la carte would save consumers money others say it would cost most folks more.

There is another, anti-viewer, element to a la carte. Like most folks I have a couple channels I go to first, and if there isn't anything on those that I like I surf, clicking away not paying attention to the channel but rather to the content. By surfing those channels I never chose I have found some great new channels I would not have bought and could not have found under a la carte.

If people only buy the channels they already know they want, programming will become increasingly narrow. It's as if you allowed your 8-year old to only eat foods he selected - by the time he was 14 your kitchen would contain spaghetti, pizza and cake, and nothing else. Without the exposure to new options we cannot choose those options, and already limited programming choice would be limited even further.

The second argument for a la carte, one recently promoted by FCC Chairman Kevin Martin, is that parents are being forced to buy channels that show programs unfit for children. This seems more like an attempt to graft an idea that is losing steam (a la carte) onto an idea that is getting attention (government filtering of content). First, no one is forcing anyone to buy cable or satellite television. There are many, many happy families that have only broadcast television - or even no TV at all. Second, if parents buy TV channels one at a time why would they only buy what their children would watch? This solution re-invents the problem through government intervention.

The solution of parental control already exists, parents already have tools to limit the kinds of programs to which their children are exposed through the V-Chip and channel blocking options available on cable and satellite systems.

Finally, the market tests of "family friendly" tiers of programs have been far from commercial successes. In response to federal pressure many cable systems offered a limited package of networks that were designed to be appropriate for all viewers. So far very few households have purchased the package. It is also worth checking the ratings for networks that provide “family friendly” programming compared to those that offer the shows that raise the most eye-brows. It turns out programmers air edgy stuff because that’s what consumers want to watch.

For all of these problems there is a potential opportunity in the call for greater choice.

Cable and satellite providers could be encouraged to provide bundles of shows (sports, children, news, reality, etc). These bundles would have to contain more than 2 or 3 channels to be competitive - and the FCC and Congress could require that 25% of all programming be independently owned. Many in the television industry agree that the demise of independent programming in the wake of changes to the finance and syndication rules in the mid- 1990s has hurt both the industry and the quality of programming. If cable and satellite providers were to offer bundles of shows, and one-quarter of those shows were independent, both the quality and quantity of choice would increase. More people would be making more programs and more consumers would have more options.

A la carte is a solution in search of a problem. The industry and federal regulators would be better served by taking steps to increase real choice through increasing the amount of independent programming and letting consumers use the tools they already have to make the choices that are best for their families.

[Greg Strangis]

Terrific analysis, Peter, and proof yet again that none of this is ever as simple -- or as obvious -- as it may first appear to be.

I particularly like--


A la carte is a solution in search of a problem. The industry and federal regulators would be better served by taking steps to increase real choice through increasing the amount of independent programming and letting consumers use the tools they already have to make the choices that are best for their families.
--bringing us right back to the Caucus mission.

[Peter Loge]

From the Aug 22 Broadcasting & Cable -

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6471117.html?display=Breaking+News&referral=SUPP&nid=2228

"[FCC Chairman Martin] said that under an a la carte regime, "niche networks would be able to demonstrate support for their programming to advertisers by pointing to the actual a la carte sales of their networks...

He said Spanish-speaking homes might be the biggest beneficiaries of a la carte. "Currently, cable and satellite providers often require subscribers to purchase dozens, if not hundreds, of channels in order to get Spanish-language programming," he said, for which they must pay an additional cost. Under a la carte, however, he added, Spanish-speaking homes could purchase only Spanish-language programming."

It is difficult to see how this would be the case - Comcast (the provider in this example) would still have to offer the channel. Just because a product is available somewhere doesn't mean the one or two stores in your area carry it (try buying gluten free beer at your local 7-11). In addition there is the problem of promotion. Most people learn about TV on TV - shows and channels are previewed on TV, people record TV on TV, etc. It is hard to see how a show could prove it was being watched if it wasn't on TV and couldn't be watched to begin with. It's like saying "I'm famous, but no one has heard of me."

[Greg Strangis]

From the Aug 22 Broadcasting & Cable -

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6471117.html?display=Breaking+News&referral=SUPP&nid=2228

"[FCC Chairman Martin] said that under an a la carte regime, "niche networks would be able to demonstrate support for their programming to advertisers by pointing to the actual a la carte sales of their networks...

He said Spanish-speaking homes might be the biggest beneficiaries of a la carte. "Currently, cable and satellite providers often require subscribers to purchase dozens, if not hundreds, of channels in order to get Spanish-language programming," he said, for which they must pay an additional cost. Under a la carte, however, he added, Spanish-speaking homes could purchase only Spanish-language programming."

Even if true, how does this come close to a justification? Since when is broadcast legislation driven my foreign language concerns? I find this as convoluted as it is wrong-headed.

Mama mia! (Italian for "Oy!")

[Peter Loge]

One of the arguments against a la carte is that "niche" stations - including those geared toward ethnic, religious, racial and other minorities - would lose carraige. If so then a television landscape that is already fairly devoid of diversity would become even less, well, diverse.

This feels like another way in which the Chairman is searching for allies for a la carte. Like the decency argument, this sounds more like an excuse than a reason.

[Greg Strangis]

One of the arguments against a la carte is that "niche" stations - including those geared toward ethnic, religious, racial and other minorities - would lose carraige. If so then a television landscape that is already fairly devoid of diversity would become even less, well, diverse.

This feels like another way in which the Chairman is searching for allies for a la carte. Like the decency argument, this sounds more like an excuse than a reason.

Audiences may have an expectation of diversity of opinion. I don’t think anyone is guaranteed diversity of language.

Or, let’s take this to the extreme…

The language of the African nation of Togo is Ewe. It’s spoken by maybe several hundred thousand people, most of whom cannot read or write. Maybe a dozen live in NY working at the UN. Are these fine and noble people not to be serviced with a station all their own in a language all their own? Where’s the justice? Better yet, where is the consistency of thought.

The California ballot has something like 16 different languages.

It that’s the fate of TV, we’re doomed.


IMHO, of course.

[Peter Loge]

Those who take the position that TV lacks diversity would respond with a hypothetical of their own - since true representative and complete diversity is unattainable, not just with languages but with culture, race, religion, etc why try at all? Why not just have shows about white Mormons from Arizona doing whatever it is they do?

Clearly both positions are absurd.

Some argue that television, for better or worse, is where Americans both come together and learn how to be in the world. Views of race, community, country, etc are in part shaped by TV. The amount of that shaping is informed by other ideas viewers are exposed to, how much it reflects lived experience, and so forth. But most scholars most of the time say that TV matters.

If that's the case, some suggest that it is in our national interest to have our national conversation reflect our nation. If people do not see themselves, their communities or experiences on television "in America" then what is their role in that conversation? Diversity matters, the argument goes, because we need to do a better job in this country of breaking down balkanization and finding ways to help people find their place in our national conversation. TV has a role to play in that, and a la carte may increase diversity (according to Chairman Martin) or decrease it.

[Greg Strangis]

Whatever happened to the good old days when America was this big ol' melting pot?

Diversity was ethnic dinner at grandma's on Sunday with the extended family.

People assimilate by learning the language of the target culture. Watching TV, listening to the radio, going to school, interacting with their communities.

I would argue that the more diversity is imposed (and embraced), the more balkanization (and its consequent alienation) is the result.