"Unbundling" Cable Channels: An Opportunity for Selectivity::By Paul Weyrich

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

"Unbundling" Cable Channels: An Opportunity for Selectivity::By Paul Weyrich (http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/PaulWeyrich/2007/04/19/unbundling_cable_channels_an_opportunity_for_selec tivity)

Most of the news this week has been so horrendous that I thought I'd write about something positive. There is one of those subjects being discussed again in Washington on which nearly everyone is in agreement. It is a consumer issue that is important to families and to the free-market economy. Most surprising is that is if a law were to be passed by Congress that would mandate this change of policy it would be welcomed by the left and the right and have bipartisan support.

Few issues are genuinely nonpolitical and good news for both sides of the political aisle but this is one of them. I'm speaking of what has come to be known as "Cable Choice" or a la carte television programming. This is when a consumer or a family chooses which cable stations it wants or does not want, and is not forced to pay for cable channels never viewed or which should not be available to children.

[ThomasMore]

The free-marketer in me opposes this...why should the government dictate to lawful private-sector vendors the manner by which they will offer their services?

There is some consumer choice in this industry, insofar as consumers can choose from one local cable company or several competing satellite vendors. If any vendor found it economically worthwhile, it could offer a pay-per-channel option. So far, none have.

---

From a personal standpoint, I would benefit. As a consumer there are many cable/satellite channels that I pay for but will never watch. The same is probably true for nearly everyone else.

If this law is passed, there are quite a few of channels that suddenly will find very few viewers, and very little revenue. It will be interesting to see which channels survive and which don't.

---

This would reduce cable and satellite companies' willingness to experiment with new channels, because consumers will not buy and pay for programming unless they are interested. Of course, that is what marketing and advertising departments are for.

I expect that the net effect will be much less programming available, at a somewhat lower cost to the consumers. Instead of "100 channels and nothing to watch", most people will find themselves buying 20 or 30 at most.

The bills will go down, but not proportionally to the reduction of channels. Many of the cable and satellite companies infrastructure and overhead costs (the cables, the satellites and reception boxes, as well as staffing, etc.) are relatively fixed, and now the revenue must be obtained on a per-channel basis.

[Trevelyan]

This has been a long time coming, and I hope the cable and satellite companies have to change the manner in which they conduct their business.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

I'm not conflicted at all. The cable companies can STILL offer bundling pacakges to make it worth someone's while to opt for those instead of a la carte.

Consumers deserve a REAL choice, this makes it possible to break the monopoly-type strangehold of the cable companies, and puts the power back in their (consumers) hands.

[Trevelyan]

Liberals like the idea of telling a business what to do, while conservatives like the idea of truly free market competition and survival of the fittest among television channels previously protected by bundles. It's a win-win! :)

[ThomasMore]

Personally, Homes, I would benefit from the result.

I don't care for the government intrusion. I disagree that the cable companies have a monopoly. There is satellite competition.

Incidentally, each of the companies also has to negotiate with production studios which offer multiple channel choices. The production companies will push for the cable and satellite companies to offer bundles, while the cable companies can negotiate back on what they want to provide to the consumers, based on what people are willing to buy. The bundling is both a marketing gimmick and a way for the companies to negotiate with the studios.

Some local governments have ended local cable monopolies, allowing multiple cable companies to compete for buyers in their areas. This is something I favor.

[ThomasMore]

I also think that this legislation is almost certain to pass.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Personally, Homes, I would benefit from the result.

I most definitely would benefit! We are held hostage by Cox Communications after having lost our local (city owned) cable company because the city "citizens" voted to eliminate it. At least with our little city-owned cable company we didn't have to suffer from REALLY awful "bundles".

I don't care for the government intrusion.

I agree with that feeling, but not ALL government intrusion is subversive or antithetical to freedom. Eliminating monopolies HAS had a positive effect.

I disagree that the cable companies have a monopoly. There is satellite competition.

But that's practically the same thing -- at least in my neck of the woods it is.

When we lost our city-cable and it was apparent we were going to be stuck with Cox Communications as cable carrier, I did some research into Direct TV and Dish Network. They do the EXACT same thing -- you have to buy a bundle, and you get stuck with channels you don't want, and to access the ones you DO want you have to buy a bigger bundle, i.e. pay more money. Consumers around here are absolutely in a stranglehold ... both cable and satellite ONLY offer bundles, so we're right back at square one.

Incidentally, each of the companies also has to negotiate with production studios which offer multiple channel choices. The production companies will push for the cable and satellite companies to offer bundles, while the cable companies can negotiate back on what they want to provide to the consumers, based on what people are willing to buy. The bundling is both a marketing gimmick and a way for the companies to negotiate with the studios.

See this is what doesn't make sense to me -- I understand the ideal of bundles, I just don't see why they can't be arranged differently. Such as, why don't they offer generic bundles based on a certain number of channels? Like for instance, there are 20 channels my family watches out of the 73 we have in our bundle. Why couldn't they offer channels in numbered bundles, i.e. 10 channels for a certain amount, 20 for a higher amount, etc.? Give a cut in rate the more channels you bundle, that would work, it seems to me.

Some local governments have ended local cable monopolies, allowing multiple cable companies to compete for buyers in their areas. This is something I favor.

Sadly, we still have a monopoly here -- only one cable company for a vast area, mine included. Our only choices are Cox Communications, Dish Network, or DirecTV.

[BEST45CAL]

It's about time. I don't want to pay a premium just to get one channel that isn't offered in the basic package we have now. As a result, I have lived without the MILITARY CHANNEL for many years.

[Riverboat]

Our only choices are Cox Communications, Dish Network, or DirecTV. You're stuck with them, too?

[Incident_command]

It's about time. I don't want to pay a premium just to get one channel that isn't offered in the basic package we have now. As a result, I have lived without the MILITARY CHANNEL for many years.


Best I'm so sorry. I had no idea you were going through something like this. Had I known I...............
Listen if theres anything I can do to help get you through these hard times.... I mean...I just dont know what I'd do without my military channel.

[S-T]

As a consumer, I love the idea of consumer choice.

As a philosophical libertarian, I oppose the idea of government mandating to any business how they bundle their products.

Does cable have a monopoly on television? Yes, but with phone companies getting into the act that may not last long, and there is always satellite or the good ol' roof-mounted antenna.

Television itself also has competition in terms of other entertainment. Movies, video games, comic books and the Internet to name a few.

[libertyman]

This has been a long time coming, and I hope the cable and satellite companies have to change the manner in which they conduct their business.

I would love to see a la carte cable. I probably watch only 5 cable channels (& definitely no more than 10) on a regular basis, so why should I have to pay for 80 that I never watch?

Lets open up the ENTIRE cable channel lineup across the US & let me pick however many that I want, regardless of where they are from!

[S-T]

Even if I supported government-mandated cable choice, the idea of having it mandated at the federal level is appalling and fundamentally anti-conservative. Let the states do it if they want, but Congress needs to mind their own business.

:confedflag:

[libertyman]

Even if I supported government-mandated cable choice, the idea of having it mandated at the federal level is appalling and fundamentally anti-conservative. Let the states do it if they want, but Congress needs to mind their own business.

:confedflag:

I wholeheartedly agree w/ you. I was just saying that I would like to see a la carte cable become a reality, 'cuz I'm not sure whether or not federal involvement on this issue is constitutional. The devil's in the details.

[DesertFox]

Nobody has any monopoly on television, as there are plenty of choices. There actually still are free channels. There's satellite in several versions. There's more than one cable company.

Stretching the point, you can also make your own videos. :D

Then there's always the choice to turn the toob off and go outside and do something real -- unless the NBA finals are on, or March Madness, or the World Serious, or the Superbowl, or the Olympics, in which case you have no choice but to flip on the toob, prop up your feet and soak up the beer.

[DoctorDoom]

It's another touchy-feely liberal intrusion into the private sector. "You will do things OUR way or we will f' you over royally."

Who seriously believes that it would be cheaper to order channels on a one-by-one basis than to get 50 or a hundred of them as a package? And what would happen to those hundreds of marginally successful or small-audience niche channels if the majority of people who can get them but don't regularly view them decide to disable them rather than to pay to get them?

Where would Fox News be if the cable and satellite providers decided that it doesn't have enough paying viewers to warrant carrying it? Its audience drops, its advertizers have second thoughts, and the downhill slide to oblivion commences.

The libeRATs would love that. The ultimate result would be a return to domination of the TV medium by the well-heeled, powerful liberal networks.

The notion is a classic liberal pig in a poke. It sounds good, but one can coat a cyanide capsule in deep, dark chocolate.

[BEST45CAL]

Best I'm so sorry. I had no idea you were going through something like this. Had I known I...............
Listen if theres anything I can do to help get you through these hard times.... I mean...I just dont know what I'd do without my military channel.:rotflmbo:

[Apollo5600]

Then there's always the choice to turn the toob off and go outside and do something real -- unless the NBA finals are on, or March Madness, or the World Serious, or the Superbowl, or the Olympics, in which case you have no choice but to flip on the toob, prop up your feet and soak up the beer.

You watch the Olympics??<!-- / message -->

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Welp, guess I'm considered on the wrong side of this issue. So be it. In my view there is a monopoly going on as long as consumers cannot truly choose which channels they wish to enjoy -- that goes for cable and satellite, because they do the very same thing ... bundle their channels.

This would not prevent cable companies from bundling, and in fact they could offer bundles by the number of channels one would like to purchase/view, vs. being stuck with the "extra" channels in a bundle just to get SOME channels they want.

The super-bundles could still exist, and in actuality I think they would end up making MORE money as the MORE people choose the a la carte bundling (which of course cable companies would offer at a substantially higher cost than the super-bundles). I won't speak for anyone else, but I'm ALREADY paying $50 bucks for channels I do not want, I would most certainly keep paying $50 and accept LESS channels ESPECIALLY if they are the channels I DO want.

Course, that's just MHO.

[DesertFox]

You watch the Olympics?? My faves are the 10k walk, the lacrosse and the dressage. *snicker*

[ThomasMore]

My faves are the 10k walk, the lacrosse and the dressage. *snicker*

Don't forget curling (http://www.olympic.org/uk/sports/programme/index_uk.asp?SportCode=CU) and badminton (http://www.olympic.org/uk/sports/programme/index_uk.asp?SportCode=BD). :D