Cable a la Carte

It seems to make intuitive sense - why should you have to pay for cable channels you never watch? It's not hard to see the benefit for the end user - only pay for the channels you actually watch. In my house this means no more Lifetime, TLC, MTV, VH1, BET, anything related in any way to country music, and a host more. But would I really save any money? While you can read online all the opinions and accusations about the data that each side of this argument quotes to support their arguments, I'm not going to delineate it for you here. Honestly, the consensus is that there is no consensus.

Kevin Martin, the FCC chair, thinks you should have the option to subscribe to only the channels you want. His arguments include reducing costs as cable companies have used increased channels as a way of justifying price hikes. Since, Martin claims, most of these additional channels (and probably many of the original ones as well I suspect) are not being watched (or at least wouldn’t be missed); allowing customers to reduce the channel load should lower bill amounts. He specifically sites Spanish speaking customers as beneficiaries of the a la carte method since they often have to buy large packages in order to receive the Spanish language programming they desire.

Martin believes that cable companies act as gatekeepers which prevent independent channels from reaching customers. Obviously, one of the draws of the higher dollar channel packages are premium “high value” channels. Allowing customers to choose their channels would give cable operators and content providers a way of accessing their wants and needs directly. It would, he believes, encourage a wider range of programming than what is currently available as content providers can suddenly rely on targeted programming which, while lacking the broad appeal of the traditional channels, might still find a stead and viable market. Martin has gone so far as to suggest that a la carte programming should be made law.

Of course, as you might suspect, the cable companies have pretty much banded together to fight this initiative. In fact, Disney, Disney-ABC, MTV Networks, Universal Television, Turner Broadcasting, and Fox Networks sent a letter to Martin stating their unequivocal rejection of this idea. They site that Martin wants to strip all the most popular programming out of the basic packages forcing people to pay for what they once got as “standard”. People who would normally have a plethora of channels to choose from would now have to pick and choose only their favorites. In the end, to get the same level of programming, most people would end up paying more not less under an a la carte system.

They also claim that many of the smaller channels, specifically those targeted toward underserved and minority audiences, would never have been created under a la carte. Even if they had somehow gotten the funding to launch, they would never be viable in such a system. If customers are truly to save money on their cable bills by picking and choosing only their favorite channels, what new channel would have a chance? Who would voluntarily buy something like Mojo or G4 or many other niche channels sight unseen?

It seems clear to me that both sides have a point. As a consumer, I can’t stand all the crap programming than my monthly bill goes to support. But I also recognize that there are many channels that I never would have actively chosen that I now watch on a regular basis. Hey, I’ve got Discovery, why do I need National Geographic? History Channel?! Why would I want to watch that?

But think about it, some channels have an instant audience – Sci-fi, G4, PBS Sprout... these channels would succeed no matter what. But for many of the channels that are out there, even the ones that you watch for one great show, would you have paid an extra $X a month for them? Probably not. As much as Martin wants to believe that a la carte will diversify cable programming, I just don’t buy it. If anything, with a TRUE a la carte system, only the most popular channels would survive. The only way for an upstart to get in would be to already have a following. That would most likely come from online with the release of a season or two on a website or YouTube. Once that following could be measured and verified, then capital could be raised to build a channel around it.

But is that what REALLY would happen or would one of the big established channels just buy it up and water it down and turn it into the big draw for that “Raw Wednesday” campaign? Do we really want to go back to just a few stations like we had when we (some of us) were kids. I remember 3, 10, 13, and a few UHF channels as being our sole choices. Instead, the only way I can see a la carte working is if there is are channel “groups”. I don’t mind the basic package – most of that I watch at one time or another – but I hate the “premium” packages where I’m wanting to upgrade just for one or two “must have” channels. If they made it so you could either by one or two channels for $X, a group for 1.5X, or the entire package for 2X, you could theoretically give people that “a la carte” feeling without completely killing off the smaller stations.