Cable TV is like a restaurant that forbids substitutions. You don’t want fries with that? Sorry, that’s how it comes.
A la carte menus are appealing if you think you’ll pay less and you won’t be tempted. You usually end up spending the same for your smaller, pickier portion. (And sometimes you want a nibble of the fries anyway.)
OK, enough with the metaphor, but it does make a point about infotainment: These days everyone wants something a la carte.
Consumers expect customized selections in everything from iPod playlists to on-demand news. So no one should be surprised that a battle is brewing over cable-TV offerings that is drawing in consumer activists, Christian groups, children’s advocates, Congress, cable companies and those concerned about whether government should exert any control over cable content.
With monthly cable bills rising and with four separate pieces of legislation in Congress aimed at extending broadcast indecency regulations to cable, the rhetoric is escalating. So far, it’s just rhetoric. The government isn’t pushing new rules about a la carte yet, a constitutionally suspect move, right now, just sabre-rattling. Still, some say the industry could be forced to move channels like MTV, FX and Comedy Central to a premium tier to satisfy regulators.
At a Senate panel on indecency, the Federal Communications Commission recently reversed itself on a la carte pricing, the option of paying for individual networks instead of the “bundle” that includes the big ad-supported ones like USA, TNT, CNN, ESPN and Discovery. Suddenly, the FCC is pushing a la carte.
Under such an approach, consumers would be able to order only what they want, and shield themselves and their children from what they don’t want. (Never mind that the V-chip is already available and useful. Some folks resent paying for what they consider objectionable programming beaming into their homes.) According to FCC number-crunching, a la carte pricing might actually reduce monthly cable bills.
The prospect of a la carte terrifies cable programmers. They’d rather fight than unbundle.
Beyond arguments about sheltering children from sexual or violent images on television, or giving customers the choice of gardening shows or celebrity poker, this is a long-standing conflict about money and programming contracts. The debate makes strange bedfellows of consumer advocates and conservative and Christian groups, pits certain cable companies against others, and – if you believe some activists – marches in lockstep with the conservative Republican political agenda. The debate has raged for decades, but the FCC intends to settle it now.
For, against – and why
So who is who in the battle over a la carte? Here’s a rundown of who’s for, who’s against, and why:
Most cable companies hate the idea of a la carte pricing for financial reasons. Afraid of the unknown, they dread taking down the working economic model. The big networks like Discovery, ESPN and USA are quite content to be part of 60-channel packages as they exist. Both the big, expensive networks and the little upstarts like that model.
One estimate says ESPN might have to charge $15 per month as a standalone network to cover its major-league contracts. Small niche networks without advertising or marketing money would have trouble getting noticed. Cable’s lobbying group, the National Cable Television Association, is adamantly against a la carte, maintaining that government shouldn’t regulate private marketplace negotiations.
A few companies, like EchoStar, AT&T and Cablevision, are on record supporting a la carte. They say they’re at the mercy of big media (Viacom, Disney and others that charge them for the right to beam their programs), and could do better if freed from those contracts.
In testimony before the Senate panel, EchoStar chief David Moskowitz said the pay-TV company would consider a la carte, or a “family tier,” but cannot because of contracts that require bundling.
Minority and niche networks are wary of a la carte, saying it poses a threat to diversity in cable. As currently constructed, the big cable networks financially support the little cable networks in the bundle. You want Time Warner’s TNT? You’re going to get its Cartoon Network too. The promise of cable, the operators say, is to let a thousand channels bloom, not to filter out unpopular choices.
Consumer advocates favor a la carte. “It’s about allowing the marketplace to reflect what consumers want,” said Jeannine Kenney of the Consumers Union in Washington, D.C. “A la carte is a good and necessary thing for consumers, not only because it will offer more choice but it will reduce the overall cost of cable for most consumers.” She’s not afraid of diminished diversity. In fact, “if consumers were able to choose their channels one by one, cable companies would know what people want to see.”
The Parents Television Council, the activist group that hates MTV, wants a la carte cable as part of a crackdown on indecency.
Programmers despise the idea because it threatens ad rates. Program producers such as Disney, Viacom, Time Warner and Murdoch’s News Corp. fear they’ll lose their dual revenue stream – the license fees from cable operators and the advertising income (they’ll get less money for fewer eyeballs).
Quid pro quo
Media analysts suggest the FCC might back off its threat to require a la carte if cable programmers voluntarily agree to police themselves according to the same guidelines that apply to commercial, over-the-air broadcasters. That could force Murdoch’s FX and its racy shows like “Nip/Tuck” and “The Shield” to become a premium channel.
For casual viewers, there’s reason to dread the loss of random channel surfing that sometimes turns up surprising offerings. You may not actively subscribe to the Outdoor Life Network. Then again, you may be tickled to find a grand slalom on OLN on your way through the channel lineup.
A more cynical view finds a censorious political agenda at work behind the scenes.
Jeff Chester, head of the Center for Digital Democracy, is concerned about the impact the a la carte policy is meant to have on programming diversity at the behest of religious conservatives.
“Sure, TV deserves to be roundly criticized for the coarsening of the culture. However, this will be passed not because Congress wants to finally offer consumers relief, but because of a powerful constituency at the core of the Bush administration’s political support, that it wishes to reward as a way of bolstering the GOP’s political standing.”
In this view, consumer groups have made a pact with the conservative Parents TV Council and Concerned Women of America who want to see “The Real World,” “The Shield” and the rest off basic cable.
Yes, the big media companies have been lining their wallets for years, Chester says. On the other hand, “how did this issue get to be on the front burner of politicians? Because religious conservative groups embraced this strategy as a way of punishing media companies because of content.”
Brent Bozell, head of the Parents Television Council, testified before the Senate forum that, “the incessant sleaze on MTV presents the most compelling case yet for consumer cable choice.” MTV has carried programs about AIDS, safe sex, homosexuality, condoms and the youth vote.
In his view, “MTV is a subsidized network. As it now stands, parents have no choice but to take – and pay for – MTV if they want basic cable in their homes. Given a choice,” Bozell said, “how many parents now being forced to take and pay for MTV as part of a basic cable package would continue to do so?”
“There’s a social agenda to change television,” Chester said. “Under the guise of fair rates for consumers, this is likely to be a major victory for the right against media.”
The Consumers Union dodges the political point but agrees “it’s galling to conservative groups that they have to pay for programs they don’t want and then take extra steps to block it,” Kenney said.
To her, it’s as if Time magazine required its subscribers to take Field & Stream too, or go to extra trouble to stop it from arriving in their mailboxes. “From an intuitive standpoint it is completely unfair,” Kenney said. “From a First Amendment standpoint, we don’t see a problem with a la carte. It doesn’t tell you what you have to air.”
Defining a “family tier”
What is a problem for consumer activists, the Parents Television Council and First Amendment advocates is the creation of a “family tier” of unobjectionable networks, a compromise floated by the cable industry.
“The problem with a family tier is, who’s going to define it?” Kenney said.
The family tier solution “doesn’t accomplish the fundamental goal,” said Dan Isett, director of corporate and government affairs for the Parents Television Group. “If you’re not comfortable with content on ‘The Shield’ or ‘Nip/Tuck,’ those channels are in the basic or expanded-basic tier, not something you can select individually.”
Because forces are converging, it may be that the time for a la carte has arrived. Viewers want customized services like video-on-demand and video
iPods. The new FCC chair is on the indecency bandwagon. And several cable competitors have conceded they want the option of a la carte as a way to break free of the big media companies.
The FCC’s report is expected the next month. After that, Congress may enter the fray.
TV critic Joanne Ostrow can be reached at 303-820-1830 or jostrow@denverpost.com.
