Commentary

For What It Is Worth: A La Carte

I'm a little confused about the Federal Communications Commission's vigilant pursuit of its a la carte cable initiative. Is it simply a pricing issue -- too high a cost for the number of channels that are actually viewed within a household -- or is it another bureaucratic stab at curbing free speech?

Let's vivisect the less complex pricing issue first. I don't think that the government can mandate the cable industry's business model. The cablers pay the municipalities -- 5% of gross revenue plus community services -- for the right to set up shop. So unlike the broadcasters, which pay the government a stipend to license their spectrum, the cablers are under no such oversight or obligation to be oversighted. Every year, a government agency issues a report about price increases vs. inflation, service complaints, privacy invasion, set-top box universality and cable card deployment, but rarely, if ever, do we see any new legislation materialize -- only calls to alarms.

Also, I seem to remember that last time the FCC applied significant pressure, back in the mid-'90s, to corral the cable operators into modifying their programming packages, the new arrangement caused the subscription population much consternation -- pocketbook and service. The compromise, back then, was for the cablers to continue to offer basic tiers of programming -- a plethora of broadcast and cable channels -- at a reasonable monthly fee. However, the operators could hold back some of their "must-have" channels for inclusion in specialty channel packages at monthly incremental costs averaging $4.95 for upwards of five prepackaged channels. So, if subscribers really wanted to view Nickelodeon or Sci-fi, which was no longer part of their basic package, the cablers cleverly circumvented the FCC meddling in their pricing menu by packaging much-desired channels with exciting programming fodder, such as the invaluable Grass Growing Network, the titillating Stained-Glass-Watching channel and scintillating Egg-Hatching Network. It didn't work. Eventually the FCC conceded. Packages were restored to their former fiduciary selves.

advertisement

advertisement

So if the FCC does get its way by winning support from the administration to allow pay TV subscribers to pick and choose which channels they receive, will this also mean that the government has the right to dictate cable network licensing fees as well as payment for services that currently are included in the digital cable packages -- i.e., digital video recorders, interactive program guides, video-on-demand, to name a few. If this comes to pass, what emerging new digital content channels and advance interactive technology will be sacrificed due to too little funding? How 'bout the strain on billing and custom service? Will there be a fee every time customers modify their package, as there was in the past? Who will police the activity, address grievances, assuage the angry populace? Given the current administration's overextended global commitments, isn't our National Reserve spread too thin? Is "a la carte" pricing as pressing an issue?

So if the FCC's push is not about pricing, then is this another tactic, one with censorship leanings, to deprive the TV viewer of adult-targeted programming choices, such as "The Sopranos," "Rescue Me," "Grey's Anatomy," and "CSI," in order to protect our children from the possibility of viewing objectionable programming. A recent Forrester study indicated that homes that regularly tune into kids and young adult programming also watch content that contains profanity, violence and sexual situations (real and imaginary). Of course, they did. The popularity of these programs does not suggest otherwise. It is the parents' responsibility to manage what their children view -- not the government's.

Is this, then a ruse on the part of the FCC to make cost an issue in the hopes that adults will sacrifice their programming preferences and consumption -- given budgetary restraints -- in favor of their children's television pleasure -- another way to control content that comes into the home? One would hope that the federal appeals court's invalidation of the FCC's indecency ruling against Fox for expletives aired during award ceremonies in 2002 and 2003 will put the kibosh on this type of political agenda maneuvering. There's somethin' happenin' here. What it is ain't exactly clear.

Next story loading loading..