• by David Goetzl  @dgoetzl, June 7, 2013

Members of Congress often push legislation that has wide appeal to consumers, but is unlikely to pass. It can be an easy way to gain some favorability points. Which is surely what Arizona Sen. John McCain is seeking with a bill looking to usher in a la carte pricing for cable channels.

Philippe Dauman, the Viacom CEO, called him out on it recently when he reportedly said McCain “got a lot of publicity for his solo-sponsored bill, which he’s been doing for 15 years now.” And it’s “going nowhere.”

Executives at Viacom and other large cable programmers have no interest in a la carte options. They like the status quo bundle. A la carte, where consumers pay per channel, would drastically reduce distribution for lots of their little-watched networks.

McCain and consumers feel it makes no sense why a home that doesn’t watch ESPN or Lifetime should have to pay for the networks. Instead, they say, let people pick the networks they want – maybe their favorite 10 – and pay per channel. That way, their subscription costs would dramatically go down.

Despite appearances, the a la carte issue is not simple. There is something to be said for the argument that small, independent channels would struggle to get carriage. (Of course, with Time Warner Cable dropping Ovation, that’s the case now.)

But as for the cost issue, Dauman and others believe it’s a fallacy that paying for just 10 channels would cut monthly bills. The costs for those networks would be so much that in the end, a cable subscription would be about the same -- and there’d be fewer channels.

“The power of the bundle kind of materializes with a newspaper like TheWashington Post,” Discovery founder John Hendricks said in a video interview with the paper this week. “There may be some people who never look at the sports section, some people who don’t look at the opinion section or the classifieds. But if you broke that apart, if the government said 'you have to sell a separate Washington Post sports section’ and broke it apart, then the power of that bundle falls apart.”

In other words, the sports section alone would cost about as much as the whole paper does now. It’s a fair point and likely true.

The argument holds that the ESPN viewers allow people to have Biography and WGN – and vice versa.

Hendricks, who has a book coming out, suggested that networks sold a la carte would go for as much as $8 or $9 each a month. So, 10 channels would cost, say, $90. Throw in taxes and such and costs might approach current ones.

How the $8 or $9 fee is arrived at is unclear. Hendricks suggested that would be the case if networks were ad-free and HBO-like premium channels. Perhaps it would be less if ads still ran. Nonetheless, ad dollars would be considerably lower, so networks would want to make that up. Subscriber numbers would also go down with a la carte, so they’d want to recoup lost affiliate fees.

(SNL Kagan figures show Discovery Communications is collecting a combined $2.40 a month in affiliate fees for nine channels: 3net, Discovery, TLC, Discovery en Espanol, The Hub, Animal Planet, Investigation Discovery, Science and OWN. The 3D network 3net is way ahead at $1.29 a month. After that, Discovery is the most by far at $0.36.)

But as much as McCain is on a publicity kick, there is one point he could make: Those arguing against a la carte are making assumptions about consumers that may be way off. Who says the monthly bill will come out about the same? Even at $9 for Discovery or $15 for ESPN.

Maybe someone can live with the broadcast channels and just ESPN and CNN, saving money even at a combined $30. Non-sports fans might be able to pick five channels at $8 each and still save. Sports fans who mostly want to watch the home team might be content to pay $20 a month for only a single channel: a regional sports network. (This is all assuming they also receive the broadcast networks and those don’t also go for $9 each.)

Cord-cutting has altered some consumer desires. Some people may be willing to go with only a select few channels with Netflix and all the other online options.

Why don’t networks put their money where their mouths are? Why don’t they allow cable operators to offer the bundle as well as channels, such as ESPN, CNN, TNT and Bravo a la carte? Why not let the marketplace decide the a la carte issue?

Probably because it would pose a serious financial risk. Which is why, for their purposes, it’s good McCain is on a publicity kick and appears to be a true maverick and solo practitioner.