• by Wayne Friedman , Staff Writer, September 8, 2005

Poor cable industry. Now it is moaning that carrying all those proposed digital channels from local broadcasters will give it a big financial backache--as much as $115.6 billion in revenue from lost bandwidth, according to a report from the National Cable & Telecommunications Association.

The cable industry says this shouldn't be. They have freedom of speech, and other freedoms to do business. Broadcasters should only get one channel.

Of course, cable operators have no problems taking multi-digital channels from ESPN, Discovery Networks, or MTV, to name a few. Why? Because those are their business partners--where they can sell advertising time, and in theory, lure cable subscribers who want something more than just better reception.

But if ratings were votes, broadcasters would still win in a landslide. On a channel-by-channel basis, a broadcast station still outperforms, ratings-wise, virtually any cable network. Perhaps cable operators should heed those sentiments from their viewers.

Cable operators have no one to blame but themselves as to why they get such scrutiny from Federal regulators. Despite recent incursions from satellite distributors, cable still has a near monopolistic business with TV viewers.

Broadcasters say they need more channels to be competitive. But the gatekeepers are the cable operators--retailers who are in an extra large king-size financial bed with cable programming networks. Cable operators would like the entire playing field all to themselves.

In this regard, we have devised a theoretical test--one that doesn't take into account "must carry" or "retransmission consent" options for TV stations.

If cable programming is that good, imagine cable operators selling a monthly cable service that only shows cable channels--and no broadcast stations or networks.

Would consumers still buy? Sell a cable-only service for a month--and see the real value of cable.