• by Wayne Friedman , Staff Writer, December 9, 2005

Time Warner and Comcast Corp.--the No. 1 and 2 major cable operators--didn't take long to run to their financial calculators to figure out that they'd better consider offering an a la carte family package cable network.

Call this: Cutting your losses.

Recently the two companies suggested that they would, indeed, mull the idea of selling a package of family-oriented cable networks. All this is because Time Warner and Comcast could be losing a lot more. Right now the two cable operators say they'll consider offering alternative cable network packages--not a complete a la carte buy-the-exact-channels-you-want package.

While the pressure seemingly came from parental and religious groups who will take the claim for some of these considerations, the bigger concern comes from suggestions by Federal Communications Commission chairman Kevin Martin that consumers should be able to pick any cable networks they want.

That would be disastrous for cable operators. Complete a la carte cable network selling would, in effect, turn the cable business upside down. Big, established networks could be cut down to size--in effect becoming like small-sized, newer networks. There would be so much confusion in the market--specifically affecting national TV advertisers, who couldn't keep to their media plans in buying established networks that have a broad-based 70 million, 80 million or more U.S. subscriber home base.

Family-oriented cable networks would now be under the microscope. Who would make that determination as to whether they are "family"? Cable operators or consumers? That hasn't been decided as yet.

We couldn't name them definitively either, but for sure, networks like Nickelodeon, Disney Channel, Hallmark Channel and Discovery Networks could be assumed to be in this kind of family group. But with new packages, not all consumers would want these networks. Perhaps non-family-oriented networks would lose favor.

The irony is that for years cable networks--as well as broadcast networks--have touted themselves as "family programmers." If their distribution drastically changes, it looks as though they could be punished for it.

Perhaps these networks would get extra kudos from national advertisers for being family-friendly programming networks. Of course, that never really happens. Even family-friendly-oriented advertisers want big-rated shows--as many as possible. And here's the not-so-real surprise: Advertisers don't pay more for family-friendly shows. They still want the best and lowest deal.

So money will need to come from other places to support family programming. If TV pressure groups really get their way in getting a family package of networks, it'll be interesting to see if they in fact support family networks with their pocketbooks.