Cable choices
November 27th, 2007, 10:24 am · Post a Comment · posted by fsherman
Monday’s Daily News editorial on various proposed FCC regulations for cable television included a discussion of the idea that cable companies be forced to offer us “a la carte” programming — we pay for the channels we want, and no others — rather than the current system, where taking Turner Classic and SciFi (two that I like) means paying for Golf Channels, ESPN channels and other things that I couldn’t care less about (the Golf Channel seems like something Satan would force the damned to watch).
My employer being a libertarian company, I won’t dispute the argument that government shouldn’t regulate such things, but I’ll sure as heck disagree with the editorial’s conclusion that the a la carte approach is inherently a bad idea.
The editorial’s objections are first, that this regulation assumes “people in offices in Washington, DC, know what consumers want better than consumers.” Second, that “this might lead to less diversity rather than more” because channels that might not have the viewers to survive on their own will sink into oblivion if they’re not bundled together.
In response to the first objection, has the writer found some survey which shows consumers WANT to pay for channels they don’t like, because that’s the only way I can interpret this line of logic. Tell you what, lets have Cox Cable offer us a choice — bundled vs. a la carte — and we’ll see how consumers respond.
As it stands, if cable executives are forcing us to pay for channels we never watch, aren’t they the ones ignoring consumers’ wishes?
As for the less-diversity argument, this ignores that many channels are owned by the cable companies; bundling isn’t some way for starry-eyed entrepreneurs to launch their dream channel, it’s more like a way for cable companies to start or buy low-rated channels, then make people pay for the privilege of not watching them. If they believe the channel is really worthwhile, surely they can work out their own deal for broadcasting their own property?
I admit, I’d hate it if a la carte kept SciFi, for example, from becoming a fixture of my viewing, but I’d take that chance in return for not paying for sports channels, news channels, QVC, Oxygen, and so on. What the Daily News is advocating is the equivalent of Destin Commons forcing me to buy lunch there if I want to shop at Books a Million (”This new restaurant is struggling, you can’t expect it to survive on its own!”) or Publix demanding I buy steak whenever I pick up frozen blueberries.
As I said, I won’t dispute the libertarian principle of non-interference (at least, not in this venue), but I have no patience with the argument that non-interference, in this case, is improving my cable viewing.
