FCC Call For Comments on a la Carte Cable

The Importance of writes "A couple of weeks ago, Slashdot readers commented on the possibility of a la carte cable pricing. Now the FCC is officially seeking comments [PDF] on the issue. One commentator thinks bundling between content producers and the cable companies is more important than bundling between cable company and consumer."

But...

[I_Love_Pocky!]

what happens to crap networks like QVC and HSN? Is anyone going to pay for 24 hour a day shopping channels? Are these going to be given away for free?

Re:But...

[Gulthek]

Yes.

Re:But...

[eht]

No one is going to pay for them, but cable companies are paid to carry them, enabling them to have lower rates overall. So under a la carta programming, you would get a discount for choosing to have them, of course everyone would sign up for them and just block them, at which point they figure it out and start charging you to carry them, no one chooses to do so and your cable bill goes up a couple of dollars.

I'm not saying it's a "Good thing", but bundling isn't as evil as you thought it was.

Disappearing channels

[pvt_medic]

Basically if you have the option of only picking the stations you want to watch, many good networks are going to disappear because people dont routinely watch them, and only watch them when they have specials on.

If i were to ask you to list all the channels you would pay for, would you forget one that you like but only occasionally watch?

That's supply and demand at work.

[JeffHunt]

Pure capitalism. If I want to sell something to you that you don't want, should you feel bad? Nope.

Re:Disappearing channels

[Planesdragon]

Basically if you have the option of only picking the stations you want to watch, many good networks are going to disappear because people dont routinely watch them, and only watch them when they have specials on.

You misunderstand. It's not going to be what stations you watch, but rather what stations you pay for.

If i were to ask you to list all the channels you would pay for, would you forget one that you like but only occasionally watch?

Not if I can get flags for TV shows, actors, wrtiers, and production houses.

"SciFi, The History Channel, Comedy Central, Cartoon Network, a news channel or two, and the channels that show Enterprise, Smallville, and whatever Joss Whedon does next" should be a valid choice.

Re:Disappearing channels

[NanoGator]

"Basically if you have the option of only picking the stations you want to watch, many good networks are going to disappear because people dont routinely watch them, and only watch them when they have specials on."

I'm more worried about how they'd accomplish this on analog cable. What, are you going to have 40 filters on your line? With digital, it's not so bad, it's just software. But then you need to pay more for digital...

Err.. I guess what I'm saying is this particular idea (I haven't read the

Oops..

[NanoGator]

I'm a moron. Didn't catch that digital cable was exactly what they're talking about. Sorry.

If the FCC is doing this...

[cft_128]

<cynic> If the FCC is doing this I have a hard time believing the average consumer is not going to get screwed by this. I somehow think we'll see higher prices and smaller boutique channels will go offline. </cynic>

Re:If the FCC is doing this...

[will_die]

That is the same argument the cable companies are using against this idea.
I tend to agree unless it is written so that it make it so that all channels have access to all areas, so that a place that does not currently get the sci-fi or the food network can now get them. This solves the problem of smaller channels getting a market.
Then you just have to solve he problem cost, that is a different story unless you implement price fixing.
Overall I think anything at the federal level on this will fail, however it may force local governments which provide the monopoly to think and branch out.

Hey, Cowboy Neal:

[magefile]

Set your settings to +1, Nested, and fax these comments in to the FCC when the discussion is closed.

This isn't new.

[ezraekman]

Ala Carte cable pricing has been around for years, at least in California. There was one of those fun "within ten years" laws that required cable companies to allow subscribers to purchase any single channel separately from the standard lineup. Of course, it didn't specify prices... so naturally, the cable companies have no reason to price it reasonably. (Most individual channels were between $10-15.) I don't recall the particular bill/mandate in question, but I remember bothering Comcast about it, just for fun. :-)

I care about MONOPOLY, not bundling

[Bob_Robertson]

Too bad the FCC isn't going to address the tightest "bundling" of all, the grants of monopoly that cable providers get from their state/locality.

If they had any interest in "anti-competitive" practices, this would be the FIRST thing to go.

Once done, you could pick the provider that gives you the channels you want, or bundles, or even carries 24 hour Home Shopping and nothing else.

Personally, it's not which regulation I object to, it is the fact of regulation to which I object. I no more want to regulate other peoples business than I want to be regulated myself. I guess that's why I'm not rich.

Bob-

Re:I care about MONOPOLY, not bundling

[icebike]

Of course this only works if you build multiple cable plants (read 5 times the wires) or going to a shared cable plant (which will suffer the fate of the commons).

TVoverIP is a long way off for the masses, and HDTVoverIP even farther off. We will be stuck with bandwidt limited cable plants for decades.

Now if the FCC forced the separation of cable plant ownershif from content provider ownership then your idea might have a chance of working.

But other than that, some things just naturally belong in a monopo

Re:I care about MONOPOLY, not bundling

[Bob_Robertson]

I can suggest www.mises.org and the many discussions about "natural monopoly".

Such a thing can only exist, without using force, so long as the service provider keeps their price low enough, or their service high enough, that any possible competition doesn't want to expend the investment required to undercut them.

Bob-

Re:I care about MONOPOLY, not bundling

[HTH NE1]

I'd like a choice of who provides my water service too, but the ground can only hold so many pipes.

Do you have separate wires into your house for AT&T vs. MCI service?

More pipes aren't needed for choice. I know of at least one town where you have a choice of providers of natural gas. All of them provide the same gas through the same pipe, and all drawn from the same source; they just charge different rates. You don't pay for a particular branded product; you pay for branded access to a common prod

Re:I care about MONOPOLY, not bundling

[Mr. Slippery]

Personally, it's not which regulation I object to, it is the fact of regulation to which I object.

Building out an infrastructure like cable (or telephone service) requires easements and rights-of-way to string the copper. Do you want that we should surrender these to private interests without promises in return? You want to turn my neighborhood into a spiderweb of overhead cables, or dig up the streets to run them underground, you'd better make some promises in return.

Is several times the cable-hangin

Re:I care about MONOPOLY, not bundling

[Bob_Robertson]

A monopoly can only exist, without using force, so long as their price is low enough, or their service level high enough, that any competition does not want to spend the money required to compete.

Your examples ignore perfectly viable competition methods. For instance, two-way satellite IP service has been around for years. You might know Earthlink.

You also say "you'd better make some promises in return." In what way is this not a factor in the free market? It is not the freedom of choice that bumps up aga