Cable "A La Carte" Lawsuit Tossed By Court

[DToTheJ]

Looks like cable subscribers will have to endure Chevy Chase movies on CMT and The Travel Channel a little longer, with no way of getting around it:

After two years of winding through the federal courts, an anti-trust lawsuit in California claiming cable and satellite TV operators and programmers harmed consumers by not offering channels a la carte has been dismissed, though the attorney for the plaintiffs vows an appeal...

The suit claims contracts between programmers and distributors harm consumers because they force subscribers to buy programming that they don't want or watch. Bundling programming causes consumers to overpay for their video options, according to the suit...

Full story:
http://www.multichannel.com/article...undling_Suit_Against_MSOs_DBS.php?rssid=20059

More coverage:
http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/10/2...cing-from-cable-and-satellite-companies/31084

 

[kms575]

Ok, if a la carte won't work, why can't we elect to just meter cable usage? I know my bill would go down.

 

[FreddyE1977]

They'll be baa-aack!

This is a hot-button issue to various social conservative/Christian groups who
object to having MTV and LOGO pumped into their homes along with desired programs.

Ironically, technology might solve the issue before the courts, as the very concept of Television seems to be breaking down into a set of various competing Internet streams.

 

[TexasTom]

They'll be baa-aack!

This is a hot-button issue to various social conservative/Christian groups who
object to having MTV and LOGO pumped into their homes along with desired programs.

This is an instance where I do agree with the conservative/Christian groups, albeit with a slight modification. The problem isn't that they're receiving channels like MTV and LOGO, but rather that they're being forced to subsidize those channels through per-subscriber fees. Flipping it around, a major reason that I refuse to subscribe to cable is that I'm not willing so subsidize a pile of channels whose programming I find offensive (ie, Fox News for their political propaganda; E, Bravo, and others for their part in making the American public stupid with an unending dose of "reality" shows and celebrity trash) or grossly overpriced (ESPN).

Note that I don't object to other people being able to watch and receive channels that I don't like -- I simply don't want to contribute my subscription dollars to support these stations. I respect the right of social conservatives and Christians to make the same decision about where their TV dollars go.

 

[imhomerjay]

This is an instance where I do agree with the conservative/Christian groups, albeit with a slight modification. The problem isn't that they're receiving channels like MTV and LOGO, but rather that they're being forced to subsidize those channels through per-subscriber fees. Flipping it around, a major reason that I refuse to subscribe to cable is that I'm not willing so subsidize a pile of channels whose programming I find offensive (ie, Fox News for their political propaganda; E, Bravo, and others for their part in making the American public stupid with an unending dose of "reality" shows and celebrity trash) or grossly overpriced (ESPN).

Note that I don't object to other people being able to watch and receive channels that I don't like -- I simply don't want to contribute my subscription dollars to support these stations. I respect the right of social conservatives and Christians to make the same decision about where their TV dollars go.

If you make that choice, so can anyone else. There is no force--none--involved. I've checked through my copy of the Constitution, and even checked to see if there was a new ammendment passed recently...but nope, nowhere does it say people have a right to pay TV.

It is a choice, and if your values about subsidizing channels you don't care for (while others subsidize the ones you do like in some cases), don't do it.

Life does not always give you the exact choice you want. Sometimes, you have to suck it up and decide which of two options is more important to you. It's called being a responsible adult.

 

[TheRover]

A La Carte cable is already a viable business overseas......

The false arguements that sat around the FCC for years have been shot down.

It's only a matter of time before a la carte becomes the Law of the Land !

I really don't mind paying $35-40 amonth for cable.... Only I want to pick what fills up that $35-40..... that vs. paying $50-75 for the cable companies "tiered" system..

 

[KeithE4]

It's only a matter of time before a la carte becomes the Law of the Land !

As long as Disney is making close to $300 million a month from cable/satellite fees (The ESPN channels alone are around $2.50 per subscriber per month), there isn't a snowball's chance in Yuma that a la carte channel selection will ever see the light of day. Money talks, BS walks.

I really don't mind paying $35-40 amonth for cable.... Only I want to pick what fills up that $35-40..... that vs. paying $50-75 for the cable companies "tiered" system..

If it were to become a reality, I doubt that even one cable channel could survive on its own. Not even ESPN. They couldn't charge enough for ads to make up the difference between 100 million current (involuntary) paid subscribers and the 10 or 20 million actual viewers that would pay directly for it.

The broadcast networks are losing money, so they couldn't subsidize the co-owned cable-only operations either. ESPN would have to charge $30 a month or so to get the same revenue that they get now.

 

[landtuna]

One reason I put up with the shortcomings of C and Ku-band satellite for over 20 years was their ala-carte programming offerings. Those have disappeared so my BUD (Big Ugly Dish) sits, unused, awaiting another turn in technology.

I too don't like subsidizing programming I don't watch. After I finally kept a log of my DirecTV watching I learned I watched about five channels monthly (not including the local OTA's) and decided the monthly tab was too high. I miss a couple of them and others I can sometimes get over the Internet. It isn't nearly as convenient but it is much cheaper.

 

[mleach]

They'll be baa-aack!

This is a hot-button issue to various social conservative/Christian groups who
object to having MTV and LOGO pumped into their homes along with desired programs.

This kind of reminds me of the "problem" a friend of mine had at his radio station several years back. Their AM was going to make a format switch to a religious format only to have a large number of local churches say no to buying time on the AM because there were no plans on switching the format on the sister FM station too which sported at the time an album rock format..and Tom Leykus. They knew that the money they would spend on the AM would somehow pay for the jocks ( and Leykus ) on that FM sister which they for moral reasons had objected too. Anyway the AM switched to ESPN sports radio instead.

 

[TexasTom]

Life does not always give you the exact choice you want. Sometimes, you have to suck it up and decide which of two options is more important to you. It's called being a responsible adult.

Thanks for stating the obvious. But it also misses the point.

The forced bundling structure that exists in cable/satellite TV today is not the result of an unfettered market at work, but rather is the result of a small group of companies pushing a programming structure that maximizes their profits. It's certainly their right to try to make as much money as possible -- but the other side of the question is whether allowing a media oligarchy to control the way TV programming is offered is in the public interest is indeed a legitimate question.

My position is that it isn't in the public interest -- and that regulation of some sort is an appropriate response. I'd further argue that allowing a la carte purchasing of cable/satellite networks is not only in the public interest, but would actually promote an efficient market place. For one thing, I'd be willing to bet odds that if these channels actually had to compete for our wallets as well as our eyeballs, the cost of certain programming rights acquisitions would drop substantially.

 

[TexasTom]

One reason I put up with the shortcomings of C and Ku-band satellite for over 20 years was their ala-carte programming offerings. Those have disappeared so my BUD (Big Ugly Dish) sits, unused, awaiting another turn in technology.

Me too. For many years, I was paying $60 to $80 per year for the programming I wanted via C-Band satellite.

 

[TheRover]

Like I stated, a-la-carte is already a viable option overseas.

Onward Thru The Fog !