On the subject of a-la-carte...

[umfan]

The water analogy just doesn't 'hold water' (pun intended).

One gallon of water is indistinguishable from another. Not so with entertainment programming. ESPN commands the highest rights fees because cable subscribers demand it. A lot of other channels make it into a lineup for other reasons but really may only cost pennies on your bill and result in similiar small savings if eliminated.

As also noted on here, cable isn't an essential utility. I see no need to mandate a la carte. If too many people unsubscribe, the cable companies will offer smaller packages at more reasonable prices.

Also, there are multiple options to get entertainment programming. There generally are not choices for who pipes water, natural gas or wires electricity into your home because of the infrastructure requirements and lack of alternative means to deliver those services. Further, a unit of those services, as I've already stated, is not distinguishable from another. That requires one type of regulatory construct. Being able to watch MTV requires a vastly different construct, if any at all.

A la carte may happen, but if it comes about as part of a mandate, I'd be surprised if one single person is happy with the outcome.

 

[Morgan Wick]

Also, there are multiple options to get entertainment programming. There generally are not choices for who pipes water, natural gas or wires electricity into your home because of the infrastructure requirements and lack of alternative means to deliver those services.

But that pretty much is exactly the case with the company that brings all your cable into your household, Comcast, Time Warner, and the like, and that's what we're talking about. Admittedly satellite and telco is another matter. Someone brought up landline phone service earlier, and key e that's the closest parallel.

How would you feel about it if we were talking about a company whose primary service was Internet? That may be where we're going.