You can have the Land of the Free, I'll take the Land of the Prix (Fixe)

Tim Cavanaugh | January 24, 2006

In the National Review, Adam Thierer (excuse me, "Capitalist Tool" Adam Thierer) contradicts conservatives who applaud FCC chairman Kevin Martin for using his "bully pulpit" to scare cable providers into offering à la carte packages. Beyond the obvious points that conservatives generally aren't so openly in favor of bully pulpits, threats of extra regulation, and a definition of rights that includes your right to buy a cable package and then insist the government protect you from the package you just bought, Thierer notes the plight of small-bore cable programmers:

Conservatives typically oppose such mandates because of the potential unintended consequences of bureaucratic market-meddling. In this case, the costs associated with à la carte regulation could be steep in terms of true consumer choice and program diversity. If regulators mandate the "unbundling" of cable and satellite tiers and make it a federal crime for video programmers to sell channels as part of package, it could mean that many niche and minority-oriented channels will go under. Most family-oriented and religious programmers oppose à la carte mandates for this reason. They understand that their programs only attract a small subset of the overall universe of viewers. If their networks are not bundled alongside other channels, or included in the basic tier, they might disappear entirely.

Whole story here.

All these arguments recap points I made last month, although my concern isn't so much ideological as practical: There's no way in hell a package crafted by Comcast under pressure from a government concerned with reducing the range of stuff you're "exposed to" is not going to end up being a bigger ripoff than the package you're getting now.

(I also figured out why that article got me a bunch of emails from people condemning me for my anti-Catholicism: Apparently it got picked up by a bunch of Mother Angelica fansites whose readers were expecting the article to be about the formidable Poor Clare. This radio show even brought on some other guy as an expert witness to discuss my article. Why isn't the FCC doing something about that?)

Comments

|1.24.06 @ 7:29PM|#

Hey I hate government regulations as much as the next guy, but why the hell should I care if a bunch of channels go under because no one wants to watch them? Isn't that what the free market is all about?

As a society we are allocating resources to the production and distribution of content that no one is demanding. With a la carte programming, those people working in the production and distribution of said content will be freed up to pursue more productive endevours.

|1.24.06 @ 7:32PM|#

Right now, the cheapest cable or satellite option I have is about $50 a month and includes about 200 channels. I would gladly pay $40 a month for the 10 channels I actually watch. That way I save $10 and MTV, CNN, CMT, Oxygen, etc. all get less money from me. Hell, I'd pay $49...

|1.24.06 @ 7:33PM|#

With a la carte programming, those people working in the production and distribution of said content will be freed up to pursue more productive endevours.

I'd agree if it wasn't the government forcing cable providers to unbundle their channels. A la carte programming sounds great, and there's nothing stopping consumers from demanding it. Libertarianism 101.

|1.24.06 @ 8:02PM|#

why the hell should I care if a bunch of channels go under because no one wants to watch them?

It isn't that 'no one' wants to watch them, it's that 'too few' do. These programs wouldn't exist at all if they didn't have some sort of constituency. They're marginal, not anathema to all who have eyes.

The end of this path is lots and lots of what the majority wants, and little of anything else.

And the worst of it is that it will cost us more, not less. Doubt it? I'll cover any bets -- give it two years.

|1.24.06 @ 8:56PM|#

If ala carte pricing gets forced on us, how long until they propose bailing out or subsidizing the smaller channels? :)

joshua corning|1.24.06 @ 9:31PM|#

why do we even care about this crap anyway...I mean does anyone honestly belive that 10 years from now there will be just a thing as channels anymore?

|1.24.06 @ 10:05PM|#

I would like to have something to watch in the intervening ten years, even if it is mostly Food Network and Adult Swim.

|1.24.06 @ 10:31PM|#

Yep..I'm all for picking and choosing my channels..call me a Jeffersonian I guess??

|1.25.06 @ 4:51AM|#

...conservatives generally aren't so openly in favor of bully pulpits...

Conservatives typically oppose such mandates because of the potential unintended consequences of bureaucratic market-meddling.

Can anyone back up these assertions with any quantitative data? Because the conservatives that I have been watching for the last 25 years or so don't seem to fit these definitions. I think this is a bunch of bullshit.

The burden of proof is on libertarians for this. I'm sick and tired of trying to sell libertarian ideas to my progressive friends. Basically, all of them recoil from the label, because they think libertarians are basically crypto-conservatives.

And you know why that is? It's because your basic libertarian tends to give the Republican Party a free pass, and Joe Conservative a free pass. For one, he overlooks the Republican's appalling last 25 years of existence as the moderate wing of the Christian Coalition.

Republicans and conservatives have spearheaded repressive social measures - against abortion, against homosexuality, against right-to-die - that Democrats and liberals have not. And while the Democrats have managed to pick up the slack a bit by repressing drugs, media, and the like, I suspect you'll still find them lagging behind in this category.

|1.25.06 @ 9:05AM|#

Why aren't cable companies simply regulated like phone companies where other companies can offer content over the cable lines? Is it not technicaly feasable? Don't the cable lines run through public land taken by emminiate domain?

I'd love to see some compitation like I do with my ISP or phone companies. Some of us have too many trees blocking the sky for satalite.

MP|1.25.06 @ 9:28AM|#

It's because your basic libertarian tends to give the Republican Party a free pass, and Joe Conservative a free pass. For one, he overlooks the Republican's appalling last 25 years of existence as the moderate wing of the Christian Coalition.

The Contract With America was strongly libertarian, and thus earned the GOP a free pass from many libertarians for a few years...until the GOP unabashedly broke their own contract.

And "25 years" is highly distortive of history. The strong Christian influence on GOP politics dates back only to the late 90s. Yes, there have been Christian leanings in the GOP for a long time, but its dominance of the party platform is a much more recent phenomena.

|1.25.06 @ 9:31AM|#

bully pulpit

Auuugggghhh!!! Damn you Ross Perot for dragging that back into the national lexicon!!!!

Where's the beef?

|1.25.06 @ 9:57AM|#

As far as I understand it, the reason we have package deals is because that's how the actual producers of the content choose to sell it. Mandating a la carte pricing is not a move towards a freer cable market, but away from it. Cable companies could provide a la carte pricing if they wanted to, but as they have to buy the stations in a bundle they choose not to.

As for things like Adult Swim, I'm not sure if they could survive. A short while ago, Adult Swim succeeded in having their ratings pegged separately from the Cartoon Network. No surprise, AS has much better ratings than TCN, but given it's relatively limited content and highly targeted hours it may well not be able to survive on it's own. I believe Nick at Night is similar in this regard. In other words, why stop with inter-station bundling? Why not go for intra-station bundling too? Anyone here have a problem with a 100% PPV cable system? After all, it's terribly unfair that I have to subsidize the Cartoon Network just so I can watch Adult Swim.

fyodor|1.25.06 @ 10:40AM|#

Larry Edelstein,

If you truly want to be pissed off with a particular group of people, you can always find a way. Really. Try it. It's very, very easy.

Libertarianism has a lot in common with far right conservatism. Probably more than it does with the far-left, even if it was nice that Nadar suggested decriminalizing weed. Maybe that's why some surveys find libertarians generally vote 2 to 1 for Republicans. It's also why it's not surprising that your "progressive" friends would find libertarianism abhorrent.

But..."a free pass to Republicans"? Please. A lot of folks here have complained in the past that this zine in partiuclar has gone over to the left. It takes all kinds, and there's no lack of kinds of libertarians. Some of them probably do get too cuddly with Republicans for my taste. When they do that, others here criticize them. Republicans hardly get a free pass from libertarians. They get criticized quite often on this site.

If your friends seem closed minded to libertarianism, perhaps it is at least as much because the philosophy itself challenges precepts of which they will not let go. And I don't mean that as a knock on your friends per se as it's typical of human nature in general. They might think the same of me. Anyway, you should see the situation as it is and not come up with some demonizing myth that we're chasing away your friends by cuddling with folks we shouldn't, or some such. For the most part, it just ain't true, and it's hardly necessary to explain the phenomenon you blame it for.

fyodor|1.25.06 @ 10:46AM|#

The sentence:

"Republicans hardly get a free pass from libertarians."

was supposed to instead read:

"Republicans hardly get a free pass from all libertarians."

I would add, probably not most either. And those who do, well criticize them when they do it. Of course, it's always presumptuous to claim someone is taking a particular position because of a more general or broad attitude or mind set. Probably just best to criticize them on their particular reasoning. Of course it's easier to just criticize a whole group of people as if they're all the same way (progessives wouldn't understand anything about that, would they?--that's a joke!) and as if they're all suffering from a blinding bias. Yep, much easier.

tomWright|1.25.06 @ 11:02AM|#

Captrespect is close to the cause of this. In NJ and most other areas, cable companies have a local monopoly and had no competition untill DSS came along. And DSS largely just copies the cable modle, just without the cables.

Here in NJ there is a proposal to remove the local monopolies and allow competition. THe cable companies are fighting it, and VERIZON of all thing is fighting FOR this. Just how hysterically ironic is that?

With competition at the consumer level, you would likely see changes in how the services are offered, including package bundles. Bundles would likely not disappear, but would become more like the option packages you see on automobiles.


Stretch: Adult Swim, if it has the ratings I think it does, would likely become a channel of its' own, though how well it would do against the Anime Network I do not know. I know I tape some of it, including the wonderfully odd FLCL.

|1.25.06 @ 5:59PM|#

'If regulators mandate the "unbundling" of cable and satellite tiers and make it a federal crime for video programmers to sell channels as part of package'

Is anyone actually suggesting this? From what I've heard, there is pressure being put on the (government granted monopoly-enjoying) cable providers to offer a la carte service IN ADDITION TO packages, not to ban packages altogether.

Is this a big, NRO-sized straw man, or did I miss something?

fetish Find|1.25.06 @ 6:34PM|#

It makes great reading!

|1.26.06 @ 4:04PM|#

A la carte channels are already outmoded. The future is a la carte shows.