The Great Cable TV Debate
ByAn argument is fast approaching in Congress about what to do with cable and satellite television pricing. As eloquently described in the Christian Science Monitor, there are two schools of thought:
whether paying for TV channels should be like shopping at the supermarket, where customers choose the products they purchase, or like buying a newspaper, which comes packaged with the same sports, business, and comics sections regardless of whether readers want them all.
And since we’re all slaves to the Tube, this is a pretty darn important argument. So if you don’t think you have an opinion on this, you better get one.
Personally I hate the idea of paying for something I don’t use. Like for instance, cable TV in general. I’m rarely home, and when I am, it’s generally in front of a computer. I get my news and information from the Internet, I get my movies from Netflix, and I get my TV from whatever I can tune in with a pair of rabbit ears and a roll of tin foil. Time Warner, Cablevision, and their dastardly posse of overpriced pawn brokers can go pound sand for all I care.
When I did subscribe to cable, I always felt that I was getting the shaft for having to pay for some 65 to 70 channels when I only really watched nine or ten. For years I pined for a subscriber service that allowed me to pay for only the channels I wanted to watch.
Now, the opponents of the pay-for-what-you-watch idea have a number of reasons why people should continue to pay more to watch less. Among them, the cable companies claim you will actually pay a higher bill if they switch from the current bundled pricing system to the a la carte model. But they’ll find any excuse they can to raise rates.
Supporters of minority programming claim that Latino and African-American programming will suffer because they will not be able to reach enough viewers. Basically, what they’re telling us is if white households aren’t getting Tavis Smiley, then he’ll be kicked off the air. This is a specious argument. Engaging programming and willing audiences will always find each other in the entertainment marketplace.
Thanks to technology we live in an age when we can tailor our entertainment options down to the finest detail. We can creat our own music mixes of our favorite artists. We can DVR our favorite TV programs without commercials. We can train our satellite radios to play only our favorite songs. Why shouldn’t we be allowed to pick and choose the cable stations we want on our dial?
It's the end of the post, now what?
Bookmark and share to spread the word, we'd really appreciate it:
|
||
|
ReTweet: |
Join our email list: |
Subscribe to our feed: 
|
2 Comments
January 10th, 2006 at 8:14 pm
An a la carte style cable system would no prohibit the cable companies from offering certain reduced price packaging for those customers who wish to purchase an abundance of channels. It would be no different than the prix fixe menu at a restaurant. Besides, the cable companies already offer reduced pricing if you purchase a package of premium channels together rather than individually. in my opinion, an ala carte system would allow everyone to purchase and watch what they want – a have your cake and eat it too deal for all. Gosh – this is making me hungry.
January 10th, 2006 at 8:16 pm
Rick,
I agree with you, I want to be able to pick the channels I want. Why should I pay for WE?
I also don’t buy the newspaper argument that cable proponents make. The reason newspapers like the New York Post have news, business, sports, etc… is because that’s what their customers want. The difference between newspapers and cables is that there is competition in newspapers. If the NY Post’s customers didn’t want a crappy little business section they wouldn’t include it.
With newspapers I have a choice. I demand good solid business and international news, which is why I read the Financial Times. With cable I don’t have the luxury of just buying the specialty stations I want like I do with newspapers and magazines. The real issue is that cable companies are afraid that if we don’t subsidize those stations that are watched by the few then those people would cancel their service.
Finally as I have mentioned in the past on this blog, nobody should feel sorry for the cable companies. Time Warner currently enjoys 35%+ profit margins on their cable bill, that’s compared to 10% for the oil industry. This is one time I hope Congress steps in.