Good Media
Thank You, PTC: The Fight for Cable Choice
Andrea Rock, contributing editor
Wouldn’t it be lovely if we could have an à la carte menu of television programming, so that every American family could design their own package of cable networks? Wouldn’t it be nice if we could really have a choice as to what kind of programming is allowed into our homes?
Well, for quite a while now, the Parents Television Council has been partnering with other national consumer organizations such as the Consumers Union (publisher of Consumer Reports magazine), and the Consumer Federation of America and even with some cable industry executives, to press the industry into doing just that: providing us choice. If you read this column with any regularity, you’ll know that I am a major fan of the Parents Television Council. It is a “nonpartisan, educational organization advocating responsible entertainment,” a grassroots group that currently numbers 1.3 million strong.
Sadly, the industry for the most part is stonewalling the effort. By forcing us to pay for bundles of channels that we may or may not like—or that we may even find offensive—they make billions of dollars every year. And these pre-arranged bundles are forced onto all distributors—cable and satellite alike. Why? Because this bundling allows large media conglomerates to provide a vehicle for less-popular networks by tacking them on to packages of their most popular networks, causing us to pay for programming that we may never watch. If your family loves business, sports, and family-values programming, you may not want to receive Lifetime, Fox or SciFi. If you love Nickelodeon and Disney Family, you may not want MTV, VH-1 or Logo.
Under pressure, Congress started to get involved, but sadly, cable TV lobbyists have apparently misrepresented the true situation, and have bought off debate on both sides of the aisle. Some congressional leaders have suggested “family tiers” of programming as a compromise. But even that is nowhere near the idea of a real choice—they would still be pre-packaged bundles that may not fit each family’s needs, and would eliminate networks such as news, sports and movies. It is believed that the cable industry is thus responding to congressional suggestions with a plan designed to fail. They could then claim there is not really a demand for choice.
The cable/satellite industry also counters the idea of choice by suggesting that subscription prices would skyrocket. This argument is foolish! In a free marketplace, networks would have to compete for our dollars, by creating and delivering a better product at a lower price.
Another rebuttal from the industry is that cable choice would eliminate program diversity. This is truly laughable, when BET is the only channel on cable designed for African American audiences. There are many smaller networks out there for numerous, diverse audiences, but if they are not owned by one of the major media conglomerates, those smaller entities are not picked up and made available. Unbundling would allow those smaller, often minority-owned companies, access to the cable market, and would allow us to vote on their quality with our hard-earned dollars!
The CEO of DISH network, the president of the American Cable Association (representing 1100 cable companies), and the chairman of Cablevision, all want consumer choice, and all complain that the networks’ stranglehold on the industry continues to prevent it. It seems as though we are headed toward the least desirable solution: government intervention. How sad that the market is not being allowed to work! But the Commerce Clause of the Constitution allows Congress to intervene in anti-competitive markets.
Thanks to the Parents Television Council, and to all other organizations that are fighting for our right to have cable choice. To read more about this, or to get involved yourself, please go to http://www.parentstv.org/welcome.asp.
And have a blessed Thanksgiving!
