The relationship to indecency is that programming that some people may consider to be unsuitable for their family’s viewing is piped into their homes anyway under the tiering method. An alternative method of providing programming, which method the cable companies have long resisted, is known as “a la carte” – sort of like a buffet, buy one dish or buy them all. A la carte purchasing would allow families to purchase exactly what they want to watch, without allowing unwanted programming into their homes.
The key to this whole brouhaha is that “cable companies have long resisted,” since this suggests a business model that is not exactly raring to change. Broadcasters too had their own notions of how to sell TV ad spots, but it seems their resolve to continue with tradition was found wanting several weeks ago when, before you could say the words “hidebound” or “ratings sweeps,” several networks cut a deal with Apple to allow the re-broadcast of current hit shows at the consumer’s convenience -- as opposed to dictating viewing terms to consumers.
Another part about resisting is that it puts cable on the defensive, and opens up the issue that has already been raised, and raised again – that of having a strong new (wireline) competitor to cable, with a differentiated programming suite, or way of providing programming, which means telco. The wireline part is critical since the GAO has concluded that only another wireline competitor can provide effective rate competition to cable, as opposed that offered already by cable’s satellite competitors.
The fact is, the video offerings proposed by telcos have a chance of burying the notion of how video programming is offered to consumers, more on a “pick and choose” basis -- to use a wireline phrase with some baggage – provided that the telcos themselves don’t get stuck with a bill of goods when purchasing the programming they will need to make their proposed networks a viable competitor to cable, and satellite video offerings. Critical to this whole notion, though, is that the telcos do an able job of distinguishing how their programming offerings would differ from that of cable, but the current debate just may help them do this.
In hearings this year before the House Energy and Commerce Committee, small cable companies discussed their purchasing power against the large program distributors, which sentiment sounded more like a lament, if you ask me. If “take it or leave it” is your idea of bargaining power, then you might not mind buying 12 so-so channels to get the one you really want. I believe this also is how auto dealers sell accessory “options” they permanently affix to cars after taking receipt of said vehicles from the manufacturers, but that’s beside the point.
