Cable Programmers Respond To Martin’s A La Carte Ceiling Plan
Top Executives Send Letter Stating FCC Chief’s Proposal Would Be ‘Devastating’ For Consumers
By Mike Reynolds -- Multichannel News, 4/15/2008 1:45:00 PM
Responding to a recent proposal from Kevin Martin that would put a monthly license fee ceiling on networks positioned on expanded basic, top executives from five major cable programming groups fired off a letter expressing their concern about the Federal Communications Commission chairman’s latest call for a la carte action.
The April 15 missive, citing the FCC’s lack of authority in this arena, bipartisan Congressional rejection of past a la carte gambits and requests by Congressmen for the agency to focus on the digital TV transition, also states “how devastating” Martin’s latest proposal would be to consumers.
Last week, Martin, who has long pursued a la carte pricing options for consumers, floated a proposal under which cable operators would have the right to remove any network, with a monthly license fee of 75 cents or more, from expanded basic.
At a minimum, that pricing level could pertain to ESPN, regional sports networks, TNT and Disney Channel, all of which gather monthly license fees above that threshold, according to estimates from Kagan Associates.
The letter says that the proposal “would result in popular networks that consumers expect to be widely available being stripped out of the expanded basic service, thereby forcing consumers to pay an extra charge for them.”
The missive -- signed by Disney Media Networks co-chairman George Bodenheimer and Anne Sweeney, who serve as president of ESPN and ABC Sports and president of Disney ABC Television Group, respectively; Universal Television Group president and COO Jeff Gaspin; MTV Networks chairman and CEO Judy McGrath; Turner Broadcasting System chairman and CEO Phil Kent; and Fox Networks Group president and CEO Tony Vinciquerra -- also mentions that “consumers would be worse off because they would have fewer programming options under your proposal.”
It concludes by saying that “if your plan is ever adopted, consumers would be outraged. As we and all credible experts have consistently concluded, consumers will pay more and get less under government mandated a la carte.”
FCC commissioners Michael Copps, Jonathan Adelstein, Deborah Tate and Robert McDowell were cc’d on the letter.
To read the full letter, click here.
-
in my opinion, this is just a ploy to do one of 2 things.
1. cause cable customers to switch back to a telco based tv system (like directv [we all now Martin is a telco enthusist and bends over for them])
2. make more on3ey for the cable industry (very unlikely).
everything is fine the way it is, if people dont like the channels, then dont watch them. i dont mind paying for 60 channels and only watching 8 of them on a regular basis because one in a while, there is something i want to watch on those other channels.
I''''m not going to pay for a channel just to watch one show, thats just ****ing retarded.
making people pay per channel is going to invite all kinds of extra fees.
the golden rule of technology, if it aint broke dont fix it.
TechMaster - 4/30/2008 1:42:00 PM EDT -
Gene, my apologies. Thanks for the clarification - we sit on the same sideline.
Quigley Spargus - 4/17/2008 10:22:00 AM EDT -
I think you miss my point Quigley. The cable companies are not the problem in my opinion. The distributors only pass on the result of the contracts that they have to accept. In my opinion the monopolies are at the level of the likes of Viacom, NBC Universal, and the few others that own all these channels and insist that the distribution companies take it all. Needless to say my full point is to give the consumer the rite to chouse and pay for what they want.
Gene Hinterschied - 4/16/2008 3:49:00 PM EDT -
Gene, sounds like you need a lttle schooling in Cable 101. Of course I will sideline the fact that you are likely an employee of ATT. Verticle integration exists only with Comcast, Time Warner, and Cox albeit very lightly in Cox's case. Cable can hardly be considered a monopoly in todays environment and when compared to the phone monopoly, cable only enjoyed the status during its infancy unlike the decades long and matured saturation AT&T enjoyed. So cable saves the day for consumers by taking 20% of the phone business in a few short years. It took the DBS players 10 years to take 20% of the pay television market. Just how long will it take ATT to help Verizon reach 20% video? Personally, I think it will take far longer than you might forecast and if your industry should ever reach 20% consider it a home run. Which leaves you with this one question to answer...After throwing all those billions of dollars at video as a save tactic for your shrinking phone business - was it worth it? Hardly.
Quigley Spargus - 4/16/2008 12:20:00 PM EDT -
The American viewer is entitled to a vote that counts. A vote that is backed with dollars and cents, by way of the choices they should be entitled to make. The American viewer is intelligent enough to select what they want to come in to their homes, and is willing to pay for what they want to enjoy in their homes. It is not fair for what have become a few entertainment monopolies to force all the content they have in to the home of each American without choice and a vote that has finical impact in the market place.
I think that ala-carte it the cure for a lot of ills in the industry. I believe that would greatly reduce the redundancy we are seeing across the board now that the few media giants own most of the channels
Gene Hinterschied - 4/16/2008 11:13:00 AM EDT
Mr. Dolan: Mischief on Martin's Mind
12/13/2008Martin Backs Cable Antitrust Suit
09/25/2007A La Carte Off FCC Agenda?
07/20/2008
VIEW ALL GALLERIES
