# Last Day of NCTA: Family Tiers, a la Carte



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

The last day of the National Cable and Telecommunications Association's big gig in Atlanta contained talk about family programming tiers and a la carte.

For starters, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin said he has concerns with the family programming tiers cable and satellite TV companies introduced late last year. The big issue continues to be the lack of sports programming available via the kid-friendly programming packages, he said.

And a la carte, which got its second chance last year thanks to pushes by Martin and others to deliver more choice to consumers, was a target at the show.

"If a la carte happens, everybody loses," said Mark Cuban of HDNet.

Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt said in an earlier panel that a la carte is not the best method for selling programming. " Most TV shows don't sell on their own," he said.

NCTA wrapped up its National Show Tuesday.

http://www.skyreport.com (Used with permission)


----------



## KingLoop (Mar 3, 2005)

_The big issue continues to be the lack of sports programming available via the kid-friendly programming packages, he said._

Who is this a big issue to? It is hard to imagine that another choice would be considered a _BIG ISSUE_.


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

Here we go again. Yet another "expert" who is paid by the very support structure that want's to keep the existing "no choice" system comes out against choice - what an utter and complete surprise 

-JB


----------



## BobMurdoch (Apr 24, 2002)

If a la carte happens, I don't see too many people clamoring for HD Net or Mavericks games.... He NEEDS for the current system to continue....


----------



## vahighland (Mar 29, 2005)

KingLoop said:


> _The big issue continues to be the lack of sports programming available via the kid-friendly programming packages, he said._
> 
> Who is this a big issue to? It is hard to imagine that another choice would be considered a _BIG ISSUE_.


I have no idea why HE decided it was a BIG ISSUE. I was so infuriated with this statement that I sent him a scathing email:
http://www.fcc.gov/commissioners/martin/mail.html

Not that it will make a difference.


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

If they "really" wanted to offer a true option for family programming they would offer:

Family
Family Plus

The plus option would add the sports channels at the appropruate cost.

IMHO the entire "Family Package" was nothing more than an attempt to head off government intervention and the industry wants nothing to do with true choice thus why there is not a sports option. After all sports "could" be considered family programming. What could be more family related than watching a ball game with your kid?

I would not want sports to be forced into the family package with no other option because sports is very expensive.

I see two huge reasons sports are not offered as a "Family Plus" package:

1. They are deathly afraid that too many people would drop the expensive packages and opt for a cheaper Family Plus Packages.

2. They would tip the hand of what the true cost of sports is which would only fuel the fire into people demanding that a "sportless" option be offered for all Programming Packages.

They are walking a very shaky tightrope here. While they have opened the door ever so slightly by offering the Family Package, they will be "very" reluctant to open this door any further - a bit of pandoras box so to speak.

Watch for the big guns in the industry and their paid lapdogs to start coming out against choice in full force! They are worried for a reason. If the issue was as cut and dry as it seams we would not be having these talks. What is best for the programmers is more money in their pockets and they will do anything to preserve the current system and just as they pay millions of $$$'s to the lobbyists and paid public hacks to talk down ala-cart, they will be "seeding" the internet and here as well.

The fight has just started.... it will get nasty soon 

-JB


----------



## UTFAN (Nov 12, 2005)

Chris Blount said:


> The last day of the National Cable and Telecommunications Association's big gig in Atlanta contained talk about family programming tiers and a la carte.
> 
> For starters, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin said he has concerns with the family programming tiers cable and satellite TV companies introduced late last year. The big issue continues to be the lack of sports programming available via the kid-friendly programming packages, he said.
> 
> ...


----------



## the_bear (Oct 18, 2004)

UTFAN said:


> That said, I still see a la carte being an absolute bureaucratic nightmare. Because the government will set the rules.


I think this is Mark Cuban's philosophy is as well, since HDNet has a lot of content available a la carte on CinemaNow.


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

Why then do they not advocate a "compromise" in which we retain packages but increase the number by a few to allow at least some choice?

Barring current anti-competative rules is there any reason why the packages are not at least in some logical order or theme?

The answer is, of course, that choice = less $$$ for the programmers.

We have a direct conflict of interest here.

We have a large pool of consumer $$$ and the programmers want as much as they can get while we would like to keep our $$$.

You can't have it both ways. Now if we could compromise and agree to keep packages but remove (by force if needed!) ANY programmers say in what packages they can be in then we can have some true competition.

Will this mean a few less channels... you bet!
Will this mean some short-term issues... you bet!

Will this mean a more fair and stable pay tv system that will be stronger down the road.... I say yes!

People fear government intervention but I welcome it in one form....

If the goverment steps in and disallows programmers from "only" offering channels in groups as well as disallowing programmers to dictate what package they are placed in then the problem is solved!

Example:

Disney can give Dish a price for all their channels but would also be forced to provide a per-channel price so Dish can continue to offer discounts to those who want all the channels but would then be free to create any package they so desire to sell to us.

If Disney had 10 channels they would set a price for each channel and "optionally" offer deals to Dish if they take more channels or if XXX number of people subscribe.

What they could not do is to refuse to offer per-channel prices or dictate to Dish where the channels "have" to be placed.

Problem? What would prevent Disney from saying.... 10 channels cost $10 and 1 channel costs $9

Suggestions?

The only thing I could think of is to stipulate that the sum total of the "per-channel" price could not be more than twice the price charged for all the channels.

IE

If Disney charged $10 for 10 channels then the ala-cart total (if you added the single channel price for those 10 channels separately) could not be more than $20.

This might be a way to do it. Open for ideas here.

IMHO this would mean that the "distributors - Dish, DTV, Cable" would compete on packages they set up and we would not have cookie-cutter packages that are about 95% the same give or take a few channels. 

True ala-cart... no but "some" choice... yes!

-JB


----------



## Opynion (Mar 21, 2006)

I still don't get it, 
I don't understand why some people don't want the government to get involved;
just like when kids say, don't tell uncle Sam because he is gonna come and spank somebody,
Uncle Sam already has people getting killed in Iraq and it's not for tv programming, so don't worry if Uncle Sam gets involved in something where no one will get hurt, because a la carte won't kill or hurt no one, period.


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

KingLoop said:


> _The big issue continues to be the lack of sports programming available via the kid-friendly programming packages, he said._
> 
> Who is this a big issue to? It is hard to imagine that another choice would be considered a _BIG ISSUE_.


Quite a bit of our sports programming is inappropriate for children, including all contact sports....which just about any sport can become when a few hotheaded morons start going at it on say the basball diamond for instance....

People cant have it both ways, they complain about content unsuitable for children, then they complain that the family tiers dont contain all teh sports channels....


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

CCarncross said:


> Quite a bit of our sports programming is inappropriate for children, including all contact sports....which just about any sport can become when a few hotheaded morons start going at it on say the basball diamond for instance....
> 
> People cant have it both ways, they complain about content unsuitable for children, then they complain that the family tiers dont contain all teh sports channels....


Thus why they "can" offer a "Family Plus" in addition to just the Family package. The plus would, of course, add sports and a family could elect to decide for themselves if sports is really family oriented for them or not.

They could do this in a minute if they wanted to but the "real" purpose of even offering the Family Package is to head off ala-cart.

This all has nothing to do with giving people what they want.... this is all about keeping the status quo and nothing more.

The very same "must carry" contracts had to be changed in order to allow the Family Package so "if" they really wanted choice they could offer a Family Plus package which would include sports.

Now ask yourself why they will not do this 

-JB


----------



## Opynion (Mar 21, 2006)

Chris Blount said:


> talk about family programming tiers and a la carte.
> 
> Kevin Martin said he has concerns with the family programming tiers cable and satellite TV companies introduced late last year.
> 
> ...


*Family Tiers are not an option for people who want choice, and a la carte is that choice.
Without a la carte, some people can't have TCM in a package of $29.99
this makes TCM¸ far more expensive than HBO, Cinemax and Starz combined.
I rest my case!

Future CEO of My Co.*


----------



## Guest (Apr 18, 2006)

Sports? Well that makes perfect sense, they are grown men playing a child's game. You can go ahead and raise the price of the family pak 10 dollars more for all I care, as far as I'm concerned its about as entertaining a package as a test signal. And while your at it Dish Network, raise the rest of the at pakages 1-2 dollars to help pay off your copyright violations with tivo.

You want a family pak, I'll give you a family pak, go to walmart and buy season one of the Waltons.

Yes mr. expert, LA CARTE IS EVIL, I mean nobody should be able to purchase the history channel and actually learn a little something about history, that would be horrible, horrible and I would lose soo much.

THE END


----------

