# Broadcasters Take Aim at DBS, Sat Radio Indecency



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

During Tuesday's special Senate forum on decency, broadcasters complained - again - that cable, DBS and satellite radio have no parallel constraints when it comes to curbing content that may be deemed inappropriate by viewers. 
Bruce Reese, president and CEO of Bonneville International Corp. and a joint board chair with the National Association of Broadcasters, said cable/satellite TV programmers are targeting appealing demographics with "uncut Hollywood movies and sexually explicit and violence." And Reese said satellite radio has become "a willing haven for edgy audio content."

Reese pointed out shock jock Howard Stern, who has attributed his upcoming move from traditional radio to Sirius to the indecency crackdown. "As he put it, and I quote, 'I guarantee I will reinvent myself, because I can go further than I have ever gone,'" he said.

The broadcaster added, "Shock jocks Opie and Anthony, who were fired from over-the-air radio, are on XM where they provide even raunchier programming."

Reese said the committee should consider "the uneven playing field that broadcasters have with our satellite and cable competitors" due to the content restrictions traditional broadcasters face.

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


----------



## bavaria72 (Jun 10, 2004)

Dangerous, dangerous talking going on here. I like what Jack Valenti (former president of the Motion Picture Assoc.) said. He cautioned lawmakers to stay out of this and let the industry come up with it's own rules or "...you begin to torment and torture the First Amendment." Look out for more censorship in the future....:nono2:


----------



## kenglish (Oct 2, 2004)

Worst of all, from what I read on our station's webpage, is Martin's comments that said (paraphrasing), "there are means to control what your kids see, but why should you have to use them?"

_BTW, Bruce Reese is my boss. And, I have to agree, some of this stuff is getting waaaay too outrageous._


----------



## TechnoCat (Sep 4, 2005)

Chris Blount said:


> Reese said the committee should consider "the uneven playing field that broadcasters have with our satellite and cable competitors" due to the content restrictions traditional broadcasters face.http://www.skyreport.com (Used with permission)


Except the "broadcasters" can be received without additional subscriptions and are OTA. Cable is definitely not OTA and satellites do not monopolize wavelengths (due to the need to directionally aim.)

Any "broadcaster" who feels censored by restrictions on what they put on the common airwaves is free to purchase their own satellite and put whatever they want on it. But they can no more thrust their idea of decency over the common airwaves than they can paint large porn banners on the outside wall of their office building.


----------



## BobMurdoch (Apr 24, 2002)

kenglish said:


> Worst of all, from what I read on our station's webpage, is Martin's comments that said (paraphrasing), "there are means to control what your kids see, but why should you have to use them?"
> 
> _BTW, Bruce Reese is my boss. And, I have to agree, some of this stuff is getting waaaay too outrageous._


Oh great, Utah is gonna determine what the rest of us are allowed to see. We are voting with our wallets and PAYING for content we want. If you DON'T want the content, don't buy it, OR call up XM and have them blank out the Xl channels (the only channels with racier content) for free.

You live in a community which censors content and bans alcohol and who knows what else? You chose to live there. I didn't. Stop trying to impose your morals on the rest of us.

Kevin Martin's comments scare me. Controls ARE in place. If people are too dumb to use them properly, make them easier, don't kill the content for the rest of us. I have children, and I restrict the content that I deem unsuitable for them. I don't expect Congress to do it for me.


----------



## bavaria72 (Jun 10, 2004)

BobMurdoch said:


> ...You live in a community which censors content and bans alcohol and who knows what else?...


Hey, wait a minute! I live in one of those communities. Fortunately I can still buy my Blue Moon just 3 miles away! :goodjob:


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

TechnoCat said:


> Except the "broadcasters" can be received without additional subscriptions and are OTA. Cable is definitely not OTA and satellites do not monopolize wavelengths (due to the need to directionally aim.)


Most communities have ONE cable provider - some have two, others have no cable. There are only TWO national DBS companies. Not a lot of competition to choose from - it might as well be a tri-opoly.

(Yes, there is SkyAngel - but reception is limited on the west coast, they only offer 36 channels and they don't own a satellite or uplink - not exactly a full fledged national DBS company.)

Satellite has parental controls to lock out entire channels - cable is required to block channels a customer requests to be blocked. The only block on OTA is the V-Chip. V-Chip ratings to not follow for commercials and program promos for ratings blocked programs.

I believe the channel providers, not the satellite or cable companies, should self regulate before congress does smoething stupid that none of us like. There is a certain amount of self-moderation ... perhaps channels should be required to make their level of 'permissiveness' known. Eventually viewers learn that FX will show stuff and air words that won't air on TNT and TBS. Many cable channels already follow 'broadcast' rules. Bleeping more words on daytime airings on Comedy Central and leaving the raw stuff for the "after 10pm" crowd.

Most of the problem seems to be with suprises - parents shocked by what came on (before they learned the channel's policies). Ratings are not always accurate which leads to more confusion. The people pushing hardest for a la carte are those who don't like the content of certain channels and don't want to pay for it.

That is the biggest difference between cable and OTA - people don't pay for OTA but they are paying for cable and satellite even if they don't like the content. Which leaves congress and the FCC with two paths ... either get the content to match the same 'community standards' that apply OTA or get it offered a la carte. Both methods are bing pursued -

If cable channels self regulate they will be better off.

JL


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

James Long said:


> If cable channels self regulate they will be better off.


That's the most chilling part of this sabre-rattling by a handful of Washington types. They're using this threat of someday getting around to giving vague content regulations to pay TV providers, and they're issuing that threat in the hope that the channels will change enough to satisfy them.

So how much does FX have to tone things down? Can Comedy Central make everyone happy by moving its naughty shows to later times? Does this cover HBO and other premium channels? Without real rules, there's no way to know.

I'm glad that there are shows on cable/DBS that I'd never let my 6-year-old watch. And I'm smart enough to use parental controls to block what I prefer to block.

PS, OTA is a whole different situation. Any kid with a $30 portable TV can watch OTA, so I'm more sensitive to content regulation there.


----------



## kenglish (Oct 2, 2004)

I'm not imposing anything on anyone. But, my gripe with Martin is, requiring things like V-chip to be implemented, then saying parents should not have to use them. 

I'm, personally, all for allowing broadcasters to run a bit of "edge-y" programming for the people who desire it, but being responsible enough to set a proper rating, and to let people know ahead of time what is coming. Our station does that each night, with a short advisory message....detailing what is coming on in prime time, and what ratings they carry, as well as an explanation of why it is rated that way (language, sexual content, violence, etc).

My big rant, right now, is the kind of stuff that is being broadcast on radio....hate-mongering seems to be rampant.

BTW, I'm a "coffee-drinkin' Methodist" .


----------



## BobMurdoch (Apr 24, 2002)

World War I warfare tactics. You cross one "trench" that doesn't seem "too far" and then a short time later they keep trying to press further. It's easier to get something done in 5 small steps instead of one big one.

Then one morning you turn around and HBO has to pull "The Sopranos" because some biblethumpers are "offended" or "children" might be watching.

I agree that making us all pay for a V Chip and THEN trying to say that they don't go far enough makes my blood boil. The scary thing is that the boomers are getting older and becoming more conservative (my 59 year old father used to be a hippie and now is slightly right of Rush Limbaugh). I don't see things getting any better until the blue states can get moderates back into the mainstream government.

What's a few more sacrifices in our civil liberties when our "children" are at risk. Yikes, it's getting scary.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I find the ratings to be fairly useless too... because they are inconsistently applied, and some movies/shows push the envelope on what fits into a particular grade.

I'm not a prude, but there are times when I don't want to see certain things... and there are some things I never want to see.

What I find most informative is a summary of what the program is about and a brief statement about what kind of things might be found there that could offend (strong language, nudity, excessive violence, etc.)

As a for instance, I particularly do not like knives... that's my particular sensitivity... I don't even like thinking about them, which I am doing right now as I type! So I know going into certain kinds of slasher movies there will be parts I don't want to see... but some movies sneak things in that I wasn't expecting.


----------



## RichW (Mar 29, 2002)

_BTW, I'm a "coffee-drinkin' Methodist" _



Plus Moab, Utah had some of the best microbrew I have ever tasted when visited there.


----------



## Art7220 (Feb 4, 2004)

I'm glad some people are talking about this. Good work.

Anyway, that hearing was shown on Cspan a couple days ago, which should have been seen by everyone here. It was very good, I taped it.

Why can't the Parent's TV Council and the religious groups just admit THEY want to control TV content? I can imagine they would only put on family-friendly and non-offensive, non violent programs and if your favorite shows fall outside of that line, you will not see it.

Some of the comments from the hearing likened "smutty" programming to a pothole and the Vchip is just a warning about the pothole without addressing the pothole itself. And that the Vchip is a Band-Aid solution.

Valenti did make some good comments though. Like "Democracy isn't perfect" for one.

There aren't two DBS companies. You have Star Choice and Expressvu, which don't answer to the religious right, so they can air shows many stations down here can't, for fear of fines or lawsuits. I've heard swear words on some CBC movies, and there isn't a big outcry because of it. If more TV regulation is enacted, expect these alternate systems to sell more down here.

Well, actually there's two LEGAL DBS companies, who don't advertise the fact you can get the other two I mentioned. They don't even CARRY those channels, even though they physically can. But then I don't want to get into another rant about that, heh .

-A-


----------



## Joe Capitano (Aug 13, 2002)

HDMe said:


> I find the ratings to be fairly useless too... because they are inconsistently applied, and some movies/shows push the envelope on what fits into a particular grade.


Welcome to the club. Isn't it amazing that a show like "Cops" gets a straight "14V" rating in syndication and on Court TV (which is I believe its proper rating) while Fox's channels ping-pong between "PG" and "14" every other episode. That's not the only example, either. Too many series have ratings that fluctuate. My feeling is that someone needs to make up their mind. Shows should maintain a straight rating.

There is a huge difference between the U.S. rating system and those used in other countries. Take the Great White North, for instance. No "subratings" there. Each rating (G, PG, 14+, 18+) has a set limit on the evil stuff. You know what to expect. AND there is an oversight mechanism. I've seen times where stations have been called to task for not properly rating a program, and have had to air an on-air disclaimer as part of their punishment.

Australia's system goes even farther. You can't run PG shows outside designated time slots. Same for shows with more adult ratings.

In both countries those ratings bugs are also kept small (for the most part) unlike our cable industry which somehow thinks those supersize in-your-face ratings bugs are so necessary. Yeesh!


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

Joe Capitano said:


> Too many series have ratings that fluctuate.


Each episode is separately rated. Thus, a light-hearted sitcom with an occasional episode about adult topics would see more restrictive ratings only for those episodes.


----------



## zman977 (Nov 9, 2003)

kenglish said:


> Worst of all, from what I read on our station's webpage, is Martin's comments that said (paraphrasing), "there are means to control what your kids see, but why should you have to use them?"
> [[/I]


After all, why should parents have to do their jobs when the government can do it so much better. The last thing I need is the government telling me what I should or should not be watching and I certainly don't need them telling me what is best for my kids. Thanks for the offer but I can take care of my families viewing choices without the help of uncle Sam. Darn nosy relatives.


----------



## RichW (Mar 29, 2002)

Some people simply can't accept the liberalization of radio and TV content. I am old enough to remember when a domestic bedroom scene on TV had to have twin beds!

There is a lot of content on OTA TV and DBS that is offensive to me. My solution is that I don't watch it! Sex and/or gore appeal to a sizeable viewing public (we had both sex and Gore in the White house during the previous administration). I'm not a fan of shows with bad language or shrill politics either, but that is my choice and shouldn't be the reason for censorship, espracially for pay services.


----------



## Mike D-CO5 (Mar 12, 2003)

If you really want to see a reason why they might want to censor cable and satellite, you need look no further than the FX channel an "Nip Tuck". 

This week I watched an episode where the male doctor - Quinton - took it up the butt from the Iraq War hero that the doctor performed facial surgery on . In the same episode the other male doctor- Julian - screwed a female patient, he did liposuction on, from behind while she wore a bag on her head. Talk about doctor /patient confidentiality. 

Shows like that are what are causing the FCC to want to censor everything. That show in particular comes on at 9:00pm central time with a repeat of the same episode at 10:00pm. I am sure someone underaged is watching at these hours.


----------



## koji68 (Jun 21, 2004)

Mike D-CO5 said:


> If you really want to see a reason why they might want to censor cable and satellite, you need look no further than the FX channel an "Nip Tuck".
> 
> This week I watched an episode where the male doctor - Quinton - took it up the butt from the Iraq War hero that the doctor performed facial surgery on . In the same episode the other male doctor- Julian - screwed a female patient, he did liposuction on, from behind while she wore a bag on her head. Talk about doctor /patient confidentiality.
> 
> Shows like that are what are causing the FCC to want to censor everything. That show in particular comes on at 9:00pm central time with a repeat of the same episode at 10:00pm. I am sure someone underaged is watching at these hours.


And that's where a la carte comes into play. Whether I can block this channel (or TBN for that matter) or not is immaterial. The fact is that a portion of my bill is going to their checking account. I'm supporting their programing even if I never watch it. With a la carte I only support the programing that I want to watch.

Would that mean that my bill would be smaller or bigger? I don't know. Possibly would mean that channels with small audiences would disappear. How many people would pay to watch G4 or Fox Reality channel?


----------



## Joe Capitano (Aug 13, 2002)

carload said:


> Each episode is separately rated...


I realize that, but as far as I am concerned, that is part of the problem. I believe the bar should only be set once. The subratings allow you a certain, and I believe sufficient, amount of leeway. If you're planning to have more than one episode with extreme content that requires a bump up to the next rating level, the whole series should be rated accordingly. That would cut down on the confusion for the end user.

I'd like consistency, not fluctuation. Program Ratings should only be applied by the series. There should not be any special cases.


----------



## BobMurdoch (Apr 24, 2002)

Mike D-CO5 said:


> Shows like that are what are causing the FCC to want to censor everything. That show in particular comes on at 9:00pm central time with a repeat of the same episode at 10:00pm. I am sure someone underaged is watching at these hours.


My bedtime was 9pm until I got into high school. If someone underage is watching then it is not the braodcasters fault, it is the parents' fault for not making sure their kids get enough sleep at night.

I remember when you couldn't find an R Rated movie on Tv outside of the hours of 8pm-6am on the pay cable networks. The V Chip removes the argument that parents CAN'T protect their children from adult content. At this point it just means they WON'T take the time (5 minutes is all that is needed) to set up the protections that TVs and converter boxes provide. Yet they seem to find the time to fire off harsh letters to the FCC or broadcasters.


----------



## BobMurdoch (Apr 24, 2002)

koji68 said:


> And that's where a la carte comes into play. Whether I can block this channel (or TBN for that matter) or not is immaterial. The fact is that a portion of my bill is going to their checking account. I'm supporting their programing even if I never watch it. With a la carte I only support the programing that I want to watch.
> 
> Would that mean that my bill would be smaller or bigger? I don't know. Possibly would mean that channels with small audiences would disappear. How many people would pay to watch G4 or Fox Reality channel?


I'd pay to see G4, but not the Fox Reality channel.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

Joe Capitano said:


> I realize that, but as far as I am concerned, that is part of the problem. I believe the bar should only be set once. The subratings allow you a certain, and I believe sufficient, amount of leeway. If you're planning to have more than one episode with extreme content that requires a bump up to the next rating level, the whole series should be rated accordingly. That would cut down on the confusion for the end user.
> 
> I'd like consistency, not fluctuation. Program Ratings should only be applied by the series. There should not be any special cases.


So you'd put a show "in a box" so to speak? A show is only allowed to show episodes that fall into one ratings category ever? What if they decide they want to tackle an issue that's a little "contoversial"? You'd tell the creators that they aren't allowed because they can't leave the "box" of the ratings they fall into? I don't know that does sound a bit too much like censorship to me. Personally I think it falls to the viewer to educate themselves as to what they do and don't want to see. And if a show that you thought was "safe" has an episode where they tell you at the beginning that there's going to be material that's more controversial than what you're confortable watching then it's your job to decide to watch or not. It shouldn't be up to the individual show to always make sure they fall into your category.


----------



## Mike D-CO5 (Mar 12, 2003)

BobMurdoch said:


> My bedtime was 9pm until I got into high school. If someone underage is watching then it is not the braodcasters fault, it is the parents' fault for not making sure their kids get enough sleep at night.
> 
> I remember when you couldn't find an R Rated movie on Tv outside of the hours of 8pm-6am on the pay cable networks. The V Chip removes the argument that parents CAN'T protect their children from adult content. At this point it just means they WON'T take the time (5 minutes is all that is needed) to set up the protections that TVs and converter boxes provide. Yet they seem to find the time to fire off harsh letters to the FCC or broadcasters.


 My bedtime was 10:00pm central time from Junior high school till I reached my junior year in high school where I started working at a job and didn't get off work till 11:00 pm central time. Either way the Fx channel is 137 on Dish's guide right before the Tbs station at 139. Somebody under the age of 18 is watching these station when shows like Nip Tuck are on.

While I agree it is the parent's job to limit the childrens tv time , do we really need to see simulated anal sex between two men on tv? I really think that shows like that should be on a subscribed channel like Showtime or Hbo.


----------



## Tower Guy (Jul 27, 2005)

This week the FCC again suggested that cable and satellite be available ala carte. The reason given was than some customers object to paying for services that they consider obscene but are forced to do so to get the package that offers the programming that they want.


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

Joe Capitano said:


> I'd like consistency, not fluctuation. Program Ratings should only be applied by the series. There should not be any special cases.


Why?

Can't you be "bothered" to look at a rating?

It's this slide towards people who don't want to think for themselves that gets me. Parents complaining about programming without realizing there's an OFF switch.

Take one of my favorite shows of all time - Babylon-5. There were shows there that dealt with *many* issues. You could probably get away with the same rating (TV-PG) with some of the sub-level fluctuation for most of the episode. One, however, in the 5th season that comes to mind, could have gotten a Tv-14 rating where there was a VERY tastefully done (and not explicit) lovemaking scene between two telepaths.

This intimate scene set up more plot points later on. Again, it was VERY tastefully done. But showing this scene had you feeling more for the relationship between these two characters which was VERY important later on.

Your way, they couldn't have the scene. So, if you had set your TV to block all the TV-14 and up shows, you wouldn't have been able to see that particular episode. BUT - the rest of us who paid for this channel (was on TNT first run at the time) could. Yes, it was an exception because that exception was part of the story.

And that's the whole thing. The story has peaks and valleys. It's not just some bland, whitebread of 'consistency'. Some shows are more adult than others.

I tell you.. "All in the Family" could't be made today.


----------



## RichW (Mar 29, 2002)

_And that's where a la carte comes into play. Whether I can block this channel (or TBN for that matter) or not is immaterial. The fact is that a portion of my bill is going to their checking account. I'm supporting their programing even if I never watch it. With a la carte I only support the programing that I want to watch._

No you don't, not unless you boycott every channel a media giant owns (like Fox or Time-Warner). With the exception of the pay movie channels, revenue comes from advertising rather than selling content.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

For most pay TV channels, revenue comes from both advertising *and* per-subscriber programming fees.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Media giants make it difficult to boycott an entire company because of one of its product offerings, but at least a la carte would be a way of voting against a channel and letting the providers know that you don't want it.

Lock and hide gets the channel off of my screen but doesn't report back to headquarters and has zero effect on their percieved profits from the channel. They still count me as a subscriber (the in x homes count) and only if they pay a company like AC Neilson for ratings do they know that I (or a representive sample of "I"s) are not watching. Companies rarely buy ratings on low rated networks. They certainly don't SELL using ratings if the numbers are poor. They sell based on the number of homes their signal allegedly reaches.

For example, lets say I was going to sell you a commercial on Charlie Chat. Without the benefit of ratings to say how many people are watching that hour I would sell you the commercial saying that "Charlie Chat" is available in more than 11.71 million homes - over 10% of the US TV Households.

BTW: TBN is a PI channel that pays the minimal cost of uplinking their channel for carriage. Not one penny of anyone's bill is going to TBN whether you watch it or not but most channels do have a programming fee that goes back to the provider. E* is paying some non-zero amount for the carriage of those channels.

JL


----------



## RichW (Mar 29, 2002)

carload said:


> For most pay TV channels, revenue comes from both advertising *and* per-subscriber programming fees.


You are correct. I should have said the *significant* revenues come from advertising. For most of the channels caried, ad revenues are what justifies the channel, or more corectly, the channel bundle. Some sports channels may be an exception but even there ad revenues are essential.


----------



## RichW (Mar 29, 2002)

_Media giants make it difficult to boycott an entire company because of one of its product offerings, but at least a la carte would be a way of voting against a channel and letting the providers know that you don't want it._

But that is also a double-edged sword. Lets say that one of the Discovery channels in the package could not really hold its own in an ala carte environment. So even though there may be a fervent minority of people who like that channel. The change to an all ala carte would probably mena the death of that channel.

In fact, with pure ala carte, you might see the percentage of "vulgar and indecent" channels increase as the "boring channels" channels go out of existence.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Fortunately a la carte will not be coming ... and even if it does it will likely be a la carte groups of programming instead of the pick 20 individual channels for $20 type of choice.

JL


----------



## RichW (Mar 29, 2002)

James Long said:


> Fortunately a la carte will not be coming ... and even if it does it will likely be a la carte groups of programming instead of the pick 20 individual channels for $20 type of choice.
> 
> JL


I agree that it is fortunate, because I am convinced, from the business model the providers use, ala carte would mean that we will pay more while getting fewer channels (unless we include shopping channels)

Ala carte groups, on the other hand, make a lot of sense.

My biggest gripe concerning bundling is the use of bundle to force carriage terms of OTA channels. This is where I feel the FCC should step in and not allow ties ins with pay channel carriage.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Mike D-CO5 said:


> While I agree it is the parent's job to limit the childrens tv time , do we really need to see simulated anal sex between two men on tv? I really think that shows like that should be on a subscribed channel like Showtime or Hbo.


The only problem with the above statement/question is...

Do we really need to see simulated sex of any kind between anyone on TV? How many movies/shows actually require that kind of scene to be integral to the plot? It could all be done off-camera and get the point across... just like how we don't usually see anyone using the bathroom after eating! We assume it happens, we don't need to see it to follow the story.

Do we really need to see people in their underwear?

Or cursing? Do people really need to curse in order to tell the story?

People are offended by so many different things... that if you tried to have programming that didn't offend anyone, it also wouldn't entertain anyone.

I don't believe in censorship. I believe in information. Shows/channels should be required to say up front what the show is about and what it contains, perhaps if it contains "commonly offensive" things those should all be bullet points in the guide and before the program comes on.

But I also believe that parents should know their own kids... and know what is appropriate for their kids to watch... and when in doubt, watch the program first without your kids to judge for yourself if they should watch. Adults should make their own minds up about programs that they watch.

I don't like to eat mushrooms. I don't like smelling mushrooms. I don't really even like knowing the place has mushrooms because in the kitchen mushrooms might touch other foods or utensils that touch my food even if I don't get actual mushrooms in my food. My choices are, not eat anywhere that might have mushrooms, eat there and complain loudly and often, file a lawsuit, burn the building down, hunt down and execute all mushroom farmers, etc...

Or I could just take my chances, never order them and always ask about ingredients before I order a meal and return things politely that have mushrooms but not stress that somewhere unseen a mushroom might touch something that touches me for a moment.


----------



## RichW (Mar 29, 2002)

_My choices are, not eat anywhere that might have mushrooms, eat there and complain loudly and often, file a lawsuit, burn the building down, hunt down and execute all mushroom farmers, etc..._

OK, lets ban any cooking show on The Food Channel that uses mushrooms!


----------



## BobMurdoch (Apr 24, 2002)

This makes as much sense as banning Bible sales because they encourage "smiting", and reference several naughty bits. If taken oput of context SEVERAL passages would be considered obscene, insensitive, or capable of inciting weak minded souls to commit violence.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

James Long said:


> Fortunately a la carte will not be coming ... and even if it does it will likely be a la carte groups of programming instead of the pick 20 individual channels for $20 type of choice.


I think it's just as likely that reverse a la carte could become the rule. One big driving force behind a la carte is that group of folks who are offended to even pay for stuff they don't agree with. Reverse a la carte gives these dedicated people what they want but minimizes the impact on the pay TV industry.

I mean, how many people will opt out of Lifetime Movie Network to save 20 cents a month? Us DBS intelligencia might work such a system to gain a few dollars a month, but we're kinda unusual, y'know?


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

carload said:


> I think it's just as likely that reverse a la carte could become the rule. One big driving force behind a la carte is that group of folks who are offended to even pay for stuff they don't agree with. Reverse a la carte gives these dedicated people what they want but minimizes the impact on the pay TV industry.
> 
> I mean, how many people will opt out of Lifetime Movie Network to save 20 cents a month?


This will NEVER happen. Channel pricing is dependent upon tiering; the ability for programmers to claim lower tiers is what generates their ad revenue. If ESPN can be "opted-out" of the basic package, then ESPN will sue because their carriage contract was violated.

Channel tiering, in packages, is exactly what a large chunk of the public wants. And it was in this "free market" that cable programmers and distributors caused the boom in the 1980's.

You are expecting a law to be created to help "the free market". That's an oxymoron.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

Excuse me, Greg, but I'm not expecting anything. Somebody else said that *IF* we get a la carte, it'll come as smaller programming packages. I was addressing that argument, and said that given the forces that are requesting a la carte these days, that *IF* it were to come about, there's a good chance it would implemented as reverse a la carte.

If you ask me whether we will ever have government-required a la carte of some sort, I would say that it's very unlikely. But saying that ESPN would sue because of a la carte is a bit like saying apartment owners would sue if tenants could break the no-dish clause in their contracts -- the enabling legislation or government rule would have to be designed to address this issue.

Take a deep breath. I'm not asking for anything. We're a long way from a la carte. It's just that when the chairman of the FCC starts talking about it, then a la carte's more possible than it used to be.


----------



## UTFAN (Nov 12, 2005)

FCC and NAB= Bad.

Neither have had a creative idea, or truly done something for the folks along Main Street in years.

Shut them both down and let's get on with a free and open market place.

See ya in Pasadena!


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

carload said:


> Excuse me, Greg, but I'm not expecting anything. Somebody else said that IF we get a la carte, it'll come as smaller programming packages. I was addressing that argument, and said that given the forces that are requesting a la carte these days, that IF it were to come about, there's a good chance it would implemented as reverse a la carte.


And what I am saying is that there is no chance it would be implemented as reverse a la carte.

A law that allows reverse a la carte would *invalidate* every single carriage agreement. Carriage agreements tie a given channel to both positioning on the system and tier placement. Eliminating the terms of a negotiated tier would invalidate the carriage contract. Packages would no longer exist, at least for a short period of time. Understand?


carload said:


> Take a deep breath. I'm not asking for anything. We're a long way from a la carte. It's just that when the chairman of the FCC starts talking about it, then a la carte's more possible than it used to be.


Oh, I definitely agree with this. Reverse a la carte just isn't possible.


----------

