A decade ago, a heated debate raged over the benefits of “a la carte” (or “unbundling”) mandates for cable and satellite TV operators. Regulatory advocates said consumers wanted to buy all TV channels individually to lower costs. The FCC under former Republican Chairman Kevin Martin got close to mandating a la carte regulation.
But the math just didn’t add up. A la carte mandates, many economists noted, would actually cost consumers just as much (or even more) once they repurchased all the individual channels they desired. And it wasn’t clear people really wanted a completely atomized one-by-one content shopping experience anyway.
Throughout media history, bundles of all different sorts had been used across many different sectors (books, newspapers, music, etc.). This was because consumers often enjoyed the benefits of getting a package of diverse content delivered to them in an all-in-one package. Bundling also helped media operators create and sustain a diversity of content using creative cross-subsidization schemes. The traditional newspaper format and business is perhaps the greatest example of media bundling. The classifieds and sports sections helped cross-subsidize hard news (especially local reporting). See this 2008 essay by Jeff Eisenach and me for details for more details on the economics of a la carte.
Yet, with the rise of cable and satellite television, some critics protested the use of bundles for delivering content. Even though it was clear that the incredible diversity of 500+ channels on pay TV was directly attributable to strong channels cross-subsidizing weaker ones, many regulatory advocates said we would be better off without bundles. Moreover, they said, online video markets could show us the path forward in the form of radically atomized content options and cheaper prices.
Flash-forward to today. Continue reading →
Matt Yglesias today responded with a post of his own to a NYT article about sports channels and cable pricing by Brian Stelter that Yglesias believed had “bad analysis.” I’m here to defend Stelter a little bit because I think Yglesias was too harsh and that Yglesias erred in his own post about the nature of cable bundling. Yglesias’ posts on cable bundling are good, and especially valuable because his Slate and ThinkProgress audiences are not the most receptive to economic justifications for perceived unfair corporate pricing schemes. In part due to him I suspect, you rarely hear econ and business bloggers calling for a la carte pricing of cable channels.
And Yglesias is certainly right that you can’t really complain about the price of your cable package, which includes the few channels you watch plus the sports channels you don’t watch, because you obviously value the channels more than the price you pay per month, even if the sports are a “waste.” He falters when he says
So since those channels are worth $60 to you, even if unbundling happens your cable provider is going to find a way to charge you approximately $60 for them. Because at the end of the day, you’re paying your cable provider for access to the channels you do watch—not for access to the channels you don’t watch. The channels you don’t watch are just there. If the channels you do watch are worth $60 to you, then $60 is what you’ll pay for them.
Continue reading →
Wow, I am really blown away by CancelCable.com. Earlier today, I mentioned how I discovered it thanks to Mike Musgrove’s Washington Post story about how more and more people are canceling their cable and satellite subscriptions altogether and using alternative video platforms — Hulu, iTunes, Netflix, XBox, etc. — to watch their favorite shows. Anyway, if you go to CancelCable.com’s “Show Finder” site, you will find a complete inventory of all the major television programs you can find online right now. Go to the site to see the complete list, but down below I cut just the first 15 shows listed to give you a feel for how it works. And that list just continues to grow and grow in both directions — in terms of the number of shows and the number of platforms where you can get them.
OK, so why again do we need to mandate a la carte regulation for cable and satellite?
Jeff Eisenach, Chairman of Criterion Economics, and I have just released a new article about the perils of a la carte regulation in the Federalist Society’s journal Engage. In “A La Carte Regulation of Pay TV: Good Intentions vs. Good Economics,” we argue that: “From a policy perspective, a la carte regulation is worse than a solution in search of a problem; it is a problem waiting to happen.” We show that the pay TV marketplace is functioning quite efficiently and that consumers have more choices and content diversity at their disposal than ever. A la carte mandates, we argue, would destroy that diversity and likely put pressure on prices to go up, contrary to the goals of the backers of a la carte.
We also discuss how a la carte is being proposed a tool of social regulation / speech control, with backers labeling it a way of “cleaning up cable.” We explain why that is not going to work and why, even if it did, it would be a betrayal of the First Amendment.
This new article can be found online here.
FCC Chairman Kevin Martin’s desire to impose a la carte mandates on cable operators is well-known. But his advocacy has always lacked specifics regarding how such regulation of the multi-channel video world would work in practice.
Ted Hearn of Multichannel News points to this fact in his article today, “FCC Chairman Vague On Capping A La Carte Prices: Martin Has Yet To Spell Out How Mandate Would Work.” Ted notes that, “At least in theory, programmers could set a la carte prices so high that the only rational option would be the purchase of the bundle.” Thus, Ted wants to know “how so-called wholesale a la carte mandates would be effective if the FCC won’t police the per-channel rates being sought”?
Excellent question, Ted, and one that all analysts who follow this issue want the Chairman to answer. After all, almost all the serious economists and Wall Street analysts who have studied this issue have reached a consistent conclusion: Unless you only subscribe to a few channels, your bill will likely go UP, not down, under a la carte regulation. [Here’s a concise explanation of why that will be the case.] So, what’s the FCC going to do if those prices start going up once their plan backfires?
Continue reading →
New York Times business columnist Joe Nocera penned a lengthy column on the potential dangers of a la carte regulation over the weekend. He summarized why–as we have pointed out here before–despite the best of intentions, a la carte regulation is certain to backfire:
À la carte. It sounds so appealing, doesn’t it? Instead of having to accept — and pay for — all the channels bundled by your cable company, you could pick from a menu and pay for only the ones you watch. … Yet as appealing as the idea might seem at first glance, there is a reason that Congress has not taken the bait and passed an à la carte law. À la carte would be a consumer disaster. For those of you who yearn for it, this is a classic case of “be careful what you wish for.”
Nocera goes on to show that, contrary to what a la carte regulatory advocates believe, prices for most customers would rise in the long-run:
Continue reading →
If you’re following the ongoing debate over efforts to mandate a la carte regulation for cable and satellite TV, there’s an interesting piece in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal entitled, “TV Channels Move to Web, Think Outside the Cable Box” [subscription only] that deserves your attention. Author Bobby White argues that “The Internet is offering a new outlet for voices — including those of ethnic minorities — that weren’t heard from as much under old media.” He highlights how the Black Family Channel and some other new networks that haven’t found a home on the cable dial have decided to give it a go online instead:
Across the cable TV industry, other independent channels are also turning away from TV to the Internet. The Lime Channel, which focuses on healthy living, pulled out of cable last year and now offers its programming online and as video on demand. The Employment and Career Channel, which began streaming online in 2002, has junked its attempts to be a cable TV channel to be an online-only outlet. Others, like the Horror Channel and HorseTV (which revolves around equestrian events), have also opted to go online.
The shift illustrates how the Internet is offering a second chance to certain segments of old media. Web-based TV is now becoming a more viable business route, and Internet video is exploding. Running an online-only video channel, which doesn’t require expensive cameras and broadcasting gear, is cheaper than operating a cable TV channel. While starting a new cable channel today takes an initial investment of $100 million to $200 million, a broadband channel needs just $5 million to $10 million to get going, says Boston-based research firm Broadband Directions.
Continue reading →
With the release last month of its report on Violent Television Programming and Its Impact on Children, the FCC teed up the issue of regulating televised violence and tossed it over to Congress with a recommendation that lawmakers go ahead and swing for the fences. And Congress appears ready to oblige, although not necessarily in the way some at the FCC had originally envisioned.
You will recall that FCC Chairman Kevin Martin used the FCC’s violence report as another opportunity to engage in his monomaniacal, Moby Dick-like quest to impose a la carte regulation on cable and satellite operators. Martin argued that “Requiring cable and satellite television providers to offer programming in a more a la carte manner would be a more content neutral means for Congress to regulate violent programming and therefore would raise fewer constitutional issues.” But it doesn’t appear that the chairman is going to get his whale this time around.
Continue reading →
Over at TCS Daily today, Derek Hunter points out why a la carte regulation is going to backfire for those who support it in the name of “cleaning up” cable and satellite television:
Smaller religious and family cable stations do not subsidize MTV, VH1, and other channels some people may find objectionable. Rather, the opposite is true, MTV, VH1, et. al, subsidize the small religious and family stations. By bundling them all together, it exposes the smaller channels to people who otherwise wouldn’t choose them, netting them more potential customers. If providers were forced to offer channels individually, the small networks with few subscribers would fizzle out due to lack of exposure. Given the choice between channels, the majority of people would not pick those small channels, their potential audience would shrink dramatically, and less audience means smaller revenues. So that “solution” would actually make the problem worse.
That’s exactly right and I discussed why a la carte regulation would have such unintended consequences in my December 2005 PFF paper, “Moral and Philosophical Aspects of the Debate over A La Carte Regulation.” As I pointed out then:
Continue reading →
Last week I outlined a few of my concerns with the FCC’s new a la carte report. I was relieved to see that others are raising similar issues with the report.
For example, Fortune senior writer Marc Gunther published an essay today entitled “Why A La Carte Cable TV is a Nutty Idea.” And Kansas City Star TV Critic Aaron Barnhart released an essay on Friday entitled “The Indecency Wars: Book II.” Gunther and Barnhart share similar concerns about the new report.
First, Gunther and Barnhart agree that the FCC’s report is remarkably ambiguous on several key issues. Gunther notes that:
“the FCC report is filled with so many ‘mights’ and ‘coulds’ that it’s impossible to know whether unbundling would drive down rates. The FCC admits that it lacks data ‘about what a la carte prices would be for individual networks.'”
Barnhart agrees and is even more scathing in his criticism of the report’s ambiguity:
“If you actually read the report, you’ll be amazed at how little [Chairman Kevin] Martin actually asserts as fact. There are a thousand “coulds,” “mights” and “mays” the cumulative effect of which is to create the perception it has refuted the Powell report line by line. In reality, Martin’s report has more fudge in it than Grandma’s cupboard.”
Ouch!
Continue reading →
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.