The National Journal’s David Hatch has this piece about a potential cable programming a la carte bill that may be introduced by Representative Mark Kirk (R-IL), a member of the House Appropriations Committee. News of this gambit (Kirk would have to attach his bill as an amendment to an FCC appropriations bill) follows a press briefing by the cable industry yesterday during which the NCTA and Disney unveiled two new economic analyses that counter the FCC’s recently revised analysis which shows that, contrary to an earlier FCC determination, selling cable channels on a per channel basis might benefit consumers.
NCTA presented the results of an economic analysis conducted by economist Steve Wildman of Michigan State University. In his study, Professor Wildman takes apart the FCC’s latest assessment of cable program bundling (The Further Report) and concludes that the Commission has simply missed the boat when it comes to the nature of television programming economics.
The Further Report’s optimistic perspective on the impact of a la carte on cable network advertising revenues neglects critical realities of contemporary media buying.
Moreover, Professor Wildman takes on the great lengths the current FCC went to in trying to completely reverse the policies of the previous Commission, which was headed by Michael Powell.
It is rare to see an expert agency completely reverse its own study-based findings over a period of less than 15 months, and it is even rarer to see an agency publicly go to such lengths as the Further Report to discredit the work that supported its own recently articulated position. But this is not a simple “after further study and reflection we changed our mind” type of announcement. In attacking the analysis and conclusions of the First Report, the Further Report misinterprets and misrepresents various statements and claims of the First Report and the supporting documents on which it relied.
Cable programmer Disney also presented an economic analysis conducted by DC economic consulting firm CapGroup, which concludes that the FCC “got it right” when it first looked at a la carte programming and found that consumers are better off without it. During the press briefing, Disney’s chief lobbyist Preston Padden said that his company is in a unique position to assess the merits of a la cartet, having sold The Disney Channel on both an a la carte and bundled basis.
“Disney operated as an a la carte channel for 15 years. At $12 to $14 per month per consumer we never reach beyond 30% penetration,” Padden said. “We’ve been to a la carte and we know it doesn’t work.”
Cynthia Brumfield at 7:00 AM|Comments(2)
A La Carte is something that is needed but since the white house is for sale to the highest bidder that wont happen, time warner and at&t got their you know what in the elected officals.
The reason why disney did not work a la carte because til about 1994 or 1995 you had to lease a converter box from back then rogers paragon cable box at $3.05 a month in the 80's and then pay $7.95 a month for channel 42 then 38 in san antonio. duh disney scumbag eisner get the hint "affordable" not $11 for the first tv and $3.05 thereafter.
a la carte should be
1. you call time warner and tell them you want basic reception service
2. i want food network court tv 2 music channels and sleuth for a la carte
3. 13.05 for basic plus $2.00 a channel times 5 channels 10.00
4. REDUCED RATE Converter Box instead of $7.00 charge $3.50
5. 26.50 a month is so comftable than $50 to $70 paying for junk and repeat channels on digital
"until we have an independant president this will never happen" - my quote
Posted by: WILL at April 24, 2007 3:19 PM
I don't want to comment on the Big Issue of whether a la carte TV is a good or bad thing, or on the Learned Professor's statements. A simple point is this: Disney believes that a la carte is bad because it never exceeded 30% penetration that way. OK: perhaps that's the number of hh that would buy it. Perhaps that's the number of hh that want to buy it. What's the point? If it's that forcing consumers to buy things they may not want generates more customers, well ok, that's true. But surely, that's also irrelevant.
Posted by: John Conor Ryan at March 17, 2006 12:56 PM
Blogs We Read
