I agree with you regarding Free Enterprise. With the Telcos (AT&T, Verizon, Cavalier Telephone, etc.) getting into the video market, I believe consumers will have more video choices in the coming years...especially when IPTV gets a full head of steam. Unfortunately, the problem is the programmers hold "near-monopolistic control" of the marketplace, which is contrary to the public interest. Not only do the majority of consumers want more programming options, but a la carte is fully supported by the FCC and many others; even service providers such as Cablevision's Charles Dolan and Dish Network's Charlie Ergen support adding a la carte programming options...if only they could. The only groups in support of the status quo are the programming monopolies and their paid lobbyist. It's time to break up these cable programming cartels. It's a good thing that Congress decided to break-up AT&T's monoploy on the telephone industry years ago or we would still be making calls using our leased rotary phones, courtesy of Ma Ball.
Anyway, here's a good article that presents both sides of the issue.
"A recent USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll of U.S. viewers supports that argument. Of those surveyed, 54% said they would prefer to buy channels individually; 43% said they'd rather pay a flat fee for a fixed number of channels. The results challenge what the U.S. cable industry has been saying for decades: that most customers in the USA don't want a la carte programming.
Charles Dolan, chairman of Cablevision, which owns cable networks and programming, is one of the few cable operators to openly favor an a la carte system. "Fundamentally, (a la carte) would be better for the consumer," Dolan says. "And if you do something that is better for the consumer, financially and economically it's going to be better for the industry."
Charlie Ergen, CEO of EchoStar, the USA's No. 2 satellite operator, is also a booster of a la carte. "We just think it's good business to give customers what they want," Ergen says. "And what they want is a la carte programming."
It's also lucrative for cable companies. With expanded basic, companies don't have to worry about selling channels on their merits; they can just jam them into the bundle. In that one-size-fits-all system, programmers get paid even if no one tunes in.
"The main reason Disney and the others don't want to sell a la carte is because when you give customers the choice, they buy less channels," Ergen says. "Less channels mean you make less money."
Even so, Ergen says, he'd sell programming on an a la carte basis in a heartbeat — if big programmers allowed it. With the freedom to experiment, he says, operators could concoct scores of special-interest packages of content.
Confronted with a blizzard of choices like that, most people would buy lots of content. Ergen figures, "We'd make more money." There's also the fairness factor to consider, he says. "Why does a customer have to buy a package from a cable or satellite operator that has over 100 channels in it?"
Dolan goes a step further, calling expanded basic "anti-consumer." He also says it's helping to keep cable prices "artificially high."
The FCC agrees. With a la carte, its report found, "A consumer could cut his programming bills merely by electing to purchase fewer networks." Also, "A la carte could make service affordable to those who cannot afford bundled rates."
The report noted what consumer advocates have been saying for years: With a la carte, viewers would be able "to pay only for the programming they value." Because the FCC doesn't regulate programming, it can only make recommendations on how content is sold."
