Subsidize the Great Commission!

[MacTech]

Until A-La-Carte cable is approved, I’m forced to do the next-best thing…

delete the offending channels from my tuner…
religious crapola, home shopping crap, and MSNBC all go away, yes I realize I’m still paying for that useless crap, but at least I don’t have to see it…

If it actually comes to pass, my channel selection will be pretty simple…

Sci-Fi channel
Discovery Channel series (Discovery and Animal Planet)
my local Fox affiliate
Comedy Central
Weather Channel

that should do me just fine

[silenus]

I just counted. We have 43 channels on our “Favorites” list. None of them, I am happy to say, are religious.
I take that back. Prime Ticket broadcasts Dodger games.

[Captain_Amazing]

[QUOTE=MsRobyn]
It’s not that. The people who originally supported a la carte cable WERE the religious broadcasters, who wanted subscribers to be able to have some choice in the channels they got at home.
[/QUOTE]

Well, as far as I know, the religious broadcasters have always opposed a la carte cable, for the obvious reason that they’re a niche market. The groups supporting a la carte cable have included religious public interest groups, like the Parents Television Council, who are upset about indecency on cable.

Then, of course, there’s the split between the big religious networks like Trinity, who want must-carry, and the little ones who are afraid must-carry will force them off the air.

[MsRobyn]

[QUOTE=Captain Amazing]
Well, as far as I know, the religious broadcasters have always opposed a la carte cable, for the obvious reason that they’re a niche market. The groups supporting a la carte cable have included religious public interest groups, like the Parents Television Council, who are upset about indecency on cable.

Then, of course, there’s the split between the big religious networks like Trinity, who want must-carry, and the little ones who are afraid must-carry will force them off the air.
[/QUOTE]

No. Originally, religious broadcasters wanted a la carte so customers could choose “family friendly” programming and block the rest. Once they realized that people could also choose against their channels, they changed their tune. IIRC, it was all religious broadcasters, not just the public interest groups.

Truthfully, I’d like to see at least some of these networks shoved over to the commercial channels. That’d free up some slots for secular educational programming and relax the rules for the networks. Pat et al. have never really had to compete on a truly level playing field, and now that they may have to, they’re scared. Poor babies.

Robin

[Smeghead]

[QUOTE=Revtim]
More pedantry: some people are indeed pretty much forced to pay for it, as it is included as part of their association fees. I don’t have the option of turning off the cable and paying a reduced association fee; I asked. I either pay for the cable, or I have liens placed against my home for owing the association money. I’m as much forced to pay for cable as I am forced to pay my water and electric bills.
[/QUOTE]

Huh. I’ve never heard of such a situation. How odd.

[Cervaise]

[QUOTE=Thudlow Boink]
Okay, let’s have a show of hands:

How many of you would never have known that Jesus is Lord if it weren’t for the religious station that came as part of your cable TV package?
[/QUOTE]
Wait a second, my gardener is Lord?

[Captain_Amazing]

@MsRobyn

No. Originally, religious broadcasters wanted a la carte so customers could choose “family friendly” programming and block the rest. Once they realized that people could also choose against their channels, they changed their tune. IIRC, it was all religious broadcasters, not just the public interest groups.

Are you sure? I’m just not finding any public statements from NRB on a la carte, and I found this from December of 2005, where Trinity, at least, was arguing against a la carte and for extending must carry.

Nexttv | Programming| Busines | Multichannel Broadcasting + Cable | www.nexttv.com

What they want: more viewing choice if it is mandated cable carriage of broadcasters’ digital broadcast signals. What they don’t want: a “pure” a la carte cable scenario that lets viewers pick and choose among program offerings.

The broadcasters are not dead set against the choice afforded by a family-friendly programming tier, which FCC chairman Kevin Martin has proposed and at least one cable operator, Cablevision, has backed. But they write that “such a package is NOT a subsititute for must-carry.”

In an a la carte world, they are afraid their niche channels would be a la carted out of existence. They fear the same of their multicast channels in a scenario without must-carry, given that they have little leverage to negotiate such carriage.

[QUOTE=MsRobyn]
Truthfully, I’d like to see at least some of these networks shoved over to the commercial channels. That’d free up some slots for secular educational programming and relax the rules for the networks. Pat et al. have never really had to compete on a truly level playing field, and now that they may have to, they’re scared. Poor babies.
[/QUOTE]

I didn’t think there were any TV channels reserved for noncommercial educational channels. There are channels reserved for educational FM, but I didn’t think there were for TV. So it seems like you’re conflating three issues:

1. A la carte cable.
2. Must carry
3. Noncommercial FM

As for the the noncommercial FM issue, so long as the companies are not-for-profit and don’t take advertising, I don’t see the problem.

[Lissa]

[QUOTE=Cervaise]
Wait a second, my gardener is Lord?
[/QUOTE]

Now I bet you feel awful for paying him so little.

[MsRobyn]

[QUOTE=Captain Amazing]
Are you sure? I’m just not finding any public statements from NRB on a la carte, and I found this from December of 2005, where Trinity, at least, was arguing against a la carte and for extending must carry.

Nexttv | Programming| Busines | Multichannel Broadcasting + Cable | www.nexttv.com

I didn’t think there were any TV channels reserved for noncommercial educational channels. There are channels reserved for educational FM, but I didn’t think there were for TV. So it seems like you’re conflating three issues:

1. A la carte cable.
2. Must carry
3. Noncommercial FM

As for the the noncommercial FM issue, so long as the companies are not-for-profit and don’t take advertising, I don’t see the problem.
[/QUOTE]

I’m not conflating any of this; they’re all related. I’m not talking about radio at all; there are set-aside requirements at the local cable system level, and there are mandated requirements for satellite TV, which is more heavily regulated. (See the link I posted in my first post.)

If a la carte is enacted, religious broadcasters are concerned about loss of revenue if cable subscribers can choose not to subscribe, and thus pay for, their programming. They don’t want a la carte at all because they’re guaranteed payment for every subscriber as long as they’re part of a channel lineup.

Cable operators pay every channel on a per-subscriber basis. If a la carte pricing is enacted, that would change so that channels would only receive payment for those subscribers who actually receive that channel. In the case of specialty programming like religion, that could represent a significant loss.

As to the whole noncommercial vs. commercial issue, there have been noncommercial-designated channels that were carrying advertising and selling satellite time, which are against the rules that govern noncommercial stations. Hence my feeling. If you want to have relaxed rules and be able to sell advertising and satellite time, fine. Just be prepared to compete on the commercial band.

Robin

[UncleBeer]

Allow me, as a guy who has actually put together a few channel lineups for cable operators, to interject on a couple things here.

@MsRobyn

If a la carte is enacted, religious broadcasters are concerned about loss of revenue if cable subscribers can choose not to subscribe, and thus pay for, their programming. They don’t want a la carte at all because they’re guaranteed payment for every subscriber as long as they’re part of a channel lineup.

Cable operators pay every channel on a per-subscriber basis. If a la carte pricing is enacted, that would change so that channels would only receive payment for those subscribers who actually receive that channel. In the case of specialty programming like religion, that could represent a significant loss.

True, as far as it goes. But the religious programmers are being a bit disingenuous if what they’re really claiming is they’re gonna loose money because they’re suddenly not getting it from the MSO’s. All the religious channels I’m aware of, offer their programming to cable providers at no cost. The religious channels simply don’t get any revenue from the MSO’s on a per subscriber basis. Their revenue comes from all those tax-free donations they solicit, and all the other self-produced, crap merchandise they sell. The only revenue they have which is tied to a viewer count, is advertising dollars. The more homes in which their channel is potentially seen, the more they can charge advertisers.

And McCain should do a little research, too. Cable companies would be more than happy to offer channels on the so-called ala carte plan. The major reasons they don’t are the restrictions the content providers force on them. Content providers often write their contracts such that a cable operator must take a whole package of channels in order to get the rights to re-transmit one highly desirable channel - this is employed by ESPN/Disney to a large extent, also the Discovery network. The other gambit is a pricing structure assembled such that it makes no economic sense to not carry a complete package of channels from a content provider - MTV, as an example, is particularly adept at doing this. McCain needs to go after the content providers instead of the cable operators. The cable operators would love to be able to ditch a whole lot of unpopular programming; it’d free up a wealth of bandwidth for other more lucrative uses - like PPV, VOD, and fatter data pipes. Content providers restrict the ways in which their content must be carried in order to artificially inflate the potential viewing audience, thereby increasing their advertising revenues.

@OtakuLoki

You’re all missing the far more important question: will we be able to refuse the QVC and other shop-at-home channels?

Nope. All of those channels are also given to the cable operators at no cost.

@MsRobyn

Truthfully, I’d like to see at least some of these networks shoved over to the commercial channels.

Can I ask what you mean by “commercial channels?” I’m not aware of any such distinction - certainly not in the private spectrum world of cable (or satellite) television. The FCC may be reserving some of the public spectrum for channels they designate as purely “public interest,” but we’re not talking about public spectrum here. I’d have to look at a current spectrum allocation chart (I’ve got one around here somewhere) to see if that’s true, though. And if so, just how much of the television spectrum is reserved for such use.

[Captain_Amazing]

[QUOTE=MsRobyn]

As to the whole noncommercial vs. commercial issue, there have been noncommercial-designated channels that were carrying advertising and selling satellite time, which are against the rules that govern noncommercial stations. Hence my feeling. If you want to have relaxed rules and be able to sell advertising and satellite time, fine. Just be prepared to compete on the commercial band.
[/QUOTE]

I admit, I know a lot more about radio and broadcast than I do about satellite and cable, but if the channels are violating noncommercial station rules, isn’t that an Enforcement issue (assuming the rules come from the Commission)?

[Yeticus_Rex]

Well, I guess there are some modern day money-changers that need to be tossed out of the proverbial temple.

[MsRobyn]

[QUOTE=Captain Amazing]
I admit, I know a lot more about radio and broadcast than I do about satellite and cable, but if the channels are violating noncommercial station rules, isn’t that an Enforcement issue (assuming the rules come from the Commission)?
[/QUOTE]

They do, and the link from the LA Times article explains things better than I could.

Robin

[MsRobyn]

[QUOTE=UncleBeer]
Allow me, as a guy who has actually put together a few channel lineups for cable operators, to interject on a couple things here.
True, as far as it goes. But the religious programmers are being a bit disingenuous if what they’re really claiming is they’re gonna loose money because they’re suddenly not getting it from the MSO’s. All the religious channels I’m aware of, offer their programming to cable providers at no cost. The religious channels simply don’t get any revenue from the MSO’s on a per subscriber basis. Their revenue comes from all those tax-free donations they solicit, and all the other self-produced, crap merchandise they sell. The only revenue they have which is tied to a viewer count, is advertising dollars. The more homes in which their channel is potentially seen, the more they can charge advertisers.
[/quote]

I was under the impression that they were paid the same as other content providers. If this is not the case, I apologize for my misunderstanding. However, if they have a lower audience, this reduces [del]the number of sheep they can fleece[/del] their flock, and thus limits the number of people from whom they can solicit donations.

Can I ask what you mean by “commercial channels?” I’m not aware of any such distinction - certainly not in the private spectrum world of cable (or satellite) television. The FCC may be reserving some of the public spectrum for channels they designate as purely “public interest,” but we’re not talking about public spectrum here. I’d have to look at a current spectrum allocation chart (I’ve got one around here somewhere) to see if that’s true, though. And if so, just how much of the television spectrum is reserved for such use.

Something like 4% of all available channels are reserved for “educational” programming. I know this is true of satellite, and I assume it’s also true for cable, but the one person I know who would know is on vacation, and I simply don’t have the time today to go digging. The issue here is that “educational” was defined so loosely that religious broadcasters qualify. So half of these “educational” channels are being devoted to well-funded, well-organized groups that are capable of producing commercial-quality programming. But they’ve been part of the noncommercial “educational” world for so long that the thought of losing subscribers to a la carte models scares them because they’d lose the guaranteed audience they’ve enjoyed for so long.

Trust me. Read the LA Times article. It’s worth it.

Robin

[UncleBeer]

[QUOTE=MsRobyn]
I was under the impression that they were paid the same as other content providers. If this is not the case, I apologize for my misunderstanding. However, if they have a lower audience, this reduces [del]the number of sheep they can fleece[/del] their flock, and thus limits the number of people from whom they can solicit donations.
[/quote]

That would be a reasonable assumption and there’s certainly no fault in your making it. I just happen to have more information than you - info that isn’t widely available. The rates that content providers are charging, and the rates that cable operators are paying, are pretty closely guarded. I, in fact, cannot disclose anything too specific because the information I have is protected by several non-disclosure agreements. If I didn’t have that protected info, I’d certainly make the same assumption you did.

Something like 4% of all available channels are reserved for “educational” programming. I know this is true of satellite, and I assume it’s also true for cable, but the one person I know who would know is on vacation, and I simply don’t have the time today to go digging.

Ahh, curious. To the best of knowledge (but that might a little obsolete), cable operators, by FCC regulations, do not have to make such channels available on their networks. Rather, carriage of so-called public interest channels is regulated by the franchise granting authority. That is, the local governmental unit from which a cable operator must obtain authority to operate a network, may impose whatever public interest channel obligations on the cable operator they see fit (and to which they can get the MSO to agree). The FCC has specifically delegated regulation of public interest channels to the franchise grantor. This may change in the near future; there’s a movement underway to treansfer franchise granting rights from the local to the state level. And I suspect the highly local nature of the CATV franchise authority is the reason that public interest channel regulation is handled there. Either that, or since CATV spectrum is private (doesn’t use public airspace), unlike the satellite providers which broadcast in public spectrum, the FCC doesn’t think they have authority to impose such a requirement. Or maybe both.

Trust me. Read the LA Times article. It’s worth it.

I will. As soon as I can dig up my LA Times site password.

[Revtim]

[QUOTE=Smeghead]
Huh. I’ve never heard of such a situation. How odd.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I agree. Not sure how common it is, could just be my fucked-up townhouse association.