Cracking the door on a la carte service

The package-oriented subscription model employed by cable and satellite television services annoys me to no end. Aside from the rapacious greed of the program creators and the enabling providers, there is no reason why they should not allow me to pick which channels I like and be charged for those alone. No offense to those that enjoy them but I have no use for a soap opera channel, a Philippines-centric station, or the entire Lifetime family of networks. And if these networks cannot sustain themselves because of lack of interest; I see no reason why I should subsidize their existence through higher subscription fees. Furthermore, providers use these throwaway channels to fluff their offerings and justify exorbitant subscription rates (“We offer 200 channels for $100 a month! That is just $.50 per channel! What a bargain!).

And while there have been numerous attempts at the federal level to force providers to offer such an a la carte subscription model, each has been thwarted by the extremely well-funded telecom lobby. In a somewhat surprising turn of events, the proposed XM/ Sirius merger may present an opportunity for an end run around that opposition.

“As I’ve indicated before, this is an unusual situation,” Martin said in a statement. “I am recommending that with the voluntary commitments they (the companies) have offered, on balance, this transaction would be in the public interest.”

The companies also agreed to an “open radio” standard, meant to create competition among manufacturers of satellite radios, according to FCC officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because the agreement had not yet been made public.

Other conditions are similar to promises made by Sirius CEO Mel Karmazin last year.

They include a three-year freeze on prices and packages that include programs from both services, including a so-called “a la carte” offering that would be available within three months of the close of the deal [emphasis mine].

If a relatively new radio company can offer an a la carte option, the much more established television services can as well. Most cable systems are granted local monopolies by the municipality in which they operate (my market ranks in the top 30 in the country and I have but one cable option) though the FCC maintains a high level of authority in the industry. Both local and federal government has the opportunity to demand an a la carte programming option, something that would grant subscribers a cheaper point of entry into the market as well as a measure of flexibility in an industry long dominated by the provider side of the equation.

Now, I grant you cable TV is hardly a life or death issue. But it would be nice to see consumer protection arise as a topic of discussion aside from when things go terribly wrong (see the FDA). It seems like this is as good a place to start as any.