- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
First; as appealing as an a la carte channel menu might be, I think the cable companies are, unfortunately, correct in asserting that it would not work. Each and every cable channel supports itself mainly by advertising, not cable subscription fees. If advertisers knew that any given channel had a finite number of viewers at any given time, they would pay the channels much less than what they're paying now, which would put the channels in an impossible position; the only way they could get more subscribers is to produce new shows (keep in mind that they're bringing in a lot less money now), but those potential subscribers won't see those new shows because their not paying to get the channel in the first place. An a la carte system would probably eliminate most of the interesting, quirky, and idiosyncratic progamming that cable has now (and that goes for the shows you like, too).
Second; people frustrated with the cable companies' local monopolies shouldn't rejoice at this type of debate. Cable TV's detractors, in this case, are not interested in some kind of reasonable reform. They simply hate cable because cable channels provide racy content, and they hate the fact that they can't leverage these channels like they do with the networks (mainly because these channels know uptight fundamentalists aren't watching, anyway). They don't care about people getting to see the shows they want to see; They're goal is to make cable TV as homogenous and tepid as network TV is, and to make sure you can't hear bad words and see nudity - even if you're paying for it. Of course, they can't come out and say that, so they shift the debate to the welfare of a hypothetical family that insists on paying for cable (in spite of all the filth), and allowing their children to watch it unsupervised, yet can't be bothered to figure out how to use a v-chip.
Third; If anyone still doubts it, this should prove how truly hypocritical the conservative wing of the Republican party is. They are champions of de-regulation in every instance, even in industries that directly affect the physical well being of workers and customers, but take the exact opposite position when it comes to TV, movies, and music. Imagine the whining and bleating we would have to endure from the right if a Democratic congress tried to regulate any industry as aggressively as the FCC is suggesting cable be regulated.
As much as I dislike the influence of corporate money on the political process, this is one case where I'd like to see Viacom create a war chest for Ted Stevens' opponent in 2006.
