Canada to propose forcing a la carte programming [telecom]

Is ESPN even licensed in Canada?

I would caution making too much of this, as the regulatory environment for Canadian cable and satellite channels is totally unlike that in the U.S.; the CRTC regulates them as it does broadcast television channels, deciding which services may or must be carried by distributors, issuing licenses for Canadian channels, making Canadian-content requirements, and generally limiting access by foreign services to Canadian households. Part of the regulatory regime already explicitly considers the ability of Canadian channels to serve a distinct audience and to earn a reasonable return on investment.

Depending on what this proposal ends up looking like by the time it gets through Parliament, it might begin to dismantle some of this regulation, or it might simply require distributors to unbundle non-must-carry channels, and modify the channels' licenses to prohibit them from requiring such bundling (assuming that's even legal now, which i'm not sure about).

It seems to me unlikely that unbunndling alone will have a significant impact on the economics of cable TV in Canada (or in the U.S. for that matter). Most consumers who have cable or satellite will find it easier and cheaper to buy a bundle than to buy the services a la carte

-- unbundling is primarily a sop to people who have a philosophical objection to paying for certain channels. On the margins, it may require (and free) distributors to rearrange their bundles in a way that more closely matches the services households actually want to buy together. (I can imagine, if we had similar legislation in the U.S., that you could see Comcast offering separate "liberal" and "conservative" bundles.)

-GAWollman

Agreed!

I'd like to see legislation that would:

[1] Prohibit broadcast licensees from bundling non-broadcast programming with broadcast signals in retransmission-consent agreements. [2] Define some ironclad procedure for resolving transmission-consent squabbles. It could be binding arbitration, an FCC hearing before an Administrative Law Judge, or maybe a special court. [3] Grant cable (and satellite) companies the freedom to split the basic tier into three tiers:

--- Sports. --- Broadcast stations that elect retransmission consent. --- Everything else including broadcast stations that elect must-carry.

This would move the most expensive programming onto separate tiers.

As it happens, Representative Anna G. Eshoo (D-California), has introduced a bill called The Video CHOICE (Consumers Have Options in Choosing Entertainment. It would accomplish most of what I propose; specifically:

- Prohibit broadcast licensees from bundling non-broadcast programming with broadcast signals.

- Grant cable companies the freedom to set up a "retransmission consent service tier."

- Require the FCC to study sports programming license fees and issue a report to Congress.

The text of Eshoo's bill is here:

Neal McLain

Putting the bubble-headed bleached blond on at five.

Balancing the federal budget.

Sell whatever they want to whomever wants to buy it:

• Agence France-Presse

• Al Jazeera

• BBC

• Freaky Alaskans on sleds with binoculars

• NHK

• Xinhua

"The Free Publicity For Anna Act"?

Sigh.

No offense, man, but isn't this all a side show to the gritty business of actually governing? The U.S. is in desperate trouble, economically, culturally, and morally, and I don't think our public debates need to focus on which flavor of g***se you or I rent.

The government's job is not to protect us from our own folly. The government's job is to protect us from our /neighbor's/ folly. We have, and need to exercise, the option of turning the set off and going to talk to our neighbors: about politics, the deficit, how schools are failing at every level, our kids, the "ancient political fish-like smell", or whatever the topic of the day is.

When enough viewers *do* *that*, the cable companies will change their programming to give viewers more, and "better", choices.

Bill

Government regulating business affairs is nothing new.

About 100 years ago some corporations became so large that the traditional model of marketplace competition no longer applied. These companies had concentrated enough economic power to themselves to treat their employees, customers, and suppliers as they dictated. This was determined to be harmful to the country and anti-trust laws were born.

Recall that about 60 years ago the US government felt that the Bell System was an improper monopoly, despite it being tigtly regulated. A consent decree was obtained restricting the Bell System to mostly communications and defense and requiring it to license out its patents.

Government involvment in the entertainment industry isn't new either.

In the entertainment industry, a few years earlier, the motion picture studios were forced to divest the studios they owned so that independent studios could get a fair shot at renting movies. This marked the separation of film production and exhibition.

Because broadcast television had an oligopoly using very limited TV airwaves, the government imposed strict regulation on broadcasters (both networks and individual stations) in exchange for being allowed to utilize those airwaves.

In recent years, however, things have changed dramatically. We're back to extensively vertically integrated entertainment empires. We have Comcast, which provides telephone service, ISP, cable TV, as well as owning Universal pictures and NBC. We have telephone companies providing telephone, ISP, and cable TV service (e.g. Verizon FIOS).

We have seen cable rates go up significantly year after year. Given that, as well as the history of business, it is certainly reasonable to take a fresh look at restoring government regulation that once existed in the past. FWIW, Comcast is very profitable.

(In other words, years ago many people complained that the old Bell System was fleecing the public by buying its suplies from its own Western Electric--passing on inflated high prices to the customer. Today we have Comcast reselling its own content just like Western Electric.)

No, no, it will be fascinating to find out how much ESPN will be ABLE to charge as a retail product.

--scott