If Hobson had cable in his stable, he’d have made everyone watch the Golf Channel. Just like Comcast, which owns the Golf Channel and provides it in even the cheapest package. But I have to pay an extra $45 a month to get ESPN and C-SPAN — the only two channels in that $45 package that I want. Of course, I don’t pay it, and I go without.
Normally I would defer to Kent on telecom matters. But I think Jon has a point in that complaining to the cable company or the local government is futile in most cases. Both have the same attitude: Where you gonna go?
Regardless of federal law and the existence of satellites and books, cable companies are defacto monopoly providers of cable television services, propped up by government regulation. Because they are monopolies that benefit from past and present government patronage, I think it is not unreasonable for people to petition the government to do for them what there is no market available to do: provide choices.
Now that doesn’t mean that I agree with suggestions that Congress force cable providers to offer channels a la carte. Opponents may be right that this will actually increase prices and decrease competition. And channel packages shouldn’t be the focus, anyway. The focus should be on creating a competitive environment that breeds new cable companies.
But I disagree with people like Sen. Gordon Smith, who said, “Whoever knew that recent shows like Bravo’s ‘Queer Eye for the Straight Guy’ and the Learning Channel’s ‘Trading Spaces’ were going to become hits and develop such a huge audience? In an a la carte system, I don’t think consumers would have ever signed up to pay for these types of programs.”
So, if we don’t make people get channels they don’t want, they won’t see all the wonderful programs on those channels. He sounds like a PBS executive.
As for me, I pay for a cable modem, but my television choices are pretty much reduced to good ole UHF.
