Programmers, Others Pan House a la Carte Bill
Mandating cable and DBS a la carte pricing, as a new House bill would, is a bad idea, advocacy groups for TV programmers and public interests said. The bill, introduced Thurs. by Rep. Lipinski (D-Ill.) and cosponsored by Reps. Fortenberry (R-Neb.), Aderholt (R-Ala.) and Shuler (D-N.C.), would give cable 3 choices in offering cable pricing: (1) Follow the decency standards broadcasters do 6 a.m.-10 p.m. (2) Offer a compelling family tier with news, sports and children’s programming. (3) Let customers block channels they don’t want and refund them accordingly.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
Getting the bill through the House Commerce Committee will be a challenge, backers acknowledged. “I've talked to some members in Energy and Commerce but don’t have anyone right now on the committee to move it forward,” Lipinski said. He said he has spoken to Committee Chmn. Dingell (D- Mich.) and Telecom Subcommittee Chmn. Markey (D Mass.) on scheduling hearings for the bill, but has gotten no commitments: “We're still working on it.” The Subcommittee plans an oversight hearing next Fri. on related issues, a Hill source said. The Committee will look into “images children see on the screen,” studying everything from Hollywood cinema to cable and satellite programming, the source said.
It’s up to the bill’s advocates to push it through the committee, said Dan Isett, Parents TV Council corporate & govt. affairs dir. “The onus is clearly on the public advocacy groups to drum up public support for it,” he said: “Hill support will follow.” The bill is good for consumers, Consumers Union Senior Policy Analyst said. Letting consumers block the channels they don’t want would let the market better reflect consumer demand, she said: “That means the cost of expensive channels would actually come down.” The bill would require operators to lay bare their programming contracts -- perhaps tricky, since those are negotiated privately and historically have been closely guarded.
The bill and FCC Chmn. Martin’s support of it “represent a blatant affront to the emergence of minorities on television,” said League of United Latin American Citizens National Exec. Dir. Brent Wilkes. Hispanic Media Coalition also panned the bill. “It would turn back the clock for minority programmers and return us to the day when media was mostly controlled by a few major corporations,” CEO Alex Nogales said.
Martin praised Lipinski’s bill. “Your efforts today are even more important in the wake of the Second Circuit Court’s recent decision which may make it more difficult for the FCC to enforce restrictions on objectionable language,” he said: “We need a content-neutral solution that puts the power in the hands of America’s parents and voids first amendment concerns.” (See separate report in this issue.)