Viewers deserve choice on cable TV

By Carol Copeland

Broadcast decency is anything but passé. The U.S. Supreme Court made that clear when it handed down two important rulings upholding the Federal Communications Commission’s authority to fine the TV networks for airing indecent content.

But if we ever hope to address the problem of indecency on television, we must address indecency on cable as well. As a member of the Commerce Committee, Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) can serve as an advocate for the families of Georgia by breaking the cable industry’s monopoly and becoming an advocate for cable choice in the U.S. Senate.

More than 80 million U.S. households subscribe to some from of cable or multichannel television service, and with the government-mandated digital TV transition on June 12, the cable industry stands to gain a windfall of new subscribers, nearly half a million, by some estimates.

But those new subscribers need to beware of the hazards posed by welcoming cable into their households.

Basic cable has become a kind of Pandora’s box for families. Many parents welcome basic cable into their homes because it opens up a whole universe of family-friendly programming. But to access these educational and family-friendly networks like the Discovery Channel, they are also forced to pay for channels like MTV and FX that they don’t want and that actually make their job as a parent and TV cop much more difficult.

Worse still, cable networks — which are not bound by the broadcast decency law — lobby their distributors for the favorable channel positions near the “traditional networks.” In effect, networks like FX and MTV pay to be “lower on the dial.” So, a family channel surfing from one network that is bound to uphold today’s decency laws to another is likely to flip through any number of networks that are not held to any standard of decency.

No other media sector requires customers to purchase products they do not want or may even find harmful or offensive in order to consume a product that they do want. If you go to the newsstand to buy Time magazine, are you also forced to purchase People magazine? Of course not, and if you were, you’d go elsewhere.

So why is it that we cannot pick and choose — and pay for — only the cable networks we want in our homes? Because the cable network programmers have a choke hold on the public. They make billions of dollars every year by forcing you to pay them for channels you don’t watch, don’t want, and may actually find offensive. And unlike the newsstand analogy, the programmers force their bundle onto every distributor, whether it is a cable system or a satellite operator. There is no alternative.

There are practical cable choice solutions. One is an “opt-in” solution. Think of it like a sushi restaurant menu. You pick and pay for only the items you want. Another is an “opt-out” solution. You would purchase a programming tier and could “opt out” of some number of networks which you didn’t want, receiving a credit on your monthly cable bill for those networks you “opt out” of.

It seems like a no-brainer, but the industry has shown no interest in embracing a more free-market approach to cable programming bundles. That’s why such a diverse group of organizations and a growing number of Americans are mobilizing to make cable choice a reality.

Family groups like the Parents Television Council have joined with national consumer organizations and even a number of prominent cable television executives in calling for some form of á la carte cable pricing.

Unless and until families can subscribe — and pay for — only those networks they want, the harmful and graphic material will continue to pour unabated into homes across the nation on both free and pay TV.

Carol Copeland is the Atlanta chapter director for the Parents Television Council.