NEW YORK, July 21, 2004 -- Today, cable and satellite operators force consumers to subscribe to cable networks in take-it-or-leave-it packages and bundles, with no option to pick and choose among wanted and unwanted networks. Providing consumers with the right to choose which cable and satellite networks they wish to subscribe to will enhance viewpoint diversity, reduce media concentration, avoid government regulation of so-called "indecent" content on cable, and promote free, creative, diverse, informative, important, and entertaining television.

Most large cable operators, media conglomerates, and even some existing cable networks defend and even extol today's take-it-or-leave-it packages and bundles as providing a wide diversity of viewpoints and voices.

However, networks targeting women, minorities, seniors, and other demographics less desirable to advertisers are in extremely short supply, particularly compared to the number of viewers in these groups who watch TV. The African-American audience is especially underserved by the handful of networks programming to its interests, the largest of which, BET and TV One, are owned in whole or part by either a media conglomerate or a cable operator. In short, the status quo is indefensible.

The reason packages are so inherently un-diverse is simple: These take-it-or-leave-it cable network bundles are shaped not by consumer and audience choice, but by the demands of media conglomerates and cable operators who have a chokehold over cable carriage. As a result, take-it-or-leave-it programming packages are larded with networks unwanted by consumers that are in the package only because they are affiliated with broadcast media conglomerates or cable operators.

By restricting independent networks' access to cable carriage, including networks that would serve these overlooked and underserved groups, take-it-or-leave-it cable network packaging reduces diversity of viewpoints and voices, thus damaging not only television, but ultimately our democracy and culture.

Voluntary a la carte cable empowers consumers to choose their own menu of diverse network options, thus putting independent networks on a more equal footing with broadcast conglomerate or cable-owned nets.

Under an a la carte system, we believe many consumers will choose to subscribe to independent networks and programming that are either presently not available at all or only available by subscribing to an extremely expensive package chock full of unwanted networks.

If consumers have the option to choose networks, new networks will start up that better serve consumers' needs, including the needs of those audiences so badly underserved by today's take-it-or-leave-it conglomerate-driven cable network packaging.

Opening up cable to consumer choice can only benefit the ability of independent and minority producers and creative talent to access an audience.

In addition, as media artists passionately devoted to Constitutionally protected free expression and fearful of government regulation of programming content, we see an added important benefit to a la carte cable and satellite.

A la carte would give consumers the option of not paying for and receiving channels in their homes they deem "indecent," as they must today when those offending cable networks are bundled on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.

This is a far better and First Amendment-friendly structural solution to indecency than the looming alternative of government regulation of cable program content, which chills Constitutionally-protected free, original, creative expression - the very speech our nation and the FCC should encourage.

Creative, original, challenging, controversial, non-homogenized decent and appropriate programming, already in short supply on television, is severely endangered as a result of the FCC's overly-broad, vague new indecency rules.

When the producers of the acclaimed PBS series 'Masterpiece Theater' feel obliged to water down that highly-respected show's language for fear of an FCC enforcement action, then clearly the chilling of free and appropriate expression on broadcast television is real, it is pervasive, and it is contrary to the free expression rights and interests of not only America's creative artists, but the American audience.

Must we also chill Constitutionally protected free speech on cable television in order to preserve the so-called "right" of media conglomerates and cable operators to force consumers to take networks they find offensive?

We think not. An a la carte option is far healthier for our democracy and culture than the curbing of Constitutionally protected free speech, and would eliminate the need for the Commission to expand its overly-broad and vague new indecency regulations to cable.

Jonathan Rintels is Executive Director of the Center for Creative Voices in Media .

© MediaChannel.org, 2004. All rights reserved.

= = = = = = =
 TAKE ACTION  make media ownership an election-year issue.
= = = = = = =
 JOIN  MediaChannel's citizens media movement to improve election coverage.
= = = = = = =
 SUBSCRIBE  to Media Savvy, MediaChannel's free daily news update.
= = = = = = =
 SUPPORT  MediaChannel's 2004 campaign by donating to MediaChannel.org
= = = = = = =
 RETURN  to MediaChannel's Homepage
= = = = = = =