[May 16, 2013] EDITORIAL: Killing pay-per-channel television legislation would only benefit rich companies Tweet May 16, 2013 (The Keene Sentinel - McClatchy-Tribune Information Services via COMTEX) -- Sen. John McCain wants to make cable and satellite TV cheaper. And with a recent Federal Communications Commission report showing rates for basic programming have climbed an average of 6.1 percent a year since 1995, who can argue with that Paid television providers, for one. McCain this week introduced legislation called the Television Consumer Freedom Act. The bill would allow consumers to pick and choose the channels they pay for, by pressuring paid television providers to offer an a-la-carte option of individual channels. It's a reboot of a similar 2006 effort by the Arizona Republican. While some media bloggers and columnists say McCain doesn't have the political clout to win a battle with paid-television providers, we think it's a proposal worthy of congressional support. At the very least, the bill should trigger greater attention to the issue. Television is an immensely popular form of entertainment for Americans, but a growing share of media consumers are heading to cheaper online streaming options. One would think cable and satellite providers would welcome steps to keep paid-television rates competitive with those of online companies. The National Cable and Telecommunications Association has called McCain's bill a "lose-lose proposition." The group, which is the principal trade association for paid-TV providers, wrote in a statement: "As countless studies have demonstrated, subscription bundles offer a wider array of viewing options, increased programming diversity and better value than per channel options. In today's video marketplace, consumers enjoy more choice than ever before." Sure, anyone with cable knows there are plenty of channels. But for most television watchers that plethora of choices comes with channels they don't want, but have to pay for anyway. That's because media companies such as Viacom and News Corp. typically offer their channels to cable and satellite companies in bundles, lumping popular channels in with less-popular ones. Those in the television industry claim the tiered or bundled model actually keeps costs low because, if everyone could pick which channels they get the programmers would charge distributors more for each channel, causing the price increase to be passed along to all paid-television consumers. McCain's bill, while technically voluntary, would push cable and satellite companies to provide consumers with more choice by leveraging something called a "compulsory license." Cable and satellite providers need the license to access local broadcast channels and offer those stations to their customers. Under McCain's proposal, if the companies want the license for the local channels they'll have to offer the a-la-carte option, even if they also want offer bundled packages. In an interview with the Philadelphia Inquirer earlier this week, National Cable and Telecommunications Association spokesman Brian Dietz predicted that only consumers who watch very little television would want to pay for channels individually. That may be so, but that choice should be up to consumers -- not programmers or cable providers -- to make. ___ (c)2013 The Keene Sentinel (Keene, N.H.) Visit The Keene Sentinel (Keene, N.H.) at www.sentinelsource.com Distributed by MCT Information Services [ Back To TMCnet.com's Homepage ]