A la carte TV would be great, if it were 2003

We really want to get behind U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal in endorsing the bill to allow cable TV subscribers to purchase only the channels they want, instead of in bundles. After all, one can pay more than $90 a month to Comcast for a “basic” package.

But this move comes too late in a rapidly evolving game, and it will endanger Connecticut jobs.

The arguments are strong for the bill authored by U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the Television Consumer Freedom Act. “Consumers should not have to pay for programming they don’t want or watch,” said Blumenthal, who noted that special interests have had their way in preserving what he called an “outdated” business model.

McCain said the law would allow consumers to buy either individual channels or programming bundles. But opponents say the production and distribution systems aren’t set up that way, and the law will mean the swift demise of niche and startup channels.

Tech industry analyst Jeff Kagan said such pricing might kill the current model, “but is that really a bad thing? ... It would force customers who want to watch expensive networks like ESPN to pay more per month, and it would let customers who don’t want to watch them ... pay less.”

The “model,” it should be noted, is that cable companies put together packages of channels, lately numbering in the hundreds, for a bundled price. Each cable channel is included whether it has low viewership or high (ESPN), and each channel gets a varying fee from the cable carrier for distribution can sell ads to bring in revenue.

The Parents Television Council, an advocacy group, praised Blumenthal’s decision, saying that “the current model forces consumers and families to subsidize cable networks that they don’t want, don’t watch, or find harmful or offensive.”

We would have loved to see this bill enacted five or 10 years ago, before the surge of online options such as Netflix (264,000 new subscribers this year), Apple TV and Google TV began to cut into cable’s dominance.

Now that an a la carte system is more doable technologically, the cable and satellite companies are scrambling to keep business with their own digital tools, such as cloudbased DVRs.

Says local media expert Rich Hanley: “Why would Congress want to drive a stake into the heart of an industry that is already leaking oil and about to face competition from companies with the size and scale of Google, Apple and Microsoft, all of which want to deliver television through the Internet?” He told the Register the new bill is “sort of like regulating the horse transportation sector after the openings of the interstate highways.”

Cable officials say their product is still a good value. That’s subjective. And we like viewers being able to opt out of channels they find offensive. But they already have that option with, say, a cable “lifeline” set of local channels plus Netflix. Or an over-theair antenna. Just this week, Google Chromecast came out for $35, streaming media from phone or laptop to the TV screen.

And then there’s business. Not only would production for basic cable shows (“Mad Men”) likely take a hit with such a law, but many viewers would avoid a high fee for ESPN, with its 4,000 employees in Bristol.

Connecticut is home to the NBC Sports Network. YES Network has studios in Stamford, and SNY holds the rights to three University of Connecticut sports.

We think the digital tide will swamp the pricey cable bundles soon enough.