U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

95–453PDF 2004

COMPETITION AND CONSUMER CHOICE IN THE

MVPD MARKETPLACE, INCLUDING AN EXAMINATION OF PROPOSALS TO EXPAND CONSUMER

CHOICE, SUCH AS A LA CARTE AND THEMETIERED OFFERINGS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND

THE INTERNET

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND

COMMERCE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JULY 14, 2004

Serial No. 108–110

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

JOE BARTON, Texas, Chairman

W.J. ‘‘BILLY’’ TAUZIN, Louisiana

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida

FRED UPTON, Michigan

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio

JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania

CHRISTOPHER COX, California

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky

CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING,

Mississippi, Vice Chairman

VITO FOSSELLA, New York

STEVE BUYER, Indiana

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania

MARY BONO, California

GREG WALDEN, Oregon

LEE TERRY, Nebraska

MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan

DARRELL E. ISSA, California

C.L. ‘‘BUTCH’’ OTTER, Idaho

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan

Ranking Member

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio

BART GORDON, Tennessee

PETER DEUTSCH, Florida

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois

ANNA G. ESHOO, California

BART STUPAK, Michigan

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York

ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland

GENE GREEN, Texas

KAREN MCCARTHY, Missouri

TED STRICKLAND, Ohio

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado

LOIS CAPPS, California

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania

CHRISTOPHER JOHN, Louisiana

TOM ALLEN, Maine

JIM DAVIS, Florida

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois

HILDA L. SOLIS, California

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas

BUD ALBRIGHT, Staff Director

JAMES D. BARNETTE, General Counsel

REID P.F. STUNTZ, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND THE INTERNET

FRED UPTON, Michigan, Chairman

MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida

Vice Chairman

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio

CHRISTOPHER COX, California

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING,

Mississippi

VITO FOSSELLA, New York

STEVE BUYER, Indiana

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire

MARY BONO, California

GREG WALDEN, Oregon

LEE TERRY, Nebraska

JOE BARTON, Texas,

(Ex Officio)

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts

Ranking Member

ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland

KAREN MCCARTHY, Missouri

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania

JIM DAVIS, Florida

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

BART GORDON, Tennessee

PETER DEUTSCH, Florida

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois

ANNA G. ESHOO, California

BART STUPAK, Michigan

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan,

(Ex Officio)

(II)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Testimony of:

Baxter, Thomas G., President, Time Warner Cable ...................................... 150

Fitzpatrick, Paul, COO, Crown Media Holding and Hallmark Channel ..... 154

Hooks, Ben W., CEO, Buford Media Group ................................................... 116

Kimmelman, Gene, Senior Director, Public Policy and Advocacy, Consumers Union ................................................................................................ 104

Larue, Janet M., Chief Counsel and Legal Studies Director, Concerned

Women for America ...................................................................................... 160

Liggins, Alfred, Chairman, TV One ................................................................ 113

Plummer, Glenn, Chairman, National Religious Broadcasters .................... 147

Pyne, Ben, Executive VP, Disney and ESPN Affiliates, Sales and Marketing ............................................................................................................. 123

Material submitted for the record by:

Grocery Manufacturers of America, prepared statement of ......................... 236

(III)

(1)

COMPETITION AND CONSUMER CHOICE IN

THE MVPD MARKETPLACE, INCLUDING AN

EXAMINATION OF PROPOSALS TO EXPAND

CONSUMER CHOICE, SUCH AS A LA CARTE

AND THEME-TIERED OFFERINGS

WEDNESDAY, JULY 14, 2004

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS

AND THE INTERNET, Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room

2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Fred Upton (chairman)

presiding.

Members present: Representatives Upton, Bilirakis, Stearns,

Gillmor, Cox, Deal, Whitfield, Cubin, Shimkus, Wilson, Pickering,

Fossella, Buyer, Bass, Walden, Terry, Barton (ex officio), Markey,

Wynn, Doyle, Gonzalez, Towns, Rush, Stupak, Engel, and Dingell

(ex officio).

Also present: Representative Hall.

Staff present: Neil Fried, majority counsel; Howard Waltzman,

majority counsel; Will Nordwind, policy coordinator and majority

counsel; Will Carty, legislative clerk; Billy Harvard, legislative

clerk; Peter Filon, minority counsel; and Gregg Rothschild, minority counsel.

Mr. UPTON. Good morning.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Good morning.

Mr. UPTON. Thank you. Where is my apple? Today, we are examining competition and consumer choice in the MVPD marketplace.

The evidence suggests that the vast majority of Americans enjoy

more choice, more programming and more services than any time

in history.

Approximately 88 percent of all U.S. households get their TV

through a multichannel video provider rather than over the air.

While cable operators still hold the largest share of the MVPD

market, DBS operators are gaining. Cable has approximately 75

percent of the MVPD market, and DBS has approximately 22 percent. But the DBS growth rate has exceeded the cable growth rate

by double digits almost every year since the introduction of DBS

more than a decade ago.

DirecTV is now the second largest MVPD behind Comcast, and

EchoStar is the fourth largest behind Time Warner. Another DBS

provider, Voom, entered the market in the fall of 2003 and already

2

has 10,000 subscribers. DBS operators have also entered into

agreements with telephone companies and Internet service providers to bundle digital subscriber lines, DSL services, with their

video offerings, which should increase the attractiveness of DBS for

consumers interested in one-stop shopping.

I also want to acknowledge the contribution of small cable operators across the country and encourage continued good faith pursuit

of marketplace arrangements through the National Cable Television Cooperative in order to ensure optimal opportunity for small

cable companies to compete in the marketplace.

Since Congress eliminated most forums of cable regulation in 1996, the cable industry has invested $85 billion in its infrastructure, bringing hundreds of channels, interactive services, such as

video-on-demand, broadband and voice services to the consumer.

Moreover, the number of national cable networks has grown from

145 in 1996 to 339 in 2003—134 percent increase over the 7 years.

So in my view, the vast majority of Americans enjoy more choice,

more programming and more services than any time in history.

That is why I oppose an attempt by the government to impose an

a la carte system on the MVPD marketplace. The current business

model upon which video programming and distribution relies has

evolved over many years and has brought enormous benefits to the

consumer.

A little bit of history is also important to recall. At its inception

in the Cable Act of 1992, retransmission consent contemplated a

cable operator paying cash to the broadcast network in order to get

consent to retransmit the broadcast network on the cable operator’s

system. However, many cable operators balked at paying the price

set by the network, so the networks and the cable operators agreed

to non-monetary compensation in the form of carriage of the network’s sister cable channels for less or no cash.

That was an innovative, market-based arrangement, which has

led us to the universe that we have today, which provides tremendous diversity in programming and an impressive number of channel offerings and multiple tiers. An a la carte system would set

back the clock and put us in the same boat that we were in when

cable operators were balking at the price set for retransmission

consent for the broadcast network. Of course, the only way around

repeating that history is that if along with a la carte the Federal

Government were to get back into the business of rate regulation,

a business that Congress wisely got out of back in 1996. And when

we got out of that business, the industry reacted by investing the

$85 billion in cable infrastructure upgrades, and consumer’s got an

enormous upgrade and offering choice, quality and, yes, service.

Add to that the enormous competitive pressure brought by the DBS

industry, and we have a marketplace that is working. In my view,

the government must resist the urge to reregulate and retinker

with the marketplace.

But let me address another important aspect of the a la carte

issue which involves our ongoing debate regarding decency and indecency. As the author of the Broadcast Decency Act of 2004, I

share the desire of so many parents across the country who do not

want objectionable cable programming coming into their homes.

And while the Constitution imposes significant limits on the govVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:48 Oct 21, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 95453.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1
3

ernment’s efforts to regulate indecent cable content, that does not

absolve the cable industry from its corporate responsibility to

American families.

I would note that most of the major cable operators have embarked upon a massive public education campaign to inform parents of their right to have blocked for free programming which they

find objectionable, and we will continue to monitor the effectiveness

of those efforts.

Having said that, there are those in the indecency debate who

believe that families should not have to pay in the first place for

programming which they believe is objectionable and then have to

have blocked for free. However, I believe that an a la carte would

result in higher prices to the consumer and cause families to pay

more to get the channels that they do want than if they just

blocked for free the channels they did not want.

That belief is underscored in the GAO October 2003 cable industry report to Congress which concludes in pertinent part that,

quote, ‘‘Adopting an a la carte approach would provide consumers

with more individual choice but could require additional technology

and impose additional cost on both cable operators and subscribers.

A move to an a la carte approach could result in reduced advertising revenues and might result in higher per channel rates and

less diversity in program choice. If cable subscribers were allowed

to choose networks on an a la carte basis, the economics of the

cable network industry could be altered, and if that were to occur,

it is possible that cable rates could actually increase for some consumers.’’

To me we can draw a comparison between the business model of

the MVPD marketplace and that of your average newspaper. Both

rely on subscriptions and ad revenue to survive. Take today’s USA

Today. It costs 50 cents. It is going up to 75 cents. For me I want

to see the sports, the front section and the business section. All the

other sections automatically go into my recycling bin. I would imaging that I would pay a lot more on a daily basis for just the sections that I want if they had to be offered on a stand-alone basis.

In essence, that is what an a la carte mandate would bring to the

MVPD marketplace.

In conclusion, I want to compliment my colleague, Mr. Deal, for

all of his attention to the issue. While we might disagree on the

merits of the government requiring a la carte or theme-tiered offering, I know that he has the best interests of the consumers in

mind, and I salute his determination to see that this issue has a

fair hearing before this subcommittee today. And I yield to my

friend and winner of the American League All Star Game last

night against my National League guys, Mr. Markey.

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much, and thank

you for holding this very important hearing. The backdrop of our

discussions this morning is the reality that cable rates continue to

rise each year. This has been the case since the 1992 Cable Act’s

consumer rate protection rules, which saved consumers over $3 billion from 1993 to 1995, were eliminated by Congress in the Telecommunications Act of 1996. These consumer rate protections were

removed based upon the faulty premise that full-blown price competition would arise primarily from the telephone industry. It turns

4

out that the telephone industry never did get into the cable industry. It is a lot like Samuel Beckett’s, ‘‘Waiting for Godot.’’ We are

still waiting for them to arrive. And yet the premise was that we

could remove regulations because there would be real competition

provided by the telephone industry in the cable sector, but they

never deployed.

And so as a result, in 95 percent or so communities in America,

there is only one land-based provider. And of course that means

that while the USA Today is a paper that you might want to go

through and pick out the different sections that you want, if you

are not happy with them at all, you can always purchase the

Washington Post, and you can go through that entire paper in

terms of the what they are doing or the New York Times or the

Washington Times or a whole bunch of other papers here in Washington DC for their sports section, for their news section, which is

not in fact possible when it comes to cable providers. There is only

one, and it is whatever they provide, which is the basis of the selections which you can make.

During the House floor debates on the 1996 Telecom Act, I offered an amendment which sought to prohibit the elimination of

the consumer rate protections until that telephone company, that

second newspaper, arrived in town. When it arrived in town providing competition for price and services, then there was deregulation of the marketplace, because competition would then be the

protection for the consumer. The Markey consumer rate protection

amendment failed, and in the absence of any widespread assault on

cable markets from the telephone industry, cable rates have steadily and annually risen at a pace far in excess of the rate of inflation.

It is true that the cable industry in the last several years has

also made significant investments in upgrading their facilities. It

is true as well that cable has deployed broadband service and

forced the phone industry and others to respond. It is also true that

more and more cable operators are entering the voice marketplace

and offering consumers savings on their phone bills. Yet it remains

true that many consumers continue to complain about rising cable

rates, lack of choice and the channels they don’t want are forced

upon them.

When questioned about why rates continue to go up, operators

typically point to increases in programming costs. The cable programming marketplace is highly concentrated. The number of cable

channels truly independent of cable operators or television networks is a paltry few. The biggest problem from a public policy

standpoint is that there doesn’t appear to be any near-term competition that will emerge to keep a check on consumer rates, and

there doesn’t appear to be any end in sight to annual programming

rate increases either. That is not a good situation.

Proposals have recently emerged to explore the possibility of offering cable channels on an a la carte basis as a way of addressing

the dysfunction and concentration in the cable programming marketplace. Mandating an a la carte option for all cable operators, for

all cable consumers may not be a panacea. As opposed to an a la

carte mandate, permitting certain cable operators to voluntarily exVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:48 Oct 21, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 95453.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1
5

periment and try a la carte offerings strikes me as the best way

to find the right answer.

When a la carte was offered as an amendment in this subcommittee during consideration of the 1992 Cable Act, I opposed it.

I did so because, in part, because of concerns that such a proposal

would adversely affect the ability to have a great diversity of programming with the independent editorial voices of minority programmers, foreign language programmers and other less powerful

voices in the media mix struggling to get into cable. We now have

a 12-year track record to assess, and while there may have been

some successes in getting diversity on the cable tier, overall such

voices, when they exist, still tend to be owned and controlled by the

same large programmers who seem to dominate the cable dial.

Today, some of the voices of diversity are calling for an experiment with an a la carte in order to foster diversity in the cable

marketplace. I would like to ask, Mr. Chairman, unanimous consent to submit for the record a number of letters and submissions

from entities addressing the diversity of voices question and the

issue of a la carte. They are a letter from Brian Woolfolk; a letter

from Tracy Jenkins Winchester, president of Colors, a multicultural television network founded by an African-American civil

rights organization; comments from Steven Davis, chairman of the

Black Education Network; and a letter from Jonathan Rintels, executive director of the Center for Creative Voices in the Media, a

group of prominent independent producers. This is a complex issue,

everyone will agree, to certain problems, and there appears to be

no easy answer or short-term solution, but these issues do need

greater attention, and I congratulate you on this excellent hearing

today.

Mr. UPTON. Without objection, it will be made part of the record.

[The information referred to follows:]

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

Mr. UPTON. I recognize the chairman of the full committee, Mr.

Barton.

Chairman BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and before I give

my opening statement, I have an announcement to make. The

Oversight Investigations Subcommittee is about to commence a

proceeding upstairs which we are going to vote on the issuance of

a subpoena, and we need a quorum to do that, so I would hope that

the members that also serve on this subcommittee, which are Mr.

Bilirakis, Mr. Stearns, Mr. Bass and Mr. Waldren, Mr. Markey,

Mr. Deutsch and Mr. Dingell, after their give their opening statements will come upstairs. This meeting in O&I shouldn’t take more

than 15 minutes. So if you are one of those members, we would encourage your attendance for the issuance of a subpoena in the

Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding this hearing on

competition and consumer choice in the multichannel video programming distribution, or MVPD, marketplace. The advent of

MVPD such as cable and satellite operators have taken consumers

from a world not too many years ago with at most three channels

to one today with over 300 channels. As this subcommittee’s hearings continue to demonstrate, the television industry is very competitive and very innovative.

I was one of the few members that voted against reregulating

cable in this committee back in 1992. I was very glad to see that

cable was deregulated in the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

Since 1996, cable operators have invested over $85 billion, that is

b, billion dollars to offer consumers digital broadband and video-ondemand services. Direct broadcast satellite, or DBS, operators are

also now offering consumers a nationwide alternative to cable and

they have captured 22 percent of the MVPD marketplace in just

over 10 years. Consumers have and are continuing to benefit greatly in a deregulated marketplace.

Digital technology now gives over-the-air broadcasters an opportunity to offer consumers even more choices. Indeed, multicasting

in new endeavors, such as USDTV, allow broadcasters to provide

multiple strings of content where once they could only provide one.

Broadband and compression technology are also starting to make

it possible for consumers to stream the content of their choice over

the Internet. 3G wireless technologies may soon make it practical

for consumers to watch television on cell phones and other

handheld devices. With additional industry investment and fiber

optic cable, more consumers may soon be getting television services

from their telephone company, so it is clear that competition is

alive and well and consumer choices are growing.

I want to applaud Congressman Nathan Deal for raising the profile of how cable television is marketed by programmers to distributors and then to consumers. As this committee worked on legislation reauthorization the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act,

Congressman Deal proposed an amendment restricting certain

practices in negotiations. I was pleased that Congressman Deal

was willing to withdraw his amendment so that the issue could be

considered more carefully. The result of that decision is this hearing, and I want to comment Chairman Upton for holding this hearing. Congressman Deal has touched an important issue of fairness

37

in negotiations. I have great sympathy for Congressman Deal’s perspective. I believe cable and satellite programmers should give consumers more options. I believe that parents and families should

have more opportunities to choose family friendly programming

and block channels that sometimes carry indecent programming.

That said, I also have heard of problems associated with the socalled a la carte approach, which is the purpose of the hearing

today.

In evaluating these a la carte proposals, the committee needs to

ask many questions. No. 1, does anything currently prevent

MVPDs from offering a la carte and theme-tiered service today?

No. 2, would MVPDs be required to offer such service or should it

be voluntary? No. 3, what would be the effect of an a la carte or

a theme-tiered offering on prices? No. 4, would consumers have

more or fewer channel choices to choose from under an a la carte

system? No. 5, would independent, niche, minority and religious

programming have an easier or harder time surviving in an a la

carte atmosphere? No. 6, would consumers be able to decide what

goes into a family tier or should we allow the company or cable

company or the government to decide what channels go into this

type of a package? And last but not least, would it end up being

more expensive or less expensive for families to pick channels on

an a la carte basis than to take the existing packages that they already have and then block channels using the free equipment that

cable companies would provide?

I encourage the witnesses today to help us answer these important questions and to also offer constructive solutions. Consumers

have a wide range of viewing options in the current environment,

and while no one watches everything, everyone has something that

they like to watch. We should carefully examine what impact a la

carte and theme-tiered proposals will have on consumers. Our goal

should be to maximize consumer choice and control over what

comes into the home while preserving the diverse selection of programming for consumers to choose from. I look forward to hearing

more about these issues in today’s hearing. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. UPTON. Recognize my friend from the great State of Michigan, Mr. Dingell.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I want to thank you for

calling the hearing, and I want to commend you for it. I am very

pleased that this committee will focus on the question of competition in the video marketplace. Interestingly enough, much of the

recent conversation on this topic is centered on whether Federal

laws should be amended to promote a la carte programming. The

notion that consumers should be able to purchase only those channels of their choosing and no more has an intuitive appeal to this

consumer, and I am sure it would to most others as well. At the

same time, many reputable parties, including the GAO, have concluded that an a la carte marketplace would leave consumers paying more for fewer channels and might lead to fewer programming

choices. In other words, the consumer would be, in fact, worse off.

It occurs to me that I should quote my old dad who used to say,

‘‘Look before you leap,’’ or to perhaps remind my colleagues of the

Hippocratic Oath, which says first, ‘‘Do no harm.’’ Federal law

38

today does not prevent video service providers from offering a la

carte programming, but it also does not prevent contractual restrictions on a la carte service. Those who seek to change Federal law

to encourage a la carte programming have the burden to demonstrate that such a dramatic change is necessary and will not ultimately hurt consumers. Work needs to be done by all to gather the

information before that burden can properly be met.

On a related matter, I would note that I continue to receive complaints from constituents that cable rates continue to rise faster

than the rate of inflation. The cable industry indicates otherwise,

but it is quite clear that the marketplace is not yet sufficiently

competitive. Most consumers still have only limited choice for their

video service provider: The local cable company and the two national satellite companies. These companies compete on programming choices and related services, but they do not appear to compete on price or customer service.

A recent GAO report demonstrates that only additional competitors in the marketplace beyond the existing satellite competitors

will force the kind of competition that we need and will begin to

act as a restraint on cable price increases. Though the cable industry has criticized this finding as based on too little evidence, it certainly is a point that the committee should address and something

which our consumers want us to look at.

The emergence of additional video competitors in the marketplace is certainly preferable to reregulating cable rates. That is

why I have long championed the deregulation of cable’s competitors

and why I hope that the newly deregulated telephone companies

will keep their promise and compete head on in this marketplace.

In addition, Federal policy must be aggressive in fostering the

development of additional transmission paths to the home. Be it

from broadband over power line or new wireless technologies, we

must all do our part to ensure that consumers are able to benefit

as quickly as possible from a competitive marketplace, and that

would include using new and innovative approaches and techniques

which might assist in the speeding of this competition. But if competition does not develop and my cable friends do not exercise some

restraint, I think they will witness again a period of wrath from

angry consumers and perhaps the Congress responding to those

events.

I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses, and I thank you

again for this hearing, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. UPTON. Thank you. Mr. Deal?

Mr. DEAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you and

Chairman Barton for holding this hearing and also thank the witnesses for their willingness to testify.

Ladies and gentlemen, I regard the issues that we discuss today

to be some of the most important ones we will face in this committee, because they involve the most fundamental freedoms and

cultural directions of our society. As Americans, we truly regard

our homes as our castles, our places of refuge where we raise our

children and establish the values of our families. That is why Congress and this committee have focused on the importance of the

right of Privacy in almost every aspect of our lives.

39

But just as our homes, our castles, are important refuges where

our privacy should be guarded and protected, we also recognize

that we live in the information age and that our castles must be

connected to the outside world in order for us not to become isolated. Today, we will hear from some of those who link our castles

to the outside world by way of their cable lines or satellite dishes.

For almost 9 out of 10 Americans, these television avenues have

become their primary source of news, information and entertainment, which they pay for in ever increasing amounts each month.

One of the main questions for us today is who are these new

gatekeepers for the castles of America? Are they responsive and responsible to the wishes of the owners of the homes into which they

come or have they abandoned their position of trust and confidence

for the financial rewards that are being offered by those who want

to breach the castle walls? As Members of Congress we should be

especially concerned, for we have given them the keys to the homes

of America in the form of free broadcast signals, and they are now

using those keys to force homeowners to buy additional services

whether they want them or not.

Who are these new gatekeepers? Are they elected officials responsible to the voters at the ballot box? No. Are they appointed

government agents who are charged with protecting the well being

of our citizens? No. They are five or six mega production cable and

satellite conglomerates who control what comes into every American home and they are free from the normal constraints that apply

to almost every other business in our country. They can tie and

bundle their products with the power of a near monopoly and yet

are exempt from our anti-trust laws. They can set prices that include the broadcast networks we have given them free of charge

and refuse to tell this committee, the FCC or the Justice Department how those prices are arrived at and by contract seal the lips

of the cable operators who deliver their products.

Some, such as Time-Warner, have characterized today’s hearing

as one on the issue of mandatory a la carte, which was also the

characterization of the GAO study, mandatory a la carte. That is

not the case. They have created a straw man to attack in an effort

to divert our attention. We should explore all options: Tiering of

compatible programs, choice of basic or expanded basic services and

voluntary a la carte. We should be told why certain programmers

have gone to a 10-year contract in an effort to block these choices.

And above all, we should be told why consumers, the owners of

their castles, should not be given the choice of what television programming they want in their homes. So far, these conglomerates

have taken an arrogant approach.

I realize my time is running out, but let me just conclude by saying we should have them explain to us why the American public,

why a family that wants to buy a cartoon program, Nick Tunes,

should be forced to also buy the program, Logo, a gay and lesbian

channel. Yes, these new gatekeepers have decided that families

with small children who want to receive cartoons must be forced

to buy a gay and lesbian program, a decision that was made by

Viacom only a few weeks after they appeared before this committee

to apologize for the Janet Jackson Super Bowl affair to assure us

that they had learned their lesson. Of if your child wants to watch

40

Spongebob Squarepants, a child’s program, they must also buy Undressed or Stripperella, two highly sexual adult programs. If you

want to simply watch Nickelodeon, you must buy the sexually explicit programming of MTV and Spike TV. If this is the business

philosophy is applied everywhere, candy stores would be required

to sell marijuana.

Mr. Chairman, it is time that this hearing is held, and I thank

you for having it. It is long overdue, for as the title of the late Star

Allen’s book says, ‘‘The Vulgarians Are At the Gate.’’ I yield back.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Wynn?

Mr. WYNN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I certainly appreciate you having this very important hearing, and let me begin

by saying that I concur with the views you shared in your opening

statement and your concern about the downside, if you will, of a

la carte pricing.

I think it is absolutely true that we have emerging competition,

significantly emerging competition, in this industry from satellite

companies as well as some of the traditional cable companies and

that, as the GAO pointed out, it is very likely that in an a la carte

system we could see the unanticipated consequence of increased

rates rather than lower rates.

There are a couple of points that I think are critical. One, we

have talked a lot about diversity in the marketplace, and a la carte

runs directly contrary to that. I think you will hear testimony to

that effect. We have also talked about decency, and my colleague

in his opening statement, Mr. Deal, just made a comment about

that. The fact of the matter is some of the casualties of a la carte

pricing might be the very wholesome programs that people would

like to encourage as their market share decreases.

It seems to me that at this time Congress should not allow a regulatory scheme to emerge in which that kind of mixed programming, educational, religious, ethnic-based programs, are stifled or

inhibited. This is particularly true as we anticipate new available

spectrum. Instead, it seems to me that Congress should do everything in its power to encourage the expansion of niche programming and give programmers comfort in knowing that niche programming is a viable option.

I am particularly pleased today to have one of my constituents

here, Alfred Liggins, representing TV One. He is located in my district in Lanham, Maryland, and I believe he will give you some excellent testimony on his viewpoints regarding a la carte pricing and

how it would negatively affect minority and startup programming.

Additionally, let me point out that a la carte pricing schemes, if

they are implemented, consumer costs are likely to increase, because the channels with fewer subscribers will have to make up for

loss of revenue. Advertisers likely will pull ads from channels with

lower viewership, thus causing a situation in which programmers

have to pull their programs or distributors have to stop offering

certain stations because of lower revenues. This is exact opposite

of what we have been trying to encourage in terms of diversity in

the marketplace.

So, Mr. Chairman, as I said, I believe that there are significant

problems with a la carte pricing and that we should reject this approach as contrary to the notion of diversity and the concept of deVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:48 Oct 21, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 95453.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1
41

cency on the airwaves. With your permission, I would like to include in the record a package of letters which include letters from

the New York State Black, Puerto Rican and Hispanic Legislative

Caucus, the National Congress of Black Women, Incorporated and

approximately 12 mayors of various cities from around the country,

New Jersey, Connecticut, Mississippi, California, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Illinois and Texas as well, small town mayors who oppose

a la carte pricing.

Mr. UPTON. Without objection.

Mr. WYNN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The information referred to follows:]

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Whitfield?

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I am going to waive my opening

statement.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Shimkus. Ms. Wilson.

Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I will waive my opening statement.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Cox.

Mr. COX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to hearing

from today’s witnesses as we focus on the best way to ensure that

the consumer is king when it comes to television programming.

I would also like to take this opportunity, Mr. Chairman, given

a looming deadline, to encourage the President to add to his sterling record on behalf of Internet consumers by ensuring that the

consumer is king when ordering Internet access service from cable

companies. Not for the first time the U.S. Court of Appeals for the

9th Circuit in my home State of California has wrongly decided an

important case. This time, however, it is not the Pledge of Allegiance but Internet access delivered via cable that the court is

mucking up. Internet-over-cable is not a telecommunications service under Federal law, as the 9th Circuit has ruled. I urge the

President and the Solicitor General to seek Supreme Court review

of the 9th Circuit’s anti-consumer, anti-technology and legally incorrect decision.

Slapping 1930’s-era telephone regulation out of the Internet

would be highly destructive to the continued deployment of

broadband. Those early 20th century regulations were designed to

counter the power of a monopoly telephone network in an analog

age of communication scarcity. That kind of regulation has nothing

to offer today’s consumers of high-speed Internet access. Legal

analysis that rests on the premise that cable companies are monopoly providers of high-speed Internet access is fundamentally unsound. In fact, it is not even clear that they will serve, that is that

cable broadband will serve a majority of this market once the dusts

settles.

According to the FCC’s latest study of nationwide broadband deployment, DSL services offered by phone companies are growing

faster than cable modem services. DSL customer connections rose

by a full 47 percent in 2003. And, of course, as we have learned,

Mr. Chairman, in a number of this subcommittee’s valuable hearings, DSL isn’t cables only competitor in this market. There are a

variety of terrestrial wireless broadband services, satellite

broadband services, the emergent power line broadband service.

Any and all of these can be formidable competitors. It is ironic that

in California where the 9th Circuit decided this case cable isn’t

even the market leader. According to the FCC, in California, DSL

has 300,000 more customer lines in service than cable.

Allowing this ruling to stand and thereby allowing the Internet

to be pulled into the maw of traditional State and Federal telephone regulation would be an unmitigated disaster to the American consumer. Therefore, I urge the President and the Solicitor

General to file a petition for Supreme Court review before the July

29 deadline and to continue the outstanding leadership of the Bush

Administration in encouraging the deployment of high-speed, taxfree Internet connections.

69

With respect to the important topic of a la carte programming,

Mr. Chairman, I would just suggest that we try and adhere to the

following general principles. First, customers should have maximum choice; second, customers should have the lowest possible

prices; third, there should be an opt-in, not an opt-out, system for

objectionable programming; fourth, the Federal Government should

set rules of the road that promote maximum competition in the

marketplace; fifth, and finally, we should take fullest advantage of

new technologies that permit more discretion in providing individual choices to consumers based on individual tastes. With that,

I yield back.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Doyle.

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to each of our

witnesses for appearing before us today as we discuss some of the

important issues affecting the MVPD marketplace.

I have said before that I try to approach the issues this subcommittee considers from a consumer’s point of view, and I can’t

think of many issues that stirs the passions the way the issues related to television programming seem to. In recent years, I have

heard with increased frequency from consumers who are not happy

with their television options. The biggest complaints seem to be related to objectionable content and the ever-increasing cost of service. Obviously, these are very valid concerns.

So the question that I need to answer for myself and my constituents is would the implementation of a la carte programming

address these basic concerns? Would a la carte programming lower

prices? Would a la carte programming prevent the delivery of objectionable material into the home? I don’t yet know all the answers

to these questions, and I hope we will revisit this issue in the future as more information on this subject becomes available. As I

understand it, the FCC is currently conducting a study on the feasibility of an a la carte system, and I hope we will review these

findings when they become available.

I should mention that I have never been one to embrace a mandated a la carte system of television programming, and in fact I

have serious reservations about such a system. Mostly, this is because I am concerned that a la carte programming could raise the

rates that most subscribers pay for for the programming package

they currently receive in order to give a smaller minority the right

to pay for only a few select channels. Philosophically, the right to

choose channels you want and only pay for those channels is something I think most people will agree with. However, in reality, I

worry that such a system could do more harm than good.

The GAO has reported that some cable networks, especially

small and independent networks, would not be able to gain enough

subscribers to remain in operation. Additionally, consumers could

end up paying the same monthly rate for fewer channels because

the most popular channels would have the subscriber following to

increase their fees considerably under such a system.

With regards to objectionable programming, I must say that as

the father of four children, I am sympathetic to the concerns of parents who want to control the type of material that enters the home.

Parenting is an awesome responsibility, and I respect every parent’s right to protect their children from material they deem inapVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:48 Oct 21, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 95453.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1
70

propriate. Parental control technology that most cable and satellite

providers offers accomplishes this goal, although a subscriber is

still paying for a network that airs material they deem inappropriate.

The MVPD marketplace is rapidly changing and it is therefore

incumbent upon us to make sure that the laws and regulations

governing this industry remain effective to promote healthy competition. Competition ultimately benefits the consumer and whatever actions we consider taking should be crafted with the consumer in mind.

I want to thank the witnesses for agreeing to be here today on

short notice to discuss these vital issues. I look forward to hearing

your testimony. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. UPTON. Thank you. Mr. Bilirakis.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wasn’t going to make

an opening statement, but I will just go ahead and do one briefly.

Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot of viewpoints already on this.

Unfortunately, we have heard an awful lot of pre-deciding on the

part of many members of this committee. I am just not sure why

are we holding hearings, which are supposed to be information

gathering sessions, if we have already made up our minds on a

particular subject. What the heck is the sense of holding a hearing

and wasting time?

So I would really plead for an open mind in this and objectivity

on the part of all us. This is an important subject, a very important

subject, and I think we all should be grateful to Mr. Deal for raising it. He was a voice in the wilderness and maybe in a sense he

still is. Actually, when I hear some of these opening statements, he

still is a voice in the wilderness. But we ought to be grateful to him

for sticking to his guns and at least bringing it up.

But we have heard it is going to increase costs, and I don’t doubt

that it might increase costs. We have talked about the lack of

choice, but that could be looked upon in a number of different

ways. I understand in Canada where they have some of this taking

place that there is really a true lack of choice and what not.

So, Mr. Chairman, I have said to you in our subcommittee chair

meeting the other day that I would hope that we are going to really

hear some facts here today to help us make that pretty tough decision. But I just wonder if even with all the facts we might hear

here today, when I say facts I mean we are going to hear statements, it seems to me that maybe before we would make such a

very important decision that we ought to actually take a look at

some facts or possibly maybe some sort of a demonstration project

somewhere so we could really see exactly what something like this

would do. It may cause more harm than good. I think Mr. Deal

would be the first one to admit if that is the case that it would

cause more harm than good, but we don’t know. I am not sure that

we are going to know even after this hearing, although I am sure

we will learn a lot, not as much as we would like.

So, Mr. Chairman, again, I plead for open-mindedness and objectivity, and I haven’t made a decision on this issue, although unfortunately, many of our members have, and I think that that is probably wrong. Thank you.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Gonzalez.

71

Mr. GONZALEZ Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I will

be brief. A la carte is an issue that though it is deceptively simple

on its face has, in my view, potentially dramatic consequences to

the fundamental economics of the cable industry. This may be a

good thing, but it must be something that we need to carefully consider, and I thank you for holding these very important hearings.

I would ask unanimous consent to insert for the record statements made by the Hispanic Federation, the National Hispanic

Policy Institute and Congresswomen Loretta and Linda Sanchez to

the FCC. I believe that these statements should be part of the

record in today’s hearing.

I further want to commend my colleague, Mr. Deal, for his enthusiasm and dedication to this issue. I have only been here 6 years

but yesterday was the first time that I have been here in Congress

that someone from the other side of the aisle actually approached

me, came over to our side, to tell me of the importance of today’s

hearing and that we should have an open and free debate. I have

not made up my mind. There is no doubt that I am leaning a certain direction based on my region, my constituency and so on. Nevertheless, I will pledge to Mr. Deal and the supporters of this legislation to keep an open mind and to listen to the information and

base any decision on the facts. And with that, I yield back.

[The information referred to follows:]

72

73

74

75

76

77

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Walden.

Mr. WALDEN. I am going to waive my opening statement, Mr.

Chairman.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Bass.

Mr. BASS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will ask unanimous consent to put my statement into the record and say that I am also

coming to this hearing with an open mind. I appreciate Mr. Deal’s

efforts here on the a la carte issue and the Chair having this hearing. And I have had the opportunity to hear both sides, opponents

saying, as others have said, that consumers will end up—may end

up paying more, that small, startups won’t be able to occur and so

forth; the other side arguing that consumers shouldn’t have to pay

to have programs available that they are not interested in. And, as

some other witnesses have mentioned, there are other alternatives,

the iPod example and the recording industry is a good perhaps

model to think about.

So this is an informative hearing on a very important issue, but,

ultimately, as I said during the SHVIA hearing, it is the consumer

that we have to keep in mind, not the contractors or the broadcasters or the cable companies but our consumers, the ones that

benefit most from good access to programming that they want to

see. And I yield back.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Charles F. Bass follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES F. BASS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this important hearing.

I am glad we have the opportunity to hear from both sides today and I want to

express my gratitude to my colleague Nathan Deal for advocating for this review

of the issue.

Because I want to get to the testimony and questions, I will be brief, but I do

want to observe that so far, proponents and opponents of an a la carte system or

any substantial change in how channels are offered miss the points made by their

critics.

One the one side, opponents say that consumers will end up paying no less or perhaps even more for the smaller number of channels they might choose under an a

la carte frame work. In addition, they argue that start up and independent channels

will disappear because they won’t have the initial critical mass advantage of the

current system. In effect, that the economies of scale require aggregation.

The other side argues that customers should not be forced to pay for and accept

channel ‘‘X’’ in order to get channel ‘‘Y’’. They say consumers might want only a limited range of channels and, as importantly, expressly not want certain other channels.

It seems to me that both points might be right and they are certainly not mutually exclusive in any case. I am not sure we can ever know without trying it. An

a la carte system might in fact not lead to any savings for most consumers; some

channels without a substantial audience base might disappear; and yet consumers

would be able to satisfy their yes to ‘‘Y’’ and no to ‘‘X’’ wishes.

Again, I don’t know what would occur, but I might suggest we look at Apple’s iPod

and recording industry for some evidence. That whole business models is being

turned over because of consumer choice. People no longer want to pay $15 for 15

songs on an album, but at $1 a song, they are happy to buy lots of individual

songs—and there is some evidence they are willing to spend more in total dollars

in this condition. Something to think about.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Stupak.

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding this hearing. Welcome the Reverend Glenn Plummer from

Southfield, Michigan; good to see you again.

78

Cable prices in my district keep going up, and I don’t see any

change in this upward trend. My district, which comprises half the

land mass of Michigan, has both small cable operators and big

ones, like Charter and Time Warner. In general, we know that

there are two factors in these rising costs: System upgrade and program costs. In my district, cable has invested to give us high-speed

Internet.

I know today’s discussion will center around the issue between

the current bundling system and the idea of allowing consumers

more choices in the cable packages they choose. I am not sure there

is a right answer or which system would be more economical to

Northern Michigan cable consumers, so my questions today will

focus on the following. How do we get a handle on the escalating

costs of monthly cable service? Do consumers have enough flexibility and choice for cable today? Do consumers actually know what

they are paying for, and what I mean is can I call my cable operator and ask, ‘‘How much am I paying for ESPN versus the Disney

Channel?’’ Is that a legitimate request, especially if the consumer

has no say on what they can receive in their basic package, or is

that irrelevant? Does the current system promote diversity? Would

a la carte limit diversity or suppress the 1st Amendment or do the

opposite? Do rural cable operators under the current system pay

more for cable and cable programming than their urban customers

for the same service? Would a tiered or a la carte system make this

problem better or worse?

Again, I don’t have all the answers to these questions. I look forward to our witnesses. And, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back the

balance of my time.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Terry.

Mr. TERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a lengthy opening

statement that I will submit and just thank you for holding this

hearing and Mr. Deal for urging you holding this hearing so we

could vet these issues, and I think the series of questions that the

chairman of the full committee, Mr. Barton, displayed in his opening statement mirror many of the questions that I raise in my

opening statement. So with that, I will just submit.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Lee Terry follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. LEE TERRY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM

THE STATE OF NEBRASKA

Thank you Mr. Chairman,

I want to thank you for holding this important hearing today. The issue of a la

carte and whether this is the best way to enable consumers to lower their cable TV

costs while at the same time being able to customize what they view is important,

but it carries with it a lot of underlying issues that affect how companies do business and how the marketplace operates. Whether the idea behind a la carte is a

move to allowing consumers to purchase channels on a tiered basis or on an individual level, may actually be detrimental to the cable/satellite consumer.

Moving to an a la carte/tiered system runs the risk of giving consumers a false

belief of cheaper cable. Taking a 60,000 foot view of this, I do not see how the marketplace can accomplish this goal. If companies are forced to move to an a la carte/

tiered system, they will pass channel programming charges onto the consumer, like

they do now, but the difference will be that when consumers choose channels they

wish to watch, they will be purchasing them individually (or in a tiered package)

and at prices that are most likely higher then what they would get if they were able

to buy a larger package. This could mean that by the time the consumer buys all

the channels he/she wishes to watch, they might actually be paying more for the

same service they get today.

79

Furthermore, the issues of moving to an a la carte/tiered system could mean the

elimination of quality channels that only receive a minimum amount of viewers. I’ll

give you a perfect example. My wife loves to watch SoapNet. SoapNet is a new and

emerging channel that doesn’t have the viewer-ship of a channel like the History

Channel, and frankly, it might never reach that lever. In an a la carte/tiered system, I would be forced to purchase this channel at an elevated price because the

marketplace would force the programmer to make up its costs on those that watch

this channel. However, should the programmer realize that they can not make up

its costs on charges the consumer is forced to pay, they would stop programming

and turn off this channel—this is simple economics. Whether it be GAO, Booz Allen

or someone else who does an economic analysis on what impact a la carte/tiered

pricing system would have on a cable network’s revenues as well as their marketing

and production budgets, I see that prices rise and consumer choice goes down. If

this is the case, and we move to an a la carte/tiered system are we then going to

hear the call for rate regulation when prices rise out of control?

It is my understanding that when Congress imposed cable rate regulation in 1992

to 1996, the cable companies made very limited investment in capital improvements

and virtually no investment in new programming. I want to hear what theses rate

regulations did to companies from 1992-96. Why there was limited capital investment and virtually no investment in new programming and what companies have

done since the lifting of these regulations.

Channels like Oxygen, Lifetime, National Geographic, Discovery, Animal Planet,

Food Network, the Speed Channel and Noggin all exist because of the current way

programmers are allowed to bring new channels to market. By moving to an a la

carte/tiered system it is conceivable that a number of these great channels will be

lost because consumers will not be willing to pay individually for them. And if we

move into a strict tiered system so these channels would not be lost, would I have

to purchase the speed channel to watch baseball? And would WGN be included in

this Sports tier because they cover the Cubs? It sees to me that in the end the consumers are the ones hurt because they would lose a channel that many people may

watch if they only knew it existed, or they deemed it affordable and important

enough to purchase.

I understand that there is an argument that this a la carte/tiered system will

allow parents to pick and choose what channels they want their families to watch

and that by allowing a move to this a la carte/tiered system would lessen the

amount of violence and foul language our children may be subjected to. As a parent,

I desire this outcome as well. I may not want my kids to watch MTV, but I can

call my cable provider and have them block that channel, and if I have a digital

cable box I can block it myself. Yes, I am paying for something that I choose not

to receive—but I am getting additional channels I want for prices less than I would

pay for under an a la carte/tiered system.

Thank you again Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Towns.

Mr. TOWNS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me also

thank you for holding this hearing on the current state of competition and consumer choice in the video programming distribution

market.

Let me pause at this point and thank the witnesses for appearing as well. Competition in the marketplace is increasing and will

likely continue to do so as new technologies develop and are adopted. As the General Accounting Office noted, competition between

cable operators and direct broadcast satellite operators, which did

not exist a decade ago, has emerged and grown rapidly in the recent years. Consumer choice has increased as well. Whereas consumers used to have access to 30 or 40 channels, they now can

view hundreds. This does not even include video services now available through high-speed Internet.

Some have argued that consumers do not want all of these channels and would prefer the Canadians so-called a la carte system.

However, the largest Canadian cable provider that operates in

markets closely resembling those of the United States offers service

that is nearly identical to cable service offered here. Consumers

80

must first purchase an expanded basic package before getting access to niche channels, and most Americans receive for free as part

of a digital tier, like ESPN Classic, the Animal Planet or the Game

Show Network.

While one provider offers theme packages, this is only the French

Canadian market, which is not like ours and was done without programmers’ permission. More importantly, the revenue generated in

such markets are supplemental revenue. If such a model were employed in the United States, channels would disappear, as they

would be located on fewer systems and be unable to generate the

advertising revenue needed for survival. Programmers continuing

their service would be forced to raise rates to make up the difference. Niche channels, such as Oxygen and women-focused programs or TV One, a cable network for African-Americans, could

never be launched without access to the millions of households that

subscribe to an expanded basic tier. In the end, consumers would

likely pay more but receive fewer channels.

This does not seem to be a better deal for consumers. For those

who are offended by certain programs, cable operators already provide technological tools to block those channels. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I have several letters from elected officials from New York

and around and also from New York-based Hispanic groups that I

would like to submit for the record.

Mr. UPTON. Without objection.

Mr. TOWNS. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, on that note, I will yield

back and say again thank you so much for having this hearing and

of course say to Mr. Deal and to Mr. Bilirakis who said about people have made up their mind already, but if you hear convincing

testimony, maybe you might change it again.

[The information referred to follows:]

81

82

83

84

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Pickering.

Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, I will waive my right and take

my time with the panel. I will look forward to hearing from them

today, and thank you for this hearing.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Stearns.

Mr. STEARNS. Good morning and thank you, Mr. Chairman. The

issue before us is a difficult one: The ability to choose what programs a consumer wants to pay for and whether the market can

bear that type of business model for multichannel video programming distributors, MVPD, like cable and satellite. Joshua Hammond wrote a book called, ‘‘The Seven Cultural Forces that Shape

America,‘‘ and one of them, in fact the No. 1 cultural force was

choice. Americans desire as many alternatives that the market can

provide to suit their daily lives. The MVPD has provided numerous

valuable programming choices every year and continues to add new

programming in its quality.

At stake is whether the consumer should have the choice to pick

only those programs he or she would like to pay for, like you would

on an a la carte restaurant menu. Sure, the prices may be higher,

but that is a consumer’s choice. Now, this idea seems simple, I tell

my colleagues, and has garnered some support from constituents in

my district. In fact, the Orlando Sentinel just did an editorial today

endorsing Mr. Deal’s bill. But I also point out to you religious and

minority programs have benefited from two specific areas in the

MVPD market: Must-carry and the use of bundling services and

programs. At the very least, my colleagues, the use of a la carte

could interfere with the mandatory carriage obligation and in fact

possibly reduce diversity in programming.

I raise these questions. I am concerned they are attempting to

impose a particular business model into Federal legislation. I understand that the proposal offered by my friend from Georgia is not

mandatory but a voluntary one, but even under a voluntary program, a Federal a la carte provision can cause problems with existing contracts and obligations.

Now, having said that, I don’t think anybody on this committee

would object to a demonstration model, as my colleague, Mr. Bilirakis, mentioned. So why doesn’t the industry, just as a group,

small cable systems or operators get together, take on an additional near-term cost to determine if an a la carte system can work

in certain markets, just to try it. I mean that is the spontaneity

of American enterprise. It is not uncommon in this country for a

group to glean success from an idea that a majority of industry dismisses as unworkable, but I say to the industry, why not follow up

and have a demonstration model? That, my colleagues, is another

form of choice which you as an industry can make.

So I applaud you for this hearing, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to hearing from the witnesses.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Rush.

Mr. RUSH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I also want to commend you for holding this hearing today, and I want to thank my

colleague from Georgia, Mr. Deal, for his interest in this particular

area and for his work that he has done on it. And, Mr. Chairman,

I hope that this will be the first of many hearings to come. Today’s

hearing provides us with an unprecedented opportunity to learn

85

more about a la carte pricing or theme-based tier pricing programming.

Mr. Chairman, consumers, particularly the ones in my district,

are continuously complaining about the rising costs in their cable

rates. The average monthly cable bill is approximately $50 and is

steadily climbing. It has been argued the if consumers have more

choice and flexibility in programming, that their cable rates would

decrease. The rationale is that consumers would have to control

over what comes into their homes without having to pay for channels that they do not watch, especially indecent programming.

However, a recent GAO report recognized that adopting an a la

carte approach could require additional technology and impose additional costs on both cable operators and subscribers, thereby increasing cable rates for the consumer. Apparently, consumers who

rely on cable-ready TV sets will still have to lease or buy the addressable set-top boxes to purchase channels on an a la carte basis,

which is estimated to be $4.39 per box.

On the issue of diversity, I am deeply concerned that an a la

carte pricing scheme would have the unintended consequence in

hurting minority and niche programming. I know that I raised this

very issue during recent hearings and markups of the satellite television reauthorization legislation, but I want to remind my colleagues that it is the GAO that reported that programming diversity will suffer in an a la carte world because, quote, ‘‘Some cable

networks, especially small and independent networks, would not be

able to gain enough subscribers to support the network,’’ end of

quote. In addition, the GAO report further stated that an a la carte

pricing system would undermine the prospects of new cable networks that are attempting to launch. Accordingly, there may be

fewer diversity of voices and choices on the airwaves.

Mr. Chairman, I want to welcome all the panelists who are here,

particularly Mr. Liggins and others, and I also want to say a special hello to my friend from Chicago for a long time, Mr. Jonathan

Rogers who is also present here representing TV One. I would like

to submit, Mr. Chairman, finally, various letters into the record

from various organizations from across the Nation who are really

concerned about this issue, from the NAACP to the National Urban

League, to the National Council of Negro Women, Rainbow PUSH

Coalition, the National Congress of Black Women, of course the

Congressional Black Caucus and the National Black MBA Association. And thank you, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. UPTON. Without objection.

[The information referred to follows:]

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Gillmor.

Mr. GILLMOR. I will simply enter my statement in the record.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Paul E. Gillmor follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL E. GILLMOR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to address cable and satellite-related marketplace issues.

In particular, I look forward to learning more about consumer choice proposals

such as A La Carte and Themed-Tiered Offerings. It was not long ago that our panel

first touched upon such concepts. Since then, a number of entities, many represented on the witness panel today, have weighed-in with a number of arguments,

both for and against as to whether cable or satellite operators should be required

to offer an a la carte or themed-tiered service, or permitted to do so voluntarily.

Thus far, many of the arguments sound enticing, but today, I believe, we will break

the surface.

Again, I thank the Chairman and yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Buyer.

Mr. BUYER. I will waive my opening statement.

Mr. UPTON. That concludes the opening statements. I will make

a motion that all members not present will have an opportunity to

enter an opening statement as part of the record.

[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA CUBIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I look forward to our hearing today, which is effectively an extension of a discussion that started earlier this year. During our hearings on indecency and the satellite bill, the idea of A La Carte programming was discussed. It was not necessarily

germane in those hearings, so today’s hearing will give us a chance to fully vet the

issue and determine if there ought to be any Congressional action on this matter.

At issue is whether the current business model for delivering programming is adequate to provide maximum choice and maximum value to consumers. There is no

question that folks want to get the most bang for their buck. And while there have

been concerns raised about increasing subscription costs, I look at the array of available programming content and advanced services that one can get today from an

MVPD—be it satellite or cable—and realize that providers have evolved greatly,

through billions of dollars of investment, and this industry is a far cry from the one

we deregulated nearly a decade ago.

During this hearing, I look forward to learning from our witnesses how the current business model has contributed to this industry evolution, and how A La Carte

would affect future offerings. It seems on the surface that choosing individual channels may be an attractive option, but I am not certain the economics uphold that

assumption. In an age where there is a continuing drumbeat of concern about having a panoply of choices and voices in the media, I think Congress needs to ensure

any action it takes will not reduce the spectrum of programming available today.

Lastly, we need to ensure that there remains proper incentive for the continued

roll out of advanced services in rural America—services that have allowed folks in

Wyoming to connect to the economy of the 21st Century.

I yield back the balance of my time.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. VITO J. FOSSELLA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

I want to thank Chairman Upton for holding this hearing today. I would like to

recognize Tom Baxter from Time Warner for coming down today and testifying in

front of the Subcommittee. Based in New York and serving Staten Island, Time

Warner Cable has spent invested billions of dollars since passage of the 1996

Telecom Act. Those dollars are providing families access to digital television,

broadband Internet, and Voice-Over-IP. Again, I want to thank Mr. Baxter for coming down and I look forward to hearing his testimony.

102

As we learned last week, unless you’re from the part of Congressman Pickering’s

district that still uses tin cans and rope for telephones, you have undoubtedly witnessed the expansion and development of the cable industry since Congress passed

the 1996 Telecom Act. Within the deregulatory environment that the cable industry

enjoys, mutual funds, pensions, hedge funds, individual investors, small businesses

and Future 500 corporations have invested billions of dollars to build an information

highway into the home. It was these investors that gave fresh ideas an opportunity

to become reality in an environment where the risk of government intervention was

limited.

As we discuss the idea of government stepping in and creating an ‘‘a la carte’’ environment, whether it be voluntary or mandatory, Congress should remember that

the Constitution mentions nothing about the right to cable services. Innovation is

only limited when government intervenes in private industry. I don’t believe there

is lack of competition in television, broadband or telephone services. And with help

from the Congress, I believe we can extend a similar deregulatory environment for

competitors within these industries to ensure that consumers have a variety of options for television, broadband, and telephone services.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ELIOT ENGEL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM

THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Thank you Mr. Chairman:

I appreciate the concerns about that people have about the content of programming coming into their homes. And I have supported rules governing the use of the

public airwaves. However, the proponents of Cable A la carte, in an effort to prevent

objectionable material coming into a household have chosen a solution that upsets

the fundamental economic model of the system. The result will be less diversity and

higher costs to consumers.

There has been some discussion of how a la carte has worked in Canada. However, their system is far more regulated and they have far fewer choices than we

have here in the U.S.—thus, I do not believe comparisons are applicable.

Now, the question is posed ‘‘why should I pay for things I don’t want.’’ This comes

down to the economic model that we use in the Cable industry. There is probably

some fancy economic term, but I will call the ‘‘channel surfer’’ model. In this model,

people—mostly men it might be said—are known to surf the channels to see what

is on. They may stop and see a commercial on a station they never watch—but that

is a hit for the advertiser. They may also stop and start watching a program they

have never seen before—that is a hit for the program producers. In an a la carte

system, this is not possible.

I have with me a letter from the Bronx Borough President, Adolfo Carrion, Jr.

that implores the FCC not to adopt an A la carte system. The letter states, in part,

‘‘For too long, Hispanics, African-Americans, and other minorities did not have programming that reflected their cultures and life experiences...through a la carte

prices will rise, marginalizing minority groups due the inevitable increase in overall

system costs . . .’’ I ask unanimous consent to have this letter added to the subcommittee’s hearing record.

A la carte also leaves the question of how to launch a new channel—which is esti- mated at $130 million. If a person only gets what they pay for—how can he or she

see the new channel? And if no one is actually seeing the channel, where will the

ad revenues come from?

What about the case when a channel actually pays to be on a cable system. Would

the consumer get that channel since it would be free to the consumer? What if the

consumer still doesn’t want it? Are we back to voluntary blocking technology?

In terms of diversity and channels targeted to certain segments of our population,

take BET for example. This channel produces its own programming using revenues

generated by advertising. The cost of advertising on BET is based on ratings—some

of which are garnered by the channel surfers—even me—I don’t make a point of

watching every BET Jazz show—but if I am surfing, I know I have stopped to listen

to a song or two. If the universe of potential viewers shrinks to a definite number—

the flow of advertising dollars will shrink too—probably to the point that original

programming will disappear if not the channel altogether.

Finally, the Cable industry can block any channel that a family finds objectionable. I commend the industry for its efforts to educate consumers about the options

available to control the programming coming into their homes. I believe that working together we can find common ground and solutions without a wholesale reworking of the underlying economics.

103

Mr. UPTON. Gentlemen, ladies, thank you for listening and participating. We are pleased to have a distinguished witness panel

with us today, and I guess for the purpose of introduction, I want

to recognize my colleague, Mr. Hall, for a brief moment. Mr. Hall.

You need to hit that button. You need to hit that button, the mic

button.

Mr. HALL. I am honored to introduce my friend, Ben Hooks, who

is here. He is the chief executive officer of Buford Media Group in

Tyler, Texas. And Tyler, for 20 something years was in my district,

and thanks to my friend, Tom DeLay, I now have the North Texas

district up and down the Red River. So I am losing a very great

supporter and a great friend out of my district, but we still have

the opportunity to have his input here. They provide cable television and advanced telecommunications services to a lot of the

smaller and rural markets in Northeast Texas and in Missouri,

Oklahoma and Arkansas.

I just want to say that over the years Ben Hooks has been the

recipient of a lot of great awards. They include Technology Innovator of the Year by CableVision, Imagemaker of the Year, Cable

Television Pioneer and on and on. I have called on him a lot of

times. He has always been very resourceful, told me both sides of

the situation, been a dear friend, a good supporter and giving of his

time like the other men and women on this panel.

I see the very finest here. I see my friend, Ben Pyne from Disney

and ESPN, Reverend Plummer and others that we have worked

with through the years. Thank you for the time it takes to prepare

for this, the travel time and the testimony time and even the time

to listen to tall of our opening statements. Mr. Chairman, thank

you, and I yield back my time.

Mr. UPTON. Thank you. Now, first of all, I want to say thank you

for submitting your testimony before the hearing so that we had

a chance to review it this last evening. Your testimony is made

part of the record in its entirety. At this point, we would like you

to take no more than 5 minutes in terms of an opening statement.

We are joined by Mr. Gene Kimmelman who is a senior director

of Public Policy and Advocacy for the Consumers Union; Mr. Al

Liggins, chairman of TV One; Mr. Ben Hooks, CEO of Buford

Media Group in Tyler, Texas; Mr. Ben Pyne, executive VP for Disney and ESPN Affiliates, Sales and Marketing; Mr. Glenn Plummer, Reverend Glenn Plummer, chairman of the National Religious

Broadcasters; Mr. Tom Baxter, president of Time Warner Cable;

Mr. Paul FitzPatrick, COO of Crown Media Holding and Hallmark

Channel, Ms. Janet LaRue, chief counsel and legal studies director

of the Concerned Women for America.

We thank you all for being here with us this morning, and Mr.

Kimmelman, we will start with you.

104

TESTIMONY OF GENE KIMMELMAN, SENIOR DIRECTOR, PUBLIC POLICY AND ADVOCACY, CONSUMERS UNION; ALFRED

LIGGINS, CHAIRMAN, TV ONE; BEN W. HOOKS, CEO, BUFORD

MEDIA GROUP; BEN PYNE, EXECUTIVE VP, DISNEY AND

ESPN AFFILIATES, SALES AND MARKETING; GLENN PLUMMER, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL RELIGIOUS BROADCASTERS;

THOMAS G. BAXTER, PRESIDENT, TIME WARNER CABLE;

PAUL FITZPATRICK, COO, CROWN MEDIA HOLDING AND

HALLMARK CHANNEL; AND JANET M. LARUE, CHIEF COUNSEL AND LEGAL STUDIES DIRECTOR, CONCERNED WOMEN

FOR AMERICA

Mr. KIMMELMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On behalf of Consumers Union, the print and online publisher of Consumer Reports,

I appreciate the opportunity to testify. I want to start off by thanking Congressman Deal. Boy, you really shook things up. You raised

questions about the current system of television programming in

America, and I think it is all for the better. We appreciate you

starting that process.

I want to follow up on what Mr. Dingell said, do no harm. It reminds me of the model I think that is appropriate for policymakers

to look at. Think of the pharmaceutical industry. When there is

disease, pharmaceutical companies come in and offer us medicine.

Now, we know every medicine is a poison. Every medicine causes

harm, by definition. But it is a worthwhile harm because it is going

after a disease, to cure a disease. Is there a comparable disease in

television in America today?

I think of three questions: Is there enough competition, is there

real choice for consumers that they get to be in control of, their

choice not someone else’s choice, and is there meaningful diversity

in the marketplace to reflect America?

Is there enough competition? We have got two satellite companies come in against cable. One is now owned by a TV network,

and their CEO says he has no interest in price wars against cable.

Cable rates have risen five times faster than inflation over the last

20 years. The other satellite company has to buy all its programming from about a handful of media giants who sell it as a package

at a high price. Even though technology costs have come down,

equipment costs have come down, you can’t make the programming

costs go away when they are all bundled together that way. The

GAO found in looking at this there is really no price discipline in

effect with satellite. Is that enough competition?

Is there really enough choice? Mr. Chairman, you are right, there

are more than 330 channels, but are people being forced to pay for

channels that they either don’t want or are finding distasteful? The

average household only watches about 17 channels or fewer. Of the

top 15 or 20 channels out there today, they are almost all the same

channels in terms of viewership that were popular last year and

the year before and 5 years ago and 10 years ago. And every one

of them but one is owned by a handful of media giants that control

broadcast television and the largest cable distribution systems.

Of the other channels out there, even a fairly highly rated channel, for every one person who is watching that channel, anywhere

from 250 to 800 people don’t want to watch it, and this is just of

the top 50 that Nielsen rates. Of the other almost 300, Nielsen

105

doesn’t rate them because they don’t have enough viewership. Do

they get ad revenue? I don’t believe they get ad revenue. It is a

good question to ask. But they are on cable. In an a la carte world

where you can have a tier, an a la carte, would they still be on?

If they have very few viewers today, why wouldn’t they still be on

if the cable operator could put them on a tier but also offer them

a la carte?

The GAO found that every one of these large media companies

that owns channels discriminates in favor of the programming it

owns, against the programming it does not own. Is there really diversity? Reverend Plummer’s testimony indicates that 10 to 20 percent of TV viewing in America is by African-Americans—330 channels. Mr. Liggins’ channel, BET, are run by African-Americans. Is

that 10 percent of 330, is that 20 percent of 330? Is there diversity?

Is it reflecting the needs of that community? I don’t believe so. And

each of those channels needed a company like Comcast or another

major media giant in order to get on in the first place or to remain

on. Is that diversity? Submissions for the record by independent

programmers say they cannot get on, and we have example after

example in our testimony. Independent programmers can’t get on.

Is that diversity?

Consumers Union has conducted a survey, others have as well,

you hear about, just asking folks what they would like to have.

More than two-thirds of consumers say they would like to be able

to choose the channels they get on television. More than two-thirds

of all ethnic groups, all political orientations, all ideologies, those

people want to choose their own channels.

Do no harm. Are there risks? Absolutely, there are risks to

changing the system, but is this a marketplace with enough competition, with choice controlled by the consumers, with enough diversity? From a consumer perspective, we don’t think so. From a

diversity perspective, we don’t think so. We have got to be able to

do better.

I am pleased to see Congressman Bilirakis and others have

wanted to come and listen, ask questions. We believe there is room

for looking at a la carte and experimenting, starting with a basic

tier that has broadcast channels that must meet the Congress’ description of localism needs and public interest needs, public access

channels. And on top of that, let cable operators, satellite providers

offer any package they want, any and every package. Why not have

the opportunity for them to offer channels a la carte, prevent programmers from blocking them from offering them a la carte so consumers would have choice?

I will conclude, Mr. Chairman, by saying that there is a la carte

today. You can buy pay channels. There is some a la carte choice

on digital. Cable is moving to that model, but it is choice that they

control as the entry price for the consumer. It is a $60, $70 price

point before you get to pick a lot of what you want. I believe with

the technology we have, that price point could be at the $20 or $30

level, and you could have much more choice, much more diversity

for consumers for much less money. I urge you to look into experimentation with this approach and others to try to get consumers

more competition, better choices and more diversity. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Gene Kimmelman follows:]

106

1 Consumers Union is a nonprofit membership organization chartered in 1936 under the laws

of the state of New York to provide consumers with information, education and counsel about

goods, services, health and personal finance, and to initiate and cooperate with individual and

group efforts to maintain and enhance the quality of life for consumers. Consumers Union’s income is solely derived from the sale of Consumer Reports, its other publications and from noncommercial contributions, grants and fees. In addition to reports on Consumers Union’s own

product testing, Consumer Reports with more than 4 million paid circulation, regularly, carries

articles on health, product safety, marketplace economics and legislative, judicial and regulatory

actions which affect consumer welfare. Consumers Union’s publications carry no advertising and

receive no commercial support. 2The Consumer Federation of America is the nation’s largest consumer advocacy group, composed of over 280 state and local affiliates representing consumer, senior, citizen, low-income,

labor, farm, public power an cooperative organizations, with more than 50 million individual

members.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GENE KIMMELMAN, SENIOR DIRECTOR, PUBLIC POLICY AND

ADVOCACY, CONSUMERS UNION

TV viewers today are forced to live in a world of the cable industry’s making—

extremely limited choice and endlessly spiraling prices. With no meaningful government oversight and virtually no competition, cable providers—with the exception of

being required to carry broadcast channels—decide what programming consumers

see by controlling both packaging and price. By placing their most popular channels

in expensive tiers with other channels most people don’t watch or find offensive, the

industry forces consumers to pay a special ‘‘cable tax’’ by requiring them to buy

bloated packages of channels in order to get the programming they actually do

want.

Consumers Union 1 and Consumer Federation of America 2 believe that cable operators get away with this manipulation simply because they can. Competition is virtually non-existent—98 percent of Americans have only one cable provider—and

there are only two satellite television companies in the nation, one of which has extensive ties to the cable and broadcast industries. Satellite also must purchase its

programming from the same cable and broadcasting giants, leaving satellite customers to buy similarly large tiers of channels. The attached report prepared by Dr.

Mark Cooper, Research Director of the Consumer Federation of America (CFA), entitled ‘‘Time to Give Consumers Real Choices’’ provides a comprehensive economic

analysis of the cable and satellite programming markets.

The only other market powerhouses are the large broadcast companies that own

over-the-air and cable TV channels. Their control of popular network programming

enables them to package their entire channel lineup and force these channels onto

cable and satellite systems—and ultimately the consumer. This lack of competition

has led to staggering price increases. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics,

cable customers have helplessly watched their bills increase by 56 percent since the

industry was deregulated in 1996.

Consumers who want choice and value are stuck. And creators of new and diverse

programming find themselves in the same situation. The only way to get their programming out to the public is to put it under the control of huge cable companies

or broadcast media conglomerates to package with their media giant’s programming.

This situation stifles diversity of ownership and programming by blocking independent access to cable systems. Indeed, today very few channels are independent

or controlled by women and people of color. Those that do exist are under the firm

control of the cable barons’ or broadcast media giants’ control.

We imagine a cable world where choice is allowed and diverse programming encouraged. Cable and satellite would offer both packages of channels and individual

channels on an a` la carte basis Rather than having to dig deeper into their pockets

just to get the channels they want, consumers have the option to pick and choose

their channels, grouping together those they want, instead of paying for those they

don’t watch or find offensive. Local broadcast channels that serve community needs

and interests would be preserved on a ‘‘basic’’ tier of programming, along with national broadcast networks that meet a ‘‘public interest’’ test by providing diverse

viewpoints on matters of national and global importance. And locally oriented public, educational and government (PEG) programming would be adequately funded

and preserved in this basic tier. Independently-owned and public interest channels

would be promoted alongside those owned by the major media corporations and new

and diverse content providers would find an easier path to getting their programming out to the public. This is the world of cable a` la carte that Consumers Union

and CFA believe should be, and will be, the future of cable television.

107

3Public Law 104-104, The Telecommunications Act of 1996.

4 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index (March 2004). From 1996 until March

2004, CPI increased 20.6% while cable prices rose 56%, 2.7 times faster than inflation. 5 Eisenach, Jeffrey A. and Douglas A. Truehart, Rising Cable Rates: Are Programming Costs

the Villain?, supported by ESPN, Inc., October 23, 2003 (hereafter ESPN); Economists Inc., Consumer, Operator, and Programmer Benefits from Bundling Cable Networks, July 2002; Rogerson,

William P., Cable Program Tiering: A Decision Best and Properly Made by Cable System Operators, Not Government Regulators, November 10, 2003, funded by Cox (hereafter Cox); Correcting

the Errors in the ESPN/CAP Analysis Study on Programming Cost Increases, November 11,

2003, prepared for Cox Communications (Cox II) 6GAO-04-08, Issues Related to Competition and Subscriber Rates in the Cable Television Industry, October 2003.

Cable: A Historically Anti-Consumer Industry

Cable television’s upward pricing spiral reflects a major failure of market forces

and public oversight since Congress launched cable deregulation in 1996.3 In that

time, cable rates have ballooned nearly three times faster than the rate of inflation.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (which even adjusts cable price increases by crediting the industry when it adds channels), rates have shot up a staggering 56 percent since January 1996, while inflation increased by only 21 percent

during the same time.4

When price increases are not adjusted to give cable ‘‘credit’’ for adding new channels—many of which are barely watched—consumers find themselves paying prices

that have risen five times faster than inflation (see attached report, p. 1, 23). It’s

clear that the hoped-for competition from deregulation has failed to materialize to

temper prices.

To justify these skyrocketing prices, cable/satellite operators and programmers

have used recent contract negotiations to engage in an unprecedented round of public finger-pointing.5 Cable operators and satellite providers blame the programmers,

saying they charge too much for channels. Programmers blame the cable operators,

saying they raise prices under the guise of providing advanced video and non-video

services to customers. The finger pointing merely attempts to hide the real issue—

facing no competition or oversight, cable companies can jack up their monthly cable

rates with impunity.

Part of the problem is clearly related to the special ‘‘cable tax’’ that industry

places on consumers by forcing them to buy expensive bundles of channels to receive

the programs they actually want. To purchase the channels they most want, consumers must buy large service tiers from cable operators ranging from 40 to 75

channels or more. As the General Accounting Office noted, recent Nielsen Media Research data show the average consumer watches about 12-17 channels regularly,6

and many of those channels are different for each person and family.

Right now, cable customers must first buy a basic cable tier, as previously provided by Congress, to ensure availability of local broadcast and national network

channels. That package is usually kept small and may be price regulated. It is separate from other tiers, and Congress requires that cable operators allow basic service

subscribers to buy pay-per-view (PPV) and premium channels like HBO and

Showtime individually on an a` la carte basis.

Beyond the basic package, however, cable operators engage in aggressive anti-consumer bundling of channels. The next tier, expanded basic, has grown steadily in

size and cost over the years, increasing about two-and-a-half times as quickly as the

basic tier in the past four years. It now contains three times as many channels as

the basic tier. Expanded basic is also a required purchase if a consumer wants to

buy digital service. A digital package is also large, consisting of roughly 30 channels,

and in many markets the digital service alone costs more than the basic service.

If consumers want Video on Demand (VOD) services, they also must purchase the

digital tier.

As previously mentioned, Nielsen ratings data show that most consumers’ viewing

are concentrated among a small group of channels. The top 10 cable networks account for 50 percent of all viewing, and the top 20 channels account for 75 percent

of all such viewing. Since the GAO reports that the typical household watches only

17 channels, consumers are forced to buy a lot of channels they don’t watch in order

to get the ones they do want.

Although the bottom 30 channels on the Nielsen scale pass an average of just

under 70 million homes, only about a quarter of a million households watch them

during any given day. For every one household watching, approximately 250 households who are forced to pay for those channels in the bundle are not. For the bottom

two channels, the ratio is 1 to 800. Over 250 additional cable networks do not capVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:48 Oct 21, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 95453.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1
108

7The explanations that cable industry executives gave the GAO for the social welfare superiority of bundling assume that advertisers irrationally pay for homes passed, rather than eyeballs watching, and that consumers maximize their welfare by subsidizing their neighbor’s viewing habits. (U.S. GAO, 2003, pp. 34-37). Those claims are inconsistent with the data in the attached paper, ‘‘Time To Give Consumers Reach Choices: Twenty Years Of Anti-Consumer Bundling And Anticompetitive Gatekeeping.’’ 8Marketplace Morning Report, July 1, 2004.

9 Cooper, p. 36.

ture enough viewers to even register on the Nielsen scale.7 If cable companies can

offer distribution to channels with such limited viewership and little or no advertising support today, why would they be any less likely to carry the same channels

in a world where cable tiers are accompanied by the offer to purchase individual

channels?

Taste and Programming: The Industry is in Charge

The immense public furor generated by January’s Super Bowl halftime incident

involving entertainer Janet Jackson illustrates the overwhelming desire of American

consumers to have some control over the programming that comes into their homes.

While technology such as the V-Chip allows consumers to block distasteful programming, many cable TV consumers find themselves paying for the very programming

they find offensive or indecent.

Congress attempted to address the decency issue by dramatically hiking fines on

broadcasters of indecent content. However, that approach does not apply to cable

and satellite programmers, who are not subject to the same public duties as overthe-air broadcasters. And although these fines might help to slightly stem the tide,

as Kansas City Star television critic Aaron Barnhardt told a reporter from the Marketplace Morning Report, ‘‘In the time it will take for you to report this story,

Viacom (which distributes The Howard Stern Show) will make enough profit to pay

off all of its FCC fines and then some.’’ 8

Giving consumers the choice to select only those cable channels they want provides a different solution to the growing public concern about violent and indecent

programming. Rather than putting the government in the untenable position of trying to control cable content for taste and decency, consumers could merely choose

the programming they want, eliminating from their homes those channels which

they find offensive.

Diversity is Not Well-Served by Cable and Media Barons:

The current cable model also shuts out those independent, diverse programmers

who would like to offer their content to the public without being beholden to media

gatekeepers that own or control a large bundle of channels. Six companies completely dominate the cable programming landscape of the basic and expanded basic

tiers, accounting for three-quarters of the programming and writing budgets of the

video industry. But these aren’t just any six companies. Each of them is also a national network broadcaster, a cable or satellite operator, or has significant ties to

both.

Of the 63 channels that reach more than half the cable viewers in the nation, only

a half dozen are not owned by one of six dominant firms. According to the FCC’s

Tenth Annual Cable Report, of the top 20 cable channels measured by subscribers

and top 15 cable channels measured by primetime viewership, only one, The Weather Channel, is not owned by a cable operator, a broadcast network or the cable industry.

Consider the dominance these companies have over the broadcast airwaves and

cable/satellite viewers: 9

• Disney owns the broadcast network ABC, broadcast stations and cable networks

such as ESPN, Lifetime, A&E, History Channel, and SoapNet. • Viacom owns broadcast networks CBS and UPN, local affiliates reaching almost

39 percent of the American television viewing audience, and cable channels including MTV, BET, Comedy Central, Nickelodeon, Showtime, Spike TV, CMT,

and VH1. • Time Warner owns the second largest cable company in the country, and owns

The WB broadcast network, and cable channels including CNN, Headline News,

HBO, Court TV, TBS, TNT, and Cartoon Network. • General Electric owns broadcast network NBC and local broadcast outlets as

well as cable networks Bravo, USA, Sci-Fi, Trio, CNBC, and MSNBC. • NewsCorp owns the Fox broadcast network, local affiliates of both Fox and UPN

reaching about 39 percent of the American TV viewing audience, national DBS

satellite operator DirecTV and cable channels Fox News, FX, National Geographic and more than a dozen Fox Regional Sports networks.

109

10TV Week, Diane Mermigas, ‘‘Comcast Courting Bornstein,’’ November 18, 2002. 11GAO-04-08, p. 1 12 Cable World, ‘‘New Networks Face The VOD Taste Test,’’ Andrea Figler, June 30, 2003. 13Multichannel News, ‘‘Comcast’s Clout: Giant MSO Flexes its Muscle with Nets,’’ R. Thomas

Umstead November 25, 2002. 14Multichannel News, ‘‘New Nets Abundant at National Show; Fledgling Services Find Entry

Into Digital-Cable Realm Difficult,’’ R. Thomas Umstead, May 3, 2004. 15 Cable World, ‘‘Attention New Networks! Here’s everything you need to know about how to

get a carriage deal with Comcast... step by step from Amy Banse and Matt Bond,’’ Shirley

Brady, June 21, 2004. 16 Cable TV Advertising Bureau: Multicultural Marketing Resource Center. ‘‘Psychographics

and Cultural Insights,’’ Urban Markets in the US, Horowitz Associates.

• Liberty Media & Comcast, the largest single shareholder of NewsCorp, owns

a few cable systems and through previous merger transactions, has guaranteed

carriage for many of its networks like The Hallmark Channel, Discovery, Animal Planet, QVC, Starz, and TLC on the largest cable operator in the country,

Comcast.10 With 23 million subscribers Comcast also owns a significant stake

in channels like TV One, E!, The Golf Channel, Outdoor Life Network, G4 (the

successor to TechTV) and regional sports networks serving three of the nation’s

six largest metropolitan areas—Chicago, Baltimore-Washington, and Philadelphia.

The General Accounting Office found that cable companies discriminate in favor

of their own programming: they are much more likely to carry channels that they

have an ownership interest in.11 that leaves independent and small programmers

with a simple take it or leave it proposition. They either must acquiesce to the cable

operator’s demands in order to be included on their lineup, or starve.

Stephen Cunningham, CEO and president of start-up channel JokeVision,

summed up his network’s fate with a morbid sense of humor: ‘‘Have you heard the

one about the cable programmer who paid no attention to a Comcast suggestion?

He’s not around any more.’’ 12

One programmer that has had some success paying attention to Comcast is TV

One, which is significantly owned and controlled by the large cable company.

Comcast made it clear during their negotiations with various African-American entrepreneurs including Russell Simmons and Tim Reid that they had to have a stake

in whichever channel they might carry.13

It’s no wonder that network executives say these barriers are high when, ‘‘combined with industry consolidation, which has left a handful of powerful MSOs (Multiple System Operators—a cable company) controlling the vast majority of cable subscribers, the current environment is arguably the worst ever to launch a new linear

video service.’’ 14

In a world where big broadcast programmers control much of the cable dial, and

cable operators are extracting as much money from independent programmers as

possible, it’s hard to imagine it could be any more difficult for independent programmers to get on cable systems. As start-up network consultant Cathy Rasenberger

notes: ‘‘The majority of networks out there have no chance at all. That doesn’t mean

there isn’t opportunity for some new networks. The eye of the needle has become

a lot smaller, but if you’ve got a refined piece of thread you can still get through.

You have to match up with the cable operators’ objectives—and even if you do, you

still may not have an opportunity.’’ 15

Consider the dearth of programming offered to African-American consumers on

expanded basic. There is only one national cable channel (BET—owned by Viacom)

that targets African-Americans, and another channel (TV One) mostly available to

Comcast subscribers. Most other African-American themed channels are offered only

on unnecessarily pricy digital tiers.

But according to the Cable Television Advertising Bureau, ‘‘Urban black households are the most television-oriented as compared to all other groups.’’ They go on

to say ‘‘Premium channel subscription in urban cable homes is greater among black

and Hispanic subscribers as compared to white and Asian subscribers.’’ 16

Now if we had a` la carte, more African-American themed and owned channels

could be created and offered to consumers of color. And if we had a` la carte, then

African-American consumers, like all consumers, could select and pay for the programming they want without paying for unnecessarily pricy expanded basic tiers

and other bundles.

Since a` la carte encourages consumer choice, cable operators should be encouraged

to provide niche and targeted audience markets with two or more channels instead

of the one they own. This notion that a` la carte offerings will prompt more diverse

programming is supported by the recent introduction of video-on-demand service.

110

17 Canada imposes a variety of content regulations that we believe are unnecessary and inappropriate for the US market. We cite the Canada example for the purpose of showing how a`

la carte can work and what prices it offers in a real-world example. 18 All conversions from CAD to USD obtained from http://finance.yahoo.com/currency, 07/01/

2004.

Cable operators now offer programmers the opportunity to prove themselves and

sell their content on a stand-alone basis as video-on-demand. After the cable operators have collected about $60 per month from subscribers and force-fed them the

first 90 plus channels on expanded basic and the digital tier, independent programmers have the opportunity to compete for the discretionary income and viewer attention that might be left. We believe consumers should have the choice to access

these new and diverse channels via an a` la carte option without paying the ‘‘cable

tax’’ that the current regimen of bundled channels requires.

A` la Carte: A Solution to Cable’s Problems

The cable industry’s current business model of requiring consumers to purchase

two expensive packages of channels just to get the small amount of programming

they actually may watch is simply unfair. This model not only sticks consumers

with a ‘‘cable tax’’ for these bundles, it puts up unnecessary roadblocks to new and

diverse programmers trying to get their content on the cable and satellite systems.

The regulatory intervention we propose to solve this anti-consumer, anti-competitive model is far from intrusive. Rather than try to dictate channel bundles, or ban

them, we propose allowing cable operators to continue to offer all the bundles they

want, but also make the channels they choose to bundle available on an a` la carte

basis.

Unbundling beyond the basic tier can create new demand among consumers for

content not currently carried by their cable operator. Because the cable company

won’t have to worry about mainstream acceptance of niche and targeted content,

and because both cable operator and programmer can earn revenue from selling to

consumers as many channels as they want to watch—not just what they can shoehorn into a bundle—cable companies are free to serve those niches with as many

channels as a consumer could want.

Consumers Union and Consumer Federation of America would prefer to let competition be the solution to cable rate increases. However, in light of the failure of

effective competition to materialize, and given the relentless price increases, the

special ‘‘cable tax’’ on consumers due to bundling of channels, the lack of consumer

control, the roadblocks that prevent independent programmers from getting cable

space, and the abusive practices described in the attached report, we believe it is

time for policymakers to release the stranglehold cable and broadcast giants have

on the marketplace by encouraging an a` la carte option.

A` la Carte Works: Ask Canadian Consumers

When those in the American cable industry try to raise feasibility arguments

about the a` la carte option, they need only look to their colleagues in Canada to

realize their claims are baseless. Nearly all the major Canadian cable operators are

offering their bundled programming on an a` la carte basis, and some cable operators, most notably Vide ́otron, offer the kind of system that we envision for the

United States.17

Consumers in Canada must first subscribe to basic and digital cable and rent or

buy a converter box, and then they select their programming in ways American consumers can only dream about. Vide ́otron customers, for example, first buy basic Canadian digital cable that includes roughly 20 TV channels (the company offers those,

along with 30 music channels, and 14 broadcast radio stations for $8.25).18 Once a

digital converter box is purchased for $45 after a rebate, or rented for $9 per month,

the consumer is in control. Vide ́otron offers three general bundles, numerous

themed bundles, and the option to purchase channels individually—38 channels for

$20 per month (the equivalent to the American expanded basic tier), 65 channels

for $28 and 106 channels for $40, (their equivalent to various U.S. digital tiers).

But Vide ́otron customers’ choice doesn’t stop there. The cable operator offers bundles of channels with programming focused on news, sports, documentaries, sitcoms,

culture, lifestyle and music. It also lets consumers pick a bundle of programming

in French or English. And if a consumer wants a channel that isn’t part of the bundle they’ve selected, then most channels will let Vide ́otron sell it to their customers

individually for $1 per month, a per-channel price that drops if a consumer orders

5, 10 or 20 other channels.

Some Vide ́otron programmers don’t want their channel offered individually, and

demand it only be sold in a bundle with other channels. If that’s what a customer

111

19Orlando Sentinel, ‘‘a` la carte Cable Could Redefine Pay-Per-View,’’ Susan Strother Clarke,

June 6, 2004. 20 U.S. Census Bureau, USA Quick Facts, 2004. 21Wirthlin Worldwide, April 22, 2004, National Quorum for Concerned Women for America. 22 Consumers Union, May 25, 2004, Cable TV Issues Survey.

really wants, then Vide ́otron steers them to a bundle of 20 or 30 channels that a

consumer selects—a bundle Vide ́otron calls ‘‘a` la carte.’’ This is the kind of package

that Canadian Cable Association President Mike Hennessey calls a ‘‘pick pack.’’

Vide ́otron offers 93 channels and allows consumers to select 20 or 30 of them in that

bundle. A Vide ́otron spokesman told the Orlando Sentinel, ‘‘We have noticed that

some people prefer to pay for what they want to look [at].’’ 19

We believe that cable operators in the United States are prevented from following

the a` la carte options offered by their Canadian counterparts’ because of restrictive

provisions in programming contracts. We believe that all channels beyond the basic

tier should be unbundled, and let cable operators decide in what ways to package

and bundle them in addition to offering them on an individual, a` la carte basis.

Cable A` la carte Works in a Digital World

Unfortunately, what little the diversely owned and independent programming

that currently exists is only available to consumers if they purchase expensive digital packages. While millions of American homes subscribe to cable, most buy analog

cable packages of basic and expanded basic programming that includes channels

owned either by cable operators, broadcasters or other media conglomerates, but

very little ethnic or independent programming. Seventy percent of cable’s customers

don’t get digital, and therefore don’t have access to most of the ethnic, targeted,

niche or independent programming cable does offer. We believe that unbundling

cable channels will encourage the transition to digital cable.

Although the large majority of cable households purchase analog, it might not be

economically feasible in the next few years to offer a` la carte to those consumers.

Sending a cable technician to an analog customer’s home each time a channel is

added or removed is not cost-efficient. But cable operators have moved to, and are

aggressively promoting digital, a technology that not only offers them more channel

capacity but also the technical feasibility to unbundle content in new ways.

Currently, there are 23 million digital cable subscribers and 20 million Direct

Broadcast Satellite (DBS) subscribers who receive digital service—which means 40

percent 20 of U.S. households are instantly capable of accessing a` la carte, or

unbundled content. The advent of inexpensive digital converter boxes and the increasing availability of digital cable-ready television are helping bridge the gap between digital and analog cable. But policymakers must also prevent the growth of

a digital divide, where low-income consumers cannot afford the digital entry price

to receive a` la carte options. To achieve this, digital set-top boxes should be made

affordable to all consumers in an a` la carte environment.

Consumers Want A` la carte

Recent nationwide surveys conducted by Consumers Union and the Concerned

Women for America demonstrate that consumers want increased choice and more

control over their cable programming, and their cable bills.

According to the CWfA poll, conducted by Wirthlin in April 2004,21 more than

two-thirds of cable customers would prefer to choose the channels in their cable

packages, and less than a third are satisfied with the channel bundles they’re currently offered. And approximately the same percentage of Latinos and AfricanAmericans would prefer to choose their own channels. The poll found among noncable subscribers, 66 percent would be more likely to subscribe to cable if they had

control over their programming.

Consumers Union found similar sentiments in our national survey of cable subscribers conducted in May 2004 22. We found that 66 percent of subscribers would

prefer the option to pick only those cable channels they want to watch or have included in their service plan. We also asked consumers about possible drawbacks of

unbundling cable content, including channel selection and price. Of those surveyed,

59 percent would pick fewer channels than they currently must buy in their cable

package. And 29 percent would still choose fewer channels even if their cable bill

didn’t decline proportionally.

Steps for the Commission

Congress has appropriately directed the FCC to investigate the central policy

questions affecting the adoption of a` la carte by beginning the inquiry with questions about revenue generation. In order to answer these questions, it is essential

112

23Time To Give Consumers Reach Choices: Twenty Years Of Anti-Consumer Bundling And

Anticompetitive Gatekeeping, Dr. Mark Cooper, Consumer Federation of America, p. 1, 23. 24 James Gleason, Testimony before Senate Commerce Committee, ‘‘Media Ownership (Video

Markets),’’ May 6, 2003. 25 Charles, Dolan, Testimony before Senate Commerce Committee, ‘‘Media Ownership (Video

Markets),’’ May 6, 2003.

for the Commission to obtain access to the contracts between cable operators and

programmers.

As the attached study from Dr. Mark Cooper explains, these contracts determine

the pricing of channels, lineup placement, bundling provisions and more.23 The

Commission should examine the language programmers use for big cable conglomerates and smaller, independent cable operators, and satellite providers. It should

open these contracts for the public to evaluate who has the balance of power in

these negotiations and if industry is preventing the choices that consumers deserve.

Policymakers should focus their analysis on what is known as mixed bundling—

the offer to consumers of channel choices in both packages and on a stand-alone

basis. Pure bundling, in which channels are offered only in packages, and pure component selling, in which packages are outlawed, have consistently been found in the

economic literature to be inferior. The policy question is, why has the cable industry

resisted mixed bundling so fiercely? We believe the answer is that its reliance on

pure bundling within tiers is anticompetitive and anti-consumer, and a detailed examination of those practices would reveal consumers are stuck with the industry’s

special cable tax.

In our view, the current rate structure reflects the exercise of substantial market

power by the cable operators who engage in bundling to extract monopoly profits

and control the flow of content. Under these circumstances, if consumers were offered the opportunity to choose between bundles and an a` la carte menu of the same

programs, it is likely that the total rate paid by consumers for the channels they

would choose to purchase will be reduced and consumer satisfaction would increase.

Large cable operators, mega-broadcast programmers and advertisers have become

comfortable with the current system because the inefficiencies and excess profits of

the system are shifted onto the backs of consumers. As consumers pay more than

their fare share to get the channels they want, cable operators and powerful programmers engage in minor skirmishes over the division of monopolistic profits, and

put up roadblocks to unaffiliated programmers. The cable operators collect the tax,

pay excessive amounts to large broadcasters in the form of high fees for some channels and guaranteed carriage for others, and dictate which programs the public can

view, while forcing them to pay for large numbers of channels they do not watch.

If the FCC can force manufacturers to rebuild entire classes of technology to fight

piracy and adhere to Plug and Play specifications, and if the FCC can plant a

Broadcast Flag in its goal to expedite the transition to digital television, surely policymakers can also give consumers more choice in cable programming. It is time for

Congress and the FCC to put consumers’ interest on equal footing with industry

goals and let market forces begin to provide much needed discipline on exorbitant

cable rates. And it is also time for policymakers to empower consumers to keep distasteful programming out of their homes.

We urge policymakers to note what the industry itself said about a` la carte pricing little more than a year ago. In testimony before the Senate Commerce Committee in March 2003, cable operators big and small endorsed pricing cable channels

a` la carte.

James Gleason, president and chief operating officer of CableDirect, a cable operator serving 20,000 customers in the Midwest said, ‘‘To give customers choice and

allow the market to determine what gets on TV, programmers should be required

to make their services available as part of a separate programming tier. One solution might be to offer the expensive programming in tiers or a` la carte.’’ 24

Charles Dolan, chairman of Cablevision, one of the largest cable operators with

over 4 million homes in the northeast, told the Senate Commerce Committee: ‘‘Cablevision, as a policy, wants its customers to be able to pick and choose among its

services, selecting what appeals to them, rejecting what does not, determining for

themselves how much they will spend, just as they do every day in the supermarket

or shopping mall.’’ 25 He continued with an analogy repeated since, ‘‘To help the

dairy industry, I ask, would the government insist that all customers be required

to buy a dozen eggs and a quart of milk before they can purchase their bread?’’

In short, Congress and the FCC should abolish the ‘‘cable tax’’ the industry collects by forcing consumers to take tiers of programming that grow larger and more

expensive each year. It should take the most prudent First Amendment approach

to dealing with offensive programming by giving consumers the option not to have

113

that programming come into their homes. And it should break the monopolistic

power cable operators and large programmers have over what is offered to viewers

over cable lines and satellite. By allowing the a` la carte option, these important policy matters can be achieved with little to no government intervention.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Liggins.

TESTIMONY OF ALFRED LIGGINS

Mr. LIGGINS. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I am Alfred Liggins,

president and CEO of Radio One, the largest company primarily

targeting African-American and urban radio listeners. And I am

also chairman of TV One.

Six months ago, on Martin Luther King’s birthday, we and our

partners launched TV One, a cable network featuring a broad

range of lifestyle and entertainment programming designed to entertain, inform and inspire a diverse audience of African-American

adults. While the cable universe contains scores of channels designed to appeal to a wide variety of audiences, we launched TV

One because we recognized a void in programming specifically oriented toward African-American adults.

As chairman of TV One, I am in a unique position to speak on

how a la carte or theme-tier mandates would affect startup networks, networks catering to minority audiences and program diversity in general. In short, I feel it would have a devastating effect.

I would be a death knell for many new service offerings. TV One’s

business plan is based on a number of critical assumptions regarding programming costs, license fees, marketing costs, advertising

revenues and most importantly distribution on cable and satellite

systems. The bottom line for each of the other elements in the business plan depends heavily on our ability to gain commitments from

cable and satellite operators for the broadest possible amount of

carriage.

For example, while TV One has been positively received by many

in the advertising community, some advertisers have told us not to

even come see them until the network is in 20 million households.

This is particularly challenging because advertising makes up the

bulk of the revenue for new networks like TV One. Fortunately,

new networks factor that into our business plans since we know it

may take a couple of years or more to hit 20 million households,

but in an a la carte world where we have to sign consumers up individually, many minority-targeted networks might never reach the

20 million subscriber threshold, cutting off a critical source of revenue.

As a data point, there are roughly 13.5 million African-American

TV households. In an a la carte world, if we got 100 percent of

those households, which will be impossible, that is a failed network, and we would have to also compete against other networks

like Lifetime that have 80 million households. Less distribution not

only means less revenue from subscription fees and advertising, it

means less money we can invest in programming. Without the ability to invest in quality programming, networks aimed at minority

audiences will undoubtedly be much less attractive to viewers.

One of the most troubling aspects of an a la carte mandate for

new networks is that unlike Discovery, ESPN and Lifetime, we are

just beginning to build our brands to make our target audiences

114

aware that we exist. Because our marketing budgets are limited,

many of our viewers find TV One by channel surfing or by word

of mouth from regular viewers. If we cannot TV One packaged in

a widely available basic tier, we will need to incur enormous consumer marketing costs, once again, to the detriment of our programming investments.

I also want to point out that like many minority-oriented channels, we are a stand-alone service, meaning we can’t leverage our

infrastructure for activities like affiliate sales, ad sales and technical operations across multiple networks, as can many of the big

cable programming families, like Viacom, Discovery, Disney and

NBC Universal. We also must devote a substantial portion of our

budget to original programming and don’t have a library of existing

product from which to draw as many of the big companies do.

For the reasons I have described, a mandated a la carte scheme

would put TV One’s cost of doing business at even a more disadvantage to our established competitors and could turn what most

agree would be a good bet at TV One into a highly risky proposition. At best, we would have to drastically increase what we

charge on a per subscriber basis, much like pay networks such as

HBO and Showtime do, resulting in much higher costs for consumers if indeed we could create an attractively priced product at

all.

I want to stress that mandated themed tiers pose also the same

issues that mandatory a la carte presents. If a cable or satellite operator creates a family friendly tier and excludes TV One, does that

make our quality network family unfriendly, and what kind of

themed tier would the government say that TV One, a network targeted toward African-Americans, should be on? I think that any

time the government starts trying to draw lines like this, terrible

consequences follow.

Finally, we created TV One because we believe that AfricanAmerican adults were underserved in the television marketplace,

and we are targeting our programming accordingly. But we also expect that by TV One being available to a wide selection of cable

viewers, non-African-Americans will tune in occasionally and learn

something about the breadth and the depth of our culture.

Throughout the years, television has allowed Americans to share

ideas, thoughts, cultures and politics. Mandatory a la carte would

lead to less choice, dwindling programming options, higher prices

and in fact a trifecta of failure. It would have a chilling effect on

programming diversity, as citizens would have the right to segregate themselves and their intellect. While that is probably not

what the proponents of a la carte intend, I believe it is the likely

result.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today.

[The prepared statement of Alfred Liggins follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ALFRED LIGGINS, PRESIDENT AND CEO, RADIO ONE

Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I am Alfred Liggins, president and CEO of Radio

One, the largest radio company that primarily targets African American and urban

listeners, and chairman of TV One. Six months ago, on the Martin Luther King holiday, we and our partners launched TV One, a cable network featuring a broad

range of lifestyle and entertainment programming designed primarily to entertain,

inform and inspire a diverse audience of African American adults.

115

While the cable universe contains dozens of channels designed to appeal to a wide

variety of audiences, we launched TV One because we recognized a void in programming specifically oriented toward African American adults.

As chairman of TV One, I am in a unique position to speak to how an a la carte

or ‘‘themed tier’’ mandate would affect startup networks, networks catering to minority audiences and program diversity in general.

In short, it would have a devastating effect. It would be a death knell for many

new service offerings.

TV One’s business plan is based on a number of critical assumptions regarding

programming costs, license fees, marketing costs, advertising revenues—and, most

importantly, distribution on cable and satellite systems.

The bottom line for each of the other elements in the business plan depends heavily on our ability to gain commitments from cable and satellite operators for the

broadest amount of carriage possible.

For example, while TV One has been positively received by many in the advertising community, some advertisers have told us not even to come to see them until

the network is in 20 million households. This is particularly challenging because advertising makes up the bulk of the revenue for new networks like TV One, especially in the early years.

Fortunately, new networks factor that into our business plans, since we know it

may take a couple of years or more to hit 20 million households. But, in an a la

carte world where we have to sign consumers up individually, many minority-targeted networks might never reach 20 million subscribers, cutting off a critical source

of revenue.

Less distribution not only means less revenue from subscription fees and advertising, it means less money we can invest in programming. Without the ability to

invest in quality programming, networks aimed at a minority audience will undoubtedly be much less attractive to viewers.One of the most troubling aspects of

an a la carte regime for new networks is that, unlike Discovery, ESPN and Lifetime,

we are just beginning to build our brands to make our target audiences aware that

we exist. Because our marketing budgets are limited, many of our viewers find TV

One by channel surfing or by word-of-mouth from other regular viewers.

If we cannot get TV One packaged in a widely available basic tier, we will need

to incur enormous consumer marketing costs, once again to the detriment of our

programming investments.

I also want to point out that, like many minority-oriented channels, we are a

‘‘stand alone’’ service, meaning we can’t leverage our infrastructure for activities like

affiliate sales, ad sales and technical operations across multiple networks as can

many of the big cable programming families like Viacom/MTV, Discovery, Disney/

ABC and NBC/Universal. We also must devote a substantial portion of our budget

to original programming and don’t have a library of existing product from which to

draw as many of the big companies do.

For the reasons I have described, a mandated a la carte scheme would put TV

One’s cost of doing business at even more of a disadvantage to our established competitors and could turn what nearly everyone has agreed is a ‘‘good bet’’ into a highly risky proposition. At best, we would have to increase drastically what we charge

on a per-subscriber basis, much like pay networks such as HBO and Showtime do,

resulting in much higher costs for consumers—if, indeed, we could individually price

it at a level that even allows us to offer cable and satellite operators, and viewers,

an attractive product.

I want to stress that mandated ‘‘themed tiers’’ pose all of the same issues that

mandatory a la carte presents. If a cable or satellite operator creates a ‘‘familyfriendly’’ tier and excludes TV One, does that make our quality network ‘‘family-unfriendly?’’ And what kind of ‘‘themed tier’’ would the government say that TV One,

a network targeted to African Americans, should be on? I think that any time the

government starts trying to draw lines like this, terrible consequences follow.

Finally, we created TV One because we believed that African American adults

were underserved in the television marketplace, and we are targeting our programming accordingly. But we also expect and hope that, by TV One being available to

a wide selection of cable viewers, non-African Americans will tune in occasionally

and learn something about the breadth and depth of our culture.

Throughout the years, television has allowed Americans to share ideas, thoughts,

cultures and politics. Mandatory a la carte would lead to less choice, dwindling program options, and higher prices—a trifecta of failure. It would have a chilling effect

on programming diversity as citizens would have the ‘‘right’’ to segregate themselves

and their intellect. While that is probably not what proponents of a la carte intend,

it is the likely result.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today..

116

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Hooks.

TESTIMONY OF BEN W. HOOKS

Mr. HOOKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. My name is Ben Hooks. I am the CEO of Buford Media

Group, an independent cable business currently serving 56,000 customers in 6 States, including Texas, Mississippi and Missouri. I

want to commend you for holding this hearing and trust that it will

be the first of many investigations into how wholesale programming practices affect customers.

What I want to highlight for you are the bigger policy concerns

in the television programming market. What I mean are the growing concerns about choice, cost and content. You all hear a lot

about that from your constituents. We hear the same from our customers. So what are the specific trouble spots that I see in today’s

market as I try to build systems and serve rural customers? While

there are numerous issues I need to raise, I will focus my comments here to four specific items due to our time constraints.

No. 1 is retransmission consent. Network owners and major affiliate groups have used retransmission consent to compel me to

carry affiliated programming such as Fx, MTV2, SoapNet and others that I know the majority of my viewers do not want. This misuse of the law intended to assist the goal of localism is actually the

center of the storm and must be reviewed. Forced bundling must

be eliminated if choice is ever to be granted to consumers.

No. 2, so how can the programmers get away with this? Most of

my programming contracts are subject to strict confidentiality and

non-disclosure obligations. If you were to ask me today what my

company pays a certain programmer, like the one on this panel, I

couldn’t tell you without risking legal action. Programmers could

agree to waive non-disclosure for purposes of this hearing or even

in our contracts, but they haven’t. You can ask them today.

Furthermore, Congress and the FCC should be able to obtain

specific programming contracts and rate information directly from

the programmers so that someone can monitor whether the market

is healthy and functioning properly. In short, without disclosure,

there is no accountability. If you do nothing else, I believe Congress

must pull back the curtain that is hidden the Wizard from all of

Oz so that informed decisions by customers, legislators and regulators can be made.

No. 3, we need more flexibility in how we can tailor programming

to our local markets. Many American Cable Association members

that I am here to represent as well today would like to move highcost sports channels, certain music video channels and racier entertainment channels, both containing profanity and sexually suggestive content, to tiers. Breaking the bundling practices of programmers would allow operators to relieve consumers of the current dilemma whereby they have effectively one choice: Basic or expanded

basic, take it or leave it.

That decision forces a majority of my consumers to pay for channels they don’t want, don’t like and shouldn’t have to view. For example, in order to carry family programming, such as Nickelodeon’s

Spongebob, I must also carry more suggestive and sexually explicit

117

programming like MTV’s Undressed or Spike TV’s Stripperella.

Who can really defend that logic to a family?

No. 4, to make all this worse, media conglomerates charge smaller cable companies and their customers much more than their larger urban counterparts. ACA members have reported programming

price differences of up to 30 percent and in one case 5 percent. Programming rates should be the same for all providers unless the differences are truly cost-based.

Finally, I want to make one other point perfectly clear: The

American Cable Association does not support mandated a la carte.

For our companies, it simply costs too much. Attempts by many of

our critics to make this the sole issue of today’s hearing is simply

an attempt to deflect scrutiny of their current business practices.

I am here today to raise awareness that the way programming is

currently owned, packaged, priced and bundled by the five media

conglomerates is reducing choice, increasing costs and threatens

our ability to bridge the digital divide in rural America. Simply

put, American Cable Association members are not part of the problem, but we, along with our consumers, are most certainly a victim

of it.

In conclusion, the key question I believe everyone should be asking themselves is this: If you think rising programming prices are

fine, if you like the channels being forced on your by the media giants, if you believe consumers have enough choice over what they

view and have sufficient knowledge and control over what they pay

for, then do nothing, but if you worry that consumers and providers

are forced to take and carry programming channels they find indecent, unwanted or too expensive with no recourse, then please continue this line of inquiry.

Again, I greatly appreciate the time to present some of my views

and appreciate your time and interest in these matters.

[The prepared statement of Ben W. Hooks follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BEN W. HOOKS, JR., PRESIDENT AND CEO—BUFORD

MEDIA GROUP, ALLEGIANCE COMMUNICATIONS, ALLIANCE COMMUNICATIONS

I. INTRODUCTION

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee.

My name is Ben Hooks, and I am president and CEO of Buford Media Group, an

independent cable business currently serving 56,000 customers in Texas, Arkansas,

Oklahoma and Kansas. My company provides cable television, digital cable, highspeed internet and other advanced services in 78 smaller systems and rural areas

throughout the central United States.

I am also the past chairman of the American Cable Association. ACA represents

nearly 1,100 independent cable businesses. Collectively, ACA members serve more

than 8 million customers, mostly in smaller markets and rural areas. ACA’s constituency is truly national; our members serve customers in every state and in nearly every congressional district, particularly those of this Committee.

To begin, I want to commend you for holding this hearing, and I trust that it will

simply be the first of many investigations into how programmers and multi-video

programming distributors inter-relate. I have been hoping that this type of hearing

and line of inquiry would occur so that sunshine can finally be shed on a process

that fails to provide consumers and operators with any sense of control over content,

channels and price. I am grateful for your work here today and urge you to continue

this effort with additional hearings to discuss how to best serve the market.

I have been in the cable business for more than 35 years, starting at the bottom

and working step-by-step to the top of my company and with others before it. I have

seen firsthand the harmful effects growing media consolidation, rising programming

increases, forced tying and bundling of channels, and retransmission consent have

118

had on my company and, most importantly, on our customers who are your constituents.

I hope my testimony will provide you with unique insight into the issues raised

in this hearing. My company and other ACA members are fundamentally different

than the major programming and broadcasting conglomerates, some of which are

here today. Foremost, ACA members are independent businesses that are not controlled by vertically integrated media conglomerates, nor do we own programming

channels. We strictly provide cable and advanced services to your communities. ACA

members focus on serving modest customer bases in smaller markets that are often

too small, too costly, or just too remote to interest the larger providers.

And our companies are doing a great job. ACA members are leading the industry

in responding to Congress’ call to ‘‘bridge the Digital Divide’’ by delivering advanced

services like digital cable and broadband Internet access. Because we live and work

in these small ‘‘pockets’’ and rural communities, we know how important it is to

have advanced communications services available, and our members are working

hard to deliver the promise of broadband to smaller markets.

As a result, when the Committee focuses on programming increases, media consolidation, lack of programming choice, indecency and other important policy matters, my company and ACA members are not part of the problem. When the Committee is concerned about localism, broadband deployment and the economic health

of rural America, ACA members are an important part of the solution.

These companies are great examples of what entrepreneurial spirit and hard work

can accomplish.

At the same time, my small company, ACA members and our customers are increasingly threatened by the onerous pricing and practices of the major media programming giants, such as Disney, Viacom, Fox, and General Electric. These global

media companies are controlling what channels are seen in rural America, how they

are packaged, and how much they cost, without regard to input from providers like

me, who must take these channels, and my customers, who must pay for them.

Let me be clear. While the public and some policymakers believe we are in the

driver’s seat, in reality, we don’t control the content, we don’t control the price, we

don’t control the packaging, and we don’t control whatever standards the media giants think are ‘‘decent,’’ regardless of what my customers think.

It is not an exaggeration to say that the telecommunications future of rural America hangs in the balance on whether Congress continues to examine these important

issues and decides to take action to ensure that local providers, like me, and my

customers have economic input and choice in what channels are carried in our markets and how much they cost. Without more flexibility and choice in local markets,

the media giants will create a new ‘‘digital divide’’ by killing the small provider, who

is also often the only source of advanced services in the community.

This is why I am honored on behalf of my company and ACA to be here today

to tell you the truth about what is happening to local providers and customers in

our rural marketplaces. I encourage you to dig deep in your Committee’s search for

answers, seeking disclosure of information the programming giants would rather go

unnoticed.

I think you will see that five specific steps must occur before rural customers and

local providers can have any hope of restraining the ever-accumulating power of the

media giants:

1. Local providers and customers must have more choice and flexibility in

how programming channels are priced and packaged, including the ability to

sell the highest-priced programming channels as a single channel, or on a

theme-based tier if necessary;

2. The programming pricing gap between the biggest and smallest providers must be closed to ensure that customers and local providers in smaller

markets are not subsidizing large companies and subscribers in urban America;

3. Tying and bundling of programming channels by the media giants must

end, where customers are no longer forced to receive and pay for many channels in order to receive the single channel they really want,;

4. Further tying through retransmission consent must end, preventing the

media giants from holding local broadcast signals hostage for more carriage of

affiliated media-giant programming, which was never the intention of Congress

when granting this power; and,

5. The programming media giants must disclose what they are charging

local providers and customers, ending the strict confidentiality and non-disclosure dictated by the media giants. Confidentiality and non-disclosure mean

lack of accountability of the media giants.

119

I hope my testimony today will help show that more work and scrutiny by the

Committee is needed as it prepares to rewrite the nation’s telecommunications laws

beginning next year.

II. PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS

This hearing provides an unprecedented opportunity for the Committee to gain

deep insight into the current state of wholesale and retail distribution of programming. This insight will help the Committee better understand how developments in

the wholesale programming market affect the important policy concerns of consumer

choice, localism and cost.

My independent company and ACA member companies must purchase most of

their satellite programming wholesale from five media conglomerates, referred to

here as the ‘‘Big Five’’—Disney, Viacom, Fox, General Electric and Time Warner/

Turner. In dealing with the Big Five, all ACA members continually face contractual

restrictions that eliminate our flexibility to determine how local cable systems can

package and distribute programming, instead placing programming cartels,

headquartered thousands of miles away, in charge of what my community deems

as ‘‘decent’’ content, pricing and value. ACA members have intimate knowledge of

the wholesale practices of the Big Five and how those practices can restrict choice

and increase costs in smaller markets.

A. Core Problem—Media Conglomerates Force Channels and Cost Onto All Customers

i. Forced Cost and Channels

For nearly all of the 50 most distributed channels (see Exhibit 1), the Big Five

contractually obligate my company and all ACA members to distribute the programming to all basic or expanded basic customers regardless of whether we think that

makes sense for our community. These same contracts also mandate carriage of less

desirable channels in exchange for the rights to distribute desirable programming.

A small cable company that violated these carriage requirements would be subject

to legal action by the media conglomerates, and for ACA’s members, this is a very

real threat.

These carriage restrictions prohibit ACA members from offering more customized

tiers and channel offerings that may reflect the interests and values of our specific

community. Quite simply, there is no choice now.

ii. More Forced Cost and Channels Through Retransmission Consent

Retransmission consent has morphed from its original intent to provide another

means to impose additional cost and channel carriage obligations. As a result, nearly all customers have to purchase basic or expanded basic packages filled with channels owned by the Big Five (See Exhibit 2).

Network owners and major programming affiliate groups have used retransmission consent to obtain carriage of affiliated programming on smaller cable systems. In this way, network owners have turned retransmission consent into another

means to load affiliated programming and cost on smaller cable companies’ basic or

expanded basic tiers.

In short, media conglomerates that control networks and broadcast licenses are

exploiting current laws and regulations to actually reduce consumer choice and to

increase costs, all for their own benefit.

iii. Forced Carriage Eliminates Diverse Programming Channels

The programming practices of certain Big Five members have also restricted the

ability of some ACA members to launch and continue to carry independent, niche,

religious and ethnic programming. The main problem: requirements to carry Big

Five affiliated programming on expanded basic eliminate ‘‘shelf space’’ where the

cable provider could offer independent programming.

It is purely a matter of fact that ACA member systems have been unable to

launch or continue to carry independent channels like the Outdoor Channel, certain

religious channels, and Spanish-language channels. In fact, my local marketplaces

are growing in Hispanic populations, but my cable systems have little, if any, shelf

space to add independent, Spanish-language channels, because of the channels dictated to me by the media giants.

iv. Local Choice and Flexibility is Needed

In order to give consumers more choice and better value, changes in current

wholesale programming practices and market conditions are needed. Specifically,

my company and ACA members must be given more flexibility to tailor channel offerings that work best in our local marketplaces.

120

As I have stated, the Big Five condition access to popular programming on a

range of distribution obligations and additional carriage requirements. These restrictions and obligations eliminate flexibility to offer more customized channel

packages in local markets.

My company and ACA members would prefer mutually beneficial carriage arrangements with programmers. For this to occur, certain media conglomerates

would need to temper economic self-interest with a heightened concern for the public interest in localism, consumer choice, and reasonable cable rates. However, I am

wary that without congressional or regulatory involvement, corporate America is not

ready to accept those altruistic values.

With more flexibility, ACA members could offer a variety of options to their customers, including sports tiers, family-friendly tiers, contemporary adult tiers, children’s tiers, and a la carte access to a few of the highest cost channels.

For instance, many ACA members report they would like to move high-cost sports

channels to a tier. The ability to move high-cost sports channels to a tier would

allow those consumers who want the ever-escalating high-cost sports programming

to have it, without forcing the majority of viewers to pay for prime programming

that they do not want.

Is that not what an effective market should allow for? Those who want a Lexus

with every option should have one, but the rules of the market should not dictate

that everyone has to pay the Lexus price for the more simple, stripped down

Hyundai model they can pay for or want. Such a change would still allow programmers to price the channels to generate the same license fee revenue as currently.

The key difference—consumers would have more choice.

The same analysis applies to other types of services that some ACA members

would like to move off the expanded basic tier—certain music video channels and

‘‘racier’’ entertainment channels—those that contain profanity, partial nudity and

sexually suggestive content. In some markets, pervasive concern exists about this

content on basic or expanded basic.

It’s important to point out that neither my company nor any ACA member controls the content that’s on these channels. That content—decent or not—is controlled

by the media conglomerates that contractually and legally prevent us from changing

or preempting any questionable or indecent content.

However, if my company and other ACA members could tier these services it

would allow ACA members the flexibility to address indecency concerns with the involvement of the consumer.

For example, in many markets today a cable or satellite provider that wants to

carry family programming, such as Nickelodeon, must also carry much more suggestive and sexually explicit programming on MTV and SpikeTV. Essentially, to get

Spongebob Squarepants, a well-known children’s program, cable and satellite providers and their customers have to also take Undressed or Stripperella, two highly

sexual, adult programs. Here’s what MTV’s website says about its program, Undressed: ‘‘Not getting enough action before you go to bed? Undressed will definitely

be changing that! This season is sure to titillate your senses—so tune in!’’

B. Core Problem—Media Conglomerate Price Discrimination Against Smaller Companies and Customers in Rural America

i. Price discrimination against smaller cable companies makes matters

worse.

The wholesale price differentials between what a smaller cable company pays in

rural America compared to larger cable operators in urban America have little to

do with differences in cost, and much to do with disparities in market power. These

differences are not economically cost-justified.

For instance, ACA members have reported wholesale programming price differentials between smaller companies and major cable companies of up to 30%, and in

one case, 55%. In this way, smaller cable systems and their customers actually subsidize the programming costs of larger urban distributors and consumers! We even

end up with worse pricing than satellite companies DirecTV and EchoStar, who are

the main competitors to our rural cable systems.

Price discrimination against smaller cable companies and their customers is clearly anti-competitive conduct on the part of the Big Five—they offer a lower price to

one competitor and force another other competitor to pay a 30-55% higher price

FOR THE SAME PROGRAMMING. The effect of these practices by the Big Five

is that the three MVPDs in the same town have to pay wildly different rates for

the same product that each is distributing in that town.

121

ii. Price Discrimination Must End.

In order to give consumers in smaller markets and rural areas more choice and

better value, media conglomerates must be required to eliminate non-cost-based

price discrimination against smaller cable operators and customers in rural America.

This means that the net effective rates charged by the media conglomerates for

their programming channels should be the same for all MVPDs, regardless of distribution technology, size or market characteristics, unless the differentials are truly

cost-based.

With less wholesale price discrimination, ACA members could offer their customers better value and stop subsidizing programming costs of large distributors.

These two changes would go far in addressing the concerns of Congress, consumer

interests, and many of the 8 million customers served by ACA members.

C. Pure Mandated A la Carte Is Not The Answer.

Once again, to be clear, for ACA members these changes do not mean a mandated, regulated a la carte regime. Current technology costs make mandated a la

carte a financial impossibility for ACA member systems. Moreover, ACA members

report that most customers prefer a basic or expanded basic package and specialty

tiers containing a variety of channels at a reasonable price.

D. Basis For Legislative and Regulatory Action

Congress has the legal and constitutional foundation to impose content neutral

regulation on wholesale programming transactions. The program access laws provide the model and the vehicle, and those laws have withstood First Amendment

scrutiny. This hearing provides the Committee with a key opportunity to help determine the important governmental interests that are being harmed by current programming practices.

Furthermore, based in large part on the FCC’s actions in the DirecTV-News Corp.

merger, there is precedent for Congress and the FCC to address the legal and policy

concerns raised by the current programming and retransmission consent practices

of the media conglomerates. The FCC’s analysis and conclusions in the News Corp.

Order persuasively establish the market power wielded by owners of ‘‘must have’’

satellite programming and broadcast channels, and how that market power can be

used to harm consumers. That analysis applies with equal force to other media conglomerates besides News Corp.

E. Pierce the Programming Veil of Secrecy—End Non-Disclosure and Confidentiality.

Most programming contracts are subject to strict confidentiality and nondisclosure

obligations, and my company and ACA members are very concerned about retaliation by certain Big Five programmers. For instance, if you ask me today what my

company pays a certain programmer, I could not tell you without fearing legal action against my company by the media giant. Programmers could agree to waive

nondisclosure for purposes of this hearing or even in our contracts, but they never

do. Ask them today, and I’d be shocked if they would disclose specific terms and

conditions. Ask them why this confidentiality and non-disclosure exists. Who does

it benefit? Consumers, Congress, the FCC? I don’t think so. Why is this information

so secret when much of the infrastructure the media giants benefit from derives

from licenses and frequencies granted by the government?

Congress should obtain specific programming contracts and rate information directly from the programmers, either by agreement or under the Committee’s subpoena power. Moreover, Congress should ensure that programmers must disclose

the true and effective prices they charge to providers and consumers. Without disclosure, there is no accountability.

III. CONCLUSION

The American Cable Association and its members are committed to working with

the Committee to solve these important issues.

The key questions I believe everyone should be asking themselves are the following:

• If you think rising programming prices are fine, you like all of the channels being

forced on you by the media giants, and consumers have enough choice over

what they view and have sufficient knowledge and control over what they pay

for their programming, then do nothing.

• But if you worry that consumers and providers are forced to take and carry programming channels they find indecent, unwanted, or too expensive, yet they—

along with their local providers, like my company—have no recourse, then

please continue this line of inquiry. There are solutions out there that can help

122

your constituents and my customers achieve a better viewing experience, and

we must be bold enough to look everywhere for answers.

My company and the more than 1,000 like it stand ready to be the advanced

guard in providing new telecommunications and video services to customers in rural

America and in smaller markets. But we won’t be able to do it if the practices and

price increases of the programming giants remain unchecked. As a result, for customers in smaller markets and rural areas to benefit from the advanced services

my company can offer, the following must happen:

1. Local providers and customers must have more choice and flexibility in how programming channels are priced and packaged;

2. The programming pricing gap between the biggest and smallest providers must

be closed;

3. Tying and bundling of programming channels by the media giants must end;

4. Further tying through retransmission consent must be eliminated; and,

5. The programming media giants must disclose what they are charging local providers and customers.

I would like to sincerely thank the Committee again for allowing me to speak before you today.

EXHIBIT 1—Ownership of the Top 50 Programming Channels

Channel Ownership

BET ............................................................................................................................. Viacom/CBS

CMT ............................................................................................................................ Viacom/CBS

MTV ............................................................................................................................ Viacom/CBS

Nickelodeon ................................................................................................................ Viacom/CBS

Spike .......................................................................................................................... Viacom/CBS

TV Land ...................................................................................................................... Viacom/CBS

VH1 ............................................................................................................................ Viacom/CBS

Comedy Central ......................................................................................................... Viacom/CBS

ABC Family ................................................................................................................ Walt Disney Co./ABC

Disney ........................................................................................................................ Walt Disney Co./ABC

ESPN .......................................................................................................................... Walt Disney Co./ABC

ESPN2 ........................................................................................................................ Walt Disney Co./ABC

Lifetime ...................................................................................................................... Walt Disney Co./Hearst

A&E ............................................................................................................................ Hearst/ABC/NBC

History ........................................................................................................................ Hearst/ABC/NBC

CNBC .......................................................................................................................... GE/NBC

MSNBC ....................................................................................................................... GE/NBC

Sci-fi .......................................................................................................................... GE/NBC

USA ............................................................................................................................ GE/NBC

Bravo .......................................................................................................................... GE/NBC

Shop NBC ................................................................................................................... GE/NBC

Fox News .................................................................................................................... News Corp.

Fox Sports .................................................................................................................. News Corp.

FX ............................................................................................................................... News Corp.

Speed ......................................................................................................................... News Corp.

TV Guide .................................................................................................................... News Corp.

CNN ............................................................................................................................ Time Warner/Turner

Headline News ........................................................................................................... Time Warner/Turner

TBS ............................................................................................................................. Time Warner/Turner

TCM ............................................................................................................................ Time Warner/Turner

TNT ............................................................................................................................. Time Warner/Turner

TOON .......................................................................................................................... Time Warner/Turner

Court TV ..................................................................................................................... Time Warner/Liberty Group

Animal Planet ............................................................................................................ Liberty Media

Discovery .................................................................................................................... Liberty Media

Travel ......................................................................................................................... Liberty Media

TLC ............................................................................................................................. Liberty Media

Golf ............................................................................................................................ Comcast Corp.

Outdoor Life ............................................................................................................... Comcast Corp.

E! ............................................................................................................................... Comcast Corp.

QVC ............................................................................................................................ Comcast Corp.

HGTV .......................................................................................................................... Scripps Company

Food ........................................................................................................................... Scripps Company

AMC ............................................................................................................................ Rainbow/Cablevision Systems

C-Span ....................................................................................................................... National Cable Satellite Corp.

123

EXHIBIT 1—Ownership of the Top 50 Programming Channels—Continued

Channel Ownership

C-Span II ................................................................................................................... National Cable Satellite Corp.

WGN ........................................................................................................................... Tribune Company

Hallmark .................................................................................................................... Crown Media Holdings

Weather ...................................................................................................................... Landmark Communications

HSN ............................................................................................................................ IAC/InterActiveCorp.

EXHIBIT 2—Channels Carried Through Retransmission Consent

Program Service Ownership

FX ............................................................................................................................... News Corp.

Fox News .................................................................................................................... News Corp.

Speed ......................................................................................................................... News Corp.

National Geographic .................................................................................................. News Corp.

Fox Movie Network ..................................................................................................... News Corp.

Fox Sports World ........................................................................................................ News Corp.

Fuel ............................................................................................................................ News Corp.

ESPN2 ........................................................................................................................ Walt Disney Co./ABC

ESPN Classic ............................................................................................................. Walt Disney Co./ABC

ESPNews .................................................................................................................... Walt Disney Co./ABC

Disney from premium to basic .................................................................................. Walt Disney Co./ABC

Toon Disney ................................................................................................................ Walt Disney Co./ABC

SoapNet ...................................................................................................................... Walt Disney Co./ABC

Lifetime Movie Network ............................................................................................. Walt Disney Co./Hearst

Lifetime Real Women ................................................................................................. Walt Disney Co./Hearst

MSNBC ....................................................................................................................... GE/NBC

CNBC .......................................................................................................................... GE/NBC

Shop NBC ................................................................................................................... GE/NBC

Olympic Surcharges for MSNBC/CNBC ...................................................................... GE/NBC

Comedy Central ......................................................................................................... Viacom/CBS

MTV Espanol .............................................................................................................. Viacom/CBS

MTV Hits .................................................................................................................... Viacom/CBS

MTV2 .......................................................................................................................... Viacom/CBS

Nick GAS .................................................................................................................... Viacom/CBS

Nicktoons ................................................................................................................... Viacom/CBS

Noggin ........................................................................................................................ Viacom/CBS

VH1 Classic ............................................................................................................... Viacom/CBS

VH1 Country ............................................................................................................... Viacom/CBS

Comparing this with the Top Fifty Channels in Exhibit 1 demonstrates how certain members of the Big Five have used retransmission consent to gain a significant

portion of analog and digital channel capacity.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Pyne, thank you.

TESTIMONY OF BEN PYNE

Mr. PYNE. Thank you and good morning. Thank you, Chairman

Upton, Ranking Member Markey and the rest of the distinguished

subcommittee, for inviting me to today. One of my principal responsibilities is working with the 10 ABC-owned television stations to

negotiate retransmission agreements with cable and satellite operators. Since the topic of retransmission consent has arisen during

the debate on a la carte programming, I would like to address the

continued importance of the concept and put to rest any misunderstanding about its application in the marketplace.

Before discussing retransmission consent, I would be remiss if I

didn’t state for the record that government action to require or facilitate a la carte or tiered subscription television offerings would

result in consumers paying more and receiving less. A la carte or

tiering would drain advertising revenues from the system and preVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:48 Oct 21, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00127 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 95453.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1
124

cipitate increased equipment, marketing and transaction costs.

Taken together, these decreased revenues and increased costs

would result in sharply higher consumer rates with drastically reduced programming output and programming choices for consumers.

If concerns about indecency are driving a la carte or so-called

family tiers, we at Disney believe a better solution would be application of a uniform approach to indecency across broadcast and expanded basic cable platforms. Government-inspired a la carte or

tiering will inevitably drag this body into rate and content regulation. This is an unnecessary step since the marketplace is providing consumer choice with an array of packages available with

many different pricing options.

The marketplace is also at work in striking in balance between

cable and satellite operators’ needs for an indispensable broadcast

programming and the broadcaster’s reasonable demand that it be

compensated for the billions of dollars invested in that programming each year. This concept, known as retransmission consent,

has worked well since Congress established it in 1992. Unfortunately, some have sought to muddy the debate over a la carte programming by hurling spurious allegations about the use of this

process.

In order to put these allegations in proper context, some history

may be helpful. Several of you were on this panel and played key

roles in authoring the Cable Television Consumer Protection Act of

1992. In passing that legislation, Congress concluded that, quote,

‘‘A very substantial portion of the fees which customers pay to

cable systems is attributable to the value they receive from watching broadcast signals,’’ end quote. ‘‘And public policy should not

support a system,’’ quote again, ‘‘under which broadcasters, in effect, subsidize the establishment of their chief competitors,’’ end

quote.

The 1992 act required the cable systems to attain the consent of

and to compensate the owner of a broadcast channel before undertaking to sell that channel to consumers. Thus, retransmission consent is not regulatory intervention into the free market but a congressional recognition of free market principles, namely that broadcasters, like any other business in this country, should be compensated for their product if sold by another entity. Publicly available data from Paul Kagan Associates makes clear that at ABC

last year we spent $3.1 billion on programming.

Now, if you listen to those who seek to turn the clock back to the

pre-1992 regime, you will hear fanciful tales of defenseless cable or

satellite operators being force-fed channels they do not want or lack

the capacity to carry. Let me make very clear for the record that

we at ABC offer cable operators a stand-alone cash deal for ABC

retransmission consent. By that I mean that if the cable operator

agrees to pay cash for the carriage of ABC in the 10 markets we

own stations and negotiate retransmission consent agreements,

then there is no additional obligation to carry any Disney, ABC or

ESPN programming. To the extent cable or satellite operators decide not to accept ABC’s stand-alone cash offer and instead elect

the alternative to carry programming, that decision is made by the

125

operators, not us. If they so elect, we attempt to work with them

to customize a reasonable offer to address their particular needs.

It is important to note that the concept of carriage instead of

cash originated with the operators, not the broadcasters. In fact, in

the wake of the 1992 act, almost every broadcaster sought cash and

nearly cable operator said no. This standoff was resolved when

three of the then four major broadcast networks agreed to proposals initiated by cable operators to grant retransmission consents

for network-owned stations in return for cable carriage of and payment for new network-owned cable channels.

The American Cable Association, which is represented here

today, has termed our approximately 70 to 80 cent offer as a sham.

Nothing could be further from the truth. ACA’s petition to the FCC

makes clear that its objection is not that the cash option isn’t offered to small operators, it is just that they don’t want to pay it

or anything for broadcast programming. With your permission, Mr.

Chairman, I would like the retransmission consent economic analysis, prepared by Economists, Inc. entered into the record. Their

analysis makes it clear that our offer is not only reasonable but the

fair market value is easily in the range of $1.42 to $2.09 per subscriber per month.

We offer flexibility in striking these retransmission consent

agreements with our rural cable partners. This is reflected by the

volume discount deals that ESPN has reached with the National

Cable Television Cooperative. ABC will continue to work in good

faith to accommodate the needs of smaller cable systems. With the

growing success of satellite competition, we recognize the pressure

some rural and small operators are under. The vast number of retransmission consent negotiations never become acrimonious or

spill onto the headlines. In fact, Congress got it right in 1992 when

it decided to embrace the marketplace as the proper venue for

these deals to be hammered out.

Thank you, and I am happy to answer any questions.

[The prepared statement of Ben Pyne follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BEN PYNE, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, DISNEY AND

ESPN NETWORKS AFFILIATE SALES AND MARKETING

Good Morning. My name is Ben Pyne. I’m Executive Vice President, Disney and

ESPN Networks Affiliated Sales and Marketing. Thank you Chairman Upton, Ranking Member Markey and the rest of the distinguished subcommittee for inviting me

to testify today.

The topic before the Committee is one of vital interest to The Walt Disney Company. In my position, I have the pleasure of working with ABC and all of the cable

networks under the Disney umbrella. One of my principle responsibilities is working

with the ten ABC Owned Television Stations to negotiate retransmission agreements with cable and satellite operators.

Since the topic of retransmission consent has arisen during the debate on a la

carte programming, I would like to address the continued importance of the concept

and put to rest any misunderstanding about its application in the marketplace.

Before discussing retransmission consent, I would be remiss if I didn’t state for

the record that government action to require or facilitate a la carte or tiered subscription television offerings would result in consumers paying more and receiving

less. A la carte or tiering would drain advertising revenues from the system and

precipitate increased equipment, marketing and transaction costs. Taken together,

these decreased revenues and increased costs would result in sharply higher consumer rates with drastically reduced programming output and programming choices

for consumers.

126

If concerns about indecency are driving a la carte or so-called family tiers, we at

Disney believe a better solution would be application of a uniform approach to indecency across broadcast and expanded basic cable platforms.

Government-inspired a la carte or tiering will inevitably drag this body into rate

and content regulation. This is an unnecessary step since the marketplace is providing consumer choice, with an array of packages available with many different

pricing options.

The marketplace is also at work in striking a balance between cable or satellite

operators need for indispensable broadcast programming and the broadcaster’s reasonable demand that it be compensated for the billions of dollars invested in that

programming.

This concept, known as retransmission consent, has worked well since Congress

established it in 1992.

Unfortunately, some have sought to muddy the debate over a la carte programming by hurling spurious allegations about the use of this process.

In order to put these allegations in proper context, some history may be helpful.

Several of you were on this panel and played key roles in authoring The Cable Television Consumer Protection Act of 1992. In passing that legislation, Congress concluded that ‘‘a very substantial portion of the fees which customers pay to cable systems is attributable to the value they receive from watching broadcast signals’’ and

public policy should not support a system ‘‘under which broadcasters in effect subsidize the establishment of their chief competitors.’’

The ’92 Act required the cable systems to obtain the consent of, and to compensate the owner of, a broadcast channel before undertaking to sell that channel

to consumers. Thus, retransmission consent is not regulatory intervention into the

free market, but a Congressional recognition of free market principles, namely that

broadcasters—like any other business-should be compensated for their product if

sold by another entity.

Publicly available data from Paul Kagan Associates makes clear that at ABC last

year we spent $3.1 billion on programming. Even in Washington that’s real money!

Now if you listen to those who seek to turn the clock back to the pre-1992 regime,

you will hear fanciful tales of defenseless cable or satellite operators being force fed

channels they do not want or lack the capacity to carry.

Let me make very clear for the record that an intial offer from our Company is

a cash stand-alone deal.

By that I mean that if the cable operator agrees to pay cash for the carriage of

ABC in the ten markets we own stations and negotiate retransmission consent

agreements, then there is no additional obligation to carry any Disney/ABC/ESPN

programming.

To the extent cable or satellite operators decide not to accept ABC’s stand-alone

cash offer, and instead elect the alternative to carry programming, that decision is

made by the operators, not us. If they so elect, we attempt to work with them to

customize a reasonable offer to address their particular needs.

It is important to note that the concept of carriage instead of cash originated with

the operators not the broadcasters. In fact in the wake of the 1992 Act, almost every

broadcaster sought cash and nearly every cable operator said no. This standoff was

resolved when three of the then four major broadcast networks agreed to proposals

initiated by cable operators to grant retransmission consent for network-owned stations in return for cable carriage of, and payment for, new network-owned cable

channels.

The American Cable Association, which is represented here today, has termed our

approximately $.70 to $.80 offer as a ‘‘sham.’’ Nothing could be further from the

truth. ACA’s petition to the FCC makes clear that it’s objection is not that the cash

option isn’t offered to small operators, it’s just that they don’t want to pay it or anything for broadcast programming.

With your permission Mr. Chairman, I would like a Retransmission Consent Economic Analysis prepared by Economists Inc., entered into the Record. Their analysis

makes it clear that our offer is not only reasonable, but the fair market value is

easily in the range of $1.42 to $2.09 per subscriber per month.

We offer flexibility in striking these retransmission consent agreements with our

rural cable partners. This is reflected by the volume discounts deals that ESPN has

reached with the National Cable Television Cooperative. If some small cable operators refuse to pay cash for carriage and also have capacity constraints to carry other

channels, we work with them to find capacity on other systems they might operate.

ABC will continue to work in good faith to accommodate the needs of smaller

cable system operators. With the growing success of satellite competition, we recognize the pressure some rural and small operators are under.

127

The vast number of retransmission consent negotiations never become acrimonious or spill onto the headlines. In fact, Congress got it right in 1992 when it

decided to embrace the marketplace as the proper venue for these deals to be hammered out. We believe the marketplace is serving consumers and that the legacy

of government regulation of cable prices and packages has been counterproductive.

Thank you and I’m happy to answer any questions.

Mr. UPTON. Thank you. Without objection, it will be entered into

the record.

[The economic analysis follows:]

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

Mr. UPTON. Reverend Plummer.

TESTIMONY OF GLENN PLUMMER

Mr. PLUMMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also would like to

thank Mr. Deal for raising this entire discussion. The National Religious Broadcasters is an international association of Christian

communicators with over 1,700 member organizations. Our members reach millions of listeners, viewers and readers through television, radio, Internet and film. Recent research has confirmed the

strength of our broadcast platform. More than 141 million Americans listen to or watch religious programming at least once each

month. I currently serve as chairman and CEO of our association.

Second, I am here as a broadcaster. I am personally a broadcaster. I own two television stations, one in Detroit and one in New

Orleans, Louisiana, free over-the-air FCC-licensed television stations. And so I represent really the interests of two distinct constituencies, broadcast and programmers, religious and AfricanAmerican, with my comments. I have prepared a written statement

for you, and I have provided that for you, and so if I may, Mr.

Chairman, I would just like to say some things that are not here

and really speak from my heart, if I may.

Twenty-two years ago, I was 27 years old, I began the Christian

Television Network. I did not own a VCR at the time, but I believed the American dream, that in fact I could enter into this industry. At the time, there were three religious broadcasters that

were just being carried by cable that was in its infancy as well. Pat

Robertson had the Family Channel that he founded, who is a member of the board that I Chair. Jim Bakker had PTL, and Paul

Crouch had TBN. These were the three sole religious broadcasters

that were carried and given full access on cable as they were developing and maintained that full access throughout the development

of cable—22 years ago. Also Bob Johnson, founder of BET, just

about at the same time, as an African-American communicator, received access as well.

Over these 22 years that I have gone from a father of 5 children,

I have developed now, as they say, a couple of TV stations that I

own, I am on satellite as well, being carried by a tier of the

EchoStar system, I have seen a phenomenon take place. There has

not been one religious broadcaster in 20 years that has been given

full carriage on cable, any cable system, in the 20 years since these

three original Christian broadcasters began, nor has there been one

African-American broadcaster or programmer network that has

been given full carriage in 20 years on cable television.

Now, what happened to those four, Pat Robertson, Jim Bakker,

Bob Johnson and Paul Crouch? Some would argue that there is little value to religious broadcasting. Well, Rupert Murdoch bought

Pat’s network for $2 billion. Pat sold it. Jim Bakker, as we know,

went to prison. Bob Johnson sold his for $3 billion to Viacom. It

left one of the original four, TBN, which is the only religious broadcaster still given full carriage on cable in America. Our industry

has developed about 40 full 24-hour television networks, none of

which are granted full access. African-American communicators,

there are over 10 to 15, TV One on the platform is one. They are

148

not given full access. In fact, Time Warner, as I understand, still

doesn’t give TV One access.

Now, I was reticent to share my personal story for fear of retribution but I will, and that is I was approached by Comcast. We

discussed carriage. And as we went through the process, what I

learned was if I was willing to give ownership and equity in our

network, then there would be carriage granted. Our network is 100

percent African-American owned. We chose not to do that. They

took us, hand walked us to Goldman Sachs, and we shared with

them, ‘‘We don’t need the money. We are on satellite. We don’t

need staff, we don’t need programming. We just need access.’’ It

was not granted, and so I propose to you that cable is conflicted

in that it is incestuous.

I am not suggesting that carriage is not being granted to AfricanAmerican or religious broadcasters for any cynical reason other

than they don’t own these networks. And so I would appeal to you

to give consideration for access. That is the core fundamental,

foundational issue that underlines the discussion we are having on

a la carte.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to

comment.

[The prepared statement of Glenn Plummer follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GLENN R. PLUMMER, CHAIRMAN & CEO OF NATIONAL

RELIGIOUS BROADCASTERS, CHAIRMAN & CEO OF CHRISTIAN TELEVISION NETWORK

The National Religious Broadcasters is an international association of Christian

communicators with over 1,700 member organizations. Our members reach millions

of listeners, viewers and readers through Television, Radio, Internet, and Film. Recent research has confirmed the strength of our broadcast platform. More than 141

million Americans listen to religious programming at least once a month. I currently

serve as Chairman and CEO of our Association.

I also currently serve as Chairman and CEO of Christian Television Network, a

24-hour per day TV network carried on cable and satellite. In addition, my wife,

Karin, and I are the sole FCC licensees of two over-the-air TV stations—WLPC TV26 Detroit, Michigan, and WLPN TV-61 New Orleans, Louisiana.

Let me begin by commending the members of this sub-committee for the important work you do and for the largely non-partisan way in which you approach that

work. As a nation, we owe you a debt of gratitude for helping shepherd us through

what has become an astonishing period of technological change in electronic media.

Seemingly, every decision you make is scrutinized and criticized. Your willingness

to examine the cable industries business model and it’s potential restructuring is

certainly a volatile issue. It is an almost impossible task and I commend you for

giving it your best efforts.

The proposal for A La Carte channel choice on cable television has a number of

excellent benefits and a variety of things that commend it. Chief among them is the

choice of channel selection provided to the consumer, and the associated price options it should also provide the subscriber. An A La Carte system is also much more

consistent with a market-driven economy than one that has semblances or

likenesses of a monopoly.

Cable television has evolved into a form of natural monopoly today. Although satellite DBS service, such as DirecTV and Echostar, is providing some competition

today, almost everyone agrees that ‘‘Cable is King.’’ As an illustration, cable offers

a form of A La Carte service now—Video on Demand or VOD. VOD allows subscribers to watch ‘‘what they want to watch, when they want to watch it’’ without

the need to record it. On the VOD platform, if I want to watch ‘‘60 Minutes,’’ I would

not have to watch it at 7:00pm ET on Sundays, when CBS offers it, I can watch

it at any time without recording it. Without the use of TIVO, or any other recording

device, it would be available to me at any time, and I would have full VCR capabilities, including rewind, pause and fast-forward. This A La Carte type television service is ONLY available on cable—not satellite, and not free over-the-air broadcasting.

It therefore seems odd, and somewhat disingenuous, for cable MSO’s to fight so

vehemently against a consumer choice service like A La Carte, especially when they

149

are investing very significant resources (billions of dollars) into an A La Carte type

product called Video on Demand (VOD).

I sincerely believe that A La Carte can provide tremendous benefits for our country, and therefore I would be inclined to recommend support for it, but in my opinion, it also suffers from some very serious defects. At least as A La Carte was originally proposed. Chief among these defects are the uncertainties that A La Carte

would create for ‘‘Must Carry’’ stations.

The Supreme Court of the United States has upheld an important governmental

interest in preserving the benefits of free over-the-air local broadcast television.

With the dramatic increase in cable and satellite penetration of U.S. households,

free over-the-air broadcasters are dependent, now more than ever, on the Must

Carry provisions of federal law. This is equally true of religious broadcasters. When

our members purchase airtime on local broadcast affiliates, their potential viewing

audience could be marginal without Must Carry. Without the presence of some basic

tier, which must include all free over-the-air broadcasters, religious broadcasters

would be irreparably harmed and an important voice in our cultural dialogue would

be silenced. Practically speaking, it only makes sense to offer subscribers an initial

basic tier of programming. In short, while A La Carte would ostensibly offer consumers more freedom to choose, in the end their choices could be reduced if the economic model that supports many broadcasters is damaged or destroyed. I am suggesting A La Carte to be over and above a basic tier.

Let me emphasize that National Religious Broadcasters has not yet taken a position to support or oppose A La Carte outright. We believe, however, that there may

be some compromise language that would be acceptable to our members. While I

have not come today to offer the specifics of that compromise language, let me offer

a description of what I believe it must include. First, for NRB to support A La Carte,

it must include specific language that preserves the existing Must Carry provisions

of federal law. In addition to the Must Carry tier of broadcast programs, another

important class of programming must also be protected. These are the networks

that secure cable carriage through fees paid to cable operators. A significant number

of our religious programmers secure carriage on cable television in that manner.

In light of this full discussion, a very significant point needs to be made at this

point. In the current cable structure, high priority is not given to religious or minority programs. I can only speculate as to why there has been such a resistance to

carrying religious and minority programming networks. The fact remains that religious broadcasters and minority broadcasters have consistently experienced great

difficulty in gaining access onto cable television. Because of the resistance of cable

operators to carry religious networks in particular, Must Carry became absolutely

critical for many broadcasters. Beyond Must Carry, however, and in an A La Carte

environment, I honestly believe religious and ethnic programming would fair excellently, but the bigger issue for us remains ACCESS. If we still do not have access

in an A La Carte environment, this entire discussion remains fruitless.

In the current issue of CableFAX’s CableWorld magazine (a cable industry publication for July 5-18) the cover story feature’s MSO cable executives positively affirming the benefits of VOD and other A La Carte style offerings that are targeting

ethnic markets.

Because cable executives, generally speaking, have not given fair carriage to religious and minority networks, A La Carte could be the answer! A recent survey discovered that over 80% of the African American community supports black media,

if it’s available to them. The African American community makes up 12% of the US

population, but almost double the percentage (23%) of cable viewership. BET (Black

Entertainment Television) is still the only black TV network on cable with full nationwide carriage. They have segmented themselves in to one basic subculture—Hip

Hop/Urban programming. The problem is that much of BET’s programming, targeted toward black America, does not meet decency standards. I do not mean to

sound judgmental or callous, but a large percentage of their programming is considered offensive, indecent, and in some cases plain filthy. There is a tremendous need

in our country to raise children in a morally clean atmosphere. Some of what BET

does is excellent, but there is a tremendous need for wholesome family-oriented programming targeting the inner city. All we need is a chance to have access. All we

want is a chance.

If an A La Carte platform will give other religious and minority networks greater

access, then that’s what we need. The article I mentioned earlier in CableWorld, illustrated this fact with Hispanic or Latino networks. A La Carte actually seems to

be most beneficial to an ethnic or minority market.

In conclusion, whether an A La Carte system is made available or not, what is

absolutely necessary, is the need to review the current cable TV structure. Giving

150

consumers a broader and better choice makes a lot of sense. Giving a larger number

of broadcasters and a broader range of other programmers a greater opportunity for

access and carriage contributes to a healthier culture.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the entire committee for the opportunity and

privilege to address this extremely important issue.

Mr. UPTON. Thank you. Mr. Baxter.

TESTIMONY OF THOMAS G. BAXTER

Mr. BAXTER. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Markey and members of the committee. My name is Tom Baxter, and

I am president of Time Warner Cable. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in today’s hearing.

I have been in this industry for more than 25 years, and there

has never been a more exciting time. This country has developed

the best, most advanced television system anywhere. We are the

envy of the world. A key reason we have gotten to this point is the

ability of cable operators and programmers to work together to create and offer new and innovative products and services.

As a result of the policies adopted by this committee in 1996, the cable industry did invest nearly $85 billion in private risk capital

to rebuild and upgrade its facilities. As a result, Time Warner

Cable and other cable companies are able to provide consumers

with more choice and control over their video programming.

Now, the concept of a la carte and theme-tiered mandates may

seem seductive, but going down that path is unnecessary and will

ultimately lead to higher prices for consumers. As the Nation’s second largest cable operator, serving 11 million video customers in 27

States, Time Warner Cable must provide our customers the broadest possible choice of high quality programming at attractive prices

or risk losing customers to our competitors. Today, more than one

out of four subscribers obtain video programming from a company

other than their local cable operator. We ignore the consumer at

our peril, and we are listening hard to make sure we get it right.

Our experience with the vast majority of customers tells us that

we best meet their needs today with a mix of bundled program

packages, but our video offerings also go beyond bundles. For example, Time Warner Cable offers certain programming on a perprogram basis, and in some cases, viewers can pick from individual

programs on a subscription basis. Our mix of products and services

is not written in stone. It remains fluid and it evolves in response

to market conditions and ever-changing consumer preferences.

A la carte or theme-tier requirements, whether mandated or voluntary, will increase costs to consumers. To make this happen,

cable operators will have to scramble every channel and provide

every subscriber with a set-top box for every television in their

home that does not yet have one. This could come down to a cost

of more $4 per box. For the average cable household with three TV

sets, that could add up to $150 a year. Today, in Time Warner

Cable service areas, fewer than half our customers have a box capable of doing this.

Cable operators will have to also create marketing infrastructures that allow individual subscribers to select unique combinations of channels. We need to create new billing systems to address

the many possible permutations of subscriber options. In addition,

cable operators will have to devote bandwidth to duplicating existVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:48 Oct 21, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00154 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 95453.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1
151

ing programming rather than offer increased high definition and

other advance services. Government requirements that programmers make these services available a la carte will increase the cost

of these programming services themselves.

Finally, we share the committee’s concern about indecency and

violence on television, and I am pleased to say that the cable industry has been at the forefront of efforts to provide parents with tools

to control and manage content that comes into their homes. For example, most advanced analog set-top boxes have the ability to block

specific channels. If the consumer does not have that box, cable operators will provide one at no cost to the consumer upon request.

Our digital boxes provide consumers with even greater flexibility

and control, allowing parents to block specific programs based on

TV and movie ratings.

Now, to ensure that everyone knows about these tools, the cable

industry has also recently launched a comprehensive new consumer outreach program. As part of that program, Time Warner

Cable has run more than 31,000 public service announcements in

the past few months. We have sent educational mailers to more

than 4 million customers, educators and local community leaders.

We remain committed to ensuring that our subscribers, your constituents, are not knowledgeable about the tools available to them.

Mr. Chairman and committee members, we are bringing consumers an expanding array of video entertainment in new and innovative ways. A regulatory environment that allows us to respond

to consumers and stay competitive best serves the public. I thank

you again for the opportunity to appear, discuss this important

issue, and I look forward to your questions.

[The prepared statement of Thomas G. Baxter follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THOMAS G. BAXTER, PRESIDENT, TIME WARNER CABLE

Good morning Mr. Chairman, Congressman Markey, and members of the Committee. My name is Tom Baxter, and I am President of Time Warner Cable. I would

like to thank you for the opportunity to participate in today’s hearing. This is an

exciting time to be in the cable industry. Since 1996, the cable industry as a whole

has invested nearly $85 billion in private risk capital to rebuild and upgrade its facilities, including $10.6 billion in 2003 alone.

Fueled by this significant investment and driven by technological advancements,

Time Warner Cable and our industry colleagues are now able to offer American consumers a vast array of entertainment and communications services over integrated

state-of-the-art networks. No longer just a one-way means of delivering a pre-set

menu of programming, video technology today empowers consumers by giving them

control, convenience and choice. New enhanced digital products such as Video on

Demand, Subscription Video on Demand, and Digital Video Recorders have made

video a two-way interactive experience.

Given the choices available to cable consumers today, the cable industry is particularly interested in this hearing on the appropriateness of government mandates

related to ‘‘a la carte’’ or ‘‘themed-tier’’ offerings. While such mandates may have

some superficial appeal as a panacea for addressing concerns ranging from consumer choice to rates to indecent or violent programming, we believe the imposition

of these mandates is unwarranted and in many important respects would be

counter-productive. I’ve already described the choice that we provide consumers

today, rendering it unnecessary for the government to dictate the nature of program

offerings. In addition, mandated a la carte or theme-tiered requirements would increase costs to consumers and reduce program diversity. Finally, the cable industry

not only recognizes, but has taken concrete measures to address concerns related

to indecent and violent programming. In my time this morning, I would like to explore each of these areas.

152

CABLE OPERATORS PROVIDE CONSUMERS UNPRECEDENTED CHOICE, CONVENIENCE AND

VALUE IN A HIGHLY COMPETITIVE ENVIRONMENT

As the nation’s second largest MSO, serving nearly 11 million video subscribers

in 27 states, Time Warner Cable offers subscribers a wide array of entertainment

and communications services. And we do so in a highly competitive environment.

Today, the American television consumer can choose from a variety of multichannel

video providers, including satellite providers such as DirecTV and EchoStar, and alternate broadband providers like RCN/Starpower. In fact, more than one out of four

subscribers now obtains multichannel video programming from a company other

than their local cable operator. To be successful, cable operators must provide customers the broadest possible choice of high-quality programming or risk losing customers to our competitors. Satellite and other providers are working hard to lure

them away. And the Internet is poised to affect video distribution in unimaginable

ways. We want to give consumers the choices and offerings they desire. We ignore

the customer at our peril, and we are listening hard to make sure we’re getting it

right.

Our experience with the vast majority of our customers tells us that we meet their

needs best today with a mix of ‘‘bundled’’ program packages and expanded viewing

options. Bundling lowers costs and enhances the efficiency of distributing video to

the home, and customers appreciate the convenience and value inherent in this

basic approach. The fact that all other competing multichannel video programming

providers offer service in a similar fashion confirms our view.

Nevertheless, our video offerings, which include basic and expanded basic packages, digital cable, video on demand, subscription-based video on demand, High Definition Television (HDTV), and Digital Video Recording (DVR) functionality, go beyond bundles. For example, in addition to our traditional basic and expanded basic

packages, Time Warner Cable offers certain video programming on a per channel

basis (HBO, Showtime, Starz), on a per program basis (VOD) and, in some cases,

viewers can pick from individual programs on a subscription basis (SVOD). The mix

of products and services offered is not written in stone, but remains fluid and

evolves in response to market conditions and changing consumer preferences.

Of course, it is in Time Warner’s interest to figure out what customers want beyond what they are getting and make it available to them quicker and better than

our competitors. As technology and consumer preferences continually evolve, we

need to remain sensitive to the changing possibilities and the evolving needs of our

customers. VOD and SVOD are the two most recent examples of how technology and

consumer preferences have evolved to help launch new offerings.

With customers demanding and getting more choice and more control, there is no

justification for government intervention in this dynamic marketplace. Government

mandates that interfere with this process pose a dangerous risk, as attempts to

write inflexible rules to substitute for dynamic marketplace forces would inevitably

be a ‘‘cure worse than the disease.’’

In addition a government mandate is unlikely to keep pace with rapidly evolving

technology or consumer preferences in relation to that technology. Today’s mandate

may look ‘‘cutting edge,’’ but tomorrow it may look, feel and (in fact) be hopelessly

out of date. That is, today’s definition of ‘‘choice’’ may not be consistent with what

consumers want—or what technology can deliver—tomorrow. It may end up locking

consumers into outdated choices. A mandate might in fact supplant more responsive

options for consumers in the future.

Finally, there is no logical ‘‘end point’’ to such mandatory unbundling. Today, it

may be program tiers. Tomorrow, it may be particular shows. There are serious

First Amendment concerns raised by a government mandate that tells cable operators what programming should be selected for presentation to customers and how

to present it. Inevitably, there will be pressure to regulate the retail price of individual channels, which in turn will lead to scrutiny of wholesale pricing and programming costs and the imposition of related accounting and auditing rules reminiscent of old-style utility regulation that is wholly inappropriate for the competitive

digital video marketplace.

A LA CARTE WILL INCREASE COSTS TO CONSUMERS

Any a la carte requirement would cause three major cost increases. First, to ensure that subscribers receive only those channels that they affirmatively choose,

cable operators would have to scramble every channel and would have to provide

every subscriber with a set-top box for each TV set. That would add more than $4

per box per month to a subscriber’s cable bill, an increase of more than 10% over

the average cable bill just to support a la carte on a single TV set. For the average

153

cable household with three TV sets, that would add up to about $150/year—reason

enough by itself not to go down the a la carte road.

Second, cable operators would have to create a marketing infrastructure allowing

each subscriber to select a unique combination of channels. They would also have

to create new billing systems to address the myriad possible permutations of subscriber options. In addition, customer service representatives would have to spend

much more time on each call with a customer, which would add to the direct costs

imposed on both cable operators and subscribers who would face longer hold times.

Third, and perhaps most importantly, a government requirement that programmers make their services available a la carte would increase the cost of video programming services. It would require programmers to embark upon a new marketing

task of gigantic proportions: they would have to persuade each individual subscriber

to sign up for their specific service. In such circumstances, most if not all video programmers would reach fewer households, leading to a loss of revenue from advertising, which currently accounts for more than half their revenues. Inevitably, video

programming services would try to make up the shortfall by raising license fees.

All these additional costs—investment in set-top boxes, investment in an a la

carte infrastructure, higher license fees for video-programming services—would

eventually be passed on to cable subscribers. Subscribers might receive only the

channels on which they place the highest value. But they might pay more for those

few than they now pay for many. And they would no longer have the option of occasionally watching the channels they lost.

I’ve already described how we give consumers choice over the services they buy,

and we will continue to explore new ways to do so. But whether and when a la carte

is employed is something that can and should be addressed in the marketplace, not

by regulatory fiat.

CABLE IS TAKING STEPS TO ADDRESS CONCERNS ABOUT INDECENT AND VIOLENT

PROGRAMMING

The cable industry shares the concerns of many members of this Committee about

indecency and violence on television. Cable is the only medium—not broadcast TV,

radio or the daily newspaper—that offers its content in a way that permits customers to choose what comes into their home. Cable has been at the forefront of

efforts provide parents with the tools to control and manage the content that comes

into their homes. For example, most advanced analog set-top boxes have the ability

to block specific channels. If a customer does not have such a box, cable operators

will provide one, at no cost to the consumer, upon request. And our digital boxes provide customers with even greater control, allowing parents to block specific programming based on TV or movie ratings. As such, mandating an a la carte or

themed-tier regime to address concerns in this area is simply unnecessary.

Taking seriously its responsibility to help protect children from inappropriate programming, the cable industry recently launched a comprehensive new consumer outreach campaign. This campaign, in which Time Warner is actively participating, is

designed to increase awareness about the tools and the resources cable provides so

that families can control programming that comes into their homes and make educated and responsible decisions about television viewing. From the launch of a new

website created by Cable-In-the-Classroom to Public Service Announcements to

media literacy workshops conducted in coordination with the National Parent

Teachers Association, the cable industry is taking concrete steps to ensure that

cable customers are better informed about the options they have to control programming they think is unsuitable for their children.

Time Warner is taking action as well. We have run PSA’s educating our customers about parental controls more than 31,000 times in the past few months. We

have sent educational mailers to more than four million customers, fifteen hundred

educators and more than a thousand local elected officials and community leaders.

And our divisions are engaged in a wide range of activities tailored to their local

communities, from offering demonstrations of how parental controls work to distributing literature in retail centers and company events to airing information on local

access channels. There is no need for regulation in this area.

CONCLUSION

Mr. Chairman and Committee Members, we are bringing consumers an expanding

array of video entertainment in new and innovative ways, and we remain committed

to responding to customer needs. For the reasons discussed this morning, there is

no basis to believe consumers would be better off with more government regulation

in this marketplace. A regulatory environment that allows us to respond to consumers and stay competitive best serves the public. I thank you again for the opporVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:48 Oct 21, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00157 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 95453.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1
154

tunity to appear to discuss this important issue and I look forward to your questions.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. FitzPatrick.

TESTIMONY OF PAUL FITZPATRICK

Mr. FITZPATRICK. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and——

Mr. UPTON. You have got to hit that mic button.

Mr. FITZPATRICK. Good morning. Can you hear me?

Mr. UPTON. Now we can hear you.

Mr. FITZPATRICK. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of

the subcommittee. I am Paul FitzPatrick. I serve as executive vice

president and chief operating officer of Crown Media. We operate

the Hallmark Channel and the Hallmark Movie Channel. These

two advertiser and license fee supported programming networks

are distributed by cable and DBS systems and other multichannel

video programming distributors.

Hallmark Channel and Hallmark Movie Channel offer awardwinning family friendly programming, including original movies

and miniseries made by Hallmark Entertainment, the world’s largest producer of major television movies and miniseries, acquired

movies and series such M*A*S*H, Touched by an Angel and later

this fall the series JAG. Our channels are also the exclusive home

for movies from the Hallmark Hall of Fame collection. We also air

the award-winning series on adoption, which is about the compelling process of parents and children in the adoptive mode.

The Hallmark Channel and the vast majority of non-broadcast

cable programming services rely principally upon two sources of

revenue, as you have heard this morning: License fees paid by the

distributor on a per-subscriber, per-month basis and advertising

sold on the programming network or networks. Because of the

broad appeal of our programming, we launched the Hallmark

Channel based upon a business plan of widespread distribution on

highly penetrated packages of popular programming services.

Broad distribution is essential to maximize both subscription and

advertising revenues and to control costs.

Launched just 31⁄2 years ago, in 2001, Hallmark Channel is seen

in 62 million homes. It is already a top 10 rated cable network,

which is, frankly, quite remarkable since we are competing against

15- to 25-year-old networks. In today’s world, services such as ours

needs to be distributed in 50 and even 60 million homes to generate truly meaningful advertising revenues. Even at this level advertisers are increasingly interested in such networks only if their

distribution is steadily increasing, the programming is meeting

viewers’ expectations and that network can provide unique promotional benefits that distinguish the Hallmark Channel, for example, from other buying opportunities, and there are many, as

you have heard this morning.

A la carte or theme-tiered carriage would change the fundamental economics of the marketplace for non-premium services

such as ours. Based upon my 20 years of experience, with programming networks such as the Weather Channel and the Golf Channel, a la carte would result in lost subscribers and substantially reduced licensed fees and advertising revenues. this would be compounded by increased marketing costs. I am convinced that such

155

regulation would be harmful to consumers and programming diversity.

Consider the revenue impact of only a modest subscriber loss. A

typical cable network’s annual advertising revenues range from

about $1 to $6 per subscriber depending on that network’s category

or genre, its target audience and its brand identity. If a programming service is 70 million subscribers generating about $3 per subscriber in advertising revenues, lost 20 percent of its subscriber

base due to a la carte—I believe the level, frankly, is going to be

more in the 50 percent range—that channel, based upon that 20

percent loss, would lose over $40 million in advertising revenue in

that first year alone, and that says nothing of the lost license fees.

While experiencing these substantial revenue losses, programmers

will have to spend significantly more just to market their services

to individual subscribers and then to keep them, just as HBO does,

for example. The only way to compensate for this phenomenon

would be to raise prices, ultimately borne by the consumer.

These revenue and cost effects would trigger other domino-like

consequences. One, lower revenues would result in a significant

curtailment in programming investment. Existing programmers

would be forced to cut programming costs, resulting in unfulfilled

consumer expectations. Operating economies of scale, built up

under the current marketplace framework, would be lost, making

the launch of new networks unlikely. Under this scenario, we could

not have launched earlier this year our second linear channel, Hallmark Movie Channel.

Two, as an independent network, Hallmark Channel does not

have the same cross-promotional opportunities as programmers

that are part of a larger network group with a broadcast network

or deeply distributed sibling networks. A la carte distribution likely

would lead to increased consolidation, reducing the number of diverse, independent, First Amendment speakers.

Three, subscribers will lose other advances and improvements.

We have been able to bring to viewers some of our movies in the

enormously compelling high-definition format and through videoon-demand and pay-per-view offerings. A la carte and theme-tiers

would undercut the economics that have allowed us to branch out

with these additional valuable services.

When we launched Hallmark Channel, we understood the regulatory environment and the additional challenges, such as mustcarry and retrans. We built our plan to meet those challenges. A

la carte distribution or mini-tiers would undermine what we and

other programmers have achieved. Hallmark Channel’s experience

and the vitality and diversity of programming overall confirm that

the marketplace today is working well overall. Viewers are the

beneficiaries.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to talk about experiences such as the one that we have had with family tiering and

the actions that we had to take to accelerate our distribution in

that kind of environment.

[The prepared statement of Paul FitzPatrick follows:]

156

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PAUL FITZPATRICK, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF

OPERATING OFFICER, CROWN MEDIA HOLDINGS, INC.

Mr. Chairman, Congressman Markey, and members of the Subcommittee, I am

Paul FitzPatrick and I serve as Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of Crown Media Holdings, Inc. and Crown Media United States, LLC (‘‘Crown

Media’’), which operates the Hallmark Channel and Hallmark Movie Channel in the

United States. These two advertiser and license-fee supported programming networks are distributed by cable and direct broadcast satellite (‘‘DBS’’) systems and

other multichannel video program distributors. Thank you for giving our organization the opportunity to discuss this morning the potential effects of a la carte or

‘‘themed-tier’’ distribution on programming services such as Hallmark Channel.

Government-mandated a la carte or ‘‘themed tier’’ carriage would change the fundamental economics of the marketplace for non-premium programming services like

ours. Based upon my 20 years of experience with programming networks and review

of the likely financial impacts of a la carte carriage, I am convinced that such regulation would result in higher prices to consumers, lower quality programming, and

a reduction in the diversity of programming available to viewers. Further, such regulation would lead to a reduction in ‘‘independent’’ first amendment speakers or content owners and providers. I thought that it would be helpful to take a look at these

issues and the basis for my views in the context of the Hallmark Channel.

The Hallmark Channel is an advertiser and license-fee supported programming

service that provides award-winning, familyoriented programming, including original movies and series, mini-series and first-run presentations from Hallmark Entertainment and third parties, as well as syndicated programs. For example, Hallmark

Channel this year will air 15-18 original movies and mini-series, such as ‘‘King Solomon’s Mines’’ and ‘‘The Long Shot,’’ starring Marsha Mason. In addition we air ‘‘acquired’’ movies, such as the original and remake of the ‘‘Parent Trap,’’ and series,

such as ‘‘Mash,’’ ‘‘Touched by an Angel,’’ ‘‘Doctor Quinn Medicine Woman,’’ ‘‘The

Waltons,’’ classic westerns and comedies, and, later this fall, ‘‘JAG.’’ In addition, we

produce and air award-winning series such as ‘‘Adoption,’’ which tells compelling

stories about the adoptive experience and received the National Angel Award from

the Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute. And speaking of award winning

programming, Hallmark Channel and Hallmark Movie Channel are the exclusive

‘‘home’’ for movies from the ‘‘Hallmark Hall of Fame Collection’’ after their initial

airing on broadcast television. The Hallmark Channel is now distributed to roughly

62 million homes in the United States, primarily through analog cable and highlypenetrated DBS distribution.

The Hallmark Movie Channel, launched earlier this year, features top-rated movies and mini-series, many of which are produced by Hallmark Entertainment, the

world’s largest producer of made-for-television movies and mini-series. By the way,

Hallmark Entertainment movies comprised 12 of the 25 highest-rated movies aired

this season by ABC, CBS and NBC.

The Rise of the Hallmark Channel Exemplifies the Expanded Programming Choices

Available to Viewers and the Growing Popularity of Advertiser-Supported NonBroadcast Programming Services.

Cable television and DBS subscribers currently enjoy a wider variety of programming services than ever before. Digital cable upgrades and expanded satellite capacity have enabled the distribution of more programming services and the introduction

of new services like HDTV, video on demand and digital video recorders. More and

more programmers are developing and promoting original movies and series. As the

FCC recently concluded in its tenth annual video competition report, ‘‘the vast majority of Americans enjoy more choice, more programming and more services than

any time in history’’ due to improved technology, upgrades in cable distribution

plant, and increased investment in programming.

Not only are there a growing number of non-broadcast programming networks,

but also their popularity is increasing steadily. There are about 350 national, satellite-delivered, non-broadcast programming networks (compared to about 100 in

1994), more than 80 additional regional programming networks, and at least 60 new

networks in various stages of development. The popularity of these services is reflected in their increasing viewership share. The combined audience share of nonbroadcast television networks has climbed steadily from a 29 share in 1993 to a 55

share in 2003. This increasing share of viewership reflects not only the sheer number of programming options offered by cable and satellite distributors, but also the

fundamentally improved quality and increasing popularity of the available programming.

157

1See, e.g., Implementation of Section 11(c) of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and

Competition Act of 1992, 14 FCC Rcd. 19098 (1999) (‘‘Horizontal Ownership Limits-Third Report’’) at ¶¶ 40-41; Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery

of Video Programming, 13 FCC Rcd. 24284 (1998) at ¶ 152.

The Hallmark Channel’s own story of subscriber and ratings growth illustrates

this phenomenon. The Odyssey Channel, its predecessor, had achieved only limited

distribution to 26 million homes by 2000, nearly half of which received the channel

on a limited part-time basis. Consequently, it could make only limited investments

in programming and marketing. Because of this limited distribution, the prospects

for meaningful advertising revenues and revenue growth were equally limited.

In 2001, Crown Media launched Hallmark Channel and redoubled its efforts to

expand distribution and to increase consumer awareness of the channel and its programming. For example, Crown Media renegotiated its agreement with DIRECTV

to retier Hallmark Channel from DIRECTV’s ‘‘Family’’ package to its highly-penetrated ‘‘Total Choice’’ package, which immediately increased its DIRECTV distribution more than ten-fold. We made this effort and substantial investment because,

notwithstanding the expected appeal of a smaller tier directed at families,

viewership of the Hallmark Channel was low and distribution of the ‘‘Family’’ package remained limited. Likewise, Crown Media was able to negotiate subscriber commitments with a number of major cable operators that yielded many millions of additional subscribers.

This rapid subscriber growth has yielded increased subscriber and advertising

revenues which have enabled Hallmark Channel to develop more and better original

programming and to pursue more attractive programming acquisitions. The Hallmark Channel has invested over $500 million in programming production and acquisition. The result has been a dramatic improvement in viewership and ratings. For

the first half of 2004, Hallmark Channel has ranked consistently among the top ten

cable networks in total day household rating—a remarkable achievement when its

distribution and tenure are compared with those of the other more widely distributed and established networks in the Top 10. We reached an all-time ratings high

and delivered double-digit ratings growth when compared to 2002-03 household ratings for both total day and prime time. These ratings data are consistent with and

supported by recent surveys of viewers that yielded similarly compelling results.

Ninety-five percent of viewers rated the Hallmark Channel positively (‘‘excellent/

very good/good’’). More than 8 out of 10 viewers of Hallmark Channel are likely to

recommend it to others to watch. Consequently, the Hallmark Channel consistently

is among the channels most requested by viewers in systems where it is not currently carried.

Advertiser-Supported Networks Such As Hallmark Channel Depend Upon Broad and

Highly-Penetrated Distribution.

In the midst of this burgeoning popularity and viewership endorsement, a move

to a la carte distribution would not only impede future growth, but also reverse the

progress we’ve made. Why? The answer is in the economics and the business model

upon which we have built the Hallmark Channel.

The Hallmark Channel and the vast majority of non-broadcast cable programming

services rely principally upon two sources of revenue: license fees paid by the distributor on a ‘‘per subscriber, per month’’ basis; and advertising sold on the programming network. Broad distribution through carriage in the most popular packages of programming services is essential to maximize revenues and control costs.

As a result, Hallmark Channel and most other advertiser supported programming

services seek to require distributors to place their networks on widely distributed

tiers. Crown Media’s affiliation agreements typically require MVPDs to distribute

Hallmark Channel on basic or expanded basic or a specific tier such as ‘‘Total

Choice,’’ to achieve a distributor-wide level of penetration; to provide a specified

number of service subscribers; and/or to satisfy some other distribution requirement.

Such distribution commitments have been essential to ‘‘growing’’ the channel to

where it is and to our prospects for completing the job.

There has been some suggestion by the FCC in the past and perhaps by others

that programming services may survive with a subscriber base of 15 to 20 million

subscribers,1 but that is inconsistent with Crown Media’s experience in today’s marketplace. With nearly 26 million full- and part-time subscribers, the performance of

the Hallmark Channel’s predecessor was stagnant and its financial prospects were

dim. Although Nielsen may rate a programming service with 20 million subscribers,

few advertisers will buy advertising and the cost per thousand (CPM) rates genVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:48 Oct 21, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00161 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 95453.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1
158

2See, Bear Stearns, ‘‘A La Smart?,’’ March 29, 2004, at 4.

erally are not competitive. Advertisers are interested in such networks only if they

are emerging, i.e. their distribution is steadily and rapidly increasing.

The Hallmark Channel’s experience suggests that the more realistic benchmark

for meaningful advertising revenues is now approaching 50 to 60 million subscribers. Subscribers to the Hallmark Channel more than doubled from 2000 to 2003

with distribution topping 56—million in 2003. As a result of that growth, coupled

with improved ratings, advertising revenues increased by more than four times,

with the largest percentage increase in advertising revenues occurring when distribution approached 56 million and more subscribers. Crown Media is projecting

that an approximate increase in subscribers of 20% from 2003 to 2004, coupled with

a further improvement in ratings, will yield more than a 70% increase in advertising revenues. In our view, these data support the conclusion that substantially

greater advertising revenues are available to programming services with 50 to 60

million subscribers and beyond—a level of subscribership minimally associated with

a viable broad-based entertainment programming network in today’s competitive

marketplace. Our business mandate is for the Hallmark Channel to reach the 70

million subscriber threshold level in the near term.

Even with these levels of national distribution, programming networks which

have not achieved full distribution still encounter challenges in local markets. For

example, such networks often have difficulty in obtaining program listings and articles in newspapers and specialty publications in markets in which they are not fully

distributed. Likewise, television critic reviews of new shows and similar publicity

often are unavailable. Unless a programmer has achieved widespread distribution

in a market, advertising to develop viewership and brand recognition also is usually

cost-prohibitive.

A La Carte Distribution Would Have Stifled Hallmark Channel’s Growth and Would

Reverse its Successes.

The launch of Hallmark Channel was based upon a business plan of widespread

distribution by cable and DBS operators on highly-penetrated packages of popular

programming services. Shifting advertiser-supported programming services from

such tiers or dismantling those packages to create ‘‘mini-tiers’’ or a la carte carriage

would have nullified our business plan. The opportunity to achieve rapidly-increased

distribution would not have existed. Instead, Crown Media would have had to convince each cable system to launch Hallmark Channel and then convince individual

households to subscribe to it. This kind of broad retail campaign would have been

cost-prohibitive, and it would have been virtually impossible to obtain the minimum

number of subscribers needed for a viable advertiser-supported service.

As an independent network, the Hallmark Channel does not have the same crosspromotional opportunities as programmers that are part of larger network groups

with a broadcast network or deeply distributed ‘‘sibling’’ networks. Moreover, because the Hallmark Channel did not launch until 2001, it has not had the opportunity to build brand awareness or brand ‘‘equity’’ over the past 15 to 25 years as

have many of the fully-distributed networks of the media conglomerates. A la carte

distribution likely would lead to increased consolidation because only the multichannel media giants would have the financial wherewithal and promotional outlets

to pursue the kind of marketing required to convince individual subscribers to make

the purchase decisions for their channels.

If the Hallmark Channel were forced into an a la carte or mini-tier world, it likely

would lose a substantial number of subscribers—if for no other reason than the difficulty of effectively marketing Hallmark Channel to individual viewers. Our affiliate relations and marketing staffs have a limited budget and are directed at marketing Hallmark Channel to distributors and developing the brand. The extent of

such subscriber losses also would depend upon the retail pricing decisions of other

programming services, their marketing resources and efforts, and the marketing decisions of cable and DBS operators, which also would have little or no experience

with the marketing of dozens of advertiser-supported programming services.

Available marketplace experiences indicate that the Hallmark Channel’s loss of

distribution likely would exceed 50%. According to Bear Stearns, HBO—which has

been marketing a la carte services for decades and has the best known brand name

in the business—achieves only ‘‘approximately 30% penetration of basic cable subscriptions.’’ 2 Regional sports networks, before they converted from a la carte to basic

carriage, routinely achieved less than 10% penetration. Likewise, the nationally-distributed and marketed Golf Channel, for which I served as chief operating officer,

originally was launched as an a la carte channel, but it could not achieve a sustainVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:48 Oct 21, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00162 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 95453.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1
159

able level of distribution. Consequently, it was relaunched as an advertiser and license-fee supported network. The channel is a wonderful success today.

As I noted above, a 20% increase in Hallmark Channel’s subscribership and improved ratings are likely to yield more than a 70% increase in advertising revenues.

Thus, although we believe that subscriber losses would be very substantial in an

a la carte world, even a modest decrease in subscribers would cause a much larger

percentage decrease in advertising revenues. Consider the following example of this

potential impact. Typically, annual advertising revenues range from $1.00 to $6.00

per subscriber for programming services, depending upon programming genre, target audience, and brand identity. If a programming service with 70—million subscribers and generating $3.00 per subscriber in advertising revenues lost only 20%

of its subscriber base due to a la carte (and I expect the loss would be greater), it

would lose $42 million in advertising revenues in the first year alone. A greater initial subscriber loss or subsequent erosion of subscribers would only make the revenue picture bleaker. Of course, these lost advertising revenues are only part of the

picture; there also would be lost subscriber revenues unless license fees were increased.

Further, in addition to these kinds of numerical projections, a la carte distribution

will introduce another layer of uncertainty, which is likely to affect adversely the

advertising market and revenues. For example, advertiser-supported services such

as the Hallmark Channel have no experience with the level of churn to be expected

in an a la carte world. Consequently, in addition to the uncertainty and variability

inherent in ratings, programmers will have month-to-month variations in

subscribership—in contrast to their broadcast network competitors, which will have

government-mandated universal distribution. Thus, as one example, the level of predictability necessary for the ‘‘up front’’ advertising market will be difficult if not impossible to achieve.

Government Mandated A La Carte Distribution or Mini-Tiers Will Increase Costs to

Consumers and Decrease Diversity.

There is no doubt that moving programming from, or dismantling, highly penetrated programming packages such as the traditional expanded basic tier would adversely affect subscriber and advertising revenues. Many programming services,

whose business plans were built upon the current statutory and regulatory scheme,

would cease to exist. Certainly, the scores of planned programming services would

be foreclosed from ever entering the market.

If a programmer could reinvent itself in this environment and survive, it would

have to compensate for the lost subscriber and advertising revenues in two ways—

by increasing subscriber fees and reducing costs. However, that same programmer

would have to increase its marketing budget exponentially because it is now selling

to the more than 90 million households subscribing to cable and DBS television

rather than to its distributors. Consequently, this substantial increase in marketing

cost would make it that much more difficult to reduce costs, and any such reductions necessarily would involve programming expenditures.

For a programming service such as the Hallmark Channel, which has a modest

monthly license fee and relies heavily on advertising revenues, this increase in license fee would be substantial—some multiple of its existing fee. Cable operators

would be unlikely to absorb the increase in license fees for all of the programmers

being shifted to mini-tiers or a la carte carriage, and they would certainly pass some

or all of the license fee increases through to the subscriber. There can be no doubt

that the price of the Hallmark Channel to viewers would increase by several orders

of magnitude.

Programming diversity would be adversely affected in at least four ways. First,

as noted above, it is highly unlikely that new program networks would be launched.

The economies of scale that we have achieved have enabled us to bring our second

linear channel, Hallmark Movie Channel, to the marketplace. Second, existing programmers would be forced to cut programming costs. Again, our experience with the

Hallmark Channel is instructive. As the channel’s subscriber and advertising revenues have increased, Crown Media has substantially increased its programming

budget and pursued original programming initiatives. If its subscriber and advertising revenues were reduced, we would have to reduce its programming expense

substantially. Third, some (probably many) networks simply would not survive a

move to a la carte carriage, particularly new programming networks and those targeted toward niche markets. And fourth, a la carte or themed tiers would lead to

a reduction of diverse ‘‘independent’’ content providers because the economic burdens would be so great that only the large media companies with substantial operating economies would be left to compete. And even they would not be guaranteed

success.

160

Finally, subscribers would lose still other advances and improvements. We have

also been able to bring to viewers some of our movies in the enormously compelling

High Definition format and through Video on Demand and Pay per View offerings.

A la carte and themed tiers will undercut the economics that have allowed us to

branch out with these additional valuable services.

In short, cable subscribers would pay more and receive less. Because the economics of the programming industry would be altered significantly by an a la carte approach, there can be no guarantee that monthly cable bills would be less under an

a la carte system. In fact, I would expect the opposite—cable rate increases for

many consumers with diminishing numbers of programming services from which to

choose over the long term and declining quality of programming produced by the

surviving networks.

CONCLUSION

When we launched Hallmark Channel, we understood the regulatory environment

and the additional challenges, such as must-carry and retransmission consent, that

the channel faced. We built our business plan to meet those challenges, and we are

naturally pleased that our distribution, ratings, advertising and consumer acceptance have increased dramatically each year. Mandated a la carte distribution or

mini-tiers would undermine what we and other programmers have achieved. Further, if broadcasters were still accorded must-carry or retransmission consent rights

to the basic tier, the imbalance would become greater and the competitive picture

worse. They would continue to enjoy universal distribution with a powerful crosspromotional engine for their other programming services.

The cost of mandatory mini-tiers and a la carte distribution would be reflected

not only in increased subscriber bills, but also in reduced programming choices and

quality. The Hallmark Channel’s experience and the vitality and diversity of programming overall confirm that the current marketplace is working well. Viewers are

the beneficiaries.

Again, I appreciate having this opportunity to discuss these important issues with

the members of the Subcommittee.

Mr. UPTON. Ms. LaRue.

TESTIMONY OF JANET M. LaRUE

Ms. LARUE. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Members of the committee, good morning. My name is Janet LaRue. I am Chief Counsel for Concerned Women for America in—here in Washington, DC.

Thank you for the invitation to participate this morning.

I can tell you that of our half-million members across the country

in every state, this is a very important issue—consumer choice in

subscription television. Our constituents would like to know why it

is that they have to pay for TV programming they do not want to

watch in order to see programming they do want, because we don’t

have to pay for food we don’t intend to eat, we don’t pay for trips

we don’t intend to take, and we don’t pay for magazines we don’t

intend to read.

As has been made clear this morning, subscription television is

pervasive. We know that, based on the FCC and other estimates,

even from the industry, that the number of MVPD subscriber

homes now accounts for 88 percent of all television households.

And so most subscribers do not want to pay for unwanted or offensive programming, and that is what our concern is.

In the current system, MVPDs offer subscribers three tiers of

programming before they may subscribe to other channels. Federal

law requires that all subscribers must buy the first tier, which has

to include the local broadcast channels and community access channels. The second tier is a package of channels selected by the industry that requires subscribers to buy channels they do not want

in order to buy channels they do want.

161

For example, my son sent me an e-mail yesterday when he learned that I would be speaking here saying, ‘‘I pay $49. I get 98

channels. I watch 15. I only want 15. I only want to pay for them.

And I don’t want my young daughters having access to Spike TV

when they are looking for a decent cartoon.’’

Within that second tier package, there are several channels that

include sexually explicit programming, which is a major complaint

of most subscribers, and certainly our constituents who object to

paying for programming they do not intend to watch. As Mr. Deal

pointed out, the American people would like to hold the keys to the

gate of their home.

CWA commissioned a Wirthlin Poll this past April of 1,000 respondents on the subject of cable television, which revealed the following. Of 1,000 respondents, 62 percent subscribe to cable television. Sixty-six percent prefer to choose for themselves the programming for which they pay. Sixty-six percent of non-cable subscribers said that they were more likely to subscribe if they could

choose what is included in their basic package. This means more

customers for the industry.

Eighty percent said subscribers should not have to pay for a

package of programming that might include channels they do not

want to view. Seventy-three percent said that cable providers

should voluntarily enforce decency standards in that basic package,

which would screen out sexually explicit or violent programming if

subscribers have no control over which channels are included in

their basic cable package.

The Supreme Court has referred to cable TV as, ‘‘pervasive,’’ and

includes patently offensive programming. The court has made it

clear that restrictions on cable TV indecency can be justified, because cable TV is now as pervasive as broadcast television. A la

carte pricing or tiering, we believe, is a free market solution, and

it would give consumers complete control over what comes into

their homes and would help them control their cable bills.

We believe that Congress should act if the industries remain unresponsive to consumers. The FCC’s ninth annual report on cable/

satellite/video competition reveals that many hold monopoly power

within their region. Only 10 percent of cable franchise territories

face head-to-head competition from another cable company.

Consumer choice will not necessarily cost more. In Canada, there

is a la carte channel selection offered on several of the largest cable

systems, and subscribers save about 30 percent compared to subscribers who select the average number of channels Americans tend

to watch. Cable choice and a la carte pricing would require cable

channels to be more responsive to their target audience, if they

wish to survive, improve the programming of niche channels, and

encourage cable channels to serve the public.

I grew up hearing that in a free market economy, if you build

a better mousetrap, the public will beat a path to your door. We

don’t believe that consumers should have to subsidize bad mousetraps. CWA is urging the industries to voluntarily provide consumer choice in the second tier, expanded basic package, or at least

self-imposed decency standards in that package.

Last week the Seattle office of Cable Communications filed comments with the FCC stating, ‘‘Because cable operators have not

162

1Kleder, Martha, ‘‘The Case for A La Carte Cable Pricing: Don’t Want Their MTV? Let the

Free Market Work Its Magic,’’ available at: http://www.cwfa.org/articles/5468/CFI/family/

index.htm. 2Kleder, Martha, ‘‘Give Us Cable Choice for Decency’s Sake!’’ available at: http://www.cwfa.

org/articledisplay.asp?id=5175&department=CFI&categoryid=papers.

been responsive to the demand for customized programming, the

FCC should establish regulations that facilitate consumers’ choice,

whether this is accomplished by requiring cable companies to offer

a la carte programs, theme-tiered programs, or some other options.’’

If the industries remain unresponsive, CWA urges Congress to

act in the public interest and mandate either consumer choice or

impose decency standards within that basic package. A free market

flourishes with competition and consumer choice.

And, in closing, may I suggest to the members, if you haven’t already done so, that you speak to your constituents when you are

back in your home districts. Most of what has been shared here

this morning is by representatives who represent an industry. And

with all due respect, I have heard comments today that are pretty

patronizing of the American people.

I hear concerns about increased costs and decreased choices. Let

us let the American people decide if they are willing, if necessary,

to pay a little more for the programs they want rather than paying

the higher and higher cable bills they are paying for programming,

most of which they don’t want. And so let us let the American people make that choice.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Janet M. LaRue follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JANET M. LARUE, CHIEF LEGAL COUNSEL, CONCERNED

WOMEN FOR AMERICA

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, good morning. My name is Janet

M. LaRue. I am chief counsel for Concerned Women for America (CWA) in Washington, D.C. Thank you for inviting me to speak today on the important issue of

consumer choice with respect to subscription television.

More than 94 million homes subscribe to multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs), according to a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) report. Of those, about 66 million subscribe to cable while the remainder subscribes

to direct broadcast satellite (DBS). The number of MVPD subscriber homes accounts

for 88.29 percent of all television households.1

In the current system, cable TV operators offer subscribers three tiers of programming. Before they may subscribe to other channels, federal law requires that all

subscribers ‘‘must buy’’ the first level, which has to include local broadcast channels

and community-access channels.

The second tier is a package of channels selected by the MVPDs that requires

subscribers to buy channels they do not want in order to buy channels they do

want.2

The average cable customer watches only 12 to15 channels on a regular basis, but

cable companies bundle 50 to 75 channels in the expanded basic package, and upwards of 200 in digital cable packages. That is like going to the store for a dozen

eggs and being told you must buy at least six dozen, which is more than you can

consume, including many that are cracked and rotten.

My comments will focus on this second tier ‘‘expanded basic’’ package. Within that

second tier package there are several channels that include sexually explicit programming, which is a major complaint of most cable subscribers who object to paying for offensive and indecent programming they do not want in their homes.

This forced consumption of channels increases the cost to consumers. A recent report of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) concludes that cable subscription prices have increased five times faster than the rate of inflation.

163

3Ginsberg v. New York 390 U.S. 629, 636 (1968). See U.S. v. Playboy Entertainment Group,

Inc., 529 U.S. 803 (2000); Sable Communications of Cal., Inc., v. FCC, 492 U.S. 115 (1989);

Ashcroft v. ACLU, 535 U.S. 564 (2002); U.S. v. American Library Association, 539 U.S. 194

(2003); Ashcroft v. ACLU, 2004 U.S. LEXIS 4762 (June 29, 2004). 4Denver Area Educational Telecommunications Consortium, Inc., v. FCC, 518 U.S. 727, 744-

45 (1996).

Under the cable bundling system, even nonsports fans are forced to pay for very

costly programming such as ESPN. Sports fans, too, face higher cable bills because

of channel bundling.

In response to our constituents’ concerns and requests for help, CWA commissioned a Wirthlin poll on April 16-19, 2004, with 1,000 respondents, on the subject

of cable TV. The poll results clearly show that a large majority of American cable

TV subscribers are dissatisfied with their current ‘‘no-choice cable service’’:

1. Of 1,000 respondents, 62 percent subscribe to cable television.

2. Current cable subscribers (619) were asked: ‘‘As a cable customer, would you prefer to choose for yourself the programming to be included in your basic cable

subscription or is the cable company’s pre-arranged basic package satisfactory?’’

Sixty-six percent said they would prefer to choose for themselves.

3. Noncable subscribers (381) were asked: ‘‘Would you be more or less likely to subscribe to cable television if you were able to choose the programming to be included in your basic cable package?’’ Sixty-six percent responded that they were

more likely to subscribe, with 39 percent of them indicating that they were

much more likely to subscribe.

That means more customers for cable and satellite TV companies if they will

allow their customers to choose the programs they want.

4. When asked: ‘‘Do you think that cable customers should be required to pay for

a basic package of programming that might include channels that they don’t

want to view?’’ Eighty percent of the respondents answered ‘‘No.’’

The poll results are undeniable. Americans are dissatisfied with paying for somebody else’s choice. They want to choose what they pay for and nothing else.

Telling consumers to block-out unwanted programming they are forced to pay for

is no choice—it is unreasonable and insulting. We do not pay for food we do not

want to eat. We do not pay for magazines we do not want to read. We do not pay

for trips we do not want to take. And we are tired of paying for programs we do

not want to watch, many of which offend our morals and religious values.

The First Amendment, especially with respect to regulations on sexually explicit

and pornographic material, has been my area of expertise for many years. I have

lectured on the subject in numerous law enforcement conferences across the country,

testified on pornography legislation before Congress, state and local legislatures,

and authored numerous amicus curiae briefs that have been filed in the U.S. Supreme Court, federal circuit courts of appeal, and state appellate courts. The protection of children, families, and society in general from the serious harms resulting

from exposure to sexually explicit and indecent material is a top priority of CWA

and my department, in particular.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized the harm to children from exposure

to pornography and the right and need of government to assist parents to protect

their minor children from exposure. The Court has characterized protecting children

from exposure to pornography as a ‘‘transcendent interest’’ of government because

it concerns ‘‘the health, safety, welfare and morals of its community by barring the

distribution to children of books recognized to be suitable for adults.’’ 3

The Court has referred to cable TV as ‘‘pervasive’’ and includes ‘‘patently offensive

programming’’:

Cable television broadcasting, including access channel broadcasting, is as

‘‘accessible to children’’ as over-the-air broadcasting, if not more

so . . .([C]hildren spend more time watching television and view more channels

than do their parents, whether their household subscribes to cable or receives

television over the air). Cable television systems, including access channels,

‘‘have established a uniquely pervasive presence in the lives of all Americans.’’...([C]able households spend more of their day, on average, watching television, and will watch more channels, than households without cable service).

‘‘Patently offensive’’ material from these stations can ‘‘confront the citizen’’ in

the ‘‘privacy of the home,’’ FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 (1978),

supra, at 748, with little or no prior warning.’’ 4

In a more recent case addressing cable TV, the Court made clear that restrictions

on cable TV indecency can be justified:

Cable television, like broadcast media, presents unique problems, which inform

our assessment of the interests at stake, and which may justify restrictions that

164

5 U.S. v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc., 529 U.S. 803, 813 (2000). 6 Available August 1, 2004, at: http://www.ajr.org.

7Federal Communications Commission, Ninth Annual Report, ‘‘In the Matter of Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming,’’

MB docket No. 02-145, 31 December 2002. 8Kimmelman, Gene, Testimony before the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation

Committee, 6 May 2003.

would be unacceptable in other contexts . . . No one suggests the Government

must be indifferent to unwanted, indecent speech that comes into the home

without parental consent.5

While government-imposed content-based regulations on speech are presumptively

unconstitutional and, therefore, subject to the highest level of scrutiny by the courts,

content-neutral regulations are not. Regulations that would require cable and satellite choice for consumers in the second-tier, expanded basic package of programming would be content-neutral because they would apply to all programming.

Although subscribers are primarily concerned with indecent and offensive programming, they want choice with respect to all types of programming, whether it

is a sports channel, gardening, cooking or MTV. ‘‘A la carte’’ pricing, the free market

solution, would give consumers complete control over what comes into their homes

and would help them control their cable bills.

It is disturbing enough that broadcast radio and TV brings offensive programming

into American homes, even though it is without charge to the viewer. It is unthinkable that cable and satellite companies are permitted to force subscribers to pay for

indecent and offensive programming over their objections.

A second, but less effective solution than consumer choice, is for the industry to

apply the same decency standards that are applicable to broadcast TV and radio.

Our last polling question asked respondents if they agree or disagree with the following statement:

‘‘When cable customers have no control over which channels are included in

their basic cable package, the cable providers should voluntarily enforce decency

standards in that basic package, which would screen out sexually explicit or

graphically violent material.’’

Seventy-three percent of respondents said that they agree, with 55 percent

strongly agreeing.

A 2004 report, by the First Amendment Center in collaboration with American

Journalism Review magazine, released June 28, found that 55 percent of respondents agreed with the following statement: ‘‘Government officials should have the

power to regulate during the morning, afternoon and early evening hours those

cable television programs that contain references to sexual activity.’’ 6

While there are about a dozen major cable companies nationwide, those companies act as monopolies in their local communities by county charter.

Satellite systems, while starting to nibble at cable’s customer base, are not yet

a true competitor, and thus have no direct impact on cable prices. As Gene

Kimmelman of Consumer Union notes, the cable industry is 3.5 times larger than

dish systems, many DBS customers live where cable is not available, and dish placement restrictions prevent many customers from choosing that system over cable.

Cry as they do about price gouging from program producers, cable companies are

in their own consolidation race, and often hold monopolies in some communities,

thanks to community charters barring competition.

While the cable industry comprises about 11 equal-sized competitors, according to

the FCC’s ninth annual report on cable/satellite video competition, many hold monopoly power within their region. That point-of-sale monopoly, called clustering, has

increased 75 percent since 1994. Only 10 percent of cable franchise territories face

head-to-head competition from another cable company.7

Kimmelman maintains that satellite video distribution systems do not compete directly with cable, and therefore have had no impact on cable costs. He notes that

the cable industry is 3.5 times larger than satellite and that many satellite customers live in areas not served by cable.8

That lack of competition makes it easy for cable companies to simply pass the

added costs on to their customers. It also makes them reluctant to embrace reform

ideas such as a la carte pricing, where customers pay only for the channels they

wish to receive. Such pricing strategies in the current media environment would reduce the number of households reached by many cable channels, and would in turn

reduce the amount the cable companies can charge for advertising.

Subscribers do not accept the industry’s claim that consumer choice will necessarily cost more. That is not the case in Canada.

165

9Kimmelman, Gene and Cooper, Mark, Consumer’s Union letter to House of Representatives,

27 April 2004. 10Kleder, Martha, ‘‘Monopoly is More Than a Game: U.S. Senate Hearing on Cable Hears

Calls for Competition and Choice,’’ (citing Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Annual

Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming,

Ninth Annual Report, FCC 02-338, December 31, 2002, available at: http://www.cwfa.org/articles/5702/CFI/papers/index.htm). 11Kleder, Martha, ‘‘Give Us Cable Choice for Decency’s Sake!’’ 12 Examples of graphic sexuality in programming included in the expanded basic cable tier are

available for Nip/Tuck at: http://www.parentstv.org/ptc/niptuck/main.asp. For MTV’s Wild Boyz,

24 Hour Spring Break, Full Body Search: Miami, Real World: Las Vegas, MTV Video Music

Awards, Real World/Road Rules: Battle of the Sexes, Real World/Road Rules: The Gauntlet,

Real World/Road Rules: Inferno, Real World: San Diego, Newlyweds: Nick and Jessica, The

Osbournes, at: http://www.parentstv.org/ptc/publications/email/plain.asp.

There, ‘‘a la carte’’ channel selection is offered on several of Canada’s largest cable

systems. Subscribers save about 30 percent compared to subscribers who select the

average number of channels Americans tend to watch. Canadian subscribers receive

a basic tier with approximately 30 channels, and may then pick one, five, 10, 20

or 30 additional channels ‘‘a la carte’’ for a price per channel that drops as subscribers purchase more channels. Canadian viewers who select the average number

of channels that U.S. consumers tend to watch pay about 30 percent less than the

cost of typical digital cable services in the U.S.9

Even if it were true that consumer choice would cost subscribers more, many

would rather pay more for programming they want than to pay for dozens of channels they do not want.

Currently, our nation has 10 major cable companies, but none of them competes

with each other. That head-to-head competition between wired cable services within

a community is called ‘‘overbuilding’’ and it occurs in only 2 percent of the nation’s

markets. Where it does occur, cable bills decrease sharply.10

Cable choice/a la carte pricing would require cable channels to be more responsive

to their target audience if they wish to survive. A la carte pricing would improve

the programming of niche channels, and encourage cable channels to serve their

public.

A la carte pricing would give the consumer leverage against channels that push

the envelope of decency and routinely violate community standards. For example,

FX, a cable channel that now forces itself into every cable-subscribing home through

its placement on the expanded basic-cable tier, would either have to tame shows like

Nip/Tuck that push the boundaries of common decency, or become a niche channel

through loss of subscribers.11 The MTV channel, targeted at children, would have

to do the same with its programs.12

CWA is urging the subscription TV industries to voluntarily provide consumer

choice in the second-tier, expanded-basic package, or at least impose decency standards in the expanded basic package. Thus far, the industry has shown little response to what the majority of their customers want.

If the subscription television industries continue to ignore the very people from

whom they extract billions of dollars, Congress should act to re-balance the national

media toward the public interest in the wake of a decade of media consolidation,

and require multi-billion dollar industries to provide consumer choice. Deregulation,

done in the name of a free market, was justified. Yet, a market is not truly free

when customers have their choices and purchases dictated by others.

Thank you.

Mr. UPTON. Thank you all for your testimony.

At this point, we will begin the questions of the members on the

subcommittee.

Mr. Kimmelman, appreciated your testimony, and I just have to

go back to the basic question. What if with a la carte—let us say

it happens, and what is channel, let us say, ABC decides that they

are going to ask for $10 a subscriber to carry the channel on a

stand-alone basis. It sounds a little outrageous in terms of higher

cost to me. I am sure that it would sound outrageous to you as

well.

Who is going to—what if that—if that cable operator is forced to

pass that along to the consumer, that doesn’t sound to me like a

system that is going to provide consumers with more choices at a

166

cheaper rate. And, therefore, wouldn’t Congress need to then regulate retail and wholesale prices to make it work? Is that not the

basis/thesis of that argument, which then reverses——

Mr. KIMMELMAN. Mr. Chairman, in an unregulated market, ABC

could try to charge anything it wants to, and it could shoot itself

in the foot. And its friends in the cable industry could go along and

increase the amount of damage it does by just raising prices that

way, if that is what they wanted to do. I believe what they would

do——

Mr. UPTON. But isn’t it the same with a la carte? Isn’t it exactly

the same argument? Isn’t it going to bring—reregulate the whole

system?

Mr. KIMMELMAN. We are suggesting that you keep a basic tier,

so that broadcast channels wouldn’t be affected by that. But even

assume for a minute that ABC owns a channel, and it wants to

charge $10 for a la carte, I believe ABC has gone out of its way

to talk about how reasonably priced ESPN is as the most expensive

channel at no more than $2.50 a subscriber.

I would be hard-pressed to see them justify in the marketplace

those kind of prices. I can’t imagine cable operators would be willing to pay that. I can’t imagine they wouldn’t be willing to discuss

that with their own customers and that there would be a lot of

marketplace pressure for those prices to actually go down.

I believe what would happen with an a la carte option is you

would get a lot of transparency and opening to a lot of secret negotiations now that have been characterized as onerous, in some

cases coercive, and those practices would probably not be able to

be sustained with that kind of public visibility.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. FitzPatrick, you think about your testimony

there, underscore your testimony. I think in essence you said with

a la carte that in all likelihood Hallmark would not make the list.

Is that your thought?

Mr. FITZPATRICK. Well, I was referring specifically, Mr. Chairman, to the recently launched earlier this year Hallmark movie

channel. Basically, I think when you are building a business, a

cable network business, and your objective is to build scale and

build audience, which we have been able to do over the last 3

years, you are able to eventually reach a point where, as a result

of marketplace research, talking to customers, talking to consumers, ascertaining what other needs and wants are, in this particular instance we ascertained that there was a great interest in

a movie channel built around the Hallmark brand and the Hallmark library.

But in order for us to move forward into the marketplace with

a viable second linear service, I believe that the a la carte environment would preclude, had it existed a year ago, would have precluded us from launching the service just because the path to getting to that kind of distribution scale would have made that absolutely impossible to accomplish.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Pyne, as I listened to Ms. LaRue talk about Canada, which I guess does have I guess, based on your testimony,

some type of a la carte system, how does that—how do you see

rates and access to channels as you relate to the channels that you

provide to Canada versus the United States?

167

Mr. PYNE. With respect to our company or——

Mr. UPTON. Right.

Mr. PYNE. I would like to point out just as part of our testimony

that we will be filing with the FCC, simultaneously with testimony

for this, we actually have detailed information about the situation

in Canada. My understanding of Canada is that, in fact, as Congressman Towns pointed out, the structure of the market is very

similar to what we have here in the United States, in that there

is a regulated broadcast of the most popular channels.

In fact, in Canada, for those channels that do have the broadest

distribution, in fact they are required to be in that basic bundle,

similar to the situation here in the United States. ESPN has a 30

percent investment in an ESPN classic type service in Canada,

which is a very different service than ESPN. And, in fact, in that

case, it is offered as part of a digital tier. But, quite frankly, its

penetration is less than 5 percent. It is about—it has 485,000 customers, and it has lost money every year that it began since 2001.

So while Canada does offer some a la carte opportunities, it is

for niche services, and it is not—it is only after Canadians have an

opportunity or are required to buy a bundle of other services that

are much more broadly distributed, similar to here in the United

States.

Mr. UPTON. Maybe we can get into that—into a second round, because my time has expired.

Let me go with Mr. Wynn.

Mr. WYNN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Kimmelman, I applaud your good intentions on behalf of the

consumer, but I am concerned that you have not really laid out

how a la carte addresses some of the concerns. For example, I believe as Reverend Plummer was saying that he had not been able

to get on for a variety of reasons, as well as many other niche programmers.

Two basic questions. How do they get on in an a la carte system?

And, two, how do they sustain themselves if they have relatively

lower viewerships, which I think was an argument that was raised

by Mr. Liggins in terms of emerging companies. Why are they better served if they have lower revenues, lower viewership, and lower

capitalization? How do they survive?

I hate run-on questions, but I am going to include this. Would

they not ultimately, if they survive, be absorbed by larger media

conglomerates, thereby losing the diversity that we debated at

length in this committee on the subject of media ownership? Same

basic concept.

Sorry about the length of the question.

Mr. KIMMELMAN. And I appreciate it, Mr. Wynn. That is a very

important question. Let me start off by saying I don’t believe a la

carte is a panacea to solve every problem out there. I have been

doing this for a long time and talked about a lot of different things

that need to be done about discrimination.

Let me suggest a way in which I think a la carte can work. We

are, first off, saying there ought to be a basic tier with local programming, so that broadcasters have their right to get the—meet

the local needs of the community in a basic tier with public access

channels. We are also suggesting that every cable operator, every

168

satellite provider, can offer the packages that include TV One

today, that include BET today.

They still can package it that way. And if there is a small

viewership, or for whatever reason they put it in a package today,

my question is, in a world where you can put it in a package tomorrow, but it also could be available as an individual channel,

why in the world wouldn’t they keep putting it in the package?

What would change? Some people may want to pick a channel a

la carte.

Mr. WYNN. That is what I am saying. If they put it in a package,

then we haven’t changed anything. It is not a la carte if it is in

a package, big package, small package. It is a package, and there

are economies of scale associated with the package. When you pull

it out and say, ‘‘This is A, this is B, this is C,’’ etcetera, ‘‘pick what

you want,’’ how does that small station make it? I just don’t—I

don’t see that.

Mr. KIMMELMAN. A small station that is available——

Mr. WYNN. Not a small station, but you——

Mr. KIMMELMAN. A small station that is available in a package,

and then also available a la carte, would it be able to attract a

niche market audience? There are a lot of minority programmers

who are suggesting that they think they would at least have some

chance, who today are blocked by the gatekeeper. The gatekeeper

Mr. Deal referred to is one of four or five media giants who either

has an affiliate it wants to favor and will put on somebody else,

or just doesn’t want to put that programming on.

Mr. WYNN. How do you address the advertising argument? That

is——

Mr. KIMMELMAN. Oh, I would love to address the advertising argument. What I suggested was, out of 330 channels, most of them

aren’t getting advertising revenue. They are getting some license

fees, or they are going on for free and they are desperate to get

capital to get on. And if they don’t make it in 4 or 5 years, like

Mr. Liggins said, they probably get dropped. Hundreds of them

have been in that situation.

Most people are watching the top 20 channels. That is where the

real advertising revenue is. But if you have something that is attractive to a niche audience, and you can—and I understand there

is marketing costs. None of this is simple. But if you can draw advertisers into a small, focused, target market, you have a better

chance of surviving possibly than most of these people who are not

even getting on today.

But most of them who are on, I am suggesting, sir, are not getting advertising revenue. I mean, let me give——

Mr. WYNN. Well——

Mr. KIMMELMAN. Let me just give you an example. If you are

Ford Motor Company——

Mr. WYNN. My time is running, because I am watching the clock.

If they can’t—if their niche is so narrow that they can’t attract advertisers, how do they get on?

Mr. KIMMELMAN. Advertisers pay for eyeballs. If you are—I

am——

Mr. WYNN. But you don’t have many eyeballs if you don’t have

that viewership. That is the whole thrust of this.

169

Mr. KIMMELMAN. Well, yes.

Mr. WYNN. Without a package, you don’t have the eyeballs. Without the eyeballs, you don’t have the advertising.

Mr. KIMMELMAN. Two hundred fifty out of—275 out of 330 channels aren’t even getting a quarter of a million eyeballs, so I am just

suggesting that——

Mr. WYNN. But they are in a package.

Mr. KIMMELMAN. [continuing] with due respect you can be—if

you are in front of 60 million households, it is most likely because

you do have eyeballs. But I will guarantee you no advertiser is

going to pay for its company’s ads to go in front of 60 million people

who never turn it on. The bottom line is you ultimately need people

to watch.

A la carte, in conjunction with a package, may provide a new avenue for some people to get their first step to get on and demonstrate that they have got quality programming. You have got a

lot of programmers out there who say, ‘‘We have got quality. We

have got financing. They won’t let us on.’’ Why not give them a

chance in the marketplace to show they can?

Mr. WYNN. Why wouldn’t their costs—their rates be high? If they

are not using advertising revenue, what——

Mr. KIMMELMAN. For the very same reason that some of them

aren’t charging cable operators today. They are desperate to get out

there and get distribution. They will take a hit up front to try to

get on. They can’t survive long that way. But if somebody wants

to watch it, they will finally get viewership.

A lot of these channels are not getting ad revenue. A lot of them

are not in a position to charge cable operators even a penny to get

on. They are desperate to try to get out. If the cable—my question

is simple. If the cable operator will take it for free today and put

it on expanded basic tier, why won’t they do that tomorrow just because somebody could also get that channel a la carte?

The point is, if nobody will pick it a la carte, then it is in the

tier. And it is just the way these folks want to have it, and they

can keep doing their business the way they want to. If some people

pick it a la carte, they may actually expand their audience base,

and advertisers may see there is a greater potential to support that

programming.

Mr. WYNN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Deal?

Mr. DEAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank my colleagues for their kind comments and for their attendance at this

hearing. I do think it is an important issue and one that I don’t

think will go away.

First of all, I thank the panelists, too. But, you know, I have

heard from two of the big six conglomerates here today, and with

the business philosophy that you gentlemen have espoused, we

would all be driving Edsalls, simply because Ford thought it was

a good idea. The public didn’t. The public doesn’t agree with you

on this issue as well.

Mr. Hooks, let me ask you—you are a small—you represent the

small cable independent operators in this country. Is that correct?

Mr. HOOKS. Yes, sir.

170

Mr. DEAL. Do you all own the programming that produces these

programs?

Mr. HOOKS. No, sir, I do not.

Mr. DEAL. All right. You have told us the problems that you have

about your constituency objecting to, I believe, Undressed and

Striperella when they are trying to get the cartoons. Are you free

to discuss with me today in this meeting or afterwards the terms

and conditions that are dictated to you by the big guys who are

selling that programming as to why you can’t break it up, how

much you’re charging the customers? Are you free to tell me that?

Mr. HOOKS. No, sir.

Mr. DEAL. Why not?

Mr. HOOKS. Contractually, I am disallowed to do so.

Mr. DEAL. Mr. Baxter here got a contract keeps you from doing

that?

Mr. HOOKS. Yes, sir.

Mr. DEAL. Mr. Baxter, will you waive that today?

Mr. BAXTER. Congressman, I am not in the programming business. I am in the cable television——

Mr. DEAL. I think the answer is no?

Mr. BAXTER. There is a different part of Time Warner that distributes programming.

Mr. DEAL. Okay. We have heard that answer, too.

Mr. BAXTER. Yes, sir. I am——

Mr. DEAL. Mr. Pyne, will you waive it?

Mr. PYNE. We are currently—we have programming obligations

to——

Mr. DEAL. That is somebody else’s job, too? Okay.

Mr. PYNE. No, no, no. No. I am the one responsible for negotiating the contracts, but we have contractual obligations that——

Mr. DEAL. Those are contractual obligations you dictate, right?

Mr. PYNE. [continuing] going both ways.

Mr. DEAL. That is contractual obligations you dictate, that you

will not reveal the terms and conditions and you will not let any

of your folks who buy your programming reveal it either, is that

right?

Mr. PYNE. They are, in fact, mutual between—I mean, we can’t

talk to——

Mr. DEAL. Mr. Hooks is willing to waive it. Will you waive it?

Mr. PYNE. I am actually not in a position to——

Mr. DEAL. I think the answer is no. It is obvious this whole process is surrounded in secrecy. This committee has written a letter

to the FCC asking them to investigate it. I want to guarantee the

members of this committee the FCC is going to come back and tell

us, ‘‘We can’t get the information, because the big guys have sealed

the lips of the people they do business with, and they won’t tell us

either.’’ Mr. FitzPatrick, I thank you for being here. Let me tell

you, I like your programming, and I want to tell you I don’t think

there’s a person in this room that objects to the Hallmark channel

being on an expanded basic tier. But, you know, sometimes we tell

a lot by not who is here to testify but those who are not here to

testify.

Now, you are on expanded basic tier, is that right?

Mr. FITZPATRICK. We are overwhelmingly——

171

Mr. DEAL. All right.

Mr. FITZPATRICK. [continuing] on the most highly penetrated, but

not in all cases.

Mr. DEAL. All right. You may be on basic in some cases.

Mr. FITZPATRICK. No. In some cases, we are, for example, on—

on the EchoStar platform, we are on a tier that penetrates roughly

about 30 percent of their entire universe.

Mr. DEAL. All right. But in that expanded——

Mr. FITZPATRICK. Much to my chagrin.

Mr. DEAL. But in that expanded basic, are such things as the

programs we have heard about, the FXs who are not here, the

Spike TV who is not here, the Undressed, the Striperella who are

not here, they are in that same advanced package with you, is that

right?

Mr. FITZPATRICK. I believe that is the case, depending upon

the——

Mr. DEAL. Do you need their listeners and their watchers and

their viewers and the revenue that they produce to justify your existence in the expanded basic package?

Mr. FITZPATRICK. I am sorry, Congressman. I——

Mr. DEAL. Do you need the revenue from these somewhat questionable, racy programs to justify your existence on the expanded

basic package?

Mr. FITZPATRICK. I don’t know if it is so much—I don’t think it

is a case of, do we need the revenue from them, if I understand

your question. I think what we need is to be in a neighborhood in

which the variety of services are available to a great majority of

subscribers on that system.

And as a result of the way we watch as human beings, as we

watch television, with that remote most of the time, that surfing

experience that people have—I mean, I have heard this morning

this discussion about the number of channels that people watch on

average being 15, 16, 17. That may be a statistic that is true, if

you measure it by time spent—an hour or 2 a week or whatever

the metric is—but I think that there are many, many more channels—in fact, our experience and our——

Mr. DEAL. I hate to interrupt you, but my time is about to expire.

You are the poster boy for independents here in this testimony

today. You are not attempting to justify these others who are in the

same tier packages as you, because their programming and the audience they target is different from yours, is that not right?

Mr. FITZPATRICK. It is different.

Mr. DEAL. All right. Now, since you are the poster boy for the

independents, are you truly independent? You know, we have

talked about the five big conglomerates, and we had two—that Liberty Media. Is not Liberty Media one of your major stockholders?

Mr. FITZPATRICK. They are a stockholder. They are not a major

stockholder. They hold less than 10 percent of our company, and

they have absolutely no control over our operating strategies or our

operating——

Mr. DEAL. But they are one of the big six.

Mr. FITZPATRICK. Well, Mr. Chairman, they are not a cable operator in this country.

172

Mr. DEAL. Mr. Liggins, you are the poster boy for the minority

contractors and the minority broadcasters in this hearing here

today. Let me ask you, though, your target is African-American targets, but you are not owned by African-American stockholders, are

you? In fact, you are—one of your biggest owners at 39 percent is

Comcast, is it not?

Mr. LIGGINS. That is correct. But my company, which is owned

by my mother and myself and is a public company—we control it—

owns 40 percent of the network. And when we actually buy our investors out, we will own 51 percent of the network. But most importantly, we put up $74 million of the entire $130 million.

So as far as I am—and we control the Board. And so as far as

I am concerned, it is more our network than anybody else, since we

put most of——

Mr. DEAL. Well, just answer the question Reverend Plummer

posed. Are you carried fully by Time Warner?

Mr. LIGGINS. We do not have a deal with Time Warner as of yet,

but we are working on it diligently.

Mr. DEAL. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your indulgence. I hope

you will have a chance to ask extra questions.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Doyle?

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This has been a most interesting hearing.

I hear a lot of different dynamics as I have listened to the testimony today. And I think we all know what consumers want. They

would love to just pick only the channels they want to watch and

pay nothing for it. I mean, that is—I have been in politics long

enough to know that.

I just had a conversation with USAirways this morning in Pittsburgh, and, you know, the head of USAirways complained that people get on the internet today and, you know, they want to be able

to fly from here to California, not have to have any layovers on the

way, and they want to pay $120 for it. And that is why the airline

industry is going bankrupt.

Now, is that reality? I guess that is the question we are asking

ourselves. You know, can that system really work? And then, I

hear the access challenges here, too, how a company like Mr.

Liggins, how does he get access to a network, if he has to do it person by person? If you have to go up there and sign up subscribers,

how do you get to that magic, whatever that number is, 20 million,

so that you can justify being on their—or Reverend Plummer also?

You know, how do you make sure that, if we are going to have

diversity, how does that happen? And then, the small operators

that don’t like the idea that they have to pretty much take what

is given to them by the big guys that own a lot of the programming—I mean, we have a lot of different dynamics that take place.

I went to Penn State University. The football team took all the

revenue in, and they basically paid for all—the paid for the wrestling team and the volleyball team, and everything in between. If

we didn’t have a football program at Penn State, we wouldn’t have

any other sport at Penn State either.

So I guess, you know, the question we have as we look at this

issue is, you know, how do we put a system forth that is—where

there is competition and where consumers benefit?

173

And I just—Mr. FitzPatrick, maybe I will ask you the first question. Your station seems to offer programming that would be considered, if there were a family friendly tier, you would probably fit

into that kind of tier program. Would you agree with that hallmark?

Mr. FITZPATRICK. Well, I do generally speaking. But, again, like

everything else, it is in the eyes of the beholder. I mean, we

make—we don’t make movies that typically you might find, for example, on Mr. Pyne’s service, the Disney Channel—that is, all PG13 or PG. We make movies based upon classic literature with very

compelling stories about the human experience that might, in the

eyes of a viewer, feel that that is not particularly suitable to a 13-

year-old or to an 11-year-old, but is to a teen in the household.

I mean, generally speaking, I would answer the question yes. But

if I could just for a minute——

Mr. DOYLE. But you disagree with a government-mandated family friendly tier. Is that your testimony?

Mr. FITZPATRICK. I do.

Mr. DOYLE. You do.

Mr. FITZPATRICK. I disagree with a mandated family tier or any

other kind of tier.

Mr. DOYLE. And why is that?

Mr. FITZPATRICK. For all of the reasons that we have indicated—

I have indicated in my testimony this morning—the marketplace,

let the marketplace work. We think that, generally speaking, it

does work well—I mean, to the point that it is taking Mr. Liggins

time to get distribution for his new channel. I can tell you as an

entrepreneur I have been involved in starting up two cable networks, including one against the retransmission consent network.

The marketplace and the competitive marketplace allowed us,

with that particular service, to eventually meet that retransmission

consent channel. It takes take. When you go knocking on a cable

operator’s door, whether you are trying to get bundled in a highly

penetrated package or some other kind of tier, as Mr. Baxter and

Mr. Hooks will tell you, it takes time to make that capacity available. I mean——

Mr. DOYLE. Do you think that——

Mr. FITZPATRICK. [continuing] these folks have spent $85 billion

upgrading plant. It is not all for linear channels. Thirty percent of

their bandwidth is being put aside for video on demand, for internet protocol telephone service, for high-speed access. There are all

kinds of competing requirements and interest for that bandwidth,

and it takes time. If you have patience, if you have a good

product——

Mr. DOYLE. Let me just ask a question, since my—do you think

that you could break into a market with a channel like yours if it

weren’t for guaranteed carriage in a—on an expanded basic tier?

Would you have been able to do this if—just if it were a la cart?

Mr. FITZPATRICK. Well, Mr. Congressman, the guaranteed carriage is a result of: 1) Do we have a compelling vision? 2) Do we

have a brand? 3) Do we have a negotiation over terms and conditions that are beneficial ultimately to the consumer based upon

value and price? That is how we were able to drive our distribution

to 62 million homes today, not because somebody immediately said

174

we are going to guarantee you getting into every single home. And

it also took time to do that. So——

Mr. DOYLE. Do you think you could have done it under an a la

carte system, though?

Mr. FITZPATRICK. We could not do it under an a la carte system.

Absolutely not. And more——

Mr. DOYLE. If I could just—if I could borrow some time here,

there were some very compelling arguments or statements this

morning about viewership, number of channels watched, 300 channels. You need—this business needs a foundation of networks that

number somewhere in the 60, 70 range, that drive that basic advertising revenue model.

Once a network has economies of scale, then you can go out and

you can launch additional service, in which the requisite requirements for advertising dollars is not as great as the mother load, as

the mother ship. That is how a lot of services were able to be

launched. And as far as the 339 national networks that are out in

the marketplace today on—not including the 84 regional networks

that are sports and regional news services, out of that 339 a lot of

those are pay services.

They are, if you will, services that do not require the kind of advertising scale that the mother ship requires. And so, ultimately,

it gets down to the question of whether or not the American public

is watching cable programming, and the answer is a resounding

yes. The viewer shares today, both in prime time and certainly in

total day, from where this business was 10 years ago, 5 years ago,

3 years ago, cable shares, multi-channel shares of viewing, exceed

now the broadcast networks.

There is a reason for that. The consumer is voting with a strong

affirmative, ‘‘We like generally what you are giving us.’’ Do they

have particular issues as we have heard this morning about particular services? Of course. But does that mean we throw the baby

out with the bath water because we have got a problem? I would

suggest to the committee that that is the wrong approach.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Whitfield?

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I also want to

thank the committee staff for arranging this hearing, and Mr. Deal

for pushing the issue, and the panel for taking time to be here with

us.

I might say that, as this hearing has emerged—and I came here

with a rather open mind—I found myself more interested I think

in the state of the wholesale and retail distribution of the programming than I have the a la carte side of the issue. And I know that,

Reverend Plummer, you—when you were speaking from the

heart—you made a comment about your efforts to have your programming fully carried.

And you made a comment that you had a fear of retribution at

some point. I was wondering if you would elaborate on that a little

bit.

Rev. PLUMMER. There is a comment in the industry, ‘‘Cable is

king.’’ When it appears as though, as is the case here for me, I am

not standing against a la carte. In fact, because of the condition of

the cable industry right now where there is an access problem, we

175

have been told as religious broadcasters for years, ‘‘Be patient. Be

patient. Just wait.’’

Because we have such ability to mobilize many people in communities throughout America, the cable industry has interpreted that

as being adversarial, and has warned us time and time again, ‘‘If

you go out and stir up the community, if you go out and do this,

we will never give you carriage.’’ And so to go out and make the

cable industry look as though they are doing something unkind to

religious broadcasters does not fare well with them.

And so we have been told time and time again, ‘‘Don’t do that.

Don’t make noise.’’ And so for me to make comment now that I personally was approached and went into, you know, great detailed

discussions about equity in our own network, and when I did not

choose to do that, I still have not been given access. And so for me

to stand publicly and make that statement alone is a potential for

retribution for me that you will never get on now, you will never

get access.

Mr. WHITFIELD. And which company was trying to obtain equity

in your company?

Rev. PLUMMER. It was Comcast.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Comcast. Okay.

Now, Mr. Hooks, you have discussed a lot about the practice of

wholesale and retail distribution, the way it is being conducted

today. And your primary complaint is—or concern for your viewers

is—that in order to get a program you have to take the entire package, is that correct?

Mr. HOOKS. Yes. If I could expand on that—and my environment

is probably a little different. Smaller market environments are

struggling a little more with bandwidth. And if you looked at my

bandwidth, it is all used up by the big five through retransmission

and bundling requirements. So products like yours, and some of

these niche programs, I have got a real problem. I don’t have any

channel space.

In fact, in my markets, we have got a real dilemma. We have got

a high growth of Spanish-speaking people, and I don’t have Spanish-speaking programming. And I don’t know how to get it, because

they are independent and they are not part—I mean, it seems to

me unless you get part of the big five, that is the way you force

your way in and it eats up all our bandwidth.

Mr. WHITFIELD. So you don’t have any shelf space?

Mr. HOOKS. In other words, I could make better choices for my

community if I had some flexibility.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Now, Nickelodeon is a popular channel or program.

Mr. HOOKS. Yes, sir.

Mr. WHITFIELD. But in order to get Nickelodeon you have to have

MTV, and you have to take Spike, is that correct?

Mr. HOOKS. Yes, sir.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Now, our friend from Pennsylvania mentioned

that Penn State Football carries the entire program, the athletic

program. Nickelodeon is the most popular program of the ones that

you have through Viacom. So what would be the rationale that

Viacom would require you to take Spike?

176

Mr. HOOKS. Well, they package them up, and you are incented

contractually to take the whole package. Otherwise, you pay damages for not doing it. So there is some flexibility not to do it, if you

are willing to pay the difference.

Mr. WHITFIELD. So if you don’t do it, you pay damages?

Mr. HOOKS. Well, I call it damages. The pricing all changes. It

is kind of like if someone was going to sell you three cars, and they

will sell you each of them for half price, but if you buy one, I will

charge you——

Mr. WHITFIELD. And, contractually, you cannot talk about the

pricing, is that correct?

Mr. HOOKS. No, sir.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Okay. Well, Mr. Chairman, this has been an interesting hearing. I do hope that we have an opportunity to get

more into the wholesale and retail programming in this——

Mr. UPTON. Would you yield just for a followup question——

Mr. WHITFIELD. Yes.

Mr. UPTON. [continuing] I might ask Mr. Plummer as it related

to your question.

Mr. WHITFIELD. I would be happy to yield, and then I would yield

the balance of my time to Mr. Deal.

Mr. UPTON. Okay. Let me just ask a followup question. You

know, I was one, Reverend Plummer, that supported must carry

back—way back when.

Rev. PLUMMER. Yes.

Mr. UPTON. If for some reason we didn’t have must carry, would

you support a la carte?

Rev. PLUMMER. Well, first of all, the Supreme Court of the

United States, as you know, has upheld——

Mr. UPTON. I know. But let us say we did away with it. They affirmed—I think the Court said that we were proper in insisting on

must carry. But let us say we did away with it. We passed a law

and said you didn’t have to have it, and it is out there for the consumers to decide, do you really want to carry your local broadcast

station? I presume—I am not from Southfield, but I presume you

are broadcast as well, right?

Let us say that I live in Southfield. Would your network survive

if you had a la carte and you didn’t have must carry?

Rev. PLUMMER. Personally, I—you are asking me personally? I

will answer two ways. First of all, let me answer it as it relates

to our industry. Must carry has been vital for the carriage——

Mr. UPTON. No, I know that, and I support it.

Rev. PLUMMER. All right.

Mr. UPTON. That is not the argument. I supported must carry.

Some on this committee, by the way, didn’t and still don’t.

Rev. PLUMMER. All right.

Mr. UPTON. That will be in debate another day.

Rev. PLUMMER. I believe—first of all, there was a study done by

the Black Enterprise Group that said 80 percent of African-Americans support black media, whether print, radio, or television. In the

markets that my networks are in, we are a household name. People

actually send us hundreds of thousands of dollars over and above

their cable fees. That is consistent throughout America when it

comes to religious broadcasters specifically.

177

There has been billions of dollars that Americans have sent to

ministries, have sent to religious broadcasters, over and above their

cable fee, in order to get that programming or at least keep it on

the air, whether they buy programming from a network or whether

they actually have access through must carry. I personally believe

that religious networks, minority networks, could survive in a properly designed a la carte system.

And so I think that we are using some loose definition of what

a la carte system means. Whether it is pure or, you know, a mandated type of a system, I think that if there was indeed a basic tier,

which I think everyone understands that that makes sense, over

and above that, yes, I do believe that there would be networks like

mine and others who would survive.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Deal’s time is rapidly expiring.

It was the answer, not the question.

We will have another—a second round.

Let us see, Mr. Stupak?

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Let me ask this question of everyone on the panel. And if you

would, just give me a yes or no answer, so we can get a couple

questions in during my 5 minutes.

Should consumers be allowed to know how much they pay for

each channel, like the cost of ESPN versus the cost of Disney or

the Comedy Channel? Let us start with Mr. Kimmelman.

Mr. KIMMELMAN. Absolutely.

Mr. LIGGINS. I don’t think so.

Mr. STUPAK. You don’t think so?

Mr. LIGGINS. No.

Mr. STUPAK. Okay.

Mr. HOOKS. Okay.

Mr. PYNE. No.

Mr. STUPAK. No?

Rev. PLUMMER. Yes.

Mr. BAXTER. No.

Mr. FITZPATRICK. No.

Ms. LARUE. Absolutely.

Mr. STUPAK. I guess it is a tie vote.

Those who said no, why shouldn’t consumers have right to know?

Mr. Liggins?

Mr. LIGGINS. I personally think that the commercial terms between entities, whether they be companies or employees, are—

should have some strict confidentiality, unless, of course, there is

some, you know, sort of, you know, public good to it. But what I

pay my secretary is nobody’s business and——

Mr. STUPAK. Well, we are not asking what you pay your secretary. But if ESPN is costing me two bucks, and Disney is costing

me a buck——

Mr. LIGGINS. I understand. But at the end of the day, what a

cable operator pays my company to provide programming, I don’t

want my competitor to know that. I don’t want anybody to know

that. I have to negotiate.

Let us say I have a better deal with one cable operator than the

other. I certainly wouldn’t want that out in the open, so they could

negotiate against me. I wouldn’t want, you know, the terms of a

178

contract that I have with a high profile personality, so my competitor can come and offer them more money. You know, so that stuff

actually, I believe, makes cost of—the cost of doing business go considerably higher, which will always ultimately get passed on to the

consumer.

Mr. STUPAK. Well, wouldn’t the cost of business be how many

subscribers you have versus non-subscribers?

Mr. LIGGINS. I am sorry?

Mr. STUPAK. I mean, isn’t the cost that you charge people, isn’t

that based upon how many subscribers you have?

Mr. LIGGINS. No. Well, a couple things. One, the cost of doing

business—what we charge a subscriber, what we charge a cable operator has everything to do with what it costs us to run our business. We have to pay for programming, and one of the things I——

Mr. STUPAK. So whatever it costs to run your business, you have

got to pass that on to the consumer, don’t you?

Mr. LIGGINS. Well, Mr. Baxter is trying to keep, you know, rates

down to consumers, so his job is to get the lowest possible rate for

me. My job is to try to get the best possible rate from him. He usually wins, you know, and so——

Mr. STUPAK. Sure.

Mr. LIGGINS. [continuing] you know, that——

Mr. STUPAK. But in the ultimate plan, it is the consumer that

pays, no matter who wins or loses. The consumer has to pay for

that, whatever service they have, right?

Mr. LIGGINS. Ultimately, in a free market economy, yes, the consumer—prices that people charge are dictated by the demand that

the consumer has in the marketplace.

Mr. STUPAK. Do you believe—I am not picking on you. We are

just having——

Mr. LIGGINS. Sure.

Mr. STUPAK. [continuing] a good discussion here. Do you believe

the rural areas pay more than urban areas?

Mr. LIGGINS. I don’t know the answer to that question. I am not

versed enough.

Mr. STUPAK. Does anyone want to try that one? Mr. Hooks?

Mr. HOOKS. Yes, I will tell you they do.

Mr. STUPAK. They do?

Mr. HOOKS. Yes. In fact, rural customers subsidize the customers

in the urban areas. It is just a fact.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Pyne?

Mr. PYNE. I am sorry. If I may add——

Mr. STUPAK. Sure.

Mr. PYNE. [continuing] I think here within the small—as Mr.

Hooks will know, within the small rural—there are a thousand

small rural operators around the country, there is something

known as the National Cable Television Cooperative. And part of

the role of that organization is to represent its membership. I

mean, it represents close to 8 million subscribers around the country, and it tries to negotiate deals on par with cable programmers,

as with all of the other cable operators.

I would just like to point out that ESPN recently was made public—was released publicly but negotiated a long-term deal with the

cooperative. That actually—that contractually obligates ESPN to

179

provide the same pricing as other cable operators in its size group.

And, in fact, to date—I think this—again, public, it was in multichannel news——

Mr. STUPAK. Well——

Mr. PYNE. [continuing] 95 percent of the members have already

signed up for——

Mr. STUPAK. If it is the same pricing, why shouldn’t consumers

then know how much we are paying for ESPN versus Disney?

Mr. PYNE. Well, I think the—just like—in our opinion, just like

other commercial relationships, whether it is in the supermarket

business or other retail outlets, the commercial negotiations that go

on between the entities are generally private. We would like to preserve that privacy.

In addition, I think there are many other factors that go into the

pricing, such as local ad sales. All of our networks, except for Disney Channel, which is not ad supported, but our networks offer

local time to the cable operators. Depending on the network, that

is actually revenue back to the cable operator.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, if I may, can I just ask Mr.

Kimmelman—mention why consumers should know the price, since

he represents the consumers here, and then finish it up with that.

Thanks.

Mr. KIMMELMAN. Well, thank you, sir. We are being told, ‘‘Trust

us. We package the programming for you. We help you with the

choice.’’ I am just now being told cable operators try to keep prices

down for consumers. I haven’t seen that with them skyrocketing

five times inflation.

If we are not going to regulate, the least we need is some transparency in the marketplace, so there can be marketplace pressures

among the players. How much more value is there in ESPN programming versus network programming versus TV One? I mean,

these are things—people aren’t being given the option of picking

the individual channel. Maybe they should know something about

what the component parts are and why.

And out of the $75 billion invested, how much is being paid for

by their $50 a month cable modem service on top of their $50 a

month expanded basic fee, etcetera, etcetera? It is not like Penn

State Football, because there it is football fans who decide they

want to go to the games. And there is some governance board for

Penn State University that hopefully has some openness.

This is people who don’t want to watch football having to pay for

it, or people who don’t want to watch offensive programming having to pay for it. That is the difference.

Mr. STUPAK. Well, I can’t figure out why anyone would want to

watch Penn State Football anyway, so——

Mr. UPTON. As a Wolverine fan, we are looking forward to watching Penn State Football.

And next year, too.

Mr. Shimkus?

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a very interesting hearing, and I appreciate your calling it. I do appreciate my

friend Nathan for pushing this issue.

I want to read a couple of companies here. We have got TV One,

Radio One, TBS, Cartoon Network, CNN, Time for Kids, Looney

180

Tunes, Kids WB, Hanna-Barbera, Touchstone Pictures, NASCAR,

ESPN, Hallmark, Disney. A lot of this issue deals with smut and

pornography and issues that, you know, we are—just kind of have

concerns with.

I would like for you all—and, really, I think there is three of you

represented in this whole list. Today we rolled out kids.us again.

All of you ought to have a site on the kids.us website. There is no

reason CNN should not have a CNN.kids.us. There is no reason

that Touchstone Pictures should not have touchstonepictures.

kids.us. Likewise, ESPN. Come talk to me. We need to make this

happen.

I do—Viacom has been the whipping boy in this committee for

a long time, and I have been one of the ones doing the whipping.

But I have to tell you that today they have put up on the kids.us

site nickjr.kids.us and nick.kids.us. That joins abc.kids.us, that

joins smithsonian.kids.us, and the like. So if you want a child-safe

site for kids on the internet with no hyperlinks, no instant messaging, no chat rooms, no hyperlinks, which are all the things that

we know that are being used to go after our young children, the

kids.us site is the place to be.

And I am the unofficial spokesman and marketeer for them, and

I am doing that job. Yes, sir.

Mr. BAXTER. Congressman, speaking for Time Warner, we will

look into that. It sounds like a very good idea. And I just want to

make a—just a quick statement to kind of respond to Congressman

Deal.

We are all parents here, you know, and there are things on television I don’t like either. But, you know, what I do is I block out

the channels or I block out the programming. And the cable industry has made it very clear, has advertised the heck out of the idea,

we will give you a box, we will give you all the tools you need today

to block out programming that you find offensive.

And we think that is a good idea. We are not doing this as a PR

gesture, because, you know, for the 28,000 people that work for

Time Warner Cable in 27 states, we are all parents. We feel the

same way you do. We share your concerns, and we are doing everything we can today to make sure that parents have those tools.

Mr. SHIMKUS. If I can reclaim my time—and I think—let me ask

just two—this revolves around a couple basic questions, because

most of us—this is a pretty good hearing, because everyone is sitting around listening to your testimony, and we are listening to the

questions and answers. And that is not always normal in Congressional hearings.

Can an individual today, an individual in their home, block out

channels that they don’t want to receive on their cable TV system?

And let us—yes or no, if you can. Mr. Kimmelman?

Mr. KIMMELMAN. With great difficulty, if the cable company will

cooperate, and you still have to pay for the programming that you

didn’t want to get.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Yes. But that makes an assumption, and I am

going to get to the second question. And I will—so the answer is

yes.

181

Mr. KIMMELMAN. It is not clearly yes, sir, because I cannot go to

a cable company in an analog cable system and know that they will

do everything——

Mr. SHIMKUS. Okay. I am running out of time.

Mr. KIMMELMAN. [continuing] are suggesting.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Liggins?

Mr. LIGGINS. From what I understand in the industry, the industry offers that. I have never tried it.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Okay. Let us try it, and we will find out.

Mr. Hooks?

Mr. HOOKS. Yes.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you.

Mr. Pyne?

Mr. PYNE. Yes.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Plummer?

Rev. PLUMMER. Only if they know how to.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Who?

Rev. PLUMMER. The consumer.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Yes. I mean, I think there is——

Rev. PLUMMER. But yes. Technically, yes.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Baxter?

Mr. BAXTER. Absolutely.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. FitzPatrick?

Mr. FITZPATRICK. Absolutely. And I would also say, Congressman, that with respect to this issue of educating parents and kids,

we are supporting this initiative of the industry. We run spots on

the Hallmark Channel, but we also have established a link to Hallmark.com.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Okay. I am running out of time. Kids.us, remember that, Hallmark.kids.us.

Mr. FITZPATRICK. Yes, Hallmark.com.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Ms. LaRue?

Ms. LARUE. Yes, thank you. I would love to respond to that. And

I would analogize to this——

Mr. SHIMKUS. Don’t analogize. Yes or no.

Ms. LARUE. Well, I am not a provider. I can’t tell you whether

they are blocking something.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Well, you have just heard 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 people

who are experts in the industry say yes.

Ms. LARUE. That they can block it.

Mr. SHIMKUS. That the individuals can block their channels.

Ms. LARUE. My response is this. If I go into a restaurant this

afternoon, and my meal is unacceptable and I complain, and they

tell me, ‘‘Well, we will bring you a trash can with your bill’’——

Mr. SHIMKUS. Well, no, wait.

Ms. LARUE. [continuing] I wouldn’t find that——

Mr. SHIMKUS. That is not the question.

Ms. LARUE. Wait, wait. I wouldn’t find that acceptable.

Mr. SHIMKUS. I am on your side.

Ms. LARUE. And——

Mr. SHIMKUS. I have got a good record with you all. I am a——

Ms. LARUE. One more——

Mr. SHIMKUS. I am a religious——

182

Ms. LARUE. One more.

Mr. SHIMKUS. But you just heard all these people say that the

individual consumer can block out a channel if they don’t want——

Ms. LARUE. And consumers aren’t satisfied with that. That is my

point.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Wait, wait, wait. That is not the question. The

question is: can the consumer block out the signal on the cable system in their home?

Ms. LARUE. Even if they can, they are not satisfied with that.

Mr. SHIMKUS. The other question, Mr. Chairman, that I would

like to ask—I don’t have time—is, we are making the assumption

that if the—if a la carte goes through, that it is going to be cheaper

to receive the channels that you want. That is the assumption that

I think I hear. I don’t have enough time. Maybe someone else can

ask that.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the time.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Rush?

Mr. RUSH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to ask Mr. Liggins and also Reverend Plummer this question. I am going to be pretty clear here. I am one member of this

committee. All right? And when I got on this committee, I got on

for the purpose of increasing ownership, telecommunications ownership, for minorities, and also to provide better and more quality,

family oriented programming for minorities.

And my question simply is: will a la carte help me or hinder me

in this pursuit? You know, and that is my question.

Mr. LIGGINS. I would like to answer that. And the answer is no,

and the reason is pretty simple. Hallmark Channel has 62 million

homes today. They get paid for those 62 million homes. I have got

4 million homes today. However, if I go to buy programming from

a Hollywood studio, or if I go to producers or writers to produce it,

they don’t distinguish between what they charge Hallmark at 62

million households or TV One at 4 million households.

It costs the same amount of money whether my audience is larger or whether it is smaller. And for us, we launched TV One because African-Americans, basically 13 percent of the U.S. population, has had basically one channel for 25 years, which we

thought was a crime.

But they don’t just need a second channel. They need a second

channel of high quality content that serves a segment of that audience that isn’t being served, and for us that is the over 30 AfricanAmerican audience. And we are going to—we skew the network female.

So the quality level for us has to be such that people will look

at this channel as something that is answering a need that they

haven’t had before. And if the quality level isn’t there, then, you

know, people will react negatively to it, and we won’t achieve diversity of programming, diversity in zone ownership.

And in a la carte, you just—if you got 100 percent of every African-American television household, that is 13.5 million households,

that is a losing network, that is a losing network in—for advertisers, that is a losing network if you actually get paid for every

last one of those households, unless you are getting paid 30 cents,

50 cents, a dollar. You know, our channel is probably charging, you

183

know, 10 cents, because the other homes that aren’t African-American are subsidizing it.

Mr. RUSH. Reverend Plummer?

Rev. PLUMMER. Yes, I would respectfully disagree with Mr.

Liggins’ premise. First of all, the African-American population is

about 12 percent of the whole country. And yet blacks make up almost a quarter of the whole cable viewership in America. Twentythree percent I think is the number.

HBO—African-Americans make up 33 percent of the revenue of

HBO, $100 million a month African-Americans are paying HBO.

And so I think the discussion of a la carte and the whole issue of,

if there were, you know, African-American or family friendly or

other type of networks that were available to the African-American

community, since that is the focus of your question, I am absolutely

convinced that there would—they would be channels of choice.

They would be channels of choice for that community. And not only

African-Americans, I mean, my network is predominantly—it features predominantly African-Americans.

Cox Cable in Baton Rouge gave us analog channel 20 carriage

just recently, which is unusual in the cable industry. I think everybody at the table would agree with that, in this day and age, for

a new network to come to fruition.

In Baton Rouge, our viewership among whites are even larger

than the viewership among blacks. And yet we feature the largest

majority of African-Americans on our network. We have become

one of the most popular channels in the whole Baton Rouge DMA—

the Cox system. And so I am saying that, if provided a choice, I

believe that America would choose some of these other networks.

The challenge for us as programmers is to be compelling, to be

relevant in our programming, and so I applaud the committee for

continuing this discussion. I at least encourage you to continue the

discussion, and don’t just throw this away, you know, out of pocket.

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, if I have got a little time left, I just

want to switch to Mr. Hooks.

Mr. Hooks, can you explain to me your relationship with the National Cable Television Cooperative? And just as importantly, can

you explain how this cooperative negotiates pricing on your behalf?

Mr. HOOKS. That is correct. I am on the board of the National

Cable Television Cooperative as well. Yes, smaller operators—probably 99 percent of all smaller operators with small systems—obtain

their programming through the co-op. It is a way to consolidate

larger numbers, put them together and get better pricing.

But I want to be clear that, as a co-op and being on the board,

we are not satisfied on the total universe that we have equal and

fair treatment. And I think we have reasonable evidence of that.

I just can’t divulge that to you, so—but just in response to Mr.

Pyne that that is correct, when he mentioned the end arrangement

that we just went through, and we are very thankful for that. But

I would ask, is he going to step up on the rest of his programming

and divulge how that fits with the rest of the larger operators

versus us as well.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Walden?

184

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you for

scheduling this hearing as well. I find the issues quite fascinating,

and I hope we continue to pursue them.

Mr. Hooks, Mr. Pyne I believe referenced the co-op negotiation

that you all belong to and engage in. How many members again

are in—how many viewers are in that co-op?

Mr. HOOKS. Yes. Let me explain something to you all, so you understand the infrastructure of the co-op. The co-op allows you to

pick and choose what you want to buy, so what happens here, we

are not as powerful as one company. And the reason we are not is

every company has a little bit of different lineup. So we actually

represent 14 million customers.

Mr. WALDEN. Fourteen million.

Mr. HOOKS. Yes. But about 6 million of those customers represent buying one or two products from the co-op. So a lot of times

the reason we say 8 million, when you take the top 50 channels,

typically we are representing about 8 million customers that are

probably buying 75—60, 75 percent of all of the top 50 programs.

Mr. WALDEN. All right. And, Mr. Liggins, didn’t you say that a

network that has 13 million subscribers couldn’t exist today? Basically, financially, it would be very hard?

Mr. LIGGINS. A network—unless it has got an enormous license

fee. A network that had 13 million subscribers that, you know, had

$2.50—provided their programming costs were reasonable—could

survive. A network like ours could not, and most startup networks

targeted toward——

Mr. WALDEN. Maybe I am mixing apples and oranges, but it

seems to me that on one hand we argue that the co-op has great

bargaining power with 6 to 8 million viewers, and that you are arguing 13 million viewers isn’t enough to sustain a network. So how

much bargaining power do you think that co-op really has, then?

Mr. HOOKS. We question it.

Mr. WALDEN. Not enough, from your perspective.

Mr. HOOKS. No. No, sir.

Mr. WALDEN. I am sure Mr. Pyne probably believes he has had

his arm twisted off.

Mr. FITZPATRICK. Could I just maybe help on this?

Mr. WALDEN. Yes.

Mr. FITZPATRICK. I think there is a difference between the number of subscribers that the membership systems have within the

NCTC versus the number of viewers that are measured for purposes of ratings in advertising dollars. And so someone might have

13 million members, but you might have a rating point of .1.

Mr. WALDEN. Right.

Mr. FITZPATRICK. Do the math. You don’t get many ad dollars.

Mr. WALDEN. Right.

Mr. FITZPATRICK. If that is helpful——

Mr. WALDEN. No. I understand they are a little different equation, but, still, if I am the network negotiating this, I am also looking for eyeballs out there, because that is what my advertisers are

looking for. Correct, Mr. Pyne? I mean——

Mr. PYNE. That certainly is correct.

185

Mr. WALDEN. So, I mean, you must—when you negotiate these

agreements with others, what—give me a range of the size of companies you reach agreements with in terms of subscribers.

Mr. PYNE. Well, I mean, we pride ourselves in talking with—or

negotiating with companies ranging—in fact, in the last retransmission consent round we had a company that was 20 subscribers

all the way up to——

Mr. WALDEN. They had a lot of leverage.

Mr. PYNE. [continuing] all the way up to 22 million, which is the

current size of Comcast.

Mr. WALDEN. All right.

Mr. PYNE. So we do—we——

Mr. WALDEN. From 20 to 22 million.

Mr. PYNE. Twenty to 22 million.

Mr. FITZPATRICK. But that doesn’t necessarily mean you get all

of 22 million.

Mr. WALDEN. I understand.

Mr. PYNE. In the total universe, just to—for reference of this,

cable and satellite is 91 million homes in the United States.

Mr. WALDEN. All right. Thank you. That helps.

I guess what I hear about back home is I may like ESPN, but

I have to buy all of these other things in the tier. And, you know,

it looks like ESPN rates are going up, what, 20 percent a year or

something. Is viewership keeping up with that?

Mr. PYNE. Well, in terms of the recent—I mean, over the past

years, it has been very public. The rate increases with ESPN have

been higher. But interestingly, in the last 6 months, the company

has worked with various cable operators, and they include Cox

Communications, Charter Communications, Cablevision, and the

NCTC, in reaching deals which actually will bring the price increases from the 20 percent that you referred to down to the single

digits. And that is our effort to ameliorate the rate increases on the

long term and work with our cable——

Mr. WALDEN. How——

Mr. PYNE. The ratings of ESPN have never been stronger. In

fact——

Mr. WALDEN. Okay.

Mr. PYNE. [continuing] even though we have just entered into

these long-term deals with lower license fees, the—I mean, lower

increases, the ratings have never been stronger.

Mr. WALDEN. The ratings have never been stronger. Have your

ad rates continued to go up or down, or where are they in this mix?

Because that has got to be the other part of your financial equation.

Mr. PYNE. Well, that is absolutely correct. I mean, similar to

ESPN is—relies, as do many cable programming networks, on a

dual revenue stream.

Mr. WALDEN. Right.

Mr. PYNE. But, clearly, we are—I mean, our—obviously, if ratings go up, the ad—advertisers are willing to pay more. But, clearly, that is a market condition, because in a poor ad market or when

the economy is not in great shape, that will—you know, that will

have an impact.

186

Mr. WALDEN. Does ESPN, just itself, not with the other—what

else gets packaged with ESPN? Let me ask that first. What do you

require one of these folks to take if they get ESPN?

Mr. PYNE. ESPN—if a cable customer—if a cable provider only

wants ESPN, they just have to take ESPN. There is that option.

Now, there are pricing incentives to——

Mr. WALDEN. To take other programs.

Mr. PYNE. [continuing] a broader package. But—and, in fact, in

the other—the entertainment side of the Walt Disney Company

today, a cable provider can, in fact, take any one of the networks

that it chooses and——

Mr. WALDEN. So an a la carte—you basically have a la carte,

then?

Mr. PYNE. No, no, no. In doing a deal——

Mr. WALDEN. At the wholesale level?

Mr. PYNE. At the wholesale level, a company can decide to carry

ABC Family——

Mr. WALDEN. Right.

Mr. PYNE. [continuing] and not SoapNet or—and, in fact, if you

look at the Nielsen numbers, ABC Family is in 88 million homes

across the United States. Disney Channel is only in 84 million

homes.

Mr. WALDEN. All right. Mr. Hooks, do you want to comment on,

from your perspective, how this works?

Mr. HOOKS. One, I am glad to hear ESPN is doing so well now

that they lowered their forecasted increases for the next 5 years.

So that is interesting. There seems to be some flexibility and improved viewership by doing it.

You know, I mean, we certainly put pressure on ESPN starting

about a year ago on their phenomenal increases, and I appreciate

the political environment I think for bringing attention to it. And

I appreciate ESPN for addressing it and reanalyzing their business

plan and adjusting it accordingly.

But I still stand strong. I mean, the big five have a lot of programs they own. And you have heard some of the niche programming, the way they are getting on is getting through big companies. And I still want to point out that we are trying to provide the

most product we can to our consumer, and that typically runs you

down the road of falling into the package process. So we don’t have

much—go ahead. I am sorry.

Mr. WALDEN. I am going to have to cut you off.

Reverend Plummer, I just have one quick question for you. You

said Comcast had tried to get an equity interest in your company,

and you declined. Have any of the other operators tried to do the

same thing?

Rev. PLUMMER. No, I haven’t had that discussion. Interesting,

what I discovered during those whole discussion periods, which

even included this year, I was told—first of all, kind of the platform

is that each one of these major cable operators do not compete

against each other in the various markets. And so they are really

not direct competitors.

And what I was told is that, you know, once there is a relationship with one of the major cable operators that the other cable operators would pretty much fall in line and begin to give carriage.

187

Now, Mr. Liggins could probably speak more to whether or not

that is factual or not, but, you know, what I was told was that once

there is an equity relationship with one of the major MSOs, that

at that point you are on a different scale and a different level, and

your discussions and negotiations with the others are a whole lot

easier, and you are a whole lot different.

Mr. WALDEN. I would love to ask Mr. Liggins, but I am out of

time.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Gonzalez?

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

When we started off the discussion, there were some observations, and we always use comparison and analogies. And as we go

through this, because I think it is really going to be a matter of

philosophies and the proper role of Congress, we talk about regulation, the cable industry, free enterprise, level playing fields, market

forces, the reality is we have a whole lot to say where that all goes,

and whether there really is a level playing field, whether there is

really going to be competition.

We have had people allude to Penn State Football basically subsidizing swimming and everything else. Those big football programs and everything weren’t subsidizing boxing, swimming, and

everything else. It was women’s sports as a result of Title IX, as

a result of regulation, as a result of legislation, that recognize the

unequal treatment of women in that particular environment.

And then it was because of that regulation, its application, interpretation by the courts, and mandates that resulted in all of that—

now, I am not saying that is where we are all heading in this

thing. But eventually we will if we don’t resolve some of the problems.

We all agree that there is something wrong with the system. The

patient is ill. Someone started with let us go ahead with the old

axiom in the medical profession, ‘‘First, do no harm.’’ The problem

with that is, if we are the physicians, we can also do some other

things that the medical profession often does. We have found the

cure. Unfortunately, it will kill you, and that is what we really

need to avoid.

And I sense that—we all say we are going to keep an open mind.

My concern is, all right, let us fix the system. Let us make it a

more fair system. Let us give consumers choices and such. But at

what cost? And my question to all of you all—and it is a simple

one—I have three—I will have about 3 minutes that you all can

use.

Whatever system we replace what we presently have—and I understand that where you have minority programming, startup programming, new programming, even the system we have that opens

the door to that opportunity is not a good one, because the big players all end up owning a big share of it. I am not so sure that is

fair. And then, maybe that is the cost of entry, and maybe we can

improve on that.

But whatever the substitute is, how does it promote and how

does it accommodate new programming? Am I coming strictly from

a minority standpoint? You know, Congressman Rush pointed out

some real concerns that we share because of the communities that

188

we represent, because if you put our two communities together

here in the United States, it is substantial.

So all I—my simple question to you is: your proposals, does it

really promote, accommodate, and make things a lot easier when

we are talking about this type of programming that I referred to?

And we can start with Mr. Kimmelman.

Mr. KIMMELMAN. I don’t think there is any guarantees, Mr. Gonzalez, but I think that when the Reverend Plummer says that there

is programming out there, there is audience there, it is not a number—how many people there are just in a population, 13 million African-Americans, it is how many will actually take it. And if 13

million people—if half of 13 million people actually took something,

it would be one of the most viewed networks in America.

The door is closed today in the curtain system. You have got to

blow it open. A la carte is one way. Changing the mind-set of the

advertising community, changing the mind-set of consumers that

you could actually pick what you wanted, may create that opening

an opportunity for new programmers, diverse sources from diverse

communities.

Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Liggins?

Mr. LIGGINS. I think that in order to facilitate more new niche

programming that it—and for it to be successful, that niche programming has to be offered to the widest possible audience. If I

had all 13.5 million African-American households, they are not just

going to watch TV One. They are still going to watch ESPN. They

are still going to watch Lifetime.

And if I am going to be successful, I also need the non-AfricanAmerican viewers or households that might tune in to my channel.

Probably about 20 to 40 percent of our audience is going to be nonAfrican-American, and that contributes also to the success of the

network. And so, therefore, what you can do, what the system can

do, is continue to put, you know, pressure on us programmers to

provide the programming, distributors to carry it, and make it

widely available to people.

Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Hooks?

Mr. HOOKS. Yes. Generally, in the rural markets, the biggest

problem we still have—and I want to keep emphasizing it—is retransmission and tying programming through the big five. And,

consequently, I do not have much shelf space, and I can’t always

make the best decision because I, nor my customer, have control,

really, for what is being delivered to their home.

And, frankly, if I had more control, I wouldn’t bundle all of the

services I have. I would make available more room that then could

open up slots for me to add specialty programming. And in my particular case, I really need to add Spanish programming. I have got

a shortage of it. I am booked up with the big five, and it is hard

to take things away from the consumer, as you can imagine, that

they have already got. And so I just have very little flexibility, and

I think it all comes back to retransmission and the tying of programming that they put on us.

Mr. GONZALEZ. And we will continue until the chairman tells me

we have run out of time, which I know that we have.

Thank you. I appreciate it. I would like to follow up at a later

date one on one on your responses.

189

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Rev. PLUMMER. Mr. Chairman, I know the time is out, but if I

may just briefly respond to the point. The cable industry’s own

CABLE World magazine, in the current issue right now, really affirms the benefits of—it is a whole article about Hispanics and

Latino networks that they have bundled, and so this is something

that they have voluntarily done. It has not been by regulation.

My request would be, to Mr. Baxter and others, give us a chance.

Just give us a chance, just like you are doing with the Hispanic

networks. And so regulation wouldn’t have to be necessary. Just

give us the opportunity is all we are asking.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Bass?

Mr. BASS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to spend 2 minutes questioning, and I am going to yield 3 minutes to Mr. Deal.

So I don’t want people to go on long.

Mr. Kimmelman—I am going to cut you off. Mr. Kimmelman, can

you respond to Mr. FitzPatrick’s contention from his testimony that

advertising supporting networks such as Hallmark Channel depend

on broad and highly penetrated distribution. A la carte distribution

would have stifled Hallmark Channel’s growth and reversed its

successes, and government mandated a la carte distribution, or

mini tiers, will increase cost to consumers and decrease diversity.

Mr. KIMMELMAN. I respectfully disagree, because we are talking

about a la carte in conjunction with other tiers that are available.

So his Hallmark Channel could still be carried on tiers, and some

people might want to buy it individually. And distribution is step

one. You have to have eyeballs, he said it himself before. And when

people watch, whether it is on a la carte or on a tier, advertisers

will support it.

Mr. BASS. Mr. Pyne, in your testimony, you note that the retransmission consent economic analysis concluded that your a la

carte pricing for retransmission consent carriage of the ABC signal

was found to be, in your own words, ‘‘reasonable’’ and within the

bounds of the fair market value. If that is indeed the case and your

ABC product is fairly priced and widely desired by consumers, why

are you so concerned about offering consumers greater freedom in

selecting their programs amongst your other products? Forty seconds.

Mr. PYNE. Well, I think as I have stated—if I just may clarify

that ABC always makes a stand-alone cash offer. So there is no obligation to have any other programming that we make available. In

terms of the other question, as I think I pointed out, I mean, we

make available each of the programs to the cable providers on an

individual basis to decide. In other words, if someone—and we have

one provider out there who only carries ABC Family and SoapNet,

and there is nothing that—I mean, that—we allow that to happen.

Clearly, we believe our programming has tremendous value. Certainly, Disney Channel is one of the highest-rated networks out

there, and we work very hard to make——

Mr. BASS. So you are saying that stations—that the customers

can select from any of your other products?

Mr. PYNE. The cable providers, in terms of the commercial negotiation, can make that determination.

Mr. BASS. I see.

190

Mr. PYNE. Our goal is certainly to get the broadest distribution

possible.

Mr. BASS. Mr. Deal?

Mr. DEAL. Thank you for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I would, first of all, like to ask unanimous consent to insert in the record a variety of letters and reports, some

of which have been referred to by Mr. Markey, some by other members of the committee, and I have them here in a package. I won’t

try to enumerate them right now.

Mr. UPTON. Without objection.

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

202

203

204

205

206

207

208

209

210

211

212

213

214

215

216

217

218

219

220

221

222

223

224

225

226

227

Mr. DEAL. Thank you.

Let me tell you something that is coming out in this hearing that

causes me grave concern. If we are interested in niche markets, if

we are—if we are interested in the issue of availability of new people to get into the system, it appears to me that the comment of

incestuous relationships, it should be of major concern.

We have heard the fact that if you are going to get in now, you

are going to have to let one of the big boys buy into you. Witness,

39 percent ownership by Comcast in your program, Mr. Liggins.

Let me tell you something that concerns me from an overall statistical standpoint, and this is one of the reports that is in the

things I have admitted. The Center for Creative Voices points this

out. The five giant media conglomerates, two of whom are here

today, control approximately a 75 percent share of broadcast and

cable primetime viewing.

Of the 91 major cable television networks, each providing more

than 16 million homes, they—on more than 80 percent—are owned

or co-owned by just six media glomerates, the same five giant

media conglomerates plus Liberty Media, which owns an interest

in Mr. FitzPatrick’s station.

They then say these five giant media conglomerates also are controlling the new programming that is coming into the system. Of

the 40 new series aired in 2002, 77.5 percent were either owned in

whole or in part by the same four networks, up from 56.3 percent

the prior season, a 37 percent increase in 1 year, and up from just

12.5 percent in 1990, from 12.5 percent in 1990 to 77.5 percent in

2002. We see these big fellows getting more and more control over

everything.

Now, the question was asked: do we have to create new laws to

solve this problem? I submit we don’t. All somebody has to do, either by way of legislation or by court interpretation, is to simply

say that television programming is a commodity or a service under

the auspices of our current antitrust laws, just like other commodities and services are.

And we would not even be engaged in a debate about trying to

prop up things that people don’t want, and the reason we are trying to prop them up and make people pay for things they don’t

want, we won’t even tell them how much they are paying for the

things they don’t want. Now, is the logic and common sense of

that?

Mr. Baxter, I appreciate the fact that the cable industry has said,

‘‘We will provide you with a box, and we will block the programming you don’t want.’’ You know what the irony of that is? And you

do it at no cost. The irony of that is your argument for why we

couldn’t let people select in the first place is because the cost of the

box to let them select was prohibitively high.

I have a hard time in common sense saying that it costs too

much to let you select on the front end, but we will let you select

out on the other end with a box that doesn’t cost you anything.

Now, let us go back to one of my other major concerns. And I

apologize, it is hard for a southerner to talk this fast, and I don’t

mean to sound——

I don’t mean to sound like I am being inconsiderate or rude to

any of you, but time constraints are important.

228

Let me tell you about one of my other concerns. Mr. Pyne, you

suggest to us that, if we really want to deal with this thing, we just

need a new definition of indecency. I would ask you, if we had a

new definition of indecency, would you include the Gay and Lesbian Channel, Undressed, Striperella, FX, Spike TV, in what would

be an expanded basic program channel? Would they meet whatever

definition you want to write for an expanded basic channel?

Mr. PYNE. I mean, I am personally not suggesting writing the indecency standards. I mean, currently today the—our Kids Business—and, clearly, Disney and ABC Family has a major interest in

quality programming for children—but, in fact, the Kids Business

that we have on the cable networks have the exact same standards

as the broadcast networks. I mean, that is just a matter of the current FCC——

Mr. DEAL. Wouldn’t you——

Mr. PYNE. In addition, if I just may add one thing, I mean, my

understanding is for—I mean, Sex and the City was—it was a popular show on HBO. When it is appearing on TBS, there will be a

different version of it.

Mr. DEAL. Yes. So you would have a hard time justifying, under

any acceptable new standard of the definition of indecency, that

those would meet that kind of criteria, and yet they are already in

that expanded basic programming. Now, what I find inconsistent is

this free market system, this business of choice of people in our society, the best determiners of what is indecent are the people who

are having to pay for something.

You know, what you think is indecent and what we may define

as indecent may not meet their definition of indecent. We have the

opportunity, with just a little bit of tweaking and cooperation from

the participants here, to be able to say to the consumer, just like

the Supreme Court Justice said when he asked, ‘‘What is pornography?’’ I know it when I see it. Let them decide what they want

to see. Let them be the ultimate people who make those choices.

Now, I appreciate the arguments of economy of scale. I think

there are legitimate arguments about that. I would simply suggest

to the industry, if you don’t want something to happen in the nature of across-the-board antitrust constraints, the industry is going

to have to do some things. Nobody is objecting. Nobody is saying

it is a mandatory a la carte. We are simply saying, ‘‘Give better

choices out there. If you are going to tier things, make them more

friendly and compatible.’’

You are not going to find anybody coming here and justifying the

existence of any of these racier channels. That is why they are not

on the panel today. They wouldn’t dare darken the door of this

committee and try to justify their existence on an expanded basic

channel, and they are only there because some of you folks put

them there. They hide behind the secrecy of the system, and that

is simply not right.

The history of the American public is they will only tolerate that

so long. I think we are approaching that point. I hope the industry

will respond with some better solutions on its own. We don’t need

to legislate on this issue. We need for you to help us solve the problem.

229

And I would simply say one thing. If you want an expanded basic

channel, why don’t you make it like somebody who orders a combination meal at one of the restaurants around here? He gets to select three out of five choices for his sides. We don’t get any choices

like that.

If you did that, you would then open up more opportunities for

new channels like Reverend Plummer is talking about. You would

then open up more opportunities for Hispanic channels, because

now they are being denied, because, as Mr. Hooks says, just the

space is just simply not there.

Mr. Chairman, you have been most kind——

Mr. UPTON. I have been.

Mr. DEAL. [continuing] and lenient.

And I thank you. And I thank—once again, I thank the members

of the panel, and I thank all of my colleagues for their participation.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Engel?

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A lot of the questions

have been asked, and I am not sure there are more to be asked.

But I want to just throw a few things out, and perhaps some of the

panelists can answer.

When I first heard about a la carte, I thought it was a really

great idea. You know, I also have experience having—being a consumer, where you hear constituents say to you, you know, there

are 80 channels on TV and nothing to watch. People feel that all

of these channels are—they are not interested in it, so wouldn’t it

be great if we could pick and choose and just do that.

But the more I looked into it, I found that it wasn’t as easy as

that, because people in the industry are saying, I think this is what

they are saying, that if we were to go to a la carte people would

have less channels, would wind up with less channels, and the cost

would be greater.

So, of course, if we ask the public, do you want to pick and

choose, everyone will say yes, because it is done on the premise

that, well, if I am paying $50 a month for, I don’t know, 50 channels, if I only get 20 channels, then I will be paying $20 a month.

But, of course, it doesn’t work that way. And so, to me, it is really

a balancing.

Now, I have a letter here from the borough president of my home

county, the Bronx in New York City, where he is—he writes a letter to Chairman Powell against the a la carte system. And what

he is saying, essentially, that by bundling the programs you do

have lots of channels for minorities, for African-Americans, for

Latinos, and that if you had a la carte his big fear is that that

would change and you would see a lot of these stations fall off.

[The letter follows:]

230

231

Mr. ENGEL. I know in the testimony that I have heard today you

have people who advocate it, say that won’t be the—won’t happen,

and others say it might.

Mr. Liggins, I wanted to ask you, because you have a startup

channel and you are in a position, I wanted to ask you about the

cost. How much did it cost for your channel to get going? And what

have you had to do to get people to be aware of and watch your

channel and ask you about profits, if you are making profits, and,

if not, now when would you expect to, because I think you are probably someone that the borough president is worried about.

Mr. LIGGINS. We are in a unique situation in that we also own

a platform of radio stations, about 13 million listeners. And so we

utilize that platform to get people—make people aware of the channel. But even with that formidable marketing machine, we still

have to operate the channel economically in a manner that provides acceptable programming quality-wise.

And for us, that is probably about $30 million a year over a 4

or 41⁄2 year period. You know, call it $130 million. And we won’t

break even until the end of that 4 to 41⁄2 year period. That is when

we stop losing money. So hopefully the next 4 to 41⁄2 years is the

time period in which we begin making money.

If we had—if we didn’t have those radio stations, and we had to

market that on our own, you could easily add, I believe, another

$10 million a year. So another $40 million a year. So $170 or $180

million for a startup network, which is very, very, very difficult for

anybody to pull off, particularly somebody who is a real startup

small entrepreneur. And I think in an a la carte world with less

subs to go after, it makes it even more difficult, not easier.

Mr. ENGEL. So banding together, you know, to have a marketable

package, is something that would help—or that helps, if stations

would be alone in a la carte, that would make it more difficult to

have startup channels, if these channels wouldn’t be distributed.

Mr. LIGGINS. Absolutely. Because hopefully when I cut my deal

with Cox Communications, I am not only going to get New Orleans,

I am going to get San Diego. San Diego has got an 8-percent African-American population. New Orleans has a 40 percent AfricanVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:48 Oct 21, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00235 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 95453.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1
232

American population. I will get paid for subs or households in both

of those areas, which helps me offset the $130 million.

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you.

Mr. FITZPATRICK. Congressman, could I just give——

Mr. ENGEL. Yes, absolutely.

Mr. FITZPATRICK. [continuing] the committee two quick personal

experiences on the a la carte example, one with respect to the Golf

Channel and the other with respect to Hallmark. When the Golf

Channel was launched, it was launched a la carte. And after 1

year, the channel was in 600,000 homes, going nowhere fast, $135

million investment. We weren’t going to make it.

We needed to be bundled in a highly penetrated package or packages. Today the Golf Channel is in 60 million homes, successful.

The Hallmark Channel resided on a family tier on the DirecTV

platform, 31⁄2, 4 years ago, 500,000 to 750,000 subscribers, out of

then an 8.5 million subscriber base. Dead in the water. The tier

comprised eight or nine services, some of which I believe were—

comprised Disney services. We were going nowhere. That tier was

going nowhere. No one was buying it.

We had a choice: stay dead in the water or enter into a negotiation to get us into a highly penetrated package. We did that, and

today we are in 11.5 million DirecTV homes versus 700,000 homes

31⁄2 years ago. The importance of being bundled or being packaged,

of being in an environment where people can surf and find you, is

absolutely critical.

And the second point is this is not just about getting distribution

scale. It is also about seeing your advertising ratings go up. Our

ratings are now outpacing our distribution by three to one. Our distribution growth this year will grow 20 percent. Our advertising

revenues will grow 75 to 80 percent. That is because we have got

scale, and that is because we are able to make investments in programming.

And to the point that Mr. Liggins made earlier, and a darn good

one, which is ultimately we are all competing with a limited

amount of dollars to get programming or to make programming,

but all things in time, he can’t go out and acquire the kinds of programming that we can or make programming that we can today at

62 million homes. But we couldn’t do that 4 years ago or 3 years

ago. We were where he was. We needed scale to be able to get that

kind of investment opportunity to go out and get good programming that our subscribers want and that the results are showing.

And the last point, if I could—forgive me. The point about inflation, the prices of cable, I would ask the committee to think about

the following. Now back to the newspaper analogy. When you buy

the Sunday paper, whether it is The Washington Post, The Detroit

News, The Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, Atlanta Constitution, that is more expensive than a daily paper. That might be

25 cents, 30 cents, 50 cents, 75 cents as we just heard about USA

Today.

The Sunday papers are much more expensive. Why? Because

they are bigger. Sometimes we can pull a muscle in our back picking up that newspaper on Sunday. The newspaper publisher is asking us to pay because they are giving us a lot more product. The

cable industry has given the American people hundreds of more

233

channels, high-speed access, video on demand, telephony, and

many, many other services that did not exist 5 years ago. And I

would ask the committee to think about that analogy.

Thank you.

Mr. ENGEL. Well, I wanted to just end—my time is up, but I

want to just say, Mr. FitzPatrick, I think that you are pointing out

that there are two sides to every coin. And I just think that it is

not as cut and dry, as far as I am concerned, that a la carte would

lower prices, and also, in terms of making it harder to—for new

companies or new channels to flourish.

Again, nothing is black and white. I think each panelist has

made excellent points. But I think this is something to—that we

have to grapple with. And I thank you. I think it has been helpful.

Mr. UPTON. Mrs. Cubin?

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, think that this is

something that we have to grapple with. I came into this hearing

opposed to a la carte. And I won’t say that I have changed my

mind, but I certainly have left a door open.

Mr. Deal’s questions and explanations have, you know, really

caused me to be more or less on alert. I don’t for 1 minute think

that if we go a la carte that the rates will be cheaper. You know,

I think the high-cost channels will be—you know, the way bookkeeping goes, you can expense ESPN or Disney on—you know, on

anything you want to.

And so—and I think that is what would happen, because it

seems to me that the five—the big five—it is kind of like Burger

King advertisement, Have it Your Way. Only the big five is ordering, you know, Have it Your Way for Me, what I have to have. And

I think we need to do something about this.

I am going to just ask one question, and I would like any of you

who would like to respond to do so, and then I will yield to Mr.

Deal. Why is there a difference between the programming cost in

large and small markets? Doesn’t it cost the same to produce regardless of who views it?

Because I am going to tell you something, this is where I am

going to plant my feet and take a stand, because rural residents

are always getting the short end of the stick, and they have,

until—you know, until more people were elected to this Congress

from rural areas than urban areas, and we are not going to stand

for it. So anyone who wants to, please answer that question.

Mr. HOOKS. May I make one response? We are a growing company right now, and I am buying small systems from large companies, in the top five or six cable companies. And so the—I mean,

it doesn’t cost them any more to deliver to me, so, I mean, I am

just supporting the fact that I know my prices go up, I know I have

less flexibility as far as tying and bundling that the major companies have, because I also have got to change my lineup, stuff like

that.

So I am just supporting it is a true fact—and I can witness

that—that as I buy, you know, systems from larger companies I am

basically facing changes that they are not faced with.

Mr. LIGGINS. I just wanted to—I am not a cable operator, but I

think there is a difference between small company and small community, because I know a lot of the large companies, like Cox and

234

Adelphia, and even some charter systems, they are, you know,

three very big MSOs, serve a lot of rural communities. And they

actually get very good rates, and I am sure they pass those on to

the consumers. So Mr. Hooks has a smaller company, and that is

why he probably works with the cooperative versus necessarily

small communities.

And, plus, one of the best deals out there for multichannel distribution is in satellite. EchoStar, which competes with the cable

operators vigorously, I think offers 60 channels for $29.95, which—

again, I am not an operator—but I think it is one of the best deals

that I have seen out there. And a lot of their customers are C&D

counties and small rural communities.

Mr. HOOKS. May I just finish up by saying—maybe this will add

some clarification, and I want to compliment Hallmark Channel for

their success, because they got distribution without tying, bundling, and retransmission. My point is, that is the problem. That

is where it is—is when you own a network and you start playing

games on retransmission consent, and you start doing tying and

bundling, that is where we get in trouble.

And it shows proof when you look at Hallmark Channel. It is a

very friendly company to the cable industry. They did it without

doing all of that. So I still think the system works. There is just

this one little glitch we have got.

Mr. BAXTER. I would just echo that, you know, Time Warner has,

you know, tons of rural customers. And I think it would be a mistake just to kind of look at a big company. I mean, we operate in

27 states, and we have cable systems that have 1,000 or 2,000 customers in them, and we have, you know, the Manhattan cable,

which has over a million.

So we are very diversified and diverse in the kind of communities

we serve, so it is not all—even though we are the second largest

cable operator, that doesn’t mean we don’t operate in all parts of

the country, in all different parts of the country.

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you. This is something we need to look further into, but I would like to yield my remaining time to Mr. Deal

and ask unanimous consent to give him an extra 2 minutes.

Mr. UPTON. Without objection.

Mr. DEAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank the gentlelady for

yielding.

First of all, I would like to also ask unanimous consent to include

in the material that I previously offered a filing made by the

Broadband Service Providers with the FCC, and I thank Mr. Goodman for their willingness to step out and make a proposal.

We have heard comments about, let us give some other things a

try. Their proposal is to let us give voluntary a la carte a try. We

need a venue in which to experiment with this other approach, and

I commend them for their courage and willingness to make this filing. I hope that the big five will cooperate in allowing us to test

the market in a voluntary a la carte fashion, and I would like to

include that in the material.

And one—promise, final concluding comment—Mr. FitzPatrick, I

understand your newspaper analogy. But, you know, we have a

saying in Georgia about the Atlanta Journal Constitution and I

would suggest to you that if the Atlanta Journal Constitution did

235

the written media version of Striperella, FX, and all of these others

that we have alluded to, we wouldn’t even wrap our fish in it anymore.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back to the gentlelady.

Mr. FITZPATRICK. Point well taken.

Mr. UPTON. Thank you both. And I think we are just about ready

for a series of votes.

Mr. Kimmelman, I have—maybe I will follow up on one question

Mrs. Cubin asked, and, Mr. Baxter, I will direct it to you. And that

is, she raised the question of setting perhaps higher rates in rural

areas than in urban areas. Do you see that? Is that something

that——

Mr. BAXTER. Well, I think the question is—I think there is a

bandwidth of rates. Again, I am not on the programming side of

it.

Mr. UPTON. Is that true? I mean, you said——

Mr. BAXTER. But I think—I mean, I think there are volume discounts. I don’t think volume discounts are alien. That happens in

this country, and there are volume discounts in other industries.

And I think that is probably what is going on here.

Mr. UPTON. Are they significant rates? I mean, I—do you think

30 percent different——

Mr. BAXTER. No. I think the——

Mr. HOOKS. I got those numbers from our group at NCTC, so——

Mr. BAXTER. I would be—I am sure there are better people to

comment on the size of the different——

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Pyne, would you be able to comment on that?

Mr. PYNE. Well, I think, as I pointed out earlier, with the recent

ESPN deal that was—that I mentioned, I mean, clearly we were

taking into account that the National Cable Television Cooperative,

which is the—in the sort of top five of cable companies, if you take

it as a whole, it was given actually a contractual obligation by us,

by our company, that its pricing would be similar to other MSOs

of its size. So in that—we were trying to—we were trying to deal

with that issue in that negotiation.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Hooks, did you want to respond to that, too?

Mr. HOOKS. Yes. I would just say we need disclosure on the

terms of the contracts, and that would answer all of the questions.

Mr. UPTON. We are having a series of votes. We will be adjourning here momentarily.

Mr. Kimmelman, I want to go back to the a la carte, in terms

of how it would work. I think we are all—Mr. Deal I know indicated about the FCC’s response. We are all waiting for that response, and I look forward to getting it.

You say that rate regulation would not be necessary. You submit

that the programmers would police themselves, not charge unreasonable rates. How is that different than the current system,

whereas Mr. Pyne indicated Disney offers ABC for a stand-alone

price, but few, if any, cable operators actually choose to take up

that single offer? Wouldn’t you need rate regulation to make a la

carte something different than we already have today in the marketplace? Yes or no.

Mr. KIMMELMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest absolutely not,

even though I have recommended regulation at previous times beVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:48 Oct 21, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00239 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 95453.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1
236

fore this committee. I don’t think—absolutely not, because just

think about what you have heard this morning and this afternoon.

These programmers desperately, desperately want to be in a package, whether they are startup or existing. They desperately want

to be there. These cable operators desperately, desperately want to

have them in a package.

When one of them comes in with a high price, and the negotiation goes off kilter, right now it is either the consumer pays a big

price increase or the screen goes black. And that is not a very good

situation. If you had the package, and you had an opportunity for

a la carte, the programmers and the operators have to alter their

negotiations somewhat.

And I would suggest to you that that is a marketplace where

there is a tempering of price increases and a desire, because for

whatever reasons—I can’t explain them all, but for whatever reasons we have all heard they desperately want to be in that package, and they desperately want the consumer to buy the package.

They don’t want them to go a la carte.

If you just give the consumer the option, it may be 1 percent, it

may be five, it may be nobody. The fact that they can choose it is

going to help us in this marketplace.

Mr. UPTON. That is what Mr. FitzPatrick was saying with the

Golf Channel. By being part of the package, they have seen their

revenues increase, their eyeballs increase, whereas with a la carte

they were sinking big time.

Mr. KIMMELMAN. And they may have screwed up by the way they

did that, and I am not suggesting that he—the Golf Channel——

Mr. UPTON. It sounds like they did okay.

Mr. KIMMELMAN. You know, the Golf Channel should be in any

package they can negotiate it in. But if people want to buy it separately, that would be interesting, too. And it would change the negotiating process.

Mr. UPTON. That was the point was that they were losing as—

they probably wouldn’t have survived if they had stayed an a la

carte. Is that right, Mr. FitzPatrick?

Mr. KIMMELMAN. When the Disney Channel——

Mr. FITZPATRICK. That is correct, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KIMMELMAN. [continuing] charged $10 a sub for an individual channel, it didn’t do that well either. In a package, it does

better. Maybe $10 was a little high.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Liggins?

Mr. LIGGINS. Yes. I just want to make one final comment. I

heard a term used earlier when we were talking about TV programming. That term was commodity. Television programming is

not oil, it is not wheat. Jerry Seinfeld, Brett Favre, Alex Rodriguez,

and Will Smith, these guys don’t consider themselves commodities.

And, you know, when we start talking about cable rates and

their link to programming, you have to remember that the talent

of an athlete or an actor or a singer is actually ultimately what

drives the cost of programming, because you have to get them to

perform and then show it. And to then try to take that and

commoditize it in the cable or satellite rate is very difficult.

Mr. BAXTER. If I could just add on to that, if it is okay, Mr.

Chairman, to block something out, we can provide somebody with

237

a box. If you go a la carte or go to these theme channels, we have

to give everybody a box. You know, and we are talking—you know,

we have 11 million customers. About half of our customers don’t

have a box today. That is 5 million customers who have to get a

box. They have two sets per household. We are into tens of millions—10 million boxes, huge amounts of money here.

So as you look at a la carte, there are costs that are significant

that you just can’t overlook or look the other way, that come with

this notion of a la carte or themed channels.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Pyne, you wanted to say something?

Mr. PYNE. Yes, if I just may add one remark with regard to Disney Channel moving from an a la carte to a basic. And I will continue if you want me to. Certainly, when Disney Channel—when

it started, it was in the $10 to $16 price range as an a la carte,

similar to other pay networks then and today.

And essentially it never got more than 5 million a la carte subscribers. We, in fact, tested the number of approaches—a la carte,

we tested tiering, we had tested packaging, but what we found

was—and something that I think, as Mr. Baxter pointed out, within the a la carte there is something called churn, and churn is

where customers come on and off in a given cycle. And we found—

and for pay and tier services, that is generally 5 to 6.5 percent a

year—a month, which means that it is somewhere 60 to 78 percent

per year.

What we found ourselves as a pay a la carte service is focusing

all of our revenues in transactional marketing to keep subscribers

versus into programming. Since the conversion from a pay to basic,

we have dramatically increased the—two things. One is the programming—original programming has increased over 109 percent

over the last 5 years, and that is because of the broader universe.

In addition, we have increased the level—we have actually more

than doubled the level of minority viewership by—as opposed to

only targeting a certain segment because that is—those are the—

those may be able to purchase, we are actually representing the

broad diversity of our audience and of the American public.

Mr. UPTON. I appreciate all of your comments. And I must confess that we don’t have a lot of time left on this series of votes, so

we look forward to the FCC response, and additional questions may

be coming your way. Appreciate your time this morning and this

afternoon.

Thank you.

[Whereupon, at 1:44 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE GROCERY MANUFACTURERS OF AMERICA

The Grocery Manufacturers of America (GMA) appreciates the opportunity to provide the food, beverage and consumer product manufacturers’ perspective on the use

of Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) technology. GMA and its member companies believe this technology offers benefits for consumers and acknowledge and

share concerns regarding consumers’ privacy as it relates to the use of this emerging

technology. We are committed to working with the technology providers, consumers,

the Administration and the Congress as RFID technology is implemented and more

widely adopted.

GMA is the world’s largest association of food, beverage, and consumer product

companies. With U.S. sales of more than $500 billion, GMA members employ more

than 2.5 million workers in all 50 states. The organization applies legal, scientific,

238

and political expertise from its member companies to vital food, nutrition, and public policy issues affecting the industry. Led by a Board of 42 Chief Executive Officers, GMA speaks for food, beverage and consumer product manufacturers at the

state, federal and international levels on legislative and regulatory issues.

THE TECHNOLOGY

For more than four years, the Auto-ID Center at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) has been developing supply chain applications for RFID technology

that promise to deliver significant benefits to the economy and consumers. RFID has

been around since WWII and is already used in many applications from the Speed

Pass at the gas station to EZ pass at toll booths. RFID is the name given to the

technology that involves tags that emit radio signals and devices called readers that

pick up the signal. The electronic product code or EPC establishes a standardsbased approach to using RFID technology to uniquely identify an entity or object

that has an EPC tag attached to it. The EPC is essentially a radio enabled bar code,

which can be read wirelessly. Other pieces of the EPC network enable the information from the tag to be analyzed and shared between supply chain partners.

The Auto-ID Center’s work on the development of the EPC stands out as one example of how public, private, and academic interests can unite to support research

and development, and help move technology forward to benefit society. The AutoID Center (now known as the Auto-ID Labs) is supported by many of the world’s

leading companies and organizations including many in the food, beverage and consumer products industry. EPCglobal, a joint venture between EAN International

and the Uniform Code Council, was chartered last September to develop open, global standards for use of the EPC Network and currently has a subscriber base of

more than 200 companies representing a cross section of major industries around

the world. EPCglobal is responsible for the orderly adoption and implementation of

the EPC system worldwide.

Similar to the license plate on a car, an Electronic Product Code (EPC) is a way

to uniquely identify a pallet, case or individual product. It is the next generation

of today’s Universal Product Code (UPC), known commonly as the ‘‘bar code.’’ Instead of the familiar printed strip, a tiny silicon chip holds a unique number that

identifies a product. The tag, like today’s barcode, cannot be read and understood

without passing by a reader that is connected to a data infrastructure. The major

improvement of EPC over the barcode is that it does not need ‘‘line of sight’’ to be

read, but instead uses radio waves which makes the reading of transactions much

faster.

Connected to a network, EPC technology will allow companies for the first time

to manage their global supply chain in real time, at any time—offering never before

available benefits. Some of those benefits include:

• Streamlining inventory control on a global scale; • Deterring theft and counterfeiting; • Keeping shelves stocked with products desired by consumers; • Speeding the placement of new products; and • Easing removal of expired products.

Though much of the research is focused on business and supply chain applications

of the technology, the EPC ultimately promises consumer benefits as well. Consumers may see improved checkout procedures and customer service. Other benefits

could include:

• Better availability of products; and • Swifter and more effective food and product safety recalls.

It is also important to note that EPC technology can offer solutions to government, such as:

• Improved customs handling and border controls;

• Enhanced Department of Defense (DoD) logistics management; and

• Better security for moving luggage through airport terminals.

Within the food, beverage, and consumer products industry, RFID is a part of a

broad range of e-commerce activities designed to make the supply chain more effective and efficient. From a manufacturer’s perspective, some of the benefits of EPC/

RFID include the elimination of manual counting and recounting of products in distribution. Warehouses, trucks, backrooms, and shelves will contain readers that will

automatically and continually track products and maintain perpetual and accurate

inventory data. Out-of-stocks—a problem which plagues the consumer packaged

goods industry—could be virtually eliminated through preset triggers which would

automatically call for replenishment. This would also allow for theft to be measured

and controlled in real time, and will increase the ability to identify counterfeit products. Additionally, product recalls will be conducted in a much more efficient and

239

effective manner through continuous monitoring of products throughout the supply

chain.

STATUS OF EPC/RFID IMPLEMENTATION

Currently, manufacturers are conducting pilot studies on the use of EPC/RFID in

select warehouses, backrooms, trucks and manufacturing plants. While it is clear

that broad implementation of EPC/RFID on individual items tracked to the store

level is still years away, many retailers are eager to adopt case and pallet level tagging to enhance supply chain efficiencies. In addition, several manufacturers have

been leading initiatives to use EPC/RFID to reduce theft in the supply chain, especially for high value goods, and look forward to realizing benefits from the day-today use of the technology.

As with any new technology, many hurdles stand between current capabilities and

ultimate implementation. These include:

• Difficulty in reading radio frequencies through metals and liquids. • Upgrading chip quality and consistency to improve read rates. • Avoiding interference with other radio frequency technologies, such as those used

in warehouses, manufacturing plants, stores, etc. • Developing software to help sort vast amounts of data into meaningful information. • Improving the ability to read all cases on a pallet. • Making RFID affordable for many consumer product manufacturers.

These issues must first be addressed in a reliable and cost-efficient manner before

we are likely to see widespread adoption of EPC/RFID.

PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES

While EPC/RFID can produce major benefits, the technology also raises public policy issues that must be addressed in a proactive and responsible way. Chief among

those issues are concerns about consumer privacy, which some legislators and advocacy groups are already trying to address by proposing legislation that specifically

regulates RFID. GMA believes RFID-specific legislation is unnecessary because the

existing legal framework, industry self-regulation, and market forces provide consumers ample protection against potential abuses of the technology. In addition, premature legislation could also inadvertently stifle many of the beneficial uses of this

technology (food security, bioterrorism) as well as technological solutions to public

policy concerns.

Under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, the FTC has authority to

regulate unfair or deceptive practices in and affecting commerce. In recent years,

the Commission has used this authority to develop a substantial body of law regulating the manner in which businesses collect and use consumers’ personal information, particularly online. In addition, the Commission enforces specific privacy laws

such as the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act,

and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. This body of law is readily applicable to consumer

privacy concerns about potentially unfair or deceptive uses of RFID technology.

The protections of Section 5 of the FTC Act and other statutes enforced by the

Commission are not technology-specific. Section 5 was not amended with the advent

of radio or television, nor during the emergence of concerns about online consumer

privacy. While there have been some laws enacted to deal with certain aspects of

emerging technologies, FTC consumer protection enforcement, including enforcement of general consumer privacy protections, stems primarily from existing prohibitions against deception and unfairness. Specifically, the FTC has brought several

consumer privacy cases on the theory that a company’s failure to abide by its stated

privacy policies constitutes a deceptive practice under the Act.

In conjunction with its enforcement activities, the FTC has long encouraged companies to make privacy policies available to consumers. Many of the retailers and

manufacturers, who are at the forefront of implementing EPC/RFID, already publish and abide by privacy policies that provide consumers protection against misuse

of their personal information. Retailers and manufacturers know that consumers, as

well as the FTC, hold them to the promises made in their privacy policies. They recognize that it will be necessary to update these policies to notify consumers when

EPC/RFID technology is in use, how they collect and use information from EPC

tags, and any choices consumers have. Given that consumer trust is paramount in

the branded consumer products business, it is very much in the manufacturers’ interest to ensure that consumers are comfortable with this new technology and fully

understand the privacy policies by which they abide.

State law enforcers and the plaintiffs’ bar have also been active in the consumer

privacy arena. Their cases, while arising from consumer protection principles simiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:48 Oct 21, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00243 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 95453.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1
240

lar to those found in Section 5, have often focused on violations of unstated policies,

for example, the failure to disclose that consumer personal information has been

shared with another company.

These precedents demonstrate that basic consumer protection principles such as

deception and failure to disclose were able to evolve to protect privacy in the online

context. With the framework already in place, these principles are readily applicable

in the context of RFID. There is no reason to believe, even in the absence of a law

that specifically mentions ‘‘radio frequency identification,’’ that the Commission,

state law enforcers, and the plaintiffs’ bar will stand by in the face of abuses of

RFID technology. Like the internet, RFID is simply another method by which consumers and businesses can share information. Any privacy concerns it raises are

virtually identical to those raised by information collection on the internet, and the

same solution should apply; market forces and government encourage businesses to

provide privacy policies, and the promises contained in those policies are enforced.

Self-regulation has an important role in encouraging responsible use of EPC/

RFID. In January 2004, the GMA Board of Directors formally adopted privacy

guidelines established by EPCglobal. They are available at www.epcglobalinc.org.

The guidelines will continue to evolve as technological applications and consumer

opinions develop, but they already address important aspects of a sound privacy policy—consumer notice, choice, and education, as well as records use, retention and

security. Specifically, the guidelines focus on the need for consumer notification and

choice when RFID tags are present in or on products available for purchase. In addition, they affirm companies’ commitment to use, maintain, and protect records generated though EPC/RFID in compliance with all applicable laws, including privacy

laws.

Of course, even in the absence of legal and self-regulatory incentives, retailers and

manufacturers have ample incentives to deal fairly with their customers. Retailers

and manufacturers of brands rely on repeat business. Repeat business depends on

consumer confidence in the seller. Thus, when a shopper goes into a supermarket

for a favorite brand of food, the whole supply chain recognizes that the shopper’s

trust in the businesses that brought that brand to the market is critical to his or

her decision to return again and again. In addition, manufacturers have invested

hundreds of millions of dollars to create consumer confidence, trust and loyalty to

their brands. It is, therefore, in the industry’s interest to act responsibly when implementing this new technology in order to maintain that trust.

Some believe that we need new laws to address RFID. Enacting laws and promulgating regulations now would likely do more harm than good. New laws specifically

regulating RFID could stifle development of the technology before its benefits are

fully recognized. Since the currently-known benefits of the technology arise in interstate commerce, a patchwork of state regulations of RFID would be particularly

problematic. The appropriate approach is to monitor the situation and assess whether there are privacy concerns that legitimately arise as this technology develops and

then ask whether they are concerns that cannot be addressed through industry selfregulation and the application of the unfairness and deception principles of the FTC

Act.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide our perspective on this emerging technology. As the industry adopts EPC/RFID, we are committed to doing so in a way

that protects consumer privacy and offers consumer benefits. We look forward to

working with the Committee on this and other important issues in the future.

241

242

Æ