I just don’t get the whole a la carte programming initiative that some members of Congress and the FCC are trying to push.  They say they want to offer parents more control over what their allowed to watch.  Don’t they already have that in the form of blocking that is available from every cable and satellite provider?  The other issue is allowing consumers more control over their cable bills and again I think that’s a double-edged sword.  Will it be cheaper for consumers to pick and choose rather than pay $40 a month for 150 channels?  Something tells me the per network price will average more if you buy a la carte. 

The other issue is, like it or not, cable and satellite is a venue where niche networks that could not otherwise exist flourish; chief among them religious and minority programming.  I have a limited understanding of how licensing fees work with networks and providers, but I believe cable and satellite providers pay a per-user fee to the network owners in order to carry the network.  That fee is based on the number of subscribers system-wide, not just the people who watch the network.  If networks have to start surviving based on their Nielsen number I think you’ll see the number of available network fall drastically, starting with networks that are lucky to see less than a million real viewers; and that’s  a majority of the networks.  This seems like a bad decision all around and is coming from a misguided effort to provider greater choice and control to consumers.