Disconnect cable

The cable television industry has become the right wing's main lever for the suppression of democratic discourse, both liberal and conservative. As a matter of self-interest, it is time for liberals to disconnect cable.

The easy money in cable flows from densely populated areas, strongholds of civil discourse and progressive self-confidence. But the cable industry uses the cash flows from those areas to extend its political power and expand into less urban markets, along the way undermining the interests of its own best customers. In effect, it uses its lucrative monopolies in liberal districts to muffle civil discourse and support a political network that is sympathetic to corporate acquisition of exclusive market controls.

Because cable is a guild of local monopolies, all "media" companies live or die by their ability to strike bargains with cable toll-collectors. This dynamic has caused a kind of consolidation in which each member of the handful of communications goliaths holds enough cards to bargain from strength, at least for the short term.

There is no more powerful lobby than that supporting cable. The industry has managed to get law to define away logic and observation -- having itself declared not a monopoly, acquiring first-amendment rights to free speech not to be subverted by calls for fairness or decency. In fact, cable is not an efficient way to distribute television. It is only an effective way to extract tolls for viewing. Without franchises granted by the state, it would not exist.

Can a citizen get by without cable?  The transition will seem retrograde, but actually it will be futuristic. You will be watching more DVDs and getting more programs over the air, perfect practice for the habit of choosing shows from your massive hard drive and through wireless television. Right now, the cable industry is trying to contain the hard-drive television trend within its own monopoly, and through its lackeys in the broadcast industry, to snuff out the expansion of wireless television.

•  never had it

  It's a huge waste of time.....almost as much as reading about it on weblogs!

  by walden on Mon Nov 22, 2004 at 08:36:35 AM PDT

  •  TV is the opiate of the masses

    TV and cable keeps the masses entertained and full of neo-con propaganda while the fascists steal their money and send their children off to die in the endless oil wars.

    I also never hooked up to cable even though tempted by the fast modems.  Cable companies are a big part of the Bush propaganda mchine and they are doing his bidding every day.

    Turn off the TV also, it saves electricity and leaves time to read, there are still lots of intelligent people in this country, they've just been drowned out by the so-called religious right wing jerks.

    by MD patriot on Mon Nov 22, 2004 at 08:44:34 AM PDT

    •  You've got a pretty broad brush there...

      I've seen plenty of shitty books and plenty of good television.

      by tenacity on Mon Nov 22, 2004 at 08:57:06 AM PDT

      •  Did you see any ads

        in those books?

        by Mogolori on Mon Nov 22, 2004 at 10:33:55 AM PDT

  •  ditto (n/t)

    by claude on Mon Nov 22, 2004 at 09:37:07 AM PDT

•  Not gonna happen

  love my cable.

  by mel4clark on Mon Nov 22, 2004 at 09:04:38 AM PDT

  •  what is it you love?

    Is it the selection of programs? The bills? The ownership structure of the cable industry? If you love the wide range of content, great. My point is that you could get all that and more free if it weren't for the cable company. And you wouldn't have to subsidize programs you dislike.

    by macdust on Mon Nov 22, 2004 at 09:18:33 AM PDT

    •  cross-subsidization

      One of my longstanding critiques of cable TV is that I am force-fed a lot of channels I don't want to get the handful that I watch regularly. To get Animal Planet, I have to accept a dozen religious or home-shopping channels. I've often said that I wish I could pick and choose a la carte, and pay on that basis.

      The response, which has a lot of validity, is that the present system enables a lot of programming that for economic reasons would probably not be viable.  For example, a cable channel directed at Asian watchers probably couldn't stand on its own two feet, certainly not initially and maybe never. Ditto for black programming, and various cultural or community access programs.  Bundling these with the more popular and viable programming, like ESPN and MTV, allows underserved communities to get programming too.  

      I don't like the system, but I understand better how it has some benefits now.

      by Paul in Berkeley on Mon Nov 22, 2004 at 10:19:35 AM PDT

      •  but still it's inefficient monopoly

        .. with a distinctly right-wing agenda.

        The bundling point is correct, in principle. (In fact, Asians pay heavily to get special satellite services with as few as two channels,and it is the ESPN viewers who are being subsidized by the other watchers.) But who gets to do the bundling? The way it is now structured, the industry is a tightly managed distribution monopoly servicing a tightly managed production oligopoly.

        And it does a grave disservice to its urban constituents. The industry's political power doesn't come from nowhere. They control the central mechanisms of communications.

        In England, you can get 31 digital channels over the air, for free. We could do a lot better here.

        by macdust on Mon Nov 22, 2004 at 10:31:49 AM PDT

        •  right wing agenda??

          A distinct right-wing agenda?  I'm sorry, outside of news programming I just don't see it. Sure, Fox News is right wing.  The Daily Show isn't. And the other night I watched a fascinating Frontline documentary on Wal-Mart and the increasing US dependance on cheap imported goods from China. Frontline is hardly right wing, and that particular documentary isn't either.  As for entertainment programming, I can't discern any political agenda in basketball, college football, or the NFL. Nor is there any distinctive political agenda in one of my faves, Animal Precinct.  Rachael Ray, the cutie with the 30-minute cooking show on FoodTV, doesn't give off any right wing vibes. She's just huggable, no matter what her politics.  

          So I just don't buy the "right wing agenda" claim.  I don't buy it overall, and it's not an easy sell even if limited to news programming.

          by Paul in Berkeley on Mon Nov 22, 2004 at 10:39:01 AM PDT

          •  Largely agree on what's visible

            You are right about the entertainment. We are in an era of remarkably bold innovation. (It is also a golden age of tawdry trash.) But cable gets no credit for producing this stuff. What they do with their exclusive right to transmit this stuff subverts democracy.

            The right-wing slant of the news comes from editorial tricks that Rupert Mordoch developed long ago to increase subscribership. News departments now have to compete with that high-alarm, low-substance operation. For goodness' sake don't give cable credit for carrying Frontline. They'd drop PBS in a flash if the law allowed them.

            The right-wing agenda is reflected in the behavior of the trade associations that prevent your getting all that good stuff and more on your own terms -- mostly for free. Free speech no longer exists. It must be transmitted through these monopolies.

            One point of the original posting is that this right-tilting news package is being paid for by people who can't get straight news and whose own political beliefs are being undermined by the industry.

            by macdust on Mon Nov 22, 2004 at 01:52:44 PM PDT

•  And give up Jon Stewart?

  Hell no.  There's more on cable than right-wing cable news.
  

  by Joe Buck on Mon Nov 22, 2004 at 09:16:23 AM PDT

  •  You're still captive

    I agree about Stewart; but you should not have to go through cable to see him. Just because the shows you like are distributed by the monopoly doesn't make the monopoly good. And they're happy to take your money to subsidize viewers of Fox news.

    by macdust on Mon Nov 22, 2004 at 09:25:56 AM PDT

•  Been Off Cable...

  For almost 6 years now.  Best thing we ever did.  Don't knbow where we got the time to watch TV before, quite frankly.

  Yes, I miss a few things (Tour de France, baseball, and ummmmm).  One nice thing is that you actually have to find something to talk about to people.  When they say "Wow! did you see American Idol??" I look at them blankly and say "Wha??" and usually we are talking about something a little more local very quickly.

  I think the best point though is the money/power angle.  These pages have been endlessly filled with complaints about the bias of Fox, MSNBC, even PBS and every other electronic media outlet.  Imagine the panic in the corporate offices if, say, 20 percent of cable folks called up this month and said "Disconnect my cable.  Why? Fox makes me vomit."  Could happen.  Well worth a try.

  by Crash on Mon Nov 22, 2004 at 09:21:00 AM PDT

  •  20%

    reduction in just one company's subscription base would make the capital markets look at alternatives.

    by macdust on Mon Nov 22, 2004 at 09:29:28 AM PDT

•  Know thine enemy

  I reject your idea that we all cancel our cable TV because the cable "industry" is evil, for several reasons.  First, even if it is evil, you should know your enemy. You may not like Fox News, and you may believe it is a propaganda organ of the GOP. All the more reason to watch it.  If you don't know what they are saying, how can you counter them?

  Second, I must echo the comment above regarding Jon Stewart. Right now, cable TV is the only way to get Jon Stewart.  Broadcast won't carry it, and isn't the broadcast "industry" just as evil?  But this is broader than Jon Stewart. There is a lot of worthy programming on cable TV. Cultural programs, news programs, educational programs.  Whether you like it or not, cable TV programs fulfill a service that some people desire.  

  I'm always amused by people who say, with this silly smug look on their face, "I don't have a TV, because there's nothing worthwhile to watch."  My response is invariably the same -- if you don't have a TV, how do you know if there's worthwhile programming or not? It's like saying "I don't know any French people, but the entire French population are assholes."

  I do agree that there is a fundamental problem with the way cable TV is delivered, namely the monopolies that our local communities regularly grant to cable providers.  This leads to price increases (Econ 101), which is bad enough. Competition would serve another goal, as is pointed out above -- if you don't like the programming from one cable provider, you could choose another cable provider.  It would force cable providers to serve their communities better.

  by Paul in Berkeley on Mon Nov 22, 2004 at 10:10:26 AM PDT

  •  Let's agree to this, then

    Watch what you want on cable.

    But don't pay for it.

    Of course everything there is to see is on cable. The power of the cable industry to insure that it remains the principle distribution system is the reason John Stewart is not aired for free. That is not an accident.

    by macdust on Mon Nov 22, 2004 at 10:35:51 AM PDT

    •  If you don't pay, you won't get...

      If you don't pay for cable, you won't get it.  It costs money to deliver cable TV to your home, just as it costs money to deliver satellite TV to your home. Someone has to spend money to install the millions of miles of cable infrastructure. Someone has to launch the satellites into orbit.  It costs money, and there is a reasonable expectation that recipients will pay for it.  

      by Paul in Berkeley on Mon Nov 22, 2004 at 10:45:10 AM PDT

      •  humor & truth

        There was a slight tongue-in-cheek there.

        But honestly, the cable companies spend much more effort on making sure you can get their programming for free -- which you could if the regulatory structure allowed it.

        Sure it costs money to deliver cable. So much money in fact, that in a competitive market they couldn't survive.

        by macdust on Mon Nov 22, 2004 at 01:55:52 PM PDT