LEVIN: Should TV Be Free?

Late last night, one of my friends was complaining about needing a digital antenna just so she could watch a local broadcast station because it was feuding with her cable provider.  As I woke up this morning, I discovered that the channel was Fox and the cable company was Time Warner.

Wait a minute. I watch Fox programming and I have Time Warner Cable, which means... This affects me!  Now I care, and feel the need to comment on the subject.  [Geekweek has you covered with the news-based details here.]

The broadcast networks all want more money.  Programming is increasingly expensive to produce, there are more alternatives (sometimes even from their own cable outlets like FX with Fox), and ad sales are getting tougher and tougher in a bad economy.  Even the Superbowl has seen some of its top ad buyers drop out.  Their plan is to charge cable providers a "retransmission fee."  This means they'll get a set amount per cable subscriber.  Doesn't matter if that subscriber keeps it tuned to Showtime all day, they'd get money.

The cable companies don't want to do this because there's really no end.  Suddenly any channel (broadcast net or otherwise) could ask for the same, and prices could keep going up.  I'll be the first to admit that my monthly cable bill is akin to highway robbery, and when they sent out emails about getting tough or rolling over I was inclined to have them fight against the price increase.  But my wallet today as a consumer and my heart/head/eventually-much-larger-wallet as a creator are two different things.

Which brings us back to the initial question.  Should television be free?  The public owns the airwaves, and the broadcast networks use those airwaves to deliver programming that is supported by advertising revenue.  Everyone is in this to make money - even the creative types. 

What right do we have to get our entertainment free?  Movies aren't free - we pay the box office.  Books aren't free - we buy them (or rent them from the library, which is supported by tax dollars).  Music isn't free - despite all of the illegal ways to obtain it, unless an artist expressly gives it away, we pay for mp3s, CDs and concert tickets.  The point is, it costs money to entertain the masses.  Television was free (minus the cost of a set) for years.  Then cable came along with more stations and subscription based channels beginning with HBO.  We paid for what we wanted, voting with our dollars.  People who wanted access to pay channels paid for them, and others didn't it.  That's capitalism.

As a consumer, I have no problem paying for entertainment.  What I have the problem with is paying for entertainment I want no part of.  In Fox's case, I don't watch a single program other than NFL games on Sundays, at least on their broadcast station.  But I watch Fox Sports on occasion and a damn near unhealthy amount of FX shows.  Apparently they also own Food Network, which I've been known to stumble upon.

The other issue is that despite cable's deregulation, scores of people here in Los Angeles and elsewhere across the country don't have options for cable providers.  We're stuck with a monopoly that controls our entertainment, even when we'd personally be willing to pay for what we want, not what they're willing to give us. And Satellite doesn't work for people who have obstructed views of the sky, so they're out as well.

I also create entertainment, so I have a personal stake in this.  Right now I work primarily in comics, but I've got irons in various fires across several different media types.  I want every industry to thrive so that I can have a career in any or all of them.  And often times the better shows are more expensive to produce and don't see the same type of viewing numbers (and thus lesser ad revenue) as some of the default broadcast options.  That means less money for the creators (because the networks footing the production bill always get paid first), and less greenlit shows.  It means less drama and more "reality."  It means less opportunities for writers like me.

We're at the whim of groups who want to squeeze every cent out of a broken model.  I don't blame them for that; after all, business is business.  But the best longterm solution is to fix the broken model and make it so that the people producing and delivering the entertainment can both make money.  Napster and various p2p filesharing services nearly broke the record industry's back.  But lo and behold, iTunes and other options rose from the ashes.  The same must be done for television.  We'll pay for it if it's good.  If it's not good, it'll die.  It's that simple.

Find a better way to monetize and your customers (a word I use without hesitation here and cringe every time an airline refers to its passengers that way) will support you.  That goes for both the networks and the cable companies.  Networks need to create must-see programming that builds a following.  Cable providers need innovative features (like AT&T U-Verse with their ability to record 4 shows at once and watch in multiple locations) to make them necessities.

Innovation will save television, and I don't really care how we get it.  Someone like Hulu (which has considered monetizing) will find a way to be the option people want to pay for.  And if that's what it takes for me to get my Sons of Anarchy fix... So be it.

Television shouldn't be free.  It just needs to be worth paying for.