If you have cable or satellite TV, then you are probably paying for channels that you either never watch or did not even know that you had. This is because cable and satellite TV providers sell “bundles” of packages in their different subscription packages. You buy a package, and those are the channels you get. If you want a specific channel, then you better buy a package that includes it. Wouldn’t it be nice to order and pay for only the channels that you want? Well, new legislation introduced in the Senate would force cable companies to do just that.
The bill is known as the Television Consumer Freedom Act of 2013 and was sponsored by Senator John McCain. The bill would require cable and satellite TV providers to offer “a la carte” channel ordering for consumers. Basically, you could pick the channels that you want out of your provider’s “channel menu” and order only the channels that you wish to pay for. McCain argues that the current practice of bundling the channels forces consumers to pay money for content that they do not want.
Critics of the “a la carte” approach argue that if a person is willing to pay to have access to the channels that they want to watch, then what they are really paying for is access to those channels and any extra channels received are just a bonus. Additionally, the National Cable and Telecommunications Association opposes the “a la carte” approach on the grounds that bundling channels offers better channel diversity and encourages development of specially targeted programming. This argument has arguably lost some weight with the advent of original programming by Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, and other streaming platforms.
The bill also addressed two other areas: (1) the threat of major networks, such as Fox and CBS, to move to paid channels and (2) blackouts of local sports broadcasts.
First, major broadcast networks began their threats to move to paid programming in the wake of the Aereo decision in the Second Circuit. The bill would punish major networks if they decide to move their programming to cable by denying them access to broadcast airwaves that they currently receive for free.
Additionally, the NFL and several other major sports leagues have a blackout policy for locally broadcast games if they do not sell a required number of tickets to the game. The bill would outlaw that practice in situations where public funds are used to build the team’s stadium. Many teams require public assistance in funding their new stadiums, and the bill argued that denying local citizens the ability to watch a team that their tax dollars help fund is unconscionable.
The Regulatory Framework: Cable, Broadcast, and the FCC
The debate over a la carte cable is fundamentally a debate about federal regulation of media markets. Cable and satellite TV providers are regulated under the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 and subsequent amendments, including the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has jurisdiction over cable rates, must-carry obligations, and the retransmission consent framework that governs the relationship between broadcast networks and cable operators.
The must-carry rules under 47 U.S.C. § 534 require cable operators to carry local broadcast stations, and the retransmission consent regime under 47 U.S.C. § 325 allows broadcasters to negotiate compensation from cable operators for carriage of their signals. It is the retransmission consent negotiations that create the periodic disputes — and threatened blackouts — that cable subscribers experience when a broadcaster and a cable operator fail to agree on terms. The Television Consumer Freedom Act sought to address these market failures legislatively.
From Bundles to Streaming: How the Market Evolved
The decade since Senator McCain introduced the Television Consumer Freedom Act has seen a dramatic market response to the bundling problem — not through legislation, but through competition. The rise of streaming services has effectively delivered the a la carte experience through market forces: consumers can now subscribe to Netflix, Disney+, HBO Max, ESPN+, Paramount+, Peacock, and dozens of other services individually, paying only for the content they value. Cord-cutting — the practice of canceling traditional cable or satellite subscriptions — has accelerated consistently since 2015, with millions of American households abandoning the bundle entirely.
The irony is that many consumers who abandoned the cable bundle to escape paying for unwanted channels have now accumulated multiple streaming subscriptions that, taken together, approach or exceed their old cable bill. The fragmentation of content rights across dozens of platforms has created a new version of the bundling problem: consumers must subscribe to multiple services to access the content they want, and the total cost rivals what they previously paid for the bundle.
Intellectual Property in Broadcasting and Streaming
The debate over a la carte cable is, at its core, a debate about how intellectual property rights should be packaged and sold. The retransmission consent regime is essentially a licensing framework: broadcasters license their content to cable operators in exchange for carriage fees and, increasingly, channel placement guarantees. The streaming era has created an entirely new set of licensing relationships, as content owners — studios, sports leagues, news organizations — decide whether to distribute through third-party platforms or to build their own direct-to-consumer services.
Revision Legal’s communications attorneys monitor these developments closely and advise clients in the media and entertainment industries on licensing, distribution agreements, and content protection strategies. Revision Legal’s communications lawyers will keep you abreast of any significant legal developments in this space. Contact us today at 855-473-8474 or through our online contact form.
Media Law and Communications Compliance
The communications and media industries operate under a dense regulatory framework that spans FCC licensing, copyright law, contract law, and emerging digital regulation. For content creators, distributors, and technology companies navigating this landscape, legal counsel with specific expertise in communications law is essential. The intersection of intellectual property rights — particularly in music licensing, sports broadcast rights, and original programming — with the contractual frameworks governing distribution creates a complex environment where general practitioners frequently lack the specialized knowledge needed to advise effectively.
Revision Legal monitors legislative and regulatory developments in communications law closely. From the retransmission consent disputes that periodically black out broadcast channels to the ongoing evolution of digital rights management and streaming licensing, the communications law landscape continues to change in ways that affect how content is created, distributed, and monetized. Our attorneys advise clients in the media and entertainment industries on the legal issues at the forefront of these changes.
For legal assistance with media and communications law issues, contact Revision Legal at 855-473-8474 or through our online contact form.
Why Work with Revision Legal?
Revision Legal is an internet and intellectual property law firm. We represent startups, artists, e-commerce sellers, and established companies across the United States and around the world in trademark, copyright, trade secret, privacy, and internet law matters. That work is our entire practice, not a side line.
Our attorneys have litigated in federal courts from coast to coast, before the World Intellectual Property Organization, and in international arbitration. We have taken on overseas counterfeiting networks, domain name thieves, and some of the largest companies in the world on behalf of our clients. We also handle the day-to-day work that keeps a business protected: trademark clearance and registration, copyright registration, DMCA notices, and licensing agreements.
We answer the phone, tell clients the truth about their cases, and treat legal fees as a business decision. Most of our work is handled entirely remotely, so where you are located matters far less than what you need protected. Contact us at 855-473-8474 or through our online contact form to discuss your matter.
